House of Representatives
26 May 1938

15th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 15th Parliament
  3. 1938

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1433

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE

Mr FORDE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Treasurer state whether he refusedto receive representatives of the general medical practitioners who desired to pl ace before him particulars of more liberal whole-time medical services as distinct from the proposals of either the Government or representatives of the British Medical Association ?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– I have seen all the deputations and individuals that my time has permitted me to see. On behalf of the Government I am obliged, in respect of the medical profession, to deal with the Federal . Council of the British Medical Association, and I have confined my discussions to that body.

Later:

Mr FORDE:

– In connexion with the national insurance scheme, did representatives of the British Medical Association sign any agreement, or undertaking of any kind, at any time, regarding the proposed medical benefits to be supplied by general practitioners, with the Treasurer or any other member of the Cabinet?

Mr CASEY:
UAP

– We exchanged letters relevant to the matter with a president or secretary, or somebody acting for the federal council of the association.

Mr FORDE:

– Is the Treasurer aware that the Federal Council of the British Medical Association has been informed by the general medical practitioners that it is misrepresenting the views of general practitioners who desire to co-operate with the Government to provide firstclass medical services?

Mr CASEY:

– I am not aware of any such thing.

page 1434

QUESTION

ADDITIONS TO PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for the Interior state whether it is true that the Chief Architect of his department has submitted plans for the construction of additional rooms at Parliament House along the covered ways leading to the refreshment-rooms? Is it also true that the Joint House Committee has approved of this proposal? If so, will the Government reconsider its decision to proceed with its original proposal ?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for the Interior · INDI, VICTORIA · CP

– As to the first part of the question, the answer is “ Yes “, and as to the second part it is “ No “. The Government is not able to accept the proposal referred to, and intends to proceed with the original proposal, for the reason that the prime objective of the contemplated additions to the House is to provide further accommodation for Ministers and their private secretaries on the same floor as the chamber. Under the proposal to which the honorable member has referred, accommodation for two Ministers only would , be provided on the covered way leading from this side of the Library to the refreshment-rooms, and for two other Ministers on the covered way on the Senate side of the building. Because insufficient accommodation for Ministers would thus be provided, and also because of the remoteness of that accommodation, the Government is not prepared to accept the proposal, and in the absence of any other that would be acceptable it proposes to proceed with what was originally intended.

Mr BAKER:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– As the Government, through the Minister for the Interior, has stated that it intends to proceedwith certain alterations to this House which are disadvantageous to the Opposition, despite repeated unanimous decisions of the Joint House Committee, and as such alterations will alter out of all recognition-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is expressing his own opinion, which is not permissible when asking a question.

Mr BAKER:

– As these alterations will alter, considerably for the worse, the quarters at present occupied by you, Mr. Speaker, and thus affect future Speakers-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is giving quite a lot of information. He must ask his question.

Mr BAKER:

– I desire to ask you, sir, whether the Government has extended to you the courtesy of informing you of its intentions and of seeking your views thereon ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– In reply to a question which was asked a few days ago, I said that I had had no communication with the Government on this matter since the original conversation, when it was decided that some additional accommodation was necessary. Plans of the proposed alterations have not been submitted to me personally. I know of them only as vice-chairman of the Joint House Committee. I have not been consulted in any other way.

page 1434

QUESTION

SUBSIDIZED SHIPPING IN THE PACIFIC

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– About a week ago the press published what purported to be the terms and conditions under which Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the. United Kingdom would co-operate in regard to shipping in the Pacific. At that time the Prime Minister said that he had no official information in regard to the matter. Has he since been informed upon it?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– The Government has had no official information, but because of the reports that have been published in the pressI have asked the Minister for Commerce (Sir Earle Page) to inform me whether any progress has been made, and I am awaiting his reply.

page 1435

QUESTION

OTTAWA AGREEMENT RE VISION

Mr MAKIN:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I understand that the trade negotiations which are to take place in Great Britain are likely to be protracted. In some quarters it has been suggested that they will last until August. Hasthe Prime Minister any information as to the length of time the Australian delegation is likely to be thus engaged ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I am sorry that I cannot give the honorable member any information either as to whether the negotiations are likely to be brought to a speedy conclusion or as to whether they may be protracted. I am awaiting information from the leader of the Australian delegation in regard to the matter.

page 1435

QUESTION

IRON ORE RESERVES

Mr GREGORY:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the published statement that the Government proposes to hold an exhaustive inquiry into the iron ore reserves of Australia, is the Prime Minister aware that the Chemical Engineering Journal of the 14th April, 1938, contains a very full report which points out that the possible iron ore reserves in Australia total 503,000,000 tons, and that in addition the investigations of. Dr. Keith Ward show that boring operations have disclosed a possible increased tonnage on Iron Knob of 200,000,000 tons? With a view to obtaining the most reliable information as quickly as possible, will the right honorable gentleman request the geological departments of the different States to furnish reports speedily of their possible reserves?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– This is identically what has been done in the past, but it has not had the effect of carrying the matter very much farther. The existing iron ore reserves of Australia can be ascertained only by having a complete and exhaustive inquiry in each State. The Government is proceeding as rapidly as possible in that direction.

Later:

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– In view of the threatened dislocation of operations at the various deposits of iron ore in Australia, owing to the action of the Government in prohibiting the export of that commodity, will the Government con sider the postponement of the proclamation until the experts who are inquiring about the extent of the deposits have submitted their report?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– No.

page 1435

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Report of Delegation to Eighteenth Assembly

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for External Affairs · North Sydney · UAP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

League of Nations - Eighteenth Assembly, September-October, 1937 -Report of the Australian Delegation.

The Commonwealth of Australia was represented at the Assembly by the Right Honorable S. M. Bruce, C.H., M.C.,; F. L. McDougall, Esquire, C.M.G.; and Professor K. H. Bailey, M.A., B.C.L., LL.M. (delegates), and by Mrs. F. M. Muscio, M.A., and E. R. Walker, Esquire, M.A., Ph.D. (substitute delegates). The chief subjects of special interest to Australia which were discussed by the Assembly were the Sino-Japanese dispute, economic appeasement, nutrition and the status of women.

Honorable members are aware that the Council of the League referred the SinoJapanese dispute to the Committee of Twenty-three, established in 1933 to consider the question of Japanese action in Manchuria, and that the Commonwealth Government participated in the work of that committee. On the 27th September, the Committee of Twenty-three passed a resolution condemning the bombing of open towns in China by Japanese aircraft, and this resolution was adopted by the League Assembly on the 28th September. On the 5th October, the committee adopted a report recommending that the Assembly should invite those members of the League who were parties to the Nine’ Power Treaty of 1922 to initiate consultation under Article 7 of that treaty, and expressed the hope that the States concerned would endeavour to secure the. collaboration of other States which had special interests in the Far East, with a view to seeking a method of ending the conflict by agreement. The League Assembly approved these recommendations on the 6th October, and directed its president to take the necessary action.

Subsequently, the Belgian Government, as one of the signatories to the Nine Power Treaty, invited the other signatory governments, governments of States which had adhered to the treaty, aud the Governments of Germany and the Soviet Onion to attend a conference at Brussels. The Commonwealth Government accepted the invitation, and Mr. Bruce attended the conference as its representative.

In a speech to the Assembly delivered on the 21st September, the chief Australian delegate, Mr. Bruce, stressed the importance of the financial, economic and health activities of the League. He opposed the view that political appeasement must be achieved before any progress could be made towards economic co-operation, and suggested that political difficulties were due, in a considerable measure, to economic causes, which required careful investigation. Various organs of the League had performed invaluable service in clarifying economic and financial problems, as demonstrated by such documents as the report of the Raw Materials Committee, and the final report of the Mixed Committee on Nutrition. Mr. Bruce suggested that the Assembly should ask the Council to direct further inquiry into the best methods of bringing about a progressive improvement of living standards. On the 2nd October, 1937, the Assembly passed a resolution inviting the Council to arrange for annual meetings of representatives of National Nutrition Committees, and directed the Secretariat of the League to publish an annual summary of the proceedings of these meetings and of the reports made by governments to the League concerning investigations into problems of nutrition made in their respective countries.

One of the items on the agenda of the Eighteenth Assembly which attracted world-wide interest was the status of women. The rapporteur of the First Committee of the League Assembly made a survey of the present position regarding the political and legal status of women, based on information supplied by governments and women’s organizations in some 38 countries, including the Commonwealth of Australia. From this survey it was apparent that further research into the varying rights of women in different countries was essential before the

Assembly could attack the problem of improving the status of women as a whole. On the 30th September, the League Assembly gave effect to a recommendation of the First Committee by adopting a resolution requesting the Council to appoint a committee of experts of both sexes to supervise a comprehensive scientific inquiry into the legal status enjoyed by women in different countries. Since the meeting of the Eighteenth Assembly, the Council has agreed to this request and has appointed a committee which held its first meeting at Geneva early in April, 1938. I move-

That the paper be printed.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

– I do not intend to say a great deal in regard to the report of the Australian delegation to the Eighteenth Assembly of the League of Nations, but I am convinced that if something is not said now, it will be of little use to say it later. I direct attention to the difference between the treatment given to reports of this character by the governments and parliaments of Australia and of Great Britain. In the House of Commons the practice is for the Minister who was the representative of the Government at the League of Nations to submit a report of the proceedings of the League, to indicate the decisions or recommendations with which the Government agrees, giving the reasons therefor, and also to explain any reservations which the Government may make in respect of any matters referred to in the report. Generally speaking, there is an indication of what the Government of the United Kingdom considers to be its duty, as a Member State of the League of Nations, in respect of the decisions of the League - whether or not effect should be given to them or whether further consideration is deemed desirable before action is taken. The same procedure marks the submission of reports of the International Labour Conference. Although the last report of the Australian delegation to the International Labour Office Conference has not been disposed of, the fact remains that within a month another conference is to assemble. This Parliament has few opportunities to learn what the Commonwealth Government is prepared to do, or not to do, to give effect to those matters. One of the most important subjects that has just been mentioned by the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hughes) refers to the statement made by the chief Australian delegate at the Assembly of the League of Nations in respect of the necessity to resolve economic problems before political appeasement can be expected. What is the attitude of the Commonwealth Government towards that important problem? It is not sufficient merely to quote from speeches made thousands of miles away. If that is to be the attitude of the Australian Government, we shall never reach the stage of taking action to give effect to decisions of the League in relation to the problems confronting the world. In this connexion, the establishment of a 40-hour working week is relevant. It is true that the 40-hour week convention was made by the International Labour Office, but it is also true that the budget for the International Labour Office is the responsibility of the Assembly of the League of Nations. As the costs of the International Labour Office are involved in the report which has just been tabled, observations concerning the work of any of the constituent bodies of the League of Nations itself are relevant.

Mr Beasley:

– Such as the failure to adopt conventions.

Mr CURTIN:

– That is my complaint. When a member of the Government of the United Kingdom tables a report in iiic House of Commons, he gives an indication as to what parts of the report require action, and to what extent the law of the United Kingdom should be amended, in order that Great Britain may fulfil its obligations. At this stage, I ask that the reports of delegations to conferences, which cost Australia considerable sums of money and may involve heavy expenditure by way of Members State subscriptions, should not be treated merely as matters of academic interest. When a report is tabled there should be given to honorable members a positive statement indicating those parts of the report which, in the judgment of the Government, call for action by this Parliament. Furthermore, the Government should outline the steps which it proposes to take in order to act in a manner -which it deems proper.

Mr McCall:

– How much does Autralia contribute to the League of Nations?

Mr CURTIN:

– I understand that our contribution is between £60,000 or £70,000 a year, or about £1,500 a week. I therefore contend that we should have a more satisfactory submission by the Government with regard to these conferences. We should also be told - and this is the kernel of my complaint - what kind of legislation we may expect to have introduced into this Parliament following ibc submission of reports from representatives of the Commonwealth at these gatherings. I am not asking that the Government should give us a complete exposition of the bills proposed to be introduced, but it should tell us to what extent it feels we ought to act. If this course were followed there could be assured to the Government the support of the House for its general conception of the position, and furthermore, there would be an end to this unsatisfactory procedure which results in so many of these reports which remain undigested and not understood, and therefore amount to so much litter for office files.

Mr. HUGHES (North Sydney- Minister for External Affairs). - The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has directed our attention to a matter of great importance. I do not take exception to what he has said. On the contrary, I express my hearty approval of his action, but I am sure the honorable gentleman would not expect me to traverse the whole of tlie proceedings of the League of Nations. As we know, the conference has made many decisions. In the statement which I have just laid on the table of the House, there is reference to the decision which has been arrived at in 1933 concerning a matter that has been disposed of by the passage of time and the stress of circumstances, but the committee created at that time is still in existence, and was utilized in 1937 to consider a dispute still in progress. As to the honorable gentleman’s inquiry about the Government’s proposals to implement conference decisions, particularly those relating to economic appeasement, upon which he laid such stress, I can say that this Government is playing its part in carrying out any resolutions and objectives mentioned. This Government has not been laggard in that matter. On the contrary, it has been in the vanguard of nations. Many of the economic reforms to which the League of Nations is directing its efforts have long been embodied in the economic life of this country, and are, in fact, part of the warp and woof of our industrial fabric.

Mr Beasley:

– If that is so, why does not the Government bring forward proposals to adopt the conventions and assist other nations which are backward?

Mr HUGHES:

– I do not wish to deal in detail with many important matters that arc to be considered at the. forthcoming International Labour Conference. One subject which is dealt with by that body relates to conditions in the maritime industry. What is being asked for in most of the communities concerned has long been the law of the land in this country.

Mr Beasley:

– Then why does not the Government adopt the conventions?

Mr.HUGHES.- The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) evidently does not appreciate the fact that what we are endeavouring to do is to induce the nations of the world to take concerted action. No doubt this may seem a very foolish andutopian proposal to the honorable member. With regard to thequestion of League budgets, the desire of the Leader of the Opposition is to be commended. He wishes to know in what way the money isbeing expended, and for what purpose. I shall have the information compiled in detail, and make it available to the House.I appreciate the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to kindle the interests of this Parliament and the people of Australia in a matter that is of such vital importance to us.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1438

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Tourist Facilities

Mr BLAIN:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Recently a proposal was made to encourage tourists to visit the Northern Territory, which has unique attractions, andI should like to know whether the Minister for the Interior will give instructions to his departmental officers in Melbourne to definitely refrain from urging tourists to visit the territory until arrangements have been made to receive visitors by providing: (1) tourist houses or chalets at the mouths of the northern rivers; (2) facilities through tourist bureaux at Darwin and Alice Springs to enable visitors to travel byboat or car?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I am not prepared to issue the instructions indicated by the honorable member, but I shall give consideration to the points which he has raised.

page 1438

QUESTION

NAVAL FORCES

Age Limitation

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– I ask the Minister for Defence if, in view of the large number of applicants for entry into the Royal Australian Navy, the age limitation will be extended so that those who, because of the regulation limit, are ineligible may have an opportunity to join theNavy? I may add that many young men in my electorate are interested in this matter.

Mr THORBY:
Minister for Defence · CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I have already discussed the matter mentioned by the honorable member with the naval authorities, with the result that the Naval Board has taken the necessary action to admit youths who are over the age limit specified in the regulations. The provision that applicants must be not more than eighteen years of age is not being strictly adhered to, and in certain other classes for which, in ordinary circumstances, the age limit is from 20 years to 22½ years, applicants are being admitted up to the age of 28 years.

page 1438

QUESTION

DEATH OF LEADING SEAMAN STORER

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the statement by Admiral Lane-Poole, in connexion with the drowning of Leading Seaman Storer, that everything possible was done to rescue him before the H.M.A.S. Canberra steamed away leaving a buoy behind in the water, which I understand is contrary to naval regulations, and seeing that it has been alleged that the deceased was still clinging to the buoy when the admiral ordered a cessation of the search for him, will the Minister for Defence, in order to satisfy the mother and other relatives of the deceased, order an open inquiry to ascertain whether he was left to perishor whether everything possible was done to rescue him?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– I can only repeat part of the reply which I gave to a question previously asked with regard to this matter, that everything possible was done by the naval officers in charge of the squadron immediately the seaman went overboard. A full naval inquiry was conducted, and no suggestion was made that anybody was to blame. It was decided that everything possible had been done to rescue the deceased fromthe water.I may add that the accident happened about8 a.m. Admiral LanePoole and Captain Wilson remained on the bridge of H.M.A.S. Canberra all day, and manoeuvred the vessel in the area where the accident occurred until after darkness had set in.

Mr James:

– But the mother is not satisfied that everything possible was done to effect a rescue.

Mr THORBY:

– I am not in a position to discuss whether the mother of the deceased is satisfied about what was done. I have assured her that everything possible was done to effect a rescue. 1 have that assurance from the whole Naval Board. I went through the evidence carefully with Admiral Lane-Poole, and I sent a further communication to the mother explaining the circumstances under which her son met his death. There is no regulation requiring the naval authorities, or the commander of any warship, to pick up all lifebuoys thrown overboard in the event of an emergency.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Minister is now going beyond an answer to the honorable member’s question.

Mr THORBY:

– I understood that the honorable member asked whether it was not a fact that the naval regulations required the commander of a vessel to pick up all lifebuoys thrown overboard. There is no such regulation. When the seaman was drowned there was a heavy sea running. The rain was blinding, and the visibility was almost nil. In the circumstances it was impossible to do more than was done by the naval officers in command.

Mr James:

– But this man was seen two hours afterwards on a buoy. Will an open inquiry be granted?

Mr THORBY:

– No; there is no justification for any further inquiry, in view of the complete investigation carried out similar to all those held in like circumstances.

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Defence yet able to give me an answer to the request I made to him a few days ago that all the papers in connexion with the case of Seaman Storer should be made available for the perusal of honorable members?

Mr THORBY:

– I have considered the request. The papers will not be made available.

Mr James:

– Then there must be something to cover up. We shall hear more of this matter on the motion for the adjournment of the House to-night.

page 1439

QUESTION

PERFORMING RIGHTS

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the fact that other interests are concerned about the voluntary arrangement made between the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Performing Right Association, regarding the amount of tribute to be paid for the use of certain copyright material in radio programmes, will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral ask the Broadcasting Commission to supply the facts of the case, so that these may be made available to the House ?

Mr PERKINS:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Trade and Customs · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I am prepared to submit the matter to the commission, but, in view of the answer already given, I doubt whether the honorable member will receive a reply.

page 1439

QUESTION

CANBERRA TRANSPORT DRIVERS

Mr HUGHES:
UAP

– Yesterday, the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) asked me to ascertain whether steps had been taken to declare, during the sittings of the Industrial Board this week, an award for transport drivers in Canberra, on the lines of the award that has been made in respect of Government transport lorries? I am now in a position to state that claims in relation to omnibus drivers and conductors and drivers of non-passenger vehicles have been filed, but these relate to Government employees only. A claim in relation to butchers’ carters engaged by private employers has also been filed. The determination of these claims is a matter for the Industrial Board. No claim has been filed on behalf of transport drivers generally.

page 1440

QUESTION

AIR SURVEY OF AUSTRALIA

Mr BLAIN:

– In view of the fact that the Australian Survey Committee has recommended a precise air survey of Australia, and in view of the report in to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald,, about comprehensive plans submitted by FlightLieu tenant C. Thompson for further aerial services inland, will the. Minister for Defence give instructions that at least the air routes of Australia should be delineated by a precise survey?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– A committee of experts is at present investigating the reorganization of the air routes of Australia, and is also taking action to advise the Government on the best means to provide additional facilities at air ports that may be required to provide a service for faster and bigger machines.

page 1440

QUESTION

AIR PORT AT TOWNS VILLE

Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– A few days ago I submitted to the Minister for Defence a request from many public bodies in Townsville that financial assistance should be granted to improve the aerodrome at that town. Is he yet able to make a statement on the subject?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– The matters mentioned by the honorable member were referred to the departmental officers in Melbourne. I have not yet received a full report from them, but I have been advised that substantial financial assistance has already been granted for several aerodromes in North Queensland that will be called upon to provide facilities in connexion with the new service between Sydney and New Guinea, which begins operations next Monday. At present I have no further details available.

page 1440

QUESTION

QUEEN MARY’S BIRTHDAY

Mr WARD:

– Will the Minister for

Defence inform mo whether a detachment of garrison artillery was brought from Sydney to Canberra to-day to fire a salute in commemoration of the birthday of Queen Mary? If so, what cost was involved ?

Mr THORBY:
CP

– Whatever was done in that connexion was in conformity with the usual practice of the defence authorities.

page 1440

QUESTION

CANBERRA COST OF LIVING INQUIRY

Mr BEASLEY:

– Will the Minister for the Interior inform me what stage has been reached in connexion with the Canberra cost of living inquiry? Have facilities been provided to enable representatives of trade unions to submit evidence?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The Canberra cost of living inquiry is proceeding, as was intended, in accordance with the terms of reference. The Commissioner, Sir William Clemens, has informed me that he has concluded one section of the inquiry, and intends to submit an interim report to me at an early date. No special facilities have been provided for trade unionists or any other class of the community to give evidence, but the inquiry is being conducted in public and full opportunity is available to all persons interested to give evidence on any point of issue.

page 1440

QUESTION

REPORT OF BANKING COMMISSION

Mr BAKER:

– I ask the Treasurer, in view of the fact that some time ago this Government appointed a carefully handpicked royal commission -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr BAKER:

– Which at exorbitant cost made a report on the banking system of this country which appears to be totally at variance with the policy of the Government, what does the Government propose to do?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member will resume his seat. I warn him of the consequences of so persistently asking questions in a form which I am sure he knows to be against rules laid down for the asking of questions.

page 1441

PAPERS

The following papers were pre sented : -

CommonwealthPublic Service Act - Appointment of O. K. Belford, Department ofCommerce.

