DE LAS SANCIONES ADMINISTRATIVAS

130

Australian Labor Party Official Report... May 1930...,

Melbourne, 1930: Constitution, pp . 33-48; unemployment, pp.21-33, 66-8; industrial law, p p.49-50, 70.

In his opening speech to the Conference Scullin announced that the Ministry had decided to withdraw the

three constitutional Bills then before the Federal Parliament. Despite this the Conference devoted much time to debating the three measures, as Scullin implied that they would be reintroduced at some future time. It was also evident that the matter was one of fundamental concern to the Party, representing one of its highest hopes. No doubt this

interest had been sharpened by the limitations, already apparent, that the Constitution placed on the Scullin

Government. The Conference unanimously endorsed proposals for increased Commonwealth powers over industrial questions and over trade and commerce. The proposal to grant full power to the Federal Parliament to amend the Constitution was only approved after lengthy discussion, by 22 votes to 13.

The opposition came mainly from Western Australia (5 delegates) and Tasmania (5 delegates), and it was a stand for State

rights. This particular difference of opinion meant little in 1930 and 1931, when measured against the Government's other

handicaps, but it is one further indication of those difficulties created by federalism which enveloped the A.L.P. before, during and after the depression.

movement. But the role of the Federal Conference was that of the rubber-stamp. Conference appointed a committee of six,

of one delegate from each State, to report on what was

required. After considering reports from trade union and

A.L.P. conferences and conferring with Brennan the Committee presented a four-point report, outstanding only in its

vagueness. In fact the Conferences' deliberations were quite

irrelevant. The trade unions had by-passed the Conference

and made their representations directly to the Government. When the Conference first touched on the subject Curtin and Culley moved unsuccessfully that all agenda items dealing with Federal arbitration be discharged, as the matter had already

been settled. And, indeed, the Arbitration Bill was

introduced into the House of Representatives before the

131 Conference committee on Arbitration had presented its report. Nevertheless, the Conference went through the ritual of making

its own recommendations, partly because the ritual appeared necessary for its own sake, and partly perhaps as a concession

to the A.W. U . , which was not affiliated with the A.C.T.U. and had 131

not therefore been represented at the A.C.T.U. Congress of February 1930.

The key issue of the Conference was the formulation of a policy to deal with unemployment. Nothing was more revealing of fundamental attitudes than this debate, and it therefore deserves to be related in some detail.

Twenty delegates spoke in the debate, though the Tasmanian and South Australian delegations took little part. All agreed that Australia faced a great crisis. There was extensive agreement on the causes of this. Among the causes were immigration, excessive overseas borrowing, the fail in

export prices, introduction of labor-saving machinery, over- capitalisation, the land monopoly and the machinations of the Money Power. And behind these causes the delegates

acknowledged that the root of the trouble was the capitalistic system: 'They all knew1, in Forgan-Smith's words 'that

unemployment was due to the present economic fabric of society itself, and that economic organisation had to be completely altered before unemployment would be brought to an end'. But on the question of what instructions the Conference should give the Government, unanimity ended. Scullin, Brennan and Daly urged delegates to discard theoretical notions and recognise

the practical difficulties. Scullin painted a vivid picture of the quagmire in which the Government found

itself, and the institutional and economic constraints which held it down. He asked delegates not to ‘submit impossible propositions to the Government', but to ‘tackle the problem by practical and sound methods'. Scullin did not suggest what methods these might be. Daly reiterated Scullin's pleas, stressing the Government's limited powers and its

weakness in the Senate. Brennan went over the same ground and asked delegates to consider the consequences of 'routing1 the Government, and what would result if 'a new and reactionary Government' were to replace the present administration.

Like Scullin, he told the Conference that 'it was not a time to attempt to introduce the new order... they were not dealing with theories, but with practical and pressing difficulties

requiring immediate solution'.

It was obvious that the Ministry knew what it did not want from the Conference. It was soon evident that the

delegates were confused about what they wanted. An indication of this confusion appeared when Collings (Qld.) suggested that Mr. Frank Locke be invited to address the Conference. His

request was supported by Drakeford (Vic.) and K i l b u m (N.S.W.) but opposed by Curtin (W.A.) on the grounds that they ail knew

further instruction, Frank Anstey would be a better teacher); they had only to decide what to do. Curtin was over-ruled. Locke, the author of 'Nationalisation of Credit: The Only Cure for Industrial Unrest' (1919), delivered a lengthy address which added nothing to what the delegates already knew and was less relevant than the debates on unemployment which had already taken place within the movement at the A.C.T.U. Congress and the Annual State Conferences in Victoria and New South Wales. The Conference decided to appoint a committee of six to prepare a report on

unemployment. The problem was then to decide on its terms of reference: was it to establish a policy for the

alleviation of existing unemployment, or a policy for the elimination of unemployment ? Forgan-Smith moved for a report on alleviation and Ross for a report on elimination. This suggests a debate which would open up fundamental consideration of the nature of the Party. This was not the case. The Party and the movement could not suddenly change its character and ignore its own history and context. A compromise was accepted from Duggan, asking for a report on

'the immediate relief and 'future regulation and control' of unemployment.

The Committee's report recommended the adoption of the scheme of unemployment insurance and the other

proposals recommended by the Victorian A.L.P. Conference and, before that Conference, by the A.C.T.U. Congress. Such

measures would obviously have been blocked by the Senate, but this was ignored by all three conferences. The Report placed great stress on 'the restoration and freeing of credit' and as a first step it said that 'the Federal Government

should find £20,000,000* to allocate to the States for works (stipulating that the work should be done under Arbitration Court award rates and conditions). The Report did not say how the Government should find the money. It was assumed that it would be released through the Commonwealth Bank, yet it was obvious by May 1930 that the Bank was independent of the Government

and would not implement deliberate expansion of credit. By ignoring this and not also advising the Government to seek a double-dissolution, the Report was rendered sterile. (Of the 36 delegates only Curtin pointed to the necessity of seeking a

double dissolution if the Government was to be asked to manipulate credit). The Committee's report concluded that 'owing to the conditions under which [it] has had to work, it has confined its recommendations to the immediate problem of abnormal

The Government had done little to implement Labor policy in its early months. The Parliamentary sitting of November-December 1929 was confined to minor issues and the emergency Bank Bill. Labor's own legislative programme was not introduced until March 1930.

Chapter III

Parliament met again on 12 March and continued sitting until 8 August 1930. During these five months

Caucus met thirty-two times, for a total time of approximately eighty hours. Because of sickness, journeys interstate and overseas and election campaigning in Western Australia and South Australia there was never a Caucus meeting at which ail fifty-four members were present. On average, nine members were absent from each meeting. As proxy voting was not

permitted, Caucus decisions to some extent depended on chance as well as tactics and the merits of issues.

Three pre-sessional meetings of Caucus were held (5, 6, 7 March) to discuss the Party's programme for this

vital period. Members of the Ministry presented their proposals in a list of more than thirty Bills and these were discussed at length. Scullin promised to have certain matters raised again in Cabinet."^

Caucus, Minutes, 5, 6, 7 March 1930. 1

When Parliament met Scullin made a Ministerial Statement of Policy. The situation he outlined was a grim one and he concluded with a suggestion that 'the Parliament might fittingly become an economic conference of representatives of the people meeting to discuss the general position'.“

Some parts of the programme mentioned in Scullin's address were never presented to Parliament by the Scuilin Government, notably repeal of the Transport Workers' Act and an amendment to the Crimes Act; but fifty-five Bills passed through both Houses between March and August 1S30. Seventeen were

concerned with sales tax and another nine with customs, tariffs, bounties and the export of primary products. Most of the

remaining Bills were machinery measures or matters of no great significance, with the important exception of the Arbitration Bill. Twelve Bills were not enacted. Some were withdrawn or were still being dealt with at the end of the period, on 8 August. Six, however, were defeated in the Senate. Two of

the rejected Bills dealt with bounties (one for hops and the other for serving-machines). The remaining four were among the

Government's most important measures: a wheat subsidy Bill and three Bills to amend the Commonwealth Constitution.

C.P.D., Vol.123, (12 March 1930), p.30. 2

The three Bills to amend the Constitution were the first to be rejected. Scullin submitted two draft

3

Bills to Caucus on 5 March , one to give the Federal Government full power in industrial matters (by altering Section 51 , XXII ) and the other to enable the Federal

Parliament to amend the Constitution (by altering Section 128). On 6 March Caucus adopted these proposals and carried a

motion from Coleman and Rae that they be submitted to a

referendum as quickly as possible. An amendment from Curtin and Keane asking that the power of amendment provision be

4

dropped was defeated. The two Bills were introduced into the Representatives on 13 March and passed the Third Reading

5

on 10 April. In the meantime, on 4 April, the Government had introduced a third constitutional Bill to extend Federal

6