In Melbourne, Brigden was facing the most urgent problem of the war effort: the arming of Australia’s military forces. This could not be done by relying on the arms industries of a larger nation. A heavy armaments industry would have to be created from scratch. In this task Brigden was, from the beginning of 1940, the senior public servant, being appointed the Secretary of the Department of Munitions, and later Secretary of the Department of Aircraft Production.
This was an arduous undertaking, with as many deep frustrations as rewards. The fundamental difficulty was Australia’s state of industrial underdevelopment. Manufacturing output had doubled in real terms over the preceding 20 years (Butlin 1985), but manufactures were still dominated by food, clothing and furniture, and unprocessed or semi-processed products (such as steel). As of 1939, Australia had barely produced an aeroplane. She produced no aluminium, extracted no petroleum, and possessed no tankers to ship it. Cotton wool was imported. Newsprint was not produced, and even cardboard could not be made in the absence of certain imported ingredients. ‘Nearly all’ machine tools and factory plant were imported (Ross 1995).
There were also more human difficulties. Australia was distant from technological expertise. Brigden later recalled: ‘Frequently there were no blue-prints. Critical parts were explained by crude picturegram’.[10] The factors of production did not always cooperate: one small arms factory was halted for three weeks while three unions fought a demarcation dispute over a single person. Brigden also lamented how the employment of women as factory hands was delayed by men:
Traditional trade union objections delayed the employment of women elsewhere in Munitions, except as laboratory workers etc, and in a somewhat furtive small way in factories. Yet it had been proved that a gauge lasted at least twice as long in the hands of a women worker as in the hands of a new male worker. (Brigden 1942).
Away from the factory floor, the gathering of sufficient and appropriate personnel for the Department of Munitions was a struggle. The Department grew from 14 persons at the opening of the war to 6259 at its peak in August 1943. Brigden could draw on the formidable capabilities of his deputy, J. K. Jensen. But in general the quality of the existing public service was weak. This necessitated recruiting over 90 per cent of staff from outside the ranks of experienced public servants, which itself produced some difficulties. Essington Lewis of BHP had been made ‘Director-General for Munitions’ by Menzies in June 1941, and endowed with great powers. But as Brigden commented: ‘The man from business finds that public opinion will not allow him to behave in a businesslike way’.
Personnel difficulties extended to the executive. Menzies did not make a zestful commander. He styled himself Minister for Munitions, but seemed not to relish playing the warlord. He had told Bruce at the outbreak of war: ‘Those who think about it, all feel sick about it – and those who don’t want to feel sick, don’t think about it’ (DFATHP RGM 11 September 1939).
Months passed into years, but the art of fashioning swords from ploughshares remained stubbornly elusive. By November 1940 Australia was in possession of only 42 ‘modern’ planes; all of them, in fact, obsolete. The project to manufacture Beauforts –that ultimately yeilded in the last years of the war 365 Beaufighters – was, said Brigden, ‘ill fated from the start’. By April 1941 Australia still possessed no naval mines. By May 1941 only 10 (light) tanks were available (Day 2003).
In a world at war, Australia’s effort to arm herself seemed insufficient. As Menzies’ Government did not command a majority in parliament, it was vulnerable to opposition assault on this matter. One avenue for the attack was the role Menzies had given prominent businessmen in the direction of the armament program. On 5 June 1941 Norman Makin, the Labor member for Hindmarsh in South Australia, attacked the role of industrialists, such as Essington Lewis. In August 1941 H. V. Evatt and J. A. Beasley made ‘scathing attacks’. ‘Both suggested that Lewis was sacrificing his country’s needs for his company’s profits’ (Blainey 1971).
But there was another avenue for attack: Brigden was the onetime advocate of the reviled National Insurance scheme, and still malodorous to some Labor members on account of his support for the Premiers’ Plan. On 5 June 1941 Curtin attacked Brigden’s appointment as Secretary to the Department of Munitions. On the following day, Curtin’s deputy Frank Forde proposed that Brigden be transferred to the position of Director of Economic Co-ordination, ‘a fantastic assignment’ created early in the war, and abolished as soon as Labor acceded to office in October 1941 (NAA Advisory War Council Minute, 6 June 1941).
When Labor did obtain the government benches, Brigden’s position as Secretary of the Department of Munitions was highly vulnerable. Copland was emphatic in pressing on the new government the progress that had been made in armaments:
In October 1941 the Economic Adviser to the new Curtin Government, Professor D. B. Copland, reported that the speed with which war industries had reached mass production stage had amazed even the experts introduced from overseas to supervise operations. At the outbreak of war, he said, Australia possessed only 1 manufacturer of lathes, two power presses, and one government machine factory. By late 1941 Australia was practically self-sufficient and over 30 firms were manufacturing machine tools. Munitions production had leapt 18 times in value. For every man at a bench or lathe in 1939, there were at least 20 by October 1941. (Page 1963, p. 294).[11]
Copland’s ebullience should not be dismissed as self-justification, or simply as aid for a friend in need. Since 1990 a ‘revisionist history’ of the war effort has emerged that paints a far more positive picture of Australian re-armament than earlier analysts had accepted (Ross 1995). But, however justified Copland’s case may have been, his evidence was tainted. Several branches of the ALP passed motions demanding Copland’s removal from government service. The future Labor leader Arthur Calwell rose in the House of Representatives to ask if the Copland who was advising Prime Minister Curtin was the one and the same Copland who had in 1931 recommended a 10 per cent cut in wages?[12]