House of Representatives
16 June 1938

15^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- FORTYHOUR WEEK
QUESTION
- SMALL LOANS BY BANKS
NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL
QUESTION
- BUSINESS AND SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
QUESTION
- NUTRITIONAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
QUESTION
- ITALIAN CRUISERRAIMONDO MONTEGUCCOLI
NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1988
QUESTION
- SUSPENSION OP MR. ARCHIE CAMERON
NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938
PAPER
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker (Hon. G. J. Bell) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2172

QUESTION

FORTYHOUR WEEK

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– Has the Prime Minister noticed in this morning’s press a statement to the effect that the Government of the United States of America proposes to introduce the legislation necessary to provide fora maximum 40- hour working week, and, if so, will the right honorable gentleman consider with the other members of the Cabinet the introduction of a similar measure in this Parliament?

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

– My attention had not previously been drawn to this matter,, but [ shall now look into it, in order to ascertain the facts regarding it.

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– Is it not a fact that the American legislation provides that the 40- hour week is to be introduced gradually overa period of seven years?

Mr LYONS:

– I shall inquire regarding the circumstances under which the legislation was submitted.

page 2172

QUESTION

SMALL LOANS BY BANKS

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Prime Minister in a position to advise the House whether the Government intends to bring clown a bill this session to make money available ata low rate of interest to small manufacturers and fanners, as announced in his policy speech ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– The matter raised is one of policy, which will be dealt with in due course.

page 2173

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL

Appointment of Royal Commission.

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Can the Treasurer inform the House when the royal commission to be set up in connexion with the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill will be appointed ?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

– The Government will give attention to the matter at the earliest possible moment, and as soon as its present preoccupations permit.

page 2173

QUESTION

BUSINESS AND SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Prime Minister give the House any indication of the business likely to be dealt with on the completion of the consideration of the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill? On what days is it expected that the House will be sitting next week, and, incidentally, will the Treasurer be in a position to introduce the banking legislation during the present sittings, so that it may be considered during the coming recess, thus possibly avoiding any speeding up of the debate when the House meets subsequently ?

Mr LYONS:
UAP

– I expect to be in a position to make a statement to the House to-morrow, indicating the programme which the Government hopes will be adhered to during the remainder of the present sittings, and the days on which the Government intends to recommend that the Parliament should meet.

page 2173

QUESTION

NUTRITIONAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Recently I asked a question regarding the transference of the Department of Health to the Institute of Anatomy. The Government reviewed the instruction originally issued, and is reserving the institute for the purposes for which it was established. I now read in the press, however, that it is proposed to establish in this building a nutritional research laboratory. Would that involve any breach of the agreement under which the institute was established, and is this another attempt by the Health Department to get control of the institute, and to establish its head-quarters there?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

– That is notso. The purposes of the nutritional research laboratory, for which a small portion of the institute will be used in the near future, are in accord with those tor which the institute was established.

page 2173

QUESTION

ITALIAN CRUISERRAIMONDO MONTEGUCCOLI

Incident at Port Melbourne.

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Will the Minister for External Affairs say whether it is true, as reported in the Melbourne Herald of the 28th May last, that the Government proposes to communicate with the Italian Government, through the British Ambassador to Rome, with reference to the assault alleged to have been committed on one Frigo Orlando recently at Port Melbourne?

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for External Affairs · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– My attention has not been directed to the paragraph referred to, and I am unable to afford the honorable gentleman a coherent reply.

page 2173

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1988

In Committee: Consideration resumed from the 15th June(vide page 2170).

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is that the wish of the committee.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Clauses 88 to 103.

A person in receipt of a benefit under this Act shall he entitled to receive, at the same time, a pension under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act 1908-1937 to the extent to which the benefit under this Act, including dependent child’s allowance, is less than the pension to which, but for this section, he would have been entitled under that Act, but not otherwise.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

.- I move-

That, before the word “ including “ in clause 95 the word “ not “ be inserted.

I think it will be agreed that it would be unfair to include a dependent child’s allowance in calculating the benefit that would be given under the measure. The Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has regarded the child allowance as an additional source of income of a family; but if it were included in the calculation of the benefit, the value of the measure would to a considerable extent be destroyed. I do not know whether the Treasurer will contend that the acceptance of my amendment would adversely affect the actuarial calculations upon which the billis based, but a careful analysis of the position will show clearly that very little, if any, additional burdenwould be inflicted upon the fund. If the amendment be not agreed to, an obvious injustice will be done. I therefore hope that the Government will see its way clear to accept my proposal.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The purpose of this clause is to fulfil an undertaking the Government gave that the operation of the national insurance scheme would not result in any person entitled to a full invalid pension receiving less under this scheme than under the existing invalid pensions law. The Government cannot see any reason for differentiation in the various forms of benefits provided in this measure. The benefit to a married man with dependants is increased under the bill to 3s. 6d. a week for each dependent child. That payment goes to the insured person. There can be no valid reason for differentiation between benefits received by a man in respect of himself, and those received by him in respect of his dependants. In the drafting of this bill we have gone to great lengths to ensure all round equity if not actual liberality. Apart from the fact that the acceptance of the amendment would increase the appropriation I regret that I cannot accept it.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Drakeford’s) he agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 27

NOES: 35

Majority . . . . 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment negatived.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– I ask the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) for some enlightenment as to the effect of clause 95 in the case of a totally and permanently incapacitated person. In certain circumstances such an individual would be entitled to an invalid pension of £1 a week from the Government under our existing legislation, but the purpose of this clause, it seems to me, isto oblige approved societies to pay 15s. a week to such persons,while the Government will pay only 5s. a week, to bring the total payment up to £1 a week. Consequently, totally and permanently incapacitated insured persons will, if this clause is agreed to, become a heavy responsibility on approved societies, whereas they will burden the Consolidated Revenue to the extent of only 5s. a week as against £1 a week at present. If that be the case, an obvious injustice is being done to approved societies. I ask the Treasurer to explain, the position, and, if it he as I have suggested, I ask the Committee to reject the clause.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I wish to draw the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to what appears to be an unwarranted omission from the exemptions granted under clause 96. I refer to soldier pensioners who receive either Imperial pensions or pensions under the various provisions for repatriated returned soldiers in the legislation of other dominions of the British Empire. In most matters which concern returned soldiers no distinction is made between those who served in the Australian Forces and those who served in other forces of the British Empire. Although this omission may not affect a great number of individuals, it is only just that an Englishman, residentin Australia, who receives a wounds pension from the Imperial Government or the Government of another dominion, should be entitled to the same exemptions as returned soldiers who receive pensions under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. As I brought this matter under the notice of the Treasurer and also the Acting Commissioner for National Insurance some time ago, I hope the Treasurer will now be in a position to inform the committee what the Government proposes to do to rectify this apparent oversight.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– I have circulated a further amendment to clause 95. I move -

That the following sub-clause be added to clause 95 - “ (2.) The amount of the benefit received under this act by any husband or wife shall not be taken into account in computing under paragraph (b) of section twenty-six of the Invalidand Old-age Pensions Act1908-1937 the income of the other spouse.”.

I understand that the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has in mind another amendment which it is claimed will meet the situation. As the Government’s amendment is on somewhat similar lines, in all probability the Treasurer will indicate that he is inclined to accept my amendment. Under the provisions of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act an applicant for a pension is deemed to earn one-half of the income earned by the other spouse. I do not know whether the Treasurer has given consideration to my amendment and I should be glad to know the Government’s intention with regard to it. If the amendment is agreed to a considerable amount of difficulty which will arise under clause 95 will be removed.

Mr. CASEY (Corio- Treasurer; [11.5]. - The committee will realize the difficulty with which I am confronted in attempting to deal with amendments to a number of clauses. I crave the indulgence of the committee because I am, at the moment, endeavouring to cope with four different amendments two of which have been printed and the others just brought to my notice. It is not easy to deal effectively with amendments to a number of clauses in this way.

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

– The amendments should be dealt with in their proper sequence.

Mr CASEY:

– That is so. I believe that the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) is under a slight misapprehension as to the meaning of the terms “ disablement “ under this bill and “ permanent and total incapacity “ under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. The two terms by no means are necessarily synonymous. As the honorable member knows very well, under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act pensions are paid for “ permanent and total incapacity” whereas “disablement” under this bill need not be anything like such a distressing physical state.

Mr Rosevear:

– Apparently the honorable gentleman did not take much notice of what I said. I referred to the case in which a doctor declared that a person receiving a disablement benefit was totally and permanently incapacitated. In such a case 15s. will be taken from the approved society and only 5s. from the insurance fund. Is not that so?.

Mr CASEY:

– I think that would be so.

Mr Rosevear:

– Then responsibility for the payment of 15s. will be placed on the approved society.

Mr CASEY:

– It is recouped from the central fund. In regard to the point raised by the honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Hawker), I can see no reason why the Government should not accept his suggested amendment.He mentioned that he had brought it under my notice some time ago but I have no recollection of hi3 having done so. I am, however, getting the Parliamentary Draftsman to attempt to put in the form of an amendment the sense of the honorable member’s suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now before the Chair is that the amendment of the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) be agreed to.

Mr. BLACKBURN (Bourke) [11.8 J I suggest that as the Government’s amendment to insert a new clause 96a is satisfactory up to a certain point the committee should first pass it, and when the bill goes to another place the Government can then give consideration to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford). Although proposed new clause 96a is a definite advance upon the present position, it may not cover the position under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act in which, in assessing the pension to be paid each spouse, either husband or wife has attributed to him or her one-half of the income of the other. The Invalid and Old-age Pensions Department acts without check; there is no appeal from its decisions, and it applies the act in a very technical way. Notwithstanding the adoption of proposed new clause 96a, the department may easily say that a wife who applies for an invalid or old-age pension is deemed to receive onehalf of the contributory ‘pension her husband receives under this scheme and consequently reduce her pension to that extent. I suggest that proposed new clause 96a should be dealt with immediately. After conference with the officers of the Pensions Department the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) might be- able to give us an assurance that the act will be interpreted in the sense we think it ought to be. It would be a strange anomaly if the wife’s pension under the noncontributory pensions scheme were to be reduced because she was treated as receiving one half of her husband’s contributory pension. That is the point which the honorable member for Maribyrnong wishes to make clear.

Mr Casey:

Amendmen t -by leave - withd r awn.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- In order to meet the point raised by the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) it would appear that an. amendment of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act will be necessary, because that legislation provides that half of the income of the husband is regarded as the income of the wife.

Mr Casey:

– If necessary, action will be taken to meet the point raised by the honorable member.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- The undertaking of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has clarified the position to some extent. We do not want to find later that persons who are entitled to pensions under the existing Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act will be deprived of their rights because of some benefit payable to an insured person under this legislation. I hope that the position will be placed beyond all doubt.

As the discussion has proceeded, it has become increasingly evident that the Government intends to place the burden in respect of invalid and old-age pensions on persons with incomes under £365 a year who will come under this legislation. The people of Australia should be told definitely what the Government intends. The Treasurer may be able to distinguish between persons who are incapacitated within the meaning of this legislation and persons who are permanently and totally incapacitated within the meaning of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, but I foresee considerable difficulty in administering this provision when it becomes law. I enter my emphatic protest against the intention of the Government to make the poorer sections of the community pay the greater portion of invalid and old-age pensions in the future.

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

– Clause 95 reads “ A person in receipt of a benefit under this Act shall be entitled to receive…….. “ whereas marginal note reads “ Pensioner under this Act not also entitled to pension under Invalid and Old-age .Pensions Act 1908-37 “. There appears to be a minor typographical error. The marginal note surely requires amending.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– There is an error in the marginal note; it can be put right by omitting the word “not”.

Mr Blackburn:

– The marginal note is not a portion of the bill.

Mr CASEY:

– That is so. The error will be rectified when the bill is again printed.

Mr Brennan:

– The marginal note is correct.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

.- Many old-age pensioners pay the whole Of their pension to institutions which, care for them. Under sub-clause 1 of clause 94, the pension of an inmate of an institution is reduced to 6s. a week. I should like to know whether the full amount of pension will be payable to these institutions, as otherwise many of them will cease to exist, thereby causing great inconvenience to many old-age pensioners.

Clause 100 provides that where the commission has issued a certificate of remoteness, the benefits to insured persons may be reduced. I desire to know whether it is likely that such a certificate will be issued on the application of an employer, or whether the employee himself must apply for it. A man who is living in a remote area, away from doctors, is just as much entitled to medical benefits as is a mau living in a town. Should he require the medical treatment he would have to be taken to the nearest doctor, and, therefore, he should not be precluded from receiving medical benefits under this legislation. He certainly should not be debarred from receiving them on the application of his employer. Only at his own ..request should a certificate be issued.

Under clause 95, it would appear that a person entitled to a disablement pension of 15s. a week under this scheme would, if without dependants, receive an additional 5s. a week should he qualify for an invalid pension. If, however, he had one dependent child, in respect of which he received 3s. 6d. a week child’s allowance, making his total receipts 18s. 6d. a week, he would be entitled to only ls. 6d. a week from the invalid pensions fund. If he had two children, and received 7 s. a week allowance in respect of them, his total receipts would be 22s. a week, and, therefore, he would not be entitled to the invalid pension of 5s.- a week. It is ridiculous that a person without dependants may have his pension increased from 1.5s. to £1 a week whilst a similar concession is denied to a person with dependent children. If that be the correct interpretation of the clause, it should be amended. I do not think that the Government desires it to apply in that way.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clark) referred to inmates of institutions who pay the whole of their pension to the institution in which they live’. I take it that he referred to their noncontributory invalid or old-age pension. Persons who hand over their noncontributory pensions to an institution will not be affected by this legislation. In any case, they are presumably without dependants. Otherwise, how would those dependants exist? The purpose of the clause is to ensure, first of all, that the person himself receives something out of the pension, then that his dependants receive something, and, finally, that something should, if possible, go to the institution. That, I think, is a worthy objective.

The other point raised by the honorable member relates to clause 100. It is provided in paragraph (i) of the first schedule as proposed to be amended as follows :-

Employment in respect of which the commission has certified, by a certificate which remains in force, that, on account of the remoteness of or any other circumstance related to the locality or nature of the employment, the effective administration of health insurance benefits or of the other benefits provided by this Act or of all the benefits so provided in respect of that employment is impracticable.”

Mr Clark:

– That provision should not be applied to those who work on stations in the back country.

Mr CASEY:

– It would not be invoked except in localities where it is impossible to administer benefits because there is no doctor within practicable range.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

– A provision in clause 94 to which I enter- fain the very strongest objection is that an insured person in receipt of a pension, who enters a hospital or other institution, will be entitled to draw only 6s. a week, while the dispersal of the remainder of the pension, is to be at the discretion of the commission. We must remember that this is a pension for which the insured person has himself contributed, and he should, therefore, have the right to dispose of it as he thinks fit. If it were a matter of a superannuation payment, no one would question: his right to do so. To deny that right to the pensioner is to argue that he is incompetent to dispose of his pension in a proper way. I have always objected to this provision in the existing Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, but at least pensioners under the existing scheme do’ not contribute towards their pensions. To include a similar provision in the present scheme, however, under which the pensioner will pay for whatever benefit he obtains, is to aggravate the offence. I hope that other honorable members will see the justice of my observations, and will help to amend this provision.

