Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Thursday, 25 May 1972
Page: 2090

Senator GIETZELT (New South Wales) - I oppose the Bill for a number of reasons which ] will outline. The Bill is supposed to facilitate industrial relations and to create the essential harmony between labour and management that supporters of the Government and the Democratic Labor Party have made the theme of their addresses in this chamber and in the Other place. It is supposed to promote goodwill in industry and to minimise the legal involvement and technicalities that have been characteristic of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. I am pleased to follow in this debate my former colleague Senator Kane. He attempted to draw out the same sorts of bogeys that have been characteristic of the DLP since its formation, ignoring all the history of the trade union movement and the concrete application of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in Australia. 1 do not think any honourable senator would disagree when I say that the trade union movement has had a marked and influential effect upon the economic and social development of Australia. If this is accepted as a starting point we probably need then to examine the formative years of the trade union movement. To that end Government supporters would be well advised to read the complete history of English trade unionism written by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, the standard work on the trade union movement. Those 2 writers traced the development of the trade union movement. They were able to show the connnection between the early craft guilds of the 17th and 18th centuries through the Middle ages. Even in those days standards were set which were not unlike the standards on which the modern trade unions operate. They were for the maintenance of a standard of life and they agreed that they would combine their efforts to this purpose.

It is true that the early craft guilds comprised only the artisans who, in that period of history, included the workers and the masters. It is interesting that in those days the membership of the craft guilds was compulsory. As time progressed and capitalism began to develop - I am referring particularly to English conditions - the guilds of the yeomen and journeymen began to develop and the interests of the master and the worker began to take different forms. As industrial development began to emerge from the medieval system of production and as it has developed over the years until today when modern capitalism is the principal feature of production, the content of the trade union movement has changed.

Today we live in modern capitalist society based on large scale production. We have to contend with the new phenomenon of the multi-national corporation. Members of the working class are dependent upon the employer for their livelihood. The world is now a single market even though there are attempts to alter that. All this has evolved more or less in the 20th cen.turey. It is a modern development. On the Australian scene the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has been, as some speakers have said, not only a barometer but in many respects has stood out as a beacon in relationships between employers and employees.

Having skipped through history 1 think we are entitled to see why it is that the Government is continually concerning itself with the affairs of the trade union movement. Once again the Government has put before the Parliament legislation on matters appertaining to the trade union movement and its members. In point of fact, in the period of 22i years that this Government has unfortunately been running the affairs of this country it has passed 185 Acts or amendments relating to the trade unions. Since federation and the establishment of the early legislation, it has been amended 52 times. Of that number, 23 amendments were associated with the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

I was a little amused by the contribution of Senator Carrick last evening when he attempted to show some differences between the attitudes of the Australian Council of Trade Unions under the current president, Mr Robert Hawke, and those displayed when it was led by Mr Albert Monk, because most of those 23 amendments occurred when Mr Albert Monk was president of the ACTU. I do not suggest that all these legislative acts by the Government were necessarily in total against the interests of the trade union movement, but in a great number of cases - I could almost say the majority of cases - these amendments were carried out in opposition to the united view of the trade union movement.

The Government is consistently amending the Act. It has consistently changed the means by which it can intervene and interfere in the internal affairs of the trade unions. As Senator Murphy rightly pointed out, the Government is of course following a discriminatory policy. It does not utilise the powers that lie within its functions as far as other corporations are concerned. Rather does it concentrate its power upon the trade union movement. It seeks therefore to put limitations on the freedom of action of unionists and it is not hard to understand why the trade union movement reacts towards the Government as it does - why it opposes the Government on most if not all of its policies and supports the policies and activities of the Australian Labor Party.

For as long as trade unionism has been on the agenda of history it has had to fight for its survival. One does not have to go back very far into English history to remember the Combination Acts, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, and in our own history, the Eureka Stockade and the strikes and struggles of so many people in the 1880s and 1890s. In fact, the whole history of the trade union movement is a history of struggle against government and employer interference. It is understandable that Senator Carrick would be concerned about the issues of the class war, as he put it in his contribution last evening - Senator

Kane referred to it today - because there is a conflict of interest. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) and the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) have each referred to the differences of opinion and conflicts that exist between employer and employee.