Lands Acquisition Act -Land acquired at Karumba, Queensland - For Defence purposes.

page 1441

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th May (vide page 1431), on motion by Mr. Casey-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr. Curtin had moved by way of amendment -

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view, to insert in lieu thereof the following; words: - “this House is of opinion that inits present form the bill is unacceptable because -

It seeks to place upona contributory basis the payment of pensions for oldage, invalidity and widowhood, which should be provided as a matter of right without the exaction of individual contributions ;

It provides unequal benefits for men and women ;

It fails to provide medical benefit for the wives and children of contributors ; (d)By partially overlapping the field of friendly society activity it tends to discourage young; men and women from joining these associations of selfhelp, thus threatening the continued strength of friendly societies without providing in full the services which they now render: and, therefore, the bill should be withdrawn and redrafted and a more liberal bill, freed from the defects now enumerated, should be introduced without delay.”

Mr NAIRN:
Perth

.- I approach the consideration of this bill bearing in mind that I am one of the majority of honorable members of this House who are pledged to support the inauguration of some system of national insurance. This subject has a. prominent place on the platform of every political party represented in this House. Prior to the last elections, the Government made its intentions in relation to this matter quite clear. It had previously appointeda commission of inquiry into the whole subject. The reports of the experts had been under consideration, and the Government had given an indication of its intention to submit to the House at the earliest possible opportunity a bill dealing with the matter. In these circumstances, I consider that it has a warrant from the people to proceed with the bill. I make this explanation, because I have received communications from numerous persons of sound discrimination asking me, in some cases, to urge the Government to postpone consideration of the bill; in others, to request that the subject be submitted to a referendum of the people; in others to oppose the bill; and in still others to request variations of the proposals that have been framed. In view of the undertakings that it has given, the Government is in duty bound to proceed with the bill without delay. The Labour party is opposing this measure, notwithstanding that its platform has also provided for a long time for the introduction of a scheme of national insurance. Labour, it seems, is prepared to leave the workers to take their chance, when infirmity or old age overtakes them, of obtaining an invalid or old-age pension. I am well aware that our invalid and old-age pensions legislation has shortcomings. Invalid pensions, for example, are difficult to obtain; and old-age pensions are payable only to women who have reached 60 years and to men who have reached 65 years of age. No provision is made in our existing pensions scheme for widows or children. Under the scheme now being considered a worker may, during his working life, qualify for a pension and he may also make sure that some provision will be made for his wife and children in the event of his death. I should like to see some greater degree of assistance afforded in such cases. But, as the benefits provided are substantial, I feel that the Labour party, to which I give credit for desiring to help the working classes, should be prepared to support the measure, at least in principle, rather than endeavour, at this stage, to defeat it. Instead of supporting the Government scheme, members of the Labour party are proposing a scheme of insurance on a free basis, as against the Government’s contributory scheme. In my opinion, national insurance could not be operated on a non-contributory basis. It is not within the bounds of practical politics. After all, insurance is mainly a matter of finance, and any scheme must be actuarially sound if it is to continue. The actuaries have reported that, when the scheme is running, the cost of providing old-age pensions will be somewhat higher than at tile present time, and the combined cost of old-age pensions and payments under the health provisions of the scheme will be over £40,000,000 a year. If we add to that the payments that will have to be made under unemployment insurance - and the scheme is not complete unless that is included - the country will be faced with a total expenditure of about £60,000,000 a year. I do not believe that there has ever been, or ever will be, a Labour government so irresponsible as to propose that the Commonwealth Government should find £60,000,000 a year from general taxation in order to finance an insurance scheme. The scheme now proposed must be distinguished from thE old-age pensions scheme. I have no wish to describe old-age pensions as charitable payments; rather are they benefits to which citizens, in certain circumstances, are entitled by reason of their citizenship; but the fact remains that a pensions scheme is restricted in its operation, and is free. The present scheme does not impose conditions for the receipt of benefits, and contributors will receive their pensions in virtue of rights acquired by them during their life-time.

The proposals of the Opposition do not constitute an insurance scheme at all. The honorable member for Griffith (Mr. Baker) rather ingeniously argued that the Government’s scheme is likely to be declared unconstitutional on the ground that it is not an insurance scheme. He said that its compulsory character precluded the idea of insurance, because insurance connoted an agreement. One thing which the honorable member did succeed in establishing was that any system of insurance must necessarily imply that there is some payment, or some consideration given, by the person insured. Therefore, if the noncontributory proposals of the Opposition were to be accepted, the scheme would cease to be an insurance scheme.

The most important objections which have sp far been raised to the scheme have come from various women’s organizations. Generally, they complain that, in regard to benefits, there is discrimination as between men and women. Most of us, I think, agree that there should be no discrimination, notwithstanding that the contributions by women under the scheme are necessarily less than those of men. “Women do not earn as much as men, and it is doubtful whether the arbitration courts will ever bring about a condition of affairs in which women are able to earn, on the average, the same incomes as men. We must, therefore, accept the principle, which has been recognized from the beginning, that men must shoulder some, at any rate, of the financial responsibilities of women. On the face of it,n there seems to be good reason in the complaint that women are being discriminated against in that they will receive only 15s. a week pension as against £1 receivable by men, but when we examine the matter we find that the discrimination is more apparent than real. Women will receive their pensions five years earlier than men, and they have an average expectation of life of about three years longer. Therefore, women may expect to enjoy their pensions for eight years longer than men, and that makes their pension of 15s. a week a much more valuable asset than the men’s pension of £1. Women’s pensions have an actuarial value of £500, which they acquire by the payment of ls. a week. I am glad that the Government proposes to allow women, by paying the full contribution of ls. 6d. per week, to qualify for a pension of £1 a week. That will involve an increased obligation on the Government of £30 in respect of each pension. It is not a very great concession, but I hope that it will be appreciated. We must recognize that it costs a woman as much to live as it doe3 a man. 1 should like to see provision made for paying women the full pension of £1 a. week without increasing their contributions, but I am not prepared to support a proposal for the extension of benefits if it means increased levies. Although I am very pleased at what is described as the liberality of the scheme, I regard “ liberality “ as an expression which is rather meaningless in relation to insurance. If liberality be extended to one section only of the community, it is afforded at the expense of the remaining sections. This scheme, when complete, will embrace almost every person in the community. At some time or other, nearly everyone begins as an employee, and therefore qualifies to come under the scheme. Thus we can envisage the time when this scheme will be almost universal. In those circumstances, the people who pay and the people who receive will be the same body public. Therefore, it is meaningless to talk of the Government being liberal. The first and only duty of the Government in all such matters is to see that it acts justly and maintains proper balance between all sections of contributors and recipients. I am afraid that, if there is any criticism which could bc levelled at this scheme, it is that it proposes to be too liberal in respect of the pensions grant and that, to give essential concessions, it might be necessary to impose additional levies or make additional charges upon governmentfinances which would prove too burdensome. Under thi3 scheme, the breadwinner will pay at the outset ls. (ki. a week, and in due course 2s. a week. As an unemployment insurance scheme could not be financed under a payment of ls. 6d. a week, the breadwinner would be involved in a total payment of 3s. 6d. a week. The basis of this scheme being the basic wage, I am inclined to think that 3s. 6d. a week would be too heavy a burden for a married man with a family to carry. I am not prepared to go so far as the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) who, whilst supporting this scheme, would concede eve’ry request that is made. Our duty is to hold the scales fairly, and to make the scheme sound. Therefore, I commend the Government for having attempted to cover only that field in which the experience of other countries has shown that we may reasonably expect to be assured of success. The greatest complaint is in respect of the failure of the scheme to make provision for medical benefits for women and children. In my opinion, no scheme of insurance is complete which does not make that provision. This scheme falls short of the provision which has been made by the friendly societies of Australia, and the omission to provide for the medical insurance of wives and children is a serious gap in it. The idea, I am told, is that we shall look to the friendly societies to bridge that gap. They may be able to do so. But such a proposal has its disadvantages, the first disadvantage being that it implies either a grant to the societies or a further levy on the breadwinner. I do not like the idea of having one doctor attending the husband and another attending the wife and children. I realize, of course, that in many cases it is likely that the one doctor will be appointed both as the State and as the society doctor. This distribution of control is a weakness. It looks as though what has been done represents a compromise between the Government and the friendly societies. I am inclined to think that it might have been better had the Government accepted responsibility for the full control of the scheme. The friendly societies have a fairly strong claim to be given its exclusive administration, at any rate in conjunction with those trade unions which make provision for medical benefits for their members. They pioneered this movement, and have provided without government assistance what the Government now proposes to provide. They have established a fine organization, and should be competent, to distribute the benefits for which the scheme makes provision. They are most deserving of consideration. They complain that they will be exposed to the competition of all sorts of new societies, which may spring up and become approved societies, having a membership of not fewer than 2,000 persons. I can.nOt imagine that it would be a very material benefit to have approved societies in, say, the establishments of Myers in Melbourne and David .Tones in Sydney, or in any other big emporium. If such local societies are permitted to function, they will “pick the eyes “ out of the administration. Their members will be tabulated, and the work of administration will be cheap and easy. They will not lend any assistance to the work of distributing benefits in the more sparsely populated country districts of Australia, where administration will be difficult. On the other hand, friendly societies and insurance companies, particularly mutual companies, already have branches established throughout Australia. I have seen a map of Australia showing the towns in which friendly societies are located. They are dotted all over the continent where any appreciable number of persons is settled, and are in a position to undertake immediately the administration of this scheme. The matter should be left in their charge, and encouragement should not be given to societies of the character of those which are likely to seek to become approved societies.

Certain applications have been made for exemption from the operations of this scheme. It is surprising that so many persons should be anxious to remain out of the scheme, and so many others be anxious to come under it. Judging by the experience of England and other countries, as the scheme becomes better known nearly everybody will be anxious to come under it. In Europe and the United States of America, the benefits of national insurance are becoming more and more realized, and its scope is being extended. Australia is one of the lagging countries. 1 think that we may accept it as a fact thai other countries which have ‘had experience of national insurance have found it to be good, and that before long this scheme will become truly national and universal. For that reason, I do not think that very much objection should bo offered to the exemption of the few who already have schemes under which the benefits are more favorable than are proposed under this scheme. I have received over 100 telegrams from employees in banks asking that they be exempted from this scheme, on the ground that the institution in which they are employed already has its own scheme which is more beneficial to them, and stating that, if this be forced upon them, they will be compelled either to duplicate their insurance or to abandon their rights under the existing scheme. I have heard it suggested that the Government’s scheme and others could be dovetailed. That is a nice expression, I admit, but I apprehend that considerable difficulty would be experienced in the process of dovetailing.

Banking institutions make much larger grants in respect of their schemes than will result from the contributions by the Government and employers under this scheme, and their employees acquire very valuable rights. There comes a time when the salaries of the majority of banking employees exceed £365 per annum. They cannot afford to forgo the rights that have already accrued to them under their own schemes, and they therefore have real grounds for apprehension. I sympathize very strongly with them. Their exemption, and that of a few other societies which already have schemes under which the benefits are equally as good, would not damage the national character of this scheme. The principle is acknowledged in the bill, because it provides that government employees shall be exempted where it is certified that they are provided for under schemes which are equally beneficial. I see no reason why that principle should not be applied to such bodies as banking institutions. The number of bank officials who receive under £365 per annum is very small compared with the total number of person* who will come under the scheme.

Mr Street:

– Does the honorable member know whether women employees in banks are provided for under superannuation schemes?

Mr NAIRN:

– I am sorry that I do not. Generally, the position in regard to banks and other private bodies is similar to that which exists in regard to States. Exemption should be granted only where the employees have rights equal to those proposed under this scheme, for the protection of women in banks as well as everywhere else.

The only other matter of principle to which I wish to refer is whether or not the State Arbitration Courts when fixing wages should he precluded from taking into consideration the contributions which will have to be made by employees under this legislation. In my opinion, the addition to the award rates prescribed by the courts of an amount equivalent to such contributions would be tantamount to giving free insurance to workmen. Obviously, if because a workman pays a premium of ls. 6d. a week in order to obtain certain benefits a similar amount is added to his wages, he gets those benefits for nothing. I am not prepared to grant free insurance to workmen. Insurance is something of value and, after all, the workmen will receive benefits in respect of which* his contribution is only about one-third. This bill provides that of the total premium, one-third shall be paid by the employee, the employer, and the Commonwealth Government respectively. It is true that the workman, in his capacity as a citizen, will pay some of the contribution of the Government. I agree also that some employers will be able to add their contribution to the prices charged by them for goods sold to workmen. To some extent, therefore, the workman will pay more than one-third of the total contribution, but substantially he will pay only about that proportion. “Whatever the exact percentage may be, the fact remains that he will be provided with cheap insurance.

Mr Mahoney:

– Is the honorable member in favour of free insurance?

Mr NAIRN:

– I am not. Thing3 which cost nothing are generally not fully appreciated. One of the main advantages of this scheme is that it will encourage thrift and independence. Speaking generally, it is not wise to give something for nothing ; and certainly we, as the custodians of public funds, are not entitled to do so. I have indicated some ways in which the scheme could be improved. No doubt the need for other improvements will be revealed after the bill has become law. The scheme is yet in its infancy in Australia. At present we cannot do more than follow the lead given by other countries by putting into operation as perfect a scheme as possible, in the knowledge that improvements will have to be made from time to time. The present imperfection of the scheme should not deter us from establishing it, because national insurance is long overdue in Australia.

Mr FROST:
Franklin

.- I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), because I do not believe in the contributory system. This hill has been introduced in order to relieve the Government of the necessity to find money to pay invalid and old-age pensions. The scheme submitted for our approval excludes a vast army of people who are in greater need of security than are those who are in regular employment. “Widows and unemployed persons are to be excluded from its benefits. In order to frighten honorable members into voting for this measure, the Government has told us that in 40 years’ time the pension bill of this country will exceed £36,000,000. Howhas that figure been arrived at? A great deal may happen within the next 40 years. If the Government’s estimate be correct, are we to understand that after a further 40 years the pension bill may total £100,000,000 a year? “When he was Minister for Health, the present Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Hughes) said that, although the population, of Australia would continue to rise gradually for a number of years, it would reach its peak in 1960, after which it would decline. How does the Government reconcile that statement with its estimate of the cost of pensions 40 years hence? Recently, I read a report made in 1820 by a professor who said that the population of the world would increase to such an extent, and its soil become so exhausted, that by 1940 the earth would not produce sufficient food to feed the people. Not many years will pass before the time for the fulfilment of tha-t prediction will arive, but, far from the earth being unable to produce sufficient for its inhabitants, difficulty is experienced in disposing of its fruits. By the use of fertilizers, the soil is capable of producing more to-day than it did 100 years ago. I regard the estimate of the Government a? to the cost of pensions 40 years hence as being no more reliable than the prediction of that professor. If everything proceeded along what may be termed normal lines, the result might be as the Government has predicted ; but no one can tell what changes may take pla.ee during the next 40 years. Long before then, the present monetary system may be displaced by some other system.

I shall never support a. bill which provides a lower pension for women than for men. The present Invalid and Oldage Pensions Act gives to women a measure of preference. That is because a woman needs help at an earlier age then a man does. The idea of the Government in fixing the pension for a woman at 15s. a week on attaining the age of CO years is that the pension shall never exceed that rate. It is useless for the Government to say that if a woman is destitute she will be given £1 a week. .For a time exceptions may be made to the genera] rate of 15s. a week, but, before long, that will become the maximum payment. 1 listened with interest to the honorable member for .Riverina (Mr. Nock), who thought that small farmers, fishermen and small shopkeepers, and other selfemployed persons, should be included in this scheme. The honorable gentleman knows that as long as the present Government is in office they will not be included. In reply to an interjection as to how he would assist the farmers, tho honorable gentleman said that he would give to them a fixed price for their commodities. A fixed price has been sought for many years, but, so far, without success. I represent in this Parliament a number of small farmers, fruitgrowers and other self-employed workers, many of whom have made no profit at all for a r umber of years. Under this bill, they will have to pay ls. 6d. a week for each of their employees for the first five years, and thereafter ls. 9d. a week until ultimately the payment will reach 2s. a week, 1-ut notwithstanding that they will be called upon to make those contributions, they themselves will not participate in the benefits of the scheme. Many small farmers do not earn even tb e basic wage, to say nothing of £365 a year, and consequently this legislation will impose hardships on them. Small mill-owners also will have to pay contributions in respect of their employees without receiving any benefit in return. It has been said that some employers will pass on the cost to them of this scheme, but it will be impossible for the primary producers to do so. I cannnot see how these persons can be included. They are employers of labour, whose gross income may exceed £365 a year, and therefore they will be ineligible to come under the scheme. Small sawmillers who employ, say, four or five men during certain months of the year, will also be required to contribute to the scheme, without the prospect of reaping any benefit from it.

Those small millowners work with their men, but under the bill as it stands they will not lie covered in the event of illness or accident.

The Treasurer has told the House that the scheme will embrace 52 per cent, of the population. I doubt the accuracy of that statement; in some of the more sparsely populated districts of my electorate, not 20 per cent, of the people will be covered. I therefore hope the Government will accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition and have the bill re-drafted to remove some of its many defects. If, however, the Ministry resists the amendment I hope that sufficient Government supporters will cross the floor in the division and help us to smash the bill in its present form.

As I have said, the population in my electorate is spread over a wide area, where there are no doctors within 40 or 50 miles of some of the timber mills. Two or three years ago, when I visited one of these mills, an employee told me that some time previously his wife had become ill and he had telephoned for medical aid. The nearest doctor had totravel 60 miles through rough country and on bad roads. “When he had examined the patient he told the husband that the wife was very ill, and added that his fee for the journey was £20. The man told him that he was not in a position to pay that sum, nor could ho obtain a guarantee from any of his friends. Accordingly the wife had to be removed to the nearest hospital for special medical treatment, and the day following her arrival she died. I mention this incident to impress on honorable members the difficulties experienced by people living in remote areas whenever accident or illness calls for the services of a doctor. Having in mind the hazards to which people in out-back districts were exposed, the Government of Tasmania, a few years ago, formulated its scheme for free medical services, and appointed ten doctors for service in various parts of the State. These doctors are, in fact, State civil servants. Their services are available free to people living in specified districts, though I understand that a small charge is made for night calls. This is the only system under which a reasonable medical service can be guaranteed for people living in sparsely populated districts.

The bill contains a provision restricting the number of patients which each doctor may attend. This may be necessary in cities and thickly populated suburbs, but it would be quite impossible for a doctor in a country district to give a decent service to 3,000 patients, because he would have to cover many hundreds of square miles of territory. The new scheme that has been introduced in Tasmania is operating quite satisfactorily. If this Government followed the lead of the State Government and appointed medical men for country districts, the people living there would have some assurance of a reasonable medical service. It has been objected that doctors appointed to country districts would get out of touch with the modern developments in medicine and surgery. The Government of Tasmania is meeting that objection by providing that, after serving for three years in a country district, the doctor is relieved and required to give service in a city hospital for twelve months in order to bring his knowledge up-to-date. He then returns to a country district.

The Government’s scheme will press heavily on the finances of hospitals and charitable institutions, and it will do a distinct injury to the great friendly societies throughout the Commonwealth. Many honorable members have received hundreds of letters and telegrams from branches of friendly societies, hospital managements and other organizations complaining of the probable injury that will be done to their interests. I have received my complement of protests. It is necessary to safeguard the interests of hospitals and friendly societies, and I hope that there will be sufficient Government supporters to insist on fair treatment ‘being meted out to these bodies.

It is probable that the older members of friendly societies will continue their membership and pay lodge dues as well as the contributions to the Government’s scheme, because their concern will be to ensure medical attention for their wives and families, which is not guaranteed to them in this bill; but the younger generation will, in all probability, restrict their payments to the national scheme, and the interests of friendly societies will suffer.

These bodies have for a great many years rendered distinct service to the people. My experience is that many young men when they leave home for the first time to take work in a country town or mining area, immediately get in touch with the secretary or member of the local friendly society. The young man who does this receives a warm welcome and everything is done to make the way easy for him. On the whole he if. associated with a better class of people than he would otherwise meet. Therefore, it will be a tragedy if the inauguration of this scheme of national insurance deals a death blow to the friendly society movement in Australia. Government supporters declare that it will not injure the friendly societies, but my fear is that within ten years of its establishment, the friendly societies will be put out of business.

The Public Works Committee, of which I am a member, visited Sydney last week and beard evidence from Dr. Schlink, chairman of the Prince Alfred Hospital, in connexion with an inquiry that is being made into the proposal to erect a new community hospital at Canberra. Dr. Schlink said -

The hospitals were fearful of the national insurance bill. Under a voluntary contribution system, people now pay 6d. n. week and obtain hospital treatment. Under the National Insurance Act they are going to lose that revenue and in the future we are not going to take insurance patients unless the Government pays u=. We agree with national insurance, but we think that it should go further.