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

.- I should like some further information regarding the position of pensioners who become inmates of public institutions, such as hospitals and benevolent homes. Under the present Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, pensioners in such circumstances may retain 6s. a week for themselves, while the sum of 14s. a week is paid to the institutions. Under this clause, the pensioner will receive 6s. a week for himself, and the remainder will be retained by the commission, which may either pay it to his dependants or keep it as accrued pension, and pay it back from time to time in small amounts to the pensioner himself. I agree with that, but I must point out that a very grave injustice will be done to the public hospitals and benevolent institutions, and to the State governments which are responsible, iu part, for financing them. Under the present act, the institutions receive 14s. out of the pension, but under the new scheme, they may receive nothing. I do not say that 14s. a week should be paid to them under this scheme, but I believe that the Commonwealth Government should compensate the hospitals and other institutions for the loss they will sustain. The Treasurer may argue that, because pensioners will be entitled to medical benefit under the scheme, not so many of them will seek hospital treatment, but I do not think it will work out in that way. Wo know that as people grow older they become susceptible to various ills, and. under the scheme, they will be entitled to call in a doctor at any time of the day or night. There may be a tendency to do so more frequently than is necessary. I make no reflection upon the doctors, but it is only reasonable to assume that there will be a tendency on their part to order such pensioners into public hospitals. Therefore, it is possible that there may. in the future, be a greater number of pensioners receiving treatment in public hospitals than is the case now, and I should like to know whether the Government proposes to do anything to compensate the hospitals for the loss they will sustain under the scheme.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

– I direct the attention of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to an anomaly contained in clause 99, which reads -

Sickness benefit and disablement benefit shall not be paid to any person in respect of any period during which he is outside Australia.

Many persons engaged in seasonal occupations, such as shearing follow their occupations from State to State, and even to New Zealand and the Mandated Territories. They do not live in New Zealand long enough to qualify for sickness and disablement benefit under the dominion law, because when the shearing season ends there they return to Australia to resume their accustomed itinerary. Despite the fact that they may have subscribed to the national insurance fund for years, if they should be taken ill or disabled during their absence in neighbouring countries, they will be disqualified from reaping the benefits for which they have contributed. Some provision should be made to ensure that nomadic workers who contribute to the national insurance fund, shall be entitled to the full benefits of the. proposed legislation irrespective of the fact that they may ‘he temporarily domiciled elsewhere when sickness overtakes them. I suggest that possibly a reciprocal arrangement could he made with New Zealand. It appears to. me that the object of the Government is to use every possible means to filch shillings from those who are insured and to dodge giving benefits in return. I wish it to be understood that my remarks refer only to those persons, itinerant workers who travel Australasia in pursuit of their vocations, and not to persons who go abroad, say, to England or to the United States of America. It is no answer for the Treasurer to say that only a. few persons are affected because, no matter what their number may be, persons, who contribute for sickness and disablement benefit and, who, in order to obtain employment, have to go for short periods to neighbouring countries, should be entitled to receive the full benefits for which they subscribe. As a matter of fact, however, the number of persons of the classes mentioned is considerable.

I wish to know the purpose of clause 102 which reads -

Every assignment of, or charge on, and every agreement to assign or charge, any allowance or benefit payable under this act, shall be void and, on the bankruptcy of any person entitled to any benefit, the benefit shall not pass to any trustee or other person acting 011 behalf of his creditors.

Does that mean that bankruptcy will disqualify a person from benefit under this bill?

Mr Casey:

– No, it means the reverse. It will protect the contributor.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– That satisfies me. I support the contentions of the honorable members for Hindmarsh (Mr. Makin) and Ballarat (Mr. Pollard) that the financial welfare of public hospitals and other similar institutions should be protected and not damaged by this bill. In my second-reading speech I called attention to the fact- that the hospital authorities in New South “Wales have declared that- this measure will impose upon them a burden which they cannot bear. Par from safeguarding the welfare of the hospitals this bill will intensify the already severely congested, conditions that exist in those institutions. The mater nity hospitals in New South Wales to-day are so congested that within a couple of days of childbirth, mothers have to be removed from the maternity wards and placed in beds on verandahs, sheltered only by the roof and canvas blinds. Con- .ditions in the other hospitals are just as bad. For that reason, the Commonwealth Government should do everything possible to assist in the provision of more accommodation instead of, as this bill will do, increase the demands upon the existing accommodation. According to the authorities in New South Wales, this bill will deplete the revenues of hospitals in that State by between £500,000 a year, besides requiring them to contribute to the Commonwealth tens of thousands of pounds for which they will get no return. Chaos in hospital management will result. The Commonwealth Government boasts about its surpluses, and it should be in a position to recompense the hospitals for any loss which they may incur as the result of the passage of this bill.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

.- I support the appeal by the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Lazzarini) on behalf of the shearers and other persons whose occupations periodically take them to New Zealand and other neighbouring countries. Clause 98 debars persons from enjoyment of sickness and disablement, benefits- whilst they are. outside of Australia, but the practice of friendly societies is, on the production of a doctor’s certificate to recoup to a member any medical costs incurred in respect of the illness or disablement of himself or members of his family while he was absent from Australia. I think that the Government’ should adopt the practice of the friendly societies. The clause at present means that, because no payment can be made to the fund, either by the contributor’s employer or by himself, while the contributor is absent from Australia in pursuit of his occupation, he cannot, if he falls ill during, such absence, . receive the benefits for which he may have contributed for many years. It is unmitigated nonsense to describe this as a national health measure when it excludes people from that protection for which they have subscribed when they happen to become ill while they are doingseasonal work in a neighbouring country.

I object to clause 98, which reads -

Whore a person in receipt of, or entitled to, a pension under this act dies, payment of any amount of pension accrued but not paid prior to bis death, shall be made only in such manner and to such extent as are prescribed.

My objection is that, as with the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, the payment of pension after the death of a pensioner shall be made, in accordance with conditionslaid down, not by this Parliament, but by the Executive in regulations, which may prevent certain things, which should be done, from being done. Members of Parliament will not know that these limitations exist until they bump their heads against them, when trying to do something for their constituents. Clause 99 is harsh and the Government should be ashamed of it.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I am pleased to have the opportunity to join issue with the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) with respect to his contradiction of a statement that I made in my secondreading speech to the effect that under this scheme a person would be ineligible to obtain the full benefits of the invalid pension under existing legislation as well as the benefits conferred by this bill. The marginal .note of clause 95 reads “ Pensioner under this act not also entitled to pension under Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act “. “The Treasurer said that that was a draftsman’s error. If the Treasurer had looked at this measure more carefully and intelligently he would have ascertained the fact that it was not the draftsman who was in error at all because, despite his explanation in answer to the contentions of honorable members of the Opposition, it is now apparent that men and women cannot draw both the invalid pension and the benefits of this bill. In order to show just to what extent the Government would go in order to deprive the people of rights which they have acquired as the result of the activities of the Labour party in years gone by, we find that the invalid in New South Wales to-day who has two dependent children, actually receives more under the existing legislation of the State and the Commonwealth, than he will be able to receive under this socalled wonderful scheme of the Government which is supposed to bestow so many benefits on the people.

In New South Wales, as a result of the activities of a Labour government, an invalid pensioner with two dependent children receives £1 17s. 6d. a week, which is made up of £1 under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, and 8s. 9d. child welfare allowance for dependent children. If the measure does not interfere with the rights of citizens to draw old-age and invalid pensions, why is it that a person applying for a pension is not qualified to receive full benefits under this scheme and for which he has paid? He has, in fact, contributed also for the old-age and invalid pension by the payment of income tax on his past earnings or by indirect taxation on everything he purchases. There is another point that should concern tlie friendly societies. Why should the burden of maintaining the permanently disabled worker be made a responsibility of the approved societies instead of being borne by’ the pensions fund? Clause 130 states -

Old-age pensions, widows’ pensions, orphans’ pensions and dependent children’s allowances payable to persons in receipt of old-age or widows’ pensions shall be paid out of the Pensions Insurance Fund.

There is no reference in the clause to invalid pensions. That means that the friendly societies, out of the funds provided for defraying medical benefits, will be compelled to shoulder the responsibility of maintaining invalid pensioners. In the opinion of members of the Labour party it is wrong to expect the friendly societies, out of moneys made available for medical benefits, to provide 15s. in every fi made available to invalid pensioners. There is ample evidence of the truth of the statement made by members of the Labour party that the purpose of the scheme is to relieve the ‘Commonwealth budget, so that the Government may remit taxes and relieve its political supporters amongst the wealthier sections of the community. Therefore, I am of opinion that the Treasurer, if he were able to speak the truth - I know it is difficult for him to do that - would admit that I was right when I said in my secondreading speech that the contributors to this scheme will lose certain of their rights under the Invalid and Oldage Pensions Act. When the legislation becomes operative honorable members on all sides of the House will receive requests from unfortunate people who will ask them to make representations to preserve their benefits under existing legislation. The question is not whether the worker is entitled to certain benefits because .he has exercised thrift. No worker who is receiving the wages available to him in this country to-day is able to save to any great extent, and the lower-paid workers find it absolutely impossible to do so at all. The average worker has to exercise considerable thrift in order to exist at all. He is quite unable to make provision for the future out of savings from his meagre earnings, and the Labour party believes that the wealthier sections of the community, who, with the assistance of antiLabour governments, have exploited the workers in the years of their employment, should shoulder the responsibility of any social insurance scheme. Any contribution which a worker makes to the scheme must lower his living standard. The Government has designed the national insurance scheme in order to protect Commonwealth revenues. No doubt the Treasurer has been in touch with his colleagues in Sydney, who constitute the Government of New South Wales, with respect to the effect of this measure on the State budget. If the scheme becomes law, what effect will it have on existing social services in New South Wales ? Will the .people there have the right to receive also the benefits under New South Wales legislation, which are greater than those provided for in the bill? Has the Commonwealth Government, in order to secure the support of the Government of New South Wales, made an agreement whereby, if the bill be passed, the anti-Labour Government of New South Wales will feel that it is relieved of further responsibility foi- the maintenance of widows, and their dependent children, and of dependent children of sick or invalid parents? Has the Government by agreement with the the Government of New South Wales acquiesced in the repeal of existing legislation there, so as to take away from the people the benefits they now enjoy and make the Commonwealth act the only legislation of this character operating in the Commonwealth?

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

.- I move-

That the following new sub-clauses be added to clause 96: - “ (11) The application of this section shall extend to any person who was engaged in active service during the war which commenced on the fourth day of August One thousand nine hundred and fourteen, as ;i member of the Naval, Military or Air Forces of any part of the King’s Dominions, other than the Commonwealth, who is bona lido resident in the Commonwealth and who is in receipt of benefit under the law of that part of those Dominions in respect of that service.

For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section any reference in this section to the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1020- 1937 shall be read as a reference to the law under which the person is entitled to benefit.”

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– I refer the honorable member to the opening portion of paragraph (VI), which reads -

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on the expiration of the time allotted under any motion passed under any of the preceding paragraphs of this Standing Order, the Speaker or the Chairman shall, at the time appointed under the motion for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the question on any amend ment or motion already proposed from the Chair and, in the case of the consideration of any bill in committee, shall then put any new clauses …

I feel obliged to rule that there is no substance in the point of order raised by the honorable member.

Mr Baker:

– In that case, the words that I have quoted have no meaning?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.They have no meaning in respect of the amendment now before the committee, which has been moved by the Treasurer and proposed from the Chair.

Mr Blackburn:

– When was it proposed from the Chair ? I did not hear it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.It was moved at eight minutes past 12 o’clock.

Mr Blackburn:

– But it was not proposed from the Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.It was, immediately.

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

.- Although the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has made certain promises, he has not covered the whole range of the difficulties which will arise under the provisions of clause 95. I feel sure that, under the operation of these provisions, persons entitled to an additional benefit under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, will be deprived of it. The Treasurer has said that he will make sure to safeguard the position in the case of married couples, so that the income of the husband will not be taken into calculation to the detriment of the rights of the wife, and vice versa, but nothing has been said in connexion with the disablement allowance, to which is added a certain payment in respect of each child. It is said that if the total amount paid to the insured person under this legislation does not equal the £1 a week to which he or she would be entitled under the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, the balance will be made good. According to my reading of clause 95, if a man with two children receives a disablement pension of 15s. a week he will be deprived of the additional 5s. a week to which he would otherwise be entitled, because the amount of 3s. 6d. a week in respect of each child will be added to the 15s. I do not believe that that was intended. Is that what the Treasurer means?

Mr Casey:

– In those circumstances a man can get the extra 5s. ; if so qualified by his disablement, he can get a minimum of fi, and he may get more than that by an allowance of 3s. 6d. for each child.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The clause does not say that. It reads -

A person in receipt of a benefit under this Act shall be entitled to receive, at the same time, a pension under the Invalid and Old-age 1’ciuioiis Act 1008-1037 to the extent to which the benefit under this Act, including dependent child’s allowance, is less than the pension to which, but for this section, lie would have been entitled under that act, but not otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The time allotted for the consideration of this part of the bill has expired.

Amendment agreed to.

Question put -

That clauses 88 to95, clause 96, as amended, and clauses 97 to 103, and the circulated amendments of the Government, be agreed to.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 37

NOES: 28

Majority . . 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses88 to 95, 97 to 103, and clause 96, as amended, agreed to.

Circulated amendments -

Clause96, omit “either on his own account, or on account of himself and his dependants, may if those benefits” sub-clause (1), insert “ may, if those benefits, together with any benefits tinder that act received by his dependants,” ; omit “ insured person “, subclause 9, insert “returned soldier”; omit “an insured person”, euh-clause 10, insert “a returned soldier “.

Clause 97, omit “or has been invalided”, sub-clause (1.); omit sub-clause (5.), insert the following sub-clause: - “ (5.) For the purposes of this section -

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

.- I move-

That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

I am submitting the motion in order that the Acting Minister for Commerce (Mr. Archie Cameron) may make an explanation with reference to an incident that occurred in the committee yesterday.

Mr Curtin:

– The Acting Minister could have made this explanation earlier to-day.

Mr Lazzarini:

– On a point of order I submit that, as a time-table has been fixed for the consideration of the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill until Monday at 6.15 p.m., no other business can be introduced until that measure has been disposed of.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The time to be occupied by the Acting Minister for Commerce in the manner indicated by the Treasurer, will not impinge on the time allotted for the consideration of the bill mentioned by the honorable member for Werriwa.

Mr Curtin:

– Who says that it willnot? The Acting Minister for Commerce had an opportunity at the beginning of the sitting this morning to make an explanation and could have clone so without abusing the privileges of the House or interfering with the time allotted for the consideration of the National Health and Pensions Insurance Bill.

Question put -

That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 34

NOES: 27

Majority . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Progress reported.

page 2188

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OP MR. ARCHIE CAMERON

Personal Explanation

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the Acting Minister for Commerce desire to make a personal explanation?

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Mr. Speaker -

Mr Curtin:

– On a point of order, I should like to know from you, Mr. Speaker, what business is before the House ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I understand that the Acting Minister for Commerce wishes to make a personal explanation.

Mr Lazzarini:

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Chair does not wish to comment upon this, but I must make it clear that it was by resolution of the House that the honorable member was suspended. Therefore, any explanation or apology is made to the House and not to the Chair alone.

Mr Wilson:

– In view of the explanation of the Acting Minister, I am satisfied.

Sitting suspended from 1.7 to 2.15 p.m.

page 2189

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1938

In committee:. Consideration resumed (vide page 2188).

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).That is entirely a matter for the committee to determine.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the wish of the committee to deal with the clauses in this group in two sections?

Honorable Members. - No.

Clause 104 (Reserve value and transfer value).

