Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Thursday, 15 September 1949


Mr HOLT (Fawkner) .- There was a time when the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) was regarded as something of a lion in debate, and when he spoke his followers would listen with bated breath as he poured out his contribution. I do not know how many of them who heard his speech to-night felt as I did, but my impression was that if the honorable gentleman resembled any member of the aE.im.al kingdom particularly, he resembled nothing so much as a sparrow bopping around from rubbish heap to rubbish heap, hoping somehow or other to pick up a feed. I am quite sure that even if his speech gave some satisfaction to Communists situated anywhere between Woolloomooloo and Malaya who happened to listen to it, it must have given very little satisfaction to those members of his political party who heard it. He has always followed the well-known Hitlerian technique that if you repeat a lie often enough you will find a certain number of people who will believe it. After opening his remarks tonight by saying that whilst this was the last budget that would be presented to the people before the general election, he said that be felt sure that the people of Australia would not return the present Opposition parties to power because the people would - recall the condition of affairs in 1941 when Labour assumed office. That has been a popular cry with the Minister and some of those who sit behind him, and, even at the risk of taking up valuable time which should be devoted to the discussion of more contemporary affairs, that slander must be nailed once and for all. I propose to nail it not by the words of any honorable member from the ranks of the Opposition, but by recalling the very definite statement of the man, who, in 1941, was given the responsibility of leading the country during the war. I refer to the former Prime Minister, the late Mr. John Curtin. When he assumed office, Mr. Curtin had the decency to tell the country the extent of the debt which it owed to those who had been leading them. On the 12th October, 1941, only a few days after he assumed office, in the course of a public meeting in the Sydney Town Hall, which he addressed, he said -

I have to pay tribute to the Government which preceded my own for the constructive work they have done in defence and the foundations they have laid.


Mr Conelan Mr. Conelan interjecting,


Mr HOLT - I should be interested to know whether the honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Conelan) takes exception to the statement made by 'his former political leader which I shall quote now. On the 18 th October, 1941, Mr. Curtin paid further tributes to the previous administration. He acknowledged that when he came into office -

The Navy was at its highest pitch of efficiency, as demonstrated by the notable exploits of its ships overseas. The horns defence Army was well trained and its equipment had been greatly improved. The strength of the Air Force had been largely increased, both in respect .of home defence squadrons and the training resources of the Empire Air Scheme. The equipment df the Air Force had also been much improved. Finally, munitions production and the development of production capacity over a wide range of classes, including aircraft, was growing weekly.

When the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) was a member of the Opposition, he was sufficiently fair-minded to pay a tribute to the work of the government of the day. He is reported in Hansard of the 27th August, 1'941, as having said -

I do not join with those who say that Australia has failed in its war effort. I know something of the organization of industry, and when "we compare what has been achieved with what we previously thought to he possible, we realize that somewhat of a miracle has been wrought.

Mr. Curtinand the present Minister for Labour and National Service were senior spokesmen for the Labour party. I do not claim that our defences were perfect at that time, but those honorable members on this side of the chamber who had the responsibility of office at that time laid the foundations for that magnificent war effort, including munitions production, of which the Australian people speak so proudly to-day. If there were deficiencies, the weight of the responsibility that rests upon our shoulders for them is only onetenth of the weight of the responsibility that rests upon the shoulders of members of the Labour party for them. Mr. Curtin himself acknowledged that fact in a speech which he delivered in the Sydney Town Hall on the 10th October, 1942, approximately one year after he had assumed office. On that occasion, he made the following statement : -

As a Labour man, I have to accept the responsibility, as does the Labour movement of the whole world, that it made no preparation for war. It believed in disarmament, in better conditions for the worker. It preferred butter to guns, homes to flying fortresses, water works to dockyards. We thought and hoped that we had finished for ever with the era of determining national disputes by war. 1 do not condemn Mr. Curtin for the attitude that he adopted in this chamber on defence matters before he became Prime Minister. My colleagues and I pointed out how foolish and mistaken the view of the Labour party was, however idealistically its base might have been. We tried to induce members of the Labour party to take a more realistic attitude, but they refused to do so. It stands to the credit of Mr. Curtin that he realized later the error of his policy, and he was man enough to acknowledge it publicly, and pay a tribute to his predecessors in office. Yet the Minister for Transport repeats the slander in a broadcast speech almost on the eve of the election in the hope that the memories of the people are so short that they will have forgotten the great work that was done for Australia by my colleagues in those days.

The Minister said that Australian workers would not vote for Opposition candi- dates because they feared' that the return of the Liberal party and the Australian Country party .to office would presage a period of unemployment. Does the Minister think that the memories of the people are so short that they have forgotten that the peak of unemployment in this country was reached during the regime of the Scullin Government? It was because of public dissatisfaction with its administration that the Labour Government was swept from office at the polls in a record defeat, and the Liberal party and the Australian Country party were able to take the reins of government and bring Australia out of that financial and economic depression at a rate of progress which compared more than favorably with that of any other country, and earned the envy and admiration of the rest of the world. Those facts must be remembered when slanders are poured' out on us at this time.

I cannot admit that there was a logical sequence of thought in the Minister's speech. He jumped from perch to perch, and from heap to heap, but I tried to note some of the more important matters to which he referred. FOr example, he spoke of our attitude to child endowment. He said, in effect, that members of the Opposition support child endowment. Of course we do. In 1941, we introduced the social service known as child endowment and we are proud that we did so. Child endowment has benefited the young, growing elements in this community. As the means test is not attached to child endowment it is a real social service, available to all the people. The Minister also said that we introduced child endowment with the knowledge that it would have an effect on the basic wage. He contended that if the first child is made eligible for endowment, the effect will be to keep down the basic wage. Does the Minister really believe that? Is he speaking honestly and sincerely when he makes that statement? If he does believe it, I remind him of certain facts. The Labour Government, with his support, increased child endowment from 5s. to 10s. a week. Therefore, if there be any merit in his contention that we introduced child endowment in order to keep the basic wage down, his criticism applies with added force to the Labour Government. However, I do not believe that that is the true position. I consider that we have to keep a bigger proportion of the national income for those who have family responsibilities. Figures compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician show that since 1941, when we introduced child endowment, the average Australian wage rate, exclusive of the endowment payment, has increased from £5 12s. to £8 18s. a week as at the 31st December, 1948. The position is that the average Australian rate has increased by £3 6s. a week, but the effect of that has been to give a disproportionate benefit to the single man or woman earning wages and to those persons who have no family responsibilities. The incomes of those with family responsibilities have not increased in anything like the same proportion. Therefore, I hope that honorable members, irrespective of the political party to which they belong, will try to make more adequate provision for those who have larger family responsibilities.

I was interested to hear the Minister for Transport analyse and criticize a speech by the Leader of the Australian Country party (Mr. Fadden). The Minister twitted the Leader of the Opposition, who, he said, had not been very accurate in his assessment of prospects and developments, and he then mentioned that Ee had in his possession a copy of a speech by the Leader of the Australian Country party. The script had not been sent to him with that right honorable gentleman's compliments, but had come into his possession by other means. All I can . say is that the Minister has apparently shown a great deal more foresight and acumen in this instance than he has in some other recent developments in the Department of External Territories. It seems remarkable to me that a man who feels it safe to chide the Leader of the Opposition with not having a very clear view of what is happening around him, or who displays sufficient acumen to pick up the speech of the Leader of the Australian Country party, was not able to detect among those working with him or having access to his office a man who was secretly a Communist and who had in his possession a Communist party membership ticket for 1946.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Burke). - Order! The honorable member knows that he cannot deal with that matter.


Mr HOLT - I do not know why the Deputy Chairman objects to my words, but I merely make that comment in passing. I could say many other things about the speech of the Minister for Transport. He referred to comments by the Leader of the Australian Country party on the decision of the Labour party to increase the membership of the Senate, although its political platform advocates the abolition of that chamber. That thought leads to an interesting matter which is worthy of discussion for one or two minutes. One of the criticisms which the people of Australia and members of the Opposition make against the Labour party is that it is not true to -label, but attempts to hoodwink the people in season and out of season, so that its published undertakings are not worth the paper upon which they are printed. I shall enlarge upon that subject in a few moments; but, for the present, I desire to refer to three things which, in recent months, the Labour party has done and which are a direct violation of its printed platform. The Labour party's platform provides for the abolition of the Senate. "What has the Labour party done about that? When it suits its conveniences, it does not abolish the Senate of 36 members, but presents to the Parliament legislation for increasing the chamber to 60 members. That is the first violation of its platform. Then again, for many years, the Labour party has regarded the High Court as possessing final jurisdiction in all Australian causes. But what happened when the High Court brought in a unanimous verdict in an Australian cause, the issue of the nationalization of banking, that the legislation passed by this Parliament was bad in law? Bang went another provision in the printed platform of Labour ! The party scrapped it immediately, and not merely took the case to the Privy Council but also sent the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) to London to argue before the Privy Council for seventeen days.


Mr Fuller - Did the honorable member say that the High Court's decision was unanimous?


Mr HOLT - It was a unanimous decision of the High Court that the legislation passed by this Parliament was bad. I invite the Government Whip (Mr. Fuller) to challenge that statement. It was a unanimous decision by the High Court of Australia, which, the Labour party has told the people in its printed platform, should be invested with the final decision in all Australian causes.

The Minister for Transport might have devoted a little time to the third matter of that nature to which I shall now refer because it is very much more down his own alley. I am sure that I do not need to remind him that the printed platform to which he subscribes provides that defence personnel shall not be used in industrial disputes. There is no equivocation about it. It is set out in black and white. Honorable members opposite might reasonably have considered that there was some justification for the Government to resort to methods conflicting with the party's platform if all else had failed in a desperate situation. But that was not the position in the most recent instance. The Government did not wait until all else- had failed. It had received an assurance that members of the Australian Workers Union were prepared to do the work that members of the defence forces were ordered to do. It made no attempt to call for labour from the Australian Workers Union. Neither did it seek to engage civilian labour instead of employing army and navy personnel to unload a coal ship at Melbourne. That was no last resort. As soon as it suited the Government's book to do so, it put members of the defence forces to work, platform or no platform. I undera stand that the Minister for Transport was one of those who strongly criticized that decision, of the Government. The honorable gentleman touched on many subjects during his speech to-night, but he was discreetly silent about that and many other matters on which he has found himself in conflict with his colleagues in the Government.

I will say on the Minister's behalf that he has always, been frank and honest about one matter - his adherence to the socialist objective of the Labour party. I could not fairly say that he has attempted at any time to disguise his whole-hearted adherence to the printed platform of the party and its stated objective of the socialization of industry, production, and exchange. My purpose now is to follow that matter through because, if there is one criticism that can be levelled fairly and seriously against the Prime Minister, the AttorneyGeneral and some other senior members of the Government, it is that, throughout their term of office, they have attempted to camouflage and throw a smoke-screen around the real objective of the Labour party, to which each of them is solemnly pledged. The Minister for Transport is not included in that charge. He has never disguised his attitude. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Pollard) and the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman), have also been quite frank about that matter. But they are not the men whom the people listen to- and follow when- they are dealing with issues that -are- decided at elections or on other occasions during the course of a government's term, of office. I make no criticism of the man who honestly professes to follow the socialist objective of the Labour party and works inside and outside the Parliament to bring it to fruition. I may think that he is> mistaken, I may disagree with him, and I may try to show him where he is. wrong, but I respect his sincerity in adhering to the views that he holds. I despise and. condemn the man who, while holding those views and working day and night inside and outside the Parliament to bring his socialist policy to fruition,, conceals his objective and attempts to hoodwink and mislead the public by disguising the purposes behind the legislation, that, is brought forth. I am prompted to develop this subject because of the speech that was made in this chamber yesterday by the Attorney-General.. At the conclusion of his speech), and without reference or relation to the matters that were under discussion, that right honorable gentleman dragged in a subject that there was no need for him to mention-. Of course, the election is looming, and the Attorney-General knows that the people are very much concerned about the possibility of the Labour party fulfilling its socialist programme. Because of that the 'tactics of the right honorable gentleman and other senior Ministers are, as they have been on the eve of every election in recent years, to camouflage the real purpose of the Labour party's programme.