One does not find in this Bill or in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act itself any provisions that represent an attempt by the Government to impose restrictions on the rights of the employer. Rather, the restrictions that are imposed always seek to hamstring and retard the activities of the trade union movement. Over the many years that I have been associated with the trade union movement, I have noticed the struggles of ils members against the penal provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. The Government is now attempting to write into the legislation such provisions as would make all unions resort to taking a postal ballot in respect to any question facing their members. I think it can be established that the objectives and policy of the Government aided and abetted by the Democratic Labor Party, are to restrict the rights and activities of the trade union movement.

In his second reading speech the AttorneyGeneral used industrial unrest and what he described as serious wage induced inflation as pretexts to justify the many amendments proposed in the Bill. Can it be taken seriously that the Government really believes that the work force can be blamed for the serious industrial unrest that the Government claims is in existence in this country? I am surprised that any responsible person would adopt that point of view. If we look at the role of the industrial court and the role of the trade union movement in recent years, we will find that every gain, every increase in salary and every improvement in conditions have been a result of the activity of the trade union movement. Most of the gains have been achieved in spite of, or if not in spite of, then with the consent of the arbitration procedures. If we examine the composition of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, I think it must be conceded that any trade union organisation and particularly the Australian Council of Trade Unions, that has been able to achieve any gains for its membership from that august body must have produced strong arguments to convince it of the justice of union claims. I would be the last person to attack the composition of the Commission, except to say that every one of its members has had an association with the employers in one way or another, many of them having been advocates before the Commission representing various employer organisations. If we accept that the tribunal is somewhat influenced by conservative persons who, in the main, have spent most of their working life representing the views of employer organisations, it must be conceded that the substantial gains made by the trade union movement are a tribute to the quality of its advocacy. It is remarkable that the trade union movement has been able to overcome some of that conservatism and has induced members of the Commission to grant some justice in respect to wage claims.

In order to rebut the points made by Senator Carrick last evening I will refer to some statements made by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Lynch) in a speech in Melbourne at an employer's function on 2nd March. He referred to a number of the matters that are before the Senate in this Bill. One has only to read his speech to appreciate that the views he expressed on 2nd March were radically altered when he made his second reading speech to Parliament in the other place on 26th April. He chose his own theme. Of course, at that time the DLP was being very eloquent on the question of amalgamations. Members of the DLP had suddenly found an issue that they could use to whip the Government. They had found another whipping boy.I will refer only to the portions of the speech that are germane to what 1 want to say. The Minister said:

Four main arguments have been put forward to support the view that the Government should intervene to halt the present amalgamation processes.

Honourable senators will know that he was referring to the proposed amalgamation of the metal trades unions into the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union. He continued:

There should have been ballots of the members of the three unions conducted by a public official such as the Commonwealth Electoral Officer; the amalgamation should have been approved by a majority of all the members of the unions - not by a simple majority of the members voting in the ballots: the amalgamation would bring about a large communist dominated union possessing excessive power;

That is reminiscent of Senator Kane's speech today - that such an amalgamation would be destructive of the arbitration system.

My intention is merely to deal in brief with the criticism that has been levelled at the Government for not intervening in the amalgamation.

I put it that the criticism was coming from the DLP. The minister went on:

The results of the ballots showed that almost 86 per cent of those voting in the AEU ballot favoured amalgamation, 73 per cent in the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society, and almost 70 per cent in the Sheet Metal Workers Union. there is no provision in the legislation for officially conducted ballots to be held in respect of union de-registration-

That was one of the procedures to be followed in an amalgamation -

Basically the philosphy of the current and previous governmentsin relation to organisations registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is that they are voluntary organisations and the Government should not interfere in their affairs unless it can be demonstrated that there are or are likely to be dishonest practices which would prejudice the rights of members or groups of members.

Thus, it makes provision for what are commonly called 'court controlled ballots' for office bearers when requested by the Committee for Management of a union or by a specific number of its members. However, these are not mandatory and the great majority of union elections are conducted by the unions themselves.

This is relevant to the suggestion which has been made that there is a history of 'ballot riggings' in these unions. The record does not bear this out and it is supported, I believe, by the fact that there has not been a request from the membership of any of the 3 unions for a 'court controlled ballot' for a considerable number of years.

The second proposition is that before an amalgamation should be permitted 50+ per cent of the total membership should vote in favour.I am not impressed by this argument. It should be noted that because a ballot would have to be a postal ballot and voting is not and could not, for a number of practical reasons, be made compulsory, it would be virtually impossible to get anywhere near a100 per cent vote.

The Minister continued:

The 50-plus per cent proposition implies that a substantial majority of those who do not register a vote can be said to be opposed to the proposal for amalgamation. This is a doubtful thesis. It is more likely that most of those who strongly oppose the proposal will vote and that the majority of those who fail to vote are not sufficiently moved against the proposition - they merely acquiesce.

He went on to say: lt is also pertinent to note that in federal parliamentary elections it is not required that a candidate must obtain the support of 50-plus per cent of all voters on the voting role to be elected.

In New South Wales - I cannot speak for the other States - since the Liberal PartyCountry Party took office, compulsory voting in respect of local government elections has been abolished. I suppose that there is some consistency between the attitude of the New South Wales Minister for Local Government, Mr Morton, and the view that was expressed by Mr Lynch in his talk. The situation in New South Wales now is that in many local government areas people are elected to govern the affairs of local communities on the vote of 11 per cent to a maximum of 35 per cent of those eligible to vote in those areas.

The lessons from this action are crystal clear. This approach is unnecessary. The Government is now seeking to amend the legislation and to hamstring the attempts of unions that wish to amalgamate. I think that it is worth while recounting a little more about what Mr Lynch had to say on 2nd March. He spoke of the fact that there are 300 unions in Australia, most of them very smalt. He stated: lt could Facilitate the functioning of the arbitration system and relations generally between employers and unions if this number of unions decreases. I know of situations in which employers have sal across the table with no fewer than IS unions in relation to one issue. Government departments have had this experience.

As this legislation sets out to create a position in which amalgamation of unions is almost impossible we are entitled to ask why the Minister for Labour and National Service has changed his point of view. He has said thai the effective result of introducing a 50 per cent plus voting pattern would bc to put a stop to amalgamations including amalgamations of employer bodies. Of course, this is the only time when he has referred to the amalgamation of employers. 1 wonder what caused this change in his point of view? We need look for further evidence only at his ministerial statement, presented in Parliament on 7th December last year. Again it was on the matter of industrial relations. Referring to compulsory unionism, he said:

Earlier in my statement, I indicated the Government's grave concern at the recent and continuing efforts by some trade unions to bring about compulsory unionism in this country. Th» Government, and 1 believe, the community are opposed to compulsory unionism. We will amend the provisions of the Act relating to registered organisations to prevent unions from enforcing compulsory unionism.

Here we have 2 statements from the Minister for Labour and National Service, both of which, in the context of the legislation before the Senate, show that he is a man who speaks with more than one tongue. I wonder why? I think the Parliament is entitled to draw some conclusions.

When this parliamentary session began, in late February, the Australian Democratic Labor Party was being outspokenly critical of the Government. It was making friendly overtures to members of the Australian Labor Party in the Parliament. Generally it was making statements in debate here and in other places to the effect that the Government was doomed in the forthcoming election. We know that these matters were discussed in the trade union forum. As Senator Bishop has pointed out in his contribution and by way of interjection, the trade union movement was united in its voice on this legislation. There was no opposition within the trade union movement to amalgamation. It was the DLP that was pressing for compulsory unionism.

The DLP was flexing its muscles. Statements appeared in national newspapers of conferences between the DLP and members of the Government. I wonder what significance there is in a statement that appeared in the Brisbane 'Courier Mail' of 25th April of this year in which Senator Gair said:

Democratic Labor Party, preferences will be recommended io Liberal and Country Party candidates, as a general rule, at this year's Federal election.

That was quite contrary to what was being said in this place. I think that one is entitled to draw the conclusion that the DLP twisted the arm of the Government to get the Government to change its attitude in respect of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. It persuaded the Minister for Labour and National Service who, after all, is the Minister responsible for industrial relations, to change his attitude to and to drop his position on compulsory unionism. He changed his attitude in respect of union amalgamations and many other matters to which I have referred.

Subsequently this legislation initiated by the Minister has been brought before this House with the enthusiastic approval of the members of the Democratic Labor Party. The legislation seeks to continue Government interference in the trade union movement. It seems that the DLP has been able to blackmail the Government, stand over the Government to bring about a situation in which the trade unions are pawns in the power struggles taking place for the control of the political destinies of this country.

When we examine the Government's case we see that it expresses a great deal of concern for democracy. It has taken the Government 23 years to reach the point where it is concerned for the democratic control of the trade unions. I find the parrotting of these statements by the Government a nauseating experience. Not only is the Government insincere in respect of the democratic control of the trade union movement; it can also be shown and will it be shown by Opposition speakers that the main aim of the Government is to weaken the capacity of the trade union movement to defend its rights and its members. It is equally crystal clear that the Government and its members have absolutely no understanding of the worker and his organisations, the various trade unions. Here the Government states, as the Minister has said, that this Bill pays particular attention to the provisions of the Act which aim at ensuring democratic processes and affect membership control in organisations registered under the Act.

Let us consider the existing provisions of the Act which this Bill seeks to amend. The Conciliation and Arbitration Act was amended by the Menzies administration in the 1950s to provide that a member of a union could exercise his rights in accordance with the Act to receive financial assistance to challenge actions taken by trade unions. We know that the Democratic Labor Party hunted throughout Australia to find somebody to act as a decoy by being game enough to go before the Commonwealth Industrial Court and seek to prevent the amalgamation of the 3 metal trades unions. It found such a person, a Mr Drinkwater Jnr. He is the son of a former Democratic Labor Party candidate in a parliamentary election. He was a member of the Sheet Metal Union con cerned and had been appointed by the union as a delegate to the Newcastle Labor Council. But he failed to carry out his responsibilities as a member and elected official of that union in that he did not attend the Council meetings. So he bad to be replaced.

Subsequently he left the industry and became a member of the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia in that area, but he worked in a different classification. He was the man who, when put in the witness box, knew nothing of the procedures that had been followed for the past 2 years by the 3 unions which, I think it must be said, have carried out their responsibilities in accordance with the Act, the law and their rules and regulations. Of course, we all know what happened. His challenge against the legality of the amalgamation proposals was dismissed unanimously. The taxpayers of this country are now called upon to pay that man's legal costs. The members of the DLP did not put their money where their mouth was. They expected the taxpayers of this country to pay. Indeed, the legislation worsens the position by permitting others who have a disruptive role to play in the trade union movement to take advantage of certain legal situations in order to weaken the fibre of the trade union movement. This Bill seeks to widen the breach and to permit even further disruption by politically oriented members who really have no interest in the welfare of the industrial organisation to which they belong but are prepared to be lackeys of a minority political party.

As I started out to say, I find it a nauseating experience to hear the Government talking about the need for democratic procedures. If the Government is interested in democracy, I suggest that it should apply democratic principles right across the board. Let us look at one of the organisations to which this Government gives responsibility in respect of the disbursement of the funds of the Government and contributors to medical and hospital benefits schemes. I shall deal with only one such organisation because time will not permit me to deal with more than one. Let us look at the New South Wales branch of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd. The Government claims to be inter- ested in democratic procedures and the right of members of organisations to determine their own affairs. The New South Wales branch of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia is probably the largest organisation in Australia. According to Government statistics made available only this week by the Commonwealth Department of Health, the membership of the organisation in New South Wales as at 30th June 1971 - this is as recent a statistic as we can get - was 712,717. This organisation handles scores of millions of dollars worth of contributors' funds and Government funds in respect of medical expenses incurred by those contributors.

It is interesting to read the Articles of Association of this organisation just to see how democratic it is. Each year the Commonwealth gives hundreds of millions of dollars to this organisation for disbursement to its contributors. As at 29th October 1964 - of course, at that time we had Liberal-Country Party governments in both Canberra and New South Wales - the by-laws of that organisation stated:

2.   There shall be 2 classes of members of the Association namely medical members and contributory members.

3.   The subscribers to the Memorandum of Association who are medical members and such other persons as shall be admitted to membership in accordance with these Articles and none others shall be members of the Association . . .

This organisation has a membership of 712,717. I think we can assume that this figure includes contributors as well as medical members. The Articles of Association continue:

4.   For the purpose of registration the number of members of the Association is declared to be unlimited.

5.   All legally qualified medical practitioners reg istered in any State of the Commonwealth . . . shall be eligible for election as medical members of the Association.

It is interesting to note that the contributing members of this organisation - that is, those people who put their money into it: the rank and file people about whom we hear so much - are not entitled to attend or vote at meetings. Clause 18 of the Articles of Association reads:

Contributory members of the Association shall not be entitled to attend or vote at any general meeting of the Association or to receive notice thereof.

Here we have an organisation which embraces the whole of the community, which disburses contributors' funds as well as Commonwealth funds and in which the contributory members - that is, the membership - have no say in the administration. Clause 19 of the Articles of Association reads:

The Council shall be entitled to decline to accept any application for contributory membership of the Association without assigning any reason therefor.

In the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill the Government is saying that trade unions, as corporate bodies, should be subject to certain government interference and certain government supervision, so that the members of the organisations shall have their rights protected. When we consider the application of that principle cross the board and see the manner in which it is applied to one of the largest organisations in Australia - I am led to believe that this position is somewhat similar to that of organisations in other States and the Hospitals Contribution Fund of New South Wales - we see that the rights of the members of the organisation are deliberately restricted by its rules. There is no restriction on the rights of members of trade unions. Members of trade unions have full and equal rights to participate in the management and affairs of the organisations. They have the right to stand for office, to determine policy, to attend conferences, and to vote and elect their officials. But in this wonderful organisation - the Medical Benefits Fund in New South Wales - the membership have no rights whatsoever. There is not a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives who, at some time or other, has not had to take up with the respective State branches of the Medical Benefits Fund problems associated with the interpretation of the rules of that organisation.

It is interesting to look at the way in which this oligarchy - that is the only word that describes the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia - operates. Its general council consists entirely of doctors, and it is interesting to note that the signatures of these doctors are witnessed by only 3 such persons. It is a self-perpetuating oligarchy because no-one can become a member of the Council where he has some controlof the management of the organisation unless he is elected to the position by the existing members of the Council and is a medical practitioner. So I find it somewhat hypocritical of the Government to say that it is concerned with democracy and with the rights of members of trade unions, when the members of these important organisations, which are concerned with the medical and hospital rights of contributors, have no say in the running of the organisations. I know that there are many medical benefit funds which are democratically run and controlled by their members. But in respect of the principal fund organisations in New South Wales, their leadership determines the amount of fees paid by the members and the amount of benefits paid to members - in consultation with the Government - and they arbitrate cn disputes with doctors and generally concern themselves with looking after the interests of the medical profession. Any suggestion by the Government that there is any concern for democracy in respect of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is not borne out in practice.

I leave that aspect and return to the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill. I think that we have to understand that the clauses which we are asked to approve seek to restrict the right to conciliation - this is where the emphasis has been placed in the past - and to place more emphasis on arbitration. The legislation seeks to reduce the level of arbitrated decisions. It seeks to take away from the existing procedures the right of commissioners and single judges to make determinations based on their understanding of the industry and the conditions. It seeks to restrict the right of unions and to reduce the incidence of negotiated agreements. If we look at so many of the improvements in working conditions in New South Wales in the immediate post-war years and in more recent times I refer to annual leave, long service leave, improvements in workers compensation, acceptance of accident pay in some sections of industry - these have been won outside the jurisdiction of the Commission by negotiated agreements with the organisations of the employers or by collective bargaining. It is clear that the Government proposes in these amendments to restrict this level of activity by the trade union movement. In fact, it seeks to place the total responsibility on the trade union movement to win improved conditions and increases in salaries and wages before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The legislation seeks to extend Government control and influence in the internal affairs of the trade union movement.

For as long as I can recall the trade union movement of this country has fought for its independence against the arbitrary actions of the Governments. It has sought to be treated as any other corporate organisation is treated, making its own decisions, determining its own policy, involving its own membership, and acting in its own right. If this is good enough for companies, it is good enough for trade unions. I do not know how many questions I have heard asked about companies and their operations in the economic life of this country since I have been in the Senate, or how many questions have been asked of the Government to try to establish some control of companies and their shareholding funds. The Government has been loath, and in fact, has refused to take any legislative action. But it is in a hurry in respect to the trade union movement - the work force - because it wants to prevent even the meagre gains, that have been made in the last decade of two, being maintained or improved. The Government seeks to use legal, constitutional and intimidatory means to prevent the trade union movement carrying out its proper responsibility.

The shadow Minister for Labour in another place has pointed out how tradesmen's salaries, since the advent of the Liberal government in 1949, have fallen behind average weekly earnings. The tradesmen are $24.50 worse off now than what they were in relation to average weekly earnings in 1949. Yet the Government is not satisfied with this. It wants to weaken further the capacity of the trade union movement to improve the living standards of the work force of this country. I can assure the Government and its supporters in this place that the trade union movement since its inception has shown courage and determination to win for its members and supporters some of the profits and prosperity that the work force produces in this country. No matter how much the Government may continue to legislate or to try to place the blame on the trade union movement for its own inept economic policies, the trade union movement will continue to represent the real interests of its membership. The trade union movement is the whipping boy for the Government in regard to the inflationary impact in our economy. It is a theme that is constantly harped upon by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) and all of his supporters.

Senator Wilkinson - Both of them.

Senator GIETZELT - Both of them, yes. They have endeavoured to convince the Australian people, as they seem to have convinced the Government's own supporters, that wage increases are the principal factor in inflation. Of course, there is abundant evidence to show that that is not the situation. I could quote from a great number of articles written by experts in this field to break up that statement. However, I will content myself with just one reference. It is contained in the JanuaryMarch 1972 issue of the 'IP A Review'. That is the publication of the Institute of Public Affairs whichI think even Government senators will concede is a body that has more conservative influence than has many others. The 'IPA Review' had this to say in its editorial only a few weeks ago:

If we are ever to get a grip of inflation, we have to be clear about the causes. An effective cure depends upon an accurate diagnosis.

Of course, if we go back to the statements that were made prior and subsequent to the Budget last year by various Treasurers - they come and go so quickly that it is almost impossible to remember their names - we will find that they all indicated different causes for inflation at different periods of time. This is precisely what the I PA Review' says. The editorial continues:

Here there is confusion. Cabinet Ministers, Press commentators, and even some economists repeat ad nauseam that rising prices result from wages and salaries increasing faster than productivity. It needs no unusual powers of perception, or knowledge of economics (a grasp of simple arithmetic will suffice) to see that this is the main immediate cause.

These are not my views; these are the views of the Government's own economic advisers. The editorial further states:

But what we must be concerned to uncover are not the immediate causes of inflation but the deep-seated, root causes.

First, however, it should be said that wage and salary increases are not the only immediate cause of higher prices. Higher costs for imports are clearly another. Lower export returns for primary products associated with home price support schemes may result in higher domestic prices. Higher prices for other exports, for example beef and zinc, mean higher prices on the domestic market for these commodities. Increases in sales lax and excise duties on such things as cars, beer and cigarettes, result immediately in higher prices to the consumer.

Yet all we hear from Government supporters when referring to the economic background of this proposition is that we are faced with wage induced inflation and something must be done about it. The something' is to hamstring the trade union movement, to restrict its activities, to force it back into the past and not allow it to carry out its rightful role. As I indicated to the Senate, it will take more than legislative action by this Government to achieve this. After all. this Government is in its decline. Members of the Liberal and Country Parties will not be sitting on the Government side for very much longer. It will take more than the feeble efforts of this Government to hamstring the trade union movement. The movement has expressed unanimous opinion about this measure. It is worth referring to what Senator Bishop said about how Mr Maynes has been forced to toe the line. I suppose there will be a few other weakies in the trade union movement who will be prevailed upon to adopt the narrow, sectional, parochial and extremist position of the Democratic Labor Party. Notwithstanding all that, the trade union movement will fight for its independence and will survive. This Government will not.

Suggest corrections