Tom Sheridan and Pat Stretton | Pragmatic Procrastination: Governments, Unions and Equal Pay, 1949–68 | Labour History, 94

Pragmatic Procrastination: Governments, Unions and Equal Pay, 1949–68

Tom Sheridan and Pat Stretton^*

The twentieth century contours of Australia's halting progress towards equal pay for women are fairly well delineated. Understandably, earlier scholars have tended to concentrate on public turning points such as the benchmark arbitration cases and legislative amendments. This article seeks to focus between the apparent post-World War II peaks and to examine the powerful social and economic forces delaying implementation of even minimal wage equality for so long. Firstly, the Menzies federal government, closely monitored by its policy advisers, adopted delaying tactics every step of the way – even after some Liberal parliamentarians and party structures became restive with its inertia. Labor state governments, despite their eventual legislative smoke and mirrors, remained equally concerned to restrain female labour costs. Labor's detachment was matched by the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and the great bulk of the union movement which, while going through elaborate motions, concentrated on wages and job security for males. Finally, while majority public opinion continually seemed to support the principle of equal pay, the decline of 1940's idealism, rifts between older, 'first wave' feminists and continued national prosperity meant that the women's wages cause in the 1950s and much of the 1960s lacked the urgency and impetus which 'second wave' leadership was to bring in the 1970s.

As it was my privilege to say to you in the policy speech of 1946, the women of Australia have established an unanswerable claim to economic, legal, industrial and political equality. I hope the time will speedily come when we can say truthfully that there is no sex discrimination in public or private office, in political or industrial opportunity.¹ [R.G. Menzies, 1949 Election Address.]

This is a government of what one might call pragmatic procrastination, a government which adopts a policy of getting away with doing as little as possible for as long as possible.² [G. Bryant, Federal Parliament, 1965.]

In the nineteenth century at least a handful of women workers were paid equally with men but this was rarely true after Federation. There exists much scholarly writing, mostly by women, about the chequered history of Australian women's pay in the twentieth century. That research generally focuses on women's struggles and their cumulative victories in the slow advance towards equal pay as marked by key judgments of various industrial tribunals. The years when Robert Menzies was Prime Minister (1950–66) provided few triumphs. Thus, while much has been written of the strides towards equal pay made by women during World War II and of the 1969 'breakthrough', the years in between have been relatively neglected. This article, by drawing on different archival sources, hopes to throw new light on the attitudes of federal and state governments and unions in the two decades before the landmark 1969 Meatworkers Case.³ In doing so it necessarily explores the role played by bureaucrats, politicians and unionists as well as by women's organisations in the painfully slow progress towards equality during Menzies' long political rule.⁴

The Setting

In the 1930s women like Jessie Street and Muriel Heagney campaigned for greater equality for working women. Robert Menzies' declaration cited above is indicative of progress made in the 1940s. Most contemporary private sector wages were determined by arbitration tribunals (one federal, six state). Public servants relied on corresponding Public Service Arbitrators. Men's wages were conceptually divided into a 'basic wage', the minimum rate for adult males, and an additional 'margin' granted for the skill required to perform particular jobs. During World War II unprecedented numbers of women joined the work force. The Commonwealth, enjoying temporary emergency powers, created a Women's Employment Board (WEB) that could set rates between 60 and 100 per cent of the male rate, rather than the traditional 54 per cent. The WEB norm became 75 per cent although a small minority performing essential war work in skilled occupations were awarded 90 per cent and more. In 1943 Arbitration Judge A.W. Foster believed that 'the community in the future, if not in the present, will have to face the problem of so-called "equal pay" much more earnestly than it has so far done'.⁵ By 1945 some women, including tram clippies and postal clerks, had achieved equal pay. Australian Council of Trade Unions' (ACTU) claims before the 1949–50 Basic Wage Inquiry in the Commonwealth Arbitration Court (CAC) included one for universal equal pay. Immediately after his December 1949 election victory, Prime Minister Menzies met a broad-spectrum deputation from the Australian Women's Charter and promised to put before his government their wish list, including equal pay and equal opportunity for female public servants and legislation preventing the CAC from awarding separate male and female basic wages. In 1951 his government supported an International Labour Organisation (ILO) Recommendation for equal pay. Given all this, equal pay advocates had reason to be optimistic. This article explores why it took until 1969, 18 prosperous years later, before the CAC awarded even the minimal 'equal pay for work of equal value'. It is not a comfortable story for the labour movement or any government, whatever its political hue.⁶

At the outset we need to stress that the first blow to post-war hopes for equal pay came in 1949 from Ben Chifley's Labor government. When the Women's Charter asked him to introduce equal pay for Commonwealth public servants Chifley's brief response asserted irrelevantly that the Commonwealth government had no power to fix basic wages. When, next month, the High Court invalidated the WEB's wartime rates Chifley amended the Arbitration Act to allow the CAC to set a basic wage for women, sending a clear signal that women would continue to be paid less. Nor did emerging Cold War politics help the push for equality. The unity of the women's movement fell apart: Muriel Heagney linked Jessie Street's United Associations of Women with the Communist Party and others accused Street of being a fellow-traveller. Further, Chifley's social conservatism was widely shared. Already in his 1943 Metal Trades judgment Judge Foster had feared that 'this labour power, called into existence by the war and then suddenly released will work disastrous results, particularly to males who fear the loss of their place in industry'.⁷ In 1945 he was more hopeful: 'Men are the breadwinners and homebuilders, and maybe women will prefer that it should remain thus so they may find their life's work as wives and mothers rather than machine attendants'.⁸ Most male unionists were determined that they should, to make way for returning servicemen.⁹

The flow of women into traditionally male jobs reversed before the end of the war. By 1947, when the overall proportion of women in the workforce began to rise again, men had regained their monopoly of most 'skilled' occupations. In the late 1940s the almost 30 per cent of women who worked for a living (roughly 20 per cent of the total work force) were mainly young and single and working in 'women's' occupations as nurses, typists, shop assistants and textile workers. Their low wages reflected the view, shared by many women, that men were breadwinners and equal pay would hurt their dependants. When unions did argue for equal pay it was usually to keep women out of men's jobs, the assumption being that employers would not hire women at male rates because they would be less productive than men.¹⁰

Various women's groups made submissions to the CAC's long-delayed 1949–50 Basic Wage Inquiry but they disagreed with each other on how equal pay should be achieved. The Business and Professional Women's Clubs, for example, wanted a unit wage plus basic family allowances, candidly implying a wage cut for men quite incompatible with unions' demand for a family wage. The Court had little trouble ignoring the women's competing arguments. It met the unions' demand for an increased real basic wage and set women's basic wage at 75 per cent of the males. The Court felt that equal pay would put 'an intolerable strain on the economy': that it was socially preferable to give men higher wages because of obligations to fiancée, wife and family; and that women had lower efficiency, needs and responsibilities than men. Feminists derided these arguments but they probably reflected the views of most contemporary Australians. Notably, only three states followed the Court's precedent. The New South Wales (NSW) tribunal pretended to give 75 per cent but in fact paid women 75 per cent of the old rate. The Queensland and Western Australian (WA) tribunals awarded only 65 per cent – with the latter further ordering that female margins be reduced by the amount the Basic Wage had increased so that the total wage for women remained unchanged. In 1957 the federal Department of Labour and National Service (DLNS) Regional Director reported that WA women originally on equal margins would have been better off if they had stayed at 54 per cent.¹¹

The 1950s

The Federal Government

It soon became apparent that the Menzies-led coalition government had as little intention of implementing equal pay as its predecessor. Its support of the 1951 ILO Recommendation was wilfully deceptive. A 1950 DLNS background paper correctly assumed that the government wanted to avoid equal pay. It warned that 'any statements ... made in the course of [ILO] discussions by ... Government representatives will be used against the government in the campaign for equal pay'.¹² Fortunately, unless invoking the "external affairs power," the Commonwealth Parliament had no authority to legislate generally on equal pay.¹³ It could apply the principle to its own employees but, DLNS implied, it would be advisable to leave any precedents to the CAC. The states did have the power to legislate for equal pay but if the Commonwealth put pressure on them to do so it 'might lead to demands upon the Commonwealth Treasury'.¹⁴ The paper advised that if the government ratified an ILO Convention on equal pay it would be bound to implement its provisions, but there was nothing binding about a Recommendation. Thus in 1951 Australia abstained from voting on ILO Convention 100 but voted in favour of Recommendation 90. Thereafter the government's monotonous response to any enquiry about equal pay was to say that it had voted for the ILO Recommendation but was unable to do anything about it. It had to wait for the states or the Arbitration Court ('Commission' from August 1956) to implement the policy.

