House of Representatives
4 July 1951

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1951

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair nt 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 904

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF SITTING

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask you a question, Mr. Speaker, in reference to an aide memoire that I have received from the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) concerning the business of the day which mentions a function to which all honorable members have been invited in connexion with American Independence Day. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will suspend the sitting at about 5 p.m. for the purpose of allowing honorable members to attend this function, as the notice suggests may be done if that is convenient to the Prime Minister?

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I should like to state that the aide memoire to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred was not circulated by me but “ras despatched by the Clerk of the House. No arrangement has been made by me with regard to the suspension of the House. Whatever arrangement the right honorable member may make in connexion with this matter will be with the Prime Minister.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– If the Leader of the Opposition and those honorable members who sit behind him are agreeable to the sitting being suspended at 5 o’clock that arrangement will’ be acceptable to me and to those who sit behind me.

page 904

QUESTION

OIL PROM SHALE

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question following that which I asked recently in reference to the closing-down of the Glen Davis shale raine. The men who work at Glen Davis have held a meeting and have decided that men employed in all mines will cease work to-morrow. The meeting decided that members of other sections of the trade union movement including cement -workers would also cease work. I have received the following telegram from these people: -

Western District Committee of Management along with craft unions and other unions decided unanimously, to call stop-work meetings at Lithgow and other centres to protest against Government action re closing Glen Davis to-morrow Thursday. Hartley Trade* Labour Council last night also unanimous to hold meetings extend invitation you to be present if possible.

I cannot be present at that meeting. In view of the fact that the previous Government appointed me as Commonwealth Coal Liaison Officer and that I went to Lithgow on one occasion and gained admittance to a meeting despite the fact-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! What is the honorable member’s question?

Mr JAMES:

– Despite the fact that the - miners’ federation was against mechanisation for the extraction of coal from ‘pillars, on my advice, the meeting accepted the installation of machines for that purpose. On that account I ask the right honorable gentle- ‘ man to indicate, even at this late stage, that the Government will reconsider the matter in order to avert the proposed stoppage, which would denude this country of coal.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– After consulting with my colleagues, I made a statement on this matter two or three nights ago, which appeared in the press, and a full copy of which I shall bc very glad to have supplied to the honorable member. I must add,, however, that the Government can hardly accept the proposition that a decision on Government policy, not in the industrial field and having no relation to wages and conditions, but having regard to the general economic policy of the country, is to be controlled by stopwork meetings. I can hardly imagine anything more fantastic than that any. trade union should suppose that it can dictate to any government, or any parliament, what that government or parliament shall do, by the process of having a stopwork meeting or a strike. In order to make it quite clear that that was the position I made the statement that I have already mentioned, to which I sincerely hope the miners’ federation and other interested trade unions will pay profound attention.

Such stopwork meetings can achieve nothing. I do not need to tell the honorable gentleman that we are always willing l.o listen to the views of honorable members or other people who have something to contribute. In the light of that general attitude I made the statement, which indicated the complete futility and irrelevance of the proposed industrial action.

page 905

QUESTION

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES

Mr CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Does the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture know that two essential food items, butter and potatoes, arc almost unobtainable in New South Wales at the fixed prices, but are available at extortionate prices on the black market? In view of the Minister’s statement in respect of butter in this House last week, can he say whether prices control is the prime cause of the shortage of potatoes, because such control makes it impossible for growers to recover their costs of production unless they resort to black market sales? Would not the supply of essential foodstuffs be more assured if their sale were left to marketing boards ?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– I understand that there is a shortage of butter and potatoes in Sydney and other places, and I knowthat where there is a shortage there is almost inevitably a black market. I am not able to say, with any accuracy, anything about the relationship between prices control and the present shortage of potatoes. That is not my business, but is within the province of the State prices authorities. I am bound to say, however, that my experience in observing these matters over many years has shown that where producer marketing boards have been left in complete control of a commodity, as they have been in the case of butter for many years and were for a long time in the case of dried fruits, potatoes, eggs and other commodities, there has been no instance of such a board having exploited the community because it held a selling monopoly. On the other hand, prices for commodities controlled by producer-marketing boards have been steady. I cite the instance of butter which sold at ls. Sd. per lb. for about fifteen years, with full supplies available everywhere. I consider that producer-market ing boards have not only shown, a consciousness of their responsibility but also, because of their intimate knowledge of the particular industries with which they were concerned, have made such appropriate adjustments of prices as have resulted in a full flow to the consumer of the particular commodities that they have marketed.

page 905

NEWSPAPER REPORT

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Has the honorable member been misrepresented?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Yes, I have been grossly misrepresented. I desire to refer the House to a statement which appeared in to-day’s Sydney Daily Telegraph, in which I am credited with having, by way of interjection, advocated the shooting of the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate). I wish to make it perfectly clear that, whilst I heard such an interjection from some part of the chamber, it certainly was not made by me. Moreover, I want to make it clear that I have never advocated, nor have I supported any one who has advocated, the shooting of a person merely because he held political views different from my own. I dissociate myself completely from that interjection, and I think that the newspaper which made that untrue accusation against me should print a suitable correction as early as possible.

page 905

QUESTION

KOREA

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister acting for the Minister for Air. In view of the fact that 77 Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force has just completed one year’s operational service in Korea, will the Government consider some suitable form of recognition, such as recommendation of special awards, or the striking of a Korean campaign medal to which members of the Royal Australian Air Force as well as other Australian servicemen in Korea would become entitled after a qualifying period?

Mr CASEY:
Minister for External Affairs · LP

– If the honorable member is speaking of individual awards for gallantry on the part of members of 77 Squadron, I point out that a considerable number,, although I do not recollect how many, of such awards have already been. made. I think that there is reason to believe that many of the British awards which have been won have not yet been made, and that others are still likely to be made. In addition to those, about 50 American awards have been made to members of 77 Squadron for individual acts of gallantry. In the matter of a medal for service in Korea as a theatre of war, I believe that about six months ago the United Nations decided that a Korean medal should bf struck. I expect that under certain conditions that medal will be awarded to everybody who serves in the Korean theatre. The medal is to have a blue and white ribbon, those being the colours of the United Nations. I expect that before long the conditions that are attached to the issue of that medal will be made public.

page 906

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr MULLENS:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Did the Prime Minister hear the Australian Broadcasting Commission discussion group broadcaston Communist China, which was transmitted from the national stations on Monday, the 2nd July, 1951, at 8.40 p.m.? Is the right honorable gentleman aware that of the three speakers who participated in the discussion group, not one uttered any criticism of the policies of the Chinese Communist regime but that on the contrary each speaker was enthusiastically in’ favour of the regime and based his statements on the now exploded views that the Chinese Communists are simply agrarian reformers and that Communist Russia does not control the policies of the Chinese Communists? Does the Prime Minister also know that two of the three speakers were the notorious “ party liners Dr. Peter Russo, of the Melbourne Argus. and Mr. C. P. Fitzgerald, of the School of Oriental Studies in the National University? Can the right honorable gentleman explain why it is that persons who hold views ‘of this kind can always find an outlet for their expression through the Australian Broadcasting Commission whilst the opposing viewpoint rarely, if ever, finds expression from the national stations? Incidentally, I offer myself as an exponent of this opposing viewpoint.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I had. the singular good fortune not to hear the broadcast in question, therefore I am quite unable to make any comment on it. As for the principle adopted by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in making its broadcasts, it is not for mere mortals like myself even to endeavour to understand it.

page 906

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Mr TRELOAR:
GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Health inform the House whether the advantages of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme have been withdrawn from the Bush Nursing Association?

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– When the previous regulations that related to pharmaceutical benefits were repealed, some confusion arose to regard to supplies of drugs to bush nursing centres. Having examined the position, I have authorized the issue of full supplies of drugs to these centres.

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Health a question that concerns the new formulary for the Government’s free medicine plan. Will the Minister inform the House of the number of drugs that were specified in the free medicine formulary prior to the 2nd July and the number of drugs that are included in the formulary that was announced through the press and in a radio statement last week-end ? Is the right honorable gentleman aware that many age and invalid pensioners have to pay for the medicines that they use because the prescriptions include drugs that are not specified in the formulary? Will he arrange for medicine to be supplied to invalid pensioners free of charge whether drugs listed in the formulary are used or not? Pensioners who are permanently sick and require medical treatment should not have to pay for their medicine, and I ask the Minister to consider making it available to them without charge.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– The position now is that arrangements have been made under which not. only the ordinary lifesaving and disease-preventing drugs which were specified in a regulation that was promulgated last September, but also all other drugs in the British pharmacopoeia, may be prescribed by doctors in the knowledge that they will be supplied to pensioners of all classes free of charge.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some weeks ago the Minister for Health . undertook to supply honorable members with a list of doctors in every electorate who were prepared to treat pensioners under his free medical scheme. As honorable members have received many inquiries on this subject I ask the Treasurer when he will be able to give those lists to honorable members so that they may inform their constituents where they may attend for medical treatment. Up to the present these people have had to go from one doctor to another in order to ascertain where they can receive treatment under the Government’s scheme.

Sir EARLE PAGE (Cowper- Minister for Health). - by have - I promised honorable members that I should endeavour to secure the names of doctors who bad volunteered to provide services for pensioners under the pensioners’ medical scheme. My officers have prepared such lists, but have pointed out that the frequent changes that take place both in the doctors who are willing to give this service and in their places of residence would make it very difficult to keep 122 lists up to date. It has been suggested 1.hat the best course to pursue would be to prepare a .series of statements in respect of each district, town and suburb in every State, which would be placed in the Parliamentary Library and would be available for perusal by honorable members. I mentioned this matter to several honorable members who had spoken to me about it in the House, and to the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), and I shall have the lists placed in the Library to-day. One of the difficulties in regard to this matter is that of supplying the names of the thousands of doctors in any one of the States to senators, whose interests are State-wide and are not confined to one division.

Dr Evatt:

– Will lists be placed in the Library to-day?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– Yes.

page 907

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Mr CURTIN:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture to a question that I addressed to him eight days ago. The question related to the 117,000,000 lb. of butter that was exported from this country during the ten months ended the 30th April of this year. I asked how much of that butter had been sent to the United Kingdom and how much to foreign countries.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The question should be placed upon the noticepaper.

Mr CURTIN:

– The Minister promised to supply an answer to it. 1 now ask him whether his failure to do so is clue to shortage of staff.

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I have not a clear recollection of this matter, but I believe that, in the course of a wide reply to a question, I undertook to procure for the honorable gentleman the information for which he asked. I shall ensure that thai shall be done promptly.

Mr EGGINS:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture in relation to the crisis through which the dairying industry is passing at present. In view of the fact that the present retail price of butter of 2s. 2d. per lb. was determined on the 1st July, 1S48, when the basic wage was £5 16s. a week, Sydney basis, and that during the intervening period, whilst the basic wage has been increased to £9 a week, Sydney basis, the State ministers in charge of price fixation have consistently refused to approve of any increase of the retail price as a means of providing greater returns to the producers, can the Minister state on what grounds the State ministers have refused to meet such reasonable needs of the dairying industry? Does he net believe that the attitude of those State ministers has seriously affected the confidence of dairy-farmers and has thus contributed very largely to the present shortage of butter?

Mr McEWEN:

– I believe that the honorable member has stated correctly the facts upon which he has based his question. I have arranged to attend a conference of the six State ministers in charge of price fixation which is to be held in Melbourne on Monday next in order to discuss the relationship between the Australian Government, the State governments and the dairying industry with a view to evolving a plan for the stabilization of the industry on terms that will assure us an increased volume of production. I should serve no purpose by offering any opinion upon the past actions of those ministers with whom I am about to confer.

page 908

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the- Minister for Immigration been directed to a statement that was made by a Mr. Sceats, who is, I understand, the chairman of the British Migrant Hostel Committee? The statement was to the effect that hundreds of British immigrants, being disgusted with living conditions in government hostels, were preparing to return home at their own expense, that 3,500 British immigrants in Victoria were living under slum conditions, with little or no amenities, and that the rate of illness among them was increasing. Have these complaints been investigated ? If so, what has been ascertained?

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I know something of Mr. Sceats. It is rather remarkable that all these complaints about conditions in hostels suddenly developed, in an organized manner, at precisely the same time as the Government announced that the tariff in the hostels in respect of an adult male bread-winner was to be increased by 10s. a week. I understand that a meeting was held last night in Melbourne. I was requested to send a representative to it, and I arranged for Mr. Larkins, the controller of hostels for Victoria, to be present. I shall consider his report as soon as I have received it. I say by way of genera] comment that, at worst, what this Government offers to British immigrants whose passages to this country are paid for by the British Government and the Australian Government, is a roof over their heads, three wholesome meals a day and a guaranteed job of work. Our great grandfathers came here with none of those advantages and helped to build this country for us. I often wonder what they must think of these complaints.

Mr KEON:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– In the temporary absence from the chamber of the Minister for Immigration I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that immigrants who live in immigration hostels are compelled to eat in the dining rooms and are prohibited from themselves cooking their food? Is the Prime Minister aware that this procedure adds to the expenditure of the immigrants,’ has a harmful effect on their family life and increases the number of government employees whoare required to attend to the requirement* of these people? Will the Prime Minister consider giving immigrants permission to instal their own cooking apparatus m order that a mother may do the cookingfor her family and thus reduce itsexpenses ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The honorable member’s question plainly concerns the Minister for Immigration. I shall have it. referred to him.

page 908

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE,

Mr TOM BURKE:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I remind theTreasurer that, some days ago, he promised that he would make to the House a statement on the Government’sfinancial policy when the Government deemed the time to be appropriate to do soI point out to the right honorable gentleman that all our leading daily newspapers have issued warnings about thepresent financial .position of this country. Apparently they share the view of the Opposition that the time is appropriate for the Government to make a statement clarifying its financial policy. Does the Treasurer intend to make such a statement? If so, when will it be made?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I have nothing to add to the statement that I made recently on this matter. The financial policy of the Government will be outlined on the appropriate occasion.

page 908

QUESTION

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY

Mr BOSTOCK:
INDI, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior. Does the Government intend to proceed with its scheme for the acquisition of property between Lonsdale-street and Latrobe-street in Melbourne with the object of erecting Commonwealth offices on the sites acquired? If so, has any property been acquired and paid for? What will be the approximate cost of implementing the scheme?

Mr KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– The answer to the first two questions that the honorable member has asked is in the affirmative. In reply to his third question, I am afraid that as the work that he has mentioned ‘ is of low priority no accurate estimate of the cost involved can be given at this juncture.

page 909

QUESTION

MARGARINE

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I point out to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture that at present a restriction is imposed upon the production and distribution of table margarine. In view of the existing shortage of butter will he take action to have such restriction lifted and also endeavour to have the production of table margarine increased?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The restriction upon the production of table margarine to which the honorable member has referred is imposed by State governments. No such restriction has been imposed by the Australian Government.

page 909

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS

Mr KEON:

– Does the Minister for External Affairs agree that the need still exists to assist many millions of children, victims of the recent war and of famine, by providing for them shelter, training and many of the basic necessaries of life? If so, can he say why the Government directed Australia’s representatives at the United Nations to vote against a proposal to make the United Nations International Children’s Emergency “Fund a permanent specialized agency of the United Nations? Is the Government’s contribution to that fund to be limited to the £500,000 that was provided by the previous Government and by private donors or does it intend to make a further donation to that fund in order to assist these children, who are in such dire need?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– I am not aware that the Government has expressed any antagonistic view to the activities to which the honorable gentleman has referred, and in fact, my impression is that the position is quite the reverse of that implied in his question. However, I shall examine the matter, and give the honorable gentleman a considered reply.

page 909

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and I point out, by way of explanation, that the honorable member for Bass and other honorable gentlemen, including myself, requested the Minister for Social Services to authorize an increase of the maximum amount of the .advance that may be granted under the War Service Homes Act. The Minister stated, in reply, that the position was being considered by the Government. Will the Prime Minister give priority to that urgent matter?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The request to which the honorable member for Sturt ha = referred takes its place with a dozen other problems that are of associated significance. The Government is giving the closest attention to the general financial and economic problem. It fully realizes the urgency of that problem, and the impact upon it of such matters as that mentioned by the honorable gentleman. I cannot undertake, to ensure that the request will be dealt with before all the other subjects, but it will certainly receive the attention of the Government as soon as possible, having regard to the sittings of the House, and to the fact that there will be a meeting of the Cabinet immediately thereafter.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– My question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to that, which was asked by the honorable member for Sturt. Will the right honorable gentleman have careful consideration given to the fact that, when the permissible amount of the advance to exservicemen for war service homes was increased previously, one result was -a very heavy increase of the prices that were charged to applicants for their houses? I imply by that that the more the Government advances, the more, the builders charge for war service homes.

Mr MENZIES:

– That matter will certainly be investigated.

page 909

QUESTION

INFLATION

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Has Bie attention of the Prime Minister been directed to the leading articles that have appeared in Melbourne newspapers during the last few days in which grave concern has been expressed at the rapid increase of the inflationary trend that hasbeen in evidence in recent months? Has the attention of the righthonorable gentleman also been dircted to the pronouncements of the Housewives’ Association and the Associated Chambers of Commerce to the effect that immediate and drastic action by the Government is necessary to prevent further increases of prices?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman may not base a question upon newspaper reports.

Mr BIRD:

– In view of those expressed opinions of influential supporters of the Government, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of keeping the Parliament in continuous session until a series of measures calculated to stop the inflationary trend shall have been enacted?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I shall certainly not do so. We can be quite definite about that matter. I am much more anxious than are any gentlemen who write leading articles to grapple with this problem, and I have infinitely more responsibility regarding it than they have. I have one great ambition, which is that I shall be able to devote the whole of my seventeen hours a day to that problem, instead of having a portion of that time occupied by other matters. To have the Parliament sitting continuously would be the best guarantee that the problem would not be dealt with.

page 910

QUESTION

MERINO SHEEP

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a series of questions to the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture.Were three merino rams exported from Australia to New Zealand last week? If so, is that a contravention of the embargo on the export of merino sheep from Australia, or has an assurance been given to the Minister that those rams, or their progeny, will never be exported from New Zealand ? Have regulations already been drafted by the Government of South Africa for the purpose of permitting the importation of Australian rams into that country, in the event of the embargo being lifted? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that, in view of the possible repercussions upon Australia’s greatest industry, and as the embargo has been maintained by governments of both political colours for 22 years, the House will be given an adequate opportunity to discuss that matter before action is taken by him to lift the embargo?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I do not know whether any merino rams were exported to New Zealand last week, but I point out to the honorable member for Farrer that no restriction has ever been placed upon the export of rams from Australia to that dominion. An arrangement exists with the Government of New Zealand under which Australian rams that are admitted to that country shall not be re-exported. I have no knowledge of whether the Government of South Africa has drafted regulations to permit the importation of Australian merino rams. I repeat the statement that I made in the House last week in reply to the honorable member for Lalor that the six State Ministers for Agriculture, sitting as members of the Australian Agricultural Council, have unanimously recommended to the Commonwealth that the embargo upon the export of merino rams be lifted. The Government will consider that recommendation in due course. I know that the view is strongly held that the embargo should not be lifted. The Government will not consider the recommendation of the Australian Agricultural Council without having before it a full statement of all the arguments in support of the contrary point of view. As for giving an undertaking that the House shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter, I point out that any honorable member may take advantage of the Standing Orders to initiate a debate on the subject. The Government does not need to take the initiative. It would be helpful if the wool-growing industry could form a definite opinion on this matter. Woolgrowers are the principal interested parties, and the situation would be made easier if they could express an understandable view.

page 910

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr WHEELER:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture aware of the shortage of bagged wheat for stock feed in provincial areas near Sydney? As supplies of bulk wheat are coming to Sydney, can the Minister suggest any means by which bagged wheat may be secured? Would it be possible to substitute bagged wheat for some of the bulk wheat that is being delivered ?

Mr McEWEN:
MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– My attention has been drawn to this problem by the honorable member and by certain persons associated with the poultry industry, and I have asked the Australian Wheat Board, which controls the supply of wheat in bags and in bulk, to investigate the situation and to do what is possible in the interests of the poultry industry. In some circumstances, the limiting factor is transport, which, of course, is completely under the control of the State Government.

page 911

QUESTION

PERSIA

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Externa] Affairs make a statement to the House about the present state of affairs in Persia with relation to oil supplies and the strategic situation?

Mr CASEY:
LP

– This is the story of the oil dispute in Persia in recent times : In mid-June the Persian Government asked that it be paid 75 per cent, of the net procee’ds of the oil exported by the AngloIranian Oil Company. On this condition the Persian Government agreed to hold a conference with the oil company. The company refused to discuss the matter on that basis and suggested that it should pay £10,000,000 plus £3,000,000 a month as from July. This proposal was unacceptable to the Persian Government. The matter of shipping oil from the Abadan refinery then arose. The Persian Government stated that no oil could be exported unless a receipt was given, admitting that it was the property of the Persian Government or unless payment for it was made to the Persian Government in cash. The company did not agree with that proposal and within a very few days it stopped all its tankers from going to Abadan. This caused congestion of oil storage arrangements and made it necessary for the company to reduce its production of oil. The Persian Government drafted an anti-sabotage law which provided that anyone who interfered with the regular production of oil would be liable to certain penalties which included death. The general manager of the company who had given orders to reduce production thereupon left the country. Representations were made by the British Government and, I think, by the American Government, to the Persian Government and, as a result, the antisabotage law was not brought into operation. The dispute has been brought before the International Court of Justice by the British Government and there the matter -lies for the moment. On the information available to the Government I believe that the situation is not without hope of a solution. In the meantime co-operative arrangements are in the course of being made by the major oil companies of the world for the rationalization of oil supplies in case oil products from Persia should be denied to previous consumers. If these arrangements are satisfactorily completed there should not be any noticeable interruption of the world supply of oil even if the Persian supply is stopped.

page 911

QUESTION

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Social Services to the number of limbless civilians which has been increasing partly as thi’ result of accidents on the roads. Many of these people are unable to obtain artificial limbs except, perhaps, by waiting for a year for limbs that have been made by the Repatriation Department. I ask the Minister whether the Government will consider setting up one or two small factories for the purpose of manufacturing artificial limbs for civilians as the Government has done in Great Britain where such factories are performing a wonderful service.

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– My department is, not unaware of the circumstance that has been mentioned by the honorable member. Arrangements have been made with the Repatriation Commission to carry out work in its factories where possible. Unfortunately, -only a limited number of skilled men is available to do the work. If additional factories were built the position would be precisely the same as there would still be the lack of skilled workmen. However, my department is doing all that it can in conjunction with the Repatriation Department to provide as many of these aids as possible for civilians.

page 912

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– By way of explanation of a question that I desire to ask the Minister for Social Services, 1. remind him that a pensioner has to forfeit his pension if he takes up residence in New Guinea or Papua. I ask the Minister whether the Government will amend the social services legislation in order to permit an old-age pensioner to continue to draw his pension while living in either of those territories. A case has been brought to my attention that concerns an old man who has nobody to look after him in Australia although relatives j n Papua are quite willing to do so. Will iiic- Minister enable this old man to go to Papua to receive the care of his son and his son’s wife without having to forfeit his pension?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– I shall be pleased to give consideration to the matter that the honorable member has raised. The problem is not so simple as it may appear to be. Other matters are involved; for example, taxation.

page 912

QUESTION

RICHARD CHAPPLE

Mr FITZGERALD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Treasurer examine the papers that arc at present in the hands of the Minister for Social Services regarding the case of Richard Chapple, a boy of seven years of age who is in need of urgent medical attention which cannot be given to him in this country? It is necessary for this boy to go to America in order to receive the treatment that he needs. In reply to my representations in connexion with this matter I have received a letter from the Minister for Social Services, a part of which reads as follows: -

There is no provision under the social services legislation whereby financial assistance nan be granted in cases such as the one you have raised. The appropriate authority to whom any request for financial assistance should be made is the Treasurer.

