Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Dec 1950

Vol. 39 No. 4

Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946 (Continuance and Amendment) Bill, 1950.—Committee and Subsequent Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I oppose the passing of this section for one simple reason. I made it quite clear on Second Reading that any board or body of this nature should be set up by means of the introduction of a Bill. In this Bill, we have a request for a continuation of the powers which the present Government have, and which previous Governments had. I think the Minister failed to give to the House to-day any idea as to the specific conditions under which the body which it is proposed to set up will function. On Second Reading, I made a request to the Minister that he might give us the time when the Government decided to set up this body. We have failed to get that. When this Bill was first introduced in the Dáil it did not contain this section. The Bill in that form was withdrawn, and later a new Bill was introduced and that new Bill contained this particular section. It is a very important section, so far as the people are concerned, and I think we should have from the Minister a very clear and definite explanation as to how and when this body is going to operate.

Firstly, I think we should have an explanation as to when the Government decided that it was necessary to set up this body. The Bill was first introduced in a particular week. It was withdrawn the next week and introduced again containing the provision to set up this body. The Minister, on Second Reading, said that this body would be a most important body which, he hoped, would command the confidence of the Irish people. He said that every application for an increase in the retail price of commodities must be placed before this body and that they would decide whether that application should be granted or not. The Minister suggested that because of the manner in which this body was constituted, any decision which it made should command the approval of the people of the country. The Minister was very emphatic that we should devote our attention to what the Bill contained but the Minister himself devoted most of his energies to an effort to evade an explanation of what exactly this body was going to do.

Senator Maguire pointed out many of the difficulties which would confront this body. I made a suggestion here last night in connection with the speech or the lecture delivered by Senator Douglas which I should like to repeat in connection with the lecture delivered by Senator McGuire to-day, namely, that the Clerk of the Seanad should send copies of these speeches to the Tánaiste. One can only express the deep sense of annoyance felt generally by some recent statements made by the person who occupies that very exalted position at the present time. Senator McGuire pointed out some of the effects that the Tánaiste's speech may have. With the permission of the House, I should like to restate some of these effects. Senator McGuire is a supporter of the present Government and is one of those responsible for its being in the position it occupies to-day.

There are other people engaged in the same trade as the Senator, and when we take into consideration statements made by the Minister last night, to the effect that there was a crisis round the corner, that every step should be taken to get supplies of commodities into the country and at the same time when we take into consideration the statement made by the person occupying the second most responsible position in the Government, namely, the Tánaiste, that all those people engaged in industrial development and in commercial activities in the country should find themselves behind the walls of Mountjoy Jail, I think it is bound to have a very bad effect. I appreciate very much the difficulties of the Minister present here to-night.

May I put it to you, Sir, that one of the difficulties is that the Senator is making a Second Reading speech rather than discussing this particular section? I do not want to interrupt him, but surely we discussed this matter very fully yesterday and to-day and dealt with Section 3 amongst other things. Surely we ought now to keep strictly to Section 3 on the Committee Stage. I understood we were passing this Bill and surely we ought not at this stage enter into a general discussion of the Bill and of all kinds of extraneous matters, including what everybody said on the Second Stage and whether certain people should be behind the walls of Mountjoy. I believe with Senator Hawkins that being behind the walls of Mountjoy is a rather uncomfortable position to occupy at the moment, but I suggest that being inside Section 3 would be more comfortable for the Seanad at the moment.

As one of those persons who at one period occupied a particular cell there, I shall admit that it is not the most comfortable place that one could occupy, particularly at Christmas time.

I was speaking from experience of Christmas there myself.