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– There are a number of financial provisions under the heading of “ Central Finance “, and, for the convenience of honorable members I prepared a little time ago a schematic representation of the main provisions of the financial clauses, copies of which have been circulated, and which I ask leave to have embodied in Hansard with minor alterations at as early a date as possible.

Mr Fadden:

– That will be included in the 16s. The amounts that make up the 16s. are Ils. for doctor, 4s. for the chemist, and ls. for administration.

Mr CASEY:

– The ls. is the mileage fee. It is proposed that the National Insurance Commission shall have much wider scope in respect of health administration than is the case in Great Britain. In Great Britain approved societies, I believe, do practically all sick visitation.

There you get the anomaly that in any one street there may be three or four sick visitors from different societies visiting patients. It is just as uneconomic as having four or five milkmen delivering milk in one street. We are getting over that by drawing up a scheme whereby one visitation staff will do practically all the health visitation for approved societies operating in the district.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- The question of the constitution of the board, of trustees for the National Insurance Fund is one of very great importance. The board will have the responsibility for controlling one of the largest funds in Australia, running into very many millions of pounds. It is suggested that its members will be beyond political control, but I point out that, as every member of the board is a public servant, although he may be beyond direct political control, he will he, to some degree at any rate, under political influence. The honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) suggested that some effort should be made to provide representation of an effective character for those who will be called upon to contribute to the fund. As the board is proposed to be constituted under clause 105, neither employers nor employees will have representation on the board. I do not think that a representative should be placed on the board merely for the purpose of giving those sections of the community formal representation, but I do suggest that the Government should co-opt the services of a representative of those organizations which are now practically administering similar activities. The Government might very well, for instance, co-opt the services of a representative of the mutual provident life assurance companies. The difficulty is to select a proper representative. In my opinion, a representative of the employers and employees will have to be selected by some means or other. I suggest that it would be of great benefit to the board if included among its members was a representative of the contributors, whose presence would act as a check on the civil servants who, under the clause as it now stands, will constitute the board.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I am afraid my point was not quite understood by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey). Perhaps I might be permitted to explain it further by saying that I urged that we should refrain from piling up an unconscionable surplus from contributions during this generation in order to provide a good-looking surplus for future years. It has been pointed out that no trust fund is inviolable so far as Parliament itself is concerned, and various suggestions have been made that the fluids which will accumulate from national insurance contributions might conceivably be appropriated by some future Treasurer. As a matter of fact, that is exactly what happened in Great Britain, and that is why the statutory unemployment insurance fund committee to which I referred was- appointed. The unemployment insurance measure came into operation in Great Britain in 1911-12. By 1921, the national insurance fund, after meeting all obligations, had a surplus of £22,000,000. The fund was accumulated on the assumption that a maximum liability for fifteen weeks’ unemployment benefits was normally adequate. Most men in ordinary times of industrial security were able to get back to work within fifteen weeks; but in 1921 a wave of unemployment began to sweep over Europe,’ and men were not getting back to work within that period. As a consequence, having exhausted all they were entitled to collect from the fund, they fell back on the Government for sustenance. The government of the day, instead of assuming that responsibility, cast covetous eyes on the £22,000,000 in reserve in the unemployment insurance fund, and said “ That belongs to these people; we will extend the period for the payment of benefits from 15 to 26 weeks “. It did that without increasing contributions to the fund. That is one way in which a Treasurer, with a parliamentary majority behind him, can unload on to such a fund responsibilities which should be met- by other means. That extension not only swallowed up the surplus but during the ten-year period, 1921-1931, involved the borrowing from the Government of £110,000,000. It was to conserve the finances of the fund and to place a check on any further accumulations at the expense of present-day contributors that the statutory committee to which I have referred was appointed. That committee does not wait for the government of the day to amend the rates of contributions or benefits; every year, under statute, it makes recommendations to Parliament designed to preserve the correct actuarial balance of the fund. In that way the present generation of contributors to the unemployment insurance scheme in Great Britain is protected against unnecessary or excessive contributions. I hope that before this bill becomes law the Government will give some attention to the desirability of protecting contributors to the Australian scheme in this way.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

– I find myself in sympathy with the views of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) in respect of this particular clause. I do not share the inferior complex of some honorable members with regard to officials of public departments. I believe that the officers who aTe to form the Board of Trustees of the National Insurance Fund could not be more wisely chosen. I feel sure that no body of men could more effectively handle the funds than those named in the bill. In my opinion the proposed board is an excellent one, and I do not think it could be improved by the inclusion of a representative of private insurance companies. A good many shady things have been sheeted home to men occupying high positions in the business world. Many of them have appropriated to their own use large sums of the peoples’ money, thereby causing widows and orphans much unnecessary suffering. With the board selected by the Government I cannot imagine anything like that happening. The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) presented us with a picture painted on both sides. He said that it was wrong for the Treasurer to establish a large fund, even though the circumstances were extraordinary; yet in pointing out what happened in Great Britain in connexion with the utilization of the unemployment insurance funds to extricate the Government from a difficulty in which it was placed owing to the depression, he said that the government of the day had to borrow a large sum of money to replenish the fund. After all, the people themselves contributed that fund. What was wrong with using it to help those people who established it? The fund belonged to the people. I think it wise to have sufficient elasticity in connexion with the fund to be able to utilize it in that way. It should not be administered as if it were established for money-lending purposes. If it be wisely administered it will earn interest, and it will not be necessary to make an additional levy on contributors to meet unusual expenditure. I am not in favor of the suggestion of the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony (that once a fund has reached beyond a safe actuarial level the surplus should be distributed among the contributors. The honorable member for Parramatta said that the administration of the fund should be so tightened up. as to prevent a Treasurer from making a raid upon it, and quoted the experience of such raids in Great Britain to show the danger in that direction. In my opinion, in view of the circumstances surrounding the depression in Great Britain, that so-called raid, was warranted. If .those funds had not been utilized, people living in the distressed areas at that time would have suffered considerably more than they did.

Mr Anthony:

– Pensions could not be distributed in that way.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– We could extend the benefits. Surely honorable members do not believe that Australia will never reach the position in which it will be possible to provide a pension of 25s. instead of £1. I trust that nobody will be canvassed from outside organizations to sit upon the Board of Trustees to administer the national insurance funds. I think we can all be perfectly satisfied that the Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, the Secretary to the Treasury, the Governor of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Statistician and the Commonwealth Actuary will form a very excellent board for this purpose. All of these officers are capable of administering the fund wisely. If they do not suit honorable members, I do not know what body of men would do so.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I do not think the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) understood the arguments advanced by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart). As I understood him, the honorable member for Parramatta was not concerned with tightening up the funds so that they could not be used for any other purposes; the honorable gentleman’s sole concern was that the fund should not be tied in such a manner as to make it inflexible. As I understood him., he was objecting to the contributions of the present generation being so excessive as to pile up a huge surplus for the benefit of future generations. I suggest that the methods spoken of as being applied in Great Britain were based on experience there, particularly during a period of acute depression. Should an epidemic make its appearance in Australia, it might be found necessary to supplement the health insurance fund from other sources. It should be possible for the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), in consultation with the experts, to ascertain the effect of previous epidemics which have swept Australia, Avith a view to estimating the number of persons who might call upon the fund for relief, thereby placing themselves in the position of being able to determine the minimum amount of surplus funds that should be held by the commission. The honorable member for Parramatta made some valuable suggestions to which the Government should give careful consideration.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– There is an essential difference between an unemployment scheme and a health and pensions scheme. The latter is very much more amenable to actuarial calculation than an unemployment scheme can be. The only investments set aside are those set aside in the names of these approved societies - amounts necessary to meet the obligations that will fall on them in the future. We are not proposing to take away, any more than is necessary to meet the actuarially calculated reserves of future groups of members in each approved society. Everything else will be at the disposal of the approved societies at five-yearly intervals for the creation of additional benefits.

Mr FROST:
Franklin

.- When we on this side asked for further concessions for contributors, we were told that the benefits would- exceed the contribu tions. The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart), who was emphatic on that point, is now afraid that a Treasurer will find the surplus at his disposal so large as to be embarrassing. The whole scheme is a device to extort money from the workers and the employers in industry in the interests of persons with big incomes who do not employ labor. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) seems to be afraid to give to a Treasurer the control of such large sums of money, but like the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway) I am confident that the fund will be safe in the hands of the commissioners. Should there be a. huge surplus, it could be distributed among contributors by either increasing the benefits or reducing their payments. The honorable member for Parramatta is not consistent; at one time he said that the benefits would exceed the payments, and later he expressed the fear that a big surplus would accumulate.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– That is because employers also will contribute to the fund.

Mr FROST:

– The altered outlook of some honorable members opposite is astounding.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 106 and 107 agreed to.

Clause 108 (National Insurance Trust Account).

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– This clause follows the usual form for trust accounts, but it seems inappropriate in this bill. It reads -

For the purposes of this act, there shall be a trust account, to be called the National Insurance Trust Account; which shall be a trust account within the meaning of section 02a of the Audit Act 1901-1934.

Section 62a of the Audit Act contains some provisions which are entirely inappropriate to such a fund as will be established under this bill. Sub-section 4 of that section provides -

The Treasurer may direct that any trust account be closed, and thereupon the moneys standing to the credit of the account shall, after all liabilities of the account have been met, be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Other sub-sections also appear to be inappropriate. I suggest that the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) give consideration to an alteration of the drafting of this clause. For some purposes certain provisions of section 62a of the Audit Act do apply to such a trust fund,but other provisions do not apply at all. It seems undesirable that a trust fund established within the meaning of section 62a of the Audit Act should be subjected to the power of the Treasurer to close it. I do not say that that is intended, but I suggest that the wording of the clause be reconsidered.

Mr Jolly:

-Would the provision control the board of trustees?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– Under the subsection that I have read the Treasurer would have the power to close the trust account. That is not intended. Section 62b of the Audit Act deals with provisions for investments which are not consistent with this scheme.

Mr Jolly:

– That section does not control the board of trustees.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 109 to 114 agreed to.

Clause 115 -

1 ) Out of the moneys from time totime standing to the credit of the Health Insurance Fund, there shall be allocated to an account kept in that fund, to be called the Medical Benefit Account, an annual amount calculated at the rate of 16s. in respect of males and 17s.6d. in respect of females, in respect of the total number, calculated at the time and in the manner prescribed, of the persons entitled to medical benefit.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The clause as it now stands specifies certain amounts which are to be allocated to the medical benefit account, and from the fund so created the cost of medical benefits is to be paid. As honorable gentlemen know, those amounts were calculated on the basis of an agreement arrived at between representatives of the Government and the Federal Committee of the British Medical Association. I do not need to rehearse the incidents which have occurred since that agreement was entered into, as only yesterday I announced on behalf of the Government, its intention to set up a royal commission to investigate the terms and conditions under which members of the medical profession should be asked to give their services under this scheme. That makes necessary an amendment to this clause. I, therefore, move -

That sub-clause ( 1 ) be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following sub-clause: -

There shall be kept in the Health Insurance Fund an account to be called the Medical Benefit account to which shall he credited from time to time, out of the moneys standing to the credit of the Health Insurance Fund, such amounts as are, in the opinion of the commission, necessary to meet the cost of medical benefit under this act.”

Obviously, the amount must be dealt with by regulation. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

.- The rates fixed in sub-clause 1 are 16s. in respect of men, and 17s. 6d. in respect of women. It has now been decided by the Government that the rates shall be determined by a royal commission, and fixed by regulation. There has been a great deal of discussion on this phase of the scheme, and now Parliament is being asked to pass the clause without fixing any rates at all. The rates are to be fixed by regulation, and Parliament will have no say in the matter.

Mr Casey:

– The regulations can bo discussed in Parliament.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– Perhaps, but that is not the right way to do the job. The doctors have indicated very clearly that they will not accept less than the Government offered, and, therefore, if a figure is to be agreed upon, the royal commission must recommend more. Otherwise the doctors will reject the recommendation, and Parliament cannot do anything about it. The doctors are subject to the laws of the States in which they live, and cannot be coerced by the Commonwealth. If the rates recommended by the commission are higher, which I submit they must be, then the contributions under the scheme will have to be raised, or an inferior medical service will be provided. I submit, therefore, that the whole of this clause should be omitted, and then, when the royal commission has submitted its recommendations, the matter can be dealt with by Parliament.Women are being given a raw deal right throughout the scheme, and in this clause it is proposed that they should have to pay1s. 6d. a week more than men for medical attention.

Mr Casey:

– Women will not have to pay that amount.

Mr LAZZARINI:

– It must be paid on their behalf. No doubt the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) will say that the employer pays part of it, but, in practice, the employer will pay nothing. The income of the employer will not be reduced by one penny because of his contributions to the scheme. All costs will be passed on to the consumers, that is, the workers, who, in the end, will pay for everything either by direct contribution or in the form of increased prices.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- In view of the developments which have taken place since the making of the agreement with the Federal Council of the British Medical Association, the amendment which the Government has now brought before us cannot fail to give satisfaction, not only to members of the medical profession, but also to the public generally. I commend the Government on its action.

The Treasurer (Mr. Casey) has stated that, after the royal commission has made its recommendation, the rate of remuneration to doctors will be fixed by regulation. That would appear to leave the matter entirely to the discretion of the Government, but I presume the Government would feel itself bound to accept, within very narrow limits, any recommendation which the commission might make, and, in subsequent quinquennial periods, the recommendations of the board of inquiry. I hope that the Treasurer will be able to give an assurance to this effect, and thus allay any uneasiness which members of the medical profession may entertain on the point.

The scheme provides that there shall be a revision of rates, &c, every five years, and while I agree that that will be satisfactory once the scheme is properly in operation, I submit that the first revision should take place after three years. The Treasurer must recognize that the royal commission, when considering rates, will be traversing unexplored territory, so far as this country is concerned. No doubt it will be guided by English conditions, insofar as they apply, and by the experience of the friendy societies, but, making all allow ance for this, its recommendations must be based largely upon hypotheses which cannot be definitely fixed. I suggest, therefore, that the first revision should take place after a period of three years, and that thereafter there should be a revision at the end of each quinquennial period. The royal commission itself should consider this suggestion, and, if it favours’ revision after three years, its recommendation to that effect should be adopted by the Government.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- It is interesting to note that the Government is looking around for a way out of the situation in which it finds itself astheresult of its negotiations with members of the medical profession. I have heard the doctors’ side of the dispute, and 1 think that they have a very good case. For that reason Ido not propose to quarrel with the proposal that a commission should inquire into the matter, but I suggest that the scope of the commission should be extended to inquire into the position of contributors to the fund, as well as that of the employees of the fund, which is what the doctors will be.

Mr GREEN:
Kalgoorlie

.- It. is obvious that doctors in sparsely populated areas will be obliged to travel much longer distances than city doctors in order to attend patients on their panel. The medical profession generally agrees that the claim for higher rates for country doctors is justified. Discussing this matter in its issue of the 28th May, 193S, the Medical Journal of Australia states:

In the first place an increase in the capita-‘ tion fee will bc proposed by the Federal Council. The Commonwealth Treasurer will be informed that 14s. per annum in metropolitan areas, and an additional 25 per cent, (making 17s. 6d.) per annum in country districts, are the minimum rates acceptable to the profession.