Will the Treasurer examine this matter urgently with a view to doing everything possible to save the life of this Australian boy?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
CP

– I shall confer with the Minister for Social Services in order to ascertain what can be done in this matter.

page 912

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) - by leave - agreed to -

That, in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Australian National University Act 1946-1947, the House of Representatives elects Mr. Beazley and Dr. Donald Cameron to be members of the Council of the Australian National University for a period of two years.

page 912

PUBLIC SERVICE BILL 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 3rd July (vide page 789), on motion by Mr. Hasluck -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The Opposition offers no objection to the bill although it suspects the Government’s motives for having introduced it. The bill will obviate the necessity in future, to publish in advertisements the statutory salary range and the actual salary range for positions in the Public Service. The Opposition suspects the Government when it advertises a position at a salary of, say, £800, because it will announce the salary at the amount of the combined figure only. If this proposed act were not in force, the salary in such a case would be stated as £500 statutory salary, plus £300, because the latter figure might represent the increase of the cost of living that has taken place since the statutory salary was determined and established. So, in order to avoid advertising just how high the cost of living has risen in this country over the last two decades, and thereby as well as its own failure to put value back into the £1 the Government will now start off afresh with salary ranges being advertised at their actual levels as at the 30th June last. I do not suppose that if the Government has that purpose in mind it will succeed ‘in deluding anybody that it has grappled with this-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I can hear too much conversation in the chamber.

The honorable member for Melbourne has the -floor.

Mr CALWELL:

– I do not think that the Government will succeed in deluding anybody that it has grappled with the great evil of inflation. However, the bill is to be commended from the point of view of saving office time and of effecting some small economies in administration. Of course, it does not represent a very large instalment in fulfilment of the Government’s 1949 promise to make substantial economies in the Public Service, but it will ensure some economies, and for that reason the Opposition offers no objection to its speedy passage.

Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle

.- I shall ask the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) a question that I hope he will answer when he speaks in reply to the debate. I consider that the point that has been raised by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) is completely valid. That is to say, now that the cost-of-living adjustments that have been made up to a specified date are to be combined with the actual salary, that upward movement of the cost of living will not be shown in government advertisements that publish salary ranges. There is a general belief that we are reaching the peak of a boom period, and that the first signs of a recession are to be found in the falling prices for wool, which ultimately will affect government finances. “What we wish to know is whether in the future, if Public Service salaries are stated as one figure, the Government will keep in mind that the statutory salary and the costofliving adjustments are separate elements in that final figure. Or will it, if the time comes to make percentage cuts in salary or wages as a result of a decline of revenue, make these percentage cuts on the whole salary ? It would probably be better from the point of view of the interests of public servants if the statutory salary and the cost-of-living adjustments were to remain separate. The cost-of-living element is a clearly defined and known entity, and if the two elements were separate, any alterations would take place only in that cost-of-living element. But if the two elements are to be swept together into one amount of salary it is a rather suspicious move, I think, from the point of view of the interests of the Public Service. I shall be glad to hear the Minister’s views on that point.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

.- in reply-The Government may rejoice that the Opposition is doing the right thing, even if it is doing it for the wrong reason. The chief point that the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) made in his speech was that this bill was a device to disguise the increase of the cost of living. I remind the House that the last occasion on which the standard rate and the actual rate were identical was as far back as 1926. A process of fluctuation, which admittedly has become more marked in the last few years, has been going on since 1926.

I do not think that the point made by the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) is immediately relevant to this measure. The idea that he seemed to have in his mind was that if at any time there were a serious recession in this country and it was necessary to effect wholesale reductions of salaries and wages throughout the country, as was done in 1930, the percentage reduction would obviously amount to more if calculated on a larger amount than on a smaller amount. I remind the honorable gentleman and the Ho.use that at present there is no provision for either increasing or decreasing any Public Service salary on a percentage basis. That can be done only by the Parliament, and is wholly within its control. In the unhappy event of circumstances making such a move necessary, it would be the parliament of the day which would make the decision and there is no provision in this measure that would govern the action to be then taken. Having made those two points, I commend the bill to the House.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4. (1.) Notwithstanding anything contained sn the Public Service Act 1922-1950, the limits of salary, or the salary, of every office in the Public Service (not being an office occupied by an officer in relation to whom section nine of that Act applies) shall, from and including the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-one, be the limits of salary, or the salary, prescribed by sub-section (2.), (3.), (4.) or (id), as the case requires of this section. (6.) For the purposes of this section, the salary actually payable in respect of an office as at the thirty-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty, includes salary payable to an occupant of that office under a determination of the Public Service Arbitrator and salary as varied by regulation one hundred and six a of the Commonwealth Public Service Regulations as in force on that date.

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · Curtin · LP

– I propose to move two amendments to this bill, the second of which is consequential on the first. 1 move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), the words, “ (not being an office occupied by an officer in relation to whom suction nine of that Act applies) be left out.

This bill, when first prepared, did not take into account officers of the Parliament. They were not taken into consideration because the Government held the view that matters relating to the salaries of officers of the Parliament were solely within the control of the President and the Speaker. Not until after further consultations had taken place with the President and the Speaker, did the Government, in accordance with their request, widen the scope of the bill in order to make it apply to officers of the Parliament. If these amendments are accepted the bill will apply to those officers in exactly the same way as it applies to officers of the Public Service. The effect of the ‘amendment will be to remove from sub-clause (1.) the previously existing exclusion of the officers of the Parliament. The consequential amendment that I shall move later will have the effect of bringing the officers of the Parliament within the scope of the bill.

Mr Haylen:

– Does that mean that officers of the Parliament will be removed from the jurisdiction of the President and the Speaker?

Mr HASLUCK:

– No, it merely means that their salaries will be stated as total actual salaries instead of standard salaries plus an adjustment amount. Their salaries will then be expressed in the same way as are the salaries of officers of the Public Service.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- The Opposition has no objection to the amendment moved, nor to the amendment foreshadowed by the Minister (Mr. Hasluck). However, I direct attention to the danger inherent in the presentation to the Parliament of hastily prepared legislation. It is obvious from the Minister’s explanation that the Government did not know what it was doing when ii brought down this bill. Within a day of the presentation of the bill to the House, two amendments have become necessary. I take advantage of this opportunity to point the moral to the Government, because much more legislation will be presented to this House in the future which probably will be more hastily drawn than this bill has been and will need a great deal of amendment. Such legislation may be very dangerous to the liberties of the people.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Mr. Hasluck) agreed to -

That, in sub-clause (6.), after the word “ date “, the following words be inserted : - ‘‘or by regulation seventy-five of the Commonwealth Public Service (Parliamentary Officers) Regulations as in force on that date, as the case requires “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 914

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL (No. 2) 1951

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 29th June (vide page 732), on motion by Mr. Holt -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo

.- The Opposition opposes this bill in its entirety. Before giving reasons for that attitude I desire briefly to review the most important matters in the measure. Altogether ten such matters are involved. The bill extends the definition of “ office “ in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to include the office of president, vicepresident, secretary, assistant-secretary or other executive officer of a union. It takes away powers now possessed by conciliation commissioners and places them in the hands of the Full Court of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. It gives to the Government, together with the employers, power to seek injunctions in respect of breaches of awards of Commonwealth arbitration tribunals. It provides that defiance of an injunction by officers or members of an organization shall be punishable by fine or imprisonment. It makes compulsory a provision in the rules of the organization for secret ballots in union elections. It provides that the court may order a secret ballot in respect of any matter that affects an organization. It empowers the court to punish with a fine of £100 incitement against the acceptance of an award. It compels the keeping of certain records by organizations, with heavy weekly cumulative penalties for non-compliance. It permits organizations, branches of organizations, or small minorities of members of an organization to request the Industrial Registrar to conduct an election of officers. Generally, the bill substantially increases the penalties at present imposed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

This measure can be regarded as an attack upon the trade unions, and upon trade unions only. That is evident from the statement made by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) upon the introduction of the bill. He said that the proposals in this bill were important and that they formed only a part of a general campaign which this Government and its supporters had directed against the sinister challenge of communism. Although theoretically this measure will apply to all organizations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, in effect the intention, as the Minister stated, is to attack communism and communistic activities in the trade union movement. If this measure becomes law it will slow down the conciliation work of the court, and once again cause long delays in the settlement of industrial disputes. It will throw the weight of the Government and the employers against the trade unions, thereby indicating a fascist trend in legislation. It will grossly and unnecessarily interfere with the control and administration of the trade unions and take the first step towards the destruction of a free Australian trade union movement- again indicating the fascist pattern. It will, in effect, prohibit strikes, while leaving employers free to engage in lockouts; enable vicious punishments by way of gaol and fine to be imposed; cause the dissipation of union funds and the frustration of the legitimate and registered objects of unions by imposing upon them impossible tasks in regard to the keeping of records; and promote and accelerate renewed Communist activities in trade unions that are now free of Communist control. It will encourage Communist controlled unions to escape the application of its restrictive clauses by seeking or inviting de-registration. By failing to recognize an affirmative decision by secret ballot on an impending or actual dispute, it will reduce the secret ballot to a mockery and a farce. It is a provocative measure and will cause a further deterioration of industrial relations, with a tragic effect upon the economy of this country.

I speak with some knowledge of the functioning of the trade union movement and of how legislation of this kind will be received by that movement. The Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Workers Union, the two organizations that represent the great majority of organized trade unionists in Australia, have already made it clear that they are strongly opposed to the bill. Although introduced at a time when it is desirable to cultivate better relations between employers and employees, the measure will not promote better industrial relations. On the contrary, it will engender greater hostility and suspicion, make the maintenance of the smooth operation of our industries more difficult than ever, and fail to achieve its objective. The Minister has stressed that the bill is a part of the pattern of the Government’s scheme to combat communism, but it is important to remember that, like the gentle rain that falls from heaven, it will fall upon the just and the unjust alike. It will affect, not alone organizations that are under Communist control but the whole of the trade union movement. Because it will be regarded by trade unionists as an interference with the rights, responsibilities and administration of their unions, it will b.e bound to cause the greatest of bad feeling.

I shall quote a passage from the Minister’s second reading speech in order to indicate that it was most unwise and impolitic to introduce this measure. The honorable gentleman said -

I believe that the sense of responsibility to the community as a whole is progressively taking hold of union members generally and of the more enlightened leaders of the movement.

The bill, far from strengthening that sense of responsibility, is certain to cause considerable misgiving and doubt of the Government’s sincerity. It will strengthen the feeling that the Government intends to secure the passage of legislation affecting the trade union movement that is not in the best interests of the workers.

In dealing with the provisions of the measure, I shall refer first to the clause that provides for the taking away from conciliation commissioners of powers in respect of sick leave and long service leave and the placing of those powers in the hands of the Full Bench of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Provision for sick pay was made in awards before the 1947 act was passed. Long service leave is a matter that has arisen during the last- three or four years, in consequence of the unprecedented expansion and prosperity of Australian industry. No request has been made by the trade union movement for power in respect of those matters to be taken from the conciliation commissioners and placed in the hands of the Full Court. Neither the Australian Council of Trades Unions nor the Australian Workers Union has made any pronouncement upon this matter. Apparently the Government inserted this provision in the bill without having first consulted the trade union movement or sought, its assent. The operation of the new provision will frustrate conciliation and increase the difficulties of the court by making necessary long hearings before the judges, at great expense to the parties, without achieving any worthwhile result. Sick leave is a matter that requires to be dealt with on the basis of the conditions that obtain in each industry. In some industries, owing to good working con- ditions, there is comparatively little sickness among employees, but conditions of employment in others may justify longer periods of sick leave. It is a matter that can be dealt with best by a conciliation commissioner who is concerned with a particular industry. He can treat that industry separately from others, and make awards that do justice to employees. When this bill becomes an act, on every occasion when an increase of sick leave is sought it will be necessary for the Full Court to hear the application. That will impede the other activities of the court and delay the making of an award by the appropriate conciliation commissioner. The operation of the provision will cause friction and discontent in industry.

Similar considerations apply to long service leave. As far as I know, long service leave has been granted in only one award made by a conciliation commissioner. That award, was made by Mr. Commissioner Morrison in the flour millers’ case. Both sides agreed to it. But under this provision, even if both sides agreed to an alteration of sick leave provisions or to the grant of long service leave, it would be necessary for the ponderous machinery of the Full Court to be put into operation to ratify the agreement. In view of the necessity to rely more upon conciliation and a little less upon arbitration, I consider that this proposal is not in the best interests of industry. Certainly, it will not- assist conciliation.

The bill provides also that injunctions may be taken out against persons who have been guilty of a breach of the legislation or of an award, and that if an injunction be defied, proceedings in the nature of contempt proceedings may be taken against the parties concerned. The court may impose punishments ranging from a fine of from £50 to £500 and to a sentence of twelve months imprisonment. If this bill be passed, we shall see the adoption in Australia of something that has been found to be unecessary in other countries. This proposed procedure was- not adopted by the New Zealand Government even during the waterside workers? dispute in that country. The old theory was that workers could be tamed and disciplined and strikes prevented by coercive measures, but experience proves that when coercive action is taken against members of trade unions or against’ persons -who are not members of trade unions because they have engaged in an industrial dispute, that coercive action fails to achieve its purpose. In that respect we may go back to the days of Peter Bowling on the coal-fields or to the days prior to 1930 when such disciplinary provisions were embodied in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and we shall find that never yet have they been instrumental in settling a strike. On the. contrary, when they have been implemented during the course of an industrial dispute such action has increased the bitterness between both sides and has greatly retarded a settlement. It has also left wounds of hostility and suspicion on both employers and the unions which in many instances has taken years to heal. Even in 1930, as honorable members may see from the records of the Parliament, the then Leader of the Opposition in this House agreed that the penal provisions in the act had not resulted in serving the intentions of the framers of them and on that occasion all parties in the Parliament agreed that they should be eliminated because they had proved to be totally unsatisfactory. In addition to the fact that the trade union movement is not likely to accept these provisions and to the fact that the passing of this measure will make rio difference to the carrying on of trade union policy, the measure will create a further difficulty because trade unionists regard a measure of this kind as anti-strike legislation and believe that it is being introduced for the express purpose of refusing to them the right to strike. That right is one of the fundamental principles of trade unionism. When all is said and done the right to strike differentiates the free man from the slave, because it enables a man to determine how he will dispose of his labour which is the only commodity that he has to sell. Trade unionists will never surrender that right. They have had to use it in the past, and they will have to use it. in the future because from time to time there arises in the sphere of industrial arbitration instances in which trade unionists can have their grievances adjusted only by using the strike weapon. That was demonstrated in 1928 in connexion with the timber workers’ award.

The Minister in his second-reading speech made a singular statement that has also been made, in effect, in other countries in which disaster has been caused to the trade union movement. Giving as one reason why provision is being made in the bill for the power of injunction, he said -

A feature of society in a modern state - and I am thinking of the democratic state in Englishspeaking countries - is the development of highly organized interests. One of the problems of our present society is the integration of these individual organized elements to the furtherance of the common objectives of the nation.

I have not the slightest doubt that the Minister used those words in all sincerity ; but, unfortunately, the same reason has been given in Fascist, Nazi and Communist countries as a pretext, first, to alter the1 methods of trade unions and, secondly, to weave the trade unions into the political philosophy of the State with the result that in many countries to-day trade unions are no longer free but are merely instruments for the carrying out of the political and industrial policies of the ideological state. In fact the trace union movement right throughout its history has had to fight, not only employers, but also governments. It has had to fight governments, first, because governments have endeavoured to suppress unionism, secondly, because it has had to obtain legal recognition; and, thirdly, because governments have thrown their weight on the side of employers against employees. The Australian Labour party came into existence because in the ‘nineties the governments of the day threw their weight on the side of the employers in an effort to crush a strike that occurred in Victoria and New South Wales. For those reasons the provision that is being made in this bill to enable the Government to enter into an industrial dispute and throw its weight on the side of the employer in order to bring the employee into subjection is’ bound to create the greatest hostility between the Government and the trade union movement. Employers at present have the right to take action that they deem to be necessary if they believe that an award or order of the court has been disobeyed ; but it is now proposed that the AttorneyGeneral also shall be given that right and, consequently, the Government and the employers will be taking a stand side by side against the trade union movement. Trade unionists resent such a provision and they will certainly fight for the protection of their interests.

I turn now to the provisions in the bill that relate to secret ballots. Throughout my long association with the trade union movement I have always been in favour of the secret ballot. At the same time, however, I am impelled to say that the secret ballot is the great illusion of critics of the trade unions. It is not the open sesame to the halls of industrial peace. It is not the magic medicine that will cure all industrial ills. It is not the political DDT that will annihilate the Communists. I assume that in introducing legislation of this type the Government believes that it will make it easier for rank-and-file members of the trade unions in which there is a degree of Communist control to participate in secret ballots and thus remove Communist officials from office in their organizations.

Mr McMahon:

– Under this legislation they will be given the opportunity to do that.

Mr CLAREY:

– I emphasize, first, that it will be very difficult to upset secret ballots that are held by the miners’ federation, the Waterside Workers Federation and the Seamen’s Union to which the Government has specifically referred. However, there is not a trade union in Australia today whose rules do not provide for the election of its officers by secret ballot. It is immaterial whether the ballot is conducted in the union meeting hall, as is done in small organizations, when every member present is given a ballot-paper, a returning officer and scrutineers are appointed and the result of the ballot is announced immediately after it has been taken.

Mr McMahon:

– Does the Australian Workers Union follow that ‘procedure?

Mr CLAREY:

– The Australian Workers Union elects its officers by postal ballot.

Mr McMahon:

– But the ballot is not secret.

Mr CLAREY:

– Of course it is secret. The Australian Workers Union conducts secret ballots. I inform the honorable member for Lowe (Mr. McMahon), because his knowledge of the matter may not be so complete as is that of persons who have been associated with the trade union movement over a long period, that the rules of every trade union in Australia to-day provide for the election of its officers by secret ballot. I also point out to the honorable gentleman that the secret ballot may be conducted in a meeting hall; at an appointed polling place; by postal vote, the members of the organization receiving business envelopes in which to return their completed ballotpapers; or by the distribution of the ballot-papers on the jobs on which the members are working. The rules of every industrial organization provide for the taking of a secret ballot.

Mr Eggins:

– For how long has that position obtained?

Mr CLAREY:

– That system has been in operation for years. The miners’ federation is frequently criticized in this House, but probably no other organization gives more complete details of the results of its secret ballots than does the miners’ federation. I have in my hand two copies of Common Cause, one of which is dated the 16th December, 1950, and the other the 27th January, 1951. The copy dated the 16th December, 1950, gives details of the voting at every pithead throughout Australia for the positions of general president of the miners’ federation, senior vice-president, check inspectors, and so on. Each pit is named, and the actual votes which are recorded at it are stated. When a preferential ballot has been necessary, as for the election of the general president, the information is given about the distribution of the preferences.

Mr. HOWARTH ; What does that prove ?

Mr CLAREY:

– It proves, first, that a secret ballot is held ; secondly, that such ballot is conducted at every pit-top by a returning officer, with scrutineers in attendance; and, thirdly, that as the result is made known to the persons who made the first count at the pithead it indicates clearly that those votes have been recorded in the final count. The results of the voting are given in detail to the members of the organization in the same way as the results of a Commonwealth election are given in the information which is published by the electoral authorities.

The Waterside Workers Federation has also been criticized in this House, and the suggestion has been made that the ballots that are conducted for the election of the officers of that organization

Government members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I can hear all sorts of noises. The House will come to order. The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) is dealing with a most important subject, and the Chair will ensure that he receives a fair hearing.

Mr CLAREY:

– The Melbourne branch of the Waterside Workers Federation conducts its ballots at a polling place which is in a part of its offices. That branch has even gone to the extent of hiring from the electoral authorities booths in which its members may cast their votes. No person may vote unless lie is a financial member of that union. All scrutineers have the right, if they are not satisfied about the identity of a man who desires to vote, to call upon him to produce not only his ticket but also his identification disc, which is issued by the. Australian Stevedoring Industry Board. Candidates for the various offices in that union are entitled to appoint, and, in fact, do appoint, scrutineers. The returning officer is elected by the members of the organization. The whole ballot is under the most rigid supervision.

The conduct of ballots is of great importance to the members of all unions, and the most practical safeguards have been devised to ensure that votes will be conducted in accordance with the rules. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1949 provided that if irregularities occur in a ballot conducted by a union the circumstances may be investigated by the Industrial Registrar, and subsequently by a judge of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. In my opinion, nothing more is required to ensure that ballots are conducted properly. At any rate, the trade union movement accepted that legislation and said that, in its view, irregularities in ballots could be corrected by that method.

The bill also provides that the court may order a ballot of members to be taken when an industrial dispute is looming or is in progress. But the rules of many organizations now provide that before members may participate in an industrial dispute, a ballot must be taken. I have been associated for many years with the Storemens and Packers Union and the Food Preservers Union, .and I know that such a provision has been incorporated in their rules since 1917. Those rules have been so strongly administered that even when employees have gone on strike without having first consulted” their union, it insisted, before it was prepared to take up their case, that a ballot be taken of the persons on strike for the purpose of determining whether they were in favour of the stoppage. Yet that provision has not prevented or terminated strikes. During the last ten years, many ballots have been conducted by the Storemen and Packers Union and the Food Preservers Union on the question of cessation of work, but the members have almost invariably decided to go on strike.

I want to make it clear that a similar provision in the bill will not necessarily achieve industrial peace. Experience has shown that when such a rule has been applied voluntarily by unions during the last ten years, the members have always voted to go on strike. Prior to 1939, my own experience of the operation of that rule over a period of 22 years was that the men voted in favour of a strike on five out of every six occasions on which a ballot was taken. Those ballots were not held in a meeting hall, in which the members of the organizations might have been inflamed by fiery speeches to vote to go on strike. The men received their ballot-papers away from a meeting hall, so that they were able to consider their decision calmly. All that I can say about the matter is that experience has shown that such a rule does not prevent strikes. That fact is recognized by many employers. I quote from the Employers’ Review, of February, 1950, at page 69, as follows : -

The man who is far removed from the union sphere - and it is one of the weaknesses of the Liberal party that its knowledge of unionism comes generally from hearsay - is too often prone to believe that if the worker? were made to vote before a proposed strike they would always vote against it. This is far from the case. A government which relied on legislation of this kind would soon find this out to its cost.