I understand that the Prince Alfred Hospital will lose an income of £20,000 a year, following the inauguration of the Government’s scheme, and the management believes that it will not be able to balance its budget. How can doctors al tend to patients if there is no provision for payment to the hospitals? Under the scheme, the total contribution in respect of each insured person is 3s. a week. In ten years’ time it will be 4s. a week - 2s. from the employer and 2s. from the employee - but there is no provision for medical services for a man’s wife and family. The friendly societies, on the other hand, provide a full service for a member, his wife, and members of his family up to the age of sixteen years. The dispensaries established by these bodies agO render valuable service to the community. As a general rule a man in regular employment is not much in need of medical attention; his concern is to safeguard his wife and children. The bill does not meet this essential requirement, and I regard, it as one of the worst measures that has ever been introduced into this Parliament. Government supporters have objected, but only half-heartedly, to this omission, and suggest that the defect will be remedied in a later measure. The Government has not submitted this scheme to promote the health of the community; the proposal is merely designed to save the cost of the present invalid and old-age pensions. I have received the following telegram from Queenstown, Tasmania, regarding the benefits received by the employees at the Mount Lyell works as contributors to a sick and accident fund: -

Sick and accident fund provides payment during periods incapacity, commencing first day incapacity, forty-five shillings per week, in respect of sickness and accidents which occur outside individuals’ employment period, for four months; thereafter, for further period four months, twenty-two and sixpence per week. Absences due accidents arising out of contributors’ employment paid for at rate of twenty shillings per week for period of twelve months. For above benefits employee contributes one shilling per week and company seven pence half-penny per week per employee. Also hospital union subscription two shillings and threepence per fortnight. Employee receives al! medical and hospital attention himself wife and family. Company collects fortnightly levy and makes annual contribution to hospital funds. Direct and indirect estimated to be worth eight hundred pounds.

Those employees receive considerable medical benefits for the small contribution of ls. 1½d. a week. Under the scheme submitted by the Government, however, these employees would have to make a much larger contribution, and they would receive no medical assistance for their wives and families. It would not pay them to forfeit their present benefits and contribute to this so-called national insurance scheme. “When the last census was ‘ taken the number of widows in Australia was 89,000, but for two years they will receive no benefit whatever under the scheme. What will they do in the meantime?

Will they have to be assisted by the State authorities? Provision should be made for them immediately. For many years the Leader of the Opposition and his followers have done everything possible to obtain the pension for widows, and it is a humane necessity that this section of the community shall not be wholly neglected.

The Government has declared that the scheme will result in improved national health, but I do not believe it will have that effect, particularly if the deplorable housing conditions of the people are not improved. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) appealed to the electors in 1934, he promised that a comprehensive housing scheme would be introduced, and that if any State desired to build houses for the people it would receive assistance in that direction. The Commonwealth Government has not yet built even one house, but one is in course of erection. I refer to the fourteen.roomed residence being built in Canberra at a cost of £6,000 for the Treasurer (Mr. Casey). There is a shortage of 320 houses in Canberra, and, although accommodation should be provided in advance of the requirements of the population, no provision has been made to meet present needs or to cope with estimated future requirements. The shortage of houses in the Federal Capital is becoming increasingly acute. The Government is not assisting the State authorities to find the money required for the abolition of city slums.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That has nothing to do with this bill.

Mr FROST:

– Yet it has something to do with the health of the people. The Government suggests that a dose of physic is sufficient to produce national health, but I contend that prevention is better than cure. Every effort should be made to prevent people from becoming sick. -

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Preventive measures do not come within the scope of an insurance scheme.

Mr FROST:

– But the Treasurer said that it was desirable to prevent people from becoming ill, and I fail to see how that can be done if the disgraceful housing conditions throughout the Commonwealth are not remedied.

I listened last evening to the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), who stated that an elderly married couple in his electorate, whom he knew, had saved up £1,500, and, when nearly 60 years of age, had taken a trip round the world. The honorable member stated that the couple had gone overseas to spend that money with the deliberate intention of making themselves eligible, on their return to Australia, for the old-age pension. Probably this couple had done their duty as good Australians by rearing a family, and therefore they had every right when their children had become self-supporting to take a trip overseas, if they had been able to accumulate the necessary funds. Are trips abroad to be reserved for the privileged lass?

Mr Fairbairn:

– The honorable member for Franklin has twisted the honorable member’s statement.

Mr FROST:

– He said that when the couple returned from abroad, having spent all their savings, they applied for the old-age pension.

Mr Fairbairn:

– He suggested that the conditions attached to the pension had forced them to get rid of their savings. They had every right to get rid of them.

Mr FROST:

– Perhaps this couple had never previously had an opportunity to go overseas, but in their old-age they had an opportunity to realize the -dream of their lives.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– Would the honorable member place a person who goes abroad in a different category from one who remains in Australia, and prefers to use his savings in this country?

Mr FROST:

– A person who has saved £1,500 will receive a pension of 15s. a week under this bill, but one who spends £1,500 overseas, and comes back without any other resources, is entitled under existing conditions to the old-age pension amounting to £1 a week.

Mr Fairbairn:

– That is what the honorable member for Gippsland, pointed out.

Mr FROST:

– But it was unnecessary to do so. I contend that it was unfair to suggest that the couple, to whom reference has been made, went abroad for the purpose of qualifying for the pension. 1 trust that the Government will see the wisdom of withdrawing the bill and redrafting it, so that the complaints made by the representatives of friendly societies and other organizations working for the welfare of the masses of the people may be remedied, and these bodies may avoid the “ knock-out “ blow that this bill will deal them if it is passed in its present form.

Mr. PROWSE (Forrest) [4.31 J.- The provision of a scheme of national insurance has been in the minds of the people of Australia for at least a quarter of a century. Every political party represented in this House has had the subject on its platform for years. I have always favoured the provision of national insurance, and I still do so. I believe in the platform of my party in this as in other respects. But the bill before us provides only semi-national insurance. It has many defects. In these circumstances, I think it unwise of the Government to attempt to rush it through the House. I suggest that this debate be adjourned until later in the year, to give honorable members an opportunity to return to their electorates, discuss the whole subject with their constituents, and ascertain how the measure could be made more acceptable to the general community. The various omissions and commissions of the bill could then be reviewed and the measure amended to provide a sounder system of insurance that would have a more general application to the community.

Mr Sheehan:

– Then I take it that the honorable member will vote for the amendment?

Mr PROWSE:

– That is my business. The Government should have collaborated to a greater extent than it has done with the friendly societies to devise ways and means of providing medical and other benefits for a larger proportion of the people. Some friendly societies have been operating in this country for more than 100 years. They have branches scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land. Their officers know the general conditions of the people intimately. It has been the practice of these societies to decline membership to people whose condition of health is below a certain standard. I suggest that the

Government should confer with the societies to see whether by the payment of compensation to them provision could be made to include within the range of medical benefits many people who are to-day excluded. An actuarial basis could be arranged to protect the friendly societies. Such a scheme would make ii unnecessary to evolve very intricate and costly governmental machinery to deal with cases of the kind to which I refer. If such citizens could be brought within the membership of approved societies, it would simplify the administration of this scheme tremendously.

I also suggest that further consideration be given to the proposal to compel contributors to superannuation and welfare schemes organized by banking and other institutions to contribute to this scheme. I have received numerous telegrams and letters on this subject, lt has been pointed out to me that bank officers are, in the main, well satisfied with the provision made for them. They contribute to their own schemes, and their contributions are supplemented by their employers. In the circumstances they should be exempt from contributing to the national scheme. The following paragraphs are taken from a letter which I have received from a gentleman resident in the Wannon electorate: -

Now. to explain the worry which I am hopeful that you may he able to help clear up. We of the Bank of ?ow South Wales have an excellent pension and sickness system, backed by a solid accumulation of funds built up over a long term of years by ourselves and the generous add:tions made by the bank. We are all urgently anxious that our present system be not interfered with in any way. I, personally, and many thousands of other officers, would be exceedingly grateful if you would use your influence and vote to see that an exemption from thi ‘National Insurance Act be given to the bank and their employees.

The bank certainly treats us well, especially through a time of sickness. I have known them carry men on, on full salary, up to terms of twelve months, so you can see it is going to bo hard if such conditions arc lost to us.

I also think it hard that the satisfactory conditions under which these people are working should be jeopardized. If the Government forces contributors to such schemes to participate in the national scheme and thereby disrupts the existing voluntary funds it cannot be absolved from blame. Apparently, it is intended to oblige all of the younger banking officials whose salaries are below £365 per annum to join the national scheme. This will mean that the voluntary contributory schemes of the banks will be deprived of the necessary inflow of younger officers, with the result that in the course of time the solvency of the funds will be undermined. The Government should certainly come to the assistance of those who have not been thrifty enough to make provision for their future, but I can see no justification for compelling persons who are contributing to voluntary schemes to discontinue such contributions in order to subscribe to the national scheme, for, obviously, people with low incomes will not be able to pay to two schemes concurrently. The benefits provided under many private funds are equal, if not superior to, those proposed under the national scheme, and 1 urge the Government to reconsider its proposals in this regard.

Another objection I have to the bill is that it covers only a section of the wage-earners. Whether a man be permanently or casually employed, his employer will be obliged to contribute to the fund in his behalf. In effect, the nation will say to the employer: “You are i ‘‘sponsible for the persons you employ and you must contribute to the fund.” But, unfortunately, some of the employers are in a less satisfactory financial position than those whom they employ. Thousands of people in Australia are eking out only a bare existence on the land. Six thousand people had to abandon their holdings in Western Australia in recent years, because they were unable to make a living on them. The position became so bad that this Parliament, realizing that it is against the best interests of Australia for people to go off the land, made available £12.000,000 for rural debt adjustment, in order that needy settlers might be enabled to remain on their holdings. But no matter how poor a farmery may be, seasonal requirements compel him, at certain periods of the year, to engage outside labour. In respect of every person so engaged, the farmer will have to pay ls. 6d. a week to the national insurance fund. As many of these men are actually insolvent, this will be not only a hardship, but a rank in- justice. Many of the persons on the basic wage are in an infinitely better financial position than some rural employers, and so are in a better position to pay the premium. The employers, in such cases, will reap no benefits whatever from this scheme, nor will they be able to pass on the cost of it. That has already been clearly shown by other speakers. Manufacturers who contribute to this fund will be able to amend their costing systems and pass on the expense involved. The workers also will be able to do so, for, undoubtedly, they will request the Arbitration Court to take into account such payments. Incidentally, I was surprised to hear the remarks made by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) on this aspect of the subject yesterday. Only the unfortunate primary producers will be unable to recoup themselves this extra cost. This is most unjust, for many farmers are in more dire need than the persons in respect of whom they will be contributing. I cannot understand why an amendment should not be accepted by the Government to the effect that farmers, storekeepers, fishermen and others who employ labour, but whose income, say over the last five yeai-3, has not averaged £365 per annum, shall be exempt from the payment of employer contributions. Figures compiled by the Taxation Department reveal that not 2 per cent, of the farmers of Australia pay income tax. I want honorable members to realize that the great primary industries of Australia to-day are unsheltered. When the people of Australia had an opportunity at the recent referendum to afford them shelter in the terms of acts passed by this Parliament, and endorsed by State Parliaments, they refused to do so. It is beyond my comprehension how the Government could have brought down a measure embodying such outright injustice as is contained in this bill. It is true that the Government has promised to bring down another measure to include self-employed persons, but I, as a representative of those on the land, would like the Government to put all its cards on the table now. I have heard various suggestions regarding what a supplementary measure might provide for. It has been stated that the contri- butors would have to pay double the amount which contributors under this scheme have to pay. That would mean that the primary producers would be unable to take advantage of the scheme, because the cost would be too great. I remind the Government that the death of a breadwinner who happens to be a poor farmer is just as serious a matter for his widow and children as is the death of a breadwinner in the city to his dependants.

I should also like the Minister to give some consideration to the effect of this scheme upon existing State social legislation. I have received a communication from the Western Australian Employers Federation, from which the following is an extract: -

The Workers’ Compensation Legislation of Western Australia imposes a burden which by comparison with that placed upon the shoulders of employers in other parts of the Commonwealth is extremely onerous.

Without dissecting the act referred to, mention need only be made of the fact that a worker under its provisions is entitled to receive in addition to ordinary benefits medical services to the value of £100 when injured or incapacitated in accordance with the meanings of these terms under the Act. This and other peculiar conditions in the Act have brought about the imposition of a premium rate considerably higher than that ruling in any other State (in many industries our state is more than double that of other States ) .

The Treasurer has a copy of that letter in his possession. I do not propose to argue whether the Parliament of Western Australia was right or wrong in thus enlarging the benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act, but I want the Commonwealth Government to consider whether it is not possible to devise a scheme for levelling the cost of such benefits throughout the whole Commonwealth.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Does not the honorable member think it likely that, after the passage of this measure, the Government of Western Australia will relax the provisions of its act?

Mr PROWSE:

– I have no wish that benefits enjoyed by any section of the people of Western Australia should he withdrawn from them, but I believe that an attempt should be made . to make uniform provisions of this kind as between the various States, so as to relieve the taxpayers from a double imposition. The Commonwealth Government did not hesitate to take action to prevent the Premier of a certain State from imposing taxation of a devastating character; neither should it fail to take what action it can to relieve the taxpayers of any particular State of unduly heavy burdens.

Immediately this scheme comes into operation, the Government will enter into contractual relations with a large body of citizens, who will be entitled to certain benefits. “When other beneficiaries are brought in, it may be that the rights of those previously included will be affected. I compliment Sir Walter Kinnear upon his work in connexion with this scheme, and I also compliment the Treasurer upon the ability and industry he has brought to bear upon it. I maintain, however, that Sir Walter Kinnear, fine man though he is, may very well have been too much influenced by his experiences in Great Britain, which is a pocket handkerchief country in comparison with this great island continent populated by a handful of people. I understand that he intends to remain in Australia until he has evolved a scheme to cover self-employed persons, including farmers. I can conceive that there might be difficulty in arranging for such a scheme to stand on its own feet. Actuarially, it might he necessary for beneficiaries to pay both the employers’ and the employees’ contributions, but if that were done it would place the whole scheme outside the reach of those whom it would be designed to benefit. For the time being it might be a good thing if the Government were to confine its proposals to a contributory system of oldage and invalid pensions and leave otherbenefits to be run in collaboration with the friendly societies. [Quorum formed.] I am glad that the Government proposes to allow women, by contributing the full amount of1s. 6d. a week, to qualify for a pension of £1 a week. That will meet with wide approval. One serious defect in the scheme as it now stands is that it provides medical benefits only for insured persons, not for their wives and families. That is another argument in favour of allowing the friendly societies to take over this side of the work. The Government should not be in too great a hurry. It would be better, perhaps, if the whole scheme were referred to a select committee, so that the details might be worked out. I appeal to the Government to give Parliament an opportunity to turn out a scheme worthy of the nation. It would be a disgrace to exclude from it so many persons who should obviously be included. I cannot understand, for instance, how it is proposed to bring under the scheme the many thousands of persons now unemployed. The present is only a partial scheme, and I shall not be satisfied until the Government has so amended it as to give substantial justice to the people.

Dr MALONEY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

.- Although I support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), I welcome the bill and am pleased that the Government has had the courage to introduce it. Certainly many objections may be offered to the measure, but there have been so many critics of it that I shall bear in mind the remark of Lord Byron in his wonderful satire, English Bards and Scotch Reviewers -

A man must serve his time to ev’ry trade Save censure - critics all are ready-made.

There never has been a bill introduced into Parliament which could not be criticized. I propose to see whether I can find any good in this measure. With the wisdom which increasing years brings, I have arrived at the decision that if one cannot have a whole loaf but merely a bun, it is wise to accept the bun and endeavour to procure the loaf later.

What is the difference between a noncontributor and a contributor under this scheme? A non-contributor, upon attaining the age of65 years in the case of a man and 60 years in the case of a woman, will receive a pension of £1 a week. I am proud to think that there are in Australia persons who will be non-contributors; but that pride is somewhat dimmed by the knowledge that the neighbouring dominion of New Zealand pays to its old-age pensioners 22s. 6d. a week, and its budgets are booming. The contributor will receive a sick allowance of £1 a week for himself as well as one of 3s. 6d. a week in respect of every child up to the age of 15 years, in addition to the old-age pen- ion of £1 a week. The payment in respect of orphans will be 7s. 6d. a week.

Had I the power, I would appoint a committee representative of all parties in this House, and pledge it3 members solemnly to do their best to frame a measure which would be unanimously supported. I doubt whether any honorable member, even the richest - if there be such a species as a rich member - is not imbued with humanitarian motives. While in England, I was disappointed somewhat at finding that London had so many rich people. I doubt whether the private wealth of England has ever been computed, but it must be enormous. I notice that the latest issue of the Pocket Compendium of Australian Statistics omits to give particulars, which were given in previous issues, of the private wealth in Australia. That omission is wrong. I want to know also, the amount of the public wealth of Australia. The one expression that I hate to hear when a good cause is mentioned is that the adoption of it would mean that the budget could not be balanced. Used in that sense, 1 bate the word “ budget “ as I do tho word “ hell “. There is something higher than the budget. We should make use of the wonderful reserves of wealth that we have in Australia. In respect of social services, New Zealand has done more since March, 1936, than has been done by Australia in the last 50 years. It is for that reason that I welcome ‘this bill. I can state definitely that the medical men to whom I spoke in England - and I spoke to many of them - all agreed that the panel system was a good one. The majority of them said that it is laying the base rook for the nationalization of medicine. I want to see the nationalization of medicine, and I believe that this is a step towards it; possibly it is a part of the foundation. If health were nationalized, the good doctor would not have to ask for a fee and the bad doctor would not be allowed to do so. The years of my life number 84, yet the law would permit me to take charge of the most delicate operation ever devised by the brain of man, in the certain knowledge that my inexperience would cause the death of the patient. If any medical man were placed in the witness box and asked to state whether he considered that I had committed murder in performing such an operation, be would, if he gave an honest replY, say “ Yes “. Under nationalization, the Government would be wise enough to see that doctors, upon reaching a certain age, were examined to ascertain whether they were fit to take charge of an average case. Shortly after I had completed my student years I managed, as locum tenens, a practice in connexion with which the fee was 6d. a patient, including the cost of medicine. My duties included attending upon the inmates of a workhouse, for which the remuneration was from 3s. to 4s. a quarter. The medicines which I prescribed were made up by a firm of wholesale chemists at a very cheap rate. Later, the description “ workhouse “ was abolished and replaced by “infirmary”, because the former sounded unpleasantly in the ears of those who had any knowledge of the conditions. When I was in London for the coronation of George V, I was walking home with Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, and inquired as to the function of a big building we were passing; he told me that it was a workhouse which was being changed to an infirmary. I crossed to it and asked the men who were waiting outside it to show me their hands. They were strong hands and hard hands, belonging to men who were waiting for a night’s lodging and a little food. Yet, I was informed by persons competent to judge, that the value of the jewels worn at that coronation was over £300,000,000 !

The point that I wish to make is, that the Government of this country can do a great deal with small subscriptions. At the present time, undertakers who work on contract will provide a funeral costing £.15, in the case of an old-age pensioner, for 6d. a week. This includes a glass hearse and a Rolls-Royce mourning coach. Under arrangements that I have made, any old-age pensioner who is a member of a labour branch in my district will not be buried as a pauper. Being an Australian who loves his country, I hate the idea of any one being buried as a pauper. Switzerland, the best-governed country in Europe to-day, will not allow one of its citizens to be buried as a pauper. Should a Swiss die in Germany, Italy or Prance, he or she is buried decently. What is good enough for Switzerland is good enough for my beloved land of Australia. I feel sure that I echo the sentiments of every honorable member when I say that no Australian should be buried as a pauper. If the Government were to accept responsibility in the matter, the cost of providing a glass hearse, a Rolls-Royce mourning coach, and the burial plot for an old-age pensioner, would not exceed 3d. a week. I want that amount to be hypothecated in respect of every oldage pensioner, so that the stigma of pauperism may be abolished. If Christ, who took the little children in his arms nearly 2,000 years ago, were on earth he would not .allow any one to be buried as a pauper. I remember the time when pensions were grudgingly given in Victoria. Children were called upon to give evidence on oath that they were unable to contribute to the support of their parents. If they proved their inability to pay, the State came to their aid. Later, the system was improved until eventually the Commonwealth took over the responsibility. I should like the non-contributory system to be continued. The principle underlying it is so splendid that I would not interfere with it by providing for contributions, however small. We have given votes to women. Let us now give to them the same rights as are enjoyed by men. In only one country arc women treated as the equals of men. I commend to honorable members a booklet entitled So this is Russia, written by a great Australian woman, Suzanne Abramovich. I say that as a medical man who has retired from practice for many years. A graduate of Australia’s only free university, made possible by the generosity of Sir Winthrop Hackett, who gave £300,000 for its erection, Suzanne Abramovich went to Sydney because she could not obtain her medical diploma at the University of Perth. There she gained, first, her M.B. degree, and then she went on to qualify for the distinction of Master of Surgery. Being herself in indifferent health, as the result of her studies, she went on a trip to Europe.