Indeed, the government made no formal statement on equal pay until October 1953, a month after the next Basic Wage judgement (below). The Minister for Labour, Harold Holt, assured Parliament that the government did 'not oppose the principle of equal remuneration for men and women for work of equal value' but did not intend to ratify the ILO Convention because the CAC was the appropriate body to deal with the issue. The Commonwealth had consulted the states and only Victoria had supported ratification. Holt's statement was tabled, not debated, and attracted no press interest. In subsequent years Holt's Departmental Head, H.A. ['Harry'] Bland who, for 20 years, was architect of national labour policies, ensured that no Australian ILO representatives strayed from the official line.¹⁵

Public service unions pressing for the Commonwealth to grant equal pay to its employees were fobbed off. In 1951 their Public Service Arbitrator argued that women were getting equal margins and the difference lay in the Basic Wage component 'which he did not consider proper for him to change'. The Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) officers' union was told that the government should not adopt the principle ahead of the Arbitration Court. When, in 1954, concessions to women in CSIRO were discovered to be higher than the public service norm, they were abolished. In 1958 CSIRO officers were told: 'It would not be proper for the Government to indicate to the [Court] the general lines it should adopt in the event of a particular dispute arising'.¹⁶ Letters, resolutions and petitions about equal pay from women's groups and professionals were met with references to the 1953 ministerial statement or government publications on equal pay. Ongoing debate was avoided. Even Liberal Senators were given short shrift. In 1957 the government rejected Ivy Wedgwood's idea of setting up a committee to consider equal pay.¹⁷ In 1958 at a Business and Professional Women's Club meeting Senators Roy Kendall (Liberal) and Condon Byrne (Labor) floated the idea of a Senate select committee. Bland rubbished this to Holt: 'What next! The Senate inquiry method may get out of hand if not discouraged. We don't want US Senate proceedings here'.¹⁸ In Parliament, the government suspended Standing Orders to gag Byrne.¹⁹

The Unions

Although the ACTU had asked for equal pay in the 1937 Basic Wage Case and again in 1949 the union movement was less than wholehearted about women entering the workforce, let alone equal pay. In 1952 the President of the Queensland Branch of the Australian Workers Union (AWU) declared that 'today it should be the union's policy not to tolerate employment of females in industry while a breadwinner was unemployed'. A member added 'if times get bad it is every man for a job and every woman in her place': the conference unanimously agreed.²⁰ Many men saw proof of their success as breadwinners if their wives did not have to work. Wives often agreed. Interviewed in the 1990s about the 1950s, many stressed 'the high value women placed on their work as mothers and the low priority they accorded to the demeaning and boring paid work they were occasionally forced to take'.²¹ Thus, although in 1956 two out of three Australians approved the principle of equal pay, with higher support among women, we don't know what proportion were defending a husband's job against cheaper competition rather than endorsing women's rights. But we do know that Woman's Day readers in 1956 voted 6 to 1 against married women working.²²

Nevertheless, the union movement went through the motions. The 1952–53 Basic Wage Case saw it barely fending off employers' arguments for longer hours and lower wages, including reduction of women's basic wage to 60 per cent of men's. In Court, women's organisations divided as the more left leaning opposed the Business and Professional Clubs' reiterated advocacy of unit wages, family allowances and implied male wage cuts. This view was to grow in popularity with Bob Santamaria and his Catholic right but, in 1953, it helped promote equal pay as a male defence mechanism. The immediately subsequent ACTU Congress resolved to call for states' equal pay legislation and equal pay for all government employees. It also voted to stimulate interest by establishing Equal Pay committees. The 1955 Congress called on the Commonwealth to consult state governments in order to achieve equal pay and committed the ACTU to support a vigorous equal pay campaign and to call a national conference of unions with women members. The latter was held in Melbourne in March 1956 but response to its call for organisation of mass petitions was unenthusiastic. Most unions were more interested in fighting for higher male margins. At an equal pay conference in Melbourne in March 1957 J.V. Stout, Trades Hall Council Secretary, confirmed the impression that working men did not see equal pay as their problem. He called for a strike by female public servants for equal pay and was supported by a leftwing wharfies' official who suggested the right-wing Clerks Union should lead the private sector charge. ACTU president, Albert Monk, endorsed equal pay but noted that 'it had been said that woman's worst enemy was woman'. The Victorian Public Service Association criticised Stout for asking female public servants to strike: equal pay was not a matter for the government but for the Public Service Board to decide. The Board certainly didn't see it that way. It argued that 'This is a matter of policy which goes beyond the Board's responsibility ... we take as a basis for our Public Service pay the [Commonwealth] basic wage'.²³ Queensland DLNS officers reported in June 1957 that there 'does not seem to be very much activity among [local] Trade Unions in regard to ... equal pay'. The Chairman of the Queensland equal pay committee had indicated 'he was finding it most difficult to whip up enthusiasm among the various unions'.²⁴ South Australian DLNS officers reported that Adelaide's equal pay committee did not meet until March 1958 and then was 'poorly attended'.²⁵ Harry Bland summarised national activity as 'half-hearted and desultory ... the trade union movement, despite its adoption of resolutions, is not really behind the implementation of ... equal pay'.²⁶ Albert Monk had led a deputation delivering 61,000 signatures to Harold Holt who promised to inform Cabinet but emphasised that 'the grant of equal pay to women could only be secured by awarding a smaller proportion of the total wage fund to the male wage earner who, generally speaking, has heavier social responsibilities'.²⁷ Holt pointed out that he was still waiting for the ACTU's response to similar points raised in the CAC's 1950 basic wage judgement. Bland was later told informally that the ACTU planned no response.²⁸

In March 1958 when a national conference of trade unions with women members unanimously called on unions to press all governments to grant public servants equal pay and on the states to legislate for equal pay in state awards,²⁹ Albert Monk said an educational program was needed to make the community realize the importance of equal pay. Critics might have said the same about Monk. It remained open to the ACTU to initiate an approach to the Arbitration Court but this was not raised as a possibility. Whoever was asked, equal pay was always someone else's business.

New South Wales Legislation

A 1954 International Bureau of Education survey encompassing 57 countries revealed that Australia was one of only seven that 'discriminated in salaries on the basis of sex'.³⁰ The left-wing dominated NSW Teachers Federation in the 1950s was the only teachers' body affiliated with its Labor Council and the ACTU. In 1954 it forced the NSW Public Service Board to raise female rates for assistant teachers to 85 per cent of the male rate. Although not all male teachers supported that campaign, the Federation's executive argued that a teacher shortage was adversely affecting the quality of education and reminded its perennial Labor government of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) state branch's policy on equal pay for equal work. It also lobbied Menzies and Holt.³¹

The NSW Government long maintained the Commonwealth line that arbitration tribunals should determine wages³² but in March 1958 Premier J.J. Cahill announced that he would legislate for equal pay. This looked like a crucial precedent: 'Cahill is considered the "shrewdest politician in Australia" ... so Menzies must tread warily'.³³ Elsewhere male unionists were unenthusiastic. DLNS officials in Adelaide reported that:

support for equal pay has been lukewarm in this State ... and ... the announcement is going to prove embarrassing locally ... The various Women's Organisations came in for considerable criticism [from unions] and mention was made of the difficulty in restraining them during the [national] Basic Wage hearing, especially as the publicity given could have reacted adversely on the ... application for an increase³⁴

By July, South Australia's (SA) Equal Pay Committee was failing to reconvene: 'there is little support by the trade union movement for the ... issue and as there is a clash of personalities between the two women representatives on the committee it is unlikely that any action will be taken for some considerable time'.³⁵

Despite NSW Employers Federation forecasts of economic and social disaster, when Cahill's legislation was introduced in December, Bland informed Holt that it was 'a much better Bill than seemed likely some time ago'. Although Cahill had originally spoken of safeguarding male jobs from lower paid women, his government did not give women truly equal pay. It opted instead to restore the £1 that women had missed in 1950 but offered equal pay only to women performing the same work as men excluding women employed in 'female' occupations, juniors, and women covered by a separate award from men. DLNS estimated that nine years later only 6 to 7 per cent of the NSW female workforce had achieved equal pay. Elsewhere, the Tasmanian ALP Conference directed Cabinet to consider the NSW model. In Victoria the ALP Opposition promised to include equal pay along NSW lines in its 1961 platform. In Western Australia, Liberal Premier David Brand told a deputation of women that he would seek advice from experts. Economist, H.W. Arndt, had already estimated that equal pay would mean a 2 1/2 per cent rise in the national salaries bill: if the increases were spread over five years, it would hardly trouble the WA economy.³⁶

Figure 1

'No, silly; it doesn't mean we share this 50–50!'
Sydney Morning Herald, 22 March 1958. Cartoonist: Hal Eyre Jr.

Figure 2

'Yes, Dulcie, but what I'm scared of is someone giving me 52 weeks annual leave!'
Sydney Morning Herald, 27 March 1958. Cartoonist: Hal Eyre Jr.