I simply point out to honorable members that this provision in the bill will not achieve the objective of the Government, but will cause great hostility among the trade unionists, because they consider that the control of their organizations is a matter for themselves. They will resent an order by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to take a ballot on this matter or on that matter. There may even be a repetition of an incident which occurred in 1929 during the timber workers’ dispute. The late Mr. Justice Lukin had ordered a ballot to be taken, but the members of the organization decided, at a mass meeting, to collect their ballot-papers and publicly burn them as a protest against interference by the court. Unless there is co-operation with the trade union movement, industrial matters cannot be dealt with successfully. Incidentally, I point out that the Industrial Arbitration Act of New South Wales provides that the Minister for Labour, not the Industrial Commission, may order a secret ballot to be taken. The provision has never been put into operation during the last twenty years because, apparently, it is believed that such a ballot does not achieve any effective result. From the point of view of the trade union movement, it would be a farce to have a secret ballot on the order of the court if such a ballot did not make any resultant strike legal. If the purpose of the ballot were merely to obtain an expression of opinion, it would accomplish nothing. Presumably the court still will be able to discipline the men by means of injunction and proceedings for contempt if they go out on strike against an award after a secret ballot has been conducted. The trade unions, therefore, may regard any such ballot merely as a means of providing evidence upon which they may be prosecuted for a breach of an award. The provision that the court may order a secret ballot will not succeed for the simple reason that it makes no pronouncement about the legality or illegality of strikes, so that persons may be prosecuted if they participate in a strike. It will be regarded with the deepest suspicion by the trade union movement, and there will be no co-operation with the Government in the matter.

I have time to refer only briefly to the proposals in relation to the keeping of records. It will be absolutely impossible for the average trade union to comply with the requirements of this bill. The compilation of a roll for the purposes of a secret ballot requires more than a mere list of members of a union. A membership list may be useful in determining how many members belong to a union, but the financial standing of each member must also be considered in relation to a ballot for the election of officers or on the issue of an industrial dispute.

Mr Hamilton:

– Surely that involves no difficulties.

Mr CLAREY:

– It does not sound difficult, but I have administered an organization, which has about 6,000 members, with a membership turnover of approximately 20 per cent, annually. In fact, during the last two or three years, the annual turnover has been 50 per cent, of the total enrolment of new members during a year. The organization includes in its membership many seasonal workers, and the membership is constantly changing. It is extremely difficult to compile a complete list of members and their private addresses in the first place, and it is at least as difficult to keep the list up to date because of the continual changes of membership.

The Government proposes, for the purpose of obtaining a record of the private addresses of union members, that each membership ticket shall be kept in duplicate. But such organizations as the Amalgamated Engineers Union, the Australasian Society of Engineers, and most metal trades unions, do not issue membership tickets. They issue each member with a pence card, which remains his property and which is endorsed when he pays his contributions. A record is kept also by the person to whom the payments are made. I do not know how the provision? of the bill in relation to membership tickets can be carried out by those organizations. In many instances membership tickets are issued quarterly, half-yearly, or yearly. In other instances, when relations between the employers and employees are on a good footing, union contributions are deducted weekly from wages and certificates of financial membership are issued quarterly or halfyearly. Therefore, there are insuperable difficulties in the way of compiling the records for which the bill provides. State law in New South Wales provides for tha making of returns by trade unions in less detail than is contemplated in this instance, but that provision has been a dead letter for the last twenty years and such returns are no longer made. Similar provisions which were embodied in the original Conciliation and Arbitration Act were removed in 1930 because, even in those days, when unions were smaller than they are to-day, the organizations could not maintain the records with any degree of accuracy. The provisions in this bill for the preparation and maintenance of such records will cause great trouble. In many instances it will be impossible to obey them. Therefore, they must fail. But unions which do not comply with the provisions will be liable to cumulative fines of £10 a week for failure to lodge returns. I assure the Minister that the unions will -make the strongest possible protests against such legislation. It will not help to improve industrial relationships.

The final provision to which I shall refer will help the Communist party to. disrupt the trade union movement. This is the provision for the conduct of elections by the Industrial Registrar upon the application of a small percentage of the members of a union. The required number varies from 1,000 members in a federal organization to 500 members in a branch organization, or 20 per cent, of the membership, whichever is the lesser. The bill does not specify whether ballots in connexion with strikes will be conducted by the Industrial. Registrar or by the union concerned. I have seen the Communists at work in trade unions. I have seen branches of the organization to which I belong captured by the Communist party, and I have been a member of cells which have been formed within the organization for the purpose of destroying the influence of the Communists and finally tipping them out of office. When Communists are in the minority in a trade union, their pattern of action is to embarrass the management of the union in every possible way so that the officers and the committee of management will lose the respect of members. For example, in the Queensland branch of my organization, I witnessed disorderly conduct at every meeting for several months. This prevented the organization from functioning properly, and the Communists went about during that period telling the members that the management was not able to conduct the affairs of the union. As the result of the employment of such methods, the Communists gained control of the branch at the next election. Communists carry on whispering campaigns, engage in character assassination and generally do their level best to prevent a union which is not under their control from functioning properly.

The provision in the bill which I am now discussing will place in their hands another weapon with which they will be able to embarrass every registered trade union which is not under their control. Within those organizations, members of the Communist party and fellow travellers will obtain a petition from the specified percentage of members before each election and will present it to the Industrial Registrar. Thereupon the Industrial Registrar will be compelled, under the terms of this legislation, to take over the control of the ballot. The Communists will not win the election, but-

Mr CRAMER:

– Then what harm will be done?

Mr CLAREY:

– The process will cause the dissipation of union funds and provide the Communists with more material for whispering campaigns against officials. They will make use of this legal pretext in order to try to destroy the confidence of members in their officials. The effect of the provision on organizations which are already under Communist control will be negligible. [Extension of time granted.] In organizations that are under Communist control, excluding the Federated Ironworkers Association and certain sections of the Australian Railways Union, but including the Seamen’s Union, the Waterside Workers Federation, and the coal-miners’ federation, it would be difficult to make more rigid rules than those which now exist in relation to the election of officers. If irregularities do occur in those unions, they are quickly brought to notice in the union meeting room. But the correction of the irregularities would not be sufficient to enable the present Communist control of those unions to be removed. That can only be done as the result of effective work in the trade union movement which must be directed towards restoring to power the people who represent the spirit of the trade union movement. That is a job that the trade union movement has to carry out.

One of the difficulties to be overcome in removing Communist control is the policy of ensuring that persons who are opposed to the administration are unfinancial members of the union and. as a consequence, not entitled to vote. This legislation cannot help anybody but the Communists. In the Australian Railways Union in Victoria, not less than 7,300 of 18,000 members are unfinancial. The same state of affairs probably obtains in the Federated Ironworkers Association. Although these proposals may have been introduced by the Government with the very best of intentions they will no* bring about the results that it desires. The proposals will create hostility and suspicion in the trade union movement and they will eventually become the basis of an attack on the trade union movement itself. Provisions of this description have already been put into ‘ operation in Fascist countries as a first step in . an attack on the trade union movement. If it is the intention of the Government to place laws on the statute-book that will coerce the trade union movement the Government will be forced, if this bill does not succeed in accomplishing its objectives, to go a step further and then a step further until, eventually, there will be no free Australian trade union movement. It is important in the interests of the worker who is fighting to maintain and improve his economic conditions that his right of organization shall be free and unrestricted and that his rights shall not be interferred with by the Government. Such interference weakens trade unionism. Because the trade union movement regards this legislation as an attempt to take away its power to control its own organizations and coerce it into observing the wishes of the Government, the trade union movement believes that this is Fascist legislation. It considers that the bill is aimed against it and, as a consequence, the trade unions will not be prepared to give their co-operation in its implementation.

The proposals contained in this measure are bad from every standpoint. They will not achieve the objects of the Government. They will increase discontent, suspicion and hostility with in the trade union movement. The’ Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Workers Union are opposed to the Government’s proposals which will create friction within the trade union movement. This bill will prevent cooperation between the trade unions and the Government, make it more difficult to achieve better industrial relations, and bring disaster upon the economy of Australia.

Mr McCOLM:
Bowman

.- It is always a pleasure to address this House after the honorable .member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) because he gives one so much meat to, chew. During his speech the honorable member has given us a lot of food for thought. If we think about it long enough we shall reach the conclusion that he could have stated an argument in favour of this bill as good as the argument that he purported to put forward against it. The honorable member has a vast experience of trade unions. I have no doubt that some of the instances that he quoted of well-conducted ballots and exemplary conduct in trade unions were true, but I am certain that he could have supplied honorable members with details of a greater number of instances of the malpractices that the Government is trying to prevent by the introduction of this legislation. I have said on a number of occasions in this House that I am a member of a trade union and I firmly believe in trade unionism. When the trade unions were founded in Australia, there was an urgent necessity for them to fight against conditions and pay that were absolutely scandalous. They waged a wonderful fight and did a tremendous amount of good, not only for Australia, but also in many ways, for the world. But I believe that some very powerful unions have abused the tremendous power that lies within their hands.

Although the trade union movement has great privileges it also has great responsibilities, not only to trade unionism and the Labour party, but also to the Commonwealth of Australia. I consider that because of the international situation every honorable member and the vast majority of people in Australia are mainly interested in the welfare of our Commonwealth. They have the interest of Australia at heart but I do not believe that, in many cases, they think about this matter often enough. That is the situation in a number of trade unions. Any trade union that is prepared to work unselfishly in the interests of the community to seek only justice and fairness will not have one iota of trouble if this bill is passed. The honorable member foi Bendigo said that it would be possible for trade unions to keep the records that this bill demands of them. If that statement is accurate it is impossible for the trade unions to have the secret ballots that he claims they have, because they could not have a secret ballot without an accurate record. If they have that record they will find no difficulty in fulfilling the requirements of this bill. The honorable member for Bendigo said that the Government was deliberately attacking the trade union movement. The Government is working in the interests of the whole Commonwealth. I do not say that certain trade unions are the only bodies in this country that are working against the interests of the Commonwealth. There is a considerable number of very large business enterprises which are also failing to work in the interests of the Commonwealth and which, in their own way, are as dangerous as the Communists whom the Government is trying to oust from the trade unions. But at the moment honorable members are debating this bill and I shall leave my comments on some other sections of the community until a future date. However, those comments will be just as strong as the views that I am expressing to-day. I refute the statement of the honorable member for Bendigo that the Government is deliberately trying to attack the trade unions. The Government is only trying to ensure that those trade unions which are abusing their power shall be put under the control of the courts.

Mr Bryson:

– The honorable member is entirely ignorant of the trade union movement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Wills may not refer to another honorable member as being ignorant.

Mr McCOLM:

– I might be entirely ignorant of the trade union movement although I am a member of a trade union. But a very great number of trade union members who talk to me about trade union matters are not ignorant of those matters and among them are delegates to the congress of the Australian Council of Trades Unions. They are interested in trade unionism and the Commonwealth. They have not the unfortunate, narrow outlook on life that some honorable members of the Opposition have. The honorable member for Bendigo said that the bill would take away the right to strike. I believe that in certain circumstances, although not permanently, trade unions should forgo the right to strike. This country and the world is entering a period of extreme international tension and there is a great possibility that war will recur. If that happens neither the government of this nor any other democratic nation will be able to tolerate strikes. All democratic governments will be fighting an enemy that will be trying to overwhelm our way of life and our country. While we have one Australian soldier, sailor or airman fighting anywhere I do not believe that trade unions should strike because ‘ those men are giving their lives in order that the members of our trade unions and their families may remain in the country. I do not believe that anything should be done to jeopardize the assistance that can be given to these men who are fighting for use. I do not intend to reflect on the great number of very fine men who, through force of circumstances are unable to take part in the defence of our country. Nobody realizes better than I do that we need men at home who will work hard so that our soldiers, sailors and airmen can fight efficiently. Those men do a job that is equally important in the war effort as is the actual fighting. But I say that when our fighting men are losing their lives, the trade union movement should keep its members working and should have its disputes adjusted by arbitration.

Mr Curtin:

– Most of the men who are losing their lives in Korea are trade unionists.

Mr McCOLM:

– Would the honorable member for Watson please repeat his interjection? I did not hear it clearly.

Mr Curtin:

– I said that most of the men who are losing their lives in Korea are trade unionists.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable member for Watson must keep quiet.

Mr McCOLM:

– I do hot deny the honorable member’s assertion for one moment.

Mr Curtin:

– Hear, hear!

Mr McCOLM:

– The fact that he has stated is all the more reason why the fighting men’s friends and fellow-workers at home should not let them down.

Mr Curtin:

– Who is it that does the work? They alone!

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr McCOLM:

– The honorable member for Watson has brought up a very important point. He is again speaking, as so many honorable members opposite speak, about the workers. One thing which the Communist party tries to do more than anything else, is to foster in a community a feeling of class consciousness and class distinction. I am not accusing the honorable member for Watson of being a Communist, but I say that it is an absolute disgrace that in this country which, to my mind, has the best democratic way of life in the world, anybody should try to cause class distinction where it virtually does not exist. If the honorable gentleman and some of his friends were to go abroad and see what class distinction means in the countries of the world that know it, he would very quickly stop talking about it in Australia.

The honorable member for Bendigo described this kind of legislation as being fascist in form and tending to weave the trade union movement into the functions of the State where, eventually, they would be taken over by the State and go out of existence as they did, so far as effectiveness is concerned, in many of the countries of Europe, and as they have gone out of existence completely in Russia under communism. I am under the impression that honorable gentlemen opposite are dictated to by a non-political executive outside of this Parliament that is directly related to the trade union movement. Is that not an example of a voluntary tying up of trade unionism with the functions of State and government? I should like the honorable member for Bendigo to explain later exactly what he meant by his criticism, because the whole of the Labour movement in Australia to-day is trying to tie up trade unionism with the government of the country. What the leaders of the Labour movement want is government by trade unionism. I do not believe that that would be good for our country. I believe that trade unionism should be nonparty political and should throw its weight behind or against the government of the day as circumstances warrant. Trade unionism in Australia will eventually reach that stage, and will then have reached the acme of its usefulness. I have merely raised these matters in support of my earlier statement that when the honorable member for Bendigo was speaking so eloquently and interestingly he was not speaking accurately.

The honorable member for Bendigo said that he thought some of the provisions of this - bill would tend to hinder the movement towards conciliation that had been going on within fairly recent times. I think that conciliation would be excellent if it worked, but I know that the Government and the vast majority of the people believe that an arbitration system such as we have is one of the best means of solving industrial problems, provided that it can work speedily and that the arbitration courts are vested with the powers necessary for the efficient prosecution of their duties. To my mind it is pointless to have an arbitration court unless it has some definite authority that it can use when necessary. I believe that it will not matter if we do tend to move away from the conciliation system, provided that we can speed up our arbitration system and make it work more effectively than at present. If we can only get quicker determinations of appeals made to the court many of our industrial problems will be .solved.

Mr Clarey:

– That is very badly needed.

Mr McCOLM:

– It is. The honorable member for Bendigo also dealt with the provision in the bill that a number of members of a branch of a union may request the Industrial Registrar to investigate the fairness of ballots for the election of officers of the union. The honorable member more or less said that that provision would give the Communists particularly an effective means of disrupting trade unions, because they would be able to apply to the registrar continually, cause trouble by complaining that there was something wrong with the conduct of a ballot and ask that another ballot be held. Possibly the honorable member overlooked the point that the relevant provision in the bill reads -

Where a request is made or purports to be made under this section, the Industrial Registrar shall, after making such inquiries (if any) as he considers necessary, decide whether or not the request has been duly made.

In other words he has the power to decide, after the request has been made, whether it is a justifiable complaint. I feel quite sure that if there were any question of “ Corns “ trying to make trouble in that way the Industrial Registrar would soon realize what was happening and send them about their business.

Mr CLAREY:

– I think that the provision makes it mandatory on the Industrial Registrar to investigate the complaint.

Mr McCOLM:

– My interpretation of the provision is that it is not mandatery. I shall read it again. It is as follows : -

Where a request is made or purports to ‘be made under this section, the Industrial [Registrar shall, after making such inquiries (if any) as he considers necessary, decide whether or not the request has been duly made.

I take it that if the Registrar decided that the request has been duly made he would have to act on it, but right up to the time that he had examined all the necessary evidence he could still say that he did not think that it was a genuine request.

Mr Griffiths:

– Whether the applicants are “ Corns “ or not ?

Mr McCOLM:

– He could do as I have said. The honorable gentleman who has just interjected could easily complain that the existence of sortie of the laws relating to murder in this country show that governments wish to take people’s lives. But I remind him that the laws do not operate until a crime has been committed.

Mr Curtin:

– Not necessarily.

Mr McCOLM:

– That is so only in very rare instances, but I do not think that they are worth considering, because we must look to the good of the majority of the people. For that reason alone, as I have said before, I do not believe that the honest genuine trade unionists who form the bulk of the membership of trade unions will come into serious conflict with this act. In the final event it is not an act, but the way in which an act is administered and the intention behind it that are the main things. I am confident that the Government does not wish to break trade unionism. But it wishes to do everything it can do to prevent certain sections of the trade union movement from abusing the great powers and privileges that the trade unions have. It wishes to do everything it can do to get this Commonwealth back on to its feet again as quickly as possible.

Mr Curtin:

– The honorable member is very naive.

Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy

.- 1 rise to oppose this bill because, unlike the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm), who said that the Government does not want to break trade unionism, I believe that this bill, by its very nature, is designed for the ultimate purpose of smashing trade unionism in Australia. The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) has addressed the House to-day as a man with long years of experience of trade unionism, its organization and the work that it does on behalf of the community. The case that he placed before the House and the country showed where this Government would like ultimately to take the people. The bill, according to Government supporters, is designed to deal with the subversive activities of Communists and to give back to trade unionists, as the honorable member for Bowman has said, the right to vote in secret ballots for the election of union officials, but as was pointed out by the honorable member for Bendigo, practically every trade union in this country has a secret ballot for the election of officials. Does any honorable member suggest that this measure, which is supposedly designed to deal with Communists, will result in the removal of Healy from the general secretaryship of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, or of Brown of the Australian Railways Union, or of the officials of the miners’ federation in New South Wales? It would be just plain silly to make such a suggestion, because if the Government were anxious to grapple with this problem of Communist control of trade unions, to give the rank and file of the unions the secret ballot, and to deal with subversive Communist activities, why has it not advocated compulsory trade unionism and compulsory voting by way of secret ballot? It has been said that this measure is to enable the good trade unionists, as they are called, to, record a vote to remove some of the grievances that trade unionists have in regard to the election of their officers. As has been pointed out from time to time, the Chifley Government obtained the passage of an amendment to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which provided that where there were any irregularities in trade union ballots and a case were, made out to the Industrial Registrar, he in his wisdom could give a decision, either favorable or unfavorable to the applicant. There have been a number of cases of that kind. There is one honorable member on this side of the House who, as the president of a trade union, had recourse to that provision.

To suggest that this bill will deal only with communism is too silly for words. It is designed for the purpose of gulling an unsuspecting community into the belief that the Government’s method is the only way to deal with Communist control of trade unions. This measure will be welcomed by the Communists. The position to-day is analogous to that of pre-war Germany. In that country the Nazis and the Communists combined to smash trade unionism. The present reactionary Government has introduced a. measure which will be welcomed by the Australian Communists. The question might be asked whether the Government is collaborating with the Communists in an attack upon trade unions. That is a question that many decent trade unionists are asking in connexion with this bill. Some people have already asked whether Australia has taken the first step, through this measure, towards a -reactionary Communist link-up such as that which existed in Germany before the last war. If the part played by industry in this country is so important, why is there no mention of employers in this bill, and why is some similar action not contemplated with regard to employers’ organizations? If the Government intends to interfere with the unions, it should also interfere with employers’ organizations. .Some people maintain that just as there are leftists in the trade union movement there are rightists among employers’ organizations.

This measure, according to the belief of many unions, including the great Australian Workers Union, will cause financial ruin if not complete dissolution of the trade union movement. That will suit the Communists in this country because many unions, foremost among which is the Australian Workers Union, have been very prominent in the fight against communism. When introducing this measure the Minister referred to the lists of union members’ names and addresses which would be required by the registrar of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration. Then he said that 10 per cent, of a membership of 1,000 and 20 per cent, of a membership of 500 could make a certain application. I am not a mathematician, but those figures seem to work out at 100 in each case–

Government supporters interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is entitled to be heard in silence.

Mr RIORDAN:

– Consider the AustralianWorkers Union. If such a small percentage of members of the Australian Workers Union sent a request to the registrar, he would be forced to conduct an election. As this bill is aimed not at communism but at trade unionism, small minorities will be able to ruin organizations financially by forcing the court or the electoral office to conduct elections. In 1928, the Bruce-Page Government introduced a measure which was directed at the abolition of the Commonwealth arbitration system. The right honorable member for Bradfield (Mr. Hughes) moved an amendment to that measure which forced the government to the country. At the ensuing election the government was defeated. Even the then Prime Minister lost his seat, which showed that the people of Australia wanted to retain a Commonwealth arbitration system. If this measure becomes law some of the unions will strongly resent the strictures upon their operations and will withdraw their registration from the court. They will then return to State registrations in the six States of Australia. Thus, after 23 years the scheme of the Bruce-Page Government to force unions out of the Commonwealth field will be implemented. That is a result which will follow the passage of this bill. The Communists will welcome such a result for the simple reason that they are opposed to industrial arbitration. They want to see all the arbitration tribunals abolished because too many benefits flow to the workers through such tribunals. That is further evidence of how the actions of this Government tend to advance the Communist objective of the ultimate destruction of the trade unions. In my own electorate, 90 per cent. of the workers are members of the Australian Workers Union. That union has been fighting communism in and out of season for a long time. Rule No. 42 of the constitution and general rules of the Australian Workers Union reads, inter alia, as follows: -

No person shall be eligible to be a candidate for any office in the Union if, in the opinion of the Executive Council, there is reasonable ground for believing that -

within twelve months prior to the date of his nomination he was a member of any body of persons, incorporated or unincorporated, which by its constitution or propaganda or otherwise advocates or encourages the overthrow by force or violence of the established Government of the Commonwealth or of a State or of any other civilized country or of. organizedgovernment; or

) he himself advocates or encourages, or has, within twelve months prior to the date of his nomination, advocated or encouraged the overthrow by force or violence of the established Government of the Commonwealth or of a State or of any other civilized country or of organized government.

I ask honorable members to consider that rule carefully, and I suggest that if the Government is anxious to deal with subversive elements it should adopt that rule from the Australian Workers Union rule book. For many years that rule has kept subversive elements, including Communists, out of official positions in that great union, although on many occasions they have tried to get in and white-ant the organization. Rule 43 provides for a pledge to be taken by certain people, but I shall not weary the House with that matter. All that I say is that the Australian Workers Union has been able to keep out of its organization the elements which the Government says are the elements that it is endeavouring to suppress by this legislation. The honorable member for Lowe (Mr. McMahon) interjected while the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) was speaking and said that the Australian Workers Union ballots were not secret. For his instruction, and for the instruction of many other honorable members on the Government side, I shall place a few facts about Australian Workers Union ballots before the House. I know what the honorable member for Lowe had in the back of his mind. It is the same thing that a lot of Communists had in mind when they and the yellow rag which has recently gone out of circulation attacked our ballots. They had in mind that attached to the Australian “Workers Union ballot-paper is a tag or coupon which has printed on it the number of the unionist’s ticket. According to the secret ballot proposals in this measure, the Australian Workers Union will be forced to alter its rules - or at least it will be forced to take legal advice about the alteration of its rules. That is simply because the number of the union ticket is printed on the ballot-paper and that there is, therefore, some doubt whether the papers will comply with this bill.

For 65 years the Australian Workers Union has been perfecting its method of election, which has for its purpose the ensuring of the right to vote to every member. The system was devised by men who have long since passed on, and it cannot be improved because of the nature of the employment of the members of the Australian Workers Union, and the great number of members who are working in isolated parts of Australia in the shearing, metalliferous mining, sugar, and other industries. The financial year of that union begins on the 1st October and ends on the following 30th September. The ballot for election of officers is open from the beginning of October until early iii December, and the right of a financial member to vote is guaranteed by that coupon on his ballot-paper which indicates that he is a financial member and is entitled to vote. This scheme of voting has been operated successfully for many years and should therefore not be interfered with.

Sitting suspended from 5 to 8 p.m.

Mr RIORDAN:

– When a postal vote is cast in a Commonwealth or State election, the voter’s number on the electoral roll is. written on the ballot-paper and his name and address is written on the back of the envelope in which the paper is enclosed. The Queensland’ electoral legislation provides that when a voter records his vote at a State election, his number on the electoral roll shall be written on the right-hand corner of the ballot-paper. Therefore, what, the Australian Workers Union does is done also in electoral offices.

The effect of this legislation will be to disfranchise approximately 50,000 of the 170,000 members of the Australian Workers ‘ Union. It has been estimated that 50,000 members of that union are constantly moving about the country, especially those engaged in pastoral industries, the metalliferous mining industry and the sugar industry. Some shearers move from the north-west of Queensland to New South Wales, and from New South Wales to Victoria, Tasmania or South Australia. Men engaged in the metalliferous mining industry are constantly on the move. The turnover of man-power at Mount Isa in the northwest of Queensland is larger than anywhere else in the State. I have met metalliferous miners in this city, which they have visited during their journeys from Mount Isa to Tasmania or Captain’s Elat. I have met miners in Mount Isa, and a month later I have seen the same men at Mount Morgan, 1,000 miles away. The metalliferous miner is a nomadic worker who does not stay for long in one place. Approximately 50,000 members of the Australian Workers Union are engaged in work which involves constant travelling from place to place. Therefore, the union has been forced ‘to devise ways and means to enable any member who desires to do so to cast his vote when an election of paid officials of the union is held. If this bill be passed, the Australian Workers Union will have to consider whether its rules for the conduct of elections comply with its provisions. It is obvious that the bill was drafted by persons who have no knowledge of what must be done to ensure that all members of a union shall have an opportunity to vote at elections of officers of the union.

Proposed new section 91 provides that a registered organization shall keep a register of its members. The Australian Workers Union issues books of tickets to its representatives-, some of whom work in remote parts of the country. When they sell a ticket, they record on the butt the name and address of the person who has purchased it. In many instances, months elapse before the butts are received at head office. Therefore, the Australian- Workers Union, like the man with the wheelbarrow, would have its- job- in front of it if it were required to- file with the registrar, within three months of the passing of the bill, a true register of its members. Many of them work in the north of Western Australia and in Cape York Peninsula. The union would also encounter great difficulty in complying with sub-section (3.) of proposed new section 91, which provides that during the month following each quarter an organization shall file with the registrar a statement giving, in respect of the preceding period of three months particulars of the alterations made in the register of its members. As the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) said, it is quite obvious that this bill was drafted by persons who have little or no experience of the organization of trade unions. If the Australian Workers Union were required to file with the Industrial Registrar a register of its members and to notify that officer each quarter of any alterations that had been made in the register, it would be involved in large additional expenditure. It is true that at the present time it files with the Industrial Registar a list of its members, but that list is generally anything from six to nine months out of date. It would be a physical impossibility for the union to keep its register completely up to date. Even if it were possible to do so, it would be a very expensive task.

Proposed new section 96m provides that a prescribed number of the members of a trade union may ask the Industrial Registrar, to supervise an election of officers of the organization, with a view to ensuring that no irregularity stall occur in connexion with the election. That provision will be welcomed by the Communists, against whom this bill is said to be directed, because if the. Registrar; assisted by a staff inexperienced in the conduct of Australian Workers Union ballots, conducted an election, probably 50,000 itinerant or nomadic workers would be disfranchised. Even the wives of shearers, for instance; do not know where their husbands are at any given moment, but in an election held under the provisions of this proposed new section the- Registrar would be required to communicate with the men, if a postal vote were taken. The expense oi conducting the ballot, which would be borne by the Australian Workers

Union, would be increased considerably. To agree to this provision, which would tend to weaken the Australian Workers Union financially, would be to play into the hands of the Communists. In my view, this measure will interfere with and damage the Australian Workers Union more than any other union in this country. It is well known that that organization has fought the Communists in season and out of season.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr HAMILTON:
Canning

.- This bill need cause no anxiety to officials and members of trade unions who have been- acting honestly and democratically. It is not an attack upon trade unions such as the Australian Workers Union that have- always acted fairly and properly. It is aimed at unions which, for a very long time, have been engaged in all kinds of skullduggery. The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) used the catch-cry that was used when this legislation was previously before the Parliament and said’ that the Government wanted to smash the trade unions of this country. I say that any government that endeavoured to do that would be acting, not only very foolishly but also very wrongly. There is a place for trade unionism in this country. This Government realizes that, and will’ not try to smash the trade union movement. Honorable members opposite may laugh, but they know in their innermost hearts that they are the persons who are slowly but surely smashing the trade unions of this country,, because they are not prepared to stand up to the Communists who have infiltrated the unions and secured high positions in them.

The honorable member for Kennedy referred’ to the provisions- of the measure that relate, to irregularities at elections for officers of trade unions. He said that those provisions are unnecessary because the present legislation empowers the Industrial Registrar to take action in connexion with irregularities. I point out to the honorable gentleman, that, under the present legislation, the Registrar is empowered to act only after an irregularity has occurred. If honorable gentlemen opposite agree that, he may act. after an irregularity has been brought to hi.c notice, why cannot they agree that he should also be empowered to act before an irregularity occurs? The bill provides that, upon the request of a prescribed number of members of a union, the Registrar may conduct an election for an office in a union, with a view to ensuring that no irregularity shall occur in connexion with the election. I point out to the honorable member for Kennedy that the Registrar is not obliged to intervene. If, after an investigation, he is satisfied in his own mind that irregularities are likely to occur in connexion with an election, he can determine the manner in which the election shall be held. The honorable member said that the prescribed number will be 10 per cent. of 1,000 or 20 per cent. of 500. He claimed that it was a “ snide “ trick to provide that only 100 members should be required to report their fear that an irregularity might occur in order to enable the Registrar to conduct an election. I believe that the honorable member studied law at one time. Doubtless he hoped that eventually he would appear as an advocate before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, but I should not like to be represented by him if that is the way in which he interprets this measure. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) said in his secondreading speech -

We have in mind, for elections to a central body, 1,000 members or 10 per cent. of the membership, and for branch elections 500 members or 20 per cent. of the membership, whichever is the less in each case.

That refutes the statement that the honorable member for Kennedy made. The same honorable member said that no provision was being made under the bill to force employers to abide by awards of the court or of conciliation commissioners. I point out to him that under clause 6 power is to be given to the court “by order, to enjoin an organization or person from committing or continuing a contravention of this act or a breach or nonobservance of an order or award “. No one will suggest that that provision does not embrace organizations of employers. Therefore, whether or not they favour an award, or order, they will be obliged to observe it. I challenge any member of the Opposition to point to any provision in the bill that will adversely affect the law-abiding trade unionist. I admit that alterations of the proposed kind will probably tend to make things awkward for officials of organizations particularly when the provisions are first applied. That cannot be denied, but, ultimately, these provisions will operate for the good of the trade unionists as a whole. At present, conciliation commissioners, of whom there are twenty, are empowered to make determinations in respect of paid sick leave and long service leave. Under this bill that power will be transferred to the court itself.

Mr Curtin:

– Why?

Mr HAMILTON:

– It must be obvious to any one who has studied this measure and to those who will be affected by it that the exercise of such power by twenty conciliation commissioners may lead to conflict of determinations whereas that difficulty can be obviated by confining . that power to the court.

The bill also endows the court with power to enforce its awards. We should be merely wasting our time and the taxpayers’ money were we to give to the court power to make awards, but at the same time, withhold from it power to enforce its orders and awards.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– What would be the position if an order, or award, happened to be unjust ?

Mr HAMILTON:

– When these proposals were introduced in the Nineteenth Parliament honorable members opposite raised as their main objection that the court was to be given power to impose unlimited penalties. Now that the Government has taken steps under this measure to provide for limits to those penalties, those honorable gentlemen raise other objections. They are adopting tactics of the kind that the Communists adopt. After the Government has made concessions to meet their earlier objections, they now want to know why it cannot make still more concessions. I advise them not to indulge in party political humbug, but to say what they really believe will be best for industry.

The bill also empowers the court to conduct a ballot in any organization before a dispute actually occurs, whereas at present the court has power to order an organization to conduct a secret ballot only after a stoppage of work kas occurred. On that point, I ask honorable members of the Opposition whether they would prefer that circumstances should be permitted to arise similar to those that arose in the coal-mining industry in 1949 when 7,000 miners, by a decision which they took by a show of hands, threw more than 20,000 other coal-miners out of work? Of course, they would not. Indeed, at that time, the Chifley Government introduced legislation to protect the rights of the majority of the miners against such action on the part of a minority. And in that instance also a minority of the miners caused chaos in industry generally and brought suffering to many sections of the community.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– That decision was not taken by a show of hands.

Mr HAMILTON:

– In any event, it was not arrived at by a compulsory secret ballot. Similar trouble occurred again, early in this year before the recent memorable double dissolution took place. As a protest against the Gallagher award under which an extra day’s pay was granted in respect of ten day’s work performed continuously within a fortnightly pay period, the leaders of the miners’ federation toured the coal-fields and subsequently 2,000 miners took a decision whereby 7,000 other miners were obliged to go on strike.

Mr Griffiths:

– This measure will not remedy trouble of that kind.

Mr HAMILTON:

– At least, it represents an attempt on the part of the Government to do so. I recall that when this legislation was discussed in the Nineteenth Parliament the honorable member for Shortland (Mr. Griffiths) himself stated that Mr. Williams, the president of the miners’ federation, called a meeting at which a decision was taken by a show of hands to call a strike. Under this measure, officials will not be able to take action of that kind. Surely, it is wise for the Parliament to provide that in circumstances in which a stoppage is likely to occur the court shall have power to conduct a compulsory secret ballot of all members of the organization concerned before a stoppage actually occurs. Honorable members opposite have said that the rules of a number of trade unions already provide for the conduct of secret ballots.-‘ I am aware of that fact, but the real consensus of opinion of the members of an organization cannot be ascertained unless every financial member of it is obliged to record his vote.

Mr Curtin:

– The bill does not provide for compulsory secret ballots.

Mr HAMILTON:

– It does. At present the Amalgamated Engineering Union is conducting a ballot in Western Australia for the election of the general secretary of its branch in that State. The head-quarters of that union are at London and in 1947 and 1949 the union held what it termed rules revision meetings, as a result of which it did not provide for postal voting. However, the union rules of the . Australian branch of the union, which is registered in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, still provide for postal voting. In 1949, the Commonwealth council of the union circulated to all branch secretaries the instruction that no postal ballots were to be taken in the future, and, consequently, regardless of the fact that the rules of the Australian branch provide for postal voting, members of the union, particularly those employed in mines and timber mills in remote localities, have been deprived * of a vote in the ballot that is now being conducted for the election of the secretary of the Western Australian branch. -Under legislation of the kind that is now before us, the rights of members of unions in similar circumstances will be safeguarded. Surely honorable members opposite would not condone a position in which members of a union, because they cannot attend at the branch meetings of their organization shall be deprived of a vote in a ballot for the election of their officials. A secret ballot of all financial members of an organization will really reflect the consensus of opinion among them. Whether member of the Waterside Workers’ Federation will, in such circumstances, re-elect Healy or Roach. is beside the point. If they do, we must face up to that problem. However, under this measure the opportunity will be given to the rank-and-file members of trade unions to express their opinions. They do not enjoy that opportunity now.

Honorable members opposite know that whilst a large number of trade unions perform their functions correctly and honestly, at the same time a number of organizations do not do so. I defy honorable members opposite to refute that statement. They have criticized the provision in the bill to ensure that up-to-date lists of financial members shall be supplied to the Industrial Registrar. At present, every union that is registered with the court must provide a list of its financial members, but of what use are such lists if they happen to be months, or perhaps a year, out of date ? What use can be made of the legislation that was introduced by the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) when he was Attorney-General, if the lists that organizations are obliged to supply to the court are not up to date? Honorable members opposite are inconsistent when they say that they favour that legislation, but in the next breath claim that there is no necessity to provide that lists of members of trade unions shall be kept up to date.

Mr Thompson:

– How is it proposed that the court shall obtain the correct addresses of members of a union ?

Mr HAMILTON:

– I admit that difficulties of that kind may occur and that there may be some lag in that respect. However, I believe that the Registrar will allow a reasonable degree of elasticity in that respect. If I were doing the job myself and I was informed of legitimate reasons why a complete up-to-date list could not be made available by a .specific d.:te, I should allow a little grace to the officials of the organizations concerned. Whilst admitting that some minor difficulties of that kind may be experienced in the first instance, nevertheless it is useless to expect the court to combat irregularities in trade union ballots if the court is not provided with adequate machinery to enable it to do so.

The genuine trade unionist has nothing to fear from this measure. Honorable members opposite say that all the trade unionists .are opposed to it. I move among industrial workers and quite a large proportion of them have asked me when the Government was going to introduce legislation to provide for the conduct of compulsory .secret ballots in order to give them an opportunity to get rid of undesirable officials. Prior to .the last re-distribution of electorates my constituency included- the district of Bassendean and where the Government Railway Midland Junction Workshops are situated. I .served my apprenticeship at those workshops. Consequently, I am able to talk to the men employed in them in their own language. Prom what they have told me I have gathered that they would- like the Government to go further than it proposes to go under this bill and to provide for the conduct of secret ballots by a justice of the Supreme Court. There can be no doubt that the genuine trade unionists, including members of what are known as the Australian Labour Party Industrial Groups, will welcome this measure. They believe that it will enable them to clean out their organizations. The average worker will not attend trade union meetings at which he knows he will run the risk of being bashed if “he expresses his opinion.

Statements by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) and the honorable member for Burke (Mr. Peters), have been published in the press to the effect that decent trade unionists will not be able to clear the Communists from their ranks unless a system of compulsory ballots, which are conducted by a government authority, is introduced. Such a statement, which was attributed to the honorable member for Yarra, appeared in the Melbourne ‘ Sun NewsPictorial last year, and I know that he has expressed that view repeatedly. Are members of the Labour party, who are keen to see the law-abiding unionist get on with the job in this matter, prepared to support this legislation? It will be interesting to see how they vote when the boss outside the Parliament gives them their orders. The trade union movement has nothing to fear from this legislation. I defy Opposition members to prove the assertion that they have repeatedly made that this legislation will penalize the unions, but I admit that, as has been claimed, in some respects it will cause unions inconvenience in the preparation of certain documents. However, in the long run, it will give to the honest unionist an opportunity to get rid of the men who are preventing him from working as he wishes to work, .for the benefit of the country.

Mr BRUCE:
Leichhardt

.- We Australians are supposed to be a free people, and to have equal rights. I cannot for the life of me see why this bill should be applied to the workers and not to the employers. Opposition members would not have much cause for complaint if the Government were to introduce a similar measure which provided that all the clients of a private business should have the right to elect the directors of the undertaking by secret ballot, and that penalties should be imposed upon the directors if they went on strike by withholding goods in anticipation of an increase of price, by watering capital, and by locking men out of their jobs. The honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) said that 7,000 men, by going on strike, had put 20,000 other men out of work. I have known the time when seven men put 200,000 men out of work. “Honorable members, in order to discuss this bill intelligently, must have a knowledge of Australian history prior to the inception of arbitration. In those days, men were hounded by the employers, and by the police who received payment from the bosses. Such conditions brought Australia as close to a revolution as we have known. I refer, of course, to the Eureka Stockade.’ But stout-hearted men, with little or no organization among themselves, gradually established unions, and, in doing so, showed great perseverance, underwent many trials and endured considerable suffering. The unions ultimately were responsible for the introduction of the system of arbitration.

From the time of the establishment of the first settlement in New South Wales, the employing classes brought convicts from England to this country in order to provide cheap labour. When gold was discovered, the convicts almost outnumbered the f ree men, and the employers became afraid that the convicts -would take control of the country. The importation of convict labour thereupon ceased. Later, the employers imported serfs from China for the purpose of providing cheap labour. From that practice indirectly sprang the great Australian Workers Union and other trade unions. In the days of which I speak, men in North Queensland were not permitted to vote unless they remained in an electorate for six months. But employers deliberately drove them from place to place in order to deprive them of the residential qualification. Those “unfortunate workers were bashed ‘by the -employers and their representatives. Mr. Bill Hamilton, who became a member of the Legislative Council of Queensland, was imprisoned for six months, although no charge had been laid against him. The practice of the employers at that time was to keep in gaol the men who were endeavouring to organize the workers. Out of those conditions grew the trade union movement and the political Labour movement. When the Workers appealed to the government of the day for protection against the employers, they were told that as they had no vote or political representation, they were not entitled to receive protection. But those staunch men were not daunted by adversity. They camped at various places until they had fulfilled the residential qualification, .and were entitled to vote. As a result of their influence and persistence, .members who were sympathetic towards the workers were elected to the Commonwealth and State parliaments. I am proud to say that the Labour party has been in office in the Parliament of the Commonwealth from time to time, and that it has held office in Queensland from 1915 to the present day, with the exception of one period of three years.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I ask the honorable member to relate his remarks to the bill.

Mr BRUCE:

– I remember the days when there was no arbitration system, and when direct action was the only method by which the workers could oppose the employers. Workers’ compensation and miners’ phthisis compensation were unknown. The men had to accept the conditions that were offered to them in order to keep their wives and families alive. However, the workers began to band together, and they discovered that direct action was not the correct way in which to improve their working conditions. Employers as well as employees were pleased to have a point at which labour could come, in contact with capital and where the representatives of the two could discuss their problems calmly at a conference table or before an industrial tribunal.

This bill, which embodies a vicious penal provision, will destroy the harmony that now exists between employers and employees. It will also destroy the meeting point at which arbitration has done so much good for industry. No union has done more than the Australian Workers Union to improve the conditions of the workers and to preserve peace in industry. Mr. Riordan has dealt with those matters-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable gentleman must refer to another honorable member by the name of his constituency.

Mr BRUCE:

– Government supporters claim that this bill will not affect the Australian Workers Union. The measure might have some merit if it could be applied to a union when the circumstances within the organization warranted such action, but its application to the whole trade union movement will mean disaster. Officials who have prevented Communists from obtaining control of their unions are not popular with a certain section of the men. It would be possible, if a small number of Communists could sway a sufficient number of men, to make application for a new ballot for the election of officers of the Australian Workers Union, and even destroy that organization.

Mr Hamilton:

– The application for a new ballot would be made to the Industrial Registrar.

Mr BRUCE:

– The Industrial Registrar, my foot! I am speaking of facts. The unions must control their own affairs. They have developed their own organizations and their affairs are just as much their own business as the affairs of a private bank are its own business. Of course, the business of a private bank is concerned with profits, whilst the unions have their origin in the suffering and work of men. The right of a union to control its own affairs is more dear to its members than is anything else. I was a member of the Australian Workers Association, which was formed in North Queensland when there was no other union in that part of Australia. In 1913- the association amalgamated with the Australian Workers Union. I am a reasonably intelligent man, and I have had the opportunity to study, over a long period, the work that that union has done, and to assess the improvement that has been effected in the conditions of the worker, and in the dealings between employer and employee. The arbitration system to date has been satisfactory.

I object to this bill because it provides for the imposition of vicious penalties, including imprisonment, and may lead to the destruction of the unions that are doing a good job, and even place them under the control of the Communists. I believe that the heads of the Communist party are more happy over this bill than they are over any other thing that could happen in Australia. This bill will definitely destroy the trade unions, and when they have been destroyed the Communists will have the Liberal party and the Labour party, the employers and the employees, just where they want them. Let there be no mistake about that.

In earlier times in North Queensland, men suffered great privations in defending their conditions. I recall that, on one occasion, 6,000 men were working in the copper-mining industry, and the management posted a notice to the effect that all the men had to work under contract. The result of that order would have been that every man, with the exception of a few extremely fit men, would be dead from phthisis before he had attained the age of 45 years. I pulled those 6,000 men out on strike one night because I could not bear to see them condemned to death in that way. Arbitration was unknown at that time. But the arbitration system has done away with the necessity for taking direct action. I am not an advocate of direct action, and I am certainly not an extremist, but I called that strike in order to save lives. The arbitration system has done a mighty lot of good, but this bill, if it becomes law, will strike the greatest blow that has ever been delivered at the trade union movement.

Mr SB0SNE:
Evans

. This bill should commend itself to a large majority of honorable members. I realize that it cannot appeal to all Opposition members because there are such irremediable differences of opinion between them to-day that what appeals to one section cannot appeal to the other section. There is no matter on which the Opposition is more deeply divided than on its attitude to industrial reform. I also realize that individual members of the Opposition, regardless of what they feel about this bill, cannot support it. As is notoriously known in this House, but, unfortunately, is not known widely enough outside it, they are not the custodians of their own votes, and their own consciences, but are the puppets of an organization outside the Parliament. They must vote, not as they believe they should vote, but as they are told to vote. The whip has been cracked and they have been told not to vote for this measure. But I hope that some of them will give support to it in other places. In fact, I believe that some of them will be obliged to do so. When they return to their electorates and the trade union circles that some of them represent in this House, and particularly when they move, .among the members of the Australian Labour Party Industrial Groups, they will find evidence of so much enthusiastic support for the reforms for which the bill provides that they will be obliged to support it.

The measures embodied in the bill must commend themselves to reasonable and thoughtful trade unionists. It represents an important part of the Government’s plan to strengthen the moderate trade’ unionist against the Communist in trade union circles. It is evidence of the close collaboration of the Government with moderate trade union opinion. But, in addition to being a weapon against communism in industrial affairs, it is also a logical and proper development of the arbitration system in Australia. It is another region in what the late Mr. Justice Higgins called “ a new province for law and order “.

The bill has four main purposes. The first is one about which I do not suppose there will be very much argument in this House. It is to extend the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to enable it to make awards in relation to annual or other periodical leave, such as sick leave and long service leave. The second purpose is to restore to the court the power to insist on the observance of its awards by the use of the legal method of injunction. The third purpose is to ensure that unionists shall be given the right to have clean ballots in their union elections. The fourth purpose is to revise and bring up to date the court’s power to prevent persons from inciting others to break its awards. Of those four purposes, only one is novel. That is the proposal to extend the jurisdiction of the court so that it may make awards in relation to leave. There can be no argument about the virtue of that provision. Clearly, it is intended to benefit the worker. I repeat advisedly that that proposal alone, of all the measures that are embodied in the bill, is novel. The other proposals are logical developments of existing powers in the arbitration law which have been inserted or approved of by Labour governments. I shall prove the truth of that statement to the House beyond all possibility of doubt.