She decided to spend a month in Russia, because, as her forbears were of Russian descent, she could speak the Russian language. While there, she became so interested in what wa3 being done for the women and children, that she applied for, and received, an appointment as a doctor. The booklet to which I have referred tells of her experiences in Russia. In it she states that an expectant mother must leave all work two months before her confinement and place herself under the care of medical experts. If possible, her child must be born in a hospital, where she must remain for a further two months. During the whole period of four months she is paid full wages. If, in the opinion of a doctor, her baby should have mother’s milk, the mother, if working, must leave the factory at stated hours each day in order to breast-feed her child. I wish that we in Australia were half as civilized in our treatment of women and children as are the people of Russia. Across the Tasman Sea, our sister dominion of New Zealand i3 following closely the example of Russia in the treatment of mothers and children. I commend to honorable members another booklet, written by a member of the New Zealand Parliament, and obtainable at the Trades Hall, Melbourne, which shows what New Zealand is doing in this connexion. In my early days I thought that I should like to be a farmer, and accordingly 68 years ago I applied for land. The government of the day allotted to me a block situated in the most heavily timbered country of Australia, 10 miles south of Warragul, in Gippsland, Victoria. I now regret that I ringbarked and killed so many beautiful trees.

This bill is capable of considerable improvement, and I hope that in committee it will be amended. I suggest to the Government that a committee, consisting of members of all parties, be appointed to consider this measure with a view to making it worthy of Australia. Much of the legislation passed by this and other Parliaments ha3 been severely criticized by judges, and it has occurred to me that it would be a good thing to place bills relating to important matters, which vitally affect the people, in the hands of a committee of judges for their critical examination before an attempt is made to place such measures ou the statute-book. Honorable- members may regard that suggestion as a wild dream which will never become a reality, but I make it in all good faith. Even in its present imperfect condition, I welcome the bill a3 a first step towards social legislation that is long overdue. I hope that, as time passes, any defects found in it will be remedied.

The private wealth of Australia lias been estimated by actuaries at £7,000,000,000. Yesterday, I received a letter from an accountant in which he said that the private wealth of Australia amounted to at least £10,000,000,000. Notwithstanding that vast wealth, people live, work, and pass on, without benefiting one whit from it. I suggest that it be used for the benefit of the nation, so that future generations will not have to bear the burden of heavy interest on borrowed money.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

I refuse to believe that working men and women of this country want the dole which the Labour party proffers. I believe that they are all anxious to secure their future and enjoy the peace of mind and complete sense of security which only a sound insurance scheme can give. I believe also that the average employee is proud enough to want the benefits of such insurance in his own right, and has no desire, whatever to ,be beholden to any government for benefits received, and that be will welcome a national insurance scheme such- as the one now- before the House.

Even a cursory glance at insurance statistics make it evident that the working classes of the Commonwealth are desperately anxious to provide for their future by insurance, and are making tremendous efforts on their own initiative to provide by that means a solace for their old-age. a small windfall for their dependants in the event of their death, or a fund to provide for their funerals. In this regard, I direct the attention of honorable members to some statistics relating to the insurance opportunities and benefits that are provided by private insurance companies, with a view to comparing them with the proposals contained in the bill. I recognize of course that this is not an easy task, but I hope to bc able to make the position clear. My endeavour will be to set out the return in cash benefits for each £1 paid in premiums. There are no fewer than 2,078,460 industrial insurance policies in operation in the Commonwealth. I impress this point on honorable members because of its relation to the number of persons Who will be included in the Government’s scheme. The persons holding these industrial insurance policies pay in premiums to the various companies £5,215,640 annually for an average assured sum of £45. But the supremely important point is that no matter what allowances one makes in favour of the insurance companies concerned the policies return to the holders is something les3 than 15s. for every £1 paid as a premium.

Mr Mahoney:

– That is the equivalent of the Government’s scheme.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– It is my intention to put before the House the comparative figures, so that honorable members may judge for themselves. I come now to the benefits given by friendly societies. I wish to make it clear that I offer no word of disparagement of those bodies ; I appreciate highly the splendid work which they have been rendering to the community for so many years. But the best cash return which they can offer their members is £1 for every £1 contributed. Obviously the services of an actuary are not required to make it clear that friendly societies cannot offer in cash benefits more than they receive by way of contributions. I freely admit that these societies render a great service to their members by providing them with medical benefits and other services that are purchased on a co-operative basis. The ordinary assurance companies, the third of the principal services which cater for the thrifty section of our people, are able to give a cash return of slightly more than £1 for every £1 paid in premiums.

Mr FORDE:

– Does the honorable member contend that a life endowment policy does not return to the policy holder as much as he pays, taking into account the annual bonuses declared?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– My statement of the position is based on the available statistics dealing with the average amount of premiums paid and cash benefits distributed. As I have stated, in the case of ordinary assurance policies, rather more than £1 is distributed in cash benefits for every £1 paid in premiums.

Mr Green:

– Does that figure include industrial insurance policies?

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– No; the position of the industrial insurance companies is worse.

The fact that so many people in the Commonwealth have invested in these forms of insurance such large sums of money for the limited benefits to be derived from them, is ample proof that the virtue of thrift is woven into the very texture of the life and character of the people, particularly the working men and women of Australia.

Mr James:

– Will the honorable member now say of me what he said during my absence from the chamber?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Makin:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Order! The honorable member for Hunter is out of order.

Mr James:

– I have been informed that the honorable member for Macquarie did say something about me.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member for Macquarie made no such statement.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– The figures which I have given make it abundantly clear that the working classes are anxious for some form of insurance against accident, ill health and other unforeseeable contingencies, and also that they are prepared, to pay for this insurance. They are so anxious to have such protection as it affords, that they are prepared to pay £1 for 15s. worth of benefits. I admit that one of the redeeming features of insurance policies issued by companies is that, in the event of the premature death of a policy-holder, a very substantial sum, having regard to the amount paid in premiums, is paid to his or her dependants. But what I wish particularly to do is to place in juxtaposition the relative benefits of industrial insurance as provided by existing companies, and the (benefits to be given to contributors to the Government’s scheme. The figures show that approximately 2,000,000 men and women in Australia are protected by industrial insurance policies in one or other of the companies that cater for this class of business, that they pay in premiums, annually, £5,250,000, and on the average, receive in cash benefits 15s. for every £1 paid in premiums. I now contrast that with the Government’s proposal. The national insurance scheme will embrace not 2,000,000 people at the outset, but 1,850,000 persons, who will pay in contributions each year an amount ranging from £5,500,000 to £7,500,000, for which, when the scheme matures, they will receive in cash benefits, not a miserable pittance of 15s. for every £1 invested, but £3 15s. for every £1 contributed, amounting annually to about £28,000,000, or approximately £14 for every person covered by the proposals. In addition they will have the protection of a well-organized medical service, the value of which it is extremely difficult to assess, but which, nevertheless, possesses a high cash value.

However one may criticize the Government’s proposal and point to its imperfections, one must, in fairness, admit that this national insurance scheme is a vast improvement upon anything that has, so far, been offered to the people of this country. I emphasize that for every £1 contributed by employees to the fund, not less than £3 15s. will be distributed in cash benefits, in addition to the medical service provided. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) has described the contributions which employees will be asked to make in order to obtain such benefits as being not contributions at all, but taxes ; and the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. “Ward) spoke of the Governments proposal as a swindle. My replyto the Leader of the Opposition is that if the contributions which the employees will make under this scheme arc a tax, then every taxpayer in the Commonwealth would welcome the opportunity to pay a tax that would prove so fruitful. If, as the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) says, the scheme is a swindle, I should like to hear his description of the industrial insurance sci) cmos which, I believe, this proposal will eventually supplant.

The combination of facts which I have outlined makes it amazing that anybody should criticize the scheme on the score that it is niggardly. I pass over the criticism by honorable members who make a sort of ritual of demanding that the Government should do more or give more on every occasion when a measure of this character is placed before Parliament; but I appeal to the more responsible critics of the bill to realize that, judged by any standard at all, this is probably the most generous insurance measure of its kind ever placed before thi people of any country. I say that emphatically, after comparing it with insurance available to employees in Australia or elsewhere, because if one goes abroad, the comparison is still favorable to the Government’s proposals. Consider the extent to which the Government will endow this scheme from it3 own revenue. When the British scheme was inaugurated, the Government of Great Britain endowed it to the amount of £4,000,000. The Commonwealth Government will commence by subsidizing this scheme to the amount of £2,000,000, which is relatively a much higher figure. When the British scheme matures it will be subsidized by the Government to the amount of about £02,000,000, about £3 for every insured person. When the Commonwealth scheme matures ‘the Government will be subsidizing it to the amount of about £10,000,000’ or £5 for every insured person. More need not be said to establish the fact that in the British Empire, at least, there is no insurance scheme more attractive to the working man, no more generous scheme so far as government contributions go, and none so likely to provide so comprehensive a list of benefits as will be given to working men and women when thiB bill becomes law.

Members of the Opposition have criticized the measure on many grounds. One of their main criticisms centres in the allegation that much wider proposals should have been submitted. They think that the pension scheme should be a non-contributory one. When it matures, it will involve the Government in a subsidy ofl £10.000,000, and, in addition, approximately another £10,000,000 will be provided in the form of employees’ and employers’ contributions. If a scheme of this character should bo established on a non-contributory basis, the Leader of the Opposition should show the House how he contemplates that £20,000,000 could be raised in respect merely of these limited proposals. But he would introduce a vastly wider scheme. This Government will do that in due course, but I suggest tha’t, if the establishment of this scheme on a non-contributory basis would involve the Government in the expenditure of £20,000,000 in order to maintain it, then the extension of the scheme to all the other classes to which the Government ultimately intends to extend the benefits would cost at least a further £20,000,000. I also venture the opinion that if an unemployment insurance scheme were established on a non-con- tributary basis, it would cost the Government a still further £20,000,000. I put those figures before the Opposition and invite criticism of them. I do not think the estimate could be reduced. The sum of £60,000,000 would have to be provided from government revenues in order to finance a non-contributory pensions scheme of a universal character and an unemployment insurance scheme. I invite the members of the Opposition to explain how they would provide the necessary funds to finance those proposals. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition reversing the criticism he has levelled against the Government’s proposals, and saying to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth that he would not impose upon them an additional tax, but would merely ask them for a contribution in order to finance the wider scheme; but it would be utterly impossible for any government to provide from the revenues of the Commonwealth, or to obtain by means of direct taxation, the sum of £60,000,000, which I believe is a conservative estimate of the cost of giving effect to the Opposition’s declared policy of providing non-contributory pensions and unemployment insurance schemes of a universal character. The only course open to any government which attempted to do that would be to raise the necessary funds by means of taxation. How would that be done? 1 suspect that the answer of the Opposition to that question would be that it would adopt a financial policy that from time to time we have heard propounded chiefly by the less responsible members of the party opposite. My reply to that is that upon a financial policy of that character, the Labour party has benn defeated at the polls on three, successive occasions.

I shall deal briefly with some of the objections raised to the measure by outside bodies, taking first the claim that undue discrimination is shown in the measure against women. I would say immediately, and quite unequivocally, that I realize that, in this man-made world, women need a far greater measure of protection than do men. In this Parliament, which is composed entirely of men, and in this man-made world, women are entirely men’s respon- sibility. In establishing & scheme of this character, one cannot assess the benefits for women on a strictly actuarial basis, having regard to the contributions they make to the insurance fund. That is very apparent, for the simple reason that women become relatively unemployable, for instance, very much earlier than do men. Their earning capacity, generally speaking, is never so great as that of men, and for that reason I repeat that special provisions have to be made for assessing the benefits that must be provided for women who will come under the scheme. I maintain strongly that there is no discrimination against women, as is alleged by many of the critics of this measure. I agree with the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) when he says that, if the bill is weighted at all in favour of either sex, it is weighted in favour of women rather than of men. Let us consider what may be regarded as a fairly normal experience of a woman who is affected by this bill. Take a girl who becomes insured at the age of sixteen years, marries at the age of 26 years an insured man, and continues her voluntary payment of ls. a week, becomes widowed at 50 and qualifies ultimately for an old-age pension. During that period she will pay into the fund the total sum of £141, spread over 44 years. She will be entitled to full sickness and medical benefits for nine years of that period. If she becomes a widow at the age of 50 years, she will have the widow’s pension, and she will draw in all £857 10s. from that source. She will be eligible for the old-age pension when 60 years of age, and she will draw in cash about £494. So a woman, from an expenditure of £141 spread over 44 years, will draw total cash benefits to the value of £1,351. I do not think anybody could regard that as a mean or niggardly provision for a woman. A woman who insures at the age of sixteen years, and continues to contribute until 60 years of age, will pay £141, but will draw in benefits the total sum of £507, or, at the higher rate of contribution, she will receive in benefits £676, as a pension of £1 a week. She will receive medical services of a value difficult to compute, but

I think we can set down the value over the period of 44 years at £300 ; so, from an expenditure of £141, spread over 44 years, she will draw cash benefits to the value of about £976.

The number of . women insured under this scheme will represent only 25 per cent, of the total number of persons who can be i insured. The contribution for females will amount to only two-thirds of the payments by males, li is evident therefore that total contributions by women will represent one-sixth of the total contributions made by employees to the insurance funds; yet in the early stages of the scheme, women will receive 41 per cent, of the total cash benefits. As the scheme matures they will receive 52 per cent, of the benefits. When the scheme becomes fully operative women will contribute £1,250,000 of the total - sum of £7,500,000 paid by employees, and will receive benefits amounting to £14,500,000 per annum. For every £1 paid to male contributors, £3 will be paid to women, some of whom will be contributors while others will be widows or dependants of insured persons. It is therefore quite clear that the Government has given the most favorable consideration to the claims of women. Their needs are adequately provided for, and the scheme has been heavily weighted in their favour.

I have very little to say about the objections being raised by friendly societies. I believe these organizations are doing magnificent work, but I do not share their forebodings as to their fate when this legislation becomes operative. The Government’s proposals, if put into operation, will add to the prestige of friendly societies throughout the Commonwealth, and increase their appeal to the men and women affected by the national insurance scheme. Friendly societies, generally speaking, do not exist merely for the purpose of distributing medical benefits. They have many other important activities. These will not be adversely affected by this scheme. [Quorum formed.’]

I am convinced that the experience of our friendly societies will be very largely a repetition of the experiences of similar societies in Great Britain after the introduction of national insurance there. Friendly societies have a big advantage over insurance companies and other similar institutions which they fear may supplant them, or at least heavily reduce their membership. Tha fine motives which bring men and women together in societies such as the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, the Protestant Alliance and the Independent Order of Rechabites cannot be destroyed by any measure of this kind. The wonderful character of these institutions will enable them to make an appeal to people affected by this legislation, that will greatly outweigh any disadvantages which they might suffer. Friendly societies have a personal and social appeal which more than offsets the impersonal appeal of insurance companies, notwithstanding their expenditure on advertising and propaganda. Despite any legislative enactment of this or any other Parliament, these societies would survive even though they ceased to administer medical benefits.

I wish to touch briefly upon the objections raised by members of the medical profession. I understand that the doctors are prepared to co-operate in carrying out the provisions of the bill, but desire higher remuneration. Some practitioners also seem to fear that this bill will reproduce the British panel system, under which it is suggested doctors are totally unable to cope with the work they are called upon to perform. Another objection raised by the medical profession is that the scheme is too limited in its scope and should be extended. Considered as a whole, the objections of the medical profession appear contradictory. I shall not deal at length with the criticism that the Government is not providing adequate remuneration for the medical services which will be rendered, because I do not wish to intrude in the* domestic differences of the British Medical Association. I emphasize, however, that if the Government wishes to negotiate with the medical profession, or any other profession, it must confer with the acknowledged leaders, and not with individual members. If the rank and file of the British Medical Association disagree with any agreement that the central executive has ‘ reached with the Government, it can deal with the situation by taking action against the leaders.

I have no evidence that any such action is likely to be taken. While individual medical men may or may not agree with the proposals in this bill for the remuneration of medical practitioners, the Government undoubtedly has the support of the central executive of the British Medical Association. That being so, the agreement cannot do any major injury or injustice to the medical profession.

Sitting suspended from 6.10 to 8 p.m.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– During the last few weeks, rumours, mostly wholly unauthenticated, have been circulated among honorable members purporting to show that the medical services rendered under the national health insurance scheme in Great Britain are deplorably low. The honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley), in the course of his speech, referred to one of those rumours. It was to the effect that, under the panel system in Great Britain, some doctors dealt with their patients in groups. They made no thorough examination, but, as each patient passed by, received from him a scanty account of his ailments, and then handed him a medicine from a stock jar. I am sure that the honorable member for West Sydney did not state that as a fact. He is not able to vouch for the truth of the statement, but merely put it forward as hear-say evidence regarding the operation of panel practice in England. I took the trouble to investigate that rumour. I found that no doctor in Great Britain attending insured patients under the national health insurance scheme is permitted to dispense medicines. Such doctors never dispense medicine unless they happen to practice in a remote rural area where there is no chemist. In ordinary circumstances, they are obliged to give a prescription to their patient, and that prescription must be dispensed by a chemist. I merely cite that as evidence of the dangerous and misleading statements that have been made concerning panel practice in Great Britain to-day.

Mr Beasley:

– I can produce an Australian doctor who took the place of a panel doctor in Great Britain, and who will support the statement I have made.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I have no doubt that it would be very easy at the present time to produce men who would be prepared to make such statements. I propose to produce evidence of a very much more reliable and definite character than the rumours that have been circulating during recent weeks. I propose to quote evidence given before a royal commission in Great Britain in 1926 by representatives of the National Association of Trade Unions approved societies. It is as follows -

The medical profession as a whole has rendered competent and conscientious service to insured persons.

A summary of evidence by representatives of the British Medical Association before the same royal commission is as follows : -

  1. Large numbers, indeed whole classes of persons are now receiving a real medical attention which they formerly did not receive at all.
  2. The number of practitioners in proportion to the population in densely populated areashas increased.
  3. The amount and character of the medical attention given is superior to that formerly given in the best of the old clubs, and immensely superior to that given in the great majority of the clubs which were far from the best.
  4. Illness is now coining under skilled observation and treatment atan earlier stage than was formerly the case.
  5. Speaking generally, the work of practitioners has been given a bias towards prevention which was formerly not so marked.
  6. Clinical records have been or are being provided which may be made of great service in relation to medical research and public health.
  7. Co-operation among practitioners is being encouraged to an increasing degree.
  8. There is now a more marked recognition than formerly of the collective responsibility of the profession to the community in respect of all health matters.

The British Medical Association adds -

All these are immense gains, and though it is possible that some of them may not be wholly due to the establishment of the national health insurance scheme they have certainly been hastened and intensified by that system.

The following passage occurs in the report of that royal commission -

We suggest, finally, that the only satisfactory evidence available is that which expresses the views of those who have seen the operation of medical benefit at close quarters ana -who, having seen it in bulk, are unlikely to be unduly influenced by any random deviation from tile general standard which is apt to sway the judgment of those less intimately informed on those matters.

When we contrast the attitude assumed in 1912 (the first year of operation of the British Insurance Act) by the medical profession and by considerable bodies of public opinion towards the medical service proposed under the Insurant* Act with the body of testimony which we hare now received, we can say confidently that adverse forecasts have been falsified and that medical benefit has proved in practice a successful and most valued factor in the advancement of the health of the nation.

I suppose that it would have been too much to hope that the Government could have reached an agreement regarding the treatment of insured persons under this scheme without considerable difficulty, and without giving rise to serious diversity of opinion. We are merely experiencing now what was experienced by the British Government when the national health insurance scheme was introduced in Great Britain. This scheme will be responsible for a very great extension of contract practice in Australia by the medical profession. Official statements have been made by representatives of the British Medical Association in Australia that they approve the general principle of national health insurance on an even wider basis than is proposed in this measure. That necessarily implies that they are prepared to accept the consequences of a widely extended system of contract treatment, of patients. Their acceptance of this principle overcomes, in my opinion, the major difficulty in the way of the scheme. The other difficulties are incidental, and can, I am sure, be amicably settled as they eventually were in Great Britain. There is no evidence whatever to justify the belief that the scheme will operate less satisfactorily in Australia than it did in Great Britain. Therefore, I support the bill. T commend it very warmly to the House, and T heartily congratulate the Government on having introduced it.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- The national insurance scheme was one of the principal planks of the Government’s platform when it went before the electors in October last. There cannot be room for much difference of opinion regarding the need for some sort of a national insurance scheme to safeguard and improve the standard of national health in Australia. The question has been before the public for many years, and numerous inquiries have been held. All over the world there has been a movement in recent years in the direction of improved health standards, and greater social security. The Government’s scheme may be divided into three parts, namely, old-age and invalid pensions, national health, and unemployment. 1 admit that unemployment is not dealt with specifically in the bill, but it is proposed to compensate workers who are unemployed owing to illness or injury, In my opinion, payments to workers during periods of illness or incapacity are in the nature of unemployment benefits. There is need for a system of national health insurance, not only for the sake of the wage-earner, but also for the sake of the nation as a whole. Authorities in the United States of America have gone into this matter very thoroughly in recent years, and President Roosevelt has already introduced some measures to promote social security, while others are to be introduced soon. It has been estimated that the loss to the nation from preventable deaths in the United States of America amounts to £100,000,000 a year. Even in Australia the loss from this cause must amount to many millions of pounds.

