19th Parliament · 1st Session
The Senate, on the 6th July, 1950, adjourned to a date and hour to be fixed by the President and to be notified to each honorable senator. The Senate met pursuant to such notification.
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 209
Bill presented by Senator McKenna, find read a first time.
– I move -
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill from passing through its remaining stages without delay, and, unless otherwise ordered, from taking precedence over Government and other general business so long as it remains on the notice-paper.
All that I need say in support of the motion is that the Opposition regards this bill as a measure of urgent necessity. It feels that, not only does the nation face a national economic crisis but also that inaction in relation to the control of inflation and rising prices has gone beyond bounds of a national scandal and has extended until now it is an international scandal. There is in this country at the present time approximately £300,000,000 of what is colloquially called “ hot “ money. If one of the possible measures to combat inflation contemplated by the Government - that is the revaluation of our currency to parity with sterling - is put into effect people outside this country will, without making any endeavour, make a profit of approximately £70,000,000. It is a disgrace that a matter of that nature, which could be decided in one second, should be canvassed in party rooms and publicly, thus enabling entrepreneurs to seek a vast profit of the nature that I have indicated.
– I am sure that the people of Australia will be amazed and shocked at the temerity and, I may say, the hypocrisy of the Opposition in trying, at this critical hour, to snatch the business of government from the hands of the Government. Unless Senator McKenna has been asleep, he must know that the Senate has received from the House of Representatives a measure which, in the opinion of the Government, is very urgent and of vital importance. It is designed to put a brake upon those who wish to wreck and destroy our country.
Senator McKenna has said that we are faced with a very critical position in relation to spiralling prices. He ought to know that the waves which are breaking on our shores to-day were made by the reckless extravagance of the socialist government which preceded us. In spite of attempts at frustration by the Opposition this Government has in hand plans for meeting the rising tide that has been brought about by reckless socialistic extravagance. The motion of the honorable senator is without precedent. Althougth he knows, as people throughout the country know, that this is the budget session of the Parliament, by sheer cheek and effrontery he is trying to make it appear to the people of the country that this discredited Opposition party, which when in office for wellnigh eight years, put this country on the verge of bankruptcy, has had a sudden brain-wave. He comes along as the country’s saviour; he is going to have a referendum on prices. Never had the prestige of this country sunk so low, and been held to such ridicule, as in .the period prior to the election of the Menzies Government. Now this bright Daniel comes to judgment. I do not know what master plan is to be enunciated by the honorable senator, but at least he is one of those who must share a very heavy share of the responsibility for the mess that we are in to-day. It is about time we got some answers from the Opposition. But the reason I am speaking now is to oppose with all the vehemence at my disposal the attempt of the Opposition to prevent the Senate from dealing with a matter most vital to our economy, that is the curbing and stamping out of those Communist wreckers who are doing their best to destroy this country, and to whom the Opposition is extending its protection.
Senator ARMSTRONG (New South at this stage, because I consider that the extravagant outburst of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) should not be allowed to go unanswered. He says that we should know that there is an important Government measure coming before this chamber. It is the most completely political measure that the Senate has ever had to consider, and yet he says that it is the only thing that matters. The Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) disagrees with him, for that Minister has said that the most important problem that this country faces is the fight against inflation. The Minister for National Development seems to be the only member of the Government who is prepared to face the facts. Other Ministers as well as the supporters of the Government, are pinning their faith to this extreme political measure, the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, hoping that the minds of the mass of the people will be so .confused that they will forget for the time being that they are paying 3s. for a cauliflower, 4s. for a cabbage, and 3s. 6d. for a dozen eggs.
– And how much for a pint of beer?
– More than enough. Even the position to-day is not the worst that we might have to face, for each day and each week the position is deteriorating. We are trying to show the people the urgency of this measure, in the hope that they will force the Government to take some action. Apart from the Minister for National Development, the members of the Government have ignored this position. For ten or eleven months they have said what the Minister for Trade and Customs has said to-day, that is, that they have plans to handle the position, and that they have a formula to handle the rising cost of living. All they have, apparently, are plans and words; it seems that they are incapable of action. Whether or not the Government favours the appreciation, of the £1, the fact remains that certain sections of the community believe that appreciation would act as a brake on inflation. But what is the Government doing about it? Every day, the newspapers carry reports of consultations between the parties that support the Government. The problem has been discussed at Cabinet meetings, and every one knows the line-up of Ministers on the issue. Still nothing is done. The public want to know when the Government will stop talking, and do something positive. It is obvious that the Government is insisting upon the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in the hope that it can distract the minds of the people from the present serious economic problem. The situation is getting worse from day to day. Already, the wages received by many men and women are not enough .to buy the necessaries of life. The Minister foi Trade and Customs said that the present situation was due to eight years of socialist administration, but the people will not agree with him. The Labour Government .tried to get control of prices, because it knew that such control was necessary in the interests of the nation. However, the Minister for Trade and Customs and his colleagues paraded, the country telling the people that control of prices should be left to the States. They were not game to declare openly that they did not want price fixing, but they knew that if the Commonwealth vacated the field, the States could not control prices for very long. Well, the Government has had its wish. There is no price control, and prices are constantly rising. A survey taken by United Nations authorities only a few months before the last general election showed that the Australian people were the happiest in the world. If a similar survey were made now it would be interesting to learn what is the feeling of the Australian people after less than a year’s experience of the present completely impotent Administration.
– This must be the most audacious and hypocritical motion ever proposed in this chamber. It has been proposed by an Opposition which happens to have a majority in this chamber not because the people of Australia voted in favour of its policy last December, but because the Labour Government altered the Commonwealth Electoral Act to ensure that whatever the result of the election Labour would dominate the Senate. Now, the Labour Opposition has the audacity to do something that has never before been done in the Commonwealth Parliament or in any of the State parliaments ; it is proposing to take the business of the Senate out of the hands of the Government. And why ? Quite obviously it does so because it wishes to avoid another issue. The Opposition knows that there is to be presented to this chamber to-day a bill which has been passed for the second time by the House of Representatives’. That measure has been exhaustively discussed, and there is no real reason why it should not be disposed of by this chamber to-night. Once that is disposed of, the Opposition may, if it wishes, proceed with its proposal for the alteration of the Constitution. However, the Opposition does not want that. It is not prepared to face a final vote on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, and it is running away.
– No fear !
– Well, the Opposition can have a vote on that bill to-night, and if it is prepared to maintain the attitude that it has taken up all along, we shall go to the people right away, and let them decide the issue. Instead of that however, honorable senators opposite have come along with a lot of humbug to delude the public into believing that they, of all people, will solve this great problem of rising prices. What is the urgency of this measure?
– Ask the man in the street.
– The Opposition would like the man in the street to believe, I suppose, that if this measure is passed by the Parliament, the problem of rising prices will he solved. When would it be solved? Would it be solved this year? An amendment of the Constitution can be made only by a vote of the people. The mere passing of a bill by the Parliament would not amend the Constitution. A referendum would take five or six months, yet we are told that the bill is so urgent that it must be considered to-day before Government business is called on. Honorable senators opposite would have the public believe that there is only one solution of this great problem of rising prices. If they were sincere, they would admit that the most urgent proposals to be considered in relation to rising prices are those contained in the budget to be introduced into the Parliament shortly. Surely the Government’s budget proposals can be expected to have considerable effect on the problem of rising prices; but the Opposition says, “ No. We shall not deal with the budget. We shall not even consider any of the Government’s proposals to deal with the problem of rising prices until we have disposed of this legislation to amend the Constitution”. I submit with all the force that I can muster that this motion is designed solely to save the Labour party from the embarrassing position in which it finds itself in relation so the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. The Labour party is not game to vote against that measure and is not ready to vote for it.
. - I can well understand the mock indignation of the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) and the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer). They fear a full discussion of rising prices because such a debate would reveal not only to the Parliament but also to the people of this country the hypocrisy of the present Government parties during the last election campaign. We are told that the Opposition has a majority in this chamber because of certain electoral machinery introduced during the lifetime of the Chifley Government. I suggest that the present Government is in office in the House of Representatives only because of the false promises that its supporters made to the people of Australia from the hustings. An important undertaking given to the electors by honorable senators opposite was to put value back into the fi. They decried the Chifley fi. Their advertisements, published throughout the Commonwealth, painted the economic picture as they saw it. They asked the people to consider how much greater purchasing power a Menzies fi would have as compared with the Chifley fi. The people, in their eagerness to obtain additional purchasing power fell for the story and voted for the parties that are now in office. Honorable senators opposite have suggested that we propose to introduce this measure in order to prevent discussion of another measure now before the Parliament. I say to the Parliament that there are forces at work in this country that are far more insidious that are those exerted by the Communists, and that they will ultimately result in the destruction of our economy. To-day, this nation is practically afraid of the extent of its own wealth, yet the Government is afraid to tackle the problem of rising costs. When, out of dire necessity, honorable senators on this side of the chamber seek to do something in the interests of the country,. Ministers rise in their places and suggest that we are hypocrites. If the Government continues to refuse to make some effort to restore our economy to a well (balanced level a fertile field will be prepared for the advance of communism in Australia. “We should profit from the lessons of other days, when unemployment stalked this country. Similar conditions will exist again unless steps are taken in the near future to balance our economy, and no measure such as the Communist Party Dissolution Bill or anything that we might suggest in this Parliament will stifle the cry of the people for a better form of government. That state of affairs has arisen in the older countries of the world. “What caused the advance of communism in those countries? Communism flourished in them simply because of the bad economic conditions under which their peoples lived. Do honorable senators opposite believe that the passing of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill will stifle the cry for a change of government on the part of people who are thrown into poverty, misery and degradation as the result of the inaction of this Government? Certainly not. The Government must do more than merely pass legislation if it is to retain the goodwill of the people. As to the charge against the Opposition that it is trying to stave off discussion of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, I remind the Government that before the Senate adjourned for the recess it had power to do all that it desired to do to curb the Communist menace. The Communist Party Dissolution Bill, as it left the Senate on the last occasion that it was before us, gave to the Government the requisite power to dissolve the Australian Communist party, to seize its funds and property and to remove from office in the trade unions those persons whom it did not like. All we asked of the
Government on that occasion was that it should treat those who were not Communists in accordance with the rule of law and of our conception of the British way of life. The Government, however, refused to accept Opposition amendments to the bill and virtually threw the measure under the table of , the Senate. That action makes one believe that the Government is not seriously desirous of dealing with what it has described as a very important matter which must take precedence over everything else. Months ago the Government had full power to deal effectively with the Communists, but it was too cowardly to exercise it. In a flamboyant speech the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced in the House of Representatives what he was going to do about the Senate’s opposition to the measure. He refused to accept amendments to the bill ; but finally he squibbed the issue, just as he would do again to-morrow if we give him. the opportunity to do so. Since the last general election, when the’ Government, with its specious arguments, wooed the people of this country into a false sense of security, it has gone from one step to another, until to-day it is proposing to introduce its budget in an effort to improve the economy of the country. We have seen it jumping about like a sparrow from twig to twig. It cannot make up its mind what it should do to-day in order to save the country. It cannot determine whether it will revalue the £1. What will it do about the wool position, and about materials produced by the big metal industrialists and others, representing the majority of those who support the Liberal party? Because the Government does not know what to do it comes into this Par]liament, with no set programme. The Opposition believes that it is time the people of this country were told the true position of our national economy, and were given an opportunity to repair the damage done at the behest of the Government parties some time ago. Supporters of the present Government told the people of Australia that if they rejected prices control and denied to the National Parliament an opportunity to control the economy of the country, they would not suffer. They said that the State governments could make .a better job of it. But the people of Australia now realize that they were hoodwinked by the arguments advanced then. I believe that the Opposition is within its rights in bringing before the Senate and the nation the fact that this Government lias fallen down on the job, and is failing to redeem the promises that it made before the last general election. Instead of indulging in the hypocrisy to which, we have listened, supporters of the Government should have commended the Opposition for endeavouring to bring this matter to the forefront. Every newspaper in Australia and every thinking individual is aware of the crisis that is confronting the country. Yet the Government, which speaks of its majority, is afraid to act. I support the motion that the Standing Orders be suspended in order that this question may be dealt with as rapidly as possible, and that the people of Australia may be given an opportunity to atone for the wrong they did at the last general election.
– I oppose with all the strength at my disposal this extraordinary proposal put forward by honorable senators opposite. As the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has said, this motion provides a precedent in the Australian Parliament in that a political party, which was soundly whipped at the polls, should by fraud and obstruction because of its majority in the Senate, endeavour to take the administration of the country out of the hands of the Government, at a time when the Government’s financial proposals are about to be brought down. Those financial proposals will be contained in the budget, which, as is usual, will embody an economic survey setting out the strength and the weaknesses of the Australian economy and indicate the measures which the Government proposes to take to deal with those weaknesses. The Opposition, in an attempt to secure cheap publicity and to heal the breach in its own ranks, has drawn a red herring across the trail.
– The breach in the ranks of the Government parties will take some healing.
– There is no breach in our ranks, and that fact makes the Opposition feel rather sick. It is impossible for any one to believe that the Opposition is acting seriously in this matter. For all it knows, prices control may be included in the financial measures that the Government proposes to submit to the Parliament. That shows its hypocrisy in submitting this motion, which is designed only to delay the proceedings of the Senate. I hasten to state that the Government will not include prices control among its budget proposals, but I make the point that it is hypocritical for the Opposition to- initiate a debate upon that subject almost on the eve of the budget debate. The Labour party is endeavouring to heal the breach in its ranks by delaying the debate on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, and it hopes that, by so doing, it will obtain some cheap publicity. Honorable senators opposite show a very poor judgment of public opinion in this country if they hope to get away with this cheap stunt. There are standards of decency to be observed in the conduct of parliamentary affairs. The Opposition, by submitting at this stage a bill containing a proposal which, it knows the Government will not accept and which, in its heart, it knows the people of Australia would reject decisively again as they did before, is indulging in a campaign calculated only to hold up the business of the Senate.
I conclude by challenging honorable senators opposite to deny that if the Labour party formed the Government of this country, it would not be prepared, te submit the proposed referendum to the people. The Opposition, knowing that the budget will be a good one and that it will cause the people to increase the confidence that they already repose in the Government, is endeavouring to undermine the Government’s budget proposals.
– I am astonished at the remarks that have been made by the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner).
– The Minister became excited.
– He became more than excited. This is the first opportunity for some time that honorable senaIi,1 S on this side of the chamber have had to direct the attention of the nation to the road along which we are travelling.
– It will probably be their last opportunity.
– My reply to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) is that the people of this country are afraid of this ‘Government and its policy, or lack of policy.
Sentaor SPOONER. - Did the honorable senator read the result of the last Gallup poll?-
– I shall deal with that in a moment. At the last conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers, did the Government take advantage of the opportunity that then presented itself to put before the State Premiers the problem of rising prices and seek their assistance to find a counter to the inflationary tendencies that exist in this country at present? It is all very well for the Minister for Social Services to tell us how good the budget is, but if it is as good as he says it is, why was it not introduced when the Parliament reassembled a few days ago? That is the usual course to adopt. I tell the people of Australia that the introduction by the Government of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill is simply a subterfuge to conceal the difficulties into which the Government parties have got themselves. We all know of the conflict that is going on in Cabinet between the Australian Country party and the Liberal party. As Senator MeKenna has said, the £300,000,000 “hot” money in this country may result in a profit of approximately £70,000,000 for some people because of the failure of the Government to exercise some control over our present economic position. The last Labour Government in New Zealand did not dally with the problem of exchange rates. Overnight, Mr. Nash, who was then Minister for Finance in that government, having consulted only a few of his colleagues in the Cabinet, appreciated the New Zealand £1.
I am not saying what should be done in this country, because that is the respon sibility of the Government, but the bill, submitted by Senator MeKenna isdesigned to ensure that there shall be somecontrol over prices in Australia. Since’ the Commonwealth relinquished control of prices, very little attempt has been made by the States to continue pricescontrol.
Let us consider what the Sydney DailyTelegraph said last week about the economic and financial position of this country.
– I thought the honorable senator did not believe the Daily Telegraph?
– It is certainly not a supporter of the Labour party. It supports the present Government parties. On the 28th September it directed the attention of the Government and the people of this country to the way in which Australia was drifting, and issued a challenge to the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) to do something about it. In its challenge, it said that only one thing counted, and that was the nation as a whole. That is the view of honorable senators on this side of the chamber. The Opposition has a duty to perform, and it ill becomes the leader of the Government in this chamber to chide us when we direct the attention of the public to the drift in the economic and financial condition of the nation and suggest that something should be done to arrest it. I remind the Senate that the present Government parties opposed the last referendum on prices control, although they knew that the -States could not administer prices control. The article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph to which I have referred reads as follows : -
Only one thing counts - the nation as n whole.
There lies a great test, and challenge, for Mr. Menzies personally.
This is the time for him to consolidate his recently won world reputation of a great statesman and leader.
He is our Prime Minister.
If the elements which make up his Government conflict on an issue of such magnitude as this one he must make the decision himself and call the noisy bluff of all pressure groups which threaten to turn him out of office.
Let the manufacturers finance the Labour party in the next election if they want to. Let the Country Party resign from Cabinet if that is its best answer to a plan which is intended to save Australia from the certain death of inflation. Will they, in a show-down, do any of those things? That is doubtful! Forthe fact becomes daily more obvious that unlesswe take action now to adjust the unbalance between our swollen income and our inadequate supply ofgoods-
SenatorO’Sullivan. - I rise to order.The motion before the Senate is to suspend the Standing Orders to allow this bill to be proceeded with. The honorable senator appears to be addressing himself to what he expects will be embodied in the bill.
– The suspension of the Standing Orders is a very serious matter. The motion that I have before me is that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill passing through all of its stages without delay, and, unless otherwise ordered, shall take precedence over Government and general business so long as it remains on the notice-paper. Honorable senators on both sides of the chamber who have already spoken to the motion have opened up a very broad question whether the Senate should deal with the subject of prices or with matters relative to the Communist party. I find myself in asomewhat difficult position, because sitting here, Imust ask myself whether, if I were speaking from the floor of the chamber and the President stopped me, I could justify whatI was saying. I make bold to saythat if I were on the floor 1 could range very widely and justify myself, because it is really a question which subject is the more important and should take precedence. I make an appeal to honorable senators to try to deal immediately with the question. Of course honorable senators can speak at length, so long as their remarks are connected with the question whether the Standing Order? shall be suspended in order to allow Senator McKenna to proceed with the bill that he has introduced.
SenatorFRASER.- Unlike the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) I have not mentioned communism but have confined myself to a consideration of whether we should revert to prices control in this country. The Government has failed to keep this country on a sound basis, and I am particularly concerned about the welfare of the people in receipt of fixed incomes, such as pensioners. During the nine months that it has been in office, it has not taken action to restore value tothe£1, in accordance with the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). The article in the Daily Telegraph, to which I have referred, also contains the following passage : -
We are left to drift helplessly towards an nidation, which, every one agrees, must destroy our national policies - our social services, our defences, our industrial prosperity and our standards of living. What’s wrong with the Government Why can’t it act? The answer is obvious.
My colleague, Senator McKenna, is endea vouring to act and I hope honorable senators opposite will support him. The Minister for Social Services asked how the Opposition knows that the matter of prices is not included in the budget. If it is, this Government has fooled the Australian people. Instead of resorting to camouflage, the Government should have introduced the budget by now, so that every one could see the direction in in which the country was drifting.
Motion (by Senator Cooper) put -
That the question be now put.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the
Hon. Gordon Brown.)
AYES: 25
NOES: 31
Majority . . . . 6
AYES
NOES
– Mr.
President-
– I rise to a point oforder. Is the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) in order in speaking to the motion after having moved that the question be put?
– Yes. it is in order for him to do so.
– When Senator McKenna introduced this measure, he said that it was extremely urgent. His own speech was very brief, and he said that it was necessary to get the measure through the Senate as quickly as possible. Notwithstanding that, however, various members of the Opposition rose and debated the measure on the motion for the first reading. Honorable senators must be aware that they will have ample opportunity for debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill. I thought that,by moving that the question be put. I should be of some assistance to Senator McKenna,but members of the Opposition voted against the motion.
– Is the honorable senator in order in criticizing a vote of the Senate?
– It is not in order to criticize a vote of the Senate, but I understood the Minister for Repatriation to say that he was trying to help Senator McKenna. I point out to the Minister that the Senate is not now debating the first reading of the bill. The question before the Chair is whether the Standing Orders should be suspended.
– Although Senator McKenna said that the bill was urgent, and although the motion that the Standing Orders he suspended is usually moved only that business may be dealt with urgently, the attitude of members of the Opposition shows that they are in no hurry to dispose of the measure. It is clear that their real purpose is to prevent other business from being presented, and they are wasting the time of the Senate in discussing the present bill. They may spend the rest of the day discussing this measure, hut I want the people of Australia to know that the Opposition is deliberately wasting the time of the Senate, and prevent ing the Government from bringing forward legislation of the most urgent nature.
– What is it?
– I refer to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Members of the Opposition know that that bill was passedby the House of Representatives last night, and the Government wishes the Senate to deal with it immediately. It is sheer hypocrisy for members of the Opposition to say that they are concerned about rising prices. They know that even if the bill now before the Senate becomes law it will be impossible to hold a referendum for a year or more. Even if the bill is forced through the Senate it will not pass the House of Representatives. The Opposition is pursuing the same tactics as it followed during the last session, namely, trying to prevent government business from being introduced and, generally, to take the business of the Senate out of the hands of the Government. The Opposition’s tactics have been designed to prevent anything of importance from being brought before this chamber. I strongly condemn both the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) and his deputy for their actions to-day. Their utterances were pure hypocrisy. They know very well that, even if the measure that has been introduced were passed by the Parliament, a referendum would have to be held before effect could be given to the legislation. The Government claims that the Communist Party Dissolution Bill is an urgent measure, and must be passed as speedily as possible so that action may be taken against the Communist wreckers who are the greatest menace to our economic stability to-day. The Opposition is attempting to throw dust in the eyes of the people, and to mislead them into believing that prices can be reduced immediately the bill which is the subject of this motion is passed. The truth is, as I have said, that nothing can be donebefore a referendum is held, and that will take considerable time. Honorable senators opposite know that if the Communist Party Dissolution Bill be passed, in the form in which it will be presented to this chamber - I remind the
Senate that the measure was, in effect, sponsored by the people at the last elections - their friends, the Communists, will have no further opportunity to pursue their disrupting tactics. The responsibility for delaying the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill will rest entirely with honorable senators opposite, who, by their actions to-day, are showing that they are friends of the Communist wreckers, and are doing all they possibly can to assist the Communists in their nefarious work.
– I ask for the withdrawal of the statement that members of the Labour party are friends of tha Communists. I am not a friend of the Communists, and I take personal exception to the charge.
– I said that honorable senators opposite were showing themselves, by their actions to-day, to be friends of the Communists.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls) . - Order ! I ask the honorable senator to withdraw the words to which objection has been taken.
– I certainly withdraw them, if that is your wish, Mr. Deputy President.
– Senator McKenna’s motion was submitted to this chamber dispassionately, and briefly, but it was immediately followed by a vitriolic attack by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan), the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) and other honorable senators opposite. Therefore the responsibility for any delay that has occurred to-day rests entirely with members of the Government. Although a discussion of the merits of the measure that is the subject of this motion should properly be left until the second-reading stage is reached, Government supporters were so impatient, and pretended to be so indignant, that they could not resist the opportunity to make a thoroughly unprovoked attack on the Opposition. I regard measures to curb the present inflationary trends as of paramount importance, particularly as the Government has had nearly ten months to make up its mind, but has not yet done anything. Honor able senators opposite had hardly assumed office when we were informed by the newspapers that the Government intended to put value back into the £1. Presumably, that meant that prices would be controlled, or reduced in some other way. As far back as March, T read a newspaper article headed “ Government to Put Value Back into the £1 “. The Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) himself was the authority for the report. The Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey) issued a stern warning to the nation that all classes must make sacrifices to combat what he described as the “ dreadful process of inflation The long delay that has occurred since those announcements were made shows clearly to me, at any rate, that the Government does not intend to do anything about the matter. The Minister for Trade and Customs mentioned financial bankruptcy. All I can say is that the Government obviously is in a state of mental bankruptcy, because putting value back into the £1 is not an impossibility, legislatively, economically or financially. It can be done, and when the ‘bill reaches the second-reading stage, I shall show why it has not been done. I merely mention the matter now to emphasize that the Government has not made up its mind. As I have said, when honorable senators opposite were returned to office, they could not get the ear of the press quickly enough to say that action would be taken almost immediately to put value bacl? into the £1, but although questions have been asked from this side of the chamber repeatedly about the Government’s plans, always evasive answers have been given. The Minister for National Development referred to the victims of the inflationary process. The true victims are, of course, the hundreds of thousands of low wage-earners and pensioners. Therefore, in seeking the reintroduction of prices control, the Labour party is acting in the very best interests of the people generally, and particularly of the lower paid workers and pensioners. I make no apology for establishing a precedent. It is time that some precedent was established. At a meeting of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce some time ago, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said that curbing inflation was the responsibility of the people themselves. The Labour party represents the people and is taking the Prime Minister at his word. In the absence of any concrete proposal from the Government side of the chamber we consider that we are within our rights - in fact I regard it as a duty and an obligation - in challenging the Government. “Reference has been made to the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. That measure has already been discussed at length, and I only wish to say in passing that poverty, caused by inflationary processes, is primarily responsible for the existence of the Communist party, which was born in Russia in 1917. But for the incredible conditions of the Russian people at that time, we should never have heard of the Communist party. To-day, inflation is reducing hundreds of thousands of workers to the bread-line. Already, many people are not much better off than they were in the early 1930’s. The purchasing power of the £1 note has fallen by 75 per cent, since the days when a £1 note had the same value as a sovereign. It is useless for the Minister for Trade and Customs, the AttorneyGeneral and the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) to indulge in mock heroics. They have merely attempted to throw out a smoke-screen to keep the attention of the people off the real issue. We regard this matter as being of paramount importance and accordingly we make no apologies for establishing n precedent. Action to initiate a referendum on prices should have been taken long ago. The Government has asked for time to deal with its promise to put value back in the £1.. It has been in office for almost ten months and has had ample time to take the necessary steps to do so. It has lamentably failed, to honour its promise and in the meantime the position has rapidly gone from bad to worse.
Reference has been made during this debate to the forthcoming budget. I have yet to learn what measures will be outlined in it to deal with this problem. Any measure that the Government proposes to’ adopt to deal with inflation will be practically useless so long as. it adheres to the policy that prices should be controlled, not by the Government, but by private monopolies. Prices must be controlled by one agency or the other, and honorable senators opposite must make their choice. Because prices are now controlled principally by private monopoliesthe prices of meat, vegetables and all thebasic food requirements of the people have reached prohibitive levels. Indeed, food prices have risen so steeply that manypeople are unable to purchase their basicrequirements. During the last sessional1 period I suggested that the Government should declare a state of national emergency and introduce legislation to deal with the problem of rising prices, but the Government refused to take any notice of my suggestion. Consequently the Government, has thrown the Opposition on its defence, and we are thoroughly justified in taking the steps that we have taken to-day to protect the people. I do not ,at this stage propose to discuss the merits of the bill which is the subject of the motion before the Senate. I emphasize that the Opposition is not responsible for delaying its introduction and had this motion been disposed of in a few minutes, as it might have been, we could have carried the bill to the second-reading stage. Full responsibility for delay in the matter rests entirely on the Government.
Senator MATTNER (South Australia) “ 4.12]. - In submitting his motion Senator MeKenna said that it dealt with an urgent matter ; but the methods by which he proposes to deal with what he has described as an urgent matter are so slow and cumbersome- that we are forced to oppose the motion. There is a very quickmethod by which we can dispose of this matter. Whether or not that method is adopted rests solely with the Opposition. Honorable senators opposite know well that within a comparatively short time a bill will be introduced into the Senate which may well decide the fate of the Government. If this Government, is wanting in the fulfilment of its duty to the people. Opposition senators are the greatest cowards if they do not throw it out of office in an hour or two when they will have the opportunity to do so. The Opposition claims to have the confidence of the people. It professes to be able to rest-ore value to the £1. If that be so, every moment it delays in bringing about a double dissolution of this Parliament it is failing in its duty to the people.
Prices control is virtually the backdoor to socialism and, as honorable senators opposite well know, socialism was definitely and unequivocally rejected by the people on the 10th December last. In 1947-48 the Chifley Government provided £25,000,000 in subsidies. When in the first quarter of 1949 it seemed likely that the total cost of subsidies would amount to £50,000,000, what did the Chifley Government do? It threw the subsidy system overboard.
– Why ?
– The honorable senator knows very well the reason why it did so. If the Chifley Government had continued to pay subsidies, what would be the total commitment on that account to-day? Wages are the greatest factor in determining price levels. Do honorable senators opposite suggest that wages be pegged? Would they be game to tell the people that if they were returned to office they would peg wages ?
– Wages arc fixed by the arbitration courts.
– Honorable senators opposite are not game to tackle the problem of revaluation of the £1, and on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill the Labour party is split from stem to stern. It is noticeable that many representatives of that party have refused to say anything about that legislation. The bill which is the subject of the motion before the Senate will give the members of that party time to lick their wounds, but their wounds are septic and will never heal. If the Labour party is ever returned to office it will not face up to the problem of revaluing the £1 because, when it was in office, it devalued the £.1. The people will remember its record. If this matter is so urgent, and if the Opposition is sincerely desirous of restoring the purchasing power of the £1, the means are at hand for it to test the matter within a few weeks. On the 1st July, 1943, the Parliament was dissolved, and on the 21st August, only a few weeks later, a general election was held and a new Parliament was elected. In 1946, the election followed a few weeks after the dissolution of the Parliament. In 1949, the Parliament was dissolved on the 27th
October, and the general election was held on the 10th December. Thus, only a few weeks are required to bring about a change of government if the people are desirous of so doing. Honorable senators opposite are well aware that on the 10th December last, the people expressed their view of the Labour administration with no uncertain voice. If honorable senators opposite have the courage of their convictions - and I am sure they have not - they should be willing to submit to the will of the people.
Inflation is not confined to Australia; it is a major problem that exists throughout the world. It is rampant in China, in continental countries, and in Great Britain, where a socialist government is in office. Inflation is world-wide. Instead of endeavouring to lay a smokescreen for the purpose of clouding the real issues, the Opposition would do’ better to co-operate with the Government in an endeavour to find a solution of the problems that beset us. Has the Labour party ever presented any practical proposals for increasing production? Has it submitted any concrete suggestion for the improvement of production? Not at all ! Whenever mention is made of stepping up production, the Labour party refuses to co-operate with the Government. The great question which the Labour party must answer, but which I am afraid it will not answer because it does not wish to bring about a double dissolution of the Parliament, is whether it favours the banning of the Communist party. Is any honorable senator opposite prepared to go on to the hustings tomorrow and say to the people, “ The Labour party favours the banning of the Communist party and its subsidiary organizations “ ?
– The Government has full power to ban the Communist party now.
– I remind Senator Ward that the Opposition has the requisite authority, as a result of its majority in this chamber, to throw the Government from office, but it is not “ game “ to exercise it.. If honorable senators are really sincere in their desire to tackle the problem of rising prices, let them demonstrate their sincerity by tossing this Government out of office.
– What has all this to do with prices?
– This Government will control prices, and it will safeguard the welfare of the people very much better than would a Labour administration. The cause of rising prices-
– The poor old worker again !
– -I am sure that the honorable senator did not mean his interjection to reflect on the worker. If he did, his interjection was unworthy of one who, I believe, is eager to look after the interests of the worker. Some of the ills from which we are suffering to-day result from the necessity for providing large sums of money during the war years. As we all know, there is a great shortage of raw materials and a low production of essential goods. High wages are being paid. I have no objection to high wages, but we also have a low rate of output. Unfortunately, the rate of production is getting slower and the cost of production is getting higher. If we wish to increase our production, the first thing we have to do is to supply the basic needs of the people. On this problem of prices honorable senators opposite must ask themselves, “ Have we deliberately sabotaged the 40-hour week ? “ When the Government seeks to protect the industrial worker, as it has endeavoured to do ever since it assumed office, it finds the Opposition shielding and protecting the militants in industry by its insistence on the onus of proof being placed on the Government. No government, whether Labour or Liberal, will ever be able to put back into the £1 all that value that was lost as a result of the war and post-war socialization. The people of this country must realize that, no matter what their walk of life may be, unless they give value for what they are paid they will only increase this accursed inflation. Production of our basic materials, such as wool and wheat, has not been increased, and although the output of our coal mines is increasing, the quantity produced is still not nearly sufficient to supply our needs.
Our production of steel is less than it was in 1942 and 1943 notwithstanding that our population has increased by about 1,000,000 since 1938-39 and the number of workers has increased by 7S4,000 in the same period. That factor must be remembered when the question of production is being considered. Surely 784,000 extra men and women engaged in industry should contribute to better production figures than those of 1938 and 1939. The incentive is there to do it, because everything that is produced has a ready market. There would be no talk of inflation if the people could buy the commodities they require.
– How many hours a week does the honorable senator himself work ?
– I venture to suggest that I work a good many more hours than the honorable senator does. I am engaged in primary production. Never was there a more pressing call for greater production in this country than there is to-day, but there is a shortage of the tools and the means by which we can achieve that production. We cannot get the essentials that we require. There is not sufficient steel, iron or power-
– What is the Government doing about it?
– Give us the things that are needed and we will increase production. That applies to every industry. Whenever the members of the Opposition have “been asked to assist in increasing production they have held up their hands and have said, “ It has nothing to do with us “. Yet they come here and hypocritically assert that inflation is ruining the country. They forget what they did for eight years when Labour governments were in office and that we are reaping the harvest that they sowed in those years. The bitter conditions of to-day are of their own making. Because they know that this is a good government they are not game to put it out of office and shoulder the responsibility which they have not the ability to meet.
– The remarks of Senator Mattner show clearly the serious state of affairs in Australia about which the Government has not yet taken any action. When members and supporters of the Government argue that there is no urgency about the measure now before the Senate, and that if prices are fixed then wages should also be fixed, they reveal how little they appreciate the position of the vast majority of the people in this country. Wages are fixed by various tribunals. Because of Government interference, a basic wage case has been held up for a considerable time with the result that the inflationary process has been accelerated. The position has been made desperate for wage-earners. and those in receipt of pensions and other fixed incomes. An adjustment of prices to bring about a proper balance between prices and wages has, therefore, become a matter of great urgency. Every speaker on the Government side has admitted that there is inflation in this country, and that the Government can do nothing about it because it has no power to control prices. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) has said that there is provision in the budget regarding the fixation of prices-
– That is not correct.
– Although the Minister hastened to correct his statement, I say it is a fraud and a deception even to make it appear that there is such a provision in the budget. The Government knows that wages are insufficient for present-day needs, and that the position has got out of hand. For many months the Opposition has been asking the Government to outline its policy. It is most urgent that this measure be discussed and that the first move to stop inflation be made. There must be a decent minimum living standard and wages must be equated to prices. Because J regard this matter as most urgent I support the motion.
Senator HENDRICKSON (Victoria) 1 4.29]. - I have much pleasure in adding my support to the motion before the chair. Honorable senators on the Government side of this chamber are saying that if this matter is as urgent as Senator McKenna has indicated, it should not be discussed. Those are the tactics that are used by the members of the present Government parties in the House of Representatives, where they have a huge majority. We believe that time should be allotted for the discussion in this chamber of all matters affecting the welfare of the people. That is why we are now taking the opportunity to ventilate our thoughts and the thoughts of the people that we represent–
– On the Standing Orders?
– On the Standing Orders, yes. I, in common with my colleagues, would not have debated this motion had it not been for the attitude adopted by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan). One would have thought that a bombshell had struck him. He was most caustic in his remarks about the alleged audacity of Senator McKenna in submitting this measure to the Senate.
The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) said that we did not know what the budget contained and asked why we had not waited until it was introduced into the Parliament. He inquired whether we knew that the Government did not propose to suggest that a referendum on prices control be held. We do not know. Later, the Minister said that the reason why the Opposition has submitted this measure was that we knew how good the budget would be. He cannot have it both ways. The last referendum on prices control was opposed by the present Government parties and was defeated because the people were told that the States could administer prices control more effectively than could the Commonwealth, but two or three weeks ago the State Premiers appealed to the Commonwealth to assume control of prices once again. The Government is afraid to face up to the problem of rising prices.
It has also -been said that this bill has been introduced because we have not the courage of our convictions regarding the legislation that should he placed upon the statute-book of this country and that we are afraid of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, I assure the Senate that the Labour party is never afraid to do what it believes to be right. When that bill is before the Senate-
– The honorable senator is waiting to get his instructions.
– We shall get no instructions from anybody. It would he impossible to instruct Senator G uy because be has nothing with which to understand instructions. The Communist Party Dissolution Bill was in this chamber and in the House of Representatives for some months. “We gave the Government the power to ban the Communist party. I ‘know of some of the reasons that actuated honorable senators on this side of the chamber in their opposition to the onus of proof provisions in that measure. I have a vivid recollection of the speech that was made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzios) upon his return from overseas in 1938 or 1939. The right honorable gentleman said that the only country in the world that was progressive in those days was Germany, and that its great progress was due only to one factor - its great leader, Herr Hitler. He went on to say that this country would not prosper until it also had a Herr Hitler. The Labour party had been fighting the communistic element in this country for years. It will continue to fight communism, but it will do so only on British democratic lines. Because the Government has not introduced the legislation that it told the people it would introduce, it has been trying to pull political wool over their eyes by means of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill.
Senator MeKenna is to be congratulated upon introducing this measure. If honorable senators opposite are not satisfied that it is needed, let them go to Victoria and talk to the wives of the workers there who are trying to buy enough food for their families. At the present time they are paying 3s. Gd. a pound for tomatoes, 3s. 6d. a pound for steak and 2s. lOd. a pound for chops. I have read that there is to be another big increase of the price of potatoes. Those are the basie foods of the members of the working class. If there is any doubt in the minds of honorable senators opposite about the necessity for this measure, let them ask the wives of the workers their opinion of the action taken by Senator MeKenna.
– I support the motion. I recall the time when supporters of the present Government parties loudly proclaimed that the only way in which this country could progress was by returning to thu economic conditions that obtained prior to the war. They said that the only way to make things better for th« people was to have a system of “ open go “, of competition and of free enterprise. We have had ten months of those conditions since December, 1949. Has the Government yet done anything to arrest the progress of the inflation that is becoming worse day by day in this country? It has been devoting attention to the question of revaluing the £1. It did not tell the people during the general election campaign that it would consider revaluation; it told them that it would put value back into the £1. Where is the evidence that it has done so? The value of the £1 is much less than it was twelve months ago. Before honorable senators opposite make insinuations against honorable senators on this side of the chamber, let them examine their own actions.
Senator MeKenna said that Australia was facing a national economic crisis, which was a national scandal. Not one honorable senator opposite has attempted to refute that assertion. The Government has tried to hoodwink the people by stating that honorable senators on this side of the chamber are trying to burke an issue with which we are faced. We are not burking any issue. We are not following the example of the Government, which, since it was elected, has used a certain piece of legislation as a smoke screen to hide from the people the fact that it cannot give attention to the economic problems that are of immediate concern to them. When the time comes for us to make our decision upon the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, we shall have no hesitation in doing so.
I believe that the bill introduced by Senator MeKenna is of much greater importance to the people of Australia than is any measure that has yet been introduced into the Parliament by this Government. During the general election campaign and since, the Government has, as I see it, been only a vehicle of promises. It remains up in the airy heights. It says that certain things will be done, but it does not do them. One thing that the Australian people require of a government is that it shall make decisions of a positive and constructive nature. I challenge honorable senators opposite to point to one positive decision made by the Government since the 10th December of last year.
– Ask the Koreans. They will tell you.
– I can see no connexion between the events in Korea and the matter now under discussion, but, as Senator George Rankin has introduced the subject, perhaps I may say that, until recently, the only political party in this country that stood by the United Nations was the Australian Labour party.
This Government has a distinct leaning towards fascism. It is endeavouring to implement fascist legislation. The Labour party, because it will not agree to that legislation, has been accused of burking issues and of not being prepared to agree to the taking of action considered to be necessary to safeguard the interests of this country. We have given the Government all the power that it requires to ban the Communist party and its affiliated organizations in Australia, but it has done nothing. We have given it all the power necessary to enable it, if it so desires, to declare certain persons in this country to be Communists, but it has done nothing. The Government has tried to hoodwink the Australian people by saying, “ We want to ban the Communist party and to do this and that, but the Labour party will not let us do so “. During the last few months honorable sentaors opposite have been indulging in hypocrisy of the worst kind, and they have been doing so in the hope that, ultimately, they will be able to persuade the Australian people that the issue of communism is more important to them than the bread and butter that they must have to maintain life.
What has the Government done for the age and invalid pensioners of this country since it was elected? Of what concern has it been to honorable senators opposite that age and invalid pensioners have had to subsist upon £2 2s. 6d. a week, while rents have increased and the price of food has skyrocketed ? It cannot be suggested that the Government had not had an opportunity to relieve the plight of pensioners, but it has not attempted to do so. It has sat smugly back and hid behind legislation of the kind to which I have referred. When it comes to dealing with economic matters, which directly concern the people of Australia, the present Government is a vacillating government. It lacks courage. Proof of my assertion was supplied this afternoon by an honorable senator on the Government side of the chamber, who stated that the budget is not yet ready for presentation to the Parliament. I do not know how many times it has been altered, because of the subservience of Government supporters to the interests that supported their election. For so long as those outside interests dominate, the people of Australia, will not get a very good deal. Although many snide criticisms have been made about the socialization policy of the Chifley Government when in office, I point out that during that time Australia’s economy improved at an unprecedented rate. It improved so greatly in relation to employment that to-day nobody is forced to go around looking for a crust.
On. the other hand, certain sections of the community have been ill-treated since the present Government assumed office. Lt has no legitimate excuse for having failed to relieve the plight of age and invalid pensioners. Evidently supporters of the Government considered that they would derive more benefit, politically, by endowing the first child in every family by five shillings a week. We must remember that many people now receiving age pensions helped to develop this country. In relation to prices, the Government threw away the controls that it had. One of its worst actions was to relinquish the control of capital issues. I point out that that control enabled the Government to maintain a check on investments, particularly in relation to the purchase and sale of houses. People now have to pay £3,000 for a house that is not worth £1,000. The Government regards that as legitimate business. It has given profiteers an “ open go “ to exploit the people. Yet, honorable senators opposite continue to “ sling off “ at the Opposition.
The Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) has stated that the Australian Labour party has submitted an audacious, and hypocritical motion. That was the best answer that he could make to the assertions of Senator McKenna that Australia is facing a. national economic crisis. It was his only constructive criticism! Never before has such humbug been witnessed. It is well that the people of Australia should know that the Opposition is fighting for certain principles rather than for specified interests. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) became somewhat excited about this matter, and said that honorable senators on this side of the chamber did not know whether the budget would make provision for the control of prices. Realizing his mistake, he made haste to assure the Opposition that the Government would not include provision for prices control in the budget. It is therefore obvious that the motion before the Senate is justified. I am opposed to the exploitation of people, and I want to see that they get a fair deal. That exploitation is taking place at present is proved by the continually rising profit margin. On the other hand, the workers are continually chasing the high cost of living. Frequently a considerable period elapses between the filing of an application with an arbitration tribunal, and a finding favorable to the workers. Therefore wages are continually chasing prices., “What further proof could we have that the present Government is not concerned with the interests of the people of this country than the statement of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), in an endeavour to justify the inaction of the Government to which he owes allegiance, that if .the motion were passed by the Senate, the measure would not go through the other House?
– I endorse the proposition before the Senate in relation to this bill to amend the Constitution. Supporters of the Government must have rhinoceroslike hides on them not to understand the clamour from the people of Australia for some action. This is the first sign for ten months of any positive action whatever to improve the condition of the people of this country. Senator Mattner has asked why the previous Government did not control wages. L remind him that they have been well and truly controlled for many long years. The truth of the matter is that inflation is stalking this land like a grim spectre, resulting in the standard of living of people in receipt of award wages being reduced. It is in an effort to assist the people to buy the ordinary necessities of life with the controlled wages that this legislation has been introduced. Honorable senators opposite have referred to incentives. What incentive is there for people to try to earn additional money to-day? If they obtain an increase of wages from the court it is immediately mopped up by higher prices. Even the price of many newspapers has recently been increased “by 50 per cent.
I remind the .Senate that when the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) was sitting in Opposition in this chamber in 1947, he opposed a measure for a referendum on prices. On that occasion it was pointed out to him that he was acting contrary to the interests of the working people -of Australia. He replied that when the appropriate time came he would be quite prepared to accept responsibility for his action. The state of affairs that exists to-day is attributable, in part, to the scare campaign that was conducted by the anti-Labour Opposition in 1947. I remind Senator Mattner that when the Government removed subsidies on primary products, such as milk, butter, beef and bread, their cost to the people was increased considerably. Because the Opposition has taken the positive action of introducing this legislation, it is accused of hypocrisy and cheek. If ever there were hypocrites, they are the supporters of the present Government, which has done nothing during the past eight months to prevent prices from rising. It is evident that they believe that it is a good thing for the standard of living to be depressed. Confirmation of that assertion is contained in the records of the utterances of honorable senators opposite during the last few years in debates about prices control. But look at a back-door method that this Government is taking to control the price of wool! Honorable senators opposite have pulled the wool over the eyes of the woolgrowers and the general wage-earners. Prior to December, 1949, it was considered that the standard of living of the Australian people was as high as that of people in any country in the world. However, since this vacillating, reactionary Government of inaction has been in office it has paid off constantly to the sections of the community that poured out funds to help it gain office by false pretences. ‘.Che pay-offs have been going on week after week. Yet, positive action by the Opposition, after waiting for so long, is called, cheek and hypocrisy.
When honorable senators opposite have to face their constituents the truth of the matter will be impressed upon them, if their hides are not as thick as that of a rhinoceros ; it will not penentrate through their skulls, because they are too thick. Why do honorable senators opposite shed crocodile tears when making a plea for increased production? Just recently I read a report of a company that had to reveal hidden profits of £350,000; the chairman apologized to the shareholders because it had become necessary for him to reveal that information. As honorable senators are aware, the scale of profits is rising week by week. Yet the Government has made no effort to do anything about the matter, and the situation is getting out of hand. My main concern is that because the Opposition has seen fit to introduce a bill that is positive in its approach, and will enable a start to be made towards restoring sanity and stability to the country, honorable senators opposite describe its action as cheek and hypocrisy. That certainly calls for a strong rebuff. We intend to follow up this proposition with other constructive criticism and proposals, and it is about time that the people who hold the reins of office took similar action. The people of Australia are getting sick and tired of waiting, and I stress that it is high time that constructive action in this connexion was taken.
– I was amazed this afternoon to hear the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) say that we should be considering the budget rather than the motion before us. If the budget is so important, why has not the Government already introduced it in the House of Representatives? All measures that affect the liberty of the subject should be discussed openly and freely, but the self-styled lovers of liberty opposite, with their leader in the House of Representatives, would prevent discussion if they could. I am conviced that if the Government parties were in a majority in this chamber the “ guillotine “ would be used to force legislation through. The Labour party stands for freedom of expression. The Government wishes the Communist Party Dissolution Bill to have precedence over the matter we are now discussing, which has to do with control of prices. Where would the Government be if there was no Communist Party Dissolution Bill? The Government is hiding behind that bill in an endeavour to conceal its sins, as I pointed out in this chamber some months ago. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) said that the holding of a referendum on prices control would cause much delay, hut, in the next breath he said, “ How do you know that the Government does not propose to hold a referendum on prices ? “ I have no expectation that the Government intends to do anything of the kind. The cost of living is the burning issue that affects every member of the community to-day. Fancy, in this year 1950, onions are selling in Sydney at ls. 6d. each! An ordinary household commodity such as pepper has increased in price by over 1,200 per cent. What has the Government done about it? Nothing, except to introduce the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Chops are costing 3s. per lb., but still the Government does nothing. In Sydney, the other day, a cutter employed in a tailoring establishment told me that he had just measured three men for suits which would cost £42 each. Prices are constantly rising, but the Government is doing nothing to prevent it. The Labour party wishes to give the people an opportunity to say whether they want the Commonwealth to resume control of prices. When the Labour Government sought such authority some time ago, honorable senators opposite, and other members of their parties, travelled the country, north, south, east and west, urging the people to vote against our proposal. What is the Government doing about the wool ? The other day, it issued a statement that it intended to impose a special tax on wool.
– The Government made no such statement.
– I do not make statements that I cannot prove. If Senator Guy reads the pamphlet issued by the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen) he will see that the Minister declared that the wool tax would be imposed only if the wool-growers were agreeable. What happened? There was a change of policy overnight. The Government also proposes to adjust the exchange rate on the Australian £1. If we may judge from the disorderly remarks of Government supporters who have discussed these questions, there are not two among them who understand anything about exchange, and they would not have the courage to deal with the problem even if they knew everything about it. The economy of Australia is threatened because members of the Government lack the moral courage and intellectual capacity to deal with important economic questions. That is why the Government is trying to side-track the real issue by pressing on with its anti-Communist legislation. The Labour party believes that the people should be given an opportunity to vote on the issue of prices control. Honorable senators opposite have spoken of the plight of the old and the sick, but the Government has done nothing to enable old people to live in comfort. Instead, the Government is taking up the time of the Parliament with legislation designed to interfere with the liberties of certain people in the community ; but we are going to protect them. The Attorney-General said that the Labour party, when in office, introduced legislation to enable Labour to retain its majority in this chamber. What would have been the position if the Commonwealth Electoral Act had not been amended, and if the number of representatives in the Parliament had not been increased? After the last election, the Labour party and the anti-Labour parties would have been returned in this
Senate in equal numbers. It is clear that the honorable senator who made the statement to which I have referred either did not know the position, or he deliberately concealed it.
I maintain that the bill which we are now discussing is of paramount importance because it touches upon an issue which affects the way in which people live, what they eat and wear, and how they are housed. Only by the Commonwealth assuming control of prices can the rising cost of living be checked. This measure deserves the support of all honorable senators, no matter to what party they belong. It is really a non-party measure because it provides that the people themselves shall decide the important issue of price control.
– When we hear members of the Government say that the Opposition is impeding the business of the country, one might be pardoned for believing that the Senate has no right to exist. The Senate is a part of the legislature of Australia. We are here for the purpose of scrutinizing every bill that comes before the Parliament, and it is our duty to bring forward matters which we believe affect the welfare of the people. Honorable senators opposite profess to be very concerned about communism in Australia, but it is extraordinary that practically everything the Government is doing tends to foster communism. According to honorable senators opposite, there should be an open go for long-distance burglars - for that is what they are - to take any price they can get on the world’s market, but wages should be pegged. It is nothing but hypocrisy for honorable senators to advocate freedom from control for shares and prices, and then to say that something should be done to stop the growth of communism. Do they think that they can stop communism by passing the Communist Party Dissolution Bill? Of course they cannot. If I had had any doubt of the efficacy of the measure that we are now discussing, my doubts would have been resolved by the speeches of Ministers. The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) first chided the Labour party for introducing this prices referendum measure without knowing what was in the budget. It might, he said, contain something about prices control. In the next breath, he said that there was nothing about prices control in the budget. Subsequently he claimed that the Opposition was taking this action because it knew what was in the budget. Australia is in the midst of a terrific crisis. To say that the Labour party has made no contribution to the solution of our economic problems is wrong. Returning from America in 1946 I met on the boat two emminent divines. I shall not mention their names but one was a catholic and the other a protestant. They both told me that before leaving Australia for the United States of America, they had believed that there were far too many controls in this country, but after what they had seen abroad, they were satisfied that price fixing in Australia was a wonder of the economic world. Since then, we have had a referendum on prices control and, at that referendum, honorable senators opposite who would have us believe that they are imbued with a desire to protect the common people, ad vised the people to vote for the abandonment of prices control by the Commonwealth at a time when there is so much talk by this Government about defence it may be appropriate to point out that our Minister for Defence (Mr. Harrison) has been sent 14,000 miles away. I recall that, during the prices referendum campaign, the. Minister for Defence, speaking in his own electorate, ridiculed what both I and the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) had been saying about prices. He claimed that the States could make a better job of prices control than the Commonwealth could. Do honorable senators opposite deny that that was what they all claimed on that occasion? Why do honorable senators opposite not have the decency to admit that they wore wrong just as the Premier of New Zealand (Mr. Holland), has admitted that he erred when he opposed bringing the New Zealand £1 to parity with sterling? Obviously the Government has not the courage to admit that experience has shown that the Commonwealth is the only authority capable of administering prices control effectively.
Economically, Australia is in a deplorable state. Its strength is its weakness. It is so rich and the price of wool so high that nine-tenths of the people are scared to death of the possible consequences of inflation. Government spokesmen claim that inflation is not a greater menace than communism, but every one of them knows that many times each day, members of this Parliament are asked in the street what they propose to do about the high cost of living. With beans at 3s. 3d. per lb. or even 3s. 6d. per lb., womenfolk in the homes are asking all of us what we are going to do to curb inflation; yet honorable senators opposite say that the problem of rising prices is not sufficiently important to warrant the action that the Opposition is taking in this chamber to-day ! Australian currency is being hawked around everywhere by the individuals whom I have described as long-distance burglars. I have said on many occasions that Australian currency should be brought to parity with sterling. Australia is probably the richest country on earth on a population basis, yet its currency is on par with that of South American States. That is what this Government has done to Australia.
– The Labour Government did that.
– At least it did not suggest that a proportion of our wool cheque should be set aside so that graziers may get something back later on. Senator Mattner said that the main cause of the increase of. prices was high wages. Does any intelligent man really believe that? I do not wish to be personally offensive, but if the honorable senator himself believes that, his knowledge of economics is very poor indeed. The truth is that the workers are having the greatest difficulty in making up the ground that they have already lost. The honorable senator also mentioned the shortage of raw materials. I remind him that raw materials could be imported much more cheaply if the Government so desired. Another argument advanced by the honorable senator was that production should be increased. I, too, believe that production should be stepped up. The situation to-day is entirely different from that of twenty years ago, when, during one of the worst economic crises in our history shops were filled with commodities that people could not buy and hundreds of thousands of men and women were out of work. To-day, jobs are available for several hundred thousand more employees than our labour resources can provide. Can intelligent workers be expected to increase production when a man can get more in tips for one night’s work at a night club than a labourer can earn carrying the hod for a week? Graziers do not know what to do with all their money. They are able to approach building workers and say, “I shall give you a couple of pounds a week more than you are earning now if you will build a house for me “. Does any one expect intelligent workers to increase production in these circumstances? Many millions of pounds are flowing to this country from Asian countries such as Malaya where native labour is being exploited. Money will not buy very much in Malaya to-day, but by sending it here, speculators can gain the benefit of the exchange rate, and so increase their capital by 25 per cent. They are buying flats and businesses in this country and drawing 10 per cent, or 12 per cent, interest on their investment. Whilst financiers are increasing their capital by £25 in every £100, without any effort on their part, old people who have seen their children and perhaps their grand children grow up in this country, and have saved perhaps for a trip overseas at the end of their working life, now find their savings dwindling in value because of increasing prices. On top of that, the conversion of Australian currency to sterling involves a loss of 20 per cent. Can we expect our public servants to take a real interest in their work when they see cooks, for instance, receiving £2 or £3 a week more than is paid to a headmaster of a school ? Does any one imagine that such a state of affairs can continue indefinitely? I repeat that the Australian economy is in a precarious position. We all know, of course, that the newspapers would like to see the Australian currency placed on parity with sterling because they would get cheaper newsprint. I am no great supporter of the newspapers, but simply because the Sydney Morning Herald or the Daily Minor says that two and two are four I ‘ do not propose to argue that two and two are six. It is peculiar, however, that the Communist party does not want our currency brought to parity with sterling. On that matter, the Communists apparently see eye to eye with the Government; but just what is the Government’s opinion? Twelve members of the Cabinet favour appreciation but seven are opposed to it.
– What about the leader of the party to which the honorable senator belongs?
– The Labour party is not the Government at present. I repeat that twelve members of the Cabinet favour appreciation and seven oppose it regardless of whether it would be good or bad for the Commonwealth. Those are the people who claim to be governing Australia to-day. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) were truly a leader instead of a modern Duke of Plaza Toro leading his regiment from behind because he finds it less exciting, he would say to the Treasurer (Mr Fadden), “Look here, the graziers have had enough. We are not going to disorganize the economy of Australia or of Great Britain.”
– The honorable senator has never liked the graziers.
– I realize that generally speaking, I am wasting my sweetness on the desert air, but I was hoping that one sinner at least would turn from his wicked ways. It- is not a question of whether I like the graziers or not. That is a foolish interjection. It does not matter whether the graziers are good, bad or indifferent.
– Order! The question before the Senate is whether the Standing Orders should be suspended.
– I believe that the Standing Orders should be suspended because inflation is of momentous importance to the people of Australia. If honorable senators opposite do not believe me, let them ask the pensioners or the public servants. The Government claims that the banning of the Communist party is more important than putting value back into the £1. It believes in everything British except, of course, British justice, which it would deny to the Australian people under the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Ask any man who has a few pounds in the bank or has invested some money in war loans what he thinks of rising prices. When he deposited or invested his money it was worth something. To-day, its value is dwindling rapidly. The Government has no worthwhile economic policy at all. The graziers are pulling it one way, and the manufacturers are pulling it another way. Menzies does not know himself from Fadden, and Fadden does not know himself from Menzies. We read in the press recently that the Treasurer left Parliament House at midnight looking exceedingly tired. The mountain has been labouring for seven weeks, but has not brought forth even a mouse. The Government lias succeeded only in causing national and international chaos. I believe that when the Chifley Government devalued Australian currency with sterling at the end of last year, it could not have adopted any other course. The then Prime Minister had no time to look for alternatives. Devaluation had to be carried out rapidly and Mr. Chifley acted rapidly.
– I rise to order! I do not know what all this harangue has to do with the motion before the Chair. I submit that Senator Grant is out of order.
– There is no point of order. I ask Senator Grant to continue.
– I think that Senator Vincent must be confusing harangue with orang-utang. No one can deny that inflation is the greatest problem with which we are confronted to-day. I ask honorable senators opposite to place themselves for a moment in a position of superannuated employees. How would they cope with the financial problems that are confronting retired public servants and pensioners to-day. Consider also the position of some one who has saved perhaps £100 to pay his fare to the Old Country. Out of that sum, £20 will be taken by the exchange rate. There might have been some justification for the present relationship between sterling and Australian currency fifteen or sixteen years ago when wheat was 2s. a bushel or even ls. a bushel.
– It was 9d. at one time.
– Being Scotch I do not worry about the extra 3d. Surely no honorable senator opposite is so lacking in intelligence that he believes that the present state of affairs can continue. The other night I listened to a representative of the woollen textile industry speaking from Bradford in England. He said that he had to pay £1,000 sterling for six balesof superior fine wool. Only the biggest buyers could operate individually on such a market. Others had to pool their resources. He added, “ I am deluged with cables from all parts of the world asking us to quote prices for English cloth to be delivered in 1951, 1952 and 1953. It is impossible to do so. The industry is in a state of chaos. We are making austerity suits but, although wages have been pegged, we can no longer sell them at anything like the price we charged in former times. The prices of all commodities will continue to rise. England is on a war economy basis. The £1 has been depreciated and with wool selling at six bales for £1,000 we do not know what will happen. If you think you can sell wool at £1 per lb. and buy the suit of clothing for 30s., you are making a very great mistake indeed.” During the last sessional period I said that the Australian £1 should be worth at least four dollars and that what we needed most from the United States of America was bulldozers and other machinery necessary for the development of this country. But what did the Government do? Immediately after sterling had been depreciated and the value of the Australian £1 had fallen to 2.3 dollars, the Government floated a loan in the United States of America which must be repaid in dollars.
– Thus getting further in the mire.
– That is so. The policy of the Government is to grease the fatted pig once more. The problem of rising prices has reached staggering proportions. In certain legislation now before the Parliament the Government proposes to place on accused persons the onus of proving their innocence. If it were called upon to prove that it had honoured its promise to curb rising prices and to put value back into the £1, it would stand condemned in the eyes of every right thinking person. I have always been prepared to defend the rights of the people, whether they be Britishers or not. It is the responsibility of the Government to prove that it has honestly attempted to tackle this problem. The first plank in the platform of the Government parties was a promise to put value back into the £1. The Government, which has been weighed in the balance and found wanting, now seeks to place on others the blame for its failure. I wholeheartedly support the motion and I trust that those honorable senators opposite who claim -that they are not tied by any party decisions will also do so. Many honorable senators opposite claim that they are not dominated by the leader of their party. If they are as free as they claim to be they, too, will unhesitatingly support it.
– The honorable senator admits that he is not free?
– I have not done so. Honorable senators opposite claim that Labour senator’s are dominated by Mr. Chifley, but that they themselves are free agents. If, in truth, they are not dominated by Mr. Menzies or by Mr. Fadden, and they are satisfied with a Cabinet which cannot make up its mind about the revaluation of the Australian £1 and postpones a decision on the matter day after day and week after week, they are not fit and proper persons to sit in this chamber. I have pleasure in supporting the motion.
.- We have been told that the step we have taken this afternoon is a very serious one that is unprecedented in this Parliament. Therefore, we must be prepared to state fully and clearly why we have decided to take such an important step. During the earlier sessional period we patiently awaited a pronouncement by the Government in relation to its promise to put value back into the £1. Day after day we asked for information on that point and we were assured by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator
O’Sullivan) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) in the House of Representatives that the Government had devised a formula to deal with the situation and that it was considering ways and means of honouring its promise to the electors. The people whom we represent, who suffer most from the effects of rising prices, have pressed us for information about the Government’s plans. Although the Government has been in office for more than ten months it has done nothing to honour its promise beyond toying with the idea, and politically a very dangerous idea, of appreciating the Australian £1. I had some pertinent observations to make on that subject in my maiden speech in this chamber. Instead of reaching a firm decision without telegraphing its punches to speculators it has wavered and been irresolute. First, it decided that the existing exchange rate should remain in force for a further period of twelve months, because the Australian Country party had said that the Australian £1 would be appreciated in relation to sterling only over its leader’s dead body. The Government is still unable to make up its mind on the matter. If the Government refuses to face its responsibilities in this matter the Opposition is compelled to take steps to deal with it. The pressure exerted by the community in relation to this problem is much greater than the Government realizes. Recently I had a talk with a small business man, a cake manufacturer, in Western Australia. He said to me, “ I can no longer remain in business because, although my costs are increasing daily, if I dare to increase the price of small cakes I shall not be able to sell them as housewives will bake their own cakes. I cannot cut down my overhead and I cannot increase my income “. His case is typical of that of the many small businessmen who are heavily hit by rising prices. The Opposition, far from , being irresponsible in this matter, is accepting its responsibilities and is endeavouring to discharge them in a proper manner. It is useless for us merely to sit here and blame the Government for having failed to act. We must take the initiative. We have a clear responsibility to the people. If the Government falls down on its job, as this Government has undoubtedly done, we must act in its place.
Government spokesmen have said this afternoon that but for the motion now before the Senate the Communist Party Dissolution Bill would have been presented to the Senate for discussion. If that bill comes before us and we deal with it in a certain manner, and the Prime Minister carries out the threats that he has uttered, we shall soon have the second double dissolution in the history of the Australian Parliament. “We shall then have the great responsibility of drawing the attention of the people of Australia to the incompetence of the Government and to its neglect to honour its promise to give first priority to its undertaking to put value back into the fi. Government supporters, notably the Leader of the Government, have given no valid reason why the Opposition should not have taken this step to stem the tide of inflation. Our majority in this chamber gives us the right to take it: but even if we were in the minority wo should still exercise our right to bring this matter before the Government. The only major matter of policy to which this Government has given consideration is the proposal for the appreciation of the Australian £1, but it is too spineless to give effect to its decision in relation to that matter. If the Australian £1 be appreciated, how can the people be protected against victimization unless a system of prices control is in operation ? We have already seen how the Government has failed to protect the people from the adverse effects of policy changes. Only recently it allowed certain goods to be imported to this country, but instead of protecting the people by imposing ceiling prices on those imports it permitted the profits derived from them to go to the importing concerns. I do not contend that prices control will end all of our economic problems. Prices control must be accompanied by other protective measures.
The Government has displayed a complete disregard of the interests of the people. In matters of major policy it has refused to issue clear-cut statements to the press so that the people may know exactly what is proposed. We have only to consider the conflicting reports that have appeared in the press in relation to the new health and medical benefits scheme. The Government hides behind a facade of plans, dribbling news out to newspapermen, and refuses to make an authoritative’ statement to the Parliament. When we have questioned Ministers on the basis of newspaper reports we have been asked from what source we obtained our information. No information is given and the people do not know where they stand. The Government is similarly reticent about its intentions in regard to the proposal for the appreciation of the Australian £1. It has refused to make authoritative statements in relation to the price of wool which is causing so much panic in the community. It cannot continue to burk these important issues for ever. It cannot claim that private enterprise should have a free hand in the fixation of prices and at the same time seek to peg the workers’ wages. If wages are pegged, prices must also be pegged.
– Wages are not pegged at present.
– Recently, despite sky-rocketing prices, representatives of three Liberal governments in Australia appeared before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court with a view to pulling down the basic wage. Does that not constitute an attempt to peg wages? The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Government permits retailers to sell goods in the highest possible market, it must also permit the worker, who has only his labour to sell, to sell that commodity in the highest possible market. If the Government endeavours to reduce the amount of money that a worker shall be paid for his labour, in common decency it must also peg the retail price of goods. In this move to straighten out the economic chaos that now exists, the Opposition is not acting frivolously; it is tackling a problem of the greatest magnitude in the only way open to it. The people are disappointed that the Government has made no attempt to ‘honour its promise to put value back into the £1 ; the Opposition is determined to force the Government to act. The formula about which Government spokesmen have had so much to say has turned out to be a myth. If we have n double dissolution, let us put all our -cards on the table. If the Government wishes to ban the Communist party, let it do so, but at the same time let it treat those people who are not Communists in accordance with the accepted principles of British justice. If the Government goes to the people in the near future it will have to state clearly its policy in relation to the appreciation of the Australian £1; it must tell the gold producers of Western Australia how it proposes to look after their interests in that event and it must tell the wool-growers what it proposes to do about their commodity.
.- I oppose the motion. I agree with the Leader of the Government (Senator O’Sullivan) and the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) that there is a spirit of hypocrisy behind it. For weeks now it has been evident that the Opposition ha. been trying to find some way by which it can hold up the business of the Government. It has revised its tactics from time to time. Instead of co-operating with the Government in passing legislation designed to meet the needs of the people of this country, the Opposition has engaged in a battle of tactics with the Government. That is the real reason for the submission of this motion. The Labour party i3 endeavouring to cover up the dissention that has developed in its own ranks because of the anti-Communist legislation introduced by the Government.- When the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) moved for the closure of this debate, the defeat of the motion clearly indicated how little sincerity there was in Senator McKenna’s claim that a restoration of prices control was a matter of urgency. The Labour party knows that it would be severely defeated if it were to go to the country on the Communist issue. It would, perhaps, be almost decimated as a party. Its members are therefore trying to find a way to present to the people of the Commonwealth an issue on which they may win back the reins of office. They are relying on the restoration of prices control, but I believe that, despite what members of the Labour party have said, if they go to the country on that issue, they will find they have made a mistake. Casting our minds back to the 10th December last year, we well remember that the electors gave their decision in a very definite manner. Any person who attempts to assess political opinion must realize that only very rarely is such a decisive decision reversed within twelve months. I am quite sure that the people of this country would again give the same verdict as they gave last December. The Government has carried out its policy as far as the Opposition in this chamber has permitted it to do so. The Opposition has in every case endeavoured to frustrate the efforts of the Government to implement its policy.
– Did the Opposition prevent the Government from putting value back into the £1?
– Tes. During the whole period that this Government has been in office, the Opposition has deliberately tried to delay and frustrate every effort of the Government to put its policy into effect. The Labour party has shown by its tactics to-day that it is determined to delay the implementation of Government policy, and to seek a political advantage in case there should be an early election. Despite what honorable senators opposite have said on the question of prices control, I believe that that subject does not loom largely in the minds of the people and would not change their political opinions.
– The honorable senator is out of touch with political opinion.
– As a public man, I think that I keep in touch with the public as much as most men do. When I say that, I consider that I am putting into words what the members of the general public feel. The best way to test that statement would be to have an election, which we could have at any time, if honorable senators opposite are determined to reject the Government’s antiCommunist legislation, and bring about a double dissolution. If the Opposition really thinks the issue of prices control may swing it into office, let us have a double dissolution on the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950.
– That is a good hollow log for the honorable senator.
– I never look for a hollow log. I believe in facing facts and taking things as they are. As I said before, the only way to test the issue is to go to the country.
– The honorable senator may be sorry if that happens.
– I do not think so. I have already thrown out a challenge to the Opposition. The Government and its supporters would welcome the opportunity, because we know that we would retain the reins of government, possibly with stronger numbers than we have at the present time.
– Hope springs eternal in the human breast.
– Honorable senators opposite realize that if the Government did increase its majority, there would be fewer members on the other side of this chamber. The immediate issue is whether the question of prices control is of sufficient urgency to warrant the suspension of the Standing Orders. The Government wishes to enact the anti-Communist legislation that was brought before this chamber three months ago-
– And passed by the Senate.
– The Opposition mutilated that legislation by insisting on amendments which the Government considered would make the measure ineffective. But the Opposition did not pass the bill. Because of its majority in this chamber, it mutilated the bill. The Government considered that the alterations to the bill affected vital aspects of it, and therefore could not be accepted. The Government holds that the proposed anti-Communist legislation is of such an urgent nature that it should be presented to this chamber before any proposed legislation to control prices.
– The Labour party has something which is more urgent and is in interests of the people.
– It is very nice for the Opposition to be able to say, “We passed the bill”, but any common-sense nian knows that it did not pass the bill ia the form the Government required it to be passed.
– The function of the Senate is to review legislation.
– The Government is determined not to accept the bill in a mutilated form. Some one must give way. The question for this chamber to. decide is which of the two issues is the more important to be debated at the present time.
– The more urgent.
– The more urgent, if the honorable senator wishes. As I said before, the Government believes that the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950, is the more important.
– Fascism!
- Senator Ward has; a habit of waking up every now andi then, and saying “ Fascism “.
– Is it not a fascist bill V-
– Some honorable senators opposite seem to hold the opinion that they are the only people who believe in liberty. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber are just as liberally minded are are honorable senators opposite. I am not one of those people who might be labelled pro-fascist, and I request the honorable senator not to make such comments.
I support the Leader of the Government, the Attorney-General and the other honorable senators on this side of the chamber who have spoken en the motion that the Standing Orders should be suspended. I consider that Government business should take precedence. It was assumed that that Government business would naturally be the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950.
– We do not know that.
– If the honorable senator does not know that, he has not been taking much interest in the proceedings. I think it was recognized by every thinking person in the Commonwealth that the first bill to come before this chamber would be the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950. I press very hard for the members of this chamber to take a sensible and fair-minded view of the two measures before the Parliament. If that is done, there can be only one decision : that the Communist Party Dissolution Bill is the more important. That bill contains the germ of many things designed for the benefit of Australia. It is a measure vital to the interests of this country at the present time. If enacted, it could do a great deal for Australia, and I know that many members on the other side of the chamber realize, as do member on this side, the menace of communism to Australia. Unfortunately there are honorable senators on the opposite side of the chamber wl_ are not able to express themselves freely on the matter.
Sitting suspended from 5.59 to S p.m.
– I rise to order. I ask for leave to propose a motion relating to a matter of great urgency. I wish to move that the present debate be adjourned until after consideration of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in order to permit the .Senate to consider a message received to-day from the House of Representatives. The message, which relates to that hill, has been Tying on the table of the Senate since 3 p.m.
– The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has already spoken. Therefore, I do not think he is in order in asking for leave to propose the motion to which he has referred.
– I have made the point that this motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders is designed to prevent the introduction of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, which the Government considers to be an urgent measure, and that the problem of prices is being used by the ‘Opposition as a smoke-screen. It is most unfortunate that the method of voting in force at the last general election enabled the Labour party to retain its majority in the Senate, despite the fact that the present Government parties were returned with an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives.
The bill introduced by Senator McKenna cannot be regarded as being as urgent as the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. If honorable senators opposite are really seriously concerned about the prices problem I suggest to them that consideration of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill would probably be a much more effective method of dealing with that problem than the timewasting method of dealing with the bill now before the Senate.
– Who wrote the honorable senator’s speech for him?
– No one writes my speeches. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber believe that the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill would provide a solution to many of the problems that confront us. I am sure that if the Australian people were asked to decide whether the bill introduced by Senator McKenna or the Communist Party Dissolution Bill was the more urgent, they would vote emphatically in favour of the latter. It is regrettable that in the senior chamber of the National Parliament of Australia the conduct of business is being taken out of the hands of the Government. The Labour party proclaims loudly to the world that it believes in democracy. On the 10th December of last year the Australian people made their decision. They returned the present Government parties with a majority in the House of Representatives, the only chamber in which, under the present method of voting, those parties could have secured a majority. The people expressed their opinion very clearly then, but now the Labour party is attempting to take the conduct of business out of the hands of the Government, in a most undemocratic manner. It is using the majority that, by accident, it has in this chamber to dictate to the Government what business shall be brought forward.
At the last general election, the issue of communism was much more important than was the prices issue, and I believe that to be true now also. The fact that prices are increasing is being seized upon by the Opposition, which hopes that, if the Government goes to the country, the prices situation may be of assistance to the Labour party. If the Labour party wants to go to the country, let it allow the Communist Party Dissolution Bill to be debated in this chamber. If the measure is thrown out again, we shall be delighted to accept the challenge of honorable senators opposite and meet them on the hustings.
Since this Parliament assembled we have heard from honorable senators opposite one tune all the time. They say, “ Why do not you do this and that ? “ At first, they asked why the Government did not abolish petrol rationing. Now that petrol rationing has been abolished, and the anti-Communist bill has been introduced, they are harping upon prices and putting value back into the £1. They began to do that a few months after the general election. If honorable senators opposite are so interested in putting value back into the £1 and keeping prices down, why did not they take appropriate action during the eight years the Labour party was in office ?
– We did.
– Prices began to spiral during the term of office of the Labour party. The inflationary movement in Australia began to gather momentum owing to the maladministration of Labour governments. All this talk by the Labour party about prices is only window dressing. We have read in the press about the tactics that honorable senators opposite propose to adopt in the Parliament in order to defeat the Government. It is nauseating for the Australian people to learn that honorable senators on one side of this chamber are considering, not the best interests of this country, but the best tactics to adopt to secure their return to office. Our duty is to legislate in the best interests of the people of Australia. The Opposition has consistently tried to frustrate the efforts of the Government to give effect to its policy, which the people endorsed on. the 10th December of last year. We intend to stand upon the mandate that Ave received then, and, as I have said before, we are willing to fight the Labour party on it at a general election.
I believe that the control of prices by the Commonwealth would not be nearly aa effective in checking inflation as would the passing of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. If we could eliminate the Communist menace in this country, we should, to a great degree, secure peace in industry, and, consequently, greater production. Despite all the arguments that have been advanced about revaluation of the £1, I think that increased production of the goods that the Australian people require would do more than anything else to check inflation. Our people are short of the necessaries of life. Queensland - and possibly other States as well - are being forced to import materials that should be manufactured in this country, but which are not available in sufficiently large quantities owing to the industrial upheavals and disturbances caused by Communists. In Mackay, we have had to import water piping from Antwerp. We are importing coal and steel. Even tha cement for the footpaths upon which our people walk has to be brought from overseas. All this means extra cost. Although governmental and municipal instrumentalities are nominally paying the increased costs, they are actually borne by the ordinary people in our community. The result of the acute shortage of houses and materials, caused by inadequate production, is that people with money are paying inflated prices for homes and other things that they need. Consequently, prices are increasing. The inflationary spiral will not be checked by the carrying of a motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders to allow Senator MeKenna to proceed without delay with his bill. If we put the stopper on the bottle and allow the gas inside to expand, there will be an explosion. We must get to the cause of the trouble. I believe that, to a large degree, the present inflationary trend is caused by a lack of production. That lack of production began during, the regime of the Labour Government, which was afraid to take a stand and attempt to secure increased production. Throughout the piece, it played up to the Communists. I believe it was Senator Cameron who said that communism thrives when people cannot get the things or conditions they want. That is a sorry reflection on the Labour party, because communism grew faster under Labour governments than it ever grew before. There is no doubt that, when the people went to the polls on the 10th December of last year, one of the things that was uppermost in their minds was that under the regime of the Labour Government the Communist menace had been allowed to grow. I know that honorable senators opposite do not like to hear that said, but it is a fact which the people of Australia had in mind when they voted at the last general election. The electors know that the real solution of our present troubles is to be found, not in prices control, but in the elimination of the Communist menace, which will enable the industrial workers of this country to pull their weight to the utmost and produce sufficient materials to meet the requirements of this country. If we had sufficient goods, we should not be suffering from the present inflationary conditions.
Honorable senators opposite have said -that during the referendum on prices “control members of the present Government parties stumped the country and -opposed control of prices by the Com. monwealth. The people defeated that referendum. In a democracy, we must :abide by the decision of the people. In relation to that referendum, honorable senators opposite must believe one of two things. They must believe either that Australian people did not exercise common sense in making the decision that they did .make, or that the Labour party did not put its case correctly to them and that we put our case forward in a better manner. We have to abide by the decision of the people, and that decision was given when the prices referendum went before them. We must abide by their decision, irrespective of whether we like it or not. That democratic principle should operate in this National Parliament, but unfortunately the Opposition seems to have adopted the attitude that it wants its way irrespective of what the people want. Despite the frustrating efforts of honorable senators opposite this Government has achieved something since it has been in office. It is evident that had the Opposition had its way, nothing would have been achieved. To every measure that the Government has introduced the Opposition has said, in effect, “Yes, but- “. The Opposition surrendered on the child endowment measure because it knew that it was adopting an unpopular attitude. It is evident, in connexion with the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, that honorable senators opposite have got themselves into a jam and do not know how to get out of it. It is quite obvious that the motion to suspend the Standing Orders has been moved so that the antiCommunist legislation will not come before the Senate to-day. Although the federal executive of the Australian Labour party was evenly divided on the attitude which should be adopted by the Opposition towards the bill, honorable senators opposite are unable to make up their minds. The opinion of Labour in Western Australia has changed, and that has caused further confusion in the minds of honorable senators opposite. By contrast, supporters of the Government have the opportunity to make up their minds at Government party meetings. It is well known that the federal executive of the Australian Labour party, although not elected by the Australian people, makes up the mind of the Opposition. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber exercise individual rights. The present Government has retained the confidence of the people, despite-
– Order ! I wish the honorable senator would get back to the question before the Senate, which is whether the Standing Orders should be suspended.
– That the subject of prices is not so urgent as honorable senators opposite would have us believe it to be is evident from the result of a recent Gallup poll.
– What has that to do with the motion?
– It has something to do with prices, and it clearly revealed the attitude of the Australian people. I do not consider that the subject of prices control is so urgent that it should take precedence over Government business in this chamber. In the last survey of public opinion the people of this country did not indicate that they considered the subject to be so urgent. As democratic people they have sufficient common sense and understanding to express themselves clearly on such matters. It is also interesting to know that only 25 per cent, of the electors are dissatisfied with the Government. Only 27 per cent, of those dissatisfied people have any thought about the control of prices. Forty-three per cent. of Labour supporters are satisfied with the present Government. Of that percentage that is not satisfied with the efforts of the Government to restore value to the fi, only 8 per cent, are not satisfied about the efforts that have been made to put value back into the £1. Those are the key points of the question that is before the Senate. Those results prove that, despite the loud eloquence of honorable senators opposite, the main body of public opinion does not support the proposal involved in the motion before us.
Honorable senators opposite have made some interesting statements about the prices of various commodities. As I am not a domesticated man I do not know much about the current prices of cabbages and cauliflowers, to which Senator Armstrong has referred. I remind the Senate, however, that Senator Armstrong, who is a man of sound common sense, and represents New South Wales, knows that both New South Wales and Queensland have suffered from serious floods this year. Many vegetable crops in those States have been destroyed. Consequently, owing to the extremely wet weather, there has been an increase of prices for these vegetables. Growers are weeks behind with, the planting of such a hardy crop as sugar cane in Queensland, and crops of tomatoes have been ruined. Yet the current price of cabbages and cauliflowers has been given as a reason why prices generally should be controlled. I recall that during the regime of Labour, in a year when there were no floods, beans were sold in the shops in Sydney for 3s. 3d. per lb. We must take cognizance of such, things. I emphasize that the last survey of public opinion clearly indicates that the people of ‘Australia are not so greatly concerned about prices as the motion before the Senate would indicate.
– The honorable senator is quite wrong.
– I merely state facts and figures. Although honorable senators opposite have stated that the motion has been moved because of the general concern of the people about rising costs, I am convinced that it is merely a smokescreen for the purpose of supporting certain political tactics. It must be remembered that while prices have risen, wages also have been increased. As honorable senators are aware, the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration was established to see that wages kept in step with costs. Each quarter the basic wage is adjusted, in accordance with the increase of costs. That is done by the court, not the Parliament. As a result, people who employ labour have to pay the increased wages. This matter is not nearly so urgent as the antiCommunist legislation that the Government desires the Senate to consider. The reason why the Opposition does not want the Communist Party Dissolution Bill to be brought before the Senate at this stage is that it cannot make up its mind on its attitude to that legislation until the opinion of the supporters of Labour in Western Australia is clarified. It appears to me that honorable senators opposite are dead scared of facing a general election on this subject. I assure them that every honorable senator on this side of the chamber would be very pleased to appear on the hustings and fight Labour on the issue. Honorable senators were not elected to the Senate to participate in battles of tactics, but to assist to govern the country in a correct manner. The Opposition is attempting to frustrate the Government’s efforts to do so. In a democracy I consider that an Opposition should consider all legislation introduced on fair grounds, not in the manner that the Opposition has dealt with legislation introduced by this Government. The Constitution provides for a general election a t least every three years. It seems to me that, for political expediency, the Opposition is seeking grounds, other than the anti-Communist issue, on which to fight an early general election, at a very high cost to the people of this country. I point out that a general election costs the country a very large sum. Instead of engaging in a battle of tactics, I suggest that the Opposition should cooperate with us in the good government of the country. Let us proceed with the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, so that peace may be restored in industry and a plentiful supply of goods may thereby be made available for our people. That would result in reducing the cost of living and enable the people of Australia to live pleasant and happy lives.
– I do not want to join with the previous speaker in stone-walling the motion before the chamber. I think that we have something of far greater importance to do for the people. As I did not hear any honorable senator second the motion, I now formally second it, to enable us to get on with the business.
.- I oppose the motion that has been moved by Senator McKenna, that his brain child should supersede and push into the background the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. The debate has ranged over a very wide compass, and,, indeed, at times it has seemed that the anti-Communist legislation itself, or the bill that has been introduced by Senator McKenna, was being debated. I do not consider that the bill that has been introduced by Senator McKenna should take precedence over the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, because I do not believe that it has been brought forward with any real desire to fix prices. I consider that it has been brought forward solely with the desire to delay the time when the Labour Opposition in this chamber will have to declare, finally and irrevocably, where it stands on the anti-Communist legislation. Obviously, honorable senators opposite do not wish to debate the bill itself, although, on the pretext afforded them by this motion, they have taken the opportunity to criticize it. To debate it is the last thing that they wish to do, for, if they were to debate it, they would have to vote on it, and at this time they have not been told what course they must take when the vote is taken. However necessary it may be, from the point of view of the federal executive of the Australian Labour party, that honorable senators opposite should not be forced to vote on this occasion, and however convenient it may be for those who run the Australian Labour party to cause delay in dealing with the communist issue, there is no reason why, in this chamber, Labour senators should be allowed to postpone consideration of this measure, which the ‘Government considers to be of vital importance. Indeed, it is a measure that strikes at the very root of the things that they themselves have been talking about. If Communists are in charge of our basic industries, as I believe they are, and if they are using their control of the unions that control the workers in those basic industries, as I believe they do, then much of the trouble which we suffer from to-day, through lack of goods,- is directly attributable to the actions of the Communists who are in control of these unions. They are preventing the people from getting the goods which alone would enable us to defeat the inflation that has been made the pretext for the motion before the Senate.
– Can the honorable senator prove that?
– Yes. As a result of action by Communists on the coal-fields during the regime of the Chifley Government, and since, the production of coal is far below what it should be. That has been borne out by the statements of Labour leaders themselves. Because of the lack of coal, the steel industry is working at only 66 per cent, capacity, and the shortage of steel is reflected in the lag in the housing programme. As a direct result of the activities of Mr. Healy, and of other Communists in control of the transport unions, overseas shipping freights have recently been increased by 10 per cent., and that increase will be reflected in the cost of many of the commodities that the workers need. If that is not sufficient proof that the control of basic industries by Communists has an important bearing on the cost of commodities, I do not know what proof would satisfy Senator Fraser. The purpose of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill is to defeat the threat of communism which is having such a disastrous effect upon the economy of the country. Notwithstanding assertions to the contrary by members of the Opposition, that bill was not passed by this chamber. In the manner in which it, left the Senate after the Labour Opposition had dealt with it, the bill did not give the Government power to remove Communists from office in the unions which concern our basic industries on the ground that they were Communists, and that is the power that the Government needs. The measure introduced by Senator McKenna can at best only provide for the taking of a referendum on prices control at some time in the future, but if the Opposition allows the Communist Party Dissolution Bill to be brought in immediately, and if they vote against it as they have boasted they will do, then they will have an opportunity to go to the country at once, and can put before the people their plan for the control of prices. If members of the Opposition do not know whether they are in favour of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill or not, that is a purely domestic matter which is not properly the concern of this Parliament.
During the course of this debate, a number of curious statements have been made by members of the Opposition. Senator O’Byrne, who spoke with that old world courtesy which we have come to associate with Mr. Ward, described members of the Government as rhinoceroses. However much we may commend the courtesy of the honorable senator, I must point out that he had his natural history somewhat mixed. At one stage he had these rhinoceroses shedding crocodile tears, and dodging down side tracks in the wordy jungle. Apart from that comic relief, other arguments put forward by members of the Opposition contained an element of humour. Senator Grant made an impassioned appeal for the revaluation of the £1, and he declared that the present- Government was responsible for devaluing the £1. It is beyond controversy that it was the present Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr. Chifley), and he alone, who made the Australian £1 follow the English £1 down when it was devalued. If the devaluation cf our £1 had the adverse effects which Senator Grant claimed, then the blame for what has happened lies squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Chifley, and on nobody else. Senator Grant also declared with vehemence, beating his desk to tinder, that what Australia needed was bulldozers and capital equipment. Well, for five years all we got from the Labour Government, in answer to our representations on that point, was, “ I am sorry, but we cannot get dollars; Sir Stafford Cripps won’t let us”. However, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) during his first year of office, went abroad and succeeded in raising a loan of 100,000,000 dollars with which to buy bulldozers and other capital equipment. Such equipment is. necessary if . we are to develop the country so as to absorb immigrants whom we must bring here if we are to keep Australia safe.
Various members of the Opposition, led by Senator Cameron, have complained of the rising price of various commodities, and have claimed that prices are fixed by monopolies to the detriment of the people. Every commodity that they mentioned is the subject of price control already, and if it be true that the prices are fixed by monopolies, it is a grave reflection on State governments, three of which are Labour governments. If those Governments cannot keep prices down, what reason have we to suppose that another government would be more successful? The statements of honorable senators opposite are a tissue of lies.
However, the worst statement of all that emanated from the other side of the chamber - and I regret to say that Senator Grant was again responsible! - was to this effect : “ You can’t expect intelligent workers to-day to exert themselves to produce goods because the price of wool is high “. That is the most damnable doctrine ever preached, but it has been preached for years by the present Labour Opposition. The intelligent worker knows that 90 per cent, of the houses built are for the use of other workers ; and that the coal produced from the mines is used to make electricity to cook the dinners and warm the houses of other workers, or to make gas that is used for the same purpose. The workers themselves make up the great body of consumers. This beastly doctrine that there is an essential antagonism between the workers and other members of the community, and that the worker who does a good job is acting detrimentally to his class, must be abandoned if the workers themselves are to attain to the standard of living to which they are entitled. I am not one of those who say that the workers are responsible for low production. I know that both management and workers must take their share of responsibility, but I know that we must get rid of this idea that there is a fundamental cleavage between the employer and the employee, or we shall never be able to provide for the worker all that this country is capable of giving him.
I am not stating a case against pricefixing. That point is not yet being debated. I am merely replying to some of the extravagant statements that have been made by members of the Opposition. The Senate is part of the Commonwealth Parliament, and we should not allow the business of the Senate to be taken out of the hands of the Government. The aim of the Government is, first, to increase production of those commodities which the country needs so urgently; and, secondly, to remove the threat to the country’s security. To further that aim the Government wishes to introduce the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, and we should not allow that measure to be pushed aside in order to make room for .the brain-child of Senator McKenna. If it is as urgent as he suggests that his proposals should be put to the people, let the Opposition have the courage to vote against the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Then they will be able to go to the people straight away. The time has come for the Opposition to put up or shut up.
– Practically all Government supporters who have spoken have said that they want a double dissolution. I have come to the conclusion that they protest too much, and that there is no sincerity in them. The motion before the Chair seeks the suspension of the Standing Orders so that the Labour Opposition may introduce a bill for the purpose of asking the people to state their opinion on prices control. That is a very important matter. Senators have told us that the Communist Party Dissolution Bill is far more important than the question now before the Senate.
Government Members. - Hear, hear!
– Honorable senators opposite speak with their master’s voice. Of course, it is important to a few persons in this country to prevent the Labour party from introducing legislation that would enable the workers to get a fair deal. Honorable senators opposite represent the exploiters of the people of this country; Labour’s aim is to prevent that exploitation, and one means of doing that would be to re-impose prices control. Which is more important - banning the Communist party, or raising the standards of living of the workers ? The anti-Communist bill is only a smokescreen. Honorable senators opposite know very well that their supporters already have before the Commonwealth Arbitration Court an application for a longer working week, and a reduction of wages. They know, too, that if they are able to secure the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill in its present form, any militant Labour man or trade unionist who protests against the onslaughts that are being made upon his wages and working conditions, can be branded as a ‘Communist and removed from trade union office in an endeavour to disorganize the Labour movement.. The Government is doing the bidding of its masters. It has been told by its masters, “ We expect you to take away as much industrial strength as you possibly can from the workers because we want bigger profits”. There are two classes in the Australian community to-day - the exploiters, and the exploited. The Government is supporting the exploiters, and the Labour party is seeking to relieve the plight of the exploited. That is why we consider prices control to be necessary. We realize that prices cannot be pegged rigidly, but we believe that there must be some sort of control in the interests of working people. The exploiting class to-day is making record profits. That can be verified by a perusal of the financial columns of our daily newspapers. On the other hand, the standard of living of the workers is falling because of rising prices. We are told by honorable senators opposite that price increases are caused by rising wages ; but I remind the Senate that cost-of-living adjustments to wages are always five months behind prices. Prices rise first, and then wages follow, but the gap between the two is steadily increasing with the result that the standard of living of the worker is falling. The Government has done nothing to arrest the drift. When the referendum on prices control was held, members of the present Government parties made full use of broadcasting and the newspapers to mislead the people into believing that the States could administer prices control better than the Commonwealth could do it. They knew that that was not true, ‘but their aim was to secure higher profits for their supporters at the expense of working people. When I spoke on the 1949-50 budget I said that even if the claim for a £10 a week basic wage were eventually granted, the new wage would not be sufficient to buy all the commodities that could be purchased by the basic wage then existing. That prophecy has proved to he correct. If a basic wage of £10 a week were awarded to-morrow, it would not purchase the goods that a basic wageearner could buy a year ago.
I say emphatically that action to curb the present inflationary trends is much more important than is the passage of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. Rising prices are seriously affecting the standard of living of 9Q per cent, of the people - the useful working people who are producing the wealth of this country. One frequently hears honorable senators opposite urging harder work as a means of overcoming existing shortages of goods. We are producing a substantial surplus of wool to-day. What is happening to it? It is being sold overseas. Are the people of this country generally getting any benefit from that surplus ? They are not. We are also exporting lead, zinc, copper and many primary products, including butter. Has the production of surpluses of those commodities brought prices down? No; the surpluses are being sold overseas. That disposes of the argument that increased production would result in a reduction of prices. In the past, the United States of America has had huge surpluses of butter, eggs, cotton, and many other commodities, but have the prices of those goods been reduced ? They have not. Some of the surplus goods have been destroyed to keep prices up.
The Government claims that the Opposition’s action to-day is hypocritical, but honorable -senators opposite themselves are the greatest hypocrites in the Parliament. They talk of democracy, yet they sponsor a bill to deprive about 12,000 people of the right to express their political convictions! That is fascism. How can legislation of that kind be more important than legislation which is designed to improve the standards of living of about 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 people? We are told’ that currency speculators are holding many millions of pounds in this country and Senator MeKenna has stated that profits are likely to amount to £70,000,000. Obviously, the presence in this country of vast sums of money sent here for speculation purposes contributes to the inflationary spiral, and does nothing to reduce prices. There is a real danger that the Australian people will be reduced to a beggarly existence. Already workingclass families have had to curtail expenditure because they cannot pay their bills if they endeavour to maintain the living standard that they enjoyed two years ago. Lower-paid workers are living in a state, verging on poverty.
– After eight years of Labour rule!
– The Australian people were comparatively well off until the present Government assumed office. There was no unemployment, and the purchasing power of the basic wage was 33 per cent, greater than it is to-day.
The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), has said that the action taken by the Labour Opposition to-day in this chamber is unprecedented. That may be, but it is necessary to act in accordance with a situation as one finds it. Conditions existing to-day make the establishment of a precedent necessary if an -attempt is to be made to improve or even maintain living standards.
– Defence is very urgent.
– That is another matter altogether, and I shall discuss it at the appropriate time. All these bogies are raised in an effort to direct attention away from the really important issue, which is rising prices. The Government has not attempted to fulfil the promises that it made prior to the last election. Honorable senators opposite claim that the Opposition is delaying the Government’s plans to deal with the Communists, who, we are told, are the enemies of this country. I say that the real enemies of this country are in high places. The No. 1 enemy is not very far from this chamber. Those enemies are assisting the exploiters of the workers. If the workers received a more equitable share of the wealth that they produce, they would be enjoying a considerably higher standard of living. An improvement of living standards is Labour’s desire and we believe that some improvement could be achieved by the re-introduction of a system of prices control that would prevent monopolies from fleecing the people. That is the position as I see it, and, I am sure, as many others see it, particularly housewives who have to buy the necessaries of life for their families. Honorable senators opposite should visit some of the homes that I visit. If they did, they would realize that the present basic wage is a mere pittance. Why should the producers of our wealth be forced to live on a pittance, while their exploiters are making huge profits? I warn the Government that it is turning the screw too tightly. It is allowing its supporters, whose financial assistance enabled it to ‘ secure the reins of office, to put the screw on. I trust that this motion will be carried. We shall then immediately introduce the bill the purpose of which is to ask the people of this country to give the Government authority to control prices. I trust that on this occasion the people will not be misled by the fantastic stories and diatribes of John Henry Austral and other rubbish broadcast by the anti-Labour parties. The people realize that they can be assisted only through the agency of the National Parliament. They will be well advised to give this matter serious consideration because, after all, it is they who suffer most from the rising spiral of prices.
Senator McCALLUM (New South Wales) 9.1]. - I oppose the motion. It should not only be defeated in this Senate but it should also be decisively condemned by every person who respects constitutional usage. The Senate is not an isolated body; it forms a part of the machinery of government. Under our normal procedure, after questions had been disposed of to-day the Senate would have debated a bill which had been sent to it by the House of Representatives. That bill i3 an urgent measure, the fate of which could have been decided this afternoon. The Opposition could have either accepted it or rejected it. The bill which is the subject of the motion now before us is not urgent. It does not propose that the Government should immediately set to work to control prices, but that a referendum should be held and that if the proposals submitted to the people were endorsed by them, certain action should be taken under an amended constitution. Opposition senators know as well as we do that the history of referendums in this country is a sorry one. We have been told that the proposals in the referendum on rents and prices, which was held during the term of office of the Labour Government, were defeated solely because the representatives of the non-Labour parties deceived the people. What an insult to the people to insinuate that they did not know their own minds ! When the people agree with proposals that emanate from honorable senators opposite they are described as wise and well informed, but when they consent to proposals that emanate from honorable senators on this side of the chamber, it i(= said that they have been deceived. Do honorable senators opposite really believe that to be true? The people make up their own minds on matters that are submitted to them. They have as much right to reject a proposal as to accept it. With two or three notable exceptions, the history of referendums to increase the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament has been one of rejection. I do not agree with the contention of Opposition senators that the proposals that were submitted to the people in the referendum on rents and prices were defeated because they were opposed by the Liberal and Australian Country parties. They would have been defeated had those parties adopted a strictly neutral attitude. They were defeated because the people were then opposed, as they are to-day, to the centralization of power. The people have indicated that they oppose any general prices control except in time of war. What is this rusty blunderbuss that
Senator MeKenna has drawn from his medieval armory? When, in normal times, attempts have been made to control prices they have invariably failed. A system of prices control can operate effectively only at times when the patriotism of the people is stirred and there is a mighty upsurge of public opinion in favour of it. No system of prices control can entirely eliminate the “black marketeer “. Prices control is not a cure for inflation; it will encourage the “black marketeer” and prevent an increase of the production of goods which is the only true counter to inflation. I reject the insinuation by Opposition senators that honorable senators on this side of the chamber do not know what to do about inflation or that they are so divided in their opinion as to the best means to curb it that they cannot devise a common policy on the subject. There has been much comment in the press and ill-informed statements have been made by honorable senators opposite about the failure of the Government parties to reach a common decision on this matter. Last week I took part in a continuous series of party meetings. No man of honour may reveal what occurred at those meetings but I can inform honorable senators opposite and the people that I have never taken part in debates that were conducted, with more courtesy and harmony, and with more vigour, too, than were the debates at those meetings. I made certain suggestions which I pressed with all the vigour of which I was capable, but I did not make one enemy nor was I offered one insult. I am prepared to accept what the Cabinet, after mature consideration, decides to be an effective counter to inflation. We know that there is no panacea for the ills of inflation.
Proposals have been advanced by honorable senators opposite to deal with the problem. Although there is merit in one of them; I can discover no merit in the others. Public canvassing of one proposal, in which Senator Grant is greatly interested, may do great harm to the country. Because I believe that that proposal might be ruined by too much talk, I shall not say anything further about it to-night. The Govern ment parties know what they are doing. They are firmly united and they have a comprehensive plan for countering inflation to which the Government will give effect, perhaps not at once but by piecemeal measures. We are well aware that the inflationary trend does not result in any great measure from actions taken by the Government except those which it cannot avoid taking. We know that defence expenditure is inflationary; and that the initial expenditure incurred by the immigration programme is also inflationary. We know that the Snowy Mountains project, which was commenced by the Labour Government, and which is being continued by the present Government, also has an inflationary tendency. Some activities which in themselves are inflationary in their effect cannot be avoided, but we are firmly determined to avoid all unnecessary inflationary expenditure. When the budget is presented we shall discover that certain measures are to be taken to deal with one aspect of inflation. Those measures will not cure the ills of inflation, because they will deal with only one aspect of the problem.
I protest with all the vigour at my disposal against this attempt to take the business of the Senate out of the hands of the Government and to delay the passage of a vital measure which in itself will have a definite antiinflationary effect. The provisions of the Communist Party Dissolution Bill will enable production to be stimulated. They will enable the Government to weed out of certain trade unions cells of people who are attempting to destroy our economy. When that measure has been passed we shall be able to obtain more coal, the building trade will be able to function smoothly, and ships will be moved more quickly in our harbours. In short, the bill is an anti-inflationary measure and because of that we should be discussing it now and not wasting our time debating this wretched attempt to draw a “ red herring “ across the trail. I trust that this motion will be decisively rejected and that the Senate will immediately proceed to the consideration of the important measure that has been sent to it by the House of Representatives.
Motion (by Senator Ward) agreed to -
That the question be now put.
Question put -
That the motion(vide page 209) be agreed to.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)
AYES: 31
NOES: 24
Majority . . 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative by an absolute majority of the whole number of senators.,
Secondreading.
.- I move-
That the bill be now read a second time.
But for the actions of Government members in recent hours, we should have reached this stage very much earlier. I inform the members of the Government that the measure which they are so eager to introduce would have been introduced to this chamber hours ago but for the heat and the abuse levelled at the members of the Oppositionby the Leader of the Government in this chamber (Senator O’Sullivan), the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) and the
Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner). It is a great pity that they should carry into this chamber the irritation that is engendered in Liberal party Ministers by the frustration that they encounter at the hands of their colleagues in the Australian Country party. It is abundantly clear that what began as a composite government is already known in this country as a compromise government, and is in very quick process of becoming a decomposed government.
This bill is the first step in the procedure set out in section 128 of the Constitution for making an alteration of the Constitution. It provides for an amendment of section 51 of the Constitution to empower the Parliament, subject to the Constitution, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to prices.
The Opposition has been forced to take the initiative in this matter through the complete failure of this Government to take any steps since it took office, nearly ten months ago, to arrest the tragic and rapid deterioration that has taken place and is continuing in the economy of Australia. Governmental inaction has not been due to ignorance of the position. The Liberal and Australian Country parties plainly saw the danger in November last, and in the joint policy speech made that plain when Mr. Menzies said -
The greatest task, therefore, is to get value back into the£ 1, that is, to get prices down.
That view was confirmed as recently as the 20th September last by the present Minister for National Development (Mr. R. G. Casey), when he said -
The A1 problem facing Australia is inflation - defence is secondary.
That latter statement made on the same day as the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) gave the first of his radio broadcasts on defence, will find ready acceptance in a community forced, paradoxically, in a time of record national income, to come very close, through high prices, to suffering the rigors of a depression. It will, however, provide little consolation for those who relied on the specific and unqualified pre-election promise of the Government that it would “ reduce living costs and increase real wages “ and those who accepted the assurances that it had “ a practical plan for increasing the purchasing power of wages and reducing the cost of living “ and that it “ would put value hack into the £1 “.
The Commonwealth Government has no specific power under the Constitution to regulate the prices of commodities. It is true that from soon after the outbreak of war in 1939 until 194S, three years after the war ended, the Commonwealth did exercise power in relation to prices. It did this under its power to provide for the defence of Australia. It is now generally understood that in war-time the defence power expands to embrace any activity that has a direct relation to defence. It is incontestable that, in war, particularly in a war of the magnitude of that in which Australia was last engaged, the whole economy, of which the prices structure is a vital part, must be harnessed for purposes of war. The High Court has held that the defence power endures for a reasonable time after war ends, to permit the unwinding of the war effort, including the gradual return to peace-time economy. It is always a matter of uncertainty when the expanded defence power ceases to hold good for a purpose not normally within the power of the Commonwealth, as >in the case of prices. This uncertainty is usually determined by the decision of the High Court on a challenge to the validity of the exercise of power by the Commonwealth; and frequently much confusion is caused for a time by the sudden termination of Commonwealth authority.
This uncertainty has another effect which was demonstrated in relation to the very matter of prices control. In the closing stages of prices administration by the Commonwealth, the Prices Commissioner had the greatest difficulty in retaining staff, specially trained in their work, who were naturally eager to return to their normal peace-time activities or to join in the race for post-war opportunities.
The Curtin Labour’ Government recognized that the vast war expenditures and the disruption of normal peace-time production would leave, at the end of the war, vast spending power in the hands of the Australian people who would be competing with one another for goods which would be in short supply for a considerable period. Seeing clearly that this must lead to an inflationary spiral, the Curtin Labour Government in 1944 sought at a referendum a pattern of power for the Commonwealth Parliament to enable it to discharge its national responsibility to ensure a smooth transition from a war basis to a peace-time economy. Among the powers sought was one over profiteering and prices; but not including prices or rates charged by State or semigovernmental or local governing bodies for goods or services. The Liberal and Australian Country parties strenuously opposed the referendum proposals of the Labour Government, and the powers sought were not granted by the electors.
In 1947 the Chifley Labour Government, seeing the development of the dangerous inflationary tendencies foreseen in 1944, and observing the immediate and rapid increase in prices that followed the abandonment of prices control in the United States of America in 1946, passed through this Parliament a bill for a referendum to include in the Constitution power over “Rents and prices, including charges “.
In its case for the referendum the Government said -
Unchecked inflation would hit hardest of all those on fixed incomes - the recipients of pensions and other social service payments of superannuation and insurance benefits, of interest on Commonwealth Bonds and other invested savings, of repatriation benefits, deferred pay and war gratuities.
The Labour case also said -
Six State Systems could not work separately. It would be hopeless to expect them to work together.
The Liberal and Australian Country parties, then in opposition, strenuously opposed the referendum. They claimed that these matters could be far more effectively dealt with by the States, that prices control discouraged production, that they should be relaxed, and that competition would guarantee fair prices. The referendum was taken in 1948 and was defeated. Thereafter it was impossible to keep together an adequate Commonwealth staff to control prices.
The Labour Government then called the Premiers of the various States into conference, advised them of its obligation to abandon rent and prices control and agreed to reimburse the States for expenditures incurred by them if they would administer controls. The ‘States have exercised these controls since September, 1945, the Commonwealth paying their administrative costs, amounting in 1948-49 to £565,114. After more than two years of control of prices by the States, it is abundantly clear to every thinking person that the .States, even on the basis of the fullest co-operation one with the other, cannot effectively control or regulate prices. This arises largely through factors beyond the control of the States. At the conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held only last month in Canberra, the Premier of New South Wales, Mr. McGirr, urged the Commonwealth Government to hold a referendum to secure to the National Parliament the granting of power over prices. He told the conference that only federal action could effectively check rising prices. Other Premiers pointed out that the States could not effectively control home-consumption prices of such basic commodities as meat, wool, lead, zinc and steel when the control of export of these goods resided in the Commonwealth. The New South Wales prices Minister, Mr. Finnan, said in June last that prices control administration by the States had, to use his own words, “ become just hopeless “. He added -
The States were attempting to hold the spiralling cost of living without real financial power to control prices or give value for money.
Apart altogether from the views so forcefully expressed by political leaders of the States, it is within the personal experience of every elector that, despite the best endeavours of State prices administrations, the States cannot even ref train, let alone halt, the rising of prices of commodities essential to the well being and comfort of every Australian. It is obvious to every one that the States have failed altogether to exercise any real control over profits. Each day the financial columns of the newspapers tell the story of raging inflation - record turnovers, record profits, _ record dividends, and of course, record^ prices for shares; in short, inflation run riot.
There is no need for me to quote statistics to prove that inflation has got completely out of hand and that the end is not yet. Every worker engaged -in production knows that; day by day he sees less chance of acquiring a reasonable share of the food and clothing his family needs and which he helps to produce; less chance of ever owning one of the homes he helps to build; less chance of ever owning the household equipment he helps to make; less chance of making savings as a safeguard against ill-health and to provide for the higher education of his children. There is no need to quote statistics to the housewife - that marvel of creation - who, to the neverending monotony of household routine, the daily repetition of the fight against dust and grease, has had added the strain of endeavouring to budget on a fixed income for essential foods the prices of which are continually rising and many of which are already beyond her means. She sees her family without adequate supplies of meat, fruit and vegetables, simply because she cannot afford to buy them. Her choice is to go without or to get into debt. It is of little wonder indeed that doctors report that their consulting rooms are full of women suffering from nervous breakdowns from anxiety and financial worry superimposed on overwork.
There is no need to quote statistics to the 340,000 age pensioners, to the 76,000 invalid pensioners or to the 43,000 widow pensioners in Australia. These and all other persons on fixed incomes know that uncontrolled inflation is robbing them not only of the last element of comfort, but also even of the essentials of life.
There are indeed evident to thinking people in Australia to-day many of the signs that are ordinarily associated with a depression - and a depression is the inevitable end of uncontrolled inflation. In this situation the greedy and the unscrupulous - those who traffic in the basic commodities - prosper and grow wealthy. The election of the present Federal Government, which advocated the throwing overboard of safeguards against inflation, is a psychological stimulus to those individuals to expand their activities. In this desperate situation there has been, in nearly ten months of office, not only no action by the Government but not even an announcement of a plan to meet the situation. The Opposition does not suggest that the transfer of prices control from the States to the Commonwealth would have the effect of restoring prices to normal levels. Nor does it suggest that prices control, standing, alone will prevent prices from rising further. The Opposition, nevertheless, recognizes prices control as essential and indispensable to other and more basic measures needed to meet the present emergency. Its purpose is to ensure that no more than a proper portion of rising costs passes into the prices structure of the Australian economy. The effect of these other measures can be largely offset unless they are supplemented by an efficient system of prices control. Unless these other measures, or some of them, are immediately applied with courage and without discrimination and are firmly held, then the Australian economy will in the near future fall into the utmost chaos, in which, as always, the few will become more powerful and wealthy and the rest of our people will know poverty, distress, degradation, hopelessness and hardship.
The Opposition asks no more than that the people should be given a chance to decide whether the National Parliament should be authorized to exercise power over the prices of commodities. As this matter should be beyond party politics, the Opposition invites the Government to join in support of this measure and of the referendum before the people. The Liberal and Australian Country parties at the rents and prices referendum in 1948, claimed they would not trust a Labour government with these powers. The Opposition proposes that the new power should be limited to prices alone. Control of rents and charges will remain primarily and ordinarily a matter for State parliaments. The Opposition hopes, apparently vainly in view of the statement by the Minister for Social Services, that there will be unanimity in this chamber regarding the bill and can give no better evidence of its belief in the urgency of the national need for federal power in relation to prices than to show - as it is doing - its readiness to trust the Liberal-Australian Country party Government with the administration of the power in one of the gravest economic crises that have faced this country.
I commend to the consideration of the Government a brief sub-leader of the Melbourne Argus of yesterday, under the heading “ Omega, not Alpha “, and reading as follows : -
Last year Mr. Casey succeeded in tracing back inflation to Mr. Chifley. Now he has followed the trail right back to Lenin. The Australian people will not be intensely interested in finding out its origin : what they want is a Government which will bring about its end. They remember when prices began to rise, and they would like to know when they will begin to fall.
I also commend to the Government a cartoon on the same subject that appears in the Melbourne Argus of to-day. It is very pertinent.
We have been asked to wait for the budget and see what measures the Government proposes to meet the inflation that is attacking our people. It is nearly three and a half months since the Parliament adjourned. The Government has had that time in which to make up its mind about its budget proposals, but to-day it still has not done so. In this grave crisis that now faces Australia, not. only we of the Opposition, but all the people of Australia, were entitled to expect that, awaiting the calling together of the Parliament, would be clear-cut budget proposals that would offer some hope to those who are burdened. “We have been told that the taking of a referendum will take some months. That is all the more reason why we should start with this basic control now, because from the time the Parliament passes the measure a period of at least two months must elapse before the people can be given an opportunity to express their will. Why should the government of a democracy hesitate to give the people an opportunity to do that, if it is concerned to get prices down or even to hold them where they are - and I say that is all that it will be able to do.. The objective at which to aim is to stabilize prices. Never mind about getting them down. The first duty of the Government is to hold them where they are. In the alarm that permeates this country to-day, what answer can the Government give to a request by the Opposition that the people be given an opportunity to express their will? The people have had an opportunity to view the administration of prices control by the States. They have heard responsible members of State prices administrations, Premiers and Ministers, point out that State prices control is hopeless. They have the evidence before their own eyes, after two years’ experience. “Why should there be the faintest hesitation on the part of the Government to accede to a proposal to give the people an opportunity to revise their decision?
The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) challenged us to say that, if the Labour party formed the Government of this country, we should put this referendum to the people. I take the honorable senator up on that at once, and say that that would be the very first action that we should take.
– Before dealing with the Communists?
– I shall deal with that matter in a moment. We realize that the holding of a referendum will take time, but we realize also that any plan even to halt the increase of costs must fail if it has not prices control as one of its ingredients. The Minister for Social Services established a precedent to-day by telling us what is not in the budget.. He assured us that the budget proposals do not provide for prices control. All I can say to the honorable senator is that, whatever pattern of measures be proposed in the budget, even if it be designed only to halt the inflationary spiral, it must fail without that essential ingredient. I tell the Minister now, speaking on behalf of the Labour party, that, no matter what measures are proposed in the budget, they are doomed to failure if they are not to be buttressed by some form of efficient prices control, at a national level and not hampered by the limitation of State powers or the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States. As the Minister was good enough to tell us that that is not in the budget, I invite the Government to take one more look at its budget proposals. The alternative is to accept this bill. If the Minister tells me that the reason for the non-inclusion of prices control in the budget was his know ledge that we were to introduce this bill, for which the support of the Government was forthcoming, I shall forgive him for that omission.
A moment ago, an honorable senator, in an interjection, referred to the Communist party, and perhaps I may be allowed to reply briefly to the interjection. But for the delay occasioned in this chamber to-day by the Government, and the Opposition having to move the application of the gag to its own motion at an appropriate time, the Government would have had an opportunity to raise that other issue. I am recounting facts. Any honorable senator who does not accept what I say has an opportunity to peruse the Journals of the Senate and determine the matter foi1 himself. It is interesting to note that, early in the proceedings, before the Opposition had proposed the motion for .the second reading of the bill or presented its case, the Minister for Social Services, on behalf of the Government, rejected the proposal of the Opposition. At that stage, he announced that the Government was adamant in ite decision not to meet the Opposition upon this measure, which relates to a matter that is basic to the economy of our country
I draw attention again to what I previously described as a national and, indeed, an international scandal, because there has been so much talk, so much procrastination and so much vacillation about the Cabinet considering restoring the Australian currency either to par or to some other figure. It is known to everybody in Australia and to everybody outside Australia. International sharks, international financiers, and other powerful people outside this country, have been pouring sterling into Australia. It is estimated, officially, that to-day there is about £300,000,000 of what is described as “ hot “ money in this country, that is money that has been poured into Australia not to help development, but to await appreciation of the currency. Let me make it clear what happens, and how a profit would be taken. People abroad owning, say, £100 sterling, send it to Australia. It immediately ‘becomes £125 Australian. The moment that the Australian currency is appreciated to par with English currency, the £125 can be sent back to where it came from as £125. So that the man who started off abroad with £100 sterling finishes up with £125 sterling in the same place, and without the slightest effort on his part. All I say to the Government is that there has been far too much talk, and far too much publicity of its talks about revaluation. T. agree with Senator McCallum that unquestionably these matters should not be discussed in public at all. I agree with him that this is a matter on which there should be a lightning decision, so that nobody would be able to reap profits amounting to millions of pounds. I draw attention to the fact that out of this “ hot “ money now in the country because of government vacillation-
– That money has been accumulating during the last two years.
– From the estimated amount of £300,000,000 “hot” money in this country, somebody is going to take a profit of £70,000,000 without lifting a finger to earn one penny of it. In contradistinction, let us consider what happened when the Chifley Labour Government depreciated the Australian currency at ‘ the time that sterling was depreciated. It was done overnight, like a stroke of lightning. Not one penny was made by any person anywhere out of the movement of the currency that took place under Labour. If there is to be anychange to par, or short of par, in this country, not one member of the Government will be able to stand up and say truthfully of it what I have said about the Labour Government here to-night with pride. I do not want to make this a matter of high politics. This country is facing a grave crisis, and as I have already pointed out, it arises through causes that were foreseen by Labour as far back as 1944. Everybody knew that with vast sums applied to defence, the normal production of peace-time goods restricted, and the building of houses forbidden, inflationary tendencies would develop. After the war, with terrific spending power in the hands of the people and everything needed for normal peacetime living in short supply, there was a perfect set-up for the development of inflationary tendencies. Yet honorable senators opposite tell us that the whole cause of rising prices and inflation is communism. Let us be cool, calm and collected, and consider the blindness of the viewpoint that leads to that statement. It ignores altogether the inflationary factors that were brought about by the war in the first place. It takes not the slightest account of the lag that developed during six years of dreadful war, when the resources of this country had to be marshalled in a total war effort. It ignores the fact that Labour itself, in the post-war period, embarked on a £300,000,000 necessary defence programme, which this Government seeks to expand further. That expenditure is necessary, but unquestionably, it produces an inflationary tendency in the community. In addition, the terrific strains and stresses imposed on our economy by the immigration programme that was developed by Labour, and is being continued by this Government, accelerated that tendency. Persons who tell us that communism is the cause of the shortages forget that it is not possible to bring in year by year about 250,000 people needing food, clothing, transport and accommodation in homes, schools and hospitals, without causing an inflationary tendency, apart from the other factors that I have mentioned.
The other point referred to by Senator McCallum was that Labour, through the National “Works Council, which was set up by Labour during war-time to provide for the development of this country, had planned £1,200,000,000 worth of work, all of which was taken up with enthusiasm by our successors, including the £200,000,000 Snowy Mountains project. I give credit to the Government for continuing that work with enthusiasm to-day. “We cannot undertake developmental projects, thus making further demands upon goods in short supply, without producing inflationary tendencies. Yet members of the Government, either in ignorance or in dishonesty, say that communism is the cause of all our troubles. How much industrial trouble has this Government had? I should like some members of the Government to say how seriously, under its administration, production has been impeded. Let them tell us the story, industry by industry, and give us some facts. It is time that responsible members of the Government ceased playing stupid politics, and ceased yelling that communism is responsible for every ill in this country. Communism is evil, and anti-Australian, but it is stupid to say that communism is the cause of every ill in the community. To exclude the factors contributing to inflationary tendencies and high costs that I have mentioned is stupid. I have no doubt that we shall hear that story again and again, but I seek to nail it as a complete untruth. I am convinced that anybody who assays and analyses the economic factors that I have enumerated would be unable to demolish my contention that they have been responsible for the development of inflationary tendencies in this country. I repeat again that the Labour party does not want to play politics with this bill. It regards this measure as one of the greatest urgency. It is supported in that view by one of the Government’s own Ministers, who on the very day that the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) made a defence broadcast, stated that the A1 problem facing Australia was inflation, and that defence was secondary. I refer to the Minister for National Development (Mr. Casey), with whom I agree entirely.
Now for the Communist Party Dissolution Bill. The Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’Sullivan) has sought to move a motion in that matter, in order to get it on to the notice-paper in this chamber. He now has his opportunity. “When I cease speaking, the Minister and the members of the Government may do either of two things. They may continue this debate, and we shall continue the debate with them. If, however, they are anxious to introduce the Communist Party Dissolution Bill, I offer to the Government, through its leader, the opportunity to adjourn the present debate, and to introduce the Communist Party Dissolution Bill.
Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.
page 250
Bill received from the House of R ep r esen ta tives .
– I declare that the Communist Party Dissolution Bill 1950 [No. 2] is an urgent bill.
Question put -
That the bill be considered an urgent bill..
The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator T. M. Nicholls.)
AYES: 25
NOES: 31
Majority . . . . 6
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) put -
That so much of the Standing and Sessional Orders be suspended as would prevent the bill being passed through all its stages without delay.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown.)
AYES: 25
NOES: 32
Majority . . . . 7
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
Bill (on motionby Senator O’Sullivan) read a first time.
page 251
– by leave - During the absence overseas of the Minister for External Affairs and Minister for External Territories (Mr. Spender), those departments will he administered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies). Senator Spicer will continue to represent the Minister for External Affairs and Minister for External Territories; and during the absence overseas of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. McEwen), the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) will administer the Department of Commerce and Agriculture.
Senate adjourned at 10.8 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 October 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19501004_senate_19_209/>.