Let us consider the four objects of the bill individually. An extension of the jurisdiction of the court to cover annual leave, sick leave and long service leave clearly must be for the benefit of the workers. I have not yet heard it argued by the Opposition that it is some deep-laid trap. The second proposal is to restore the power of the court to enforce awards by injunction. Every honorable member must know by now that this will merely restore to the court a power which we all formerly believed that it already held. The power had been embodied in the industrial law since before the ‘thirties. As a superior court of record, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court had the power to enforce its own orders by injunction. Its power to punish for breaches of its injunctions was unlimited. That power was deliberately left in the act by the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) when, 83 Attorney-General, he introduced amending legislation in 1947. However, because of an accidental mistake in draftsmanship, it was later found that the power did not apply to awards of conciliation commissioners. This hill will restore that power in full to the court. It is not novel, and any argument by the Opposition that it is a new and oppressive measure must be a deliberate attempt to mislead. This matter was thoroughly examined during the life of the previous Parliament.

Mr Griffiths:

– Then why has the Government altered the penal provisions in this bill ?

Mr OSBORNE:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I am glad that the honorable member has reminded me of that. “When a similar measure was being debated in this House during the life of the 19th Parliament, I devoted some time to an endeavour to explain to the Opposition that every superior court had unlimited power to punish for contempt and that there were age-old safeguards against abuse of that power. Courts rely on precedents, and the penalties they impose are limited by the responsibility of the judges and their seriousness of judgment and purpose. Safeguards are inherent in the whole system of legal administration and judicial duty. Therefore, I consider there is no necessity for the imposition of any limitation upon the power of the court to impose penalties for breaches of its injunctions. But the Opposition made such a song and dance about the matter that, in deference to it, the Government decided to include in the present bill an express limitation of the injunction power of the court. It wanted to put the matter beyond any possibility of doubt. I confess my regret that it has departed from ordinary legal practice in providing for such a limitation, because I think that the. provision is a concession to the misguided complaints of the Opposition. Furthermore, I suspect that those complaints are deliberately misguided. However, in the light of the provision, honorable members opposite can no longer claim that the court will be given unlimited power to punish for any act of contempt. The power that was held by the court for many years is now to be reduced. “What is oppressive about that?

The- third purpose of the bill is to give to every unionist the right to have a clean ballot for the election of his officials. A great deal has been said by members of the Opposition about the alleged lack of necessity for this provision. “We have been told again and again that the rules of every trade union in Australia already provide for the election of officials by secret ballot.

Mr Curtin:

– That is true.

Mr OSBORNE:

– So much the better. But they do not provide adequate machinery to ensure that ballots shall be truly secret. I can cite at least one striking example of the lack of secrecy in some union ballots. A member of the Building Workers Industrial Union brought, me a ballot-paper of his union with a serial number on it. Wherein lies the secrecy of a ballot in which the ballot-papers are marked with serial numbers? It is obvious that there could have been no secrecy in that election. Honorable members opposite have admitted that the enforcement of secrecy in ballots is a matter of great difficulty. In fact, the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) said that this measure would fail because although union rules might provide for secrecy, it was not possible to ensure secrecy.

Mr Clarey:

– I did not say that.

Mr OSBORNE:

– I apologize to the honorable member if I have wrongly attributed that statement to him. At any rate, the statement has been made by a member of the Opposition during this debate. Honorable members opposite have argued consistently that the union rules which relate to secret ballots are useless and cannot be made to work. But this is a serious attempt to make secret ballots workable. The bill provides, first, that every trade union must provide in its rules for the holding of secret ballots. Then it provides that any central body or branch of a union, or any specific number of members of a union may apply to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court for a secret ballot to be conducted by court officials if they have reason to suppose that a ballot has been unfair.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– But the bill takes away the right to strike.

Mr OSBORNE:

– I repeat that this is a serious attempt on the part of the Government to provide the unionist with machinery to ensure that ballots shall be genuinely secret. The honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron), who has interjected about the right to strike, obviously has not been listening very closely. Perhaps he has served up now an interjection that he had ready for a later stage of my speech. It has no application to the subject that I am now discussing.

The proposal to provide for clean union ballots is welcomed by the whole industrial community. Members of the Oppisition may condemn it and oppose it as they please, but they know that the overwhelming body of moderate unionists is waiting for this measure and hoping that it will succeed.We do not suggest for a moment that the bill will put an end to every kind of chicanery in Communistdominated unions. We are not so naïve as that. But at least it is a forward step. Our attitude contrasts strongly with that of honorable members opposite who say, “It will not work”. For goodness sake, let us try to make it work ! Recently, at the coal face in a northern pit, I had a conversation with five miners who were resting from work in their crib time, and they all told me that they were looking with interest to the success of this measure. They hoped that it . would work and that it would come into operation very soon. Thousands of men are in the same frame of mind, hoping that the legislation willbe successful. The honorable member for Bendigo, in hisattack upon the secret ballot provision, was unable to say more than that it was not a panacea. We admit that. He said that trade union rules already provide for secret ballots. We know that. Surely the honorable gentleman can have no objection to this overriding provision that all unions must provide for secret ballots in their rules. This measure should command the support and assistance of the Opposition. In all other matters, the honorable member for Bendigo begged the issue, which is that the bill is designed to strengthen the hand of the moderate trade unionist against the Communist.

The third purpose of the bill is to bring up to date the power of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to prevent incitement to break awards. I have no doubt that, in due course, members of the Opposition will adopt the line that they have been told to adopt and will suggest that this represents an attempt to prevent union officials from doing their duty by their fellow unionists. I repeat that this is not a novel proposal. If honorable members will study the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1947, the act which was last dealtwith by the Leader of the Opposition when he was AttorneyGeneral in the Chifley Government, they will find that section 78 provides -

No officer of an organization, or member of any committee thereof, or servant or agent thereof, shall, during the currency of an award in the industry concerned, advise, encourage or incite any member of such organization to refrain from -

offering for work, or working, in accordance with such award.

The provisions of this bill are supplementary to that section. The bill merely improves that section by extending its powers and provisions in order to cope with difficulties experienced in. its operation. This measure is not novel. It is an extension of a provision in the bill which the Labour Government introduced in 1947.

Mr Griffiths:

– The Government is playing into the hands of the Communist party.

Mr OSBORNE:

– If the Government is playing into the hands of the Communist party by introducing this bill so must section 78 of the bill that was introduced by the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) have played into the hands of the Communist party. This bill merely extends a provision of the 1947 act. There is nothing novel about it. This is another measure that will strengthen the power of a moderate trade unionist against the Communist.

I have mentioned four ways in which this bill will amend the general arbitration law. The objections of honorable members of the Opposition all follow the same theme. Their theme song is “ Hands off the Unions”. Let us examine this objection. Is it a valid one? The very principle of industrial arbitration involves the loss of some freedom of action on both sides. The trade unions cannot take the benefit of the arbitration system and, at the same time, preserve complete freedom of action. Under the arbitration system the freedom of action of the jungle is replaced by the rule of law and order. The arbitration system in Australia arose out of the disastrous strikes of the eighteen-nineties. In those early days trade unionists engaged in a series of strikes which proved disastrous to them. Out of- the suffering and disaster of thos( times arose the concept of a system of arbitration law. That system was conceived by the representatives of the workers. It was designed for their benefit and enabled law and order to be instituted in industrial affairs, where previously something akin to the law of the jungle had prevailed. But having gone thus far are we to rest on our laurels and see (lie; system crystallized with all its imperfections? That is what honorable members of the Opposition want. “We must develop this system and make it a living force.

The nature of industrial troubles has changed in our time. Communist-led unions are now engaged in a death struggle, not with the employer, but with the whole community,- and their purpose is to destroy industrial arbitration root and branch. The boss is no longer a factor in this dispute. Does he suffer losses when there are stoppages? Does the coal-owner lose money when his pits cease to be worked? No. The price of coal goes up. Does the shipowner lose when the rate of turn-round of his ships is reduced? No. The community pays for such stoppages. The struggle is between the militant Communist on the one hand and the community on the other. That is the answer to the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey), who said that the Attorney-General should not be given the right to intervene in these disputes. The Attorney-General represents one of the two important parties who n re concerned in these disputes. He represents the community. It is no longer safe for the community to leave these matters to the employers’ representatives. In many cases the interests of the community and those of the employers are not the same and the important parties to the disputes are, on the one hand, the militant Communist, and, on the other hand, the representative of the community, the Attorney-General.

The honorable member for Leichhardt (Mr. Bruce) fell still further into the same error when he referred to the struggle that took place bet-ween the boss and the employee in the old days. The present problem is to extend the rule of law and order in industrial affairs. Industrial arbitration began as an attempt to find a way for the settlement of disputes other than by direct action. That attempt has not yet met with complete success. The time is approaching when we must differentiate between the right to strike in certain cases. I agree fully that the right to strike in some circumstances should be preserved.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Of what types are they?

Mr OSBORNE:

– One that comes to mind is a strike in a single factory on a safety issue. Another would be a strike against an employer who was breaking the law. The right to strike in such cases as these may be readily conceded. But in the case of a strike in a whole industry against an award established by the court, the community must consider whether it can afford to permit it to continue, particularly when such a strike ceases to have industrial significance and becomes wholly political in nature and origin. Then the situation becomes abundantly clear. Of all the major stoppages that have accurred during the last two years can honorable members indicate one which involved a clear, simple, unadulterated industrial issue? Can they name one that has not been prompted by the political activities of the Communists ? The rule of law and order must be extended in our industrial affairs.

During the course of the debate I expected honorable members of the Opposition to charge honorable members on this side of the House with being reactionary. I listened for the word, and surely enough up it came. The honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) charged the Government with being reactionary. But who are the reactionaries at the present time? “We who follow the forward line of developing the arbitration system along its logical course or they who are bogged down in the cemetery of outworn prejudices and ideas, among the bleached bones of old and past disputes? The irony of the present situation is that the Labour party now represents conservatism. We on this side of the House were once supposed to be the conservatives whilst they regarded themselves as progressive. But I have seen repeatedly the strange phenomenon of the Opposition expressing the old irreconcilable reactionary viewpoint, and there has been no better example than its attitude in this debate. In 1903 and 1904, when the first Labour government came into power in the federal sphere, led by Mr. “Watson, and later, when the Deakin Government was seeking to place the first Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Bill on the statute-book the protagonists of these forward ideas found themselves opposed by reaction. In those days the reactionary viewpoint was expressed by the employers. Now that we are endeavouring to reform the arbitration system we on this side of the House find ourselves opposed by a reactionary Opposition. To-day, reaction is represented by the entrenched and established trade union leaders whose viewpoint has been so admirably expressed by the honorable member for Bendigo. When in 1903 Mr. Watson, the first Labour Prime Minister of Australia, tried to have the first arbitration bill passed by the Parliament he met with opposition. Those who opposed his bill said, “Don’t interfere with us “. That is the cry that is being heard to-day from the Opposition. In Hansard of the 6th August, 1903, at page 3209, Mr. Watson is reported to have said -

Wo are therefore driven to the position of determining whether we can go a step further. At once we are met with the cry that compulsion is foreign to the genius of the British race,

Mr. Watson went on ;

We have long had this objection to any interference with the conditions of employment or with industry. It has been raised concurrently with the development of the factory system. Every attempt to prevent sweating, every attempt to prevent the employment of child labour in the horrible way in which it was utilized up to 100 years ago and for a considerable time subsequently, has always been opposed on the ground that we have no right to interfere by law with the industries of the country. I contend that the State has an absolute right to say under what conditions any industry should be carried on and has the right, if the necessity can be proved for the assertion of that right, to pass any legislation as between employer and employed. We are not likely to be guided by that doctrine now, especially in view of the fact that we have some little experience of the action of our neighbour in New Zealand to work upon.

I cannot help being struck by the irony of the attitude of honorable members of the Opposition. It is now necessary to complain of their conservative opposition to a forward movement, just as Mr. Watson complained about the conservatism of his right-wing opponents. I am no opponent of trade unions. Ever since I could understand these matters I have taken the legitimate pride which any Australian can take in the work of our forebears in trying to introduce humanity and justice into industrial relations. The basic problem, the introduction of law and order, exists now as it did in 1890 and 1904. The matter is now immeasurably complicated by the activities of the Communists who seek to destroy industrial arbitration and all our democratic institutions at once. If our institutions are to survive, and if industrial arbitration is to survive, they will require to be vigorously defended by the whole organized community. In the unions themselves, the Australian Labour Party Industrial Groups must be given every help and this measure is designed to help them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– It was interesting to hear the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) state that honorable members of the Opposition were not prepared to speak and vote according to their beliefs and in the interests of the trade unionists of this country. It was astonishing to me to hear such sentiments put forward by honorable members opposite on behalf of the trade unionist and the worker. This bill has not been brought forward because of communism in the unions. That may be the pretext on which the bill has been introduced. My contention is that this bill is the outcome of the present prosperity of the workers and the overemployment that exists throughout Australia. Many honorable members on this side of the House have been in the Labour movement and the trade union movement right down through the years when it was endeavouring, as it does now, to obtain the greatest possible improvement of the wages and conditions, of the workers, and it is idle for the honorable member for Evans to say that we are unable to take our minds out of the past. We do not forget the injustices of the past which taught us what should be done in connexion with industrial matters. The real reason why we are opposing this measure is that we believe that if it is passed and put into effect, then our present arbitration system will be, to a large degree, destroyed.

Mr Hamilton:

– What rot !

Mr THOMPSON:

– The honorable member says “ What rot ! “. An interjection was made to the honorable member for Evans, but he evidently did not hear it. He answered any interjections that it suited him to answer, but when an interjection was made during his speech to the effect that this bill will cover only registered organizations, he did not answer it. I tell Government supporters now that by continuing with, this legislation as it now stands they are running a big risk of having more trade union organizations in this country withdraw from registration with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court.

Mr Hamilton:

– The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) does not agree with that. Has the honorable member for Port Adelaide read the article by the honorable member for Yarra ?

Mr THOMPSON:

– I have read articles by the honorable member for Yarra, who has been conscientiously trying to do away with what are termed “ crook ballots “, and I agree with him that such ballots should be rendered impossible. I say to the honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) that the Chifley Government made provision that when a “ crook ballot “ took place the ballot would be upset. Our legislative provisions which cover the correction of malpractices in connexion with trade union ballots, will meet the case.

Honorable members opposite state that our act was designed only to meet the position after the deed had been done and that they want something that will meet the position before the wrong has occurred. They argue that this bill will do that. Having read through the provisions of the bill including those that, relate to the actions that trade unions shall take to supply information to the court, I wonder why the most important provision of all has been omitted. This bill puts the entire responsibility on the trade union organization. Honorable members opposite say that they wish to give every trade union member the right to receive a ballot-paper for a union election through the post, but the measure contains no provision to compel the unionist, about whom the Government pretends to be so solicitous, to give his correct address to the union and to notify the union immediately of any alteration of that address. Only about six years ago I had to take a trade union ballot in South Australia, in connexion with which I had to post ballotpapers to nearly all the trade unionists in that State. To enable me to do so each organization supplied me with a list of the names and addresses of every one of its members. I faithfully sent a ballot-paper through the post to every man on the list, addressed according to the lists that had been supplied to me. To my amazement, within a week or two the ballot-papers began to be returned, not as completed ballot-papers, but as undelivered mail, returned through the dead letter office with the inscription “Address unknown”. Some of them were returned from small country towns where men had been perhaps relaying railway tracks or had been engaged in transhipment work. Some of them came from farming areas where men, particularly members of the Australian Workers Union,, had been working on stations. This bill provides that a trade union shall keep a duplicate or butt of the latest union ticket issued to a member showing his name and ordinary address, and if a man is working away from home the address to be shown shall be the address at which he -is working. Anybody who knows anything about the unions knows that hundreds of their members do not have any permanent, address. The addresses held by the unionsare the addresses of the places where the members are working. It will be found that when ballot-papers are sent out under, the provisions of this measure, many men will have moved on and the ballot-papers will be returned through the Dead Letter Office. I do not know how such trade union members will be able to vote in a ballot. That point may not concern me very much but it concerns the unions.

The introduction of this measure is a direct result of the Government’s having gained a majority in both Houses of this Parliament. The honorable member for Evans said that we should go and talk to the Australian Labour Party Industrial Groups in the workshops. I went to one big works in my own electorate during the last general election campaign and addressed 600 men during the lunch-hour. A number of men who were on continuous work were unable to attend the meeting. I met one of them later and he said to me that he was unable to attend the meeting because he had been working through lunch-hour. He added, “But your remarks to-day have been the talk of the works for the whole afternoon”. What were those remarks? The Australian Labour Party Industrial Group had asked mc to address that meeting. It organized the meeting and got the men together. I told the men definitely that if they gave the antiLabour parties a majority in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives, this- bill was what they would get in return. I also told them that the effect of returning the Government with a majority in the Senate would simply be that it would pass legislation which would give back to the employer the whip that he had lost because of full employment.

Mr Hamilton:

– Does that mean that because they did return us they want this legislation ?

Mr THOMPSON:

– Those men did not return this Government because in my electorate we were given the biggest vote we had ever received for both the House of Representatives and the Senate. I know what the reaction of those men was. Yet the honorable member for Evans has taunted us with not being game to go to the workers and to the Australian Labour Party Industrial Groups and inform them about these matters. This bill is not an attempt to preserve peace in industry or to promote conciliation and arbitration.

I wish here to commend the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) for the very fine analysis that he gave of the position to-day. During the years when there were more men than jobs, we of the Labour movement always said that conciliation was being forgotten and that there was too much concentration on arbitration. We argued that under the arbitration system the amount that an employer paid to a good worker was the minimum rate fixed for his job. It would be hard to find, in the years before the last Avar, an instance of an employer having paid a good man one penny more than he paid to the poorest worker on the job.

Mr Hamilton:

– What rot!

Mr THOMPSON:

– It would be difficult to find one firm that did that. The honorable gentleman may say that my contention is rot, but I should like to hear of a firm that paid a good worker more than was absolutely necessary in those years.

Mr OSBORNE:

– What is the honorable member’s objection to piece-work?

Mr THOMPSON:

– I am speaking not of piece-work but of. arbitration court awards that determined the minimum amount to be paid to a worker. I say that under that system the payment made was almost always the minimum amount that had to be paid. Honorable members opposite know that statement to be correct. This bill is an attempt not to improve conciliation and arbitration but :o get back to the conditions that obtained in the past. The honorable member for Evans said that we on this side of the House cannot take our minds away from the past, but what do honorable members opposite want to do? They wish to go b:ick to the days of 1931, right in the midst of the depression, when there were thousands upon thousands of men without jobs. During that time the present Chief Justice, Sir John Latham, the then Treasurer, Mr. Theodore, and the then Prime Minister, Mr. Scullin, agreed that, in order to get peace in industry and contentment among the workers, it was necessary to amend the vicious penal provisions that were embodied in the arbitration legislation. That legislation was amended to provide for a moderate penalty that could be imposed on a man who refused to cany out the terms of an arbitration court award. Where are you getting to to-day? You are getting right back to the “ Tolpuddle Martyrs “-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman must address me.

Mr THOMPSON:

– When I say “ you “, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to include you in the term, but I must do so because you are part and parcel of one of the Government parties.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! That statement is incorrect, and the honorable gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr THOMPSON:

– Well, if I have made a mistake and you are not a member of one of the Government parties, I withdraw the statement, but I understood that you were. Honorable members opposite want to get back to the days of the “ Tolpuddle Martyrs “, when a man who dared to stand up against an employer or to incite somebody else to do so by refusing to work under the then existing conditions of labour could be imprisoned or transported. The honorable member for Evans regrets very much that we previously refused to give certain powers to the Full Court of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. We know that some of the powers that the honorable member’s party embodied in legislation included the power to deport a man who had not been born in this country and who dared to advocate opposition to the employers. It is of no use for honorable members opposite to say that they do not want that power to be exercised, because their own statements have shown that they do. We on this side of the House are justified in opposing this bill.

Mr Timson:

Mr. Timson interjecting,

Mr THOMPSON:

– I did not hear what the honorable member said and I am not allowed to answer interjections. Even if I had heard him why should I answer him ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Interjections from both sides of the House must cease.

Mr THOMPSON:

– The Opposition is perfectly justified in objecting to this measure, because honorable members on this side of the House are certain that it will not serve the best interests of in dustrial peace in the community. As I have said, this bill is a product of the prosperity of the country. I suggest that honorable members consider the state of industrial workers in, say, 1937 and 1938. Let them consider the workers in our big industries such as General MotorsHoldens Limited in my own State of South Australia. In *1937 and 1938 motor bodies were being produced in that factory on the chain system. The bodies were placed on a moving carriage, or chain, and slowly passed each workman. As a body passed a workman it was his duty to do certain work on it. If the speed of the chain was too great and he was not able to do his work, the next man on the chain could not do his work either and the whole chain was thrown out of gear. If a man found that the speed of the chain was too great for him to do his work and went to his overseer or leading hand about it and asked him to slow down the chain, the reply of the leading hand always was, “ I have no power to alter the speed of the chain. If you cannot do your work there are a lot of men outside who are waiting to come in “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member might at this stage return to a discussion of the bill.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I am putting it quite definitely that this bill is a whip to take the place of the whip of economic necessity which was used in 1937-38. To-day it is well known that the old whip cannot be used. If a regression of industry should occur in two or three years, and there should be more men than jobs for them to fill, the economic position of those men would become sharply outlined in all its stark reality. That is the danger of this bill. Perhaps I am one of those whom the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) somewhat slightingly referred to as complaining about the power of the court to impose an unlimited penalty for a breach of the industrial law. I certainly adopt that attitude. When this bill becomes law, if any officer of an industrial organization should call a meeting and should tell the men that their claims have been taken before the court or a conciliation commissioner, and that everything in the union’s power has been, done to obtain redress for them but that the court has found against them, and then the men should ask him for his advice, he must refrain from giving them his advice. That is because if he dared to say to the men, “ Unless you stop work we cannot do anything further for you; we cannot force anything through the court to obtain anything better for you “, he would be immediately liable to a monetary penalty and to imprisonment. The honorable member for Evans said that he would not make taboo the right to strike because he believed that that right should be reserved for a few occasions, which he outlined. I suggest that that is only his idea of the matter. Others have different opinions as to how the right to strike should be used.

The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey), in his very impressive speech, indicated that he knows that if a union official wants to take action when a court award is in existence he can take that action only through the court and under the award. If he should tell the men that he can do nothing for them under the award and then they should ask him for his advice, and he should say, “ I think that you should protest and say that you will take some action to get satisfaction “, he would immediately lay himself open to injunction action. If he did not alter or wthdraw his stated ment he might become liable to a fine of £50 and be placed in danger of imprisonment for twelve months. If honorable members on the Government side can prove that I am wrong in that, then I shall be very pleased to hear their argument. That is the main objection that I have against this particular portion of the bill.