Harry Bland's Equal Pay Report, August 1958

When New Zealand announced a committee to investigate equal pay early in 1957 the NSW Public Service Association asked the Commonwealth to do likewise. Menzies' response that it was inappropriate to comment until Cabinet had considered the matter rested on the fact that DLNS was preparing a paper for Cabinet. The first draft (April 1957) suggested it would cost the Commonwealth Public Service no more than £5m.³⁷ Later that year Bland criticised Assistant Secretary Ian Sharp for arguing that equal pay should mean setting a rate for the job and paying this irrespective of sex. Bland restricted definition of 'equal pay' to work of 'equal value', believing that, because of her higher absenteeism and shorter working life, a woman was seldom of equal value to an employer. He also stressed that though the 'needs' concept in the Basic Wage had supposedly given way in 1931 to 'capacity to pay', the wage was still related to the responsibilities of a man with a family. Bland argued that 'so long as there is a social wage content to the basic wage, no support could be given to the principle of equal pay whatever else might be supportable'.³⁸ While helping Holt draft a statement for parliament Bland indicated that to achieve equality without raising the total wage bill implied a cut in the male Basic Wage of seven per cent.³⁹ DLNS advice was to

[Throw] the onus back on the trade unions to pursue the question before the Court if they so desire while at the same time thrusting on them the responsibility for accepting a lower wage for males if the [current] social basis of the wage is eliminated.⁴⁰

Bland canvassed many sources in preparing his department's paper on equal pay. The DLNS Queensland Director reported that although a few classified public service posts carried equal pay 'it is [generally] the policy of the State Service to fill those positions with male employees'.⁴¹ The provision 'was inserted ... as much for the protection of men as of women'.⁴² The WA Director confided that 'I have been somewhat amazed at the apparent lack of interest displayed in trade union circles to equal pay proposals'.⁴³ The WA Labor government, 'would be embarrassed by any pressure from the [union] movement for equal pay provisions. Demands for equal margins for equal work in the State Public Service whether professional or clerical have never been acceded to by the Government'.⁴⁴ In South Australia, higher ranked female Public Servants got equal margins added to the female basic wage. Women police officers got equal pay but 'For your information this is contrary to the recommendations of the Public Service Commissioner'⁴⁵ being 'apparently an historical accident which is a constant source of embarrassment to [him]'.⁴⁶ Victoria too had a guilty secret. Its Public Service did not employ women in the Administrative section except for two women factory inspectors who got equal margins but only 75 per cent of the male basic wage. The Victorian Director requested that this information not be made public. The Tasmanian Director told Bland that there was very little interest in equal pay. The ALP Government was not expected to act because of lack of finance and because, apart from the Public Service Association, unions had not been pressing the matter.⁴⁷

Among Commonwealth Departments, the Postmaster General's (PMG) gave details of various war-time WEB decisions that were still operating including a few women who worked as mail officers on 100 per cent of the male rate. Contract workers were paid the rate for the job, regardless of sex. J.M. Galvin, the Public Service Arbitrator, believed de facto equal pay now operated in some private industry outside of award prescriptions.⁴⁸ To Bland, the comments of F.P.J. Kelly of the Public Service Board were 'quite easily the most comprehensive and valuable that we have received from any [domestic] source'.⁴⁹ After pointing to the dichotomy between militant unions that wanted equal pay to preserve male jobs and 'Various women's organisations and other bodies [that] take their stand on more idealistic grounds of wage justice and absolute equality of the sexes', Kelly struck a remarkably prescient note:

It seems to me that at this stage in the long struggle for their emancipation, women are voluntarily resuming their chains. With the widespread acceptance of the employment of married women in industry, they are meekly accepting the yoke of life-long servitude with dual employment in the home and factory and long and tiring hours of work ... This, of course, has no part in your proposed report, but it poses questions which might well be thought about now rather than be left to some Wilberforce or Clarkson of the next century who would devote himself to the abolition of slavery – this time not of negroes but of married women.⁵⁰

DLNS's bulky Equal Pay proved a useful weapon for the government, seeming to demonstrate it was not ignoring the issue: all correspondents could be told to read it, thus avoiding lengthy replies. Although a draft was sent to Albert Monk he made no response.⁵¹ One year later ACTU Secretary Harold Souter attacked the paper as 'inadequate'⁵² but Bland advised his Minister that he 'did not think it ... necessary to write a long explanation to Mr. Souter ... his letter to you was purely political'.⁵³ In December 1958 Holt had been promoted to Treasury and William McMahon became Labour Minister. He, too, directed equal pay advocates to the arbitration tribunals and, following Holt, rejected growing demands that DLNS establish a Women's Bureau like those in the USA and Canada promoting the welfare of female workers⁵⁴.

1960–63: Going through the Motions

By 1960, however, some Liberals were having misgivings. Even Holt, as Chairman of the Liberals' Policy Committee, made an indirect query to McMahon as to whether Holt's own 1958 ministerial statement might now need an 'overhaul'.⁵⁵ In the Senate, Ivy Wedgwood, associated like many Liberal women with the National Council of Women, called for a Women's Bureau and regretted the absence of Australian delegates from a Geneva conference on women's employment. Labor Senator Dorothy Tangney added her voice and, after McMahon had formally responded that the idea of a Women's Bureau would be 'kept in mind',⁵⁶ the WA Liberal Party's State Women's Council passed a motion expressing 'keen disappointment'.⁵⁷

Aware of public opinion,⁵⁸ Bland revealed his own to McMahon:

My guess is that like long service leave ... we will have equal pay [via] legislation of the States within the next ten years. Meantime I suppose we must continue to behave like ... King Canute. On this approach we can keep raising doubts and fears such as –

(a) the displacement of men by women and greater competition among women if higher wages meant fewer jobs.

(b) the cost ... I just don't believe it would stop at an equation of women's and men's pay when the same job was being done. In time all women's rates would tend to rise ...

(c) on the basis of decisions of the Arbitration Tribunals to date ... a general increase in female rates can only be at the expense of an increase in male rates. Perhaps this and point (a) explain why the A.C.T.U. has not pushed for equal basic wages for men and women in the last ten years.

As you know, I write this with some mental reservations. I believe our attitude to women in employment is archaic – but you have heard me on this already, apropos the Public Service attitude to married women'.⁵⁹

An issue emerged, however, which helped blur discussion on equal pay. In 1959, unusually, the CAC handed down both a Basic Wage (June) and a Margins (November) judgement. The 'flow on' from the latter's 28 per cent increase 'rushed like a bushfire'⁶⁰ through the national wages pyramid. Given their very much higher 'margins', senior public servants' increases, although 'tapered', meant their salaries grew quite disproportionately. Those voicing concern and indignation included conservative elder statesman Lord Bruce, the conservative Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), Fairfax newspapers and Labor Tasmanian Premier, Eric Reece. Over the next few years, as employer groups began to focus on replacing the dual wage structure with a 'total' wage, leading economists called for a 'national wage policy' incorporating their profession's particular expertise.⁶¹

Robert Menzies expressed early concern about the 1959 margins flow-on, stimulating McMahon who, unlike Holt, was seldom content with Bland's spoon feeding, to prod his Permanent Head with awkward questions. Bland maintained a consistently orthodox stance: 'Compulsory arbitration is a system of conservatism ... It acts as a brake to wage movements ... but like all brakes [it must occasionally be] partially released. ... The wonder is that the brake has been held as hard as it has'.⁶² He totally opposed economists' involvement, emphasising their simple-mindedness and the public's lack of respect for them. He noted critics' tendency to equate 'wages policy' with no wage increase at all – a dangerous proposition in a full employment economy.⁶³ Bland saw 'grave dangers' in the Total Wage concept. Not least,

our favourite backstop to equal pay claims would be gone because the basic wage would be gone with its differential ... for females ... In short, if the total wage concept got a run, we would finish up with a higher wage level than now — certainly a higher wage for the unskilled and for females.⁶⁴

The next move in the stately dance performed by the Commonwealth and the ACTU was another deputation.⁶⁵ In briefing McMahon, Bland stressed the importance of finally getting Monk to respond to the 1950 Arbitration Court's queries regarding the effect of equal pay on male wages. Apart from this, 'I think all that you can do is to listen patiently and make the usual sympathetic sounds without any commitments whatever'.⁶⁶ The ALP was also doing its mild mannered duty about equal pay but, when Senator Kennelly asked the regular question why ILO Convention 100 had not been ratified, he might have been more believable as a champion of women's rights had he not just told Nancy Buttfield, when she had interjected on another matter, 'I like ladies but I do not like them to be talking all the time ... You are wonderful people up to around the neck'.⁶⁷

Nevertheless, during debate on the Public Service Bill in December 1960 the ALP moved an amendment to give female public servants equal pay for equal work, pointing out that the official Federal platform of the Liberal Party had just been amended to accept the principle. McMahon countered with the ACTU's disinclination to mount an equal pay case. The four female Coalition Senators, who themselves received equal pay, were generally criticised for obediently voting against the motion.⁶⁸ When the equal pay plank of the Liberal Party platform prompted further Parliamentary questions, the DLNS recommended the standard answer: leave it to the Arbitration Commission. Prime Minister's Department wanted to add 'The Government endorses the principle of equal pay' but Bland overbore this 'dangerous' notion'.⁶⁹

The ACTU played a similar double game by delaying equal pay while not actually opposing it. It persuaded the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association (ACOA) to defer its decision to approach the Public Service Arbitrator on the grounds that 'arbitration action at present would inevitably fail and would seriously prejudice other organisations with similar aims'.⁷⁰ In May 1961 during the ACTU's second Equal Pay Week a representative of the High Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations (HCCPSO) admitted that not every affiliate was solidly behind 'Universal Equal Pay'. Redistributing the existing wages pool by reducing the male basic wage by £1 could achieve equality: 'but under present day conditions who could expect this to be an attractive proposition to the men ...? Perhaps the main point ... is the very great need for unions to think out the problems associated with equal pay'.⁷¹ In July, 70 per cent of Gallup poll respondents favoured equal pay – in principle at least. In August, NSW women became eligible to be heads of coeducational schools with pay equal to men's and Tasmania's Government introduced its equal pay Bill. Yet, though the latter perturbed the DLNS, it needed the Speaker's casting vote to pass the House of Assembly, and was then defeated in the Legislative Council. In Victoria, Liberal Premier Henry Bolte referred a deputation back to the wage fixing tribunals. In 1962, a much-heralded agreement apparently giving 7,000 NSW female public service clerks equal pay by January 1963 contained so many hedges and hazards that Bland was authoritatively informed that many might not elect to switch to the male scale.⁷²

When Treasurer Holt, on television and in Parliament, drew child endowment into the (workers') 'needs' debate, Bland again told McMahon:

Sooner or later equal pay will come. We must try to avoid having equal pay on the basis of equating the female rate to the male ... we should ... move deliberately to secure acceptance of the idea that our wage meets only the requirements of the worker ... and to [have] it clearly recognized that dependents will henceforth be the concern of social services and not the tribunals. Part of the package approach would be a progressive approach to equation of the female rate to the male – the premise being that because of this and because of the increased social services the male rate would not, until the equation process was complete, advance as fast as it otherwise might.⁷³

In March 1962 at the United Nations Status of Women Commission, Australia voted with Britain, Taiwan and the Netherlands against a resolution calling on countries to ratify ILO Convention 100 on equal pay and to implement Recommendation 90.⁷⁴ In April, during Equal Pay Week, Menzies and McMahon met a Monk-led deputation from the ACTU and the private and public sector white-collar peak councils, Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations (ACSPA) and the HCCPSO, requesting equal pay for equal work. Bland advised McMahon that, since the Commonwealth employed only a few thousand women performing 'work of equal value', it would be unwise to enter any discussion based on cost or economics.

It might [also] be unwise to develop an argument against legislative or administrative adoption of equal pay in the public service in view of some powerful overseas precedents ... The safest course, in view of past inaction by the ACTU, might be to press the question back to the members of the deputation of using normal processes of arbitration.⁷⁵

In the event, Monk was satisfied with Menzies' promise to have the matter 'completely examined without prejudice',⁷⁶ something Menzies also pledged to Liberal female Senators Buttfield, Rankin, Robertson and Wedgwood who requested removal of all discrimination between Commonwealth public servants. Labor parliamentarians attacked the government for failing to honour its obligations under Recommendation 90, yet both sides appeared to be appealing more to men than to women with Labor emphasising the threat from cheap labour and the Coalition stressing the lower basic wage that would result from equal pay. As always, the government questioned why the ACTU had made no application to the CAC since 1949.⁷⁷ Senator McManus (DLP) gleefully reported that the Clerks Union had had 'unlimited trouble ... in getting trade unions to apply the principle of equal pay for equal work to members of their own staffs'.⁷⁸ Nevertheless, McMahon's opposition was weakening. In relaying Wedgwood's suggestions that women with technical education should get equal pay and that, perhaps, the Commonwealth should imitate NSW's route to equal pay, McMahon told Bland 'we should not be too rigid in our thinking, but should look at possible variations from the absolute'. Bland's annotation was 'Oh my!'⁷⁹ but McMahon was unimpressed with his counter-arguments.⁸⁰ Wedgwood maintained her pressure telling a Liberal Party women's group that equal pay for equal work was 'inevitable' and that 'Australia must be one of the last countries in the world with inbuilt discrimination against married women in the Public Service'.⁸¹

Menzies' promise of thorough Cabinet discussion was fulfilled on 6 August when Ministers considered a DLNS Submission which argued against equal pay but unsuccessfully urged, as an offset, removal of the ban on married women as permanent Commonwealth employees. Cabinet reaffirmed its 'traditional approach' but, to soften the blow, a Women's Section (not a Bureau) would be established in DLNS on a 'small ... scale'.⁸² Bland regarded the new Women's Section chiefly as a public relations exercise to keep women's organisations happy. Alison Stephen, already working in DLNS, was appointed Head. She saw her job as mainly 'fact finding in the economic and demographic fields'.⁸³ Stephen, despite the spin she appears to have conveyed when interviewed in 1987 was not a feminist, believed that there was no discrimination against women in Commonwealth employment and consistently avoided meeting Ruby Rich, President of the Australian Federation of Women Voters.⁸⁴

McMahon's subsequent justification of Cabinet's decisions drew criticism from ACSPA and female interest groups. The Sydney Morning Herald, however, supported McMahon and criticised unions which 'underestimate the practical difficulties of getting to a position where women are paid the same wages as men'.⁸⁵ Employers naturally agreed. One catering trades representative asserted that women were frequently unable to do the same catering job as males, being unsuited to lifting weights, unable to maintain a sustained effort, 'cracked sooner', needed longer relief periods and were temperamentally unsuited to exercising discipline over other women.⁸⁶

1963–65: Vested Interests and Market Forces

Early in 1963 another, more conservative, Tasmanian equal pay Bill was introduced. Employers were united in opposing the Bill and, 'apart from the teachers and sections of the State Public Service', Tasmanian unions were not very interested in supporting it.⁸⁷ The Bill eventually lapsed and at the 1964 ALP conference there was 'strong opposition from the political wing' to a successful motion that the state give equal pay to its women employees.⁸⁸

Three features marked the equal pay campaign in 1964. Rising labour demand lessened some employers' opposition and encouraged both female employment in 'men's' jobs and arbitrators' preparedness to award equality. Public support grew, with a June Gallup poll reporting 80 per cent in-principle approval. The male-dominated union world remained ambivalent. In April the Clerks Union boasted that a number of its recent Awards gave women members more than the standard 75 per cent of male margins, a pattern that it expected to become 'universal' among clerks. Two Melbourne furniture companies negotiated equal pay agreements: one guaranteed women 30 per cent over the award rate. A Commonwealth Full Bench upheld equal margins for brewery clerks. In Perth three women bank tellers were appointed at male rates. In 'the first extension of the principle from NSW', a new Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Shop Assistants Award gave equal margins to women.⁸⁹ Unsuccessfully appealing, employers deployed Bland's 'needs' factor: apart from claiming women were less efficient, they argued that 'a job for women is only a "stopgap" between school and marriage, and for a married woman it was only a means of raising extra money for a special purpose'.⁹⁰ In Western Australia shortage of labour stimulated a proposal to allow women to work in butcher shops and, if skilled, at the male rate. When the NSW Rural Bank introduced women as machine accounting examiners at one third of the male margin, equal pay advocates insisted that, 'To protect his own interests, and those of his son's, every male bank manager should become an active worker in the equal pay campaign'.⁹¹ In Geelong, women were employed – with identical pay and conditions – in wool spinning hitherto confined to men.⁹²

With heightening awareness of labour market trends, the Opposition brought on debate in Federal Parliament. Ivy Wedgwood spoke in favour of equal pay but did not vote for the motion. Her male colleague, G.C. McKellar (Country Party), was more certain. Did we want our women to be like Russian women? Equal pay must adversely affect both marriage and birth rates.⁹³ Nancy Buttfield sounded similar alarm bells, 'Let the Communist idea of equality be a warning to us' otherwise women might end up building roads and houses and lose 'all signs of femininity and charm'. She was not sure that a majority of women wanted equal pay.⁹⁴ While Alison Stephen in DLNS saw the Opposition as 'better informed than the majority of Government members',⁹⁵ the Canberra Times attacked Labor's 'hypocrisy' in criticising the Commonwealth but not state governments that 'irrespective of party affiliation' opposed equal pay. The Opposition had been prompted by unionists who often did not 'believe in or practice [sic] the principle of equal pay'.⁹⁶ Bland categorised the Opposition motion as merely 'part of the annual ACTU exercise'.⁹⁷

At the 1964 ACTU Equal Pay Conference Monk argued that the ACTU would be unsuccessful if it sought equal pay nationally in one fell swoop: better to lobby governments to give equal pay for equal work to their own employees. Kath Williams (Liquor Trades) responded angrily that this approach had left most NSW female employees on 75 per cent of the male wage. When pressed about why the ACTU had not claimed equal pay before the Arbitration Commission, Monk said only that his Executive would 'consider' the matter. A woman delegate's motion in favour of ACTU-backed stoppages in support of equal pay was circumvented by an amendment. The Administrative & Clerical Officers Association's (ACOA) Canberra branch condemned the Conference as a failure, singled out Monk for particular criticism and recommended that the public servants' High Council act independently.⁹⁸ In July, 150 women clerks employed by unions at Sydney Trades Hall challenged them to 'honour their own policy of equal pay for women'.⁹⁹

Equal pay demands did erupt among 2,700 Sydney PMG mail officers but these stemmed from fear for men's position. Arguing that employment of 560 casual female officers was 'excessive' the men demanded they be paid full male rates. Public Service Board Chairman, Frederick Wheeler, refused to budge despite the fact that, as a war-time hangover, 20 female sorters in Melbourne were being paid 100 per cent. In July the powerful metal trades unions determined to request that the ACTU apply to the Commission for rates-for-the-job irrespective of sex. In December, however, the ACTU Executive resolved simply to continue campaigning for equal pay legislation. It also asked affiliates to confer with Monk before taking claims to the Commission for equal margins. Similarly in Perth, despite threatening noises from its Labour Council and, separately, from the bus and tram union, the movement refrained from any kind of determined action, not least because the ACTU warned the Council not to 'prejudice' the national campaign. Whereas early in 1965 the WA Labor Opposition leader pledged in his policy speech that he would legislate for equal pay, Monk, during Equal Pay Week, predicted merely that women would get equal pay for equal work within five years.¹⁰⁰

