SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RT. HON. SIR
ROBERT MENZIES, IN THE
HOUSE'OF REPRESENTATIVES
1ST OCTOBER, 1965.
STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL
19-5
Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will be allowed to pay a
short tribute of admiration to the Leader of the Opposition,
Mr. Calwell, for the technical quality of the speech he has just
delivered. How any man at half past nine in the morning could
produce such a torrent of adjectives and old political jokes is
beyond me. I think it is a wonderful performance but through
it all I thouoht that I detected a slight note of hostility to
my colleague the Minister for Labour and National Service, Mr.
McMahon, and therefore perhaps I should begin by correcting the
SLeader of the Opposition on that point.
This Bill, the Stevedoring Industry Bill is the product
) f very considerable close study in the Cabinet. It is not one
man's frolic. It is a Bill Produced by this Government and
supported by this Government,' and indeed, by honourable members
who sit behind it. In the second place, I think it is only
proper to add that the second reading speech delivered by my
colleaoue, the Minister for Labour and National Service, was a
masterly presentation not only of the narrative behind this
Bill but of the quality of its provisions, and every word that
he had to say about it certainly has my support and I believe
has the support of every honourable member on this side of the
House. Now, there is a very curious thing about this debate.
Last night the spokesman for the Opposition devoted his time,
very properly, because it is a large matter, not to attacking the
trans er of the right of recruitment to the Stevedoring Industry
Authority and away from the Waterside Workers Federation I
could not detect that he said anything about that point that
seems to go by silence, and he also said nothing about the rights
of appeal or disciplinary procedures that I could detect; but
ne came down as the Leader of the Opposition did this morning,
entirely to Part III of the Bill. If anybody is to make any
inference from this the inference is clear that the Labour Party
in this House is taking its real exception to the derogistration
proposals but is not propared ta argue against the merits of the
other and major provisions of this egislation. Indeed, one can
nnderstand why. I will come to that point in a moment.
All the Labour Party does in this House, having
concentrated its fire, a great deal of heat, and some abuse en
Part III of the Bill is to come along with the old proposition
that there ought to be nationalisation and until there is,
nothing good will occur. There will never by industrial peace
until there is nationalisation, it says.
This is a new kind of unity ticket because that is
exactly what the Communist Docker said to the Commonwealth
Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, practically in these
words. My colleague the Minister quoted what had been sai' by
Docker. The Minister said that Docker told the Commission that
if the Waterside Workers Federation / 2
2.
" would determn~ ine j-vract to secure its
claims; and that even if all its industrial claims
were granted frequent disputes could be expected
until the inAustry was nationalised."
As I understand it Docker now has the backing of the Leader of the
Opposition for that proposition. This is indeed, as I have just
said, a new sort of unity ticket.
Now, Sir, how hollow this argument about nationalisation
being the panacea is, obviously, to anybody with any experJrV,.
of industrial problems, even as a spectator over a term of years.
When did nationalisation of an industry eliminate strikes? We have
seen them in Australia time after time, strikes in nationalised
undertakin s. We have seen strikes in ships run by the Government
Line, the ustralian National Line; and strikes in Sydney and
Newcastle transpoit services. We had transport strikes in Victoria
several times in the post-war period. There have been hold-ups
in the New South Wales and Victorian power stations, troubles in
our Post Office, and from time to time in Defence establishments.
These are all nationalised. The experience in Australia is precisely the same as
the experience in Great Britain because its experience has proved
tlat'nationalisation does not stop strikes. Great Britain has had
transport problems in nationalised industries time after time.
So, Sir, let nobody run away with the idea that by nationalising
an industry you usher in a period of industrial peace.
Now Sir, the real issues in the Bill are plain
enough, although the Oppositicn has sought to avoid several of
them. Should the Waterside Workers Federation retain its monopoly
right of recruitment? Just let us remember indeed everybody
does that under the existing legislation this Federation has a
position of privilege, descried just now by the Leader of the
Opposition as a unique position. It has the sole right to recruit
or nominate I do not care what word is used the selection of
the person to be presented in the first instance is made by the
SFederation. It has the richt of recruitment. I do not know of
any other trade union that Has this right. There may be one
somewhere, but this one stands out,
Should the Federation retain this right? That is
S the real and central question. There has been no serious attempt,
in the face of the facts put before the House by the Minister,
to say that the Federation should retain this right. It has yet
to be said by the Opposition, if it is ever going to be said at all,
that it wants the present state of privilege for the Federation to
continue. Of course, on the merits as distinct from the question
of debate between the two sides of the House, wel, " by their fruits
ye shall know them". The Federation has had an industrial privilege.
The privilege carries with it, surely, an industrial responsibility
in an industry which is of great importance to the whole of the
Australian economy, domestically and internationally. I will just
take 3ne or two figures. They have been mentioned, but I recall
the attention of the House to them.