I shall now deal with the provision for the holding of secret ballots. One of the reasons given for shortages of essential materials in this country is that the waterside workers are constantly on strike. Ministers and honorable members on the Government side have constantly stated that waterside workers will not do their jobs because their union is dominated by Communists. I say from my own knowledge of the waterside workers that they elect their officers bv a secret ballot. Moreover, full particulars are available each week about the number of waterside workers, where they work, how long they work, their earnings, the average earnings of the gangs and the average earnings of the men al each port. All that information is available, yet that is the sort of information that the Government says it is necessary that a union or the registrar of the court shall have in order that secret ballots may operate and unions may work peacefully. Yet we are told that the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia is the most recalcitrant union in Australia.

In to-day’s press I read a report of ballot that was held in Brisbane by the Brisbane branch of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia. It was reported that Australian Labour Party Industrial Group supporters were ousting the Communists from the control of the union. In Port Adelaide, where there are from 1,500 to 2,000 waterside workers, a ballot was held recently for the election of officers of the union. After the ballot it was discovered that only on < Communist out of twelve or thirteen candidates had been elected to the executive. The other eleven or twelve are true Labour party members - delegates to various Australian Labour party official bodies. Would honorable members say that that lone Communist was elected because of the system of voting or because of something wrong with the ballot ? That one Communist out of the twelve or thirteen members elected was chosen only because the voters believed that he was better than the next man on the list. The ballot prescribed under this bill would not have kept that man out of office Therefore, it can be seen that this bill is not designed to control communism. That control can be exercised in ways other than such an extreme measure as this. If this bill becomes law, it will bp used as a whip to prevent the executive officers of unions from doing the best that they can for the members of those unions.

My conception of conciliation and arbitration is that if a matter should come before a judge and he should not be able to arrange an amicable settlement by conciliation, then he should consider the matter as an arbitrator and his decision should settle the issue. No vindictive measures should be used against unions to urge them to do what the court want* them to do, irrespective of what they believe to be right. During the last general election campaign I told the people in my electorate that if the Government was returned to power in both Houses I had no doubt that a bill such as this would be put before the Parliament. My prophecy has come true, but I still plead with the Government on behalf of the people of Australia for a fair and just approach to the matter of industrial relationships, and ask that this bill be withdrawn.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I agree with the honorable member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Thompson) that one of the matters put to the people during the last general election campaign was that a measure such as this was necessary to control industrial relationships. The people voted for the Government, and, therefore, they gave a direct mandate for the introduction of this bill. The honorable member is perfectly correct in what he says, and we should be recalcitrant to our duty if we did not carry out the mandate given to us by the people. I understand that if one takes a bit of paper and sprinkles iron filings over it and then holds a magnet under the paper, the iron filings will show a considerable degree of agitation. They will jump over one another and finally arrange themselves in an orderly pattern. The closer the magnet is brought to the paper, the more agitated do the iron filings become. That is what is happening to honorable members opposite. They are lay figures moved by an external force. As that external force draws nearer to them, they become more and more agitated and more ready than ever to fall into the lines that the external force dictates. When the external force is meeting within the precincts of the Parliament, they display a considera’ble degree of agitation and indulge in many contortions in their desire to fall into the pattern that the external force dictates. Honorable members opposite are giving expression, not to their real feelings, but to the feelings imposed upon them by the federal executive of their party, which is meeting, I say shamefully, within the precincts of this building. They are doing, not what they believe should be done but what they have been told to do. In some instances, they are, to their shame, saying things that are directly opposed to their own beliefs.

Once again I direct the attention of the House to clause 9 of the federal constitution of the Australian Labour party, which states that on all questions that affect members of the Federal Parliamentary Labour party the decisions of their federal conference shall ‘be final, and that, pending consideration by such conference, the ruling of the federal executive shall be binding. Their federal executive is meeting here now. It has told them what to do and, irrespective of their own feelings and beliefs, they are doing it. They hope that thereby they will gain marks as loyal party men. Although that may ensure their selection as candidates when the next general election is about to occur, it reflects little credit upon them as parliamentarians. They do not believe what they are saying. In fact, many of them have said quite the opposite in the immediate past.

I was struck with the remarks of the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey). May I say, if the expression is not unparliamentary, that I considered them to be particularly vicious?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable gentleman should not say that. He must -withdraw the remark.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I withdraw it. I had some doubt about whether the word could be used, and I sought your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The remarks of the honorable member were not to the advantage of Australia. In these matters, Labour voters often believe what they are told to believe. We must admit that honorable gentlemen opposite speak for a considerable body of Labour voters. If they say that Labour voters will react in this way or in that way, that, unfortunately, is the way in which many Labour voters in fact react. They are the bell wethers-

Mr Curtin:

– I rise to order. That remark is offensive to me, and I ask that it be withdrawn. I suggest that it has no relation to the bill.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I do not think the remark is unparliamentary, although I have a doubt about its relevance to the bill.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am willing to withdraw either the word “ bell “ or the word “ wether as the honorable gentleman requests.

Mr Curtin:

– I think the honorable gentleman is under the weather.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order 1 I shall not tolerate implications of that kind.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– I am afraid it iR certain that the remarks of honorable gentlemen opposite will provoke precisely the reaction at the prospect of which they hold up their hands in holy horror. I believe that their remarks were designed to provoke that reaction and that we are faced with disruptionists who, for the sake of party political advantage, are not above sacrificing the real interests of Australia. 1 want to concentrate my attention upon the provisions of the bill that relate to secret ballots. The phrase “secret ballots “ has been used a lot in the course of this debate. It has been pointed out, with truth and justice, that most trade unions, and I think all important trade unions, conduct secret ballots. If that be so, the provisions of the bill that relate to the enforcement of secret ballots will not impose hardship upon or outrage anybody. But that is not the point. The point is that a ballot should be not only secret but also clean. That is really what the federal executive of the Labour party has told honorable gentlemen opposite to object to. Let us remember that the federal executive is itself elected by very questionable means, lt is almost certain that more than one of its members occupies his present position because, at sometime in his career, he faked a union ballot. These people have gained control of honorable members opposite because they have, faked ballots. Therefore, they are opposed to any legislation that is designed to prevent ballots from being faked in future. The puppets opposite are, to their shame, dancing to the tune that their masters have called. The federal executive is making a great fuss mid bother about the rights of trade unions, but what it wants to do is to protect the right of some trade union officials to continue to fake ballots and to remain in office in contravention of the real wishes of the rank-and-file members of the organizations concerned.

1311

Ballots in trade unions are often unclean. To establish the truth of that statement, I call as my witnesses some honorable gentlemen opposite. The honorable member for Burke (Mr. Peters) was until recently, and, for all 1 know, may still be, the president of the Victorian branch of the Federated1 Clerks Union. On the 25th August, 1950, writing in the Labour Call, an official Labour party paper published in Victoria, the honorable gentleman said that if the New South Wales branch of his union had clean ballots, the results would be very different. The president of the Victorian branch of a trade union, speaking of a branch of his union in another State, said, and to my knowledge said correctly, that the elections in the branch in that other State were faked by a Communist junta and that, the persons who held office in the branch held it not as the result of a vote of the rank and file, but because they had successfully faked ballots and had prevented the rank and file from voting them out of office. In this matter, I am not alone. I am with the honorable member for Burke, who is a member of the Opposition, and I am glad to be with him. On the 22nd August, 1950, the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) wrote an article for the press in which he said,, quite correctly, that Communists got control of the electoral machinery of trade unions and, therefore, were able to fake ballots and prevent rank-and-file members from expressing their views.

Honorable members opposite say that a trade union should control its own affairs, but. what they really mean is that the Communist fakers who have obtained control of trade union electoral machinery should be permitted to continue to control union affairs. A trade union can speak only through its elected officers. Those officers can be elected only through electoral machinery which, in some instances, is controlled by the Comunist party. Exactly the same position exists in Russia and in other countries behind the Iron Curtain. At elections held in those countries. 99.95 per cent, of the electors vote for the glory of Comrade Stalin, but we know that that result is achieved only because the Communist party controls the machinery of the elections. Even in countries such as Poland, Latvia and Estonia, which, to our everlasting shame, we allowed the Soviet to rape and in which we know that the great majority of the population is opposed to the Soviet there is an overwhelming vote for the Communist bloc and for the Activists who are associated with the Communists. That occurs, not because the people want the Communists but because Communists control the machinery of nomination and election. Once a Communist returning officer is in, it is very difficult to put him out, because he or his stooge counts the votes.

Mr Curtin:

– In what way does the bill meet that situation ?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– That is a very pertinent question. Clause 14 provides that, if a reasonable proportion of the membership of a trade union is not satisfied that an election will be conducted properly, it can petition for an independent officer to conduct the ballot. No honorable member would dare to impugn the integrity of such an independent returning officer. Each of us owes his position here to the fact that such an officer conducted the ballot at which he was elected to the Parliament. Will you say that the people who elect you for whatever seat you hold-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member must address the Chair.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Would you, Mr. Speaker, say that the returning officer who declared you to have been elected for your constituency is not to be trusted? You know very well that we have such a system in Australia. And we shall keep it so long as we keep the Communists out. The only thing that would deprive us of it would be the kind of thing that has deprived the Polish, Latvian and Estonian people of their systems. But clever infiltration into the trade unions has permitted perhaps secret under-cover Communists to become returning officers, and once they get control of union elections it is very easy for them, in nearly every instance, to ensure the election of Communists. Once that happens the Communist, like the Old Man of the Sea, rides on the backs of the rank and file of trade unionists just as the Russian masters now ride on the backs of the rank and file of the Polish people. We recognize that fact, and because we know what is happening and why it is happening, we propose to give to the rank and file of trade unions the fair go that every Australian enjoys in the election of members of the Parliament.

Honorable members opposite have said that the situation that I have described is amply provided for under existing legislation. Is it? Let us look at the kind of thing that happens in the Federated Clerks Union, which I instance because officers of the New South Wales branch of that union are elected at fake ballots. Members of that branch who endeavoured to challenge the result of those ballots were ruled out because of a technical flaw in the existing legislation. Honorable members are aware of the kind of thing that the conjuror does on the stage. His audience knows that at some vital point he will deceive them by palming something or by producing something from up his sleeve, and that he will distract attention by taking a number of fictitious precautions which the audience considers to be magnificent but which, in fact, veil his actions. The Communists do the same kind of thing in the Federated Clerks Union. That union conducts a secret postal ballot. The ballotpapers are posted in the ordinary way and on their arrival at their destination they are placed in a ballot-box, the Ley to which is retained by an independent person who is specially appointed for that purpose. But what happens? The ballot-papers are printed by a Communist printer, who hands them to members of the executive of the union, who know very well from experience that only a small proportion of the qualified voters will return their ballot-papers. In those circumstances, the members of the Communist executive simply fill in a number of ballot-papers and post them in the ordinary way in individual envelopes. Upon being delivered they are placed in the ballot-box and ultimately go into the count. Could anything be simpler? By that means, ballots of the Federated Clerks Union are consistently faked in the interests of the Communists. yet the members of the Communist executive of that organization invariably reply to charges of faking by saying, in effect, “ The ballot cannot possibly be faked while the key to the ballotbox is held by an outside official “. But they do not disclose that a Communist printed the ballot-papers and that an uncheckable opportunity exists under their system for Communists to fill in a proportion of the ballot-papers in favour of Communist candidates. Thus the scrutineers find that everything is in order and that the result is what the Communist wants to achieve just as the audience is amazed by the conjurer when he produces what he wants his audience to find.

But that is not the only way of faking ballots. I am obliged to the honorable member for Bendigo for certain remarks that he made in this respect. He pointed out that in many instances rank-and-file members of trade unions are deprived of a vote because they are technically unfinancial. We know that that is another way in which the Communists work. I do not think that the bill makes provision to meet that contingency. Without having consulted the Minister on the matter, I should like to say to the honorable member for Bendigo that if he cares to draft a provision in order to cover such a contingency, I believe that the Government would probably accept it. fu any event, whether -the Government accepted it or not, I certainly would vote for such a provision if I deemed it to be effective. I issue a. challenge to the honorable member to submit such an amendment. There may be some merit in his contention that the bill still contains loop-holes. If that is so, I suggest that he draft provisions to close those loop-holes and submit them to the Minister. I believe that he will find no lack of support from honorable members on this side for any constructive suggestion that he may make in that respect. But what has the honorable member done? He has made a speech that will incite trade unionists to get onside with the Communists and thus protect Communists and other crooks who hold their positions in trade unions because they have been elected to them at fake ballots. The honorable member is on the side of the fakers. Supporters of the Government are on the side of the people who want the rank and file of unionists to gain clean and honest control of their organization. That is a matter that we can safely leave to the rank-and-file trade unionist. I refer again to the remarks of the honorable member for Fort Adelaide. He was correct when he said that the Government parties put this issue very clearly to the people at the last general election and that the people gave to those parties a mandate to introduce this measure. In those circumstances, will he and his colleagues line themselves up with those who want honest control of trade unions to enable rankandfile members to express their wishes or with crooks, Communist or otherwise, who do not want clean ballots and who hold their positions in trade unions because they have profited by unclean ballots in the past?

I shall now direct the attention of honorable members to certain arguments that the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) advanced in an article that he contributed to the Sydney Sun of the 22nd August last in which he dealt with the inadequacy of the Chifley Government’s legislation of 1949 to ensure that trade unions shall be properly controlled by their rank-and-file members. Honorable members will recall that that act which was sponsored by the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) when he was Attorney-General in the Chifley Government, did everything to which the Opposition now objects except that it did not provide effective precautions against the faking of ballots. In the article to which I have referred the honorable member for Yarra stated -

The current argument against such legislation (to enforce Government control of secret ballots) is that the Arbitration Act already provides for an aggrieved unionist to appeal to the Court, where he has evidence that abuses took place in a union election.

This argument, however, signally fails to meet the needs of the moment. Before an aggrieved unionist can avail himself of it, he has to produce proof of abuses.

Where the printing and issue of the ballot papers, the compilation of the voters’ roll and the counting of the ballot papers and the ballot box are all in the hands of one particular group this is very difficult.

Certainty that a ballot has been rigged ls far from the proof that the Court requires before it will upset a ballot.

Even if ballot-riggers .make mistakes and evidence of their rigging is forthcoming, the average worker has not the necessary finance to embark on litigation that experience ‘has proved to be most costly and which, if he fails, will have to be met from his own pocket.

In any case, he rightly feels that no unionist or group of unionists should have to go through the same harrowing, costly campaign which those few unions which have been able to rid themselves of the Reds by existing legislation have had to put up’ with before they got a properly controlled election.

Those are strong words, and they are embedded in an article which supports to the hilt every contention that I have put forward this evening. They are words which no honorable member opposite, who is honest, will dare to forget.

Mr GALVIN:
Kingston

.-! oppose the bill. I shall endeavour to place before the House the viewpoint of moderate trade unionists and their moderate officials concerning it. Until I was recently elected to the Parliament, I was an official of a trade union, in which capacity I made daily contact with moderates whom supporters of the Government claim that they are seeking to protect by introducing this measure. Whatever may be the Government’s intentions, the bill will have the effect of destroying the trade union movement financially and, at the same time, destroying our present system of industrial conciliation and arbitration that has been of so much benefit to the workers of this country. This measure can be applied only in respect of trade unions that are registered with the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. It will not affect other trade unions, including, for example, the Building Workers Industrial Union, which has been deregistered. It will be totally ineffective because it will place trade unions in a position in which they will be deprived of adequate financial resources to carry on their affairs and will force them to withdraw their registration from the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. This bill will play right into the hands of the Communists, who strongly advocate collective bargaining, because unions will be compelled to adopt that method, and thereby will be weakened.

The Government, in order to strengthen its case for the introduction of secret ballots, has expressed considerable con cern for the welfare of unionists who may be under the domination of Communist officials. I believe that the Government is more concerned about the persons who are elected to offices in the unions, regardless of the manner in which the ballot is conducted. It does not want as officials persons who are prepared, if necessary, to take militant action, whether they be called moderates or Communists. The Government wants union officials to be men who will conduct the affairs of the organizations in the way it desires, so that it will be able to say to them, in effect, “You are doing a fine job, even if it is not a good job for your own members “.

Under this bill, judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court are to have the right to deal exclusively with such matters as long-service leave and sick leave. That proposal is a retrograde move. Conciliation commissioners were appointed a few years ago to deal expeditiously with industrial disputes. The Government claims that uniformity must be preserved in such matters as longservice leave and sick leave and that, for that reason, the judges of the court must determine such applications. Any person who has had experience of industrial matters knows that the conciliation commissioners strictly observe uniformity in making their determinations. Applications by unions to vary awards are refused almost daily because a major case is before a conciliation commissioner, and other conciliation commissioners are awaiting his decision. The conciliation commissioners confer regularly with the Chief Judge and the other judges of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Therefore, uniformity in industrial awards is preserved, regardless of whether the matters are handled by judges of the Court or by the conciliation commissioners. It is so much eyewash to say that, in the interests of uniformity, applications for long-service leave and sick leave must be dealt with exclusively by the judges. This provision in the bill will delay applications before the court, and will cause more industrial disputes than there arc at the present time.

The Government also proposes, when it thinks fit, to interfere with the rights of employer and employee by bringing matters to the notice of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. I suggest thai the Government’s contribution to industrial harmony would be more valuable if it allowed employers and employees to settle their own differences around the conference table, and by consent, if necessary, before a conciliation commissioner. The Government should not interfere between employer and employee, because its interference will cause industrial disputes.

Opposition members have repeatedly pointed out in this debate that the rules of unions almost invariably provide for secret ballots to be taken for the election of their officials. The Government is interested, not so much in the secret ballots, as in the result of the elections of union officials. It hopes that a different result may be obtained if a secret ballot is conducted by the Industrial Registrar. I, personally, do not think that a different result would be obtained regardless of who conducts the ballot, because I do not consider that union ballots to-day are rigged to the extent that the people are led to believe to be the case. I have been associated with two unions as an official, and with four unions as a member of the. rank and file. Hysteria has been caused by persons who do not understand, or who are not in a position to understand the method by which most unions conduct their ballots.

The Government or the employers may apply to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court for a ballot to be conducted when an industrial dispute is looming, or in an attempt to localize a dispute. What will be the position if unionists decide, at such a ballot, to go on strike?

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– They will still be fined.

Mr GALVIN:

– That is true. Even if the unionists decide that they have a just cause for striking, and proceed to go on strike, they will be liable, upon conviction, to a fine. A union official who may advise the members of an organization, after a secret ballot has been taken, to go on strike will be liable to a fine of £200, the union itself to a fine of £500, and a member of the rank and file who participates in a strike to a fine of £50.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It is tyranny.

Mr GALVIN:

– A trade union official has a duty to his members. He is required to advise them when he considers that certain action should be taken. Unjust awards have been made in the past, and undoubtedly will be made in the future. A union official who is receiving his bread and butter from the members of an organization has a duty to advise them of the proper course for them to take if it is considered that an award is unjust. If he advises them to go on strike, he may be fined £200, or be sentenced to imprisonment for twelve months, and the union itself may be fined £500. If the Government desired to make a union bankrupt, it would merely need to apply that penalty to it a few times. Most unions which were so penalized would be forced to go out of existence very quickly. The inflationary period through which we are now passing is affecting the finances of the trade unions, and, because this Government will not take action to stem inflation, the finances of industrial organizations are being sapped.

Proposed new section 91 provides that records shall .be kept and filed by industrial organizations. A numerically small union, in order to observe that requirement will need to employ a clerk almost exclusively to keep those records. A numerically large union will require a staff of several persons to do that work. The unions will be obliged to pay the salaries of those employees. I do not think that the Government proposes to assist the industrial organizations financially to meet those costs on their funds. The majority of the unions are not in a position to incur that expenditure. Proposed new section 91 (8.) provides -

The register of members of an organization shall be made available by the organization for inspection, during the usual office hour*, by any person authorized by the Registrar, at the office of the organization or, in the case of a part of the register which is kept at the office of a branch of the organization, at that office.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Will the secretary of the Communist party be able to see the list of the names of members of an organization?

Mr GALVIN:

– The secretary of the Communist party, the secretary of the Liberal party or an employer may apply to the Industrial Registrar for authority to examine the list of the members of an industrial organization. Certain employers in South Australia will be most gratified to obtain that information for their own use. In spite of the progress that trade unionism has made in this country, many bosses still insist that no unionists shall be employed in their factories.

Mr Wheeler:

– That is not correct.

Mr GALVIN:

– I came from the trade union movement into this House, and I can take the honorable member for Mitchell (Mr. Wheeler) to such places in South Australia.

Mr Wheeler:

– Name them.

Mr GALVIN:

– I shall not name them here. If the .honorable gentleman will come with me, I will take him to them.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I shall name them.

Mr GALVIN:

– It required the Chamber of Manufactures in South Australia to put pressure on one employer to allow a union to try to organize the workers in his establishment.

Mr Wheeler:

– How many persons did he employ?

Mr GALVIN:

– At least 200 men. As soon as the union establishes itself in a small way in that establishment, and as soon as the employer ascertains the names of the men who have joined it, he conveniently trumps up an excuse for giving them notice. What would be the position under this measure? Employers who want to have non-union shops will be able to ease out of their factories the men who have joined unions. The Communists may desire to obtain the names of the members of certain unions in order to send circulars to them. The secretary of the Liberal party may wish to send propaganda to the members of a union. The Communist and the Liberal will be able to get the list of names. It is completely unjust that such information should be made available to any such person.

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) has stated in his second-reading speech that regulations will be promulgated to fix the number or proportion of the members of an organization who may apply to the Industrial Registrar for a secret ballot. The Government has in mind, for elections to a central body, 1,000 members or 10 per cent, of the membership, and for branch elections 500 members or 20 per cent, of the membership, whichever is the less in each case. ‘The Australian Workers Union has approximately 14,000 members in South Australia employed in various industries throughout the State. It would be easy for any group of members that was dissatisfied with the result of a ballot to say, “We think this a crook ballot, and we shall ask the registrar to conduct a new ballot”, and then go through the various factories and obtain the number of signatures necessary for that purpose. It would be a simple matter for the Communists in moderate unions to send representatives to places of employment on some pretext to whip up hysteria against union officials. When this bill becomes law, minority groups will make requests continually for new elections to be conducted by the Industrial Registrar. But the trade unions must finance such elections. The Government pretends to be concerned about the trade union movement, but obviously ‘ it has not considered the ability of the unions to carry out its proposals. Legislation such as this could destroy the trade union movement, and one could be forgiven for thinking that that is its principal object. According to my interpretation of the relevant provision in the bill, the Industrial Registrar will be compelled to conduct a new ballot upon the receipt of a petition signed by the appropriate number of union members. That provision states -

Where a request is made or purports to be made t under this section, the Industrial Registrar shall, after making such inquiries (if any) as he considers necessary, decide whether or not the request has been duly made.

No provision is made to allow him to exercise his discretion. When a request is made in the correct way, he will be obliged to conduct an election.