Among professionals the justice of equal pay seemed clearer and more were demanding it. Refusals by the Victorian Teachers Tribunal to grant parity with their NSW counterparts sustained a leakage of teachers to NSW. In Adelaide, women doctors agitated for equal pay when employed by the state government. When Cynthia Teague became the first woman to be appointed to the second division of the Commonwealth Public Service one journalist, in reporting that Teague would be paid £200 a year less than a male incumbent, criticised the Commonwealth for its failures to implement the international principle of equal pay for equal work, to hold 'periodical consultations' with the states and to give equal pay to its own employees. He approved critics' claims that 'it is not the Arbitration Commission's function to initiate social reform'.¹⁰¹ Senator Tangney also queried government inaction as, again, did ACSPA.¹⁰²

But for most unions, men's jobs were what really mattered. In Adelaide an industrial dispute arose because public transport authorities were thought to intend introducing women at lower rates than men. Similarly, an unsuccessful application by WA Bread Manufacturers to employ women on lower pay aroused union anger. In view of an 'acute shortage of labour in [their] industry' the Victorian Vehicle Builders Union branch agreed to females being employed at the female basic wage plus male margins – 'provided that employers would, in times of retrenchment, retrench the females first'.¹⁰³ During the 1965 Equal Pay Week, televised debate saw the employers' representative stress women's physical weakness and allege that surveys revealed 75 per cent greater absenteeism among female workers. Elsewhere, ACTU Secretary Souter parroted that the Commonwealth should grant its employees equal pay.¹⁰⁴

In July, a Public Service Board report revealed the Commonwealth Government's worst staffing problems were among mail officers and postmen although medical officers and pharmacists were also hard to find. It concluded that 'equal pay would greatly ease the employment situation' but against this must be weighed the likely 'flow-on': 'For example, we would be under heavy pressure for equal pay in the clerical and semi-clerical ... fields'.¹⁰⁵ In response, Alison Stephen, dutifully traversing well-worn DLNS objections, advanced Bland's constant theme that a better option would be to remove the marriage bar, while informing him that 'Bonus systems, above award payments and piece-work rates outside the Public Service have made the current rate for the job rather more prevalent than is generally admitted'.¹⁰⁶

In June the Victorian tribunal had granted 20,000 women shop assistants equal margins – the first time it had given equal margins to non-professional women: a further 20,000 were expected to benefit from a 'flow on'. The Queensland Industrial Commission soon increased female shop assistants' margins from 53 per cent to 80 per cent. In Western Australia, the authorities passed the buck. The Industrial Commission said the Arbitration Act would have to be amended before it could fully consider the question of equal pay. After being rumoured to consider such amendments the government refused to legislate for equal pay whereupon the ALP Opposition promised to give the Commission discretionary power to grant equal pay for equal work. One supermarket chain unilaterally gave female staff equal pay. Unionists were urged to shop there but the Employers' Federation claimed equal pay could not be justified irrespective of women's ability or length of service. Privately, the Chamber of Manufactures Secretary believed, as a matter of strict justice, the chain's decision was a good one.¹⁰⁷

The 1966 'Women at Work' Conference

In planning this conference the Victorian Employers Federation (VEF) asked for support from DLNS which fretted over a planned invitation to Esther Peterson, former US Women's Bureau Director. Described as 'a dynamic and forceful woman, with a trade union background', Petersen was 'enthusiastically devoted to the cause of equal pay'.¹⁰⁸ Bland successfully recommended substituting a British civil servant, Dame Mary Smieton, whom 'I know ... would be completely discreet as far as we were concerned'.¹⁰⁹ He warned Smieton that: 'Equal pay is for us an extremely hot and controversial issue'.¹¹⁰ Alison Stephen also pitched in: 'I ... have persuaded the VEF to remove the [radical] Housewives Association from the Council'.¹¹¹ In January, McMahon became Treasurer. Since Leslie Bury, the new Labour Minister, personally favoured equal pay, Bland took pains before the Conference to stipulate his ministerial duty.¹¹² Yet persuasion sometimes failed. Lady Casey sent her Conference speech for Bland's comments. He crossed out the paragraphs on equal pay but Casey took no notice, assuring her audience that 'Equal pay for equal effort ... is sure to come as it has already come in many other countries'.¹¹³

Vested interests spoke predictably. J.M. Riordan (Clerks Union) asserted that the trade union movement clearly stood for the principle of equal pay. Unequal pay was 'unconscionable and a blot on ... the Australian community'.¹¹⁴ He attacked employers and the Australian Government. However, married women, whom some employers saw as a source of cheap labour, should not be encouraged to enter the work force as this would lead to an increase in part-time and casual jobs. Sir Robert Webster, Bradford Cotton Mills' Chief Executive Officer, believed equal pay could have destructive economic effects. An element of family needs still entered Australian wage fixing. He wanted to extend jobs for women and deal with rates of pay 'in due course'.¹¹⁵

Bland was not pleased when the Conference resolved to press for a US-style Women's Bureau. Thus Bury stonewalled Ruby Rich whose Federation of Women Voters had been pressing for one since 1945. Alison Stephen was dismissive. The Federation was

very strongly feminist in the narrower sense of the word — its methods and policies are those of fifty years ago. Miss Rich must be close to 80 ... I cannot escape the feeling that organisations such as this will be sorry when they have nothing to fight for.¹¹⁶

Demands for a Bureau were ignored until heir apparent, Hal Cook, initiated the change, to take effect in January 1968 when Bland left DLNS for Defence.¹¹⁷

The States 1966–67

Here, equal pay gathered momentum. In 1966 the Tasmanian Government appeared to try again. This time it ignored women like nurses and typists in 'female' employment. The conservative Legislative Council, however, let it be known that it would accept the legislation if it were extended to cover 'female' employment, meaning the government would be financially embarrassed if it agreed but would look insincere if it did not. At the end of the year, the Assembly accepted Upper House amendments confining it to the Public Service. The DLNS understood that the Labor government had been pressured by unions to introduce the Bill but vainly plotted with the Council to ensure its defeat before being forced to vote in favour. Nevertheless, implementation would take five years.¹¹⁸

South Australia's perennial conservative government had resisted all requests for equal pay, including from Liberal Legislative Councillor, Jessie Cooper. In March 1965 the ALP after, inter alia, promising public servants equal pay for equal work, at last gained office. In July, Premier Frank Walsh announced equal pay for teachers to be phased in over five years starting from July 1966 and in September promised to implement equal pay for public servants in the same way. A year later his successor, Don Dunstan, promised an equal pay Bill along NSW lines to be introduced in 1967 for all female employees under state awards. Conversely, although a Federal Award covered barmaids, the state ALP Conference decided against their employment locally because their wages would be lower than barmen's and 'it could depress conditions'.¹¹⁹ When a Royal Commission recommended employment of females the union worried that men would do all the heavy lifting and become odd job men. Employers, needing more labour once six o'clock closing was abolished, were delighted. The mid-year ALP State Convention voted narrowly to allow barmaids. By the end of the year, the implications of the NSW legislative model were being understood – and bemoaned – in several quarters. Dunstan had not introduced his public service bill and only 35 out of 95 equal pay applications from individual public servants had been administratively granted.¹²⁰

In September the Queensland Industrial Commission granted equal pay to 4000 women teachers. Next month, WA Premier Brand announced that from January 1968 his government would introduce, over five years, equal pay for equal work for its employees. It would also amplify the Industrial Commission's power to award it to other workers. Last of all, Victoria, usually reliant on Commonwealth practice, began to move. In November 1967 its Teachers Tribunal finally agreed to give equal pay to 14,000 women teachers in state schools, fully operative by January 1971.¹²¹

The Commonwealth

After Sir Robert Menzies retired (January 1966), Harold Holt's new Ministry advanced the familiar rationale but political trends encouraged reformers. In October, DLP support for an ALP move to provide Commonwealth employees with equal pay for equal work produced a tied Senate vote. Two weeks later, legislation fulfilled Bland's crusade to offer married women permanent status.¹²² Yet the reality of social unease about genuine equality was demonstrated when, after Senator Vince Gair (DLP) interjected, 'The women will benefit and the children will suffer',¹²³ Dorothy Tangney (ALP), an equal pay supporter, agreed that men should be the breadwinners:

I hope I am right in suggesting that not a great number of women will want to take advantage of this legislation. I have worked in schools and have seen the difficulties that crop up in the lives of young children when their mothers are forced, by economic circumstances, to go out to work.¹²⁴

Five months later, Liberal Member, Wilfrid Kent-Hughes, initiated an equal pay debate in the House of Representatives. Given Bury's private convictions, Bland advised him not to participate. 'If you do you will perforce have to uphold the old order'.¹²⁵ Thus Bury let colleague, Billie Snedden, deliver Bland's arguments. Kent-Hughes wrote to Holt registering his disgust at the government's 'routine reply'.¹²⁶

As the currents strengthened, Bland made a significant request to his staff. He wanted 'possible approaches to the problem of easing our attitude to equal pay for equal work'. The Public Service Board was still having difficulty in recruiting doctors, librarians, physiotherapists and, above all, postal clerks and telegraphists. Bland insisted that there was no political value in equal pay, 'the truth of the matter is that the women of Australia at large just aren't interested in the problem and the ... attitude [of male unionists] is pretty largely hypocritical'.¹²⁷ Nevertheless the Board's view that equal pay was essential in the PMG seemed justified in June when women, asked to do the same work as men for 25 per cent less pay, initiated a dispute at the Sydney Mail Exchange.¹²⁸ The Postal Union endorsed the women's claim but male support remained lukewarm. Bland felt that the men didn't want women at all – particularly since females were far more efficient. Even when formally 'going slow' they were still faster than the men! Bland's sources believed that 'union officials are merely paying lip service to principles while ... window dressing for [imminent] union elections'.¹²⁹

The Total Wage

Economists' attacks on perceived 'inefficiencies' of the national wages system were boosted by the 1963 margins flow-on. This saw the cost of extra margins for 160,000 Commonwealth public servants amount to double that for 400,000 yardstick metal trades workers. Senior DLNS officials and public servants' unions again stoutly defended their disproportionate gains.¹³⁰ Bland had always argued that the Basic Wage was a useful shock absorber of labour market pressures. Forced to moderate his advice as employers' 'total wage' thrust strengthened, Bland now recommended to McMahon that 'we should leave this issue to the parties to fight it out ... and merely say to the [Commission] that the Commonwealth does not favour the elimination of the Basic Wage'.¹³¹

The Commission's 1965 Basic Wage decision seemed a clear harbinger. Ted Howitt (NSW Public Service Board) believed it placed the Commission 'on the brink' of equal pay.¹³² Bland was less sure:

Let us suppose ... that the recent judgment does represent the last snapping of the threads that bound us to needs and ... that capacity has taken on much greater importance. Why should we assume that there is capacity to raise the female basic wage to the male level? I hope that Ted is not losing too much sleep about the prospect of union initiatives to accommodate female equality by lowering the male rate.¹³³

An anonymous industrial relations professional also claimed that general acceptance by tribunals of equal pay remained remote but accused the Commonwealth of 'double talk' concerning its own employees. He, too, doubted unions' enthusiasm for equal pay.¹³⁴ In December 1966 the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator refused equal pay to 600 women doctors: 'the real issue whether or not there should be a basic wage differential has not been debated before me'.¹³⁵

But in 1967 the momentum seemed irresistible. In April the CAC gave equal margins to Clothing Trades employees doing equal work and followed this in June by awarding identical increases to adult males and females in the 'National' Wage Case. It deleted all references to the Basic Wage from its awards and said that all award rates would be expressed as a single figure 'Total Wage':

Our adoption of the concept of a total wage has allowed us to take an important step forward in regard to female wages. We have on this occasion deliberately awarded the same increase to adult females and adult males. The recent Clothing Trades decision affirmed the concept of equal margins for adult males and females doing equal work. The extension of that concept to the total wage calls for thorough investigation and debate in which a policy of gradual implementation could be considered¹³⁶

A fearful ACTU condemned the decision as 'incomprehensible' and 'retrograde'¹³⁷ but Leslie Bury believed 'those in the trade union movement who were genuinely interested in matters of female rates of pay should find considerable satisfaction in the Commission's decision'.¹³⁸

The Bank Officials Association and the ACOA responded relatively promptly to the new opportunity and the remainder of the arbitral journey has been well recorded. The delaying brief of the DLNS, at least at the beginning of the gentle, eight-year-long slope towards nominal equal pay, remained consistent with the preceding, Menzies years. So too, at first, was the role of the male-dominated union peak councils and the greater part of the trade union movement. Ryan and Conlan and others have usefully summarised the progression from the 1969 decision through 1972 to 1974 as, in the new decade, 'second wave' feminism became increasingly the agent for more strident and effective campaigns. These better penetrated the national consciousness but still saw adult female minimum rates in federal awards only fully equate with males doing 'work of equal value' in mid-1975. State award rate adjustments generally lagged while, of course, the concept of 'equal value' remained an emotive battleground for so much longer still.

Summary

The centrality of male wages to unions, governments, bureaucrats and arbitral tribunals emerges clearly from our study of the Menzies years. Despite unchecked growth in prosperity and ever-increasing demand for full time workers there is clear evidence that, outside of a small group of dedicated feminists, equal pay was not seen as sufficiently important to become a central issue of public debate until the mid-late 1960s. Apparent sizeable support for the principle reported in contemporary opinion polls seems as likely to have represented fear of cheap labour threatening men's jobs as positive recognition of women's intrinsic right to equality. The Cold War suspicions that had fractured feminist groups in the 1940s lingered into the 1960s,¹³⁹ while the attitude of most women workers themselves towards both work and industrial action took time to reflect the eventual sea-change in consciousness.

While politicians and union officials mouthed lip service to equal pay and mounted smoke and mirror legislative devices, a survey behind the scenes of Commonwealth decision-making reveals an acute perception of the lack of immediacy of the issue to most potential movers and shakers. Acting upon information received from an impressive intelligence network the Federal Government conducted an effective rearguard action. In doing so it was bolstered by knowledge that neither state governments nor the trade union movement were truly concerned to hasten the introduction of anything approaching true equality.

Tom Sheridan is Visiting Fellow at the School of Economics, University of Adelaide. His research field is mid-twentieth century Australian industrial relations, emphasising the role of the state as well as employers and labour. His main publications are Australia's Own Cold War: The Waterfront Under Menzies (2006); Division of Labour: Industrial Relations In The Chifley Era (1989); and Mindful Militants: The Amalgamated Engineering Union In Australia 1920–72 (1975).
<tom.sheridan@adelaide.edu.au>

Pat Stretton works at the Migration Museum in Adelaide, is state researcher for the Australian Dictionary of Biography and a member of the ADB's South Australian Working Party. She wrote The Life and Times of Old Parliament House (1988). Her historical research and journal articles have focused on aborigines' voting rights, and the struggle for women's equality.
<hpstretton@bigpond.com>

Endnotes

^*� We wish to acknowledge both the helpful comments of two anonymous referees and the crucial work performed on our behalf by Damien Cash in combing and summarising relevant material lodged in the National Archives of Australia in Melbourne.

^1.� Background Paper for International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conference Item on Equal Pay, c. May 1950, p. 3, National Archives of Australia (hereafter NAA), MP1404/1, 1967/3997.

^2.�Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (CPD) House of Representatives, vol. 49, 2 December 1965, p. 3492.

^3.�Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, vol. 127, p. 1142.

^4.�Second Progress Report, Public Service Commission, South Australian Parliamentary Papers, no. 20, 1900; For a representative sample of scholarly writing see, Jean Martin and Katy Richmond, 'Working Women in Australia', in Anatomy of Australia, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1968; Edna Ryan and Anne Conlon, Gentle Invaders: Australian Women at Work 1788–1974, Thomas Nelson, West Melbourne, 1975; Elizabeth Windschuttle (ed.), Women, Class and History, Fontana/Collins, Sydney, 1980; Barbara Caine (ed.), Crossing Boundaries: Feminisms and the Critique of Knowledges, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1988; Carol O'Donnell and Phillipa Hall, Getting Equal: Labour Market Regulation and Women's Work, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1988; Raelene Frances and Bruce Scates (eds), 'Women, Work and the Labour Movement in Australia and New Zealand', Labour History, no. 61, 1991; Zelda D'Aprano, Kath Williams: the Unions and the Fight for Equal Pay, Spinifex, Melbourne, 2002.

^5.� Constance Larmour, 'Women's Wages and the WEB', in Women at Work, a special issue of Labour History, no. 29, 1975, p. 55.

^6.� Documents relating to deputation to Menzies, 24 January 1950, NAA, MP1404/1, 1967/3997.

^7.� Larmour, 'Women's Wages', p. 55.

^8.�Ibid., p. 55

^9.� Chifley to Australian Women's Charter (WA) Committee, 25 May 1949, NAA, MP1404/1, 1967/3997; Pat Ranald, 'Women's Organisations and the Issue of Communism', in Ann Curthoys and John Merritt (eds), Better Dead Than Red, George Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1986, pp. 50–51; Lani Russell and Marian Sawer, 'The Rise and Fall of the Australian Women's Bureau', Australian Journal of Politics and History, vol. 45, no. 3, 1999, p. 368.

^10.� Katy Richmond, 'The Workforce Participation of Married Women in Australia' in Don Edgar (ed.), Social Change in Australia: Readings in Sociology, Cheshire, Melbourne, 1974, p. 269.

^11.� Ann Curthoys, 'Equal Pay, a Family Wage, or Both: Women Workers, Feminists and Unionists in Australia Since 1945', in Caine (ed.), Crossing Boundaries, p. 136; Department of Labour and National Service (DLNS), Equal Pay: Some Aspects of Australian and Overseas Practice, Melbourne, 1958, p. 12; DLNS WA Director to H.A. Bland, 13 December 1957, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/36.

^12.� Background paper for ILO Conference Item on Equal Pay, p. 2, NAA, MP1404/1, 1967/3997.

^13.� Until 1993 the federal government did not ratify ILO Conventions involving the states unless all states formally agreed to ratification.

^14.� Background paper for ILO Conference Item on Equal Pay, p. 3, NAA, MP1404/1, 1967/3997.

^15.� Western Australia and South Australia thought industrial tribunals were the appropriate bodies and New South Wales, Tasmania and Queensland had not replied; Holt's printed statement to Parliament, October 1953, NAA, MP1404/1, 1967/3997; Bland to Secretary of External Affairs, 18 July 1955, NAA, MP275/1/0, 1954/378/41; Tom Sheridan, 'Regulator Par Excellence: Sir Henry Bland and Industrial Relations, 1950–1967', Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 41, June 1999, pp. 228–55.

^16.� E.J. Bunting to CSIRO Officers Association, c. 1 December 1958, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1766/46.

^17.�CPD Senate, vol. 11, 17 October 1957, p. 640.

^18.� Bland's annotation on Queensland Regional Director to Bland, 25 June 1958, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1766/5.

^19.� R.G. Casey to Menzies, 1 September 1955, NAA, MP1404/1, 1967/3997/14; Bland to Secretary Prime Minister's Dept, 13 October 1958, NAA, MP1404/1, 1967/3997/34B; Australian Federation of Professional and Business Women's Clubs to McMahon, 21 February 1959, NAA, MP1404/1, 1967/64; CPD Senate, vol. 11, 17 October 1957, p. 640; CPD Senate, vol. 13, 18 September 1958, pp. 432–34.

^20.� Carolyn Berntsen, 'Women's Pay and the General Wage Question in the U.S. and Australia', Australian Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3, September 1953, p. 37

^21.� Mark Peel, 'A New Kind of Manhood', Australian Historical Studies, no. 109, October 1977, pp. 150–51. See also Daphne Gollan, 'The Duly and Hansford Strike 1943: Find the Strikers', in Margaret Bevege, Margaret James, and Carmel Schute (eds), Worth Her Salt: Women at Work in Australia, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1982, pp. 309–18.

^22.� John Murphy, Imagining the Fifties: Private Sentiment and Political Culture in Menzies' Australia, Pluto Press, Sydney, 2000, pp. 48, 50.

^23.� Cited in Secretary, Prime Minister's Department to Bland, 27 November 1956, 22 March 1957, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/13.

^24.� E.F. Laws to Bland, 13 June 1957, NAA, MP 1143/1/0, 63/2265/31.

^25.� F.K. Dwyer to Bland, 9 September 1957 and 12 March 1958, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/50 and 79.

^26.� Bland to Secretary, External Affairs, 6 March 1957, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/ not numbered.

^27.� DLNS news release, 2 September 1957, NAA, MP 1143/1/0, 63/2265/ not numbered.

^28.� Curthoys, 'Equal Pay', p. 138; D'Aprano, Kath Williams, p. 64; E.F Laws to Bland, 27 November 1956, 13 June 1957, Minute dated 2 September 1957, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/5A, 13, 31 and 60/957/IB, 23/2/60; Sun, 25 March 1957; Age, 27 March 1957.

^29.�Newcastle Morning Herald, 27 February 1957.

^30.� Robyn Kramar, 'The Employment of Women in the NSW Public Service 1947–78', Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 26, no. 2, June 1984, p. 214.

^31.� Bruce Mitchell, Teachers, Education and Politics, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, 1975, pp. 173–75, 214; E.J. Bunting to Bland enclosing H.S. Norington to Menzies (24 January 1958) and Menzies to Norington (c. 5 February 1958) NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/76; Norington to Holt, 20 February 1958, NAA, MP 1143/1/0, 63/2265/ not numbered.

^32.� J.J. McCreadie to Ian Sharp, DLNS Assistant Secretary, 11 April 1957, NAA, MP 1143/1/0, 63/2265/23.

^33.�Inside Canberra, 8 April 1958.

^34.� F.K. Dwyer to Bland, 21 March 1958, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/80.

^35.� Dwyer to Bland, 24 July 1958, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1766/13.

^36.� McCreadie to Chief Industrial Officer, 21 March 1958, 25 March 1958, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/82, 84A and 18 August 1958, 5 November 1958, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1766/27A, 52; Submission from employers to Cahill, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1776/25; Information on Cabinet Submission on Equal Pay, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/66/4420/26; Kramar, 'The Employment of Women', p. 216; Norman MacKenzie, Women in Australia, Cheshire, Melbourne, 1962, p. 177; Thelma Hunter, 'Industrial Courts and Women's Wages in Australia', Economic Record, vol. 38, 1962, p. 477; Age, 17 June 1959, 4 April 1960; West Australian, 29 April 1960.

^37.� Bland to H.L. Bockett (NZ), 18 April 1957, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/24; Bockett to Bland, n.d. [late April 1957], NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/28; A.S. Brown, PM's Department to Bland, 28 May 1957 and 1 October 1957, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265 30 and 55; E.J. Bunting, PM's Department to Bland, 3 December 1957, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265/68; Draft, possibly by Ian Sharp, 26 April 1957, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/2265, not numbered, p. 21.

^38.� Sharp to Bland, 22 October 1957, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/4; Bland to Mr Graham, 29 November 1957, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/52.

^39.� Bland to Holt, 24 March 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/76; Labour Report, no. 46, 1958, p. 75.

^40.� [July/August 1958], NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1766/16C.

^41.� E.F. Laws to Bland, 13 December 1957, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/29.

^42.� B. Jackson to Bland, 20 August 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/2222/15A.

^43.� WA Regional Director (B.A.L. White) to Bland, 14 August 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/2222/14.

^44.� White to Bland, 6 June 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/105.

^45.� F.K. Dwyer to Bland, 12 December 1957, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/27.

^46.� Dwyer to Bland, 3 April 1962, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/122.

^47.� J. Morgan to Bland, 4 April 1962, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/125; W.F. Sharpe to Bland, 14 August 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/2222/13.

^48.� Senior Industrial Officer, PMG to B.H. Tregillis, 2 May 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/92; J.M. Galvin to Bland, 11 April 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/84.

^49.� Bland to F.P.G. Kelly, 3 June 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/104.

^50.� Kelly to Bland, 2 June 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/1483/103.

^51.� B.H. Tregillis to Bland, 6 August 1958, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/2222/8.

^52.� H.J. Souter to McMahon, 11 August 1959, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/2222/17&17B.

^53.� Bland to McMahon, 3 September 1959, NAA, MP793/1, 1958/2222/18C.

^54.� Sheridan, 'Regulator Par Excellence'; Holt to R. O'Neill, Public Service Federation, 22 July 1958, NAA, B142/0, SC1962/57/3, 57/4, 5, 7, 8, February to May 1959 ; McMahon to R.H. Sutherland, PSA of NSW, 19 May 1959, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1766/69A.

^55.� Liberal Party Federal Secretariat (LPFS) to McMahon, 8 February 1960, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1766/111; McMahon to LPFS, 19 February 1960, NAA, MP1008/1, 1958/1766/113.

^56.� McMahon to Gorton, April 1960, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/394/8.

^57.� Russell and Sawer, 'Rise and Fall', p. 367; CPD Senate, vol. 17, 16 March 1960, pp. 177–78; McMahon to Gorton, April 1960, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/394/8; Correspondence between WA Liberal Party and McMahon, July-August 1960, NAA, B142/0, SC1962/57/12, 13, 16.

^58.� Bland to Secretary PSB, 21 July 1959, NAA, MP607/1/0, 59/412 (Bundle 762) 10.

^59.� Bland to McMahon, 4 April 1960, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/394/10. See also Tom Sheridan and Pat Stretton, 'Mandarins, Ministers and the Bar on Married Women', Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 46, no. 1, March 2004, pp. 84–101.

^60.� Bland to McMahon, 17 February 1960, NAA, B142/0, SC60/10/3.

^61.� NAA, B142/0, SC60/10/1–91, January 1960–November 1964, passim; J. Niland, and J.E. Isaac (eds), Australian Labour Economics: Readings, New Edition, Sun Books, Melbourne, 1975, pp. 231–73.

^62.� Bland to McMahon, 26 February 1960,NAA, B142/0, SC60/10/12

^63.� Bland, 'Notes for Party Discussion' n.d. [Feb. 1960], NAA, B142/0, SC60/10/11.

^64.� NAA, B142/0, SC60/10/16 (Policy on wage movements), Bland to McMahon, 22 April 1960.

^65.� Monk to McMahon, 16 May 1960, McMahon to Monk, 18 May 1960, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 60/957/17, 19.

^66.� Bland to McMahon, 2 September 1960, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 60/957/32.

^67.�CPD Senate, vol. 18, 9 November 1960, p. 1430.

^68.�CPD House of Representatives, vol. 29, November-December 1960, pp. 3418, 3609–13; CPD Senate, vol. 18, 8 December 1960, pp. 2223–25.

^69.� Bland annotation on Wilson [?] to Bland, 7 December 1960, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 60/957/63.

^70.�Federal Public Service Journal, February 1961, cited in NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/6.

^71.�Federal Public Service Journal, May 1961, cited in NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/46.

^72.� Sun, 22 July 1961, 21 August 1961; Tasmanian DLNS Industrial Report, 7 August 1961, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/33; McMahon to Menzies, 3 August 1961, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/39; Bland to McMahon, 1 December 1961, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/67/68; Age, 13 October 1961; Bland to F. Wheeler, 5 February 1962, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/92.

^73.� Bland to McMahon, 9 October 1961, NAA, B142/0, SC60/10/47. See also NAA, B142/0, SC60/10/37–46.

^74.� Alison Stephen to Bland, 28 March 1962, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/108, 112; Bland to Secretary PM's Department, 14 June 1962, NAA, B142/0, SC62/58/40.

^75.� Bland to McMahon, 9 April 1962, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/141.

^76.� Mendelsohn (PM's Department) to Bland, 16 April 1962, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/154.

^77.� Secretary (PM's Department) to Bland, c. 11 April 1962, NAA, MP1008/1/0, 1961/671/146.; CPD House of Representatives, vol. 35, 1 May 1962, pp. 1741–53.

^78.�CPD Senate, vol. 21, 4 April 1962, p. 765.

^79.� McMahon to Bland, 1 May 1962, NAA, B142/0, SC62/58/2.

^80.� Bland to McMahon, 16 May 1962, NAA, B142/0 SC62/58/3, see also NAA, B142/0 SC62/58/6.

^81.�Sydney Morning Herald, 2 June 1962.

^82.� Cabinet Minute, Decision No. 378, 6/8/62, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 63/394/24.

^83.� Stephen to Senator Wedgwood, 7 March 1963, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 62/4100/6.

^84.� Sheridan and Stretton, 'Mandarins and Ministers'; Russell and Sawer, 'Rise and Fall', p. 372; Stephen to colleague (private letter), 5 September [1962], NAA (Canberra), 1838/1, 859/11/100 part 1, not numbered; Stephen to Ruby Rich, 23 September 1963, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 62/4100/26; Stephen to McMahon, 21 September 1966, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 62/4100/74.

^85.�Sydney Morning Herald, 24 October 1962.

^86.�Sun, 19 October 1962; Australian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs to McMahon, 31 October 1962, NAA, B142/0 SC1962/67/19; Australian Federation of University Women to McMahon, 6 November 1962, NAA, B142/0, SC1962/67/25; The West Australian, 9 November 1962; Sydney Morning Herald, 29 November 1962.

^87.� Tasmanian Industrial Report, 10 October 1963, NAA, B142/0, SC1962/80.

^88.� Tasmanian Regional Director to Bland, 13 March 1963, NAA, B142/0, SC62/67/43; Tasmanian Industrial Report, 10 April 1964, NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/9.

^89.�Australian, 17 August 1964.

^90.�Sun (Melbourne), 1 October 1964, also NAA, MP918/1/0, 1964/3358/12, 10 November 1964.

^91.�Sydney Morning Herald, 8 September 1964.

^92.� DLNS, Annual Report, 1964, NAA, MP1357/2/0, 69; Herald (Melbourne), 2 July 1964; Advertiser, 3 April 1964; Western Australian, 15 October 1964; South Australian Industrial Report, [1964/5], vol. 31, p. 50; Bland to Victorian Regional Director, 27 July 1964, NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/52; Age, 3 October 1964; WA Regional Director to Bland, 13 August 1964, NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/64; Decision, Commissioner G.A. Findlay, 11 January 1965, NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/110.

^93.�CPD Senate, vol. 25, 9 April 1964, p. 547–48.

^94.�Ibid., p. 554.

^95.� Stephen to Bland, 22 April 1964, NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/34.

^96.�Canberra Times, 10 April 1964.

^97.� Bland to Secretary, Dept of Labour, WA, 17 April 1964, NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/18.

^98.� D'Aprano, Kath Williams, pp. 160–63; Canberra Times, 13 May 1964.

^99.�Daily Telegraph, 3 July 1964.

^100.�Age, 4 July 1964, 13 October 1964, 21 May 1965; Canberra Times, 11 July 1964, West Australian, 11 February 1965; WA Regional Director to Bland, 2 and 12 December 1964, 13 January 1965, 17 March 1965, 28 April 1965, NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/89, 103, 107, 108, 141, 148.

^101.�Sydney Morning Herald, 16 September 1964.

^102.�Age, 5 June 1964, 6 November 1964, 10 March 1965; Sun (Melbourne), 16 March 1965; Advertiser, 8 July 1964; CPD Senate, vol. 26, 1964, p. 649; Blueprint, October 1964.

^103.� NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/139, Industrial Relations Monthly Report, Period Ended 10/3/1965.

^104.�Advertiser, 26 and 27 January 1965; NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/131; WA Regional Director to Bland and Stephen, 15 April 1965, NAA, MP1308/1/0, 64/1699/146; WA Regional Director to Bland and Stephen, 17 May 1965, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/2076/3; Sun (Melbourne), 20 May 1965.

^105.� F. Wheeler to Bland, 12 July 1965, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/2076/40A.

^106.� Stephen to Bland, 27 July 1965, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/2076/40B.

^107.�Herald (Melbourne), 9 June 1965; Age, 25 September 1965; WA Regional Director to Bland, 18 October 1965, 2 December 1965, 6 December 1965, all unnumbered, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/2076/ and 21 April 1966 NAA, MP1001/1/0, 65/2076/71; P. Beveridge to Fogarty, 26 August 1965, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/2076/43; West Australian, 9 and 11 February 1966.

^108.� P.H. Cook to McMahon, 8 December 1965, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090/1.

^109.� Bland to Cook, 29 December 1965, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090/2.

^110.� Bland to Dame Mary Smieton, 2 February 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090/12.

^111.� Stephen to Bland, 21 February 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090/19.

^112.� Bland to Davidson, 28 April 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090/68; Bland to McMahon, 29 April 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090/69.

^113.� Lady Casey to Bland, c. 22 April 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090/55 and Lady Casey's draft speech, 3 May 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090/74.

^114.� Transcripts of Conference Speeches, 3–4 May 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/5090, not numbered.

^115.�Ibid.

^116.� Stephen to Bland, 21 September 1966, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 62/4100/74.

^117.� Bland to Bury, 10 May 1966, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 62/4100/65; Correspondence between Rich and Bury, 4 and 14 June 1966, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 62/4100, not numbered; Solomon to Secretary DLNS, 20 October 1967, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 62/4100/104.

^118.� Tasmanian Regional Director to Bland 30 June 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/2076/75; Examiner, 6 July 1966; Mercury, 8 December 1966; DLNS Minute for J.A.J. Caine, 9 December 1966, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 66/4420/8A; Tasmanian Regional Director to Assistant Secretary, 15 December 1966, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 66/4420/13.

^119.� SA Regional Director to Bland, 10 February 1967, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 66/4420/16.

^120.� Minute for Stephen, September 1965, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/2076/46; Bowes to Bland, 23 March 1966, NAA, MP1101/1/0, 65/207/69. SA Regional Director to Bland, 15 June 1967, MP1143/1/0, NAA, 66/4420/60; Advertiser, 3 April 1964, 24 February 1965, 22 July 1965, 12 April 1967, 7 October 1967; NAA, MP1404/1/0, 1967/4476, Pt. 2/24–26, 29, 38, 48; W.F. Sharpe to Bland, 14 November 1967, NAA, MP1404/1/0, 1967/4476 Pt. 2/50.

^121.�Age, 5 September 1967, 26 October 1967; A. Gibson to Bland, 15 December 1967, NAA, MP1404/1/0, 1967/4476/78.

^122.�CPD Senate, vol. 32, 13 October 1966, pp. 1030–56; Sheridan and Stretton, 'Mandarins and Ministers'.

^123.�CPD Senate, vol. 32, 13 October 1966, p. 1617.

^124.�Ibid., p. 1618.

^125.� Bland to Bury, 10 March 1967, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 66/4420/29.

^126.� Kent-Hughes to Holt, 20 March 1967; Bunting to Bury, 10 April 1967, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 66/4420/35.

^127.� Bland to J.A.J. Caine and Miss Christensen, 1 May 1967, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 66/4420/43A.

^128.� Caine to Bland, 23 May 1967, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 66/4420/50B; Australian, 10 June 1967.

^129.� Bland to Bury, 14 June 1967, NAA, MP1252/0, 67/2683/17.

^130.� National Employers' Policy Committee, 15 July 1963, NAA, MP1252/0, 67/2683/68; I.G. Sharp to McMahon, 30 July 1963, NAA, MP1252/0, 67/2683/70A; Herald, 17 September 1963; Blueprint, October 1964.

^131.� Bland to McMahon, 14 January 1964, NAA, MP1252/0, 67/2683/80.

^132.� Howitt to Wheeler, 21 July 1965, NAA, MP1252/1/0, 65/3045/1: see also Davidson to Bland, 4 August 1965, NAA, MP1252/1/0, 65/3045/7.

^133.� Bland to Wheeler, 29 July 1965, NAA, MP1252/1/0, 65/3045/6.

^134.� 'Legislation and Decisions Affecting Industrial Relations', Journal of Industrial Relations, vol. 8, no. 3, November 1966, pp. 303–4.

^135.�Australian, 9 December 1966.

^136.�Commonwealth Arbitration Reports, vol. 118, [1965], p. 660; ACTU Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 11, January-June 1967, p. 3.

^137.� Jim Hagan, The History of the ACTU, Longman Cheshire, Melbourne, 1981, p. 310.

^138.� DLNS News Release, 6 June 1967, NAA, MP1143/1/0, 66/4420/57.

^139.� Russell and Sawer, 'Rise and Fall', p. 368.

Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.

Pragmatic Procrastination: Governments, Unions and Equal Pay, 1949–68