Seeing that Senator Hayes has raised this objection, I propose to confine myself strictly to the amendment and to say that I do not consider that this House should accept the proposal to set up such a body or that if we are going to accept the Minister's proposal, it should not be done in this manner. As I said last night this Bill merely provides for a continuation of the powers given to the Government some 12 years ago. That Government, under the conditions then prevailing, did not ask that any such body should be set up. I think that if the Government consider that it is necessary to set up a body of this kind, we should be presented in this House and the other House with a Bill specifying the powers, conditions and function of such a body. Certainly it should not be set up under an Order by any Minister for Industry and Commerce, no matter who that Minister may be.

I have spoken at length both in my introductory speech on the Second Reading and in concluding the debate on the general section. I have spoken as extensively, at all events, as my knowledge goes, and as freely as the Seanad is entitled to demand.

There were two questions put by Senator Hawkins now which I do not think I did deal with previously. First, he put the question, when this particular device was decided on, and his second question was, when the committee, if the Bill passes, will begin its operations. With regard to the first question, I think I did not deal with it specifically, though I did deal with it by implication in my closing remarks. I pointed out that there was at one time the idea of using powers that were already there, and when the utilisation of powers that were already there appeared to be questionable or doubtful, it was then decided, as there was a Bill before Dáil Éireann, that the best way was to clarify the situation and put legality and regularity beyond question by including it in the Bill. That is why the Bill was withdrawn and this section included.

As regards the second question, as to when this particular committee will start to function, my answer to that may not be satisfactory but the answer is that it will start at the very earliest possible moment and an approach to individuals who might be considered suitable for appointment for the committee will be made immediately this Bill is passed. The only delay there will be is in getting consent from the people selected and getting the work started. There will be no other delay about it.

I wish to ask the Minister one or two questions. The first one arises out of the wording of the section. On the margin the indication is "advisory bodies" and the section itself makes provision for the establishment and constitution of bodies of persons. Reference in the discussion of this matter all the time had been to a body. Does the Minister visualise more than one body and, if he visualises more than one, how many bodies? Then, is it to be understood that each body will be composed of consumers and manufacturers, producers and technicians?

The next question I am anxious to have some information about is whether the members of these bodies will be paid—whether they are to be full-time officials and whether they will be paid. Another matter on which I would like some information is how the work of a committee of an advisory body will be initiated. It may be I should have made myself familiar with the terms of the Principal Act. I do know something about the old Prices Tribunal, but I would like some indication from the Minister as to how the work of an advisory committee is to be initiated.

Again, with regard to the powers that this committee may exercise, I wonder is it intended that they should advise, say, on the question of rationing, the advisability of rationing any particular commodity?

That question occurs to me arising out of references made by the Minister to the fuel position. I quite understand the difficulties of the Minister and I appreciate that he did as well as he could in view of all the circumstances. It is generally admitted that fuel has presented us with a serious problem. May I say that as far as I am concerned, and as far as those with whom I am associated over here are concerned, we endorse the plea of the Minister to the public in general to be careful when it comes to the point of ordering supplies that are short? We realise the seriousness of the position and we fully realise that people cannot have all they want and if we are to weather this storm and other storms that may arise—and that we hope will not arise—we will weather them only by the same co-operation as we showed during the last emergency; I join in that plea to the public to be careful when considering their orders to limit them to a minimum.

May I say, even if I whisper it, that people came on one occasion no less than 60 miles to me to know if I could do anything for them in the matter of fuel and out of my own private domestic supply I made them an allowance. I have done that for five different people. I seek no thanks for it. I would expect the same if I were in a difficulty. I think if we were all to show a spirit of co-operation, although we might suffer to some extent, we will help to ease the burden.

I am anxious to know whether this body will have the right to advise on questions of rationing and whether, if the body is to be as important and as authoritative as the Minister implies it will be, recommendations of that kind will be accepted.

I sincerely hope that when the public, either through trade organisations or ordinary consumer organisations, indicate their dissatisfaction with the level of prices ruling for any particular commodity, their representations will not be met with the reply that the price of beer and the price of cigarettes has been reduced. I wish all the men who take a bottle of beer and who smoke a cigarette the best of luck, and I hope that they will get their supplies even cheaper still. But, as I have said before in this House, there are very many families in the country to whom a reduction in the price of beer or the price of cigarettes means nothing in the world.

The more important question put by the Senator, I think, is whether this committee will deal with rationing in addition to prices. The answer to that is "No." The function of this committee will be confined to prices.

Much on the lines of the old Prices Tribunal?

To be candid, I am not sufficiently conversant with the machinery of the old one to answer that. The second question was whether there would be more than one. There is power to have more than one —to have a number, if there is any undue delay or any unexpectedly large demand on their services, but that is a matter that will have to be decided by experience. The power is there, however.

May I ask the Minister whether it is proposed to pay the members of these bodies?

Yes, that is an important question, particularly for the individuals concerned. The question of payment will depend on the individual. For instance, if somebody were seconded to that body from a well-paid post within the State no payment would arise in his case. In the case of individuals taken from outside occupations payment will be made. Might I give Senator Quirke the information he asked for? I promised to get it. The difficulty was that the Department of Agriculture has these matters in hands and not the Department of Industry and Commerce. The reply I got from the Department of Agriculture was that between stocks here and wheat already on the way there is sufficient wheat to carry us on to the end of August next. If the Senator wants that converted into figures I will try to get it.

Can we take it that is wheat already delivered in the market?

Yes, and in transit.

On ships?

I would like to have from the Minister some very definite information as to whether this council will be as is suggested in the Bill, an advisory council, or whether it will be the body suggested by the Tánaiste in the Dáil, a tribunal. Senators must realise there is a very big difference between the two. I would like to have an assurance from the Minister as to which body it is proposed to set up.

An advisory committee.

Not a tribunal?

Not a tribunal. The word tribunal has been used. I think I slipped into that myself two or three times.

I quite appreciate the Minister's difficulty. He is dealing with a subject that is not entirely under his direction, but we had in the Dáil a suggestion that this would be a tribunal, and a tribunal is certainly a body which would have powers to send for persons and to get definite information. Now we are assured by the Minister in charge of this Bill that this body or bodies—there may be a number of bodies, maybe in Dublin, Galway, Waterford, Cork and all the other big centres—will just make recommendations to the Minister. I think I asked last night a very pertinent question: what relation will they have to the Industrial Authority which has already been set up?

The functions of this particular committee will be purely advisory. That is stated in the Bill and it has been repeated several times by myself.

Will this authority have power to compel people to come before it and give evidence?

It certainly will have the power to advise the Minister with regard to the prices to be fixed for commodities and, obviously, if interested parties do not come to make a case for the existing price, or for a higher one, because they do not think it worth their while to come, the price will be lowered.

Will not the Minister admit that that is a most unfair way to treat any application? Because a certain individual engaged in industry is prepared to come before this body and give evidence that might be of advantage to persons engaged in the same industry in another field, this body will make a decision and the cost of that particular article may be reduced. Will not the Minister admit that there is an injury there? Will not the Minister admit that this industrial advisory committee will not do anything to help in the reduction of the cost of living?

I dealt with the aspect of confidential information that might be given and might prejudice the interests of any particular industry. Ordinary, normal, sensible responsibility would direct that such information should not be disclosed.

I am surprised at Senator Hawkins extending sympathy to the Minister in his difficulties in presenting this Bill. I think any sympathy for him is entirely wasted. I think the Minister is quite competent to handle the matter.

The Minister likes to have a full stomach when he is doing it.

I think it is due to the House that the Minister should give us some idea of what this committee or tribunal will cost. When the Minister was asked a question, I do not mind saying he hedged when replying. The Minister said: "One could not know it at this stage. A man might be seconded from a Department" and he finished up by saying absolutely nothing. I think we should insist on getting an indication from the Minister as to what this committee will cost. We believe it is not necessary at all. We believe the necessary legislation is already there and the only reason why this is being put forward is for the purpose of setting up some sort of bloc to bluff the people. The Minister should tell us, as a previous Minister told us, what the salary will be for the chairman and for the ordinary members of the committee. We are not interested in finding out at this stage whether somebody else will be taken out of the Seanad and put on this committee or whether somebody else, who is a bit of a nuisance wherever he is in the Civil Service, will be promoted and put on this committee. What we want to know is what it is proposed to pay the chairman of this committee for such time as he is chairman of the committee. I think the House is entitled to be told by the Minister what it is proposed to pay the chairman of this committee and what it is proposed to pay an ordinary member of the committee, whether he happens to be Pat Murphy from the Country Cork——

Maybe the Minister does not know.

If the Minister does not know, as Senator O'Connell says, I would be very much surprised. Perhaps he does not want to tell us. I think the House is entitled to know and I think we, who are objecting to the setting up of this committee, are entitled to know what it will cost.

The answer to the Senator is—I am not keeping anything back——

I am not suggesting that.

Any information I have I have given, but the fact of the matter is that at the present moment we do not know what that committee is going to cost. We cannot know that until we know the personnel and what other source of income is behind it. It is obvious that it cannot be a bluff on Parliament because whatever the cost it must be covered by a Supplementary Estimate.

I very much appreciate the Minister's difficulty because he is acting for a Department with which he is not very familiar and he will have little or no say in the appointment of the committee now under discussion. If this committee is to be of any advantage, however—which I doubt— it must be composed of people whose services will be highly appreciated by the public at large. Senator Quirke has raised the question of the cost of this body. I am not so much interested in what it is going to cost; I am much more interested in what it is going to do and I think that the Minister has failed to convince the House that this body will have any very important function. This Bill was introduced in the Dáil, withdrawn and reintroduced, and when it was reintroduced it contained the section setting up this body. We all know perfectly well—the Minister, even Senator Baxter, who would be the last to admit it—that the cost of living has gone up. I hope we are not foolish enough to represent ourselves to the people as suggesting that, by the mere setting up of this body, we are doing something to bring down the cost of living and passing on from the Government the responsibility which the Minister should shoulder.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Has not all this matter been gone into?

If you decide I am not quite in order, then I will avail of another occasion to say the things I wish to say.

I am not at all satisfied that we should not have some indication at this stage of what this committee will cost. Let us assume for a moment that the members of the committee are to be five private individuals in no way connected with this House or with the Civil Service. Surely the Department has gone into the question sufficiently to be able to tell the Minister that the committee will cost approximately so much money. I do not by any means want to accuse the Minister of political jobbery or anything of that kind, but with the present state of the political situation I would not mind suggesting that while this committee may be set up to control prices there is no real control on the price of political plums. It is quite on the cards that certain people down the country would say to me—and they are quite entitled to say it: "You were in the Seanad; you saw the Bill passing through the Seanad but you did not get from the Minister what it was proposed to pay the members of that committee." It is quite on the cards also that they would say: "Here is just the ammunition the Government Party wants at the present time. They want to purchase a couple more Labour leaders in the country or a couple more Clann na Poblachta fellows or Clann na Talmhan fellows. They have left the question open; if they cannot get them for £500, they will get them for £700, and if they cannot get them for £700 they will get them for £1,000." They will tell me in the long run: "There ought to be a good job there for an auctioneer." I do not think the House should be treated in that way and I refuse to believe that the Minister having accepted the responsibility of coming into the House to conduct this Bill as acting Minister for Industry and Commerce, has not at his finger-tips the price suggested by the Civil Service as the approximate price the committee will cost the public. I think that the Minister owes that information to the House and I think that we as representatives owe it to the people of the country to insist on getting the approximate cost of the chairman and of each member of the committee, quite apart from the fact that any of them may be seconded from a Government Department—that does not enter into the thing at all.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister has stated that he is not aware of what it will be.

Might I suggest that you put the section?

I entirely disagree with the suggestion made by the Leader of the House. In the exercise of my duty as a member of this House I have put down an amendment, not because I am opposed to price control but because I want a definite statement from the Minister as to what this body will do, its personnel, and what it will cost. I think that this House is entitled to that information. If the Leader of the House and the Minister, because of their political views, are not prepared to give that information, my only option is to force a vote of the House. That is one of the things I do not want to do for more than one reason. On many occasions since I came to this side of the House I have put down amendments to various Bills. I realise that there is in this House a group of people who have been appointed, not elected by the people of the country.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That has nothing at all to do with this.

It has a bearing on the matter under consideration.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It has no bearing whatsoever.

I will bow to the decision of the Chair, but I think that every member of the House has an idea of what I was about to refer to. If the Minister is not in a position to give us a clearer definition of what the body will do and how it will be composed, then I think we have an obligation to the country. We have not a majority at the present time—we will have after the 18th March, I hope—for reasons that the Minister knows quite well. Senator Hayes may say "Humph" but facts are facts, and a democratic Opposition has an obligation to the people. We have asked for certain information and the Minister is not in a position to give it to us, and in my judgement we should not give this Bill to the Minister until he is prepared to give us that information.

I make the suggestion that we should put the section in the interest of Senator Hawkins. We began the debate on this Bill in a particular atmosphere and we understood that all stages were to be concluded to-day. We got notice to-day that Section 3 would be opposed. Senators Hawkins and Quirke are quite entitled to oppose Section 3 and they are quite entitled to ask the Minister questions. I suggest that they have now exhausted all their rights in the matter, and that the Minister has, with great patience, answered all the questions.

Like Senator Quirke, I have no sympathy for the Minister, and like the Senator I believe that the Minister is quite competent to give any information in his possession or, if he thinks fit, to withhold it on this or any other section. I believe that he is quite competent to do the job which he is here to do. I do suggest that, from the point of view of the House in general and from the point of view of the people sitting on the far side of the House in particular, we really ought to conclude this debate. I do not think there is any use in talking reason to Senators opposite at this stage, but they must know from their long experience of sitting behind a Government, that when this committee is appointed there will be correspondence with the Department of Finance with regard to what the cost will be and that nobody in the Department of Industry and Commerce could tell one now what precise figure a particular person is going to be paid. It is also true, as the Minister has said, that if a person is transferred from another State post he will not be paid. There is no concealment about it.

If, as has been stated, the control of prices is urgent, and if this is one piece of machinery for doing it, then the sooner we do it the better. But there can be, as the Minister has said, no concealment. No one can be paid out of public funds without the greatest possible publicity. It is bound to be revealed. I, like Senator Hawkins, do not want a division on this particular section at this late hour just before Christmas for a variety of reasons, but I would rather have a division than have any more of the kind of thing that we have been having here for the last hour. I do suggest to the Chair that, from the point of view of every single one of us, we ought to conclude this business now.

It is quite unreasonable for Senator Hayes to suggest that the tactics which have been carried on here for the last hour are not proper.

I did not say anything about "tactics". I did not use the word at all.

I am not an expert on the Irish language like the Senator but I do understand plain English. I suggest that what Senator Hayes insinuated was, that we were carrying on obstructionist tactics here for the last hour. I want to say definitely that we have been doing nothing of the kind. While I agree with Senator Hayes that sympathy would be wasted on the Minister who is handling this Bill, I do want to say that this House has the right to be told by the Minister: "There are certain reasons why I cannot give this information and why I will not give this information," but there is no reason why we should not be told that. We have asked the question. We object to the setting up of this committee because we believe that it is not the right way to do the job. The least we ought to be told is what the committee is going to cost. If the Minister would tell us that "You are entirely wrong; we are not going to appoint any pets of political Parties to this particular job; we are going to appoint civil servants", I would never open my mouth again on the Bill. I want to go further and say that I have the greatest confidence in the Department of Industry and Commerce. If the Minister tells me that he is going to appoint four members of the Civil Service from the Department of Industry and Commerce, civil servants above a certain rank, then I will say to him: "O.K."

I answered the Senator truthfully when I said I was not in a position to answer, not because I was withholding information but because I had not information with regard to the personnel. I have spoken at length before on that. The personnel is not selected yet. The panel is short-listed and so on, but I am not in a position to answer the question.

I accept the Minister's explanation. I want to extend to him my sympathy on what is obviously the fact, that the Coalition Government cannot agree on who they are going to appoint or on what they are going to pay him.

Can the House agree on this section now?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The question is: That Section 3 stand part of the Bill.

As the mover of an amendment, I think I have the right to reply to the many statements which have been made.

I suggest that the Chair should put the question. I think that the Senator has no further rights. In fact, I have no doubt about it.

If Senator Hayes is going to assume the rôle of the Cathaoirleach of this House, then the sooner we elect him to that very exalted position the better.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I take it. Senator, that you are concluding.

Not necessarily.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes.

I think that if any Senator reads the rules of this House he will find that, when a particular motion is put down the mover of it, or of an amendment, has certain rights. With all due respect to the Chair, I intend, as far as it is possible for me, to exercise my rights.

Senator Hawkins is the mover neither of a motion nor of an amendment. Is that not correct?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is correct.

Is Senator Hayes going to assume the rôle of An Cathaoirleach of this House, an office to which he was not elected? Of course, he had a good deal of experience in the Chair of the other House, but if he is going to do that he is only just delaying the procedure of this House.

Did not the Chair put the question? Really, this is a disgraceful state of affairs. If you have put the question you ought to insist.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I put the question.

Hear, hear!

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The question before the House is: That Section 3 stand part of the Bill.

With all due respect, you are depriving the mover of this motion of the right even to withdraw it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have put the question.

Question put and declared carried.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Agreed: "That the remaining stages be taken now."
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

On that question, I object to the Bill passing through this House for the reason that we on this side have asked for certain information which we have not got. I put down an amendment on the Committee Stage with the object of eliciting some information from the Minister——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It was not an amendment.

——which the people and the country at large might like to have. I do not propose to detain the House except to say that, as a result of the inactivity of the Government in relation to the control of prices, the people of the country have completely lost confidence in the Government. The Minister told us last night that there was a crisis round the corner and that we should be prepared to face that crisis. I entirely agree with that, but in order that we should organise our people to face this crisis the first essential is that the people should have confidence in the Government. The people have no confidence in the present Government. They had no say in the formation of the Government. I pointed out last night that the Parliamentary Secretary in the Dáil attempted to induce the members to vote for this measure against their common sense. He tried to influence them by saying that they were elected for one purpose—to keep Fianna Fáil out of office.

I should like to direct the Minister's attention and the Parliamentary Secretary's attention in particular to a statement made by the Minister for Justice when addressing a political meeting in Castlebar. The Minister addressed his remarks to the Clann na Talmhan Party and he asked them: "Are you now going to make up your minds to come in and support Fine Gael as a Government?" If they were not prepared to make that statement to the electorate, he went so far as to suggest that it would be illegal for that group to enter a Coalition or an inter-Party Government.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Might I point out that that has nothing to do with this Bill? The Senator must confine himself to what is in the Bill.

I am prepared to submit to your ruling.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is completely out of order.

The Seanad has come up for discussion in the other House. Some of the members may think that that discussion may not have been what they would like it to have been. I suggest that we are entitled to discuss statements that were made, particularly when they were made in relation to the introduction of this Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

These things should not be introduced. The Senator should deal with the Bill as it stands.

It is because I am anxious that we should deal with the Bill as it stands that I am going to take up the attitude that I am prepared to take up. We have asked the Minister to give us some explanation of what this particular body which it is proposed to set up are going to do. We have failed to get any information from the Minister. I do not blame the Minister because I am honest enough to admit——

Did I not answer that a dozen times—fix prices?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It was answered during the course of the debate.

I admit that the Minister is just as honest as I am. He quite realises the fact that this is just another bluff on behalf of the Government—that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not prepared to accept the responsibilities placed on him by this and the other House. When, 11 years ago, we gave to the then Government authority to enforce control, the then Minister accepted the responsibility attached to that obligation. Now we have a smokescreen being put up. An organisation is supposed to be set up and the Minister fails to tell us who are to compose this organisation.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister told the Senator that he does not know. Why labour that question?

I am not going to press the matter any further except to ask if the Minister does not know what this body is going to do, what benefit it is going to confer on the public, why should this Bill be brought in or why should the Minister be here to-day?

There are one or two points I should like to clear up. Senator Hayes said that there was no amendment before the House and no motion apropos what Senator Hawkins was talking about. The fact of the matter is that there was not time to put in any amendment in the technical sense, but notice was circulated during the debate in the name of Senator Hawkins that Section 3 would be opposed and that was tantamount to an amendment to the effect that Section 3 should be deleted from the Bill. It was quite unreasonable to suggest that the whole debate was out of order because, technically speaking, an amendment had not been handed in. That should be taken as an amendment. So far as having a vote on the section is concerned, I do not believe it would be wise in all the circumstances to have a vote on it. I do say, however, that we were quite entitled to speak on this section. With all respect, I think that the speech made by Senator Hawkins was absolutely in order.

We are absolutely opposed to this Bill as such because we believe it is not the proper way of handling the situation. We are all for control of prices and for reducing the cost of living, doing what the others said they would do and what we did when we were in power. But we realise that there are numerous sections forming this Coalition Government who are sheltering behind the fact that there is a Government in power. There is no use in any one section of the various Parties who make up the Coalition saying to their supporters: "What could we do? After all, the Government is there and the Government decides so and so." It is sticking out, not a mile, but leagues that any one section of the various Parties who form the Coalition Government need only walk in tomorrow morning and say to the Government: "You will control prices, you will do this, that or the other," and the Government would have no option but to accede to the request, otherwise bang goes the Government. With the secessions from the Government in the last few weeks, it is getting to the stage when even one member of the so-called Independents will have the power of life and death so far as this country is concerned. It is coming very close to the stage when two members at least of the so-called Independents can say to themselves: "We will walk in and we will declare an election to-morrow." Because of the fact that the Government is now holding on by such a narrow margin two Deputies can decide whether or not we are to have a general election.

Let it be clearly understood that we are not against the control of prices. We are merely against the system which refuses to use legislation which is already there and the setting up of a committee which we believe is only a piece of bluff to convince workers that the Government are doing something, that they are doing their best. They are like a goose hatching eggs which will come out some time.

We believe this is only a piece of bluff. We believe that it is to bluff the poor unfortunate people of this country into thinking that something is being done when we know, in fact, that nothing can be done under this sort of a system—either that or worse, that it is just an opportunity to appoint four other members of the political Parties who are fast fading out from behind the Government, in order to keep them tuned up for the present, and in order to keep what one would call a "sweetener" supplied to them.

It is quite clear that the manifestations of the Christmas spirit in this House do not lead to peace or concord or amity. It expresses itself, rather, in accusations. But whatever Government is in office, this Bill must be passed before the 31st December. I think the Senators opposite have had opportunity to make accusations to their heart's content. Having given them that opportunity perhaps they would let us pass the Bill now.

There is no objection to passing the Bill at all.

Has Senator Quirke not already spoken? Has he the right to speak again?

Senator Hayes has said that one may speak on an amendment more than once.

But this is the Fifth Stage.

All I say is that nobody can say "must" in this House. If necessary we shall keep talking until the 31st December.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share