The Minister said in his second-reading speech that the present conciliation and arbitration law was a hotchpotch of ideas and concepts evolved over a period of 60 years or more. I suggest that this bill is contrary to the ideas and ideals which inspired the- men who framed and developed the present conciliation and arbitration system in Australia. It will force the trade unions away from the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and will force them to adopt the law of the jungle. I warn the Government that moderate trade union leaders will nol weaken under any threat which may be implicit in the measure. They will fight probably harder than any Communist’ trade union leader to resist its provisions. Therefore, I hope that the Government is not taking it for granted that the trade union leaders who have been described as moderate and open-minded will accept this measure. In fact they will fight it tooth and nail. The legislation that was introduced in 1949 by the Chifley Government contained ample provision for the conduct of new elections in the event of irregularities in the trade union ballots. It provided that any trade union member who suspected that there had been malpractices in a ballot and could produce facts to support his suspicion could apply to the Industrial Registrar to declare the election void. That was sufficient to protect the interests of the unions. Therefore, I urge the Government to reconsider this bill. It may be easy to enact the measure, but it will not be easy to apply it in practice. It could lead to industrial action on a nation-wide scale, and I hope that I shall never live to see such an upheaval. That is why I ask the Government earnestly to give further consideration to its proposals before the bill becomes law. The bill will serve only to weld all sections of the trade union movement, moderate and radical, together in a common determination to resist it.

Mr EGGINS:
Lyne

.- The honorable member for Kingston (Mr. Galvin) remarked that in his opinion the legislation which was introduced by the Chifley Government in 1949 contained all the safeguards that were necessary in relation to trade union elections. I remind him of the statement that was made at the time by the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), who was then the Attorney-General. The right honorable gentleman said -

Proper control of the affairs of a trade union by its members - not by any individual or body which is not a member, but by all its members - -has become essential not only to the trade union movement but also to the entire community.’

He added that this might lead, in the future, to other suggestions being made for the development of the trade union movement in the democratic structure of to-day. This bill will take Australia further along the path of progress that the right honorable gentleman had in mind when he made that statement. Yet members of the party which he leads in this Parliament now say that our industrial laws should be left alone! The honorable member for Kingston made a very reckless statement when he said that he knew, from his own association with the trade union movement, that there were few, if any, malpractices in the conduct of union affairs. Apparently he has been wandering down a dark lane and has not been noticing events. I refer him to the report of the royal commission which investigated Communist activities in the trade unions in Victoria about two years ago. The former Communist, Sharpley, stated before the commission that union ballots were frequently rigged. A great deal of evidence was submitted to the commission in support of that charge. Earlier in this debate the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) referred to statements by the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) and other members of the Opposition which alone would justify the provisions of this bill.

The honorable member for Kingston declared confidently that trade union leaders would fight the measure. We want the rank-and-file members of the trade union movement, not the leaders, to express their views. We have tolerated a certain class of union leader in this country for long enough, and the time has come for the ordinary unionist to assert himself. No genuine and honest trade union leader need be concerned about the effect of the provisions of this measure upon his organization. He will have nothing to fear from the members of his union if he has done his job honorably and well. Rank-and-file unionists will merely be given the right to express their views, and the Government deserves full credit for deciding to give that right to them. This bill is based on sound logic. There are good reasons for its introduction. Australia is suffering severely as the result of lagging production in the industrial field. It has increased production only by about 10 per cent, since the end of World War II., whereas the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom and other countries have achieved much better results. Why have our industries been unable to make a better contribution to the needs of the nation? An examination of the facts discloses positive evidence of a planned scheme to prevent industry from engaging in an all-out production effort. Ae I have said in this House previously, no intelligent person questions the decision of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court to establish a 40-hour working week. But honorable members on this side of the House are gravely concerned because employees in many industries are working only a 35-hour or 36-hour week. This situation is due entirely to the fact that the leaders of many trade unions to-day are not working in the national interest. They do not want industry to increase production. Members of the Opposition speak always as though the trade union movement belonged exclusively to them and as though nobody else had an interest in it. The truth is that the whole nation is interested in the trade unions. All good citizens want to encourage union organization. I do so wherever possible in the industries with which I am associated. But we want to see good honest leadership in the trade union movement.

Members of the Opposition have made many extravagant statements about our system of conciliation and arbitration. Of what use is it to have such a system when the parties to industrial disputes are not prepared to accept the decisions of the court? The Australian arbitration system is possibly without equal anywhere else in the world. There was a time when the leaders of the trade union movement gave most of their time to castigat- ing the capitalistic class and saying how it was keeping people down. The majority of strikes in this country are now directed against government organizations, not against the capitalist class. If members of the trade union movement who are working for socialized bodies are not prepared to accept the decisions of the court what is the use of arbitration ? The court must have some power to enforce its decisions. Honorable members of the Opposition have spoken freely about the right to strike. The Parliament has provided the best possible machinery for arbitration and has given both sides every opportunity to place their case before the court. Consequently, when the court makes a decision no side has the right to strike.

During this sessional period almost every honorable member of the Opposition has criticized the Government for not taking some steps to prevent the inflationary movement. Now that the Government has brought down a proposal to attack the real cause of inflation the same, honorable members have stated that it must not do such things. They have told the Government to leave such matters alone because it has no right to interfere. It is not possible to correct the inflationary position except by increased production, and not one honorable member of the Opposition has at any time during this or any other debate .made any reference to the need for increased production. They have completely disregarded that factor, and yet they have continued to ask what the Government is doing about inflation. The Government has introduced this measure in order to attack the real cause of the inflationary movement. If members of the trade union movement are given the right to express themselves through the ballot-box they will be able to counter the forces that are trying to prevent an allout production effort. This matter has been placed before the people and throughout the nation there has been growing anxiety in regard to the production effort. The results of the last general election were so convincingly in favour of the Government that it was clear that the Government gained a mandate to introduce the legislation which was described. in general terms by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) prior to the general election. In view of the great vote that the Government received it must be admitted that a large number of trade union members voted for the Government.

The honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey) is a man of wide trade union experience. It was apparent that he was on a very difficult wicket in trying to defend the attitude of the Labour party to this measure. He recognized the needs of the trade unions and yet he stated that honorable members on this side of the House and the Government desired to crush the movement. There are 1,500,000 trade union members registered in Australia and they, with their families, represent a tremendous part of the population. For honorable members of the Opposition to say that the Government’s object is to smash the trade union movement indicates that they lack a sound argument against the bill. They recognize that it represents the correct approach to the problem that is facing the country. The honorable member for Leichhardt (Mr. Bruce) said that he had been a member of a government in Queensland that had been returned year after year. But what did the Queensland people do at the last general election? They supported the proposals of this Government to such a degree that it was able to gain six out of the ten Queensland Senate seats. The Government has declared its definite objective to be to smash communism. That is the first responsibility of the Government. In doing that it will have the overwhelming support of the Australian people including the great majority of trade union members. In spite of what honorable members opposite may say -and in spite of what some leaders of the trade unions might do, the Government will receive that support and proceed with this and other measures, because, unless it smashes communism, communism will smash the trade union movement. Honorable members should recognize that fact and give the Government an opportunity to put its proposals into effect.

I expected, long before this, to hear from trade .union leaders some proposal for the increase of production. It is not a long while since the Government of the United Kingdom sent a body of trade union leaders to the United States of America to investigate methods of production in order to increase the output of industries in the United Kingdom where a great battle was going on for economic survival. After they returned from the United States of America those men gave the benefit of their experience to the Government of the United Kingdom and throughout industry there was a marked benefit from their efforts. But there is no interest in increased production in this country. Rather is there a policy of “ go slow “ as far as a lot of our leaders are concerned. It is the responsibility of trade union leaders in a young country such as this is to assist in organization for production. I have never heard a trade union leader suggest how his members could obtain increased output by some improved means of production. If the trade union movement would address itself to trying the improved methods of production it would serve a far greater purpose for the country and the trade union movement.

When the hours of work for trade unionists in this country were reduced by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court, no effort was made by the trade union movement or the former Labour Government to re-organize the country by introducing the most modern equipment. It was left to this Government to make an effort to bring capital goods to Australia to assist in the achievement of additional production. Only recently, approval was granted for the expenditure of 40,000,000 dollars for the purpose of bringing capital equipment to Australia in order to modernize methods of production. This was made possible by a loan that was arranged by the Prime Minister with the International Bank. That 40,000,000 dollars’ worth of equipment will be of great service to the country and the trade union movement. The former Labour Government did nothing to help in that respect. It may be twelve months or more before all this equipment will have arrived in Australia, but when it is installed it will make a great difference in the rate of production. I should like the leaders of the trade union movement to become interested in matters of this kind in order to help management to become equipped foi the great task that lies ahead. The time has come when-

Conversation being audible,

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I can hear too much conversation altogether. Honorable gentlemen should not converse with one another in this chamber. The lobbies may be used for that purpose.

Mr EGGINS:

– In these difficult days of national crisis the ranks of ‘ the trade union movement and the manufacturing and producing industries should be closed. Australia has a great arbitration system. If we increase production we can overcome all our difficulties. The great majority of strikes are now directed against government organizations such as the Joint Coal Board or the railways. They are not directed against the capitalist as they were years ago. The struggle between the trade union movement and government organizations has reduced production to such a state that if vp do not awaken to our responsibility we shall suffer very seriously before many years pass by. The bill before the House contains fifteen clauses, which will obviously be debated at full length at the committee stage. Members of the Opposition have dealt with clause after clause in their remarks, but have confined themselves to destructive criticism and have made no constructive suggestions. We wish to know the real reasons why the Opposition opposes the provision of secret ballots for the election of trade union officials. Honorable members opposite say that such a provision already exists in many union rules. If that is so what is their objection to the inclusion of the same provision in this measure, but in a wider form that will ensure that it will be carried out effectively? The bill does not propose to disturb the position of a union that is conducting its affairs satisfactorily. But it does give to rank-and-file unionists the opportunity to take advantage of its provisions so that where they consider that there are good reasons for cleansing their organizations they can do so. The bill, in fact, gives to members of trade unions, in connexion with the election of their officers, the same rights as they possess as members of the community in con nexion with the election of members of this Parliament by secret ballot. That is the democratic system.

The bill also .provides for the strengthening of the injunction power of the court. As I have remarked before, an arbitration system that is not accepted by both sides in a dispute is of little value, lt is necessary therefore that the court should have power to ensure that its decisions shall be carried into effect. After all, this proposal is intended only to give to the court a power that it considered it already had until the High Court ruled otherwise. Yet honorable members opposite have made a tremendous outcry about the proposal. In addition to making provision for secret ballots for the election of trade union officials, and for safeguards in connexion with the election of such officials, the bill gives the court power to order a ballot in connexion with a threatened industrial dispute. That provision will enable many strikes to be avoided. For far too long in this country we have seen industrial troubles reach great proportions before any of our legal instruments could deal with them. This measure will bring us to an advanced stage in that respect by making it possible for the court to order a ballot in connexion with an industrial dispute.

Mr Rosevear:

– But suppose a ballot decision is in favour of a strike. What would then be the position?

Mr EGGINS:

– At least if a ballot had been honestly conducted by the trade union concerned, and the members had voted secretly under the controls to bc provided by this measure we should know the issue had been genuinely voted on, and then we should have some reason to believe that the trade union had a just claim.. Nobody would say that this bill is perfect in every respect, but at least it will provide an opportunity for the members of a trade union to express an honest opinion by means of a secret ballot. If that opportunity is given, the people of this country, even outside the trade union movement, will feel that at least the rank and file members have had an opportunity to express themselves. The bill also provides for many other requirements and for the imposition of limited penalties. When honorable members opposite are debating the bill at the committee stage they should produce constructive proposals for the better operation of the measure and for the improved working of our industrial system, which will result in the increased production that we so urgently need.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The repetition from the Government side of the House in relation to this measure reminds me that any person with a passion for repetition has usually very little of any importance to say. In this matter it is quite evident that the Government is quite out of its depth. It is one thing to talk about secret ballots to throw Communists out of trade unions; to control the unions, whatever that may mean; and to make those brave and gallant promises that were made on the hustings by honorable members opposite. It is another thing to come into this House and, under the cold analytical stare of this Opposition, talk all the nonsense that has been spoken here to-day. There is no question but that the debate on this measure is a case of gentlemen versus players, because whatever honorable members opposite may think, the real knowledge of tha facts and the real experience are on this side of the House. We have heard the doodling of the dairy-farmer from the north, the honorable member for Lyne (Mr. Eggins) in his endeavour to relate the 40-hour week to the fact that somebody should clean up the trade unions. Such woolly thinking at this hour of the night has brought me to my feet when probably all of us might be better engaged. His arguments were typical of those from the Government side.

I was amazed to see who were the protagonists of trade unionism on the other side, the sudden lovers of working-class causes. Wo had the honorable member for Mackellar (Mr. Wentworth) literally yearning over us and saying that he loves the Labour movement and finds nothing wrong with trade unionists, although we do not forget that he did try to organize some sort of putsch against them when an unfortunate gentleman named Dobson fell into the sea and was rescued. The honor able member for Lyne said that there was nothing wrong with the trade unions and that honorable members on his side of the House like them. Then he started to whine about the 40-hour week and about ill the lovely things his electors have lost as a result of it. A lot of stupid nonsense is being uttered on the Government side of the chamber on this measure, because the Government’s supporters are uneasy about their brief. As I have already said, it. is one thing to make a lot of rabble-rousing pronouncements on the hustings and another thing to do something sincere and effective about legislation of so complicated a nature as this is. Legislation in relation to conciliation and arbitration has always been contentious and difficult, and I say again that we on this Bide of the House have the experience in relation to framing it. Anybody who doubts that fact should have listened to .the speech of the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Clarey). It was the speech of an experienced trade unionist, both on the administrative side and in industry. His orderly, cold, calm dissection of this bill was something worth listening to and something that the Government should consider. He warned the Government that for various reasons this bill will not work and that Ministers cannot start reforming the country by attacking the trade unions, which, with the workers behind them, are the backbone of the country. He gave very good reasons why this legislation will not work. He pointed out its inherent stupidities, and emphasized the fact that the Government had acted on insufficient information. When it comes to industrial matters, the experience of honorable members on this side of the House far outweighs that of honorable members opposite, who cannot hope to make up their leeway by a short course of study. The honorable member for Bendigo pointed out that there had been a slowing down of the arbitration machinery because of the numerous applications to the court, and because of the complexities that have been introduced into industrial legislation. If the Government further complicates procedure by requiring unions to supply detailed information about who is and who is not on the books it will clog the machinery hopelessly, which is just what the Communists want. There is always a danger when amateurs try to do the job of tradesmen.

Honorable members opposite speak of secret ballots as if they represented a magic formula that would resolve all difficulties. Any schoolboy with a secondary education in civics could tell the Government that most trade unions, though not all, already have provision in their rules for the taking of secret ballots. The trouble is that if the rule were applied it would bog down the whole system of unionism with no resultant improvement so far as strikes are concerned. There seems to be a hazy idea abroad that the holding of secret but not compulsory ballots will always produce a negative answer to the question whether unionists should go on strike or not. Some honorable members opposite have conceded to unionists the right to strike, whereas others of them have not. Evidently, the Opposition has not made up its mind on this point. The fact that it is not proposed to make voting compulsory in the secret ballot will make this provision useless. The provisions of this legislation will make it so difficult for trade union leaders to carry on that the unions will seek deregistration, and the employers and employees will return to> the system of collective bargaining. I am not sure that that is not the thinly disguised purpose of the Government in introducing the bill. Its protestations of interest in the welfare of the workers are too tearfully warm and too recent to be convincing. This legislation will place such obligations upon trade unions as to make it financially impossible for them to carry on. Evidently the framers of the bill paid no heed to the complex organization of the Australian Workers Union, for instance, the members, of which are scattered all over Australia and are engaged on seasonal work of various kinds. The effect of this legislation will be to make the term “ arbitration court” a misnomer. The court will become in fact a court of coercion, and if that happens it will be destroyed. This is not the first time in our rough island story that a government has attacked the workers’ organizations. P we consult Hansard, our Domesday

Book, by means of which so many men have been condemned out of their own mouths, we can read speeches in which politicians have bitterly condemned trade unionism.

This bill is made up of a gaggle of clauses, many of which are incapable of interpretation. I refuse to be moved by the pious utterances of dairy-farmers or the protestations of barristers that they have the keenest interest in the welfare of unionists whose affairs they have studied for years. The honorable member for Lyne (Mr. Eggins) could not resist a final stab at the unionists, and he talked about sabotage. All industries have been guilty of sabotage at one time or an other, and some of the primary industries have been the most guilty of all. We remember that there was a time when dairy-farmers fed milk to pigs rather than allow human beings to get it cheap. When honorable members opposite are tempted to talk about sabotage by unionists, let them remember that the farmers had developed the habit long before the workers. If some unionists have now learnt to practice sabotage, it has been through force of circumstances.

The first comment I make about this legislation is that it will not work. Other comment, I suppose, is unnecessary, but 1 shall state some further objections. It must result m a slowing down of the work, of the Arbitration Court, the opera. tiona of which are already tortuous enough. Most of the troubles on the coal-fields arise out of delays by tribunals in the hearing of applications. In other industries, too, similar difficulties have arisen. Postal workers and railway employees have been waiting a long time to have their cases heard. Now, the Government’s contribution to industrial peace in our time is to introduce legislation that will have the effect of clogging still more hopelessly the arbitration machinery. The arbitration system has proved its worth, and this is not the time to add to its difficulties. Trade union leaders, should not be harrassed by regulations which give bureaucrats power to require them to fill in forms in triplicate. There is a danger that unionists will be driven to strike out of a sense of irritation. The legal lights, among honorable members opposite have indulged in mental gymnastics in an effort to prove that black is white. It is probable that, in this instance as in others, if the matter goes to the High Court for decision it will be found to be neither black nor white. The honorable member for Kingston proved conclusively that this legislation would worsen the industrial position. It may lead eventually to the de-registration of important unions which should co-operate with the court.

The Government should rid itself of the illusion that complete industrial calm is possible. The lion does not lie down with the lamb. In spite of pious platitudes uttered from time to time there are reasons why a vigorous policy should be maintained by trade unions. Much of our industrial legislation is aimed at the tough union fighters. This bill reflects a fear complex on the part of the Government and its supporters. It is born of hatred skilfully concealed. If the honest intention of the Government is to get rid of Communists in trade unions, this legislation is not the way to go about it.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Dean) adjourned.

page 957

SUGAR AGREEMENT BILL 1951

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) read a first time.

page 957

ADJOURNMENT

War Service Homes - National Service - Health and Medical Services - Immigration.

Motion (by Mr. Eric J. Harrison) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.-As it is still fairly early having regard to the hour at which the House has been rising recently, I desire to raise a matter on behalf of the ex-servicemen of this country who are trying to buy homes through the War Service Homes Division of the Department of Works and Housing.

Mr Treloar:

– Tell us something else.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr DUTHIE:

– The honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Treloar) can leave the chamber if he. does not desire to listen to me.

Mr.curtin.-The honorable member for Gwydir is not interested in exservicemen.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr DUTHIE:

– The first matter I shall refer to is that it is necessary to increase the loan limit from £2,000 to £2,500. Secondly, the decisions of the division should be made more quickly in respect of applications for loans. The first matter has been aired fairly frequently in this House, and it is perfectly obvious that the £2,000 limit has no relation to the present costs of home building. Not many homes which can give any security for the future can be built for less than £2,000. Because of this limit, ex-servicemen find that they are unable to take advantage of this government instrumentality and have to go to private enterprise to obtain finance for the building of their homes. I support other honorable members, who, in the House, have advocated an increase of the maximum advance. Although the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), when asked a question about this matter to-day, gave a rather longer answer than is usual for him, I still believe that he should make it a top priority matter for the consideration of Cabinet. I do not believe that there is any difficulty involved in increasing the loan limit, and to do so would only be fair to ex-servicemen who urgently need homes.

Many ex-servicemen are humble fel- lows, who earn humble wages and salaries, and they want to build homes through the War Service Homes Division. When they find a contractor who is willing to build for them they make an application to the division for a loan. While they are waiting for a decision home-building costs continue to rise. The delay in obtaining a decision on an application is very often so great that an exserviceman is forced to pay several hundred pounds more for his home than he would have had to pay had he got his loan earlier. I shall now mention the case of an ex-serviceman who lives in Tasmania. I shall call him Mr. Smith. He arranged for a builder to build his home and was quoted £1,600 for the job. He applied to the War Service Homes Division for a loan. Thirteen months passed before Mr. Smith was informed that he could go ahead and build the house. In that time the contract price had increased to £1,832. Since then the price has increased by another £125, to £1,957. Mr. Smith is a humble worker in a north-west coast town of Tasmania, and he receives a fixed wage. He has been told that under the relevant act it is his duty to find the extra money needed by the contractor because of rising costs. If he cannot find it, I believe that the division has a right under the act to sell his home and land. I suggest that the Minister should consider that matter, also. The delay in getting a decision has cost Mr. Smith £125 more than the final contract price, and £357 more than his first quote.

I know that investigations must be made into the history of an applicant, the security of his job, his ability to pay and so on, but, although there may be many cases to be investigated, the work of the department should be speeded up so that skyrocketing costs may be countered. If that is not done these men will continue to be treated very unfairly. The delay is crippling many ex-servicemen who are still living in flats or in one or two rooms that they obtained upon their return from the war. I sincerely hope that the Government will increase the loan limit to £2,500 at least, and will try to speed up the decisions of the War Service Homos Division. Home-building costs have increased by 10 per cent, since Christmas, 1950, and flooring board has increased from 28s. 6d. to 36s. a 100 super, feet. I put these matters forward without criticizing the War Service Homes authorities in the different States. Perhaps the department has to do a lot of work that we do not know of, but in justice to the ex-servicemen the Government should make these matters a top priority. I ask the Minister at the table (Mr. Holt) to take up the matter with the responsible Minister.

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · Denison · LP

– I am in complete agreement with the sentiments expressed by the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) and, as I have said in this House from time to time recently, a considerable amount of atten tion is being given to the matter of increasing the maximum loan that may be granted by the War Service Homes Division. Another matter raised by the honorable member was the delay on the part of the division in making decisions to grant loans. I point out that an increase of the maximum allowance as suggested could not be granted lightly. In Australia there are 800,000 ex-service persons entitled to war service homes benefits, and since the original act was passed 73,000 homes have been provided. This Government, since December, 1949, has provided 20,000 of those homes. That is to say, over one-fourth of all the war service homes that have been provided since the beginning of operation of the war service homes authority, have been provided during the period of office of this Government.

Mr Duthie:

– Some of the homes were commenced during the term of office of the Chifley Government.

Mr TOWNLEY:

– The fact is that 73,000 war service homes have been provided and that this is the largest single home-building authority in Australia. Of that number, 25,000 have been provided in the last two years, and 6,000 houses are at present in course of construction. For purposes of political comparison, I point out that during th* last year of office of the Chifley Administration only 6,000 war service homes wenbuilt. We have more than that number under construction right now and 19,000 approved applications still await fulfilment. Because of greatly increased building costs, home-building authorities throughout Australia are ceasing to provide finance for house construction, and the consequence is that the division is confronted with a much greater number of applications. Although I am an exserviceman and am therefore in complete sympathy with ex-servicemen who desire to obtain homes through this authority, and although I believe that we should make the greatest possible advance to exservicemen for that purpose, I point out that any increase of the amount of advance to a home builder must necessarily reduce the total number of houses that can be built because there is a limit to the funds that can be provided for that purpose. During the current year £25,000,000 has already been expended by the division, and I point out to the honorable member for Wilmot that if the amount of individual advances were increased to a figure mentioned in certain quarters and to quote the extreme case every ex-serviceman who is entitled to apply for a war service home did so, the increase alone would be £730,000,000. Although I assure the honorable gentleman that everything possible will be done to provide houses for ex-servicemen, he must realize that there is a limit to the amount of money that the community can provide for that purpose. But the matter will be examined not only with care but also with sympathy.