The Government has introduced this bill in order to redeem its promise dur» ing the last elections to bring in a scheme of national health insurance. It is for us now to consider what kind of scheme it is, how far it goes towards meeting the needs of the community, how costly it is going to be, what effect it will have on the social life of the nation, what are its chances of expanding and improving, and how the contributions will be levied. All insurance schemes have for their object the spreading of individual risks over the whole insured group. In every community, at a given time, there will be so many persons suffering from pneumonia, so many from appendicitis, so many from cancer, and so on. Statisticians can tell us to a decimal point how many persons out of a hundred thousand will be stricken each year with illness, but what they cannot tell is who the persons so stricken will be. The purpose of group or any other kind of insurance is to spread the risk, so that the unfortunate victim of illness will not have to bear the whole of the cost, as is the case in this country to-day. We know that, at the present time, the medical profession has to be paid by somebody, and that the predominant proportion of the cost is borne by the working section of the community, subject to such protection as i3 afforded by friendly societies. *

Any scheme of national insurance must envisage the adequate protection of the whole of that section of the community which needs it. I question whether this bill goes far enough in that respect, or as far as one might expect of a bill which is national in character. Protection in case of illness is not confined to the needs of workers only. I look forward to a state of society in which everybody will be secured against unemployment, illness and old age. Any scheme brought forward must cover the whole of the risks to which an individual is subjected, irrespective of whether he be a wageearner or in a higher salary group. All of us are aiming at some sort of security, and the purpose of every scheme of national insurance should be to provide that security for every section of the community. The bill has many weaknesses. It does not go far enough in some directions, while in other directions it imposes burdens without benefits. I congratulate the Government upon having at least had the courage to introduce some sort of a measure, even though it does not embody all the matters with respect to which I should like provision to be made. The experience of the whole world should have been taken into account before the measure was drafted. In the debate on defence matters, I stood by the Government and said that we should tune in with Great Britain. With a social measure of this character, however, I am not satisfied to tune in with Great Britain or any other particular country. I want to examine the merits of every scheme of which I can obtain particulars, so that I may pick out the best points in each and endeavour to embody them in the legislation of this country. This scheme of Sir Walter Kinnear’s is readymade, not necessarily tailor-made, to suit Australian conditions. My view is that national insurance envisages all health and medical services - in particular hospitalization, medical, nursing, and dental attention. Those are the risks against which every person in the community must be safeguarded. No matter how provident a person may be, usually as his income rises his demands are a jump ahead of the extra amount that he receives. When confronted with sudden and devastating accounts from hospitals and doctors, he is rarely in a position to meet them, or, if hn does innot them, the effect is sometimes to cripple his finances. Any scheme of national insurance which covers only one of the health risks to which the community is exposed cannot be effective in respect of those whom it is designed to protect. Any scheme which makes no provision for hospital treatment leaves on the individual who is presumed to be protected a very heavy burden of cost in that direction.

This is a monumental piece of legislation, and one of the most important financial proposals ever placed before this Parliament, because it involves a capital cost of about £2S0,000,000 spread over a period of years. I submit that, when considering such an important measure, it was the duty of the Government to examine all schemes that are functioning in other countries, to see if the best points of each could not be implemented. For many years, Australia has taken pride in the fact that it has been far ahead of other countries in its social legislation. I do not think that a great deal of pride can be associated with the introduction of a pre-war model insurance scheme. It is said that this scheme is capable of improvement. It may be ; but I cannot disregard the fact that the British scheme has been functioning since 1911, that only minor alterations have been made to it, that it does not yet cover hospitalization in relation to the insured person, and that it does not embrace wives and dependants. By means of the funds which British societies have accumulated, it has been possible to give additional benefits in certain cases, but many important factors have been neglected. I am not necessarily an admirer of Germany, but I think that that country has made the closest study of national insurance, and that the lessons which it has taught might have been learned by us. Germany is the original home of national health insurance. What is the position to-day in that country? It is claimed that this is the best scheme in the world. I point out that there arc other schemes which impartial authorities say are doing much better work. I am not suggesting that they have been established without a substantial contribution by the workers. That is necessary in any scheme, which merely represents a pooling of the funds which the worker otherwise would pay to doctors, hospitals and other agencies. The man who pays little or nothing receives no benefit, but the man who pays twenty times above the average is protected. At the present time something like £5,000,000 a year is paid for hospitalization and other services in Australia. That sum is being found by the community, and in some cases individuals are involved in a greater cost than they can afford. The British scheme is based on the principle that the contributions should be fixed on the basis of the capacity of the lowest wage unit to pay, while the benefits are in proportion to the contributions. The German scheme, which is the oldest in Europe, is based on a percentage of the wage. The same principle applies to the cash benefits in respect of unemployment. Under that scheme, an employee contributes from 1.5 per cent, to 6 per cent, of the basic wage, while his benefits in the event of illness are in the same ratio. Therefore, a man earning £6 a week receives £3 a week, while a man earning £2 a week receives £1 a week, in the event of illness. But the main point of the German scheme, and the one that appeals tome, is that the benefits include medical attention for the insured, prescribed medicines, spectacles, trusses and other minor medical and surgical appliances, subject to the assured paying a share of the cost, hospital treatment if required, medical attention for the family of the assured, maternity care, medical and hospital treatment for the wife of the assured, and the services of a specialist.

Mr Makin:

– Does that embrace the whole of the nation?

Mr ANTHONY:

– That applies only to wage-earners. Originally, the employees paid two-thirds and the employer one-third, but under a recent decree that has been altered to one-half in each case. I do not say that we could start with such a scheme - it would take a little time to develop - but I want one which has the prospect of reaching that point. 1 am afraid that this scheme may not do so. It starts on the British principle of a flat rate. I agree that a flat rate makes for simplification, but it has the effect of sacrificing equity and the need for simplicity. The bill fails to co-ordinate the health services of the country, whereas one of the essentials of a sound national health scheme is that all the agencies for health and medicine shall be brought under one unified control. The tendency throughout the world is in that direction. A royal commission which inquired into national insurance in England in 1925 recommended that the health services of a community should be organized on a basis that would give the most effective service to a community as a whole. One of the recommendations of that body reads -

Whatever changes may be made in the insurance scheme in the near future, the trend of development will be towards a unified health service.

The commission took evidence in 1926. A step forward was made in 1929 when the Local Government Act consolidated all localmedical and public health services under borough councils, excepting only national insurance.

As to bringing the insurance scheme of Britain into a unified health scheme, Dr. McLeary in the final paragraph of hisbook on national insurance said -

But the act of 1920 did not touch the insurance medical service; it remained a thing apart, practically without co-ordination with the health work of the local authorities. It needs no gift of prophecy to see that a state of things so opposed to the spirit of unification that is now everywhere at work in the health services of this country cannot long continue, and that the medical treatment provisions ot tile insurance scheme will develop, not as part ot the scheme, but as part of a great unified system of national health service.

Having expressed my views as to what a national health scheme should be, I now come to the provisions of the bill relating to pensions. I firmly believe that pensions should be placed on a sounder foundation than exists to-day. That can be done only by the adoption of a system of contributory pensions. If anything were needed to reinforce my view on that subject, it was the speech of the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) last night. On the one hand he said that the national income had grown amazingly, and that we should be capable of paying an increased pension bill year after year, whilst, on the other hand, he said that a depression was approaching, and that within a few years the Government may not be able to meet it3 commitments.

Mr Ward:

– I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr ANTHONY:

– That was the substance of the honorable member’s remarks. In my opinion the pensions system of this country should be placed on such a sound basis that it will not be necessary, as in the past, to cut down pensions or reject applications. Every honorable member knows of persons who, because of some technical difficulty, are ineligible for pensions which they need.

Mr Brennan:

– -Will there not be technical difficulties under this legislation ?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Not to the same degree, because men and women, by virtue of their contributions, will be entitled to pensions when they have reached the retiring age, regardless of their financial position at the time. Under the present system, a. thrifty person, who has accumulated more than £400, in addition to owning a cottage, is disqualified from obtaining pension benefits. Throughout the Commonwealth there are numbers of people whose income is just too much to entitle them to a pension, yet they have not sufficient to keep them. I am in favour of the contributory prin ciple in respect of pensions. It is necessary to conserve not only the physical health of the nation but ako its moral health. It is well that the community should be encouraged to be thrifty and a« independent as possible. The provisions relating to pensions have much to commend them. Any one who has given consideration to the subject must bc alarmed at the rate at which our pensions bill is growing. My principal objection to the measure now under consideration is that the health provisions should have been coupled with those relating to pensions, so that it is not possible to deal with them independently.

The bill contains a number of weaknesses. lt suffers from the defects of the British legislation in not providing for dependants. I do not complain of that omission at this stage, but I do complain that the bill is based on a principle that will make it difficult of amendment to include dependants.

Another serious defect is the omission of self-employed persons, particularly the small farmers, from its provisions. These persons are as much workers a3 are trade unionists.

Mr Mahoney:

– They should practise thrift.

Mr ANTHONY:

– They would be unable to exist if they did not do so. I shall endeavour to show that the bill will inflict considerable hardship on farmers, small shopkeepers, fishermen, kangaroo hunters, trepangers and other selfemployed persons, in that they will have to pay towards the cost of providing pensions although they themselves will not bc direct beneficiaries. There are approximately 108,000 employers in the pastoral and dairying industries of Australia who will have to contribute on behalf of nearly 197,000 employees. On the basis of the last census, those employers will have to contribute £780,000 a year, without the prospect of reaping any direct benefit from the scheme.

Mr Mulcahy:

– They can pass on the cost.

Mr ANTHONY:

– They will have to take the full impact of the cost of this measure. I agree that a good deal of the cost will be passed on, and that a proportion of the increased charges will have to be borne by the wage-earners in the community. Employers will probably regard as increased wage3 the premiums that they will have to pay and will act accordingly. The increased costs will be borne by the whole community, including the wage-earners, until finally a proportion of it will fall on the shoulders of those who cannot pass it on - I refer to the primary producers. I have already said that the wage-earners will bear a proportion of that cost, but the difference between them and the primary producers is that, whereas the wage-earners will benefit under the scheme, the others will not. The wage-earner will be entitled to his doctor, his medicine and his pension, together with benefits for his widow and children, so that, even though it may be true that a portion of the cost will be passed on to him, he will still derive some benefit from the scheme. The primary producer, however, will not be so happily situated; he will be required to contribute to a scheme which will not confer any direct benefit on him. This scheme will place a direct burden of £780,000 per annum on the primary industries of Australia, in addition, probably, to other burdens resulting from the increased cost of living. I am not able to speak with any great authority on behalf of the growers of wheat and wool, but I do claim to understand the position of the dairying industry. The time has arrived when that position should be made clear. According to the last census there are 108,000 dairy-farmers in Australia. Of that number, 20,369 are employers, including 2,000 women, chiefly widows, who are carrying on the businesses formerly conducted by their husbands. Let us examine the position of these dairyfarmers, and test their ability to pay the additional cost involved in this scheme. I have had considerable difficulty in getting out the figures for Australia relating to incomes of those persons engaged in dairy-farming, but I have been able to get information for Queensland because the Queensland Taxation Commissioner seems to be a very frank individual. His report shows that out of 12,275 dairyfarmers in that State only 99 had tax able incomes last year in excess of £250 a year.

Mr Baker:

– That is because of the high exemption limit provided by the Queensland Government.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The figures show.

I think, that all but 99 of the dairyfarmers in Queensland did not earn enough money last year to be called upon to pay income tax.

Mr Curtin:

– What is the statutory exemption ?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I think it is about £150. I am concerned with the position disclosed by this report of the Queensland Taxation Commissioner. Anybody who has had experience of the Queensland taxing system know*3 that the Commissioner in that State does not miss very much, yet he, for income tax purposes, could not assess more than 99 dairy-farmers in the whole of that State. Although, as I have shown, only 99 dairy-farmers in Queensland were called upon last year to pay income tax, no fewer than 5,288 dairy farm employers will be compelled to contribute to the Government’s scheme notwithstanding that they will get no benefit from it.

Mr Baker:

– Does the honorable member think that the Queensland Government should further reduce the exemption in order that the dairy-farmers could pay income tax?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I am merely endeavouring to show that although a considerable number of dairy-farmers in Queensland will be obliged to contribute to the Government’s scheme, very few last year earned incomes above the exemption limit fixed by the State Government,

  1. live on the Queensland border and I have a great admiration for that State. I think its possibilities are enormous, but the position of its dairy-farmers as disclosed by figures supplied by the Taxation Commissioner is deplorable.

I do not like very much the provisions in the bill relating to medical benefits. The scheme is too limited in the protection which it gives to the worker in the form of medical benefits and hospital treatment. I should have preferred more liberal treatment of contributors with respect to the cash benefit of £1 a week and 3s. 6d. for children in certain circumstances. I also think that the Commonwealth Government should have consulted with State Governments in the formulation of the measure and taken into account existing State social services. In its present form the bill will probably create some serious anomalies because it will cut across the principles of some existing State legislation of a very beneficial character.

What will be the position in New South Wales? In that State there is provision for the payment of widows’ pensions and child endowment.

Mr Gander:

– Who was responsible for that social legislation?

Mr ANTHONY:

– Mr. Lang, when Premier of that State, introduced this measure, but-

Honorable members intersecting,

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Gr. J. Bell).Order! Interjections are disorderly and are grossly unfair to the honorable member who is addressing the Chair.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I repeat that Mr. Lang introduced that legislation, but it took the technical skill of Mr. Stevens, the present Premier, to make it effective. I am afraid, however, that in the course of a few years, with the national insurance scheme in operation, some serious anomalies will arise in New South Wales. That State in 1940 will be paying pensions of £1 a week plus 10s. a week for each dependent child, to 8,000 widows whose husbands will have been dead for two years, whereas in 1941 the wife of a deceased contributor to the scheme contained in this bill, will receive 12s. 6d. a week plus 3s. 6d. a week for each dependent child. It is easy to imagine the lack of harmony that will be caused if two widows, under these respective schemes, are living as neighbours. One will be able to say to the other “ My husband contributed to the Commonwealth national insurance scheme and I get 12s. 6d. a week and 3s. 6d. child allow ance; your husband contributed nothing, yet you get £1 a week and 10s. for each child.”

The influence of the scheme on hospital finance i3 likely to be serious and I cannot help thinking that the Government should have given more consideration to this aspect of its proposal. In my opinion hospitalization is far more important than the right of the individual contributor to treatment by a doctor in his surgery. [Leave to continue given.]

I also think that the position of the friendly societies demands very careful consideration. I should add that I am not in favour of societies being extended too broadly. If we segregated the community into various occupational groups, or for other reasons, one approved society, because possibly its members have a smaller number of dependants or their occupations rendered them less liable to ill-health, would be in a more advantageous position than an approved society representing other sections of the community. I think that the friendly societies embracing all sections of the community might have reasonable claim to be the approved agents of the Government in the administration of this scheme.

The scheme will give some reasonable measure of social security to those in need of it. I believe that all sections of the people might ultimately be embraced in it up to an income of at least £500 a year.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to the suggestions that have been made by honorable members who preceded me. I had hoped that critics of the measure in the Opposition would have been able to give a lead as to what they would have done if they had had the opportunity to present such a scheme to this Parliament.

Mr Makin:

– I suppose the honorable member has a scheme in mind.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I believe in the contributory principle and I cannot see my way clear to support the amendment which strikes at the very basis of that principle. So far members of the Opposi- tion have not made any proposal that could be regarded as a national scheme. The only suggestion I have heard is that the Government’s scheme should be on broader lines and, as the amendment suggests, non-contributory. Therefore, I cannot conscientiously support the amendment. Contributions to a national insurance scheme should be based on the percentage of wages received. This would mean eventually that all sections of the community would be covered by a comprehensive plan giving a complete range of social services, the costs of which would be shared by all sections of the people.

Mr Blackburn:

– There would be no contributions by employers? Is that the idea?

Mr ANTHONY:

– I believe that employers should contribute to such a scheme. The position of the small farmer under this proposal is an invidious one, and he is entitled to consideration. When the bill is in committee I intend to submit amendments along the lines I have indicated this evening. I am sorry that I cannot be as enthusiastic for the scheme in its present form as I would like to he, but I agree with the late General Monash, who said that any plan is better than no plan at all. The Government’s proposal is a plan, and so far I have not heard any suggestion of a better one. I regret that I cannot be more enthusiastic than I am about this bill, but I hope that in the committee stage it will be considerably improved.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

.- Any form of government, if it is to survive, must “ deliver the goods “ to the masses of the people. This fact has been made apparent during the post war period. One of the reasons why the Lyons Ministry has survived is that it has achieved a notable political record, covering all phases of national life, and has a progressive programme based on sound principles for the future. This Government has now entered upon, its third term of office, and it is putting into operation a policy which most people will agree is virile and energetic. A week ago, when this Hou.se discussed the subject of national defence, the Government submitted a policy which I believe appealed to the people. To-night we are dealing with a plan for social security, which I think is equally as important as national defence. The concern for economic security is shared by all; even honorable members have recently given preliminary consideration to a proposal to provide some form of insurance for members of Parliament who lose their seats. The suggestion was agreed to by all parties, and it was notable that the scheme should bc a contributory one. Most people contemplate the possibility of an unforeseen occurrence which may leave them without sufficient financial resources to tide them over their declining years. A married worker who pays house rent, and has a wife and family dependent on him, views with concern the prospect of being unable, through sickness, to provide for the needs of his home and to pay doctors’ bills. To the working class, particularly, the present proposals of the Government come as a welcome surprise and a great relief.

This measure emphasizes the virtue of thrift. If we encourage thrift, we shall promote the welfare of the nation. There arc, roughly, two classes in the community - those who save, and those who do not. The latter are, in the main, good natured and happy, but they are a menace, not only to themselves, but also, in certain circumstances, to the social and political welfare of the nation. In bad times they have no financial resources, and find difficulty in obtaining employment. They are often swayed by the supposed attractions of getrichquick schemes, and they endanger national stability. We shall do well if we spread the doctrine of thrift and saving amongst those whose motto is “live for to-day”. Schemes of compulsory national insurance have become necessary in many countries. If any such scheme is to be cheap to the contributors, and to yield high benefits, it must be spread as far as possible over the masses. The underlying basis of the scheme submitted to us in the bill before us is that it is to be a contributory one. That is the only basis on which national insurance can be effective.

At the present time many people feel diffident about accepting the old-age pension . because they consider that its acceptance connotes inability on their part to provide for their advanced years. That objection cannot be taken to the proposed scheme, as the contributors will participate in the benefits as a distinct right. Since my entry into the national Parliament, not many years ago, the bill for invalid and old-age pensions has increased by about £6,000,000, and there is a prospect of an ever-increasing expenditure on this account. The actuaries tell U3 that 40 years hence the cost will be over £32,000,000 per annum. If we could visualize Australia becoming much more thickly populated than it is at the present time, and having much greater national wealth, we might be able to view the future with equanimity; but, according to recent statistics, the young people in the community are becoming fewer and the number of old people is becoming greater. . The most disturbing factor in our national life is that the cost of invalid and old-age pensions is rapidly increasing, and unless immigration takes place on a large scale, the population to bear the burden will not sufficiently increase. Our experience during the last eight or nine years shows that the nation cannot afford to maintain social services on the present scale unless a contributory system ‘is adopted. In 1931 the pension had to be reduced drastically, and only recently was it restored to the old level. At the International Labour Conferences at Geneva, representatives of Labour have always stood solidly for the contributory system of national insurance. Labour’s policy at past elections has always been based on that system, and it is surprising to learn that Labour has now abandoned it. It did so immediately prior to the general elections, no doubt hoping that by offering the people something for nothing it would be returned to power. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has challenged the Government to go to the people on this issue, but, at the last elections, national insurance formed an important plank of the electioneering platform of the Government. The electors voted with the full knowledge that, if any system of national insurance was introduced by the ministerial parties, it would be on a contributory basis. I shall quote a few lines from a leading article published in the Melbourne Age, of the 25th May. That journal is more inclined to support the Opposition than the Ministry. After stating that the Leader of the Opposition, in hia speech on this bill, had re-affirmed the policy foreshadowed at the last elections, it went on to say -

But national insurance experience abroad and actuarial investigation at home have so combined as to commend the principle as generally acceptable to the Australian people. The abandonment of that principle would now mean, for immediate practical purposes, the abandonment of the bill.

The Opposition clearly desires to destroy the measure. The Age is right, and I fail to see how the masses can hope to gain any political advantage through the attitude of the Opposition to the bill.

I shall refer briefly to some of the benefits proposed under the bill. Persons of any age from sixteen to 65 years can become contributors under the scheme. There are no selected lives, and no medical examination will be required. Over 1,S50,000 are to be compulsorily insured. The medical benefits consist of free general practitioner services, and in times of sickness there will be a pension of 20s. a week for men and 15s. a week for women in addition to an allowance of 3s. 6d. a week for each dependant. At the convalescent stage the payment for males is 15s. a week and for females 12s. 6d. a week plus allowances for dependants. The scheme is actuarially based on a commencement age of sixteen years. For the contribution of £7 16s., a person may guarantee the payment of a widow’s pension for life, and a pension for each child up to fifteen years. A person paying into the scheme for only 26 weeks becomes entitled to sickness benefit of £1 a week, and, if a male, a benefit of £1 a week upon attaining the age of 65 years, and, if a female, a pension of 15s. a week on attaining the age of 60 years. Persons who pass out of the income range may continue voluntary contributions for an old-age pension. This clearly indicates how great «re the benefits for the small contributions required.

The following table compares the benefits provided under the British health and pensions scheme with those proposed under this bill . -

The plain fact that emerges from a study of these figures is that Australia is now proposing to put into operation the most liberal health and pensions insurance scheme in the world.

The proposals for the administration of the scheme have led to some controversy. The Government has acted wisely in limiting the approved societies to those having a membership of more than 2,000. The friendly societies have made a strong demand for a monopoly of the administration of the scheme. Having mixed a good deal with friendly societies’ members and attended many of their meetings, I have no hesitation in saying that they represent the thinking class of our community. Most of the members of the various lodges take their work seriously, and interest themselves in the problems which affect the life of the nation. People of such calibre are worthy of sympathetic consideration. Overshadowing this consideration, however, is the desirableness of preserving for people the free right to choose their associates. That right is being retained under this bill. The principal friendly societies of Victoria are the United Ancient Order of Druids, the Manchester

Unity, the Australian Natives Association, the Independent Order ofRechabites, the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society, and the Protestant Alliance.

Mr Blackburn:

– Thirteen men’s societies are operating.

Mr HUTCHINSON:

– That may be so, but I have named the principal organizations. It will be realized instantly that these organizations give plenty of room for members with great divergence of views in religious and other spheres. So I say that freedom of choice is being preserved to the community. The friendly societies fear that unless they are given a monopoly of the administration of the scheme their stabilitymay be seriously undermined; but experience in Great Britain has disproved all such forebodings. In the early days of the British national insurance scheme many people thought that the friendly societies would he seriously affected, but time has dissipated such ideas. I admit that conditions in Australia and Great Britain are not exactly similar in relation to benefits or contributions; but though I have no specific figures to give, I assert, with a reasonable degree of confidence, that the per capita wealth of the Australian worker is greater than that of the English worker, if this scheme is brought into operation I believe that our friendly societies will have a wider field of potential members to explore than is at present open to them. I impress this view upon the friendly societies. Whenever I see a large party of visitors in Canberra on the occasion of a parliamentary sitting I am inclined to look for the “ nigger in the woodpile “. It seems to me that the purpose of the visit of the representatives of the friendly societies to Canberra at this juncture is to win for their various orders all the benefits they can. That is not improper from their point of view, but these organizations arc not in danger of losing anything like as much as they fear. In my opinion, the introduction of this scheme will develop an insurance mind in the community. A new realization will bc awakened of the value of the scheme, if not at once at least very soon after it has become operative. The friendly societies have an aggregate membership of about 600,000, whereas the provisions of the bill are designed to cover approximately 2,000,000 people. The 1,400,000 persons above the present membership of the friendly societies, while including some who cannot afford friendly society membership, also include many who have simply not bothered to interest themselves in insurance. When they are compelled to do so they will quickly realize how beneficial the insurance is, and many will be ready to apply for friendly society membership. It is logical to assume that the heads of families will rapidly come to appreciate the value of sickness benefits, medical benefits and pension rights, and will take all possible steps to safeguard their families. I have had personal experience of the benefits of insurance, as have other honorable members of this House. I believe that the compensating factors in the scheme which the Government has put before us go far to outweigh any disadvantages. I understand that under this scheme the capitation fee allowed for new members to any approved society will be ls. as an inducement to recruit members. The present 600,000 members of friendly societies may all be regarded as potential campaigners for new members. If a membership campaign be initiated at once, the societies should have little to fear from the operation of the measure. Controversy has also been engendered by statements that the bill discriminates unfairly against women, as they will be granted a pension of only los. a week, whereas the pension for men will be £1 a week. The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) gave some figures which, in my opinion, amply demonstrated that the whole scheme is highly favorable to women. Females will only have to subscribe for medical benefits and pensions, whereas male subscribers will also have to contribute for widows’ pensions, orphans’ pensions and dependants’ allowances. Moreover, female subscribers will obtain their pensions five years earlier than will male subscribers. For these reasons I submit that th scheme is definitely favorable to women. [Quorum formed.] In a clause to be added to the bill provision will be made whereby women may pay an extra 6d. a week and thus qualify for the full pension of £1. In any outside insurance company she would, in order to obtain this benefit, have to pay a premium at the rate of 2s. 6d. a week as against ls. Cd. under the Government’s scheme.

Frequent reference has been made to the fact that it is not proposed under the scheme to provide medical benefit for wives and dependants of insured persons. It has been implied by the critics of the scheme that, while provision is being made for the bread-winner, nothing at all is being done in respect of his wife and dependants. Statements of that kind are just so much nonsense. Our whole social and economic system is based on the principle that the husband or breadwinner is responsible for the maintenance of bis wife and children. When a man marries, he undertakes an obligation to maintain his wife and family. Our industrial laws are based on the principle that a man’s wage must be sufficient to maintain himself, his wife and two children. The system is ako based on necessity. Once a woman marries, the care of a home and of her children precludes her participation in outside employment. The only other system in the world, of which I know, is that which I saw working in Russia, where the wife works in the same way as her husband. There the married women go out and sweep the streets or navvy on the railways or work in the factories, leaving their children in a creche until they return at night. I do not think, hovever, that anybody wants that system to be introduced into Australia. I still believe that we are the race that we are to-day, because we have been reared around the hearth. However, although our economic system is based on the principle of the support of the family by. the bread-winner, the State is not entirely relieved of all responsibility towards the bread-winner’s wife and dependants; with that I agree. It was proposed by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) that the Government should subsidize the friendly societies so that they might extend benefits to the wives and dependants of insured persons. This could be done in one of two ways. The Government could make the subsidyavailable through the societies in. respect of those already in the present insurance scheme. In that case, there would be no subvention to friendly societies as we have them at present, but only to what would be known as approved societies. A field of activity relating to wives and dependants, which is now left to friendly societies, would thus be seriously invaded. We must look to the future and realize that a measure is now being framed whereby the small farmer and small shopkeeper will eventually be brought into some kind of insurance scheme. When that is brought about it will be only right that the wives and dependants of such persons should receive the same benefit as the wives and dependants of those whom it is proposed to insure under the present scheme. We should then be bringing into the approved societies another large group of persons who would ordinarily be eligible lo become members of ordinary friendly societies. This would constitute a further invasion of the field open to the friendly societies as we know them. Thus it would seem that there will eventually be little left for . the friendly societies to do, and that they will be practically extinguished. All we shall leave to them is that class of persons who join the society in the early stages of their career and then are allowed to retain their membership after their income passes the prescribed limit. If we wish to reduce the sphere of activities of the friendly societies there is no surer way of doing it than by this method. If that is done the approved societies will flourish, but the ordinary friendly societies will tend to decay.

We must remember also that if the Government i3 merely to subsidize these societies the scheme will not, in the strict sense of the word, be a scheme of national insurance at all. ft will simply be a matter of doling out money to these institutions, as we might pay a bounty to an industry. Our experience has taught us that once a government begins to make grants in this way it is very difficult to stop. Bounties are rarely reduced ; if they are varied at all it is generally in the direction of increasing them.

Many of the objections to the Government’s scheme, both by societies and doc: tors, arc based upon supposition. The same objections were raised in the early days of the British scheme, and nearly all of them were dissipated by time. It may prove eventually that the fears of the friendly societies will prove groundless. The scheme may develop in such a way that the societies will still be able to offer attractive advantages to their members. I believe that there is only one sound way of running an insurance scheme of this kind, and that is to get away from the system of subsidies, and to place it on a contributory basis. No doubt the friendly societies will suffer to some extent in the immediate future, but 1 believe that it will be found eventually that there will remain1 for them a sufficiently large field to enable them to carry on.

I do not agree with those honorable members who wish to bring practically all classes of persons under the scheme immediately. There i.s a saying that it is unwise to put an untrained horse at a stiff obstacle. The introduction of this scheme constitutes a serious obstacle at the moment, and we must be careful. The present is only the foundation of the scheme as it will eventually be. It is actuarially sound, but defects may be discovered after it comes into operation. I am convinced, however, that any scheme introduced into this House by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) will be framed cautiously, and rightly so. He is not the man who would risk introducing a scheme that was likely to fail. After a careful study of the figures relating to the English scheme, which I have already quoted, I make bold to say that before our scheme is in operation for many years it will be found possible to extend the benefits materially without increasing the contributions. It may be that it will be found possible, without increasing contributions, to extend medical benefits to the wives and dependants of insured persons, as honorable members have requested.

Requests have been made that the scheme should be extended to cover small farmers and shopkeepers and others who are usually referred to as self-employed persons. The difficulties in the way of including them are tremendous. In the first place we must face the fact that, because in their case there is no third party to contribute, they themselves would probably be called upon to pay double the rates that the wage-earners are being asked to pay. That would largely destroy the attractiveness of the scheme so far as they are concerned. It would also be necessary that any scheme covering such persons should be on a voluntary basis, so that fewer persons would be included in the scheme, and costs would be greater. It might also be necessary to base the scheme according to age. 1 can understand that, from the viewpoint of the Treasurer, those difficulties appear to be insuperable. Only within recent years has Great Britain been able to evolve a scheme, and it is not a very attractive one. I say quite definitely that these people are as worthy of being assisted as are those who come under this measure. We have to realize that the burden due to this scheme will be fairly great, and that any other scheme which is prepared should give benefits as nearly as possible equal to those incorporated in this measure. I can see only one. way in which the Government could make provision for benefits proportionately as great as are here provided for. and that is by a fairly liberal grant by the Treasury.

That being the case, if we are to keep social services within responsible limits, we have to be careful in regard to additional expenditure in other directions.

The subject of migration has been mentioned only once during the course of this debate. The Treasurer, in his secondreading speech, gave some astounding figures which must receive very serious consideration. He said that a study of the statistics of Australia discloses the fact that, in less than 40 years from the present time, the population of this country will begin to decline unless there is an inrush of migrants. This bill has an important bearing on the migration problem. Workers in England who have been covered by the national scheme of insurance there cannot be expected, apart from other considerations, willingly to forgo all the benefits accruing to them. The bill provides for an adjustment to be made with the National Insurance Commission in Great Britain, whereby any insured person who comes to Australia will retain the benefits to which he is entitled. That is of paramount importance. During my visit to Great Britain in 1935, this matter was mentioned more than once by responsible persons when speaking about the migration problem. The provision in the bill does not appear very important, but, in my opinion, it is most important in its bearing upon the peopling of our empty spaces.

I would quote once again from the leading article which appeared in the Melbourne Age, because if entirely meets my view. It concludes with the following words : -

Having regard to the social magnitude of what is being attempted, progress by instalments would seem to be the sound maxim.

I believe in that implicitly. This is merely a foundation. Let us build it as surely and as soundly as we can, and then prove it. A thing can be proved only by years of experience. If our foundation be sound, we can build upon it with every feeling of security. The reports of the actuaries furnish more than once the reason why we should build our foundation well. They say -

In conclusion, we would emphasize the fact that, although the foregoing estimates have been made upon the most reliable information available, they depend upon many factors which cannot be forecast with accuracy.

In other words, there are certain unknown factors that have simply been guessed at in the evolving of this bill. I suggest that it would be wise to prove our foundation before attempting to build further. Again I say that it is dangerous to gallop a horse over a strange obstacle. 1 believe that the right procedure for this Parliament is carefully to follow the progress of this scheme until it has been proved sound, and then begin to extend it. As I mentioned earlier, it may be proved possible - I believe that it will - to extend the benefits on the basis of existing contributions. I agree with those honorable members who desire the extension of the scheme. On the medical side, there are such matters as X-ray treatment, institutional treatment, dental treatment, and treatment by specialists. All of those services should be available to the contributors. Overshadowing all else is the necessity to produce a bill which will deal with the unemployment situation. That matter, we know, involves agreement among the States, which so far has not been obtained. The problem must be tackled as soon as financial considerations permit. The adoption of all of these schemes, or the extension of the present scheme in that direction, must mean increased taxation or an addition to the already almost overwhelming cost of federal administration. The Treasurer pointed out the other day that in 1914 the cost of administering Commonwealth activities was only about £20,000,000, and that to-day it is something like £90,000,000, while next year a heavier expenditure is contemplated on defence and social services. Is there not every reason, therefore, for us thoroughly to test out a social service of this magnitude so as to make sure that we shall not saddle the taxpayer with a hurden that will delay economic progress? 1 believe that, if we proceed slowly and carefully, we shall be acting rightly. By eliminating faults disclosed by experience, and building on such ground as has been proved, I believe that we shall have in Australia the finest social system in the world, and one that will be the pride of Australia and the envy of less happy lands.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- The Government has introduced a measure which will be a landmark in the legislative history of this country. It is one of the greatest departures ever witnessed from the normally accepted principle of social services and the financing of them in Australia. I regret that, notwithstanding the faint eulogy of some honorable members opposite, the bill falls far short of what we might expect from the Government on such an important occasion.

I have listened with interest to the speeches of Government members. ‘The speech of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) overflowed with optimism. All the difficulties confronting him were lightly swept aside. We were told that those sections of the community which will be affected by this legislation will gladly welcome it. The honorable gentleman professed to be supported by the very latest data furnished by his actuarial experts. From his very high tone of optimism, the debate has gradually gravitated through the speeches of honorable members who are expected to support him. They have viewed with pleasure some of the good points of the bill, and have criticized many of the bad points and omissions. Other honorable members on the Government side, apparently, are buoyed up by the hope that those provisions which they expected to find in the bill will some day be enacted. Last, but not least, the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) congratulated the Government .upon having introduced “some sort of an insurance scheme “. To quote the words of Sir John Monash, he said, “ Any old plan is better than no plan at all “. I suggest that that is the wrong way in which to approach a matter of this description. There is something which should have been accomplished long before this legislation, namely, legislation to deal with one of the greatest problems which faces civilization to-day, that of unemployment. The workers in industry should be given an equitable share of the wealth that they produce, in order that they might adequately provide for themselves and their families food, clothing and shelter. I believe that the ill health which afflicts most of the people of this country to-day springs largely from an insufficiency of the .necessaries of life due to low wage standards and the effect of unemployment.

One of the worst features of the bill is that it fails to deal with the child life of the community. As child life is the real basis of the health of the community and the real hope of the future, that should have been the first consideration of the Government. It is interesting to note what facts have been disclosed within recent years concerning the condition of child life in Australia. The 1933 census showed that 965,000 children under the age of sixteen years- 50 per cent, of the total number - belong to parents who are earning less than £3 a week. I suggest that, in such circumstances, a good deal remains to be done in the preservation of the health of child life in this country before we deal with a national health insurance scheme which embraces the limited number of persons for whom provision is made under this bill. In 1937 there appeared in the Australian Medical Journal an article by Dr. Black, of New South Wales, in which he pointed out that in Australia there were more than 200,000 unemployed persons with dependent children. He explained that that meant that probably 500,000 people had insufficient food and were badly housed and poorly clothed. The latest report of the Infectious Diseases Office of the Melbourne City Council showed that of 1,000 children between the ages of two years and six years who were medically examined, only 17 per cent, were deemed to show no defects. At the age of two years, 16 per cent, were underweight; at three years, 18 per cent.; at four years, 23 per cent. ; and at five years, 43 per cent. These are not mere actuarial calculations, but the results of medical observations by people charged with the responsibility of reporting to authorities of the Melbourne City Council regarding the health of children of that city. In May, 1936, Dr. Hilda Bull, in a report to the Medical Health Officer, of Melbourne, said that of 219 children between two and three years of age only 26.5 per cent, were without defect; of 273 children between three and four years of age, only 20 per cent, were without defect; of 269 children between four and five years of age, only 14 per cent, were without defect; and of 248 children between the ages of five and six years only 6 per cent, were without defect. Perhaps the most scathing condemnation of the condition of child life in Australia to-day was that of the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) who, when Minister for Health, told the Millions Club, in Sydney, that -

Of Australia’s 2,000,000 children, it has been shown that 40 per cent, are suffering from malnutrition.

That statement was sufficient to cause any Government to realize that the children of the community are the section which primarily needs attention. The problem that confronts that section is either that their parents, if in employment, lack sufficient of the wealth which they help to produce to enable them to provide their children with adequate food, clothing and shelter, or that the effect of unemployment is ravaging the juvenile section of the community. Yet that is a section which the Government definitely excludes from any benefits under this bill. From this vast reservoir of child life is drawn the manhood and womanhood of tomorrow. Future generations, this bill notwithstanding, will inherit all the physical defects of the children of to-day. Definitely, any health scheme which takes up a human being only when he or she becomes a unit in industry, savours of an attempt to lock, bolt and bar- the stable door after the horse has bolted. This scheme in effect absolutely avoids the causes of ill health and seeks merely to “ monkey “ with the effects. It abandons entirely the child life by excluding it from the benefits of this legislation. That is one of the worst defects of the bill.

Another defect is that the measure does not provide adequately for the womanhood of the community. The Treasurer lightly said that the insured person can make what arrangements he likes in regard to his wife and family, but I remind him that the people whom this bill is intended to include are those w-ho earn less than £7 a week. When we consider that they are already subjected to a wages tax, and, under this bill, will be subjected to a health tax, there will be very little left for them with which to provide for their wives and children with additional friendly society payments. In any event, even if it could be said that generally the insured persons could provide for their dependants by other means, it must be evident to every one that the poorer people would be worse treated from the point of view of health because of their inability to make such provision.

Another point about this measure is that the scheme cannot be successful without the full co-operation of the medical profession. No matter how good the scheme might be on the surface, its success will depend largely on the enthusiasm with which it is taken up by the medical profession. If the doctors merely join the scheme because they have to be parties to it, but have no enthusiasm for it, it will not be in the interests of the insured persons, or of the community in general. I ask how that co-operation can be assured under present conditions. In hi3 secondreading speech the Treasurer said -

As the result of negotiations with the federal council of the British Medical Association, an agreement has been reached with the profession for a period of five years, for the payment of a capitation fee of lis. per annum for each insured person entitled to medical benefit under the scheme.

I do not hesitate to say that the Treasurer definitely and clearly gave the House to understand that the medical profession was in every sense agreeable to the Government’s proposal. The honorable gentleman gave us to understand that the representatives of the medical profession had agreed that the recompense to them for the services that they would render was all that could be desired.

Mr Casey:

– Not at all.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– If the honorable gentleman did not mean that, he said nothing at all ; or else plain language has lost its meaning. The real facts are disclosed in the Medical Journal of Australia. I shall quote from it, although there . is no need for me to do so, because . every honorable member has received deputations from medical men in his own electorate on this subject. Whilst I am not disposed to pander to any section which might come under the scope of legislation dealt with by this Parliament, I feel bound to say that the medical profession has made out an excellent case. Unless something is done to remedy the dissatisfaction, which ha3 reached the heights of revolt in New South Wales, at least, the medical profession will not take to the bill with the enthusiasm that will be necessary to ensure the success of the scheme.

Mr Casey:

– A very helpful observation !

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I do not care whether it is helpful or not. When I have finished my speech, I think that the House will agree that the Treasurer’s contribution to the settlement of this difficulty was not a happy one. I shall read what the Medical Journal of Australia, the’ official journal of the medical profession, said. If what is contained in this article is true, I say definitely that the federal council of the medical profession was “ double-crossed “ by the Government. The article stated -

Although the executive committee regarded the Government’s proposals as inadequate, no difficulty waa experienced in reaching an agreement with regard to conditions of service other than financial.

It would appear that the medical profession was prepared to fall in with the Treasurer in regard to everything that he placed before them, except the financial aspect of the agreement. That is the bone of contention to-day. The article went on to say -

In regard to the financial aspect of these conditions an impasse was reached and the conference adjourned to enable the executive to make further proposals.

The conference resumed in Sydney, on the 27th March, … it did not appear possible that the Commonwealth Govern ment representatives would agree to a higher capitation fee than Ils. . . .

At the conclusion of this conference with the Commonwealth representatives, they were informed that, whereas the federal executive committee had come to this agreement, it distinctly stated that the members of the association could not be bound by it, and it made this statement knowing that the profession at large were entirely ignorant of the proposals.

The Treasurer did not tell us that, and I challenge him now to deny that when the executive committee of the British Medical Association met with Commonwealth officers and had this agreement providing for lis. a member forced upon it, the representatives of the association gave him definitely to understand that the members of the association could not be bound by it, and they made that statement knowing that the profession at largo was entirely ignorant of the proposals. With the exception of those officials of the medical organization who met the Government, the medical profession as a whole was quite unaware of what it had been committed to. The Government was distinctly given to understand that the members of the medical profession could not be bound by the agreement, and yet the Treasurer said that representatives of the Government came toan agreement with the medical profession to provide first-class medical services at the rate of11s. a year in respect of each insured person.

