Perhaps, Sir, it might be no harm at this stage to recall to the notice of the House the terms of the motion we are discussing. I am not reflecting on anybody but I am afraid that members of the House who have not got the Order Paper in front of them may have forgotten the terms of the motion. The motion moved by Senator Counihan is in the following terms:—
That the Seanad is of opinion that the Government should introduce as early as practicable legislative proposals for the establishment of an arbitration tribunal to which all labour disputes in the agricultural industry would be compulsorily referred for determination during the period in which the compulsory tillage regulations are in force.
Senator Counihan is obviously interested in a particular industry and a particular aspect of that industry, but whether he realises it or not, this motion does not relate merely to compulsory tillage regulations, nor is it a motion referring merely to agriculture. It is the thin edge of the wedge for compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes of all kinds. Let us be under no illusion about it. If there was any doubt in anybody's mind it was surely shattered when Senator Summerfield seconded the motion. Senator Summerfield is not interested in Senator Counihan's compulsory tillage, during the emergency and those who are going to support him are not concerned with compulsory tillage. They are concerned only in establishing in some form the principle of compulsory arbitration.
An argument could be used in favour of compulsory arbitration, but I would remind this House that the Governments which have been most successful in imposing compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes are Labour Governments, both in Australia and New Zealand and in each of the new New Zealand and Australian States. They have adopted a form of compulsory arbitration, not for the purpose that Senator Counihan has in mind but for the opposite purpose—the purpose of ensuring that there shall be adequate organisation and that wages and conditions of employment will be brought up to a minimum standard in accordance with a formula laid down by the courts of the States. That formula was established, as far as Australia was concerned, by an Irishman whose gifts we were receiving some weeks ago. Judge Higgins of the Supreme Court of Australia is the man who laid down the standard for minimum conditions in Australia. He said that the basic rate for the lowest paid grades of worker must be adequate to maintain a man and his wife and family in reasonable comfort in relation to the conditions of the time in which he lived. In other words, he did not think of a minimum for 1945 related to the conditions of 1845.
It is interesting to note that this is not the first motion relating to compulsory arbitration debated in this House even during the emergency. Senator Counihan spoke on a previous motion of this kind and I have the report of his speech here. It was delivered in this House, on the 24th April, 1940, just five years ago. Senator Counihan was on the same topic then. The motion was one tabled by Senator Douglas suggesting that the Seanad would welcome the introduction by the Government of a Bill generally amending the law in relation to trade disputes and providing for an industrial court to promulgate advisory judgments. Senator Douglas and those associated with him were not advocating compulsory arbitration. They were advocating the establishment of a court of inquiry which would advise the Government in relation to matters leading up to trade disputes. Speaking on that motion Senator Counihan said: "I do not agree"—he was voting for the motion, by the way, although he did not agree with it—"with Senator Douglas or Senator Hayes"—another member of the Fine Gael Party—"in their suggestion for settling these disputes." The Senator went on:
"I think the proposal made by Senator Douglas would only be tinkering at the job. Strikes and lockouts and peaceful picketing should be prohibited by law. In particular, peaceful picketing should be prohibited."
Then the Senator's mind travelled back over the dark ages and he said:
"There is no such thing as peaceful picketing. Peaceful picketing in a great many cases means attempted murder."
That was the speech of Senator Counihan delivered in this House on the 24th April, 1940, as reported in Col. 1091 of the Official Debates. So that Senator Counihan is not thinking now entirely of the emergency or of agricultural wages. For some reason that has never been clear to me, he has acted as if his mission in life were to get some kind of compulsory arbitration in industrial disputes—not that Senator Counihan is the type of man who wants cheap labour. I make no reflection on him in that way. I think he told us on the last occasion that he never had a labour dispute. I believe he never had and I believe that, while Senator Counihan has been complaining of parties going around the country trying to get a wage of 55/- a week for agricultural labourers, in fact he himself was paying £3. per week. I am saying that because I should like somebody to explain to the House the extraordinary mentality that permits a decent man like Senator Counihan, who has never had any labour disputes, to come in here and ask the House to tie men's hands, to tie them in a manner in which we have no right to tie them. I move the adjournment of the debate.