Mr POLLARD:
Lalor

– I direct the attention of the Minister for the Army (Mr. Francis) to a matter that I raised in a question that I addressed to him recently concerning the position under the national service scheme of young men who have been members of school cadet corps. On that occasion, the Minister replied that young men who had undergone school cadet training would be in a favoured position in comparison with other young men called up for national service training because they would probably be able to qualify more rapidly for advancement in rank. Unfortunately, that reply indicates a misconception on the part of the Minister of the purport of my question, and I take this opportunity to explain the matter clearly. Many parents and others consider that young men who have undergone training in school cadets corps from the age of twelve to eighteen years, during which period they will have attended parades regularly and will have completed field training in, perhaps, three camps each of ten days duration, to say nothing of special courses, should be given credit for the time that they have already devoted voluntarily to military training. It seems illogical and unfair that a young man who has served for a number of years in a cadet corps and has received valuable military training should be required again to undergo elementary training under the national service scheme. I should be glad, therefore, if the Minister will give consideration to this important matter and inform me of the result of hia consideration in due course.

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I shall make a few observations about the medical services that will be provided for pensioners in pursuance of the announcement made by the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) yesterday. The benefits mentioned in that statement are remarkable in many ways. A pensioner will be entitled to receive a domiciliary medical service. That is to say, he will be entitled to receive medical attention either in his own home or in the consulting room of a local practitioner. Secondly, pensioners will be provided free with medicines not only of the category prescribed for the whole community under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, but also of other categories of special drugs mentioned in the Minister’s announcement. The provision of medical services for pensioners has been the subject of a great deal of misconception on the part of many people and a great deal of nonsense has been talked about it and about the position of pensioners during the last eighteen months in this chamber. The position in that prior to the introduction of the present scheme, pensioners received medical treatment free of charge at pubic hoa,pitals or from doctors in private practice, again, in many instances, free of charge. Every medical practitioner has been accustomed to treat free of charge pensioners who have been his patients for many years and had paid his fees when they could afford to do so, and also because it was a tradition of the profession to provide such services. That has been the common practice. ‘ Those pensioners had to find ways and means of procuring the medicines that they required, but in many instances the cost was borne by their relatives. Despite what has been said so often, the medicines were not invariably paid for by the pensioners themselves. I do not suggest that many pensioners did not pay for the medical treatment that they received. It has been quite common for a pensioner consult a doctor and pay him, without disclosing the fact that he was a pensioner, but often the fee was, in reality, paid by the -pensioner’s family. Do not let us imagine -that in the past many pensioners did not receive necessary medical treatment because they could not afford to pay for it.

Mr Haylen:

– Does the honorable gentleman say that that is true of industrial areas?

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is perfectly true of industrial areas. ‘

Mr Haylen:

– I do not think it is.

Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I point out to the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) that I have practised for twenty years in an industrial area. The important feature of the new scheme is that pensioners have been provided with a family doctor service at the expense of the State. The standard of medical practice in any country depends upon the standard of general practice. In order to emphasize that point, I shall read to the House two short extracts from the editorial in the April, 1951, issue of the Practitioner, which is one of the leading medical journals in Britain, which iB to say, in the world. The editor, writing of general medical practice in England, where the tendency is not to provide the population with family doctors but to mechanize medicine and nationalize the medical profession, said -

General practice has tended to become a dead-end occupation, in which a comfortable income can be earned only by undertaking more work than can be done well, and in which skill and ability count for nothing.

One of the great advantages of the system of medical treatment for pensioners that has been introduced in this country is that it -will not lead to skill and ability counting for nothing. The editor of the Practitioner also wrote -

A dud can make a successful one-track specialist, ‘but a dud can never make a good or a successful general practitioner. . . . There is nothing in medicine more important, or more difficult to do well, than the work of the general practitioner.

A great feature of the present service for pensioners is that it will tend to maintain a high standard of medical practice in this country.

It must not be assumed that the new system contains no anomalies. The members of the medical profession iti this country .have agreed to treat pensioners for virtually one half of their normal fees. Do not -let us imagine that this magnanimity, if I may so describe it, is directed to the pensioners. What the doctors are paid does not affect pensioners. The advantage of the reduced fees is gained by the authority that pays the fees. That authority is the Commonwealth. Therefore, the medical profession of this country is rendering to the Commonwealth a service for which it is charging only one half of its normal fees, but the financial aspects are not the most important considerations. I conclude by saying that the most important features of the new scheme are that it is designed, first, to preserve the principle of the family doctor and, secondly, to prevent the merchandization and what may -well be called the degradation of the medical profession.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- It is a new departure to speak of degradation when the medical profession is criticized. I remind the honorable member for Oxley (Dr. Donald Cameron) that members of the medical profession are taught medicine in the universities of this country, which are supported largely by the Australian people. Medical men owe something to the community that has enabled them to learn their profession, and one of the best ways in which they could discharge that debt would be to give free treatment to pensioners who cannot afford to pay for treatment. Doctors would not be able to collect fees from anybody if pensioners had not in past years paid taxes, portion of which were expended upon universities at which medical students are taught. In many instances, pensioners have been admitted to public hospitals and used as, so to speak, guinea pigs, so that doctors could learn more of their profession than >they could do from books. All that honorable members have done has been to inquire of the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) where pensioners can go to receive this much vaunted free treatment from the medical profession. I live in and represent a typical industrial area. I -should like to know where the doctors are in that locality who are giving treatment to pensioners. One medical man told me recently that the reason ‘why doctors give treatment ;to pensioners an some towns is that there are only a few pensioners in those places. In other places, where there are many pensioners, the doctors get together and the pensioners do not receive treatment. The honorable member for Oxley quoted from an overseas journal which claimed that doctors had too much work to do to provide proper attention for patients. I have yet to learn that the medical profession in this country has ever been overworked except during epidemics. In my opinion Australian doctors have done pretty well. As I have said, Australian workers who are now drawing pensions have by taxation supported the universities at which medical men learn their profession. Surely there is something owing to the working people in return for that.

The matter of war service homes requires some consideration, particularly in view of the ridiculous statement made by the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley) that £730,000,000 was involved in the war service homes scheme. It is true that if every ex-serviceman wanted a home, the cost of the scheme might be £730,000,000, but the honorable gentlemen knows-

Mr Townley:

Mr. Townley interjecting,

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– It is all right for the honorable member to put this sort of stuff over the returned soldier, but let me say this-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Dalley must address the chair.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Yes ; through you Mr. Speaker, I say it is all right to talk about war service homes’ costing £730,000,000, but that expenditure would only be incurred if every returned soldier applied for and obtained a home. Some men have been waiting for houses for five or six years and during that time building costs in Australia have almost doubled.

Mr Townley:

– For four years of that time a Labour government was in office.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I am not concerned about that. The Minister spoke of -what the division has done. I point out that it is not building homes at all. Ex-servicemen are financed by the divi sion, but the homes are built under contract. The war .service homes authority may prepare a few plans but that is all it does apart from providing the finance. -In conclusion-

Government Supporters. - Hear, hear 1

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I know that honorable members opposite do not like taking their medicine.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will ignore interjections and address the Chair. He enforced that very rule when he himself was Speaker.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I kept you pretty quiet when an honorable member was addressing the House, but I do not notice that being done in my case. The learned doctor received a most attentive, hearing.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! If the House does not wish to listen, I shall willingly leave the chair. I am getting -sick and tired of this behaviour on the adjournment.

Mr Pollard:

– It is your job to keep order.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order !

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– The time has arrived when the War Service Homes Division should be enlarged to enable it to undertake the construction of war service homes. As I indicated in my question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) earlier to-day, I am satisfied that if advances to ex-servicemen were increased, there would be an immediate increase of the price of the houses that they wish to build, because the building exploiters would get in for their cut as they did it before.

I .have dealt with the honorable member for Oxley who sought to castigate honorable members on this side of the chamber for asking reasonable questions. .After all, the aim of the questioners has merely been to ascertain exactly where pensioners can get free medical treatment. If we can get that information, we shall be pleased to pass it on to the pensioners. After listening to the report by the honorable member for Oxley on what the medical profession is doing, I have come to the conclusion that many members of that profession are working in the dark.

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army · Moreton · LP

– The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) hai asked whether some allowance is to be made in the period of national training for service in the cadet corps of public schools and colleges throughout Australia. That matter has been receiving consideration by the Military Board for some time. We are not unmindful of the fact that these young men are doing a good job. I remind the honorable member, however, that national service trainees are only being asked to do 98 days training in the first year of their call-up, and in each succeeding year, fourteen days in camp and twelve days in home training for three years. In the event of war, they will be automatically liable for call-up under the Defence Act, which since its inception has provided that for the defence of Australia, all men between the ages of 18 and 60 years shall be liable for service. We are living in a period of cold war. Never before were armed forces so well equipped or so highly mechanized. The Government and the Military Board believe it to be imperative that, while there is still time, every young man in Australia should learn how to handle modern war equipment, how to look after it, and how to repair it. By so doing young men will be fitting themselves, not only to defend their country, but also to defend themselves. I am sure that if the parents who have made representations to the honorable member for Lalor will examine our defence problem in the light in which I am endeavouring to present it, they will agree that the Government is rendering the best possible service to the youths of this country in these very difficult times by giving them an opportunity to learn the technique of modern warfare. The standard of efficiency necessary for the defence of this country cannot be reached in a few days, a few weeks, or even a few months in a cadet corps. However, I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to our cadet corps and to school headmasters and staffs who with the assistance of staff instructors, are doing their best to train young men. I am sure that upon reflection, every one will agree that, in the circumstances, the

Government’s policy is right. Apparently the honorable member for Lalor is disappointed because the Government is giving to young men who have served in cadet corps an opportunity to use the knowledge that they have already acquired as the basis of training to become noncommissioned officers and junior officers.

Mr Pollard:

– I did not say that I was disappointed.

Mr FRANCIS:

– I am pleased to hear that. The lads who are called up not only serve for three and a half months during the first year but are also obliged to serve for a further three years in the Citizen Military Forces, and it is during the latter period that they may derive from the training that they have already received the opportunity to qualify for promotion to non-commissioned or commissioned rank.

Thursday, 5 July 1951

Mr HOLT:
Minister for Labour and National Service and Minister for Immigration · Higgins · LP

– Although the hour is late, I take this opportunity in fairness to the conscientious and hardworking officers in both the Department of Immigration and the Department of Labour and National Service who conduct our migrant camps and hostels, to refer to one aspect of their administration, which has been given a good deal of unfavorable publicity in recent weeks. Reports have been published of complaints that have emanated from an organization about which I do not know much at the moment, but of which, no doubt, I shall hear a great deal in the immediate future. It is called the British Migrants Association. We have heard complaints about conditions in camps and hostels where migrants are quartered. On a previous occasion, I said that it was significant that because nf a close piece of organization, such complaints about conditions at a number of hostels coincided remarkably with departmental action to increase tariff rates in order to meet higher operating costs. Honorable members may attach due weight to that coincidence. However, I repeat the assurance that I gave previously that when the few complaints that have come in have been given publicity other immigrants in the camps concerned have written to the department dissociating themselves from them and expressing appreciation of what the department is doing. This afternoon I was handed a letter which was written by an immigrant at the Bathurst camp to the controller of that camp. It read -

May I, on behalf of my fellow migrants, thank you and your staff for the fair treatment we have received at this centre. Considering the colossal size of this scheme, we all agree that we have little to grumble about. Unfortunately, it is the grumblers who make themselves heard and maybe you seldom hear a word from those who appreciate what is being done for them. In conclusion a word of praise is due to the cook of the children’s mess (G2) who, I feci sure has the interest of the children at heart. A list of names accompanies this letter.

The letter has been signed on behalf of over 60 British immigrants who arrived on New Australia and are quartered in “G” block at the Bathurst camp. The controller at that centre, Mr. H. G. Guinn, in his covering letter to the secretary of the Department of Immigration said -

I might add that we did not have one complaint from personnel who arrived on the last two ships - -Cameronia and New Australia. The number of persons handled from both these ships totalled 1544.

In order that honorable members and the public generally may obtain a more balanced impression of what is occurring at these centres I am glad to have this opportunity to place on record that letter, which is typical of the views of the large body of immigrants in these camps. The immigrants include many splendid people who are fully appreciative of what the Government is doing for them. I am aware that the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) and the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Joshua) recently visited some of the centres. The department does not claim that it is providing first-class hotel accommodation at them but it is providing good food and shelter for the immigrants and is giving to them an opportunity to fit themselves to carry out a job of work under Australian conditions. I suggest that honorable members who represent electorates in which immigrant hostels or camps are situated should take the opportunity during the forthcoming recess to visit those centres in order to see at first hand the conditions there. I do not suggest that honorable members who wish to do that should give undue notice of their intention, because I should like them t” have an opportunity to see how the hostels are conducted on a day to day basis and I am sure that departmental officers also would prefer that that course be followed.

Mr PEARCE:
Capricornia

– I take this opportunity to remove any unfavorable impression that the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) may have left in the minds of honorable members with respect to the activities of members of the medical profession when he was speaking a few minutes ago. Although the honorable member for Oxley (Dr. Donald Cameron) effectively replied to the honorable member, I should like to add that members of the British Medical Association are only too happy to render the service that the Government is asking them to provide for the benefit of pensioners and other persons who are in needy circumstances. We should place on record the great debt that the community owes to the medical profession. In these days, when professional services are in short supply, hardly one of their number is not completely overworked. If an epidemic should occur no one would spring more willingly to the task of combating it than would the members of the medical profession. The fact that we are present in this House to-night in a country in which the expectation of life has been raised during the last three decades to a degree that was previously hardly credible is a striking testimony to the unselfish and unstinted work that the members of that profession perform. Behind the doctors stand a body of bacteriologists and biochemists who also are working incessantly in the interests of the community. They cheerfully face the risk of infection. Few persons in ordinary civil life are called upon to face comparable risks. Nevertheless, their income is much less than that which the average worker earns in the performance of unskilled labour. The honorable member for Dalley acted in poor taste when he criticized a profession that has distinguished itself by the performance of honorable deeds which, in tha majority of instances go unsung.

Mr MINOGUE:
West Sydney

– I have made many inquiries in this House about the availability of treatment for pensioners under the Government’s health scheme, and I have no apology to make for anything that I have said in that respect. At no time have I criticized the medical profession. However, it seems, strange to me that the honorable member for Oxley (Dr. Donald Cameron); made no attempt to defend the medical profession as he has done to-night when the matters about which he spoke previously were raised in this House. It is only now after the Minister for Health. (Sir Earle Page) has clarified the position of pensioners under the Government’s scheme that the honorable member has risen to the defence of the profession. L shall give credit where credit is due. The Minister has now provided something that is acceptable to the pensioners. The honorable member for Oxley said that not the pensioners but their friends pay for medical treatment that the. former receive. This is a paltry statement for an honorable member to make. In any event many pensioners have no friends at all.

Mr JOSHUA:
Ballarat

.I should like to know from what journal’ the. honorable member for Oxley (Dr. Donald Cameron) took the quotation that he read about the- British Medical Association?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order 1 I distinctly heard the honorable member give the name of the journal; it was the Practitioner.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 964

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

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

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Postal purposes - Floreat Park, Western Australia.

Nauru - Report to General Assembly of the United Nations on Administration of Nauru for year 1040-50.

New Guinea– Report to General. Assembly of the United Nations, on Administration of New Guinea for year 1949-50.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determination - 1051 - No. 50 - Civil Aviation Employees’ Association of’ Australia,

House adjourned at 12.0 a.m. (Thursday). .

page 964

QUESTION

ANSWERS TO, QUESTIONS

The following, answers-, to questions were, circulated: -

Armed; Forces. >

What expenditure has been incurred by Australia up to date in respect to the participation of its armed forces in the occupation of Japan T

Subsidies

_ /

What primary industries are assisted by payment of Commonwealth subsidies and to what extent?

Subsidy, estimated at £15 000,000 in 1950-51 was provided to the dairying industry based on the production of milk used in manufacture of butter, cheese and processed milk products. In addition, subsidy, estimated at £500,000 in 1950-51, was provided in respect of nitrogenous fertilizers used mainly by primary producers in the sugar, vegetable and fruitgrowing industries.

Insurance

  1. How many industrial insurance policies were terminated by the Australian Mutual

Provident Society in each of the years 1047, 1048, 1049 and 1950 in respect of (a) lapse, (6) surrender, (c) maturity or death!

  1. What was the total amount paid in premiums on such policies and what was the total amount paid in benefits in respect of such policies T

The statistics obtained by the Insurance Commissioner under the Life Insurance Act do not include particulars of the total premiums paid under expired policies. It is understood that these particulars are not compiled by the companies themselves.

Meat

  1. la it a fact that some few months ago he was reported in the newspapers as having aid that the Government had under consideration a plan for the purchase and stockpiling of meat when prices were low with a view to releasing it to the market when prices’ were night
  2. Has any decision yet been made by the Government?
  3. If so, when does he intend to make the details of the plan available to the House?
  1. On the 22nd February I stated that the Commonwealth Government was examining a plan to store meat bought during the period of peak production for release at times of extreme shortages and highest prices. I also stated that even if the plan was found practicable, the Commonwealth could not constitutionally carry it out alone. The States would be asked to investigate it with a view to some form of Commonwealth-State action. In making this announcement I said that the plan must carefully avoid lowering prices to a point that would discourage the specialized business of fattening stock for sale in the period of shortage.
  2. The proposals were examined by a committee consisting of representatives of the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture and the Treasury, the Commonwealth Prices Consultant, and State Prices Commissioners. The committee’s report to the Commonwealth Government was to the effect that, in respect of the present season, as action had already been taken by trade and the Western Australias, Government to establish reserves of meat, it was not desirable to create further reserves even if such action were practicable. However, the committee considered that there is merit in the principle of establishing reserves of meat but deferred further consideration of the practicability of any scheme until the effects of the action taken by the Western, Australian Government and the trade in other States can be examined. A further meeting of the committee has been arranged for the 9th July to study these effects and submit a report and recommendation to the respective governments.
  3. Details will be made available following upon the Government’s consideration of the committee’s report. new8pbjnt.

Telephone Services

  1. Does the department receive a direct portion of the revenue received by advertising contractors in the various capital cities for advertisements and entries in the Classified Telephone Directory - known as the “ Pink Pages” - of the ordinary telephone directory; if so, what is that portion, and what is the amount from each capital city?
  2. If the return to the department is an amount received under ordinary contract, what are the terms of the contract and what does the department receive from each contractor in each capital city?
  3. Do the terms of contract, if any, include the independent printing of the classified directory by the contractors, or is the same directory printed by the department, and a charge for such printing made against the contractors; if the latter, what is the price charged against each contractor in each capital city?
  4. What are the present charges made by the advertising contractors for each type of entry or advertisement in the classified directory T
  5. Since what date have the present prices operated and what were the prices charged prior to the recent increase?
  6. Did the department approve, recommend for approval, or not oppose, recently increased charges for entries and advertising displays; if so, what were the reasons which prompted the department in its attitude?
  1. The printing of the classified sections is arranged by the department with the telephone directory printers in each capital city concerned, and is. done in conjunction with tha printing of the alphabetical sections. Payment of the cost of printing the classified sections is made by the department direct to the printers, the terms of the advertising contracts being designed to return to the department a reasonable margin of profit after the printing costs have been met.
  2. In the Sydney and Melbourne classified sections, which cover all business and professional services, each subscriber concerned i» entitled to one free entry in ordinary type, and the advertising contractor is entitled, under the terms of his contract with the department, to make a charge in respect of each issue for each additional entry or advertisement, as follows: -

In the telephone directories in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth there is not a complete classified section, and the advertising contractors are entitled to charge for each entry or advertisement included therein. The rate* correspond generally with those charged in Sydney and Melbourne when regard is paid to the smaller circulation. There is no classified section in the Hobart directory.

  1. Revised rates were, or will be, applied in each case commencing with issues of tha classified sections as follows: -

Sydney and Melbourne -

Display advertisements - November, 1950.

Other matter - November, 1051.

Brisbane - November, 1950

Adelaide and Perth - August, 1950

Prior to the application of these prices, the charges for the classes of advertising matter mentioned in (4) were -

– S. The department authorized the application of the revised charges because, in the light of increased labour and material costa, higher rates were necessary to enable tenderers for the advertising rights in the telephone directories to offer prices which would ensure that a reasonable margin of profit would be made by the department on the costs of printing the advertising matter. Since the previous rales were introduced many years ago, the cost of printing the directories has risen enormously due to substantial growth in circulation and pages, caused by the development in telephone services, the heavy increase in the price’ of paper and other printing material* during recent years, and increased labour costs as a result of the 40-hour week and rises in the basic wage and marginal rates. Actually, on a per 1,000 copies basis the existing rates for advertisements in the directories are in many oases lower than those in 1939.

Prices CONTROL

  1. Is it a fact that the result of a Gallup poll published in Sydney on the 22nd April last indicated that 84 per cent. of the people were in favour of ‘ the Commonwealth Parliament being given power to control prices throughout Australia ?
  2. Does he regard such polls as giving an approximate idea as to the state of public opinion ?
  3. If so, is it his intention to take such steps a« arc necesary to give effect to the wishes of such a great majority’ of Australian citizens!
  1. I have nOt seen the Gallup poll result referred to ‘by the honorable member.
  2. Sample polls are a factor to be taken into account in assessing public opinion.
  3. The Commonwealth Government is actively co-operating with and assisting the State governments in the maintenance of price control.

Coal

  1. . What quantity of coal has been imported since the Liberal and Australia Country party Government took office in 1949!
  2. What did it cost per ton?
  3. At what price was it sold in Australia and what was the amount- of Commonwealth subsidy paid per ton?
  4. What was the cost per ton of coal produced in Australia during the relevant period?
  1. The quantity of coal imported into Australia on Commonwealth account since the present Government took office in 1949 is 597,027 tons.
  2. The average landed cost of the coal re’ferred to in the reply to question 1 was £0 Ils. 7d. a ton in Melbourne and £S 4s. lOd. a ton at Osborne.
  3. The selling price in Australia of the coal referred to was the equivalent of the landed price of New South Wales coal at Melbourne, or Osborne plus wharfage and cartage. The average landed price of New South Wales coal at Melbourne and Osborne for the period the 1st July, 1950, the date of arrival of first shipment to 1st June, 1951; was as under -

The amount of subsidy payable by the Commonwealth on the 507,027 tons of coal imported to the 30th June, 1951, -will average £2 9s. a ton.

  1. See answer to question 3.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 July 1951, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1951/19510704_reps_20_213/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant