03O4
THE PUBLIC SERVICE
Statement by the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon,
Sir Robert Menzies, in the House of Representatives
on Tuesday, 1h-th May, 1963.
I do not propose to take very long to deal with
what I must say is one of the most half-hearted attacks I
have heard my friend, the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr.
Colwell) make. Indeed one might weJ~ l be pardoned for
speculating why this matter was brought before this House
when it is coming before the Commonwealth Conciliation and
Arbitration Commission on 28th of this month. Is the idea
that the commission will be threatened and conditioned in
advance? This is in the teeth of all arbitration principles.
The fact about this present matter it is worth
reciting is that the case will come before the commission
on 28th May, The reference of the case to the full commission
was made at the request of the Commonwealth Public Service
staff associations. I have already made it clear that, as
distinct from a former occasion when we were experiencing
very acute inflationary pressures when this matter comes
before the commission the Commonwealth does not propose to
intervene. The matter will be contested and thrashed out
between the Public Service Board which, for this purpose,
is the employer and the Public Service organizations.
The honourable gentleman's idea of the arbitration
for which the people for whom he offers to speak have asked
is that the matter should be heard on 28th May and that there
should be no intervention by the Public Service Board except
for the board to say that it agrees to everything for which
the staff associations have asked. Really, I begin to wonder
whether if he had the power, he would, in all the other
applications which will crop up to extend the metal trades
margins decision to other industries, tell the respective
employers that they were not to intervene at the hearings
except to say " Yes". This is a fantasy. I am real1~ shocked
that a man who aspires to be the Prime Minister of Xis
country, and would then be responsible, as I am technically,
for the Public Service administration, should be prepared to
foment an idea of this kind.
Of course he went back a little and stated that in
1952 we introduced legislation which the Parliament passed,
to provide for an appeal procelure or a reference procedure
to the full Arbitration Commission. Why did we do that? We
did it to produce some consistency of results. The honourable
gentleman rather conveniently forgets if he will allow me to
say so, that many people employed by the Commonwealth are
doing exactly the same kind of jobs as are people employed
in a variety of private industries. The oldest game in the
world of industrial arbitration, with which I used to be
extremely familiar, is to jack It up by getting an award from
a limited tribunal and then telling the general tribunal that
it must apply the provisions of that awar'd generally, otherwise
there will be anomialies and industrial unrest. I suppose those
expressions are still being used. o9esooee./ 2
-2
We knew that there would be industrial unrest and
anomalies unless some procedure was established under which
there was co-ordination of decisions. There had to be
co-ordination of the work of individual commissioners, There
had to be suitable -procedures for references to the full
commission so that the full commission could co-ordinate what
was being done by the individual commissioners. We felt that
in the same way, on appropriate occasions the commission could
be charged with the responsibility of producing some co-ordination
of what it was doing and what the Public Service Arbitrator
was doing. 14e still have the Public Service Arbitrator,
Listening to the honourable gentleman's speech, you would think
we had abolished the Public Service 4rbitrator. Listening to
the honourable gentleman's speech, with its somewhat tenuous
logic, you would think we had abolished all the individual
commissioners under the arbitration system. Of course we have
not. We have provided for co-ordination of their work and for
the determination of the big baoic problems at the top level,
How any one can complain about that, I do not know.
How on this occasion the Public Service associations can
complain retrospecti; vely to 1952, 1 do not know. Their
self-appointed spokesman, the Leader of the Opposition, has
said to us " You did a terrible thing in 1952. You wretched
people wanted to produce some consistency between decisions
over a wi~ e field," Now his complaint is that there is not
to be consistency over a wide field, When we say, on the
application of the Public Service unions themselves, that we
will go to the commission -the commission that made the first
decision and allow it to determine what should happen in
these matters, they say, " That is a funny th~ ing to do unless
you agree to go to the commaission and tell it to do what we
want it to do," That is a pretty strange proposal and all
the more strange when one remembers that subsequenZ to the
legislation of 1952 we had in 195' 9-60 the increase in
salaries margins if you wish to use the more precise term.
That matter wont to the full bench of the commission on the
application of the public service association, just as this
present application has. So apparently the now rule as
stated by the Labour Party, is: Ask for the matter Zo go
to the commission and do your best to get it on in time. The
unions cannot claim that we have held up their application on
this occasion. The application will be heard on 28th May,
The Labour Party then says, " Use parliamentary representatives
to frighten members of Parliament or to have the commission
itself feel that there is a great switch of opinion against
it." We must be timidl
Mr. Speaker, I have noticed in the local newspaper
a large and costly advertisement inserted by the Administrative
and Olrical Officers Association of the Commonwealth Public
Service. I must say I have had a happy experience of Commonwealth
civil servants. I have not mot one of the typo referred
to in the advertisement and I would refuse to believe that
such people represent a majority of the men who work so
faithfully and so objectively, not only for this Government
but for the country as a whole. It is a novel experience for
me to be told, " Come down quietly or we will convert ourselves
into a political pressure group." A letter has been circulated,
and a copy of it has been handed to me by my friend..
Mr, Peters Who is your friend? 00 0 0 a
-3
SIR ROBERT MENZIES The honourable member for Ryan ( Mr.
Drury). The letter is a fascinating document. I do not know
a single Commonwealth civil servant who could have stooped to
write " Should I not obtain salary justice on this
occasion through the persistence of the Governmentts
attitude I must point out that as a retaliatory
measure I will cast my vote against you in this
electorate at the next election."
Do you suppose I will lose any sleep over that
threat? If I were any other honourable member of this House
I should take as an insult the suggestion that I could be
frightened into changing my public pclicy persuaded but
frightened by these foolish threats. I do not believe for a
moment that more than a tiny percentage of Commonwealth civil
servants wouldcb'eam of saying, not only to us, but also to
all the other people of Australia who outnumber them:
' Yb are not concerned about the great issues
that affect the safety and growth of the country.
We are not concerned with any matter of public policy
except our salaries. Give us what we are after."
Mr. Haylen They did not say that,
SIR ROBERT MENZIES : They did say that, At least that is
what the few people reponsible-for this concoction say. They
say, " 1Unless you do what we want in this regard, we will
convert ourselves into a political pressure group and vote
against you." As far as I am concerned they are welcome to
vote as they think proper. If I were in their place I should
hesitate before I set myself at variance on these matters with
the rest of the Australian people, but that is a matter for
these people themSelves to determine, All I want to point out,
and in the simplest possible terms, is that these threats proceed
in relation to a matter which in a fu) w days will be before the
lawful tribunal the very tribunal that has already dealt
with the margins applica-tion in the metal trades case. That
tribunal will not be pressed by the government of the country
by way of intervention. It will thrash the matter out and
will arrive at a conclusion, Following its invariable practice
the Government will accept the tribunal's decision, Is this
a threat that somebody else will not accept that decision?
This is something now. r I do not for one moment believe that
such an improper exercise of the forms of this House designed
solely to bring influence to bear on the tribunal will have
the sympathy or support of either the general public of
Australia or of 95 per cent, of members of the Public Service
of the Commonwealth.