I do not propose to suggest what rates should be paid to medical practitioners, but I hope that the Government will indicate to the royal commission that in its view the rate payable to country doctors should be at least 25 per cent, more than that payable to city doctors. I am informed that the medical doctor at Ben- cubbin, Western Australia, has recently been obliged to leave that district, because, although he has been there for only a short period, he has been rendered practically insolvent, debts owed to him amounting to £3,000, because of continued bad seasons and the low prices of wheat. Under this scheme doctors should be enabled to continue in practice in such districts, the residents of which consist mainly of small farmers whose incomes do not exceed £200 a year, and who should not be asked to pay the1s. 6d. a week for employees. If the Government pays this1s. 6d. a week the scheme would be beneficial in the country.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– It is generally recognized that a scheme of this nature cannot be operated successfully if harmony with the medical profession is not maintained. Therefore, the decision of the Government to appoint a royal commission to inquire into this aspect is welcome. I should like to know from the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) whether, if it is found impossible under the scheme itself to make adequate provision for the payment of doctors in sparsely settled districts, the Government would be prepared to grant a subsidy in this respect. In any case, I trust that a reasonable compromise will be arrived at in order to ensure that the greatest benefits possible will be enjoyed under the scheme by residents of country districts. I am pleased to hear that the Treasurer is of opinion that a review period of five years would be too long. As far as the effect of this scheme on dispensaries is concerned, I suggest that the first review at least should be made at the end of the first year, because the longer that review is delayed, the greater will be the danger of wrecking friendly societies’ dispensaries and the businesses of private chemists.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Sir Henry Gullett:

– In order that the committee may have reasonable time to discuss Part VII. of the bill, I suggest that clauses 116 to 136 inclusive, with the Government’s amendments thereon, be taken as a whole. Judging by the progress of the debate so far itis quite clear that unless something of this kind is done, the committee will have very little time indeed to deal with the very important clauses covering approved societies. It is in the interests of those honorable members who are particularly concerned with the effect of this scheme on such societies, that I make my suggestion.

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear!

Mr Hawker:

– I support the suggestion of the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) in the hope that a vote will be taken forthwith on the remaining clauses of Part VI., and the committee thus be enabled to proceed to Part VII. immediately.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Is it the pleasure of the committee that clauses 116 to 136 inclusive, together with the Government’s amendments thereon, be considered en bloc?

Honorable Members. - Hear, hear !

Clauses 116 to 136.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

. - I wish to discuss briefly clause 132 which deals with the investment of the Pensions Insurance Fund. Under clause 105 a board of trustees for national insurance funds is set up, and the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) pointed out that that body is admirably equipped for its particular task. This clause, however, I suggest, restricts too rigidly the field of investment which will be open to that body, bearing in mind such factors as yield. mobility and security. In Great Britain, the boards may invest their funds in government housing schemes or other forms of social help provided there is a guaranteed return from such investments. I understand that the provision in this clause is open to that interpretation, but I would point out to the Treasurer that investments of this form would be exposed to a grave risk as the result of government policy in favour of devaluation of the currency, which would have the effect of depressing the value of government stocks. In this event the fund would suffer. The practice of large insurance companies is to spread their investments over the whole field of industrial and land securities. I suggest that as we shall have an authority which willbe admirably equipped to deal with these funds, it will be unnecessary toincur risk by restricting it to investment in securities that may be affected by a policy of inflation. The Treasurer should give to the board power to spread its investments over the whole field.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– The range of trustee investment provided in the clause is quite wide. It includes securities which have been issued by the Government of the Commonwealth, or of the United Kingdom, or by any public authority constituted by any act or State act. When we establish the mortgage branch of the Commonwealth Bank with power to issue debentures, that will provide another avenue. There are also the securities offered by State housing authorities. water and sewerage boards.

Clauses 116 to 136, with the circulated amendments of the Government incorporated, agreed to.

Circulated amendments -

Clause 116, after sub-clause (1.) insert the following sub-clause: - “ (1a.) Payments to an approved society of amounts standing to the credit of the society in the Health Insurance Fund may be made to the society at such times and subject to such conditions as are prescribed.”.

Clause 129, omit “ or “, third occurring, paragraph (a), sub-clause (2.); after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: - ” (aa) by the conversion of any securities purchased by the board under the last preceding paragraph into new securities issued by any such Government or authority ; or “.

Clause 1 32, omit “ or “, last occurring, paragraph (a), sub-clause (2.); after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: - “(aa) by the conversion of any securities purchased by the board under the last preceding paragraph into new securities issued by any such Government or authority ; or “.

Clause 137- (1.) The commission may, by notice in the

Gazette, declare -

any society, being a body whether corporate or unincorporate; and
any separate section of any society or other body of persons which is established by that society or body and consists of insured persons, whether with or without honorary members not being insured persons, which, in either case, complies with the requirements of this act, to be an approved society for the purposes of this act.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

– I move -

That paragraphs (a) and (b), sub-clause (1.), be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs: - ” (a) any friendly society registered under the law of any State or Territory;

any society (not being an insurance society) existing at the commencement of this part which, though not So registered, is deemed by the commission to be qualified for its approval by reason of its experience in the management and distribution, among its members, of benefits of any of the classes provided by this act; and

any trade union.”.

The object of this amendment is to exclude insurance companies from participation in this scheme as approved societies. Such companies have not evidenced any desire to engage in social work. They operate solely for profit, and I propose that registration as approved societies should not be given to them. Friendly societies have for the last 100 years been administering sickness and other social benefits to the working people of Australia. During all this time they have acquired valuable experience in this field of social activity. We are greatly indebted to all these bodies for the services which they have provided without remuneration to their members, or profit from the investment of their funds. If insurance companies and other commercial organizations having a membership of 2,000 are, as is at present intended, to be approved societies, a great hardship will be inflicted on friendly societies whose members will also be required to contribute to the National Insurance Fund. This will seriously affect the membership of these bodies. To-day, friendly societies have a total membership of approximately 600,000 in 5,755 branches. These branches are not a loose conglomeration, but are consolidated under a grand council which includes representatives from every State. The friendly societies distribute approximately £2,000,000 per annum in sick benefits. Apart from the disbursement of this large sum, lodge representatives, when on visiting rounds, are always ready to give a cheering word to the sick. The visiting of the sick by representatives of insurance companies would be a cold callous commercial inquiry to find out whether or not the patient was malingering. I have been a member of friendly societies, and I have been in hospital, so I can speak from personal knowledge of the encouragement resulting from these friendly visits by lodge representatives. Probably many other honorable members, including some Government supporters, have also had a similar experience, ‘ and know how beneficial are these visits on the health of the sick in a hospital. Lodge representatives with many years of experience in this kind of work can, without any discomfort or embarrassment to the sick, ascertain whether a patient is a malingerer. Friendly societies and certain trade unions, to which I referred in my second-reading speech, have, for very many years, made adequate provision against sickness, not only for- insured members, but also for their families or dependants. They have provided for ordinary sick benefits, and also, in some cases, for treatment by specialists of patients suffering from occupational diseases such as miners’ phthisis and nystagmus.

In Great Britain there are 6,955 approved societies under the national insurance scheme, including friendlysocieties and trade unions. The only qualification specified for an approved society under the bill is that it must have a membership of 2,000. Why should commercial organizations which have never provided for the community the benefits contemplated under this measure be permitted to participate in the administration, of the funds? Surely they cannot be considered as deserving as friendlysocieties, which in addition to providing substantial benefits for their members, have provided medical benefits for members’ families and have “from a health point of view rendered valuable service to the nation? They have educated men to have a high regard for law and order, and have been instrumental in giving many of their members a grounding that fitted them to take their places in responsible walks of public life. By mutual help and assistance to members less fortunately situated, friendly societies practise the true ethics of Christianity, and give expression to the highest principles of brotherhood. “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” may be truly described as the spirit of their service. The nation is deeply indebted to these societies for their assistance to sick and indigent workers for many years past, and it is imperative that this work should not be rendered impossible by the operation of this scheme. I have no doubt that suitable arrangements can be made to enable them to continue their contribution to the health and progress of the nation. By arrangement with the medical profession, trade unions, in conjunction with friendly societies, have set up dispensaries in almost every town on the coal-fields and free medical treatment has been given to unemployed workers and their families.

It is generally recognized that the system of social insurance benefits provided by the Miners Federation is based wholly and solely on the experience which many miners have had as members of friendly societies. These organizations co-operate with one another. Many thousands of members of the Miners Federation are also members of friendly societies. The services rendered by dispensaries, hospitals, eye and other specialists, particularly in the case of those suffering from occupational diseases, have been of great, benefit to members of the Miners Federation and friendly societies. Since the termination of the Great War, friendly societies - have provided the widows and children of deceased soldiers with medical benefits. The Repatriation Department having considered it desirable to enter into contracts with friendly societies for the treatment for deceased soldiers’ dependents, the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) should allow friendly societies and industrial unions,, which have had so much experience in administering sick benefit funds, to be the only approved societies. Life insurance societies should be definitely excluded. It is provided that approved societies shall not cany on for profit, but is there any reason why organizations should form approved societies, or bother with the scheme’ at all, unless they are going to gain some advantages in so doing? It may not be a direct profit, but indirectly they will undoubtedly gain substantial advantages, otherwise there would be no inducement for them to come into the scheme. Many large companies which advertise extensively or employ paid canvassers, would find it worth-while to form an approved society merely with the object of bringing them in touch with a large number of insured persons who could thus easily be canvassed for business apart from that of national insurance. On the other hand, friendly societies arc established merely for the purpose of enabling members to help themselves, and to provide security against sickness and distress. The whole of the funds belong to the members. If a surplus is shown on valuation, it is used only for providing additional benefits or to enable contributions to be reduced. Friendly societies do not pay exorbitant directors’ fees, excessive salaries or commissions, and the remuneration of the principal officers and of members of the staff is kept down to the lowest possible minimum.. A great deal of service is entirely voluntary. I have been a member of a friendly society since I was sixteen years of age, and have passed through the various chairs. I know that much of the work is performed voluntarily, and I am sure that that cannot be said of the life assurance societies. I understand that the Treasurer intends to move an amendment to include life insurance companies, which under State laws would be excluded from forming approved societies. As life insurance companies carry on their operations only for profit, and cannot render the same service as is rendered by friendly societies, they should be excluded from the list of approved societies.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:
Henty

– I feel no embarrassment whatever in supporting the amendment moved by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. .Tames). A similar amendment has been in my mind, and, in the minds of other honorable members on this side of the chamber for some time, but there has been delay owing to the protracted, but friendly, negotiations which have been proceeding between myself and the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to see whether some solution could be reached under which friendly societies could be fully protected without excluding other organizations from the list of approved societies.

Unfortunately those negotiations have failed. But for that fact I should have submitted an amendment similar to that, moved by the honorable member for Hunter, the object of which is to exclude life insurance societies from the list of approved societies to be embodied in the bill. If such societies are not excluded we shall be setting up an insurance scheme very largely at the expense of great national institutions in the form of friendly societies. In my secondreading speech I dealt with the value of such societies to the Australian nation, and it is therefore unnecessary for mc to repeat what I then said. Friendly societies are one of our finest assets, and their achievement in providing medical and other benefits for about 1,250,000 persons is extraordinary. The extent of such an achievement can be measured when we consider the prodigious volume of work which has been necessary in preparing this bill, and the almost insurmountable difficulties that have been experienced during its discussion in this chamber. The first national insurance scheme was introduced into this Parliament ten years ago, but it was abandoned: While friendly societies are providing benefits for 1,250,000 persons the Government has sought the assistance of distinguished British officials and highly competent actuaries in an endeavour to formulate a national insurance scheme to provide medical benefits for 1,850,000 persons. That should be sufficient to emphasize the value of the work voluntarily done by these societies without governmental assistance or the aid of experts from abroad. I am not, of course, belittling in any way the valuable services performed by overseas experts ; on the contrary, I praise them. The efficiency of established friendly societies cannot be challenged, because, as I have said, they are to-day providing medical and many other benefits for 1,250,000 Australians. The Government recognizes the value and efficiency of these societies, because it proposes to hand over to them the work of providing medical benefits to the dependants of those who are to be compulsorily insured under this scheme. In these circumstances the Government cannot say on any ground whatever that the friendly societies are not completely competent to handle medical benefits underthe national scheme. If this measure becomes law all friendly societies will immediately be prejudiced. Indeed, after some months of cool and dispassionate deliberation and investigation I have come to the conclusion that these societies will actually be destroyed in consequence of the increased burden of providing medical and other benefits for the dependants of those who will be covered by this measure. Under this measure, friendly societies arc threatened with the loss of their single men. One-fourth of the members of such societies are single men, who, for medical benefits, pay an amount equal to that paid by married men. In other words 27s. a head is collected from each member, but, as the medical benefits of an insured man cost only 9s. a head, therefore for each 27s. paid by a single man 18s. of that amount benefits the dependants of three married men. If a single man is excluded from the friendly societies, each three married contributors will be deprived of the advantage of that 18s. which will then be distributed in the form of an old-age pension or a widow’s pension to others provided for in this measure. Every married man insured for medical benefits in friendly societies will thus be at a disadvantage of 6s. In addition, a single man also pays the flat rate of about 8s. a head for medicine, and of such payment only 2s. is required to cover him. He therefore contributes 6s., or 2s. each for three dependent families. We shall, therefore, be robbing the dependants of members of friendly societies of 8s. for each insured married man. The friendly societies cannot possibly carry on insurance for medical benefits in such circumstances. The Treasurer has suggested a contribution of 5s. to each dependant family under a voluntary insurance scheme; but in all probability that would still leave dependants of members of friendly societies in a much worse position than they are to-day. The bill as it is now framed will have a crippling effect upon friendly societies.

Mr Casey:

– We are not limiting it to that amount.

Mr.Curtin. - But we do not know what you are doing.

Sir HENRY GULLETT:

– The Government will be forced to make some financial contribution, but no one knows the amount. If the Treasurer could have stated the amount, possibly I would not be supporting the amendment, but he has been unable to give me any assurance on that point. I believe that the committee is most anxious that dependants will be brought under the compulsory scheme at the earliest possible date. If there are two major organizations in the field of the approved societies, the transfer of the dependants from a voluntary scheme to a compulsory scheme will be deferred indefinitely. Friendly societies operating on a voluntary basis will not give up their members to approved life assurance societies, but they would probably be willing to transfer them to another approved friendly society. In speaking of friendly societies I include also trade unions which have benefit funds, and organizations established by employers and employees.

I cannot see any justification for the inclusion of life insurance societies under this measure, for, in my opinion, they have shown no very great sympathy for the workers of this country. The term “ mutual “ is in some measure a misnomer. The so-called mutual societies are heavily loaded in favour of the wealthier classes of insured persons. I think that I can establish that fact in a few words. In the first place, there was the dramatic statement in the secondreading debate by the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson), who said that the money paid out by the companies in respect of industrial insurance policies was actually less, because of lapsed policies, than the money paid in. That is a serious charge to make against these great societies, for which I have as much admiration, in a broad sense, as anybody. During the depression, the only asset of scores of thousands of men was their life policy. They lost their jobs, or were given part-time work, their businesses partially failed, or failed altogether, and they borrowed money on their life assurance policies; but they were charged interest at the rate of6 per cent., and 7per cent, if they were late with their payments, right up to the time of the introduction of the financial emergency legislation. That showed no disposition on the part of the life insurance companies to aid the small man during the time of the greatest stress this country has experienced. In 1933, the then Treasurer (Mr. Lyons) brought down a budget which remitted taxes to the amount of £750,000 to the life insurance societies. The undertaking required of the societies was that they would reduce their interest rates, which they did, hut to whom did they make the reduction? Not to the policyholders, not to the thousands of men who w<>re forced to borrow money during the depression, but to outsiders who produced securities for assets such as land. If a policy-holder desired to raise a loan. from one of these companies, he was required to pay 5 per cent, interest, and that rate has continued to this day. Where do all these profits go? They go to the wealthier policy-holders who have never found it necessary to borrow. These societies arc not truly .mutual, and their record shows that they have never manifested any sincere sympathy for the workers. This bill is designed for the benefit of the workers, and the life insurance societies, having shown no great disposition to help them, have no claim to come under this scheme as approved societies. Under the measure, as drawn, these societies, with their great wealth and elaborate overhead organization, which would never be charged against the national scheme, would come into the field in the next six months before the friendly societies would know on what terms they could offer insurance of dependants of contributors, and in that period I believe that the friendly societies could bc ruined.

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- In the establishment of approved societies, we should make quite certain that Ave do not give to existing organizations a second prop with which to support their present enterprises. That ought to be clear and definite. I agree too, as a member of three mutual life societies, with the greater part of the comment of the honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett). I invite honorable gentlemen on both sides of the chamber to read the names of the directors of the .great life insurance corporations in Australia, and then to note the manner in which those names are dove-tailed into the directorates of the large banking and -financial institutions, with the result that the financial policy of the life insurance companies strongly supports what one might describe, in broad terms, a3 the moneypower of the Commonwealth. The political influence of these companies is enormous. The experience in GreatBritain affords an indication of. what would occur as the result of action by this Parliament to admit insurance companies as approved societies under this scheme. I am informed by Sir Walter Citrine, secretary of the British Trade Union Congress, that the approved societies in England and Scotland ha.ve i7,000,000 members, of whom 8,000,000 are members of approved societies formed by insurance companies. I make a practice of verifying, as far as possible, all information supplied to me, and I am told by those competent to advise the Government in this matter that it may be said that of the 16.000,000 members of approved societies in the Old Country, 7,000,000 are members of approved societies operated by insurance companies. There are 3,000,000 members <*« ‘ the approved societies operated by trade unions, 5,000j000 in the friendly societies, and 1,000,000 in the rural mutual help societies, church organizations, and the like. Thus, in Great Britain, approximately one-half of the insured persons are covered through approved societies controlled by insurance’ companies. That is the fact which the friendly societies have to face in Australia.

It has also been pointed out by Sir. Walter Citrine that it is true that the companies are not allowed to conduct the approved societies for profit, but that it is equally true that, being in close contact with millions of people through their approved societies, the companies get a definite advantage, because the same agent does both sides of the business. Then Sir Walter Citrine goes on to say that, although the approved society cannot be operated for profit, the sum allowed to it helps to pay the agent of the insurance company which is an approved society, and the result of the haphazard enlistment of members is bad from several points’ of view. The insurance company that becomes an approved society will probably have members of the society distributed throughout the Commonwealth, whereas what is desirable is that in each locality a particular approved society should- have the greater part of the responsibility of dealing with the residents of that locality.

Mr Fadden:

– As a fraternal society.

Mr CURTIN:

– Yes. We have to consider this problem more from the point of view of the people in sparsely populated areas- than from that of those living in the larger towns or great cities, because it is in the country areas that the medical side of this service will be most difficult to administer. I decline to believe that, in a small town in Australia, the representative of an insurance company is a better citizen, or a more vigilant administrator, than an officer of a friendly society. As a matter of fact, more often than not, the work of representing an insurance society is a sideline which the agent mixes with a dozen other commission agencies. For the most part, if we look for the “gogetter” in the average country town, we shall find the representative of an insurance company to be that person. His qualities as a citizen are not to be compared with those of the gentleman who takes part in the organization of the friendly societies in country places. The friendly society would be anxious, not only to get “ insured persons “ as members but also to have protection so that it would be able to provide a health service for those insured persons who used their option to pay the extra amount for cover for medical benefit for their wives and children. The insurance company would deal only with persons insured under this legislation. I hope that the Treasurer will give the committee some guarantee that, if insured persons are to be dealt with by an insurance company which constitutes an approved society, the society will also organize a medical service for those insured persons who exercise their option to have their wives and children covered for medical service. The friendly societies have done all the optional health insurance in Australia up to date. They have laid the foundations of a national health service for this country. They have given us an excellent experience of what is required in the elaboration of a system of this kind. Instead of placing them in jeopardy, the Treasurer should regard them as the very core around which the administrative structure of this .scheme should be built.

It is desirable that trade unions, to- should be brought into this field; but even there, although I have the strongest desire to see the trade unions as strong as possible for other reasons, I believe that these bodies which have had experience in the administration of provident funds are better able to help in the initiation of this scheme than those which have had no experience in this direction. Obviously we have to be guided by British experience, which is that, notwithstanding the great strength of friendly societies in Great Britain, their long history and their social significance, the fact ‘ is that, out of 16,000,000 persons insured under the British scheme, the approved societies controlled by the insurance companies have practically one-half of the field as a monopoly. That is a clear indication of the difficulties which the friendly societies have to face, even .in the Old Land. I am told that the difficulty which the trade unions have experienced in getting members into their approved societies is due to the tactics which the canvassers of the, insurance companies employ in order to attract business. The canvassers engaged in the ordinary life insurance activities of these companies - and the industrial insurance side of their operations is a most mischievous thing - would be more concerned ‘ with that side of their work than with: carrying out the obligations incidental to the medical service, should the insurance companies become approved societies. It is probably true that in certain places throughout the Commonwealth the insurance companies have .representatives, but those individuals have not had any experience analogous to friendly society work. Notwithstanding the great wealth of the insurance companies they are capitalistic in character, and it is idle to deny it. The enormous amount of accumulated and reserve funds’ which they hold are used in various ways for ordinary capitalistic investment for the most part, and not to make possible reductions of premiums. The insurance companies have, in fact, maintained their premiums and increased their bonuses. That means that the wealthier sections of the Australian people are better able to pay the premiums and therefore obtain an excellent return for their investments. If premiums were reduced, .even though it meant that bonuses were also on a lower scale, the poorer classes of our people would be able to take up insurance policies; but, as it is, they arenot able to do so. The directorates of the insurance companies are more concerned to pay large bonuses than to reduce premiums. It 3s true, as. the honorable member for Henty has said, that the insurance companies serve the wealthier classes in a far better way than they serve the poorer classes.

Many of the 23 insurance companies of Australia, which may be mutual within the definition given by the Treasurer to the honorable member for Henty, are, in actual fact, profit-making enterprises as well as insurance companies. They are called upon to pay dividends on the capital invested in them.

Mr Gregory:

– And we arc asked to leave the selection of the companies to a royal commission not yet appointed 1

Mr CURTIN:

Mr MAHONEY:
DENISON, TASMANIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– They do not want them.

Mr CASEY:

– In the light of what 1 have said I think it will be agreed that many of the difficulties which honorable members fear are not likely to arise. I wish to make it clear that I am not partial to either life insurance offices or friendly societies. Iam dealing with the situation objectively. I believe that this scheme will be much more effective if life insurance offices are allowed to form approved societies under the conditions specified than if they are not allowed to form them.

The honorable member for Henty (Sir Henry Gullett) said that friendly societies would be destroyed if life insurance offices were allowed to form approved societies. I do not think that that would be the case. Many other persons, some of them connected with friendly societies, support my view. I direct the attention of honorable members to the following paragraph which appears in a leaflet entitled “ The Rechabites and National Insurance”, issued by the Victorian district of the Independent. Order of Rechabites: -

The District Officers arc of the firm opinion that there is not the slightest justification for anything approaching panic on the part of members of friendly societies. It has to he remembered that nationalinsurance has been in force in Great Britain for over26 years, and the friendly societies are not only still in existence there, butare numerically as strong as they were at the inception of national insurance, and financially arc definitely much stronger. National insurance in Great Britain did not put the friendly societies out of business. On the contrary it brought into close contact with friendly societies a large section of thepeople who were not previously associated with friendly societies.

I should also like to quote briefly the views of Mr. Lloyd George who, in a recent speech, outlined the situation which faced him when he introduced the national insurance legislation into the British Parliament in 1911. Mr. Lloyd George said -

It was only whenI decided to avail myself of the services of the industrial. Assurance Offices with their extensive and highly trained organizations, that I was able to feel that I had taken a long step towards the solution of this problem.

The experiment was fully justified by results, for working with enthusiasm and setting themselves to- educate the people in the benefits of health insurance, within a few months they brought no fewer than5,000,000 peopleinto the self-governing approved societies which they set up. That was a great achievement and one for which I still have feelings of gratitude after 21 years.

Since that time, 21 years ago, the industrial offices have maintained these societies on a sound footing. During the war, when depletion of staffs threatened to produce a crisis, they started training schools . . .

He goes on maintaining the point that only with the greatest difficulty would the scheme have been inaugurated in Great Britain without the assistance of life offices. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) asked how many life offices will come into the scheme. A number of questions have been asked by some societies in regard to it, but we have every reason to believe that the great mutual societies, the Australian Mutual Provident, the Temperance and General, and the Colonial Mutual, will probably come in.

Mr Fadden:

– And the National Mutual?

Mr CASEY:

– That is still doubtful.

Mr Anthony:

– What about the City Mutual?

Mr CASEY:

– I have no information concerning that office. All of those I have mentioned are mutual offices. The Mutual Life and Citizens, which, although admittedly not 100 per cent. mutual, is practically mutual in that out of its assets totalling approximately £18,000,000, its paid-up capital is only £200,000, will also probably come in, and possibly the Australian Metropolitan Office. Those are the only societies which have given an indication that they would come into this scheme. I should also like to make this additional point: Friendly societies carry on life insurance business in competition with life offices! In the New

– I shall reply to that in a moment. My third point is that Australia is famous throughout the world for the great thrift institutions that have been established in this country, the most important of them on a mutual basis. I believe, that for many reasons which I cannot go into now, it would be greatly against the public interest to exclude those companies from this scheme.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Curtin) asked the meaning of an amendment I had circulated a few hours ago in connexion with this clause. I believe that some, if not all, of the great mutual societies would, owing to the existence of certain provisions in the State laws, be prevented from forming approved societies. Therefore, in order to implement the Government’s proposal, it would be necessary either to seek the cooperation of the States to amend their legislation or to amend the present bill in such a way as to make it override the laws of the States. The amendment will affect only mutual companies. I make a final appeal to members on all sides of the chamber to consider carefully the matters I have raised. For reasons which the Government believes to be perfectly sound, I would regard itas a tragedy to exclude life insurance offices.

Mr MAHONEY:
Denison

– I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). I feel sure that if the bill goes through in its present form it will spell the doom of friendly societies in Australia. For my part, I shall do everything in my power to defend the interests of the friendly societies which have done magnificent work in looking after the health of the people of Australia for many years. In his final appeal the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) endeavoured to induce honorable members to believe that lodges would not be interfered with by this bill. I have been in conversation with representatives of many lodges during the last month and they have satisfied me that they will suffer considerably as the result of the introduction of the national insurance scheme, which would greatly handicap their future work. The position as I see it at the moment is that friendly societies are quite capable of carrying any further burden that may be placed upon their shoulders by the acceptance of greater responsibilities in connexion with the health of the people. Hundreds of thousands of persons at present enjoying medical benefit rights as members of friendly societies will not surrender their rights for the mere sop which this bill proposes in their place. Trade unions’ which extend to their members medical and health benefits are entitled to be brought within the category of approved societies along with friendly societies conferring similar benefits; but although I am a policy-holder in a life insurance office, I am not prepared to include insurance societies in that category. I am satisfied that they cannot cater for the wants of the poorer sections of the community, because the premiums demanded for an insurance cover of £100 are beyond the capacity of the ordinary workingclass individual to meet. “ Go-getter “ canvassers for these companies will be able to destroy the friendly societies by making it impossible for them to gain new members. It would be disastrous if, after having served the country well for many years, the friendly societies were forced out of existence. It is significant that two Ministers in the present Government are directors of life insurance companies. Life insurance “ go-getters “ should not be allowed to destroy the friendly societies in order that they themselves may exploit the people. The life insurance companies exist chiefly in the interests of the more wealthy sections of the people, and I hope that when the vote is taken they will be denied participation in this scheme.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- I ask leave to alter my amendment to read -

That paragraphs (a) and (b) be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraphs: -

a separate section of any friendly society registered under the law of any State or Territory or of any trade union, and

any other society (not being a body carrying on life insurance business) which is deemed by the commission to be qualified to be an approved society.

Leave granted.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling Downs

– I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James). The life insurance companies concerned have virtually held a gun at the head of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), knowing that he is in a difficulty because many small policy-holders who have incurred obligations in respect of industrial insurance beyond their financial resources will have to make contributions under this scheme. A similar situation was effectively met in Queensland by an alteration of the act whereby life insurance companies which dealt in industrial insurance were compelled to provide an actuarially ascertained surrender value in respect of such policies. Probably the difficulty of the Treasurer could be met in a similar way. These companies are under an obligation to make a substantial contribution to this great national scheme of insurance. The most effective contribution that they can make, particularly those which have done so well in the industrial insurance field, is to remove the obstacle confronting the Treasurer without imposing any condition that they be authorized to form approved societies. Friendly societies have contributed much to the amenities of country life, particularly in remote areas. They provide means whereby men holding similar views may meet together regularly, and their wives and children enjoy social intercourse from time to time. Such societies deserve the support of all honorable members who desire to stop the drift from the countryside to the city, to the disadvantageof the productivity of the country, and, indeed, of the welfare of the nation. We should lend all possible encouragement to these friendly societies which have rendered such valuable service to Australia. Many years ago they laid the foundation of a scheme which the National Parliament is now asked to extend to other societies. If the life insurance companies are really desirous of helping this great national scheme, they can do it without imposing the condition that they be allowed to form approved societies.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

.- I have never heard such specious and humbugging pleading as that of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to-day.

Mr Casey:

– I rise to a point of order. I ask that the honorable member be called upon to withdraw that remark.

Mr.ROSEVEAR.- I withdraw it in order to save time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member must withdraw it without qualification.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– I do so. If the arguments of the Treasurer -to-day be sound, why were not the life insurance companies originally incorporated in the bill?

Mr Casey:

– They were.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Had not the guillotine provisions of our Standing Orders been in operation, the latest proposals of the Treasurer thrown in at the last moment would not have come before us. To-day the Treasurer has indulged in special pleading on behalf of societies whichhave proved inimical to the working of the national insurance scheme in Great Britain. These life insur- ance companies are prepared to make certain concessions to policy-holders on the condition that they are accepted as approved societies under this legislation. The imposing of that condition indicates that there is something which they do not wish to disclose.

Mr Casey:

– Nonsense !

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– The offer of a bait by these insurance societies at this late stage shows that there is something, amiss. Much more than efficiency in the collection of contributions is necessary ; there is need also to police the scheme. However efficient the organization may be in gaining new members and collecting contributions, unless it is able to keep in intimate touchwith the people, as the friendly societies do, the scheme will break down. No other organization can police this scheme as effectively as can the friendly societies. The life insurance companies want to come into this scheme in order to get access to a large body of potential policy-holders in order to tout for insurance business. What they have done in Great Britain they want to do also in Australia.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The time allowed for this portion of the committee stage having expired, I must put the question that is now before the Chair -

That the amendment (Mr. James’s) be agreed to.

Question put. The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 37

NOES: 25

Majority . . 12

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 137, as amended, and clauses 138 to 164, and the circulated amendments of the Government, agreed to.

Circulated amendments -

Clause 147, after “benefit” (second occurring) insert “ (including dependent child’s allowance)”.

Clause 149, omit “ insured persons who, within the prescribed times, are not”, insert “ persons who are entitled to be members of approved societiesand who, within the prescribed time, have not become “.

Clause 152, omit sub-clause (4.), insert the following sub-clause: - “ (4.) The application of this section shall extend to juvenile contributors but nothing in this section shall apply to partially exempt employees or to special voluntary contributors.”.

Clause . 157, omit “State Act”, sub-clause (2.), insert “of any State Act or Ordinance”.

Sitting suspended from6.28 to8 p.m.

Clause 165 agreed to.

Clause 166 - (1.) If any question arises -

whether any person is or has been employed, is or has been entitled to be insured, or is or has been an exempt employee to whom section twenty-four of the act applies;

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

.- I move-

That after the word “ exempt “ the words “ or partially exempt “ be inserted.

This is purely a drafting amendment.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- The corresponding section in the English act provides for an appeal to a judge of the High Court. This clause does not provide for an appeal to any court at all.

All that oan be said is that provision is made by which the commission’ can, instead of deciding cases itself, refer them to referees who will be appointed by the Government, and will have no independent tenure of office. If in England they can operate, as they have been operating for a good number of years, a system that provides that ultimately important questions of law affecting nationally insured persons shall be dealt with by the High Court - and apparently are dealt with under the m forma pauperis rule - I do not see why we should depart from that practice in Australia. Section 161 of the British act reads -

Provided that -

if any person is aggrieved by the decision of the Minister-

Mr CURTIN:
Fremantle

.- The provisions of the bill have to be construed not by the present legal advisers to the Treasurer, but by an entirely different authority. We have to make sure that what we intend should be in the bill is prescribed in it. If we do not express our intentions in the bill we cannot express them anywhere. If Parliament desires that a certain course should be open to claimants it must make the necessary provision in some clause of the bill. Otherwise we shall be negligent, and our negligence will cause loss to claimants, and perhaps futile expenditure by them in an attempt to establish a right which Parliament thought they had, but which another authority decided they had not.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

.- It is almost elementary that where a provision is made in a section of an act ‘of Parliament for determining a matter, that matter has to be determined in that way only, unless some other machinery has been provided. It is suggested by the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) that ordinary rights at common law would permit of an aggrieved person invoking the courts to redress his grievance. I should like to know from the Treasurer where in the bill a tribunal is provided for that purpose. It is very common in an act of Parliament to set up a tribunal for the purpose of determining a question of fact and/or law, and it is true that the section making the provision sometimes states that from the decisions of the tribunal there shall be no appeal. On the other hand, if an appeal is regarded as possible, provision is made for the creation of a tribunal, or an existing tribunal is vested with the necessary jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In the bill no tribunal is named. To what tribunal would the Treasurer suggest aggrieved persons should have recourse? A person making an appeal cannot make his own choice of a tribunal. He cannot decide to go to a court of general sessions, or the Supreme Court, or the High Court. He must be bound by the statute concerned, which must set out the court of appeal to which he must go. While there is much in what the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) hassaid, I am not particularly wedded to the principle of an appeal to a court. I must confess that the Labour party as a rule has frowned on appeals to legal tribunals, and has looked rather for rapid decisions in the administration of an act of this kind. Notably in connexion with the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Labour party has always set its face against any method that would lead to what it feared would be interminable litigation. If it is generally felt that a right of appeal by insurance claimants is desirable, then J submit that it is unanswerable that provision must be made for it in the bill, and that it must be stated to what tribunal the appeal lies. The view very modestlyput by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) as being possibly doubtful, I, with greater audacity, suggest is beyond all doubt.

Mr FORDE:
Capricornia

– I should like the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) to give some assurance that assistance will be provided for claimants to state their cases before referees. In dealing with repatriation claims, the Repatriation Department, I understand, gives that assistance. The request is only reasonable.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I am advised that nothing that the Government could put in the bill would make the decision of the commission or of the referees final, because their decisions will not be judicial decisions; and any attempt to make them so would be a violation of the judicial power. It would be beyond our province to do anything of that sort in this bill. Judicial decisions can be obtained only from a court. Section 56 of the Judiciary Act 1903 states-

Any person making anyclaim against the Commonwealth, whether in contract or in tort, may in respect of the claim bring a suit against the Commonwealth in the High Court or in the Supreme Court of the State in which the claim arose.

There is nothing in the bill that does, or can, take that right away from any citizen.

Mr Rosevear:

– Would a claim of the kind referred to be a claim against the Commonwealth ?

Mr CASEY:

– Yes, because the commission will be an instrumentality of the Commonwealth. The right to sue the

Commonwealth is given in the Judiciary Act, and any aggrieved person may take legal proceedings, notwithstanding any decision against him by the commission or a referee.

Regarding the assistance desired for claimants by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr.Forde), that can in the first place be given by the referees, and the Government can also, by regulation, make provision for the assistance that the honorable member desires.

Mr Blackburn:

– He would be a paid advocate, the payment to be provided out of the fund?

Mr CASEY:

-His function would be to assist the claimant in the presentation of his case.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 167 to 176 agreed to.

Clause 177 (Civil proceedings against employer for non-compliance with act).

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- Under this clause the attempt is made to provide a remedy for the employee who, by reason of the dishonesty or neglect of his employer, has been deprived of benefits under the act. The submission I make is that no employee who can be proved to have made his contributions should be deprived of the benefits to which he is entitled under the act, by reason of any negligence or dishonesty on the part of his employer. The employer may have made deductions from his wages and failed to make the necessary contributions to the Government, in consequence of which the employee may be deprived of benefits to which he is entitled. Year in, year out, deductions may have been made from his wages every week, and when he has occasion to claim benefits he may find that he is not protected. By this provision the Government says that the injured man may bring an action to recover damages from the employer because of the injury he has sustained. By a later amendment it proposes that, if defeated in his effort to obtain damages by reason of the bankruptcy of the employer, upon the commission being satisfied that the deductions have been made from his wages, he shall be treated as an insured person. Isuggest that, if the commission is satisfied that the deductions have been made and that the employer has failed to make the necessary contributions to the commission, the employee shall thereupon be entitled to the benefits of the act without having to bring an action against the employer. Clause 177 should be postponed until the committee reaches the proposed new clause 178a, because the two clauses naturally hang together. The proposed new clause, 178a assists the employee only to the extent that, if he brings an action against the employer, has judgment pronounced in his favour, and is defeated by the bankruptcy of the employer, he shall be treated as having been properly insured. I suggest to the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) the substitution of 178a for 177, with the omission of the words “ In the event’ of the bankruptcy of the employer (or if the employer is a company, in the event of the company being in liquidation)”. The clause would then read -

Where the commission is satisfied that an employer has deducted from the wages of an employee an amount of contributions payable by the employee under this act and has failed to pay those contributions as required by or under this act, the commission shall certify in writing the amount of the contributions which the employer has so failed to pay and thereupon the employee shall not be subject to any disqualification for or reduction of benefit under this act by reason only of the failure of the employer to pay that amount of contributions.

– So long as the card was stamped, there could be no collusion.

Mr Curtin:

Mr BRENNAN:

– Quite a considerable library!

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 178 to 1S4 agreed to.

Clause 185 (Rates of wages not to be affected by contributions and benefits).

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I move-

That clause 185 be omitted, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following clause: - “ 185. Any authority having power under any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory to fix rates of salary, wages, pay or allowances which, in fixing the rates of salary, wages, pay or allowances of any persons who ave or may become contributors under this act, takes into account the payment of contributions by those persons under this act, shall also take into account the provision’ of benefits for those persons by this act.”.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports

.- This is a very important clause and affects intimately the whole of the working classes in Australia. It is important also because it introduces a principle new to this Parliament and one which all other governments have studiously avoided, namely, it gives a direct instruction to our arbitration courts, wages boards and other wage-fixing tribunals that, when determining wages, they must not take into account the contributions made by employees to this scheme. Hitherto Parliament has religiously refrained from authorizing legisla tive interference with the Arbitration Court or other industrial tribunals or in any way telling the court what this Parliament desires. The Treasurer (Mr. Casey), I imagine, was somewhat ashamed of the original proposal, possibly, because of the criticism directed against it in the speeches on the second reading of the bill, and he has submitted a new clause to take the place of the original proposal. It has been very carefully worded in order, no doubt, to make it seem a little less offensive to the workers by providing that if the court takes into account the amount of contributions paid, it shall also take into account the benefits accruing to the insured person under this scheme. I strongly objected to the clause in its original form and I object to the amended provision. There is no reason or justice in it, because it will interfere with a principle for which this Parliament has always stood. In all earlier legislation, this Parliament has laid it down that there must be no interference with the work of our Arbitration Court or* wages boards. This proposal is a deliberate violation of that principle. Personally I would, not take up the attitude that the Commonwealth Government or this Parliament should not, in any circumstances, interfere with the work of the court. But this clause is a deliberate attempt by the Government to prevent the Arbitration Court or wages boards from increasing the wages of employees on account of their contributions under this scheme.

Mr Makin:

– And it is at variance with the Government’s professed policy.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Of course it is. The original clause reads as follows -

Any authority having power under any law of the Commonwealth, of a State or of a Territory, to fix rates of salary, wages, pay or allowances shall, in fixing the rates of salary, wages, pay or allowances of any persons who are or may become contributors under this act, take into account the benefits provided by this act in consideration of the contribution payable by and in respect of those contributors, and shall not, by reason only of the payment’ of contributions by those persons or of. the provision of benefits for those persons by this act, vary the rates which would otherwise be payable.

That was meant to be a direct instruction to the court. It is well known that the’ formula adopted by the Arbitration Court for the fixing of wages is copied largely by wages boards, so that if the clause had been passed in its original form there would have been little hope of wages fixed by these tribunals being adjusted to meet contributions made under this scheme, even though the court, in its wisdom, thought that they should be adjusted. The clause was at direct variance with the secondreading speech of the Treasurer, who told us that at last this Government had framed legislation to improve the social status of the people of Australia - not to give a little with one hand and take it away with the other. We all had hoped that this bill was to be regarded merely as a first step in that direction, because the fundamental purpose of all legislation of this nature, not only in Australia but also in other countries, is to improve the social condition of the people. Its purpose should not be to make automatic adjustments in wages or working conditions; to take something away with one hand and with the other put something else in its place. The intention should be to raise the social conditions of all persons in the community, and particularly the working classes. This principle is in conformity with the provision in clause 13 of the Peace Treaty, which declared that in the absence of legislative proposals in all countries to improve the social condition of their people, there could be no hope of industrial or international peace. Subsequently, the International Labour Office at Geneva evolved a set of principles to guide the different governments whose representatives assemble there from year to year. This clause is an insult to our wage-fixing tribunals. I feel certain that some of the judges of the Arbitration Court will regard it as an unwarranted invasion of the functions of the court, because it instructs that tribunal to take into consideration not only the payments to the fund by contributors, but also the benefits which they will .receive under this scheme, the purpose being to stop a rise of wages in order to meet .the contributions.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART (Parra surer (Mr. Casey) will heed the appeal of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Holloway), and will agree to omit the clause instead of endeavouring to amend it. Two reasons prompt me to make this suggestion. One is that it is a departure from an established practice of this Parliament not to interfere with the industrial sovereignty of the States. Some of us have, from time to time, asked the Government to take certain action in industrial matters, but always we have been met with the reply that the Commonwealth would not interfere with the States in the exercise of their sovereignty in the realm of industry. I was always under the impression that the various conciliation tribunals or committees fixed the minimum wage required to provide those things which were considered to be necessary to the maintenance of the average Australian home life; I now find that this Parliament, through the medium of this measure; isdecreeing that certain new elements shall be regarded as among the necessaries of home life. Surely it is just as necessary to provide the wherewithal to secure to the individual these new elements as it was previously to provide for shelter raiment and food? If this clause be allowed to remain in the bill it will cut across the method of procedure in at least one of the State courts. I have in mind a declaration made by the Arbitration Commission of New South Wales in April, 1936, that in ascertaining the wage necessary to provide for the requirements of a normal family it took into account the cost of light, food, clothing, rent, &c., and under the heading “miscellaneous,” it also made provision for groceries (not food), the renewal of household utensils, drapery, crockery, union subscriptions, medicines and dental treatment. Obviously, that tribunal was of the opinion that it was merely carrying out its duty when it added to the basic wage otherwise arrived at a sum adequate to provide for medicines and dental treatment. If, under this scheme, the commission is told that it must no longer follow that principle, an injustice will be done to that section of the community for whom the Arbitration Commission of New South Wales functions. I hope that the Government will be consistent and will refrain from inserting in the bill any provision which will be at variance with the stand which it has always taken up to refrain from impinging on the industrial sovereign rights of the States. Otherwise I shall have to vote against the clause.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

, - The criticism of the clause should convince the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) of the wisdom of not including it in the bill. During the second-reading debate, honorable members on this side declared that this provision would be an interference with the functioning of the Arbitration Court and the other wagefixing tribunals, while this and other governments have always said that they would not do. I pointed out that the basic wage commission which had made an inquiry as to what should be a fair wage laid it down that provision should be made for payments for insurance and other social benefits. This clause direct*) the court to take into consideration not only contributions to the fund, but also the benefits which will accrue to insured persons. The Government should not offer any direction of this kind to the courts; they should be completely unfettered in deciding the matters with which they have to deal. The representatives of the workers in the Arbitration Courts know that the members of unions have felt that such courts work under directions, but when the matter has been brought under the notice of anti-Labour governments they have always alleged that they would not dare to suggest to the courts the way in which their work should be carried out. In the original proposal the Government intended to interfere directly with the work of the courts, by suggesting that certain factors should be taken into consideration, but doubtless in response to the criticism offered by honorable members on both sides of the chamber ‘during the debate on the second reading, the Treasurer has now introduced a new clause which provides that the court shall take into consideration not only the money paid by way of contributions, but also the benefits to be conferred upon contributors to this scheme. As one who has had a very long experience in the Arbitration

Mr CURTIN:

– No! I submit that the purpose the Treasurer has in mind is to indicate to arbitration courts and other wage-fixing tribunals the course that they should take. He says to them, in effect: “You shall take cognizance of the value of this insurance scheme in fixing wages. The employees are being given certain benefits and wages should be adjusted accordingly “.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The time allotted for the committee stage of the bill to the end of Part VIII. has expired.

Clause negatived.

Question put -

That the clause proposed to be inserted be so inserted (Mr. Casey’s amendment).

The committee divided. (Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 32

NOES: 30

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 186 to 188 agreed to.

Postponed clause 4 (Definitions).

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- The definition of “ adopted child “ is faulty in that it refers only to de facto adoption. In some States, I think in all of them, there is also de jure adoption, that is, a child can he adopted by law. I suggest that the word “ includes “ be substituted for the word “ means “ in the definition, so that an adopted child would include not merely a child legally adopted, but also a child de facto adopted.

Amendment (by Mr. Blackburn) - by leave - agreed to -

That in the definition of “ adopted child “ the word “ means “ he omitted with a view to jnsert in lieu thereof the word “ includes “.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

. -Does the definition of “ adopted child “ cover a child who is adopted by a person who is not married?

Mr Casey:

– The definition is not confined to children born in wedlock.

Amendments (by Mr. Casey) agreed to-

That in the definition of “ contributions “, after the word “ by “, third occurring, the words “ or on behalf of “ be inserted, and that after the word “ contributors “, second occurring, the words “ and other contributions made voluntarily” be inserted.

That in the definition of “ employed “ after the word “ engaged “ first occurring, the words “ , at or after the commencement of this act, “ be inserted.

That after the definition of “ medical practitioner “ the following definition be inserted: - “ Ordinance “ means an ordinance of a territory, and includes a State” act in force in a territory;

That in the definition of “pharmaceutical chemist “the word “any” be omitted with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ the “ ; and that after the word “ Commonwealth “ the following words “ in which he supplies drugs, medicines, or appliances, in pursuance of a contract made under this act “ be inserted.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling Downs

– The definition of “medical practitioner “ does not go far enough. Any person may practice as a medical practitioner, but not as a legally qualified medical practitioner. . I suggest that the words “ legally qualified “ be inserted.

Mr Casey:

– That is not necessary, because the definition includes the words “ under the law”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 19 -

A juvenile contributor shall be insured under this act for the purposes of medical benefit only, and this act shall not, except where otherwise expressly stated, apply to a juvenile contributor.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Cor io · UAP

– This is the first of a number of clauses which deal with the insurance of juveniles. Honorable members will remember that in the bill as originally drawn a juvenile was required to pay a contribution of 4d. a week, and his employer a similar amount, in consideration of which the juvenile would receive medical benefit only. The actuaries have advised the Government that if the total contribution were increased to10d. a week - 5d. each from the juvenile and his employer - several things could be done. First, the waiting period in respect of medical benefit could be dispensed with; secondly, a sickness benefit of 5s. a week could be made available; and, thirdly, what may be described as the junction of the juvenile scheme and the adult scheme could be cemented, so that the juvenile employee could then go straight through from the juvenile contribution period, namely, from fourteen to sixteen years of age, into the adult period, without any further waiting period, and in addition, he would get medical benefit; also sickness benefit to the amount of 5s. a week.

Mr JAMES:
Hunter

.- Do I understand that the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) proposes to take another1d. a week from the juveniles in return for a benefit of only 5s. a week? This is most unfair, in view of the fact that the adult benefit is 15s. a week. The juvenile benefit should be at least 7s. 6d. a week, thus bringing it into line with that paid by other organizations, such as those on the coal-fields, to what are known as half members, that is, juniors who pay half the rate of the ordinary contribution, and receive in return for it half the usual benefit. If an organization of. miners can provide such benefits for its junior members, surely the same can be done under this national scheme. Many of the youths who will be affected under the national scheme are actually the breadwinners of their families. Admittedly 7s. 6d. a week would not go very far, but it would be better than 5s.

Mr LAZZARINI:
“Werriwa

– I hope that the committee will not accept the Treasurer’s proposal in regard to juveniles. This afternoon honorable members opposite, including the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) spoke glibly of the millions of pounds that would accumulate in the insurance fund and how it would be inadvisable for one generation to contribute unnecessary millions for the benefit of the next generation. Now the Treasurer wants to steal the pennies from the kids - a disgraceful proposal. From the juveniles’ contributions of 32s. a year, 18s. 8d. will go towards the accumulation of a surplus. Now it is proposed to take a further Id. a week from them in return for a paltry sickness benefit of 5s. a week. No doubt we shall be told that the employer will have to contribute an extra Id., but, as I have pointed out before, the employer will, in fact, contribute nothing; he will pass the cost on to the public. It is bad enough to force children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen to go to work, because their parents cannot afford to keep them, without passing legislation to take their pennies from -them. When this clause was under discussion before, honorable members indicated that they were prepared to demand justice for juveniles. I appeal to them now, and particularly to honorable members opposite, who draw good salaries, are well clothed, well housed, and well fed, to realize their responsibility as national representatives in this Parliament to the extent of demanding that the Government shall abandon this proposal. If they do not, then anyone who votes for their return to Parliament at the next election should be ashamed of himself. We need another Dickens to point out the inhumanity of proposals of this kind. Dickens would be able to find worse characters than the Gradgrinds and Pecksniffs of his novels if he were to write of social conditions to-day. Honorable members opposite, who claim to be Christian gentlemen, would no doubt argue with much logic to prove that the Good Samaritan was a bad economist. I trust that honorable members will refuse to allow this thing to be done. It is worse than a Jew’s bargain. Shylock would blush for sham if he had done what the Treasurer now proposes to do.

Amendment (by Mr. Casey) proposed -

That the words “ only, and this act shall not, except where otherwise expressly stated, apply to a juvenile contributor “, be omitted with a view to insert in lieu ‘thereof the words “ and sickness benefit only “.

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

.- I strongly object to the proposal of the Government to impose upon juveniles an obligation to pay an increased contribution. Greater benefit should be provided at no additional cost. If there is one section which is exploited more than another in this scheme, it is the juveniles. I stated some time ago that juveniles would be able, as members of friendly societies, to obtain greater benefits, for smaller contributions, than they will be able to get under this scheme. Widespread indignation must be aroused at the monstrous proposal of the Treasurer that juveniles, many of whom contribute substantially to the upkeep of fatherless, or otherwise distressed, families should be saddled with the need to pay from their meagre earnings even more than is provided for in the bill in order to qualify for the miserable amount of 5s. a week as sickness benefit. Words are inadequate to express the indignation which must be felt that this Government, which at all times has sought to preserve the interests of the wealthy class which is capable of making more substantial contributions to national insurance than it is called upon to make, should bring down a proposal of this nature. The amount of 8d. a week which will be taken from the juvenile employees and from their employers is more than adequate to provide the slender extra benefit which is proposed to be given. I agree with the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), and those honorable members who have supported him, that the very minimum of the sickness benefit for juveniles should be 7s. 6d. a week, if not half of the benefit provided for adults, and that in order to provide that benefit- they should he required to contribute no more than the amount which is now specified’.in the bill. The Government intends to use the contributions from and in respect of juveniles to boost the fund from which it will pro- vide benefits to adults. The miserable way in which the juvenile employees are to be treated contrasts with the treatment that will be given to the newcomers to this country who, even though they may be foreigners, will after 26 weeks of contribution, be entitled to the full benefits of the scheme. The Government should be ashamed to come forward with such a proposal.

Mr FADDEN:
Darling Downs

.- For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government has brought down this proposition as an alleviation of the already onerous contributions required of juvenile contributors by the bill as drafted. One would have expected that the Government, in the face’ of the patent hostility of the committee, when the clause was originally under discussion, would have brought forward an amendment that would have conferred an advantage on the juvenile employees instead of adding to their burdens. The Government has come forward with a proposal which means that for the contribution of an extra penny each by juvenile employees and their employers, increasing the already top heavy contribution of 8d. to 10d. a week, they will qualify for a sickness benefit of 5s. a week.

Sir Charles Marr:

– The waiting period also will be reduced.

Mr FADDEN:

– Yes. Contrast this proposal with the practice of the friendly societies ! They have been associated with this class of business for many years, they have stood the test of time, and developed such reserves that they were able to weather the depression. For the contribution of 51/2d. a week they, from the day of notification of sickness, pay 8s. a week to a juvenile contributor. I certainly cannot agree to this proposition as an honest attempt to meet the wish of the committee that juvenile contributors should, under less onerous conditions, receive more than the originally intended benefits. This amendment will increase, not only the already top-heavy burden on the employee, but also that on the employer. The margin between 51/2d. and10d. a weekwould lead one to expect that the Government would provide for juveniles at least the amount of 8s. per week, which is now provided by the friendly societies. In view of the shortcomings of the. amendment, I cannot associate myself with it.

Mr CLARK:
Darling

.- I am not satisfied with the amendment. This clause was postponed because of the determined attitude taken by the committee in favour of more liberal provision for the juvenile employees. The committee had no intention to increase the contribution of juveniles, I believe, because most honorable members expressed regret that there was need for so many young people of from fourteen to sixteen years of age to be employed in industry. For the payment of an additional contribution, the juvenile employees will qualify to receive the miserable sum of 5s. a week in sickness, but no provision is made for disablement benefit. Adults who are ill for more than 26 weeks pass from the sickness benefit to the disablement benefit, but no such provision is made for the young person, who after the expiry of26 weeks will not participate further in the benefits conferred by the bill. Juveniles should be entitled to disablement benefit. The honorable member for Darling Downs (Mr. Fadden) told the committee that the friendly societies pay 8s. a week to juvenile members if they become ill. State aid in New South Wales provides children with8s. 9d. a week. Even orphans, under this bill, are to receive 7s. 6d. a week. All of these comparisons show how miserably inadequate the Government’s proposal is. The committee, I believe, will not be prepared to accept it. Paragraphs c and d of clause 46 should be extended to juveniles. Paragraph c provides for the payment of disablement benefit to adults after they have been drawing sickness benefits for 26 weeks, and paragraph d provides for future additional benefits, possibly the treatment of eyes and teeth, services which are even more essential to young people than to adults. If juveniles contribute to a national insurance scheme, they should be entitled to the full benefits of the scheme. The benefits available to them should not be restricted to medical and sickness benefits. The Government is making an axtra allowance, but it ought to reconsider the amendment with a view to giving full medical, sickness, disablement, and other benefits to juveniles without any increase of contributions.

Mr PRICE:
Boothby

.- I spoke at some length on this question previously, and the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) finally agreed to postpone the clause. I am not satisfied with the amendment he has now proposed. Let me contrast it with the practice of the friendly societies. From persons between the ages of fourteen and nineteen, they require contributions of 2d. for sick fund and Id. for funeral fund, making a total of 3d. a week. For that, the contributor receives sickness benefit of 10s. a week for the first 26 weeks and 5s. a week for the next 26 weeks and in addition funeral benefit to the extent of £10. 1. do not want to go again over the ground I covered when, I last spoke, but I want to emphasize that I look on the matter as one of great importance to young people. I said previously that there’ were probably in this House many men who had assisted, .when they were young, in the upbringing of a family. The parent may have died, and, as a result, the children may have had a very great responsibility forced on them. In a bill of this kind, we do not want to do anything detrimental to young people. Wc shall’ be collecting 17s. 6d. a year from juveniles and a further 17s. 6d. will be contributed by the employers. I believe that the Treasurer should agree to preserve the rate of contribution and raise the sickness benefit for juveniles. When I take into consideration what the friendly societies are doing, I do not think that the payment under this bill of sickness benefit of 7s. 6d. a week would bc too high.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I propose to explain at greater length the difference between the present proposal and the earlier one. The proposed increase in benefits is quite considerable. In the original proposal, the contributions were 4d! from the employee and 4d. from the employer. There was provision for a three months’ waiting period in respect of medical benefit, and no sickness benefit was available. There was a further similar waiting period after reaching the age of sixteen in order to qualify for further benefits. In the new proposal, three things have been done.

First, the three months waiting period for medical benefit has been deleted, and 5s. sickness benefit -has been provided. That has been calculated after inquiry as to the upper and lower limits of rates of pay for juveniles between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years. We have been informed by authorities in the various States that the limits vary broadly between 10s. and 18s. 6(1. a week. ‘Considering . the relationship between sickness benefits for adults and their wages, the 5s. sickness benefit compares quite favorably with the adult sickness benefit. Further, the juveniles will be able to qualify immediately they reach sixteen years of age for the further and, of course, very much increased benefits that will then be available. Their sickness benefit will then be 15s. for males and 12s. 6d. for females. [Quorum formed.] Similarly, after having made the necessary number of contributions, they will become eligible for disablement benefit, and, should they marry and have children, they will become eligible for widows’ pensions and dependants’ allowances’ at a very early age. They could actually become eligible for all those benefits, which are quite costly, at the age of sixteen. I assure honorable members that the new proposal will cost very much more than the previous one.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– -I suggest, with due respect to the Treasurer (Mr. Casey), that we ought to clear our minds regarding what we are dealing with. The purpose of the amendment is to increase juvenile contributors’ benefits. The other things to which the Treasurer has referred will be dealt with later. The original clause related to health benefit only, and, as a result of representations by the honorable member for Hunter (Mr. James), it was postponed. The Treasurer now proposes that the juvenile contributor shall receive sickness benefit in addition to medical benefit. If we are unable to obtain anything further - and obviously we- are, because we cannot propose an amendment to give to the child a disablement benefit - I am in favour of accepting the amendment to clause 19 as itstands. The contribution to be imposed on the juvenile contributor is to be dealt with by another bill, and the committee will have an opportunity to vote upon it when that’ measure is being considered. We should” not now obscure the issue, W hit h is whether or not we wish to increase the benefit to be given to juvenile contributors. The Government has met our wishes to a certain extent, by saying that it is prepared to pay a sickness benefit as well as a health benefit. Later we shall have the opportunity to decide whether the contribution of the juvenile contributor shall be 4d. or 5d. I am not in favour of voting against an additional benefit merely because I do not like some of the conditions attaching to it, which conditions I may vote on later. It seems to me that those who have been endeavouring to secure an increase of the benefit to be given to juvenile contributors will stultify themselves if they vote against this increase merely because they do not like some other clause upon which they will have an opportunity to vote later.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- I am impressed by the remarks of the honorable member for Bourke. The Government has met the representations of various honorable members to the extent of proposing provision for a special sick benefit of 5s. a week in addition to the medical benefit. It has also acted very generously in regard to the deletion of the provision for a waiting period of three months before medical benefit could be obtained, and a further three months at the age of sixteen years before the youth could be regarded as entitled to the benefits of the adult. I think that we cannot ignore the necessity for making all of these arrangements on an actuarial basis. The Government has given very reasonable consideration to this proposal, and its action has impressed itself most favorably on the honorable member for Bourke. The committee would be well advised to accept the advice which he and the Treasurer have tendered. It would thereby genuinely serve the interests of the juveniles, on whose behalf this provision has been framed.

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

.- I hope that, before the subsidiary bill dealing with the amount of contributions is put before us for consideration, the Treasurer (Mr. Casey) will examine the case now being submitted to him. It has been difficult to check some of the actuarial calculations on which this bill is based, but it is possible for us to compare the practice of friendly societies in connexion with juveniles with that proposed in this bill. In Victoria and New South Wales, family benefits are grouped together in friendly society accounts, and it is not easy to dissect the various pay ments; but, in South Australia, juveniles contribute 4d. a week between the ages of six and sixteen years for medicine, medical treatment, a sickness payment of 5s. a week, and funeral allowance of £10. These benefits are not identical with those provided under this bill, and I am quite ready to admit that certain provisions of this scheme are on a more liberal basis, but it seems to me that the benefits for the contribution of lOd. a week required under the bill are not proportionately greater than those provided by friendly societies for a contribution of 4d. a week. Certainly they are not two and a-half times greater, though they should be, as the contribution is two and a-half times greater. While it is difficult to dissect the accounts of some friendly societies, one large society shows an accumulated surplus of £6,000 in its juvenile department. This suggests that the society’s charge of 4d. a week is ample for the benefits provided. The medical fee payable under this measure compared with that which is at present paid to doctors by friendly societies for services to juveniles is another matter which has caused me a good deal of anxiety. The present fee in South Australia is 7s. 6d. Under the contract proposed in connexion with this bill, it will be11s. That increased amount may be justified on the grounds that it offsets the greater attention to be given for the same fee later in l if e when the risks a re greater. It must be borne in mind, however, that, if the medical practitioners are to receive this fee of 11s. for juveniles at the age which we have in mind, it will be difficult for friendly societies to maintain their existing conditions and lower fees in respect of these young people.For these reasons, I ask the Treasurer to give further consideration to this aspect of the subject.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The remarks of the honorable member for Wakefield, indicate clearly that this scheme is not nearly so generous as the Treasurer would have us believe it to be. I admit that the amendment which the Treasurer has moved has some slight flavour of generosity, but the whole subject deserves more consideration from the Government. In the original clause, a payment of 8d. a week would have to be made into the fund by the juvenile employee!) and their employers for a benefit which costs only 4d. a week under the British scheme. I pointed out in my second-reading speech that only 2½d. of the total amount would be allocated for medical services, leaving 5½d. to be allocated for administration charges, medicines, &c. The Treasurer should give us more information as to the specific allocation of that amount. Under the amendment now submitted, the contribution is being increased to10d. a week, being 3d: each from the juvenile and his employer. True, increased benefits are also being given, such as sickness benefit, and a further promise has been made in regard to disablement benefit, but I contend that these benefits are not proportionate to the contribution exacted.It may be true that juveniles will automatically carry over into the adult scheme on reaching sixteen years of age, but the additional benefits should be provided for them in the meantime.

Mr.Curtin. - We are all agreed upon this clause, whereas considerable disagreement is manifest in respect of other postponed clauses, the vote upon which has to be taken by midnight. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) should not delay our consideration of those controversial clauses by occupying time unnecessarily in discussing this clause.

Mr HARRISON:

– The Leader of the Opposition does not appreciate the fact that, quite early in the committee proceedings, I curtailed my remarks in order to givehim an opportunity to take part in the discussion.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 26 -

Subject to this act, contributions at the rates declared by the Parliament shall be levied and paid by the persons by whom the contributions are so declared to be payable.

Mr GREGORY:
Swan

.- This clause was postponed with the consent of the Treasurer (Mr. Casey). I do not know if the honorable gentleman has any statement to make in regard to it or whether he has given consideration to the representations I made on behalf of employers with an income not exceeding £208 per annum.With a view to securing a decision of the Parliament on this matter without delay, I may say that the amendment was moved as an instruction to the Government to provide that an employer whose assessment under the Income Tax Assessment Act during the last preceding year was less than £208 per annum might apply for a refund of contributions made by him under the bill, and if the commission was satisfied that the employer’s assessment was less than £208 a refund of such contributions might be made. As I pointed out earlier, the amendment was designed to remove an injustice inflicted on many producers who have smaller incomes than their employees and whose costs of production must be increased by the operation of this bill. I have received very many telegrams from producers on this subject, the most important being the following from Koo-wee-rup, in Victoria: -

Congratulations on your determination to light national insurance as at present proposed are Victorian members asleep I estimate potato-growers alone this State will contribute £50,000 annually our disorganized industry unsheltered and derives no benefit from exchange as we do not export we cannot pass on costs show all country members and fight on.

I move -

That the following words be added tothe clause: -and refunds of contributions may be made in accordance with conditions declared by the Parliament.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! The Chair has already ruled that amendment out of order, because it would increase the charge on the revenue.

Mr GREGORY:

– Then, I move-

That the clause be further postponed.

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

– I suggest to the honorable member that it is not possible in a contributory insurance scheme of this sort to undertake to make refunds of contributions. If the principle of refunds of contributions were accepted, the procedure would never end. It would be the beginning of the end of the contributory plan. On financial grounds a contributory plan is essential in order to provide the proposed benefits. As the Prime Minister has already announced, the Government has in hand plans for a scheme for self-employers.

Mr Gregory:

– It would be of no useto these people.

Mr CASEY:

– I think it is of somerelevance to what the honorable gentleman proposes. When the Government has finalized plans for that scheme it. will do its best to attempt to give a preferential position to those persons whoare in the economic position to which the honorable gentleman referred, and who, at the same time, are employers of the equivalent of one or two men per annum. It will thus make it easier for the self-employed man on that relatively low level of income to get some advantage, at least by reason of the fact that he is contributing under the compulsory scheme in respect of the labour he employs. I ask the honorable gentleman to take that into account.From theinformationwe have at present - it is not complete - the scheme which the Government has in mind for self-employers will be very costly, and even more costly if the Government is able to give this amount of consideration to the small employers of labour under the compulsory scheme. I appeal to the honorable gentleman to bear that fact in mind, and to realize that it is not mere stubbornnesson the part of the Government which makes it resist the granting of refunds in respect of the compulsory scheme.

Mr.FROST (Franklin) [11.58].- I support the remarks of the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory). The bill as itnow standswill inflict grave injustice on a long-suffering. , section of the community. Members of the Country party have given the Government plenty ofwarning as to theirviews in regard tothis matter, andwe hope to give them an opportunity to give practical expression to thoseviews when a vote is taken on the motion. The majority of the small farmers in my electorate have already drawnadvances on their next season’s crops in order to keep their employees at work, and they now find that under the national insurance scheme they will be called upon to pay an additional1s. 6d. a week in respect of each employee. It is more than they can afford. A great number of them have to go out to work for other farmers during part of the year in order to keep their homes going, and in spite of the fact that they have to bear the whole responsibility of the working of their farms, many of them are not in receipt of incomes equal to the wages paid to their employees. I trust that honorable members generally will lend their support to the honorable member for Swan who has been most persistent in his efforts on behalf of the small primary producers.

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

– I take this opportunity to deny the suggestion contained in the Koo-wee-rup telegram read by the honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) that Victorian members have been asleep. Most of us have been active -on behalf of the small farmers, potatogrowers and workers generally. I do not know what has been done by the honorable member for Gippsland (Mr. Paterson), or by the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Fairbairn), in whose electorate Koo-wee-rup is situated.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order! The time allotted to the consideration of postponed clauses has expired. The question is that clause 26 be further postponed.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I rise to a point of order. I submit that that motion cannot be dealt with at this stage. In support of my contention I quote from StandOrder 262a, paragraph (vi) of which reads - (VI.) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on the expiration of the time allotted under any motion passed under any of the preceding paragraphs of this Standing Order, the Speaker or the Chairman shall at the time appointed under the motion for the conclusion of those proceedings put forthwith the question on any amendment or motion already proposed from the Chair and, in the case of the consideration of any bill in committee, shall then put any clauses, and any Government amendments and new clauses and. schedules, copies of which have been circulated by the Government among members two hours at least before the expiration of the allotted time.

I submit that the proposed amendment was not circulated two hours ago.

Mr Gregory:

– It was circulated two days ago.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Apart from the fact that the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. John Lawson) himself gave a similar ruling a few clays ago, the motion that I have repeated had already been put to the committee, and therefore, under the guillotine provisions of the Standing Orders, must now be put.

Mr JOHN LAWSON:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

– I was not permitted to complete my statement. The honorable member for Swan (Mr. Gregory) submitted an amendment, which was ruled out of order, and a few minutes before the time allotted for this portion of of the bill expired, he submitted another motion. The Chairman did not put that motion from the Chair until after he had said that the time allotted for this portion of the bill had expired.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Swan moved an amendment which I reminded him had already been ruled out of order. Thereupon he moved that the clause be further postponed. I then said, “ The question is that the clause be further postponed “. To that question the Treasurer spoke.

Question put -

That the clause be further postponed (Mr. Gregory’s amendment).

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 32

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Postponed clauses 26, 49 and 63 and the circulated amendment of the Government, agreed to.

Postponed clauses 29 and 48 omitted.

Circulated amendment -

Clause 63, omit sub-clause (2).

Progress reported.

page 2249

PAPER

The following paper was presented : -

Arbitration (Public Service) Act - Determination by the Arbitrator, &c. - No. 16 of 1938 - Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen; Australian Workers’ Union; Boilermakers’ Society of Australia; and Electrical Trades Union of Australia.

House adjourned at 12.12 a.m. (Friday).

page 2249

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated : -

National Oil Proprietary Limited Agreement Act;

Mr Blackburn:

n asked the Minister in charge of Development, upon notice -

What sum has been advanced by the Commonwealth for the purposes of the National Oil Proprietary Limited Agreement Act 1937 (No. 23 of 1.937). or of the agreement ratified thereby?
What sum has been advanced by the State of New South Wales for the same purposes?
What has National Oil Proprietary Limited done in furtherance of the same purposes?
What is the value of the cracking plant and of theethylizing products imported by that company under section 4 of the act?

Mr Casey:
UAP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 and 2. No moneys have yet been advanced to National Oil Proprietary Limited by the Governments of the Commonwealth and New South Wales in terms of the National Oil Proprietary Limited Agreement Act 1937.

National Oil Proprietary Limited has carried out extensive investigations abroad to determine the most efficient type of machinery and plant which should be installed in the Newnes-Capertee area for the production of oil from shale and, in the light of these investigations, the company states that it has decided to purchase drawings and specifications of retorts from Esthonia and of the Dubbs (United States of America) system of cracking plant. When these drawings and specifications are available the company proposes to invite tenders for the construction of. the retorts and cracking plant in Australia, England, the Continent and the United States of America. The company hopes, however, that it will be possible to build most of the plant in Australia.

National Oil Proprietary Limited has conducted surveys to determine where the works should be located and how the products should be transported for marketing. The company has decided that the works should be located in the Capertee Valley, and it is now negotiating for the purchase of a suitable area of land for this purpose. In connexion with transport, the company has decided to pipe its product to some centre near Sydney.

The mine manager has been appointed and the company is now considering applications for appointment of senior members of the technical and manufacturing staff. Further appointments will be made as plans progress.

In connexion with a project of this kind, which involves all sorts of engineering and other technical problems, it is necessary to make very extensive arrangements and to plan operations in considerable detail. For these reasons the company has been allowed, under the agreement, up to the 1st January, 1940, to have its plant in operation subject to a penalty.

No cracking plant or ethylizing products have yet been imported by the company.

Export of Manganese

Mr Green:

n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it the intention of the Government to place a ban against the export of manganese ?

Mr Lyons:
UAP

– The Government has not yet given this matter consideration, but when full information is available concerning Australia’s resources and requirements of manganese, a decision in regard to the export of the commodity will be made.

Commonwealth Loan

Mr Forde:

e asked the Treasurer, upon notice -

At what price was the 1932 Commonwealth Loan floated in England?
What amount was paid to the underwriters?
What other expenses were incurred in connexion with the floating of this loan?
What was the term of the loan?
Had the money for its conversion to be again borrowed in1936; and, if so (a) at what price was the conversion loan floated;
1. what amount of commission was paid to underwriters; and (c) what other expenses were incurred ?

Mr Casey:
UAP

y. - The information is being obtained and a reply will be furnished as soon as possible.

Importation of Japanese Brushware

Mr Price:

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

Is it a fact that there exist many loopholes in the Customs Act, which permit the importation of inferior Japanese brushware, to the detriment of the Australian brush industry?
Will he have this matter investigated, and make a report to Parliament?

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

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions is as follows : -

I am not aware of any such loop-holes, but if particulars are furnished to me I shall be pleased to have the matter investigated.

Australian Chilled andfrozen Beef.

Mr Street:

t asked the Acting Minister for Commerce, upon notice -

Canhe supplement the information recently given to the House concerning the results of the negotiations of the present trade delegation now in England, with regard to ship ments of chilled and frozen beef ? Can he give any figures for estimated arrivals for this present year, and, if he can, how do these figures compare with shipments forlast year ?

Mr Archie Cameron:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows : -

Imports of chilled and frozen beef into England from Australia for the third quarter (July-September) were recently agreed upon as follows: -

The figures in the corresponding quarter last year were: -

Estimates for the fourth quarter are not yet compared.

The following figures are furnished, however, comparing last year’s arrivals with those of this year - the third quarter - based on estimates : -

Cotton Industry. Inspection of Growing Districts by Tariff Board

Mr Forde:

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

In view of the great importance of the cotton industry, and the advisability of enabling the Tariff Board to inspect personally the cottongrowing districts of Central Queensland, will he ask the Tariff Board to arrange to visit the Dawson Valley, Callide, and Burnett districts at an early date, as the last proposed visit was abandoned owing to wet weather?

Mr Perkins:
UAP

– The manner in which the Tariff Board conducts its inquiries is a matter for the board itself. I am not in a position to direct or request the board concerning how it shall carry out its investigations or as to what visits to industries it shall make. I shall, however, be pleased to bring the question under the notice of the chairman of the Board.

Commonwealth Railways: Employers

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

n. - On the 15th June, the honorable member for Grey (Mr. Badman) askedthe following questions, upon notice. -

What isthe total number of porters engaged on the CommonwealthRailways? 2.What isthe number of porters on the permanent stuffof the railways?
What is the numberof porters who are untitled to longleave?
Will the Government provide a scheme tor the construction of houses at Port Augusta toroffices of the various Commonwealth Departments stationed therewho are not able to obtain housing accommodation at present?

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

1.55.

2.23.

Three. 4 The CommonwealthRailways Commissionerhas provided96 houses at Port Augusta, which under normal conditions meets the reasonable requirements for railway purposes. It is understood that the State Government is investigating the question of workers homes for Port Augusta.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 16 June 1938, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1938/19380616_reps_15_156/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives16 June 1938

QUESTION

FORTYHOUR WEEK

Mr HOLLOWAY:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

Mr HOLT:FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:

QUESTION

SMALL LOANS BY BANKS

Mr FRANCIS:MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:UAP

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL

Mr PROWSE:FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

QUESTION

BUSINESS AND SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Mr HAWKER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:UAP

QUESTION

NUTRITIONAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Sir CHARLES MARR:PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

ITALIAN CRUISERRAIMONDO MONTEGUCCOLI

Mr BRENNAN:BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr HUGHES:Minister for External Affairs · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

NATIONAL HEALTH AND PENSIONS INSURANCE BILL 1988

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Prowse:FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DRAKEFORD:Maribyrnong

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr ROSEVEAR:Dalley

Mr HAWKER:Wakefield

Mr DRAKEFORD:Maribyrnong

Mr HAWKER:WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Mr CASEY:

Mr Rosevear:

Mr CASEY:

Mr Rosevear:

Mr CASEY:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Casey:

Sir FREDERICK Stewart:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Casey:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Casey:

The CHAIRMAN:

Mr Blackburn:

Mr Brennan:

The CHAIRMAN:

Sir Frederick Stewart:

Mr LAZZARINI:Werriwa

Mr Casey:

Mr LAZZARINI:

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr DRAKEFORD:Maribyrnong

Mr MAKIN:Hindmarsh

Mr Casey:

Mr BARNARD:Bass

Mr STREET:Corangamite

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr Blackburn:

Mr CASEY:

Mr Brennan:

Mr CLARK:Darling

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr Clark:

Mr CASEY:

Mr MAKIN:Hindmarsh

Mr POLLARD:Ballarat

Mr LAZZARINI:Werriwa

Mr Casey:

Mr LAZZARINI:

Mr MARTENS:Herbert

Mr WARD:East Sydney

Mr CASEY:Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr Ward:

Mr CASEY:

Mr BRENNAN:Batman

Mr Thorby:

House of Representatives
16 June 1938

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Mr LYONS:
Prime Minister · WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

Mr FRANCIS:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Mr PROWSE:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · CORIO, VICTORIA · UAP

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Mr LYONS:
UAP

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Minister without portfolio assisting the Minister for Commerce · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · CP

Mr BRENNAN:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

Mr HUGHES:
Minister for External Affairs · NORTH SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

Mr HAWKER:
Wakefield

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

Mr HAWKER:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · NAT; UAP from 1931

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

Mr STREET:
Corangamite

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr CLARK:
Darling

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr MAKIN:
Hindmarsh

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

Mr LAZZARINI:
Werriwa

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

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

Mr GANDER:
Reid

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

Mr CASEY:
Treasurer · Corio · UAP