I propose to trace the history of this matter so that we may know once and for all where the Labour party really stands and in the hope that its members will be forced to have the honesty to stand by the objectives to which they are pledged. In order to present the picture in proper perspective it is necessary for me to go back to 1920. In November of that year, the Communist party was formed in Australia by Mr. J. S. Garden, whose name will have a familiar -ring in this Parliament. Mr. Garden formed the Communist party here, and it immediately began to have a powerful influence in the trade unions. Its influence was so great that the federal executive of the Australian Labour party thought that, unless it took the matter in hand, a separate political force would be built up which would sweep away from the Labour party the support that it traditionally received from the trade unions. Therefore, it set out to recapture the support of the unions. In order to achieve its aim, it had to make important concessions. The first of those concessions was made at the All-Australian Trade Union Congress., which was convened in 1921. The president of the Melbourne Trades Hall Council and of the Australian Labour party executive at that time, who is now the Minister for Labour and National Service, presided at that congress. It was there that the industrial Labour party threw overboard the old objectives of the Labour movement in favour of the objective of the socialization of industry. Prom that day onward the Labour party ceased to be the party that the people of Australia had known, with a virile, robust, Australian nationalist tradition. From then on it was a socialist party, steeped in the doctrines of internationalism and' the ideologies of socialism and communism, A charge that can be fairly made against the Australian

Labour party is that, since that time, it has traded under a dishonest label. It has flown a false flag ever since it adopted the socialization objective. It has never disavowed that objective. Prom time to time, more .sober-minded, conservative, or hesitant members have expressed their doubts about the party's policy and have sought to have the wording of the objective altered; but the wording of the resolution that was carried at the congress of 1921, which was subsequently adopted at the interstate conference of the Australian Labour party in Brisbane in October of the same year, has never been varied. That resolution reads -

The objective of the Australian Labour party is the socialization of industry, production, distribution and exchange.

I shall give honorable members an idea of what the Minister for Labour and National Service thought about it at the time that he presided at that conference. He is reported to have stated in his official report -

Socialization of industry is the culmination of the teaching of Marx.

When acknowledging a vote of thanks at the end of the conference he used these words -

I feel the workers of Australia have at last adopted the slogan of Karl Marx : " Workers of the world unite " and at last one of the dreams of my life has become an accomplished fact.

However, other senior Labour supporters were not so happy. I shall read to the committee what Mr. Theodore, a former Labour Premier of Queensland said at the time. When speaking to the interstate Australian. Labour party conference at Brisbane that adopted this objective on the 21st October, 1921, he said -

You have changed the objective. You might as well change the name of the party and call it the Communist party.

We did not hear a great deal more about all this either at that time or for a number of years. Labour was not in office in the federal sphere, and clearly, if the socialist programme was to be carried out the real drive had to come from the central government at Canberra. But interested members of the Australian Labour party did not remain idle. Bv 1931 the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labour party had appointed a socialization committee which included such prominent members of the party as Mr. Donald Grant, now Senator Grant, Mr. J. S. Garden, Mr. J. Stewart, who is now a member of the Legislative Council in New South Wales, and Mr. W. McNamara. In 1931 that socialization committee adopted a programme, which time will not permit of my quoting fully. However, one of the most significant passages read -

That a plan to 'be known as the " Three Year Plan " of social transition be propagated to provide for government by regulations, such regulations to aim at the establishment in three years of a socialized State . . . the programme went on. One of the prominent spokesmen of the party in 1934 was Dr. Lloyd Ross, again a figure well known to all members of this Parliament. He was formerly the New South Wales secretary of the Australian Railways Union. He was one of the intellectuals of the party, who, in National Planning in Australia in 1934, made this comment -

In Australia the first necessary and practical step would be to make the Commonwealth Bank an instrument for carrying out the financial policy of the Government of the day; the second, to set up an investment board to control investment; and the third, to bring private banks under State control. Side by side must go the setting up of a supreme economic council to organize development . . .

That was one of the proposals adopted at the 1921 conference. The proposed economic council, quite clearly, was to replace this Parliament as the arbiter in Australia on trade and financial matters. The article continued -

.   . and at last bring disconnected State socialism, or retreating capitalism, into a general plan and philosophy ... a socialized banking policy would have to be quickly followed by socialization of the key industries.

Those words of Dr. Ross have a profound significance, having regard to the nationalization of banking proposals which this Government has put before the Parliament, and which have been re-endorsed so recently as to-night by the Minister for Transport. Subsequently, in the same article, this appears -

I have indicated my opinion that all plans must be inadequate that do not interfere drastically with private property, that do not socialize the main methods of producing and distributing wealth and that do not enforce on all departments of economic life the measures that are necessary to eliminate unemployment, wars and poverty. I have emphasized the need for socializing the banks, and shown the political and constitutional problems involved, and so have come back to my first point, of the impossibility of talking about economics without mentioning all aspects of social life.

The Bolsheviks succeeded because they alone could carry through the ruthless measures necessary to stop social disintegration, because they had no limiting bias towards private property, and because they alone could call upon the latent stores of enthusiasm and creative ability of the masses. He who would an economic development, even in Australia, must learn more from the Bolsheviks than from any one else.

In the light of that article an almost fantastic situation arose a few years later when the same Dr. Lloyd Ross, who had not changed his policy or his attitude in any degree, was appointed by the Australian Labour party as one of the senior officers in the Department of Post-war Reconstruction. He became one of the trusted officials first of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) and later of the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. This was the man who held these pronounced views, and had claimed that socialization should be implemented.


Mr Pollard - Did not the honorable member once belong to a branch of the Australian Labour party?


Mr HOLT - No.


Mr Scully - Did you not try to join one of its branches ?


Mr HOLT - I have belonged only to the United Australia party and the Liberal party.


Mr Pollard - What about the All for Australia party?


Mr HOLT - I assure the Minister that that party was operative before I became interested actively in politics. Despite these unwelcome interruptions, I shall proceed so that the people of Australia who are listening to the broadcast of these proceedings will be able to judge for themselves what degree of reliance they may place on the assurances that were given to them by the present Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) and other senior Ministers in this Government that they had no intention 'whatever to do anything in the way of socializing the industries of this country. On the eve of the 1943 general election this appeared in a press advertisement over the name of Dr. H. V. Evatt-

The Commonwealth Constitution gives no general power to nationalize industries. Under Labour government, there will be more room for private enterprise a,nd business initiative after the war than ever before.

It is somewhat significant that such soothing words should be used by an Australian Labour party candidate immediately proceeding an election. Labour was getting rather troubled abou]; that time because Dr. Lloyd Eoss and. others had made public statements concerning Labour's policy since 1941. The left wing of the movement was asking them to press on with the objective of socialization to which each of them had given a written pledge. The public waa becoming alarmed, and in a broadcast from Perth in the course of the election campaign in August, 1943, the late Mr. John Curtin said -

They talk about socialization. I have this to say: That the Commonwealth Parliament has no power to socialize industry. I say that my Government has not socialized any industry.

Those were the assurances of 1943. But we soon found that they were not worth the paper that they were printed on. After the general election of 1943, in which Labour was returned to office with a handsome majority, a conference of the Australian Labour party was held in Canberra in December of that year, when this resolution was adopted -

That a nation-wide campaign for socialism be started immediately and that the implementing of the campaign be left in the hands of the Federal executive.

That happened only a couple of months after the solemn assurances that were given by the then Prime Minister and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to the people of this country. I remind honorable members that these conferences are attended by the big representatives, the hand-picked few of the Australian Labour party. There they debated the resolution that I have mentioned. In June, 1944, another important conference was held, that time in Sydney. What happened there was not reported in the daily press at that time, but it did appear later in the official paper of the Australian Labour party. I stress that I am not quoting from any so-called capitalist organ. In the issue of the Standard pf the 15th June, 1944, this appeared -

Decisions to draw up a ten-year plan for the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange in logical stages was one of the outstanding results of the annual general Australian Labour party conference at the week-end. Moving the motion on behalf of the executive, the vice-president (Mr. W. C. Taylor) said that with Labour in charge of the Commonwealth and most of the State parliaments, the time had come for a more definite statement of the party objective and for the development of a plan for the instruction of governments to achieve socialization. " We must set out an order of priority for the things that must be done .to that end," he declared. " For too long politicians have been allowed to regard themselves as having a use only at election times as party-labourers. They must be given faith in the desire of the party to achieve the objective."

The man who proposed that motion was no renegade to the Labour party. He could speak with authority because he held high office in the party. The Government later appointed him as its representative on the Commonwealth Bank Board, and he is now one of its nominees on the Australian National Airlines Commission.

I come now to 1945. I want to show how steadily the Labour party pursued its objective when it had secured a majority in the Commonwealth Parliament. At the Federal Australian Labour party conference that was held in Canberra in 1945, Mr. Hanlon, the present Labour Premier of Queensland, proposed the following motion : -

That the Federal Government give consideration, in co-operation with the State governments, to the nationalization of industries.

That was an attempt to overcome the obstacle to nationalization that is contained in the Constitution. The nationalization was to be carried out by the Australian Government and the State governments acting in co-operation. It will be remembered that in 1945 the Labour party had control of the Commonwealth Parliament and also of five of the six State parliaments. In 1946 the Prime Minister, knowing of the plans that had been made by the Labour movement, and himself having been a party to the discussions in many instances, did not say anything about socialism during the general election campaign of that year. He could- not avoid mentioning the subject, because to do so would be to lose the support of the left wing of the party. Therefore,, assuming the urbane, homespun air with which we have become so familiar, he said to the people, in his simple and frank way; " I do not come to you with promises; I come to you on Labour's record." The right honorable gentleman, very discreetly, concealed the real purpose that underlies the policy of the Labour party and made no reference to its pledged objective. Every Labour party candidate in the general election of 1946 was required to sign a pledge that he would do his best to implement the policy and objectives of the party. No mention, was made of nationalization in 1946) but what happened when the Labour party was returned to power in that year with a big majority? We have heard much about the socialist tiger being some kind of a bogy, but after the general election of 1946 the socialist tiger pounced with dramatic suddenness. The airlines had been grabbed during the war, despite solemn assurances that nothing would be socialized in war-time. Then followed the banks, the shipping services and the broadcasting networks of this country, in respect of which this Government has taken sweeping powers.. Now there is a move to bring the doctors into the net. To-night the doctors were attacked by the Minister for Transport. The doctors are not. resisting the Government's legislation because they wish to oppose a. plan for a better health service in Australia.. They have, themselves, proposed, to the Government that an improved health service should' be established, and have set out in detail their proposals in regard to it. They are opposing the Government's legislation because they have been told in clear and specific terms- by the Minister for Health (Senator McKenna) that the objective of the Government's health policy is the complete, elimination of the private, doctor service.. Knowing that this Government, the members of which are sworn to the implementation of a socialist programme, intends to eliminate the private doctor service, who can blame the members of the medical profession, for resisting the Government's health legislation, if,, in there view, the- interests of the public will be better served by a private doctor service ?.

I should like to go into these matters, in much greater detail, but I have not sufficient time in which to do so. I have put them on record because; as the general election draws nearer, we shall hear less and less of the socialist objective, to which every honorable gentleman opposite is pledged1, and more and more of Labour standing on its record. The bland assurances of the Prime Minister in 1946 were followed by sweeping and radical intrusions into the private enterprises of this country and by a government grab for socialistic power over important sections1 of our industry. In Great Britain steel' has been brought into the net, and cement is to follow; coal and the railways have already been taken. Private members of the Labour party in this Parliament and members of the Government have told us that the Australian insurance companies are to be nationalized, and the printed platform of the party refers to a number of other activities that are to be. taken over under the socialist programme,, but we shall hear less and less of those, aims in the next few months.. I urge the public not. to be hoodwinked by bland and soothing assurances.. As I have already said, I have no complaint to make against the genuine socialist who stands by his. programme and his undertakings, but. I condemn those who seek to play a confidence trick upon, the Australian people by disguising and camouflaging their real purposes.

I say, in conclusion, that the people of Australia do not want socialism. If they knew that that was the real objective of the' Government, they would reject the Labour party candidates at the forthcoming general election. The Government knows that that is so. It realizes thatonly by concealing its objectives can it hopei to- obtain the continued support of the people, who would reject socialism, because- they know that it would lead to an unwarranted infringement of theirpersonal, liberties, rationed poverty as in Soviet Russia, and inefficiency in the conduct of our great public and private undertakings. The people would reject socialism because they know of the. terrible pass: to which the British people have been brought by the activities of the socialist. government of Great. Britain. If the people are to have a slogan at the forthcoming general election, I hope that it will be, " Away with socialism, goodbye Mr.Chifley, and good-bye Mr.Cripps."







Suggest corrections