My colleague, whose fi-oures have not been seriously
challenged, I think, drew attention to the grave fall in the average
net gan. rates of work per hour. This is not something that can be
lavuged off by saying that it has to do with machinery or with port
equipment. This is the gang work per hour. You would expect it,
in the course of time to be increasing, but as his figures show,
there has been a stead decline. Was this unconscious? Was this
unplanned, or was this'desired by the Communists who are the real
directors of the Federation?
Mr. Curtin Get-off that. ( Interjection)
SIR ROBERT MENZIES They are the real directors of the
Federation. The honourable member would hardly deny that. All
the facts that have been put before us provo it.
Then, Sir take work stoppages. I want to emphasise
these figures. Over the last ten years to June, 1965, in all
in4ustry taking the whole mass of industrial occupation in
Australia workers lost on the average less than two hours a
year because of industrial disputes. This is a remarkable record.
t demonstrates that amang other things, if we look at the whole
of industry we find that tHe trade unions have been honouring the
law have been availing themselves of the normal industrial rights
that they have, and have been able to go to the Conciliation
Commissisners or to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration
Commission itself freely and effectively. However, in the case of
the Waterside Workers Federation, the union that has these
tremendous and unique nrivileges, the loss has been 55 hours a
year. That has been the loss as a result of industrial stoppages,
not rain. Sir, these facts demonstrate absolutely and conclusively
that the trade unions generally are recognisin the industrial
laws. They are not under attack in this legislation. Indeed, it
is part of this exercise that we should draw a contrast between
the general body of unions and these people with this sorry record
who have enjoyed a privileged position. In other words, we are
considering a special case which is not to be confused with somp
wild, whirling words about an attack on, or hostility towards the
trade union movement. To suggest that we ar-attacking ths trade
union movement is, of course, utter nonsense. We have made a
selection and have demonstrated the reasons for making that
selection. Those very reasons and the fact that we make a
selection is the best evidence that trade unionism on the whole
is perfectly safe. It has justified that position.
When cne mentions the Communists, there is always a cry to
the effect that some Red-baiting is going on. Does not everybody
know that on the waterfront some of the peculiarities that have
led to the results that I have been mentionin. are consciously
fomented by Communist officials? Would anybody care to deny that?
Is it not clear that the worst record is to be found in the two
ports in which Communism is most active at the official level
Sydney and Melbourne? The facts speak for themselves. This
appears to be similar to what goes on in Great Britain. Some
reference has been made to the Devlin report.
The big transport workers union in England is the T. and
G. the Transport and General Workers Union. It is one of the
biggest unions in the whole of Great Britain. According to the
DevIin report " The T. and G. is one of these unions which does not
allow members of the Communist Party to hold any official
position. Their experience is that the Communist official
TTill subordinate the interests of the union to the party
line."
Later on the report had something tD say about a man called
curiously enouh, Dash, who was an acknowled-ed Communist, being
the leader of The Communist element, and who'had set up a liaison
committee, bless you, in order to further his activities. The
Devlin report continued / 4
9 4-
" There may be some in these unofficial organisations
who are traitnrs in thought if not in deed. There
may be others for whom tre docks , re only a convenient
battlefield on which to wage class war; and others
with a genuine concern for the welfare zf the industry
but whose belief in some particular remedy for
example, nationalisation is so fanatical that they
would rather pull the whole industry down than
compromise or tempoise."
They are not my words; they are the words of the very distinguished
Commission that was presided over by Lord Devlin, who has neerbeen
accused of being a reactionary. I shall continue the quotation
" There may be others who find any industrial agitation
a satisfactory way of life, bringing personal influence
and prestige and whose concern it is to make sure that
there is always something to agitate about. All such
men, whatever their motives, are wreckers."
That is a pretty pungent statement. The whole clash, the whole
conflict and this, I think, is all that I need say is between
the Communist attitude on the waterfront, the Communist desire to
disrupt, the Communist pride in having a record loss of manhours
, n the waterfront, the Communist satisfacticn in holding up the
industries of the country and increasing the costs of industries
the conflict is between that and the Government of the country which,
after all, is the elected Government of a free people. Who is
to be in control of peace? Who is to be able, where necessary, to
take steps to forward peace and continuity of wbrk in this vital
industry, the Communist wreckers or the Government of the country?
Therefore, I conclude by saying that the Communist
Docker to whom I have made a reference before the advocate of
the Federation summed up the whole positicn with singular
lucidity. I have never denied the Communist leaders' talent.
However misguided, they have great talent, and this is beautifully
expressed. He says
" There is no future in the Arbitration Commission so
far as wages are concerned. Anyone who suggests we
should arbitrate is either a fool or is misleading the
workers."
I repeat, this is the advocate for the Waterside Workers Federation.
This is not some fellow going on a frolic of his own. This is
their advocate, the man who represents them before the Commission.
So I repeat what he says
" There is no future in the Arbitration Ccmmission se
far as wares are concerned. Anyone who sugaests we
should arbitrate is either a fool or is misleading the
workers. We are fighting the Government on these
matters."
That is the way he puts it. Very well. There is an official
challenge on behalf of the Waterside Workers Federation. There is
something, the authenticity of which cannot be denied, and as a
challenge'we accept it, and we shall defeat it.