Mr Casey:

– I repeat it now.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– The article from which I have quoted continued -

  1. . The profession remained in this stateof ignorance until the introduction of the bill, the federal executive Having given an undertaking, at the request of the Government representatives, that these terms should not be disclosed. This promise was duly honoured, much to the detriment of the profession.

That is the ground for my claim that the Government “ double-crossed “ the profession. It bound representatives of the medical profession to secrecy, requiring them not to disclose even to its own members the terms of the agreement until the bill hadbeen introduced into this Parliament. Coincid en tally with its introduction, the Treasurer said that the medical profession had accepted something of which it now appears its members knew nothing. Those facts cannot be denied. Unquestionably, the medical profession in New South Wales is seething with discontent in regard to this matter. There is ample ground for that discontent. Representations have been made to me regarding that section of workers whose earnings are about £6 or £7 a week. They comprise, largely, middle-class patients to whom members of the medical profession look for a fair proportion of their income to enable them to carry on at the present scale lodge fees and devote a certain proportion of their time to charitable assistance in hospitals. This bill will deprive the medical profession of these paying patients, because such people will ‘become members of approved societies and doctors will be forced to take a sufficient number of them in order to have an income which will guarantee to them an adequate standard of living. But, having that proportion of members of approved societies, it will be impossible for medical men to give their patients proper attention. The result will be to encourage the system of panel doctors that is operating under the British scheme. Experience has shown that the doctors in the United Kingdom have their hands so full that they are unable to give special attention to their patients. The Treasurer said further -

The medical benefit provided under the scheme willbe a first-class general practitioner service, available to every insured person, wider in scope than that generally provided under existing contract practice.

In view of the circumstances which I have mentioned, what guarantee can the Treasurer give that the insured will get a first-class general practitioner service wider in scope? How can he guarantee that, in these circumstances, patients will get treatment equivalent to that given to ordinary lodge patients to-day? In this connexion, I cite again the experience of the working of the act in Great Britain. When speaking before dinner this evening, the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) made a number of references to the attitude” of the medical profession. After dinner, he continued, fortified with a mass of type-written material, dealing with the position in Great Britain. I venture the opinion that the material which the honorable member used after dinner was obtained in the interval ; it had been prepared by experts who are advising the Government, and was ready for use whenever it was required. For the information of honorable members. I quote a statement made by the secretary of the Trade Union Congress in Great Britain. Referring to the recommendation made by Sir Walter Kinnear in connexion with the proposal to establish a national insurance scheme in this country, hestated -

Sir Walter recommends for Australia the same kind of medical benefit as we have here, namely a general practitioner service as set out in paragraph 3.4 of his report. Our criticism of that service is that it is not by any means complete. The practitioner has no link with consultants or specialists of any kind. and tlie range of services that he can give is strictly limited. This again is, in our opinion, a very serious drawback in the medical benefit, and, although a royal commission as far back as 1025 recommended the provision of a consultant and specialist service, it has not yet been done. lt will be seen that we are just thirteen years behind the recommendations of the royal commission which investigated the British scheme, and in the light of views expressed by the secretary of the trade union movement in Great Britain after many years’ experience of the British scheme there is some justification for the criticism that has been levelled against this measure.

The bill provides that male contributors who are married shall be entitled to £1 a week sick pay, and female contributors to only 15s. a week. What justification is there for this discrimination in a national insurance bill ? I could understand such a provision as this appearing in an ordinary insurance proposal of an insurance company run for profit under which contributors would get what they paid for; but I was under the impression that the purpose of this national scheme is to provide the very best service for every man or woman who is unfortunate enough to be stricken with illness. Do supporters of the Government seriously contend that a sick woman can live on a less amount weekly than a sick man? It must be remembered also that the great majority of female contributors who will come under this part of the act have been forced into industry in order, possibly, to maintain a sick or unemployed husband or dependent children, and they must be contributors, although on a lower scale of wages. In these circumstances, a. female contributor will be in an infinitely worse position to meet all the expenses incidental to illness than a male contributor will be, yet the Government suggests that they can live on 5s. a week less than is paid to a male contributor.

Those clauses of the bill dealing with maternity benefits display a remarkable reversal of policy in the treatment of mothers and other persons. Clause 47 debars expectant mothers, who are contributors, from medical treatment or attendance in respect of confinements, but clause 50 enacts that “ a person shall not be disqualified from receiving medical benefit under this act by reason that his sickness has been caused by his own mis conduct.” What an extraordinary contradiction ! This national health bill refuses medical help to a woman in confinement, but provides medical assistance to a man or woman ill a sickness that may have been due to misconduct! A later clause enacts that an insured woman shall not be entitled to sickness benefit for a period of four weeks after her confinement unless she is incapacitated by a disease or disablement not connected directly or indirectly with her confinement. Thus we have this anomaly. A woman may be in a most serious condition of health - a condition that on occasions impelled the then Minister for Health (Mr. Hughes) to make some very strong pronouncements about maternal mortality to the press - yet be debarred from sickness or medical benefits during confinement and for one month after confinement, while & male or female contributor suffering from some contagious disease due, perhaps, to misconduct, will be entitled to sickness and medical benefits. This is a most remarkable state of affairs in connexion with a bill of this nature. In the vast majority of cases women contributors who need this care have been forced on to the industrial treadmill to maintain unemployed husbands and dependent children, yet they are told - “ There i-= nothing for you, get back to the industrial treadmill “. Vital statistics show that 5.3 of mothers died during childbirth in 1936. I am aware that this criticism of the bill will be met with the statement that the Maternity Allowance Act provides maternity allowances; but I would point out that soon after the inauguration of that scheme, the maternity allowance was more than absorbed in medical and nursing fees. Practically no portion of the allowance is to-day available for the proper attention and after care of the mother.

In New South Wales, money for the payment of widows’ pensions was provided originally from revenue. The Commonwealth, with all the taxation resources at its disposal, should follow suit. We are told, of course, that in New South Wales there is the means test, but that there will be no such test in connexion with payments under this bill. I remind the House that the insured persons will he those whose incomes range from very small wages up to £7 a week. The Government’s intention, of course, is to shift the responsibility for the social services of the Commonwealth from the shoulders of the wealthy section to the shoulders of the workers. In this respect it is merely following the lead of the Stevens Government in New South Wales, which now taxes the workers’ wages to pay widows’ pensions.

The Treasurer has directed attention to the fact that the pensions bill this year will be approximately £15,850,000. lie has also stated that in 40 years’ time it will be about £32,000,000. I suggest that his figures are purely speculative. In any case he has given us no indication of what his expert actuaries consider the population of this country will be 40 years hence. Nor has he produced figures to show what will be the percentage of pensioners to population, or what will be the wealth production of tho Commonwealth, or what will be the state of Government finance. In the absence of this information, even if we assume that 40 years hence the pension bill will be £32,000,000, I suggest that the figures which he has given are nothing more nor less than a bogy to scare honorable members into believing that some new scheme to finance pensions must be adopted. There is on record the witticism that, although figures do not lie, some liars can figure. I have no doubt that it is quite easy for actuarial experts to furnish a set of figures to suit any particular case. Figures can be made to suit, the scheme on either a liberal or a conservative basis, and probably an instruction was issued by the Treasurer that the expected results should be calculated on a very conservative basis to justify the claim that the social service legislation should be founded entirely on a contributory basis. It has been suggested that under this new scheme the taint of charity will be removed, but we did not hear anything from honorable members opposite at the last election about the taint of charity being associated with the invalid and old-age pensions. There was no such suggestion in the speeches of the Prime Minister. Whenever he faced that issue he made it known that in his opinion the pension was not a charitable gift, but that the old folk were entitled to it as a recompense for their services to the community.

The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) said that one of the greatest virtues of the scheme is that no means test will be applied to applicants for old-age pensions who are contributors. I suggest that a large proportion of those who reach the pensionable age will be subjected to a means test. A very small proportion of the insured people will enjoy any benefits under the pensions section of this legislation. Anybody who interests himself in industrial affair’s to-day, knows that in many industries workers are declared to be old at 50 years of age, and that very few of them remain in industry until they are 65 years of age. The only persons to whom the means test will not be applied will be those able to remain in industry until they are at least 63 years of age. The great majority of those who will be covered by the scheme will be those working in heavy industries. During the last ten years the tendency has been to discharge men from industry at a lower age than previously. Within 40 years, probably not 2 per cent, of the insured persons will remain in heavy industries until they reach the age of 63 years. It is true that the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act will remain in force, and it is also true that the benefits of that act will be available, but the means test will be applied, and only the small percentage of insured workers who remain in industry up to the age of 65 years will be able to take advantage of this measure. The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) spoke of the excellent insurance cover that the workers will get under the proposed scheme, and he claimed that no insurance company would grant, similar benefits. But he did not draw attention to the fact that very few of the workers in industry will bc able to get the old-age pension under the present act, and will be forced to take advantage of the Invalid and Old Age Pensions Act under which the means test will be applied.

Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have declared that a great virtue of the scheme under consideration is that the benefits will be guaranteed. The Prime Minister said that the payment of the present pensions depended on th> stability of public finance. He instanced the legislation passed in 1931. under which pensions and social services were reduced, and asserted that, in the depths of a depression the revenue of the Commonwealth could not bear the strain which the payment of social services at the full rate would impose, and he claimed that the benefits would be guaranteed under the present proposals. 1 contend that the financial strength of the proposed scheme, and the Treasury, will be dependent on exactly the same economic circumstances. We have no reason to suppose that if this scheme had been in operation in 1931, when hundreds of thousands of persons were unemployed and suffered from malnutrition and other sickness disabilities, it would not have been subjected to the same degree of strain as Aas the Treasury in the payment of the invalid and old-age pensions. When, through economic circumstances, the incomes of the people are low, the receipts of the Treasury from income taxation are also low. *[Leave to continue given.’]

A scheme, such as this, which depends on the taxation of the poorer sections of the community will be the first to feel the effects of economic depression, and I venture to say that the adverse effects of depression would be more noticeable in connexion with a scheme of this kind than it would be even in the Treasury itself. There is nothing to guarantee that the financial position of the national insurance fund would be any more stable at a time of depression than was the position of the Treasury in 1931. Some honorable members opposite draw comfort from the suggestion that in a period of economic stress the Treasury would, come to the assistance of this scheme, but it might not be in a position to do so. The solvency of this scheme will depend not upon the amount which the contributors pay, but upon the misfortunes of the contributors. It is tragic to discover that the solvency of the scheme will depend on the forfeiture of benefits through the death of contributors and the distress caused through unemployment.

A man may pay into the insurance fund for 40 or 45 years, but if he can find no place in industry as he approaches the pension age all his payments will go by the board. The greater the misfortunes of the contributors, the greater will be the solvency of the scheme.

I refuse to regard this bill as anything but a taxing measure. Although it constantly refers to contributions, I refuse to look upon the payments to be made as contributions. Since the payments are to be compulsory, they are merely a form of tax, to the unequal incidence of which I object. For instance, a basic wage earner, or even a lower paid worker, is expected to pay the same amount of tax as a man who earns £7 a week. Employers of labour are to be taxed, and, the greater the number of men they employ, the more tax they will pay. Is that sound economics? The only comfort to be drawn by an employer is found in the statement in the second-reading speech of the Treasurer that at least it will he something for the employer to know that his employees will he kept in good health under the scheme. Whilst the basic wage-earner is to be taxed so that he may get the old-age pension without a means test, and the worker is to be taxed from the age of sixteen years until he earns £7 a week to provide him with the old-age pension, a man earning over £7 a week will escape entirely. He can waste the whole of his substance, but, when he reaches the pensionable age, he will get the pension practically on the same basis as the man who has contributed all his life towards the cost of the pension. Again, I shall be met with the argument that there will be no means test, and I repeat that the only chance ‘the worker will have to get the old-age pension under this scheme without a means test will be by remaining in industry until he is at least 63 years of age. If a man falls out of employment at the age of 63 years, he will be entitled to the benefits of two years of suspended payments, but nothing more. He may, therefore, contribute to the scheme during the greater part of hi* life and yet find himself ultimately without a pension from it, whereas another man who has wasted an unlimited income may apply for and obtain an old - age pension without having made any contribution whatever. This scheme does not tax the rentier class which owns half the slum areas of cities. Individual members of that class may employ a rent collector, a professional bailiff, and a man who theoretically repairs cottages, but rarely actually- does so, yet they will not be obliged to contribute. Probably more ill-health is caused by the slum areas of cities than anything else. Moneylenders also will be exempt from contribution. These people employ a clerk or two, but in actual fact they neither toil nor spin, yet they reap a rich harvest at the expense of the general community. Taxation which falls heavily on the workers and does not fall at all on people such as I have just referred to is entirely inequitable and should not be tolerated.

I also abject to the scheme because it discriminates against women who, in a very real sense, are to-day an integral part of our industrial and economic structure. Women receive less of the world’s wealth than they are entitled to, but this misfortune should not bear doubly upon them through a diminution of the benefits in time of sickness. They should receive treatment comparable with that accorded to male subscribers. A cherished principle of taxation the world over is that people should pay according to their means, but we do not deny protection to people because they cannot pay taxes. Otherwise the police force would not be called upon to protect persons who have no income. If the contention of the Prime Minister and Treasurer is correct, the man on low wage3 who pays no income tax would have no right to share, on an equal basis with wealthy taxpayers, the amenities and services provided by the Government from taxation. Such an argument is ridiculous.

If this scheme is put into operation “ approved societies “ should be confined to friendly societies and trade unions which have engaged in the same class of work as friendly societies. These organizations have successfully organized medical benefits for our community for a long while and their claim to consideration should be admitted. They have shown beyond question that they are capable of carrying out the work that will have to be done. I am totally opposed to the inclusion of insurance companies among the l! approved societies “ for, in my opinion, they have not justified their claim to such inclusion. This view is confirmed by the following statement in a letter from the secretary of the Trades Union Congress of Great Britain: -

The big insurance companies also came in, however, and by means of their army of canvassers and their nation wide machinery they scooped the great bulk of the insured persona into their approved societies. That is still the position to-day.

About 8,000,000 of the insured population of about 17,000,000 belong to approved societies attaehcd to the insurance companies, lt is true that the companies are not allowed to run the approved societies for profit, but it is equally true that being in close contact with millions of people through their approved society is a definite advantage to the insurance company because the same agent does both sides of the business.

Then, of course, the amount allowed for approved society works helps to pay the agents.

I am not prepared to allow the insurance companies to make use of part of the contributions under this scheme to pay agents to tout for business, for the agents would not confine their activities to national insurance but would also canvass for ordinary insurance business. The various friendly societies of Australia have had practical experience in the provision of medical benefits, and their officers are in closer touch with the people than are the representatives of any insurance companies. Moreover, the friendly societies are efficiently organized.

I trust that if the bill reaches the committee stage, more effective provision will be made to allow co-operative dispensaries to function under the scheme. The bill at present limits dispensing to private chemists. The co-operative dispensaries associated with friendly societies have for many years performed a useful service to the community by supplying medicines at the lowest possible cost, and they should be permitted and encouraged to continue this beneficent work.

The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition reads - “ this House is of opinion that in its present form the bill is unacceptable because: -

  1. it seeks to place upon a contributory basis the payment of pensions lor old-age, invalidity and widowhood, which should be provided as a matter of right without the exaction of individual contributions;
  2. it provides unequal benefits for men and women ;
  3. it fails to provide medical benefit for the wives and children of contributors ;
  4. by partially overlapping the field of friendly society activity it tends to discourage young men and women from joining these associations of self-help, thus threatening the continued strength of friendly societies without providing in full the services which they now render; and therefore the bill should be withdrawn and re-drafted and a more liberal bill, freed from the defects now enumerated, should be introduced without delay “.

The amendment adequately states the views of the Opposition. The bill, in our opinion, should be re-drafted to provide a really effective scheme of national insurance. Although I believe that other problems affecting the general community should be given prior consideration, I am nevertheless prepared to support a bill which will implement an adequate scheme of national insurance.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

.- I also support the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin), who has moved : -

That all the words after “That” be omitted with a view to inserting in lieu thereof the following words: - “this House is of opinion that in its present form the Bill is unacceptable because: -

itseeks to place upon a contributory basis the payment of pensions for old-age, invalidity and widowhood, which should be provided as a matter of right without the exaction of individual contributions:

it provides unequal benefits for men and women;

it fails to provide medical benefit for the wives and children of contributors ;

by partially overlapping the field of Friendly Society activity it tends to discourage young men and women from joining these associations of self-help, thus threatening the continued strength of Friendly Societies without providing in full the services which they now render; and therefore the Bill should be withdrawn and re-drafted and a more liberal Bill, freed from the defects now enumerated, should be introduced without delay “.

The purpose of the Labour party is, and has been for many years, to provide adequate social services for the general community. “We believe, however, that these services should be financed from the general revenue and not by the taxation of the working class. -The workers are entitled to a larger share of the wealth that they produce, but if certain proposals in this bill are endorsed they will be deprived of a part of the pittance they at present receive. The National Parliament should increase the social services of the community, not by imposing additional taxes upon the people least able to bear it, but by taxing those best able to pay. The object of the Government in introducing this measure was clearly revealed by the Treasurer when, in the course of his second-reading speech, he said -

I do not disguise the fact that there will be some heart-burning amongst employers by reason of the cost to them of the employers’ share of the weekly contributions under this scheme. That cost will, in the aggregate, amount to about £5,500,000 a year in the early years of the scheme; and, in the course of about fifteen years, that figure will gradually rise to nearly £7,750,000 a year. That is a very large sum,but I invite employers to bear in mind what I have just said as to the formidable increase of costs under the existing Invalid and Old-age Tensions Act, if this national insurance scheme be not passed.

The honorable gentleman is obviously concerned about the increasing cost of the existing pensions scheme, and I believe that he has introduced this bill to shift the incidence of taxation for social services from the general community to the workers. In other words, the Government is endeavouring to make the workers pay, by taxation during their working life, for a pension which will become payable to them in old age. Hitherto, the cost of these pensions has been a charge on the general revenue. The Labour party believes that that policy shouldbe continued. One of the canons of taxationis that the individual should be called upon to pay according to his capacity. The Government’s proposals are opposed to the principle for which this party stands.

According to the report which was circulated with the bill, it is estimated that ten years hence, old-age and invalid pensions under existing legisation would cost the Government £21,000,000 a year, and it is stated that if the proposed scheme be adopted, the total pensions payments under both schemes will be £23,300,000, but at the end of ten years, there will be an excess of accumulated contributions over payments of £43,500,000. The Prime Minister stated that the Government would not save anything on its pensions bill because of the introduction of this scheme, but that is not true. By 1948, the Government will be saving £4,500,000, by 1958 it will be saving £9,000,000 and by 1968 it will be saving £12,200,000. Figures have been cited by honorable members opposite to show that, under the existing pensions scheme, the pensions bill will amount to £16,250,000 in 1939, and the cost to the Government in 1978 will be £32,150,000. It is intended to convey by this that the pensions burden on the taxpayer in 1978 will be double. We are not told, however, that, just as the population of Australia has doubled during the last 40 years, it may reasonably be expected to double itself again in the next 40 years, so that the actual cost of pensions a head of population will be no heavier than it is now. Merely to compare the figures without reference to this fact is to convey a wrong impression. The real purpose of the scheme is to shift the burden of social services from those best able to bear it to those least able to do so. I warn the workers of Australia to beware of the Greeks when they bring gifts.

The Treasurer referred to the present invalid and old-age pensions payments as, in effect, charitable aid, and he went on to state that contributors to the proposed scheme would not have to sacrifice their self-respect by accepting pensions. My opinion, and that of the great majority of the people of Australia, is that those now in receipt of old-age or invalid pensions are not accepting of charity. While they were working and paying their taxes they were contributing towards the pensions they are now receiving. They are merely accepting what is their right. I believe that all the benefits of the proposed scheme, and more besides, should be given without requiring the recipients to make any direct contribution. The Prime Minister said that the scheme would break down under its own weight if it were not financed on a contributory basis. The Government believes that the scheme will be sound if it is financed by contributions by employees and employers of ls. 6d. for the first five years, ls. 9d. for the succeeding five years, and 2s. after ten years, but that it would collapse if the necessary funds were collected by taxation from those in receipt of high incomes. As a matter of fact, the scheme as proposed will be less stable than if it were financed from taxation, and will be much more likely to break down during a period of widespread unemployment. If another depression similar to the last were to occur, and 30 per cent, of our people were to be unemployed, the funds of the scheme would suffer by the loss of their contributions, and by the loss of the contributions previously paid by their employers. Thus the revenue of the fund would be reduced by millions of pounds, whereas, if the scheme were financed by taxation, the reduction of income during a period of depression would not be nearly so great.

It is unfortunate that the scheme depends for its solvency upon the deaths and misfortunes of a great many persons who come under its provisions. It also depends upon the early marriage of many thousands of females. Statistics show that about 30 per cent, of women marry under 22 years of age. Thus, a female entering the scheme at fifteen years of age, and marrying when she is 21 years of age, would not be entitled to continue her contributions after marriage because she would not have been a contributor for the stipulated minimum period. The 120,000 women under the age of 21^ years who marry each year will go out of the scheme, and the Government will benefit from the payments that they have made. We have recently read of inquiries that have been made into industrial insurance in Victoria. These have shown that millions of pounds arc lost annually by persons who surrender their policies because they are not able to maintain their payments. This is one of the most profitable sources of revenue to the insurance companies. Similarly, the Government will benefit as the result of persons going out of the scheme through unemployment and forfeiting what they have paid into it. That is one of the worst features of the bill, and I hope that in committee the Government will be prepared to accept an amendment to remedy it.

In the raising of the money to finance the scheme a bad precedent is being established by the proposal that the wages of the worker shall be taxed. The Prime Minister (Mt. Lyons) has said that this may be the forerunner of a number of other measures. I take it that a similar method will be adopted to finance them. Should that be so, the worker will be called upon to pay considerably more than the 2s. a week in which this scheme will involve him ten years hence. The imposition of a tax on the wages of the workers is wrong in principle. The money should be drawn from the national income, on the basis of capacity to pay. The proposal is also unfair in that it does not provide for a sliding scale. A flat rate of ls. 6d. or 2s. a week will operate in exactly the same way on the man who works only part time and earns possibly £1 a week as on the man who earns £7 a week. That is not just. Such a precedent should not be established by this Parliament. The wages of the workers will not be increased by this procedure; on the contrary the workers will have been made poorer, to the enrichment of the taxpayers with higher incomes. It will increase their poverty to-day to give an inefficient security to-morrow. Indirect taxation invariably is borne eventually by the worker, but a direct tax is an immediate loss to him. If this principle be accepted it will probably have a very farreaching effect, and will have general application in connexion with any similar measures introduced in the future. The wages of the workers are regarded as the easiest source to reach. That source should never be touched. It will stabilize poverty, and perpetuate the present injustice of a false social system of exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the rich. The professional class, the rentier class, and all those who are earning substantial incomes, will not be affected by the bill. They employ practically no staff, and pay practically no wages. They should be obliged to pay according to their capacity. Possibly they are best able to afford a considerable portion of the contributions that are needed. Any scheme of social service should make provision for a fair distribution of the national income. That will not result from the taxing of the wages of the workers. I hope that this proposal will not be accepted.

The honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony), after saying that he favoured a contributory scheme, complained that the dairy farmers in hi3 district are not in a position to meet their contribution under this ‘proposal. That supports my argument that they should not be called upon to pay. The business man in a small way, employing, say, 100 men and making a modest income - possibly establishing a new industry, and thus doing good service to the nation - will be called upon M> pay £7 15s. Od. a week, and later £10 a week, whilst the man who may be receiving £1,000 oi- £2,000 a year from rents or a profession will probably contribute nothing. The honorable member for Richmond spoke as though the Government was adopting this scheme because of its simplicity and the ease with which the proposed tax could be collected. It is not a simple matter, because a vast section of the community will not be covered by the scheme and also because of the absence of efficiency in the method proposed for the collection of the tax. For example, in country districts men who work on contract and have no employers will not make any contribution. Provision should be made for them under any national health scheme. This scheme cannot be described as national, because it covers only a very small proportion of the community.

The Treasurer said that women will get more under this bill than their contributions will warrant. That is not so. Under the existing Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act half the family income is considered to belong to the wife. Therefore, she is entitled to the services which that income should procure. But the scheme provides only for the male workers. Wives and families are not covered by it. That is a serious defect. The health of the children of Australia has deteriorated during recent years, and a scheme of national physical training has been suggested to overcome it. I do not believe that broken health due lo malnutrition can be restored by physical training. The remedy lies in providing adequately for the children in their earlier years. The scheme of this bill is deficient in that it does not provide cover for those who need insurance. Although it is the duty of the nation to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves, unemployed persons and their families are not covered by the bill. Self employed persons on low incomes are also ignored.

Most women contributors who marry will lose their status under the scheme. The average age at which the women of Australia marry is about 25 years, so that in many instances, women will lose the whole of the amounts that they have contributed. It is true that they may continue to be insured by the payment of ls. a week until they reach 60 years of age, when they will be entitled to a pension of 15s. a week; but in that time, they will have contributed £150. For that considerable sum the benefit, in most cases, will.be small. If such persons had saved the money instead of contributing it to this scheme they would have been entitled to a pension of 15s. a week, and still have had £150 in the bank.

The disablement benefits to be provided by the scheme are altogether inadequate. A person qualifying for an invalid pension, with two children under fifteen years of age, who is in receipt of a disablement benefit, will not be entitled to have his pension increased from 15s. to £1, even if he be in necessitous circumstances. There is provision, however, that a single person in receipt of a disablement pension, who qualifies for an invalid pension under the existing act, will be entitled to an additional 5s. a week to make his total pension £1 a week. A married invalid pensioner with a family is placed at a disadvantage compared with a single person, or one without dependants who qualifies for an invalid pension under the present act. That is unfair.

Clause 100 is objectionable because it exempts many bush workers, particularly in districts such as I represent, where workers are situated considerable distances from doctors. They will not be covered by this scheme. A man who is 50 or even 100 miles from a doctor, and meets with an accident, or becomes ill, must receive medical attention. The mere fact that his disability occurs at a distance from a doctor should not prevent the sufferer from receiving the benefits of this legislation. The scheme has been designed to relieve from the necessity to contribute towards benefits to their employees, sections of the community who do not wish to come under it. A scheme of national insurance suitable for England may noi suit Australian conditions. This clause should be deleted when the bill reaches the committee stage.

Many married women will find it impossible to continue their contributions, because the strain ou the income of their husbands will be too great. As was pointed out by other honorable members, the scheme does not provide for medical benefits for a man’s wife and family, and consequently, in order to cover them, he would have to contribute, to a lodge, in addition to his payments under this bill. Many men will find it impossible to do so, and therefore, it will be found that practically the only women who will share the benefits of this legislation will be unmarried women. That is another serious defect of this measure.

Casual employees also are to be denied the benefits of this scheme. The man who does a bit of gardening or cleaning is not covered by this bill if that kind of work is not his employer’s actual trade or calling, although he and very many others in a similar position are amongst those least able to provide for themselves and their families. This particular provision in the bill should be rejected.

The honorable member for Riverina (Mr. Nock) told us that eventually all persons would come under the scheme.

Mr Nock:

– Not all.

Mr CLARK:

– The honorable member cited the position of a small farmer, who, he said, might as a young man have been working on wages for his father, and argued that because he had started in that way he would be covered by the bill if he continued his payments. That is not so. I direct attention to the following paragraph in Part 11. of the first schedule, dealing with “excepted employment “ : -

Employment in the service of the husband or wife of the employed person, and employment without money payment in the service of a prescribed relative of the employed person.

Mr Nock:

– That will not exclude them. If they get wages they will be covered.

Mr CLARK:

– If they work for a relative, they will not be covered. This paragraph of the schedule should be rejected.

Under another part of the bill Australian aboriginal natives are excluded from participation in the benefits of the scheme. This is most unfair. Many Australian aboriginal natives earn their living as employees in various forms of industry, and they are enittled to be participants in the scheme. Their rights are not less than the rights of aliens. It is possible, as one of the earlier speakers suggested, that the aborigines have been excluded in the interests of a certain section of the pastoralists who have been in the habit of exploiting aboriginal workers instead of employing white men at the basic wage. I am opposed to the principle, and I hope that this serious defect in the bill will be rectified.

In New South Wales widows have, for some years, been receiving a pension of £1 a week and 10s. for each dependent child. When this scheme is in operation they will be placed in a most unfavorable position, because under the Commonwealth proposal they will receive only 15s. a week and 3s. 6d. a week for each dependent child. When the Lang Government placed that act on the New South Wales statute-book, it provided that payment of a pension should be a burden on the general revenue. The least that this Government can do is to follow the lead of the State government instead of taxing the workers to pay for the service. Unfortunately, the present anti-Labour Government in New South Wales now taxes the wages of the workers to provide this service. I hope that when the bill is in committee this objectionable feature of it will be eliminated.

In his second-reading speech, the Treasurer declared that the medical benefits to be provided would be a first-class general practitioner service. He also directed attention to the operation of the British scheme. Our advice is that if the Commonwealth proposal follows the lines of the scheme in Great Britain the medical service provided here will certainly not be a first-class general practitioner one. Some of the panel doctors in Great Britain treat upwards of 100 patients in an hour. One doctor informed me some time ago that when he was in England he acted as a locum for a panel doctor, and on one occasion when he used the stethoscope the patient was surprised; he said it was the first time he had known it to be used. The health services in Great Britain are becoming worse every day and as a result, the health of the nation is suffering. The Common wealth proposal, to be truly national, should make adequate provision for the health security of the people. The proposed method of financing the scheme is entirely wrong and the service to be given under it will be inefficient. What the people are clamouring for is a scheme that will give them a full sense of security and lead to an improved national health condition. The amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition will have that effect, and I hope that it will receive the support of a sufficient number of members to ensure its acceptance. If the bill is withdrawn and re-drafted on the lines indicated in the amendment, it will be more acceptable to the House and the country.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Thompson) adjourned.

page 1485

ADJOURNMENT

Subsidized Shipping in the Pacific.

Motion (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

That the House do now adjourn.

Mr BEASLEY:
West Sydney

– Yesterday or the day before I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) whether he was in a position to give the House any information with regard to the proposal to subsidize a new shipping line in the Pacific. I have asked several questions on this subject lately but have not been able to get a definite answer. I understand that this matter was discussed at the Imperial Conference and that an agreement was entered into between , the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. The matter seems to have remained in abeyance since the Imperial Conference, and attempts made in this Parliament to secure information have failed. It may be asked why I press for information on this subject. I am anxious to know where the new vessels will be registered, under what articles the crews will be employed, and what class of accommodation will be provided for them. It is the desire of the maritime unions that the vessels be registered in Australia and that Australian, seamen will be employed. I therefore desire the claims of Australian seamen to be kept prominently under the notice of the Government before the final arrangements are made.. According to the Sunday newspapers in Sydney, the stage has been reached at which the agreement is about to be finalized. We have been informed that two ships of 25,000 tons each are to be constructed, that they are to have a speed of 22 knots, and that the vessels are to be laid down in August or September. Naturally, I should like these ships to be built in Australia, but I suppose that is beyond the realm of possibility with this Government. According to the press reports, the British, Canadian, and New Zealand Governments are to guarantee a loan of £3,500,000, and the Peninsula and Oriental and Canadian Pacific shipping companies are to subscribe jointly £1,250,000 towards the cost of the vessels. In order to bridge the delay that must occur before they can be put into service, two other vessels are to be placed on the run, the Empress of Asia and the Empress of Russia, which are now engaged on the Oriental run out of Vancouver. These two ships carry Asiatic crews, and, of course, the maritime workers in Australia fear that if the vessels are placed on the Australian run, even temporarily, their crews may eventually be transferred to the new vessels. It is important that the Government should give this Parliament information on a matter of such vital interest to Australia. No doubt the press reports to which I have referred have some foundation in fact, and honorable members should not be left to get enlightenment on the matter in a roundabout fashion. Asiatic crews should not be employed on vessels trading between Canada and Australia.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– in reply - The matter raised by the honorable member for West Sydney (Mr. Beasley) comes within the purview of my colleague, the Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron), who has been good enough to allow me to say a few words in reply, largely because of the fact that, at the Imperial Conference, I was the member of the subcommittee representing Australia when the matter of Pacific shipping was discussed. The Government has no late knowledge which would enable it either to confirm or deny the press reports to which the honorable member has referred. I do not claim that those reports are inaccurate, but I cannot believe that, if they are true, the Commonwealth Government would not have heard officially on the matter from members of the Cabinet who are now in Great Britain or from the British Government. The position, as far as the Government knows, is not different from what it was when the Prime Minister (Mr. Lyons) made a statement on the subject a few months ago. When I left London, there was almost complete agreement between the Governments of Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and, to a certain extent, the Government of Fiji. One question at issue was the allocation of the capital between the various governments concerned, and other subjects under discussion were the design, manning and victualling of the vessels. I can assure the honorable member for West Sydney that, while the negotiations were active, Australian interests were properly looked after, and every effort was made to conserve them in respect of the matters to which the honorable member has particularly referred. The long delay that has occurred has been very disappointing to the Government, but for that it is in no way responsible. I do not suggest where the blame lies; at least it does not lie at our door. It is news to me that the “Empress” ships now trading between Canada and the Orient are to be placed on the Australian run. If there were a positive proposal to that effect, I think the Government would have been officially informed of it. The Prime Minister is getting into touch with the members of the Cabinet who are now in Great Britain, and, as soon as authentic information is received, the House will be advised.

Question resolved in the affirmative-

House adjourned at 11.50 p.m.

page 1487

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Assistance for Secondary Industries

Mr Nock:

k asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Will he provide a list of bounties paid or assistance given to secondary industries since 1925?
  2. What was the estimate made by an economic commission prior to 1930 concerning the additional cost of secondary goods a year in Australia, imported and locally made (separately preferred) as a result of the Australian tariff?
Mr Casey:
UAP

– Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible.

Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems : Printing of Evidence.

Mr Curtin:

n asked the Prime Minis ter, upon notice -

  1. Will he ascertain from the Royal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems, why the evidence of Mr. Mark B. Young was not printed?
  2. Has the Government a copy of his evidence in its possession, and, if so, will the Prime Minister make it available for the perusal of honorable members?
Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. In February, 1930, theRoyal Commission on Monetary and Banking Systems was informed that the Government approved of the printing of evidence which, in the opinion of the royal commission, was likely to be of permanent public value, the object being to limit the cost of printing as far as practicable. Subsequently the Government was informed that, in view of its ruling that only evidence likely tobe of permanent public value was to be printed, Mr. Young’s evidence was not amongst that which the royal commission had decided to print.
  2. A copy of Mr. Young’s evidence will he la id on the table of the Library for the information of honorable members.

Importation of Machinery

Mr Nock:

k asked the Acting Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. Has a considerable proportion of major machinery for Australian factories been allowed entry into Australia free of duty during the last five years? If not. what percentage, approximately, has come in free?
  2. What is the tariff and primage impost on reapers and binders, reaper-threshers, farm drills, mowers, cultivators, ploughs and hay- rakes, from Canada, also from the United States of America?
Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. A considerable proportion of major machinery for use in Australian factories, and which was of a type not commercially produced in Australia, has been allowed entry free of duty under the British preferential tariff during the Fast five years. The machines admitted free of duty were, however, not confined solely to those used in secondary industries, but also included those used in the primary industries and by public bodies. It is not possible to separate the machines so admitted according to the purpose for which they were used, and the percentage allowed entry free of duty under the British preferential tariff for use in Australian factories cannot, therefore, be ascertained.
  2. The tariff and primage imposts on the undermentioned goods, which are of a type commercially produced in Australia, are -

Invalid Pensions

Mr Drakeford:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

d asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. What was the number of applicants for invalid pensions in each of the States of Australia for each year of the ten-year period from 1927-28 to 1936-37?
  2. What number and what percentage were, granted in that period in (a) each State during each year;(b) each State for the ten-year period; (c) the Commonwealth during each year; and (d) the Commonwealth for the ten year period?
Mr Casey:
UAP

– Inquiries are being made, and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible.

Iron Ore Deposits in Tasmania.

Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA

d asked the Minister in Charge of Development, upon notice -

  1. Has a complete survey been made by a Commonwealth officer of the iron ore deposits in Tasmania ?
  2. If so, can a report be made available to honorable members ?
  3. If no thorough and complete survey has so far been made, can he indicate when it will be done?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– Although the question has been directed to the Minister in Charge of Development (Mr. Casey), the Commonwealth Geological Adviser, who is controlling the survey, is an officer of the Department of the Interior. The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. No survey has been made by a Commonwealth officer.

  1. The Commonwealth Geological Adviser is proceeding to Tasmania immediately to consult with officers of the Mines Department of that State as to the best means of carrying out this survey. It will he expedited as far as possible, hut it is estimated that it will take at least two years to complete. essendon Aerodrome: Extension of Area.
Mr Drakeford:

d asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -

  1. How many blocks of land have been resumed by the Government for the extension of the area known as the Essendon aerodrome?
  2. What, in each case, was the price paid or contracted to be paid by the persons from whom the land was resumed?
  3. What was the price offered by the Government in each case?
  4. Is it a fact that, as a result of the resumption by the Government, some purchasers, who have paid off more than £50. will receive nothing?
  5. Is it a fact that some purchasers who have paid approximately £100 have been offered £15 for their blocks?
  6. In how many cases were the prices offered by the Government accepted?
  7. In how many cases were the offers made by the Government dealt with by arbitration ?
  8. What was the price paid in each case in final settlement for each of the blocks resumed?
Mr McEwen:
CP

– The information is being obtained.

Postal Department: Telephone Rental Charge.

Mr Price:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

e asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon, notice -

  1. Will the Government take into consideration the advisability of reducing the animal telephone rental charge to private subscribers?
  2. Is it a fact that if the charge can be reduced to a reasonable figure it may mean additional subscribers, and render a larger postal income by means of more calls, and offset the difference in the rental to existing subscribers ?
  3. Will the Government give this question attention?
Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers to the honorable member’s questions: -

  1. The matter has been fully considered but, as the rentals are already fixed on a low and favorable scale, it is felt that any reduction in the present basis of charging for services to private subscribers would result in a substantial loss in revenue.
  2. See anwer to 1.
  3. In view of the heavy national commitments, any alteration at the present juncture is regarded as inadvisable.

Aerial Maps

Mr Blain:

n asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice -

  1. In view of the urgency in producing precise topographical maps and detail strip flying maps of the continent, will he treat as an urgent matter the purchase of the modern Fairchild multiple lens aero-camera as used by the Canadian Government, for the purpose of rapidly and effectively photographing strip flights, by one exposure, of an area 15 miles by 10 miles?
  2. Is it a fact that the present obsolete cameras photograph only 2½ by 2½ miles from an altitude of 12,000 feet, producing negatives that require long and tedious compilations of mosaics to secure an inadequate plan?
  3. Is it a fact that overseas and Australian pilots have expressed the. opinion that the lack of detail on Australian maps places them in an inferior position as compared with those of other civilized countries?
  4. Will he arrange for the young men of Darwin to be trained as northern pilots as soon as the squadron is placed in Darwin?
Mr Thorby:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. The question of the use of multi-lens cameras for the purpose indicated has been under consideration for some time, as its value for certain purposes is well recognized. Their use, however, is dependent on the methods adopted for plotting for mapping purposes the photographs produced. These methods are now being investigated abroad by an officer of the Defence Department and a decision regarding the use of such a camera will be made after his report is received.
  2. The area photographed on each negative by the cameras in use is as stated, but these cameras are not obsolete, being the latest pattern of the single-lens type obtainable. Mosaics are only made up to meet particular requirements. They are not always used in the compilation of maps - the individual prints being sufficient for the purpose in most cases.
  3. Although air route maps of certain parts of Australia show less detail than is desirable, this is due mainly to the featureless nature of the country, with the consequent difficulty in providing such detail. The provision of details on air route maps depends, in exactly the same way as other maps, on the basic ground survey. Large ureas of Australia have not yet been surveyed but what little has been done forms the basis of air route maps, which arc under constant revision, as additional ground surveys and other information becomes available, with a view to adding detail ofvalue to pilots.
  4. For defence reasons, the Government has decided that the two squadrons to be stationedat Darwin shouldbe manned by permanent personnel. When the AirForce station at Darwin is well established, however, local resources in personnel will he explored to the fullest extent with a view to utilizing the services of suitable young men to thebest advantage.

Australian Broadcasting Commission : Use of Copyright Material.

Mr Perkins:
UAP

s. - On the l8th May, 1938, the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) asked a question relating to the arbitration between the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Australasian Performing Right Association. I am now in a position to state that this was a private voluntary arbitration in respect of a dispute between the owners and performers of certain copyright musical works, and any announcement as to the terms of the Arbitrator’s Award should be made by one of the parties to the dispute and not by the Postmaster-General, who was not a party thereto.

Federal Capital Territory: Population

Mr McEwen:
CP

n. - On the 25th May, 1938, the honorable member for Boothby (Mr. Price) asked the following questions, upon notice : -

  1. What is the population of the Federal Capital Territory, giving (a) male adults,

    1. female adults, (c) juveniles between 16 and 21 years, and (d) children between one year and fifteen years?

  2. What was the population ten years ago?

The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. The population of the Federal Capital Territory at the 31st December, 1937, in tie categories asked for was as follows: -

Sale of Commonwealth Line or Steam ers.

Mr Casey:
UAP

– On Wednesday, the 25th May, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr.Rosevear) asked the following questions, upon notice -

  1. What was the sale price of the Commonwealth Shipping Line?
  2. What was the date upon which the sale was negotiated ?
  3. What amount of the sale price has been paid to date?
  4. What amount of interest has been paid?
  5. Has the transaction been closed, and, if so, how much of the original sale price has been lost to the Government I

The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. £1,900,000.
  2. 21st April, 1928.
  3. £1,333,724 15s.6d.
  4. £317,625.
  5. The transactions have not yet been finalized. Out of the balance of the amount, £777,033, representing principal and interest owing by the White Star Line at the commencement of liquidation itis anticipated that, under the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Commonwealth will receive approximately £378,000. It is not known whether the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company intends to appeal to the House of Lords, but, should this action be taken, the Commonwealth willsupport the liquidator in opposing the action.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 26 May 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380526_reps_15_155/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant