19th Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 11 a.m .. and read prayers.
page 2488
– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer if he will direct the officer in charge of the Note Issue Department of the Commonwealth Bank to have the next issue of bank notes of £1 denomination manufactured by a paper-bag manufacturer in order that the notes will be openable objects, complete with zip fasteners, and more capable of having value added to and held in them ?
– I assume that the honorable senator regards his question as a humorous one. I regard it as being more foolish than humorous, and I refuse to give any serious consideration to it.
page 2488
– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture aware that Tasmania imports from Canada and the United States of America large quantities of pine case materials and shooks for use by its fruit-growing industry, and that, owing to the high cost of dollars and the adverse exchange rate, the cost of these materials is in excess of 3s. a case 7 Will the Minister cause to be investigated reports that large quantities of suitable pine case materials are available in Indonesia for sterling at prices lower than those charged by Canada and the United States of America? Will he also request his colleague to consider the possibility of using the vast timber resources of New Guinea as a source of supply for case material 1 During the last war, forestry units of the Australian Imperial Force established saw mills in New Guinea and cut large quantities of timber, mainly softwoods, suitable for war purposes.
– The answer to each of the three questions asked by the honorable senator is “ Yes “.
page 2488
– Has the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport read a press report of the comments made by the Premier of South Australia regarding the inconvenience from which South Australia is suffering because ships are travelling from Western Australia to that State in ballast instead of carrying cargo that Ls “urgently required there? Is the
Minister aware that while ships are returning empty from Western Australia, the South Australian Government is eagerly waiting for 250,000 . railway sleepers to be sent from Western Australia and that hundreds of tons of potatoes are awaiting shipment from Western Australia to South Australia?
– Yesterday I received a telegram from the Premier of South Australia in connexion with the matters that the honorable senator has raised, and while I was in Melbourne I caused appropriate investigations to be made. A coal carrier is coming from Western Australia to Whyalla in ballast, and will lift coal that is urgently required in Newcastle for a priority job. This week a ship left Bunbury for South Australia with a large quantity of railway sleepers, and another vessel carrying sleepers will proceed to Adelaide next week. The Australian Shipping Board hopes that, before the end of this month, all the sleepers that South Australia has ordered will have been lifted.
– Did I understand the Minister to. say that a vessel is to carry coal from Whyalla to Newcastle f
– I thank the Leader of the Opposition for drawing my attention to an error. I meant to say that the ship is proceeding to Whyalla in ballast and will lift iron ore, not coal. Had it loaded cargo in Western Australia for Adelaide, a delay of a fortnight would have been entailed. In view of the modern loading facilities that exist at Whyalla, the shit) will be able to leave with a load of iron ore for Newcastle within less than 24 hours after its arrival at Whyalla.
page 2488
– Can the Minister for Trade and Customs say when he is likely to make a statement to the Senate upon the position in Korea ?
– I have no statement to make on that matter at the present time. I assure the Senate that when the Prime Minister considers the time to be propitious a statement will be made immediately.
page 2489
– Has the Minister for Trade and Customs read a report in to-day’s newspapers that 28 heifers from New South Wales were sold at an average of 83 guineas each, that the wool clip had gone up by 100 per cent., and that in Brisbane yesterday a record price of 208^ pence per lb. was paid for seven bales of wool? In view of these things, and bearing in mind Australia’s immigration policy and defence programme, does the Government now realize the seriousness of the present inflationary tendency, and does it intend to take more positive action to combat that tendency than it has taken to date?
– The Government is fully conscious of the inflationary trend throughout the world to-day. Although it is quite conceivable that, due to the confidence of the people of this country in the present Administration, there Will be a continued period of boom conditions in Australia, the s state of affairs to which the honorable senator has referred is indeed serious, and the Government will do all that it can to combat the present trend.
page 2489
– I draw the attention of the Minister for Fuel, Shipping and Transport to a photograph and caption that appeared in yesterday’s Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial. The photograph is of the honorable member for Barker - lie is referred to as the right honorable member - and a berobed official, and the caption reads -
page 2489
The Bight Honorable Archie G. Cameron, Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives, signing the visitors’ book in the Town Hall at Inverness, Scotland, last week, watched by the Provost of Inverness, James Grigor. Mr. Cameron, a native of Fort William, Inverness shire, visited his home town and called on the Highland Chief of the Cameron Clan.
Incidentally, I was born at Inverness. Will the Minister inform the Senate whether it is not a fact that the honorable member for Barker was born in South Australia, and that there appears to be a tendency on the part of Australians who habitually wear tartan ties to renounce their native land when they go abroad? Question not answered.
page 2489
– Because of old age, war disabilities, and the high cost of living, many ex-servicemen of World War I. are experiencing difficulty in paying off loans for war service homes. In a number of instances, the Government has already been paid about three times the original cost of their dwellings. Will the Minister representing the Minister who is administering war service homes consider the writing off by the Government of the remaining principal and interest owing by veterans of World War I. who have been in occupation of their homes for more than a quarter of a century?
– A somewhat similar question was asked recently in this chamber. I see no justification for recommending to the Government that war service homes contracts with exservicemen of World War I. should be varied. Those men have enjoyed a very good repayment arrangement over a long period of years. Most of the exservicemen of World War I. who entered into contracts to buy war service homes have completed their contracts, and I consider that the remaining contracts should be allowed to run to a natural conclusion.
page 2489
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy - upon notice -
– The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following answers : -
page 2490
– I present the fifth report of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, which reads as follows : -
The Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings submits the fifth report for presentation to each House of the Parliament and recommends its adoption.
The joint committee has further considered the general principles upon which there should bc determined thedays upon which and the periods during which the proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be broadcast, which were specified in previous reports by the joint committee and were adopted by both Houses. In accordance with section 12 (1.) of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, the joint committee has now resolved that sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (4) of the general principles, viz.: - “ (4) Re-broadcast’ of questions and answers -
Within the limits of time available, the following Parliamentary Proceedings shall be re-broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission between 7.20 p.m. and 7.55 p.m. on each sitting day -
Senate proceedings - Questions without notice and on notice and answers thereto;
House of Representatives proceedings - Questions without notice and answers thereto.”, be amended as follows: -
Omit “between 7.20 p.m. and 7.55 p.m.”, insert “ between 7.25 p.m. and 8 p.m.”.
It is proposed that this amendment shall come into operation on the 11th December, 1950.
This recommendation of the joint committee provides for an alteration in the time for the rebroadcast of questions and answers. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has heen required hy general principle (4) (a) to rebroadcast questions and answers between 7.20 p.m. and 7.55 p.m. on each sitting day. In practice the commission has included a short summary in this period, but at the same time has continued the rehroadcast until approximately 8 p.m. The commission has now requested that the specified period for the rehroadcast be changed to 7.25 p.m. to 8 p.m. The joint committee has agreed to the proposal and the adoption of the report is accordingly recommended.
Motion (by Senator O’Sullivan) - by leave - agreed to -
That the report be adopted.
page 2490
Debate resumed from the 15th November (vide page 2422), on motion by Senator Spooner -
That the bill be now read a second time.
.- When the debate was interrupted last night, I was pointing out that had not a Labour government been in office from 1941 until 1949, twothirds of our social services legislation would never have been passed. The parties that support the present Government were in power for 25 years, with one brief interruption, but in all that time they did very little to improve social services in this country. The greatest improvements to our social services were introduced by the Labour Government during the war, although at that time a high percentage of our man-power was in the fighting services, and men, women and boys were engaged on war work. In spite of war commitments, Labour was laying the foundations of its social services plan. To-day, that plan hae come to fruition, and the Labour party is proud of its achievements. In its comparatively short term of office, it was able to place on the statute-hook legislation that had been part of its platform for many years. As I said last night, when Labour came to power, there were only three social services in the Commonwealth sphere - the invalid and age pension, maternity allowances, and child endowment. The child endowment scheme had been introduced by the first Menzies Government, but the burden of giving effect to it had to be borne by the succeeding Labour Ad-ministration. Labour’s record in the social services field between 1941 and 1949 included an increase of the invalid and age pension by 100 per cent., the relaxation of the means test, the introduction of allowances for wives and children of invalid pensioners, introduction of widows’ pensions, an increase of maternity allowances by 200 per cent., and the abolition of the means test in respect of such allowances, an increase of child endowment payments, the institution of funeral benefits, unemployment and sickness benefits, hospital benefits, the tuberculosis benefit, and pharmaceutical benefits, provision for rental rebates under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, the inauguration of a scheme for the rehabilitation of disabled persons, and the introduction of mental institution benefits. The cost of social services in 1948-49 was £88,000,000, and the then Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), who was also Treasurer, did not have to dip his hand into the pockets of private individuals to balance his budget. Contrast those achievements with the record of the Liberal ‘party. In 1932, although there was a revenue surplus, the then Liberal Government reduced the invalid and age pension from 17s. 6d. to 15s. a week. At the same time, pensioners were penalized by certain property provisions. If a pensioner died leaving property, the Liberal Government took from his estate the money that it had paid to him by way of pension. Do honorable senators opposite feel proud of that record? As the result of the property provisions to which I have referred, 12,000 persons surrendered their pensions, and another 13,000 who would have been eligible for pensions, refrained from applying for them. Those figures were given by Sir John Latham when he was Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. Liberal governments also compelled the relatives of pensioners to con- tribute to their support. The proposed increases of pensions will be swallowed up within a few months by high living costs. The rates which the Government now proposes are not sufficient to meet the requirements of the pensioners. Once again the Government has com pletely failed to honour a promise to a very deserving section of the community. I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Robertson that the pensions paid to aged and invalid persons are not nearly sufficient.
– I support this bill with much pleasure because it will bring much-needed assistance to many thousands of people throughout the Commonwealth. I congratulate the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) not only on having introduced the measure but also on the sympathy which he has displayed in considering the very many needy cases that have been brought before him. I also congratulate the officers of his department throughout the length and breadth of the land on the sympathetic manner in which they, too, carry out their work. All of us who have dealings with the department appreciate the assistance which its officers so readily give us and the sympathetic manner in which they carry out their investigations. This bill honours a promise which was made by the Government and it will be welcomed by the people of the Commonwealth. I am rather amazed to find that honorable senators opposite who, when they were in office, did not increase the pension rate, should endeavour to belittle efforts of this Government to improve the lot of the pensioners. I am glad to be associated with a Government which is responsible for proposing the largest increase that has yet been made in the rate of pensions. It is perhaps well that we should dwell on some of the points that were made by the Minister in his second-reading speech. We all are aware of the problems which face aged and invalid persons in this country. Every honorable senator in this chamber is sympathetically disposed towards them and would like to give them the greatest possible assistance. One of the greatest problems which face aged persons in this community is the housing shortage. I have given that subject a great deal of attention. I am greatly concerned about the provision of proper and adequate housing for aged persons, particularly for aged married couples. Nothing is morn, tragic than for people who have lived together for many years to be forced to remain apart in their declining years. I do not in any way disparage those institutions which care for aged persons; they render excellent service to the community. All of us agree that it is a great tragedy that in their declining years aged persons should be separated. Excellent work is being done in various parts of the country by church and other organizations, but there is a great need for further assistance, and if it is possible for the Government at any time to assist in providing that assistance, I hope that it will do so. Garden settlements of cottages for aged couples provide perhaps the happiest means of caring for them in their old’ age, but there are also other plans that should be considered. I wish to refer to the housing of aged and invalid pensioners in cases where aged couples, who, in the last years of their lives, must undergo medical treatment. It may mean that one of them must travel from a distant part of a State to ‘the capital city in order to receive treatment, resulting in a long separation from each other. Perhaps both of them may be in hospital at the one time, although in different wards whatever the conditions that arise it means separation of the couple. In other countries of the world small cottages are to be found attached to hospitals, so that aged married couples, in need of medical attention, either or both of whom may live in them, and I consider that that scheme could be very well adopted in this country. I know that there are various problems involved, such as staffing and administration, but those problems have been overcome in other countries. The tare of aged invalid couples is something that should be considered further in this country, not only by governments, but by all organizations that are interested in the matter.
It is pleasing to note that there has been an increase in the pensions payable to widows; class A from £2 7s. 6d. to £2 15s. a week; class B from £1 17s. 6d’. to £2 2s. a week; class C from £2 2s. 6d. to £2 7s. 6d. a week, and class D from £1 17s. to £2 2s. a week. There is, however, still a need for assistance to civilian widows. These women have a difficult time and although I know that this matter will always receive the sympathetic attention of the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), I again wish to bring it to his notice.
On many occasions I have spoken in this chamber concerning the plight of the civilian widow who loses her husband when she is, say, 28 years of age. She is then a young woman, with perhaps small children, so that her most important task is the care of those children and provision of a home for them. When her youngest child reaches the age of sixteen years, she no longer receives assistance. She is then, perhaps, 44 years of age, and has been out of the employment market for many years. At that age she is forced to find some means of earning an income until she is eligible to apply for a B class widow’s pension at the age of 50 years. It is possible that she may be in indifferent health, and not really fit to work. People concerned with the employment of female labour have told me that it is most difficult for a woman who has been at home and attending to her family for many years to obtain suitable employment when she is middle-aged. But because of the years remaining between the time when her youngest child attains the age of sixteen years, and .the time when she becomes eligible for a B class widow’s pension, she must seek employment in order to support herself. That is a matter to which the Government will, I hope, give sympathetic consideration.
I bring to the attention of the Government the fact that many civilian widows at the present time are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining homes. I think it was yesterday that Senator Kendall also spoke on this subject. Widows are in a worse position than are most homeseekers, because in many cases they have not the money to pay a deposit on a home, and also ‘because in their case the risk is considered to be greater.
I am glad to note that child endowment in future will be paid to the children of members of the naval, military and air forces of the United Kingdom while they are serving with the Australian forces, and that that endowment will be paid from the time of arrival of the children in Australia. That is in line with the action taken by the Minister for Social
Services when he recently introduced in this chamber legislation to provide for the payment of endowment for the first child, which is of great assistance to many mothers throughout the Commonwealth.
I congratulate the Government on the provision of further assistance to the blind. I have always considered that a person who has suffered the disability of blindness, of not being able to see and enjoy the many beauties around us and the pleasures which those of us who have this great gift can enjoy, should be given every assistance. I am delighted to know that this Government is assisting them so considerably. It is fitting at this point to pay tribute to the many voluntary organizations which also assist the blind. The Braille Writers Association comes to mind, and there are many others. When congratulating the Government on the assistance it has given to blind people it would be unpardonable if we allowed ourselves to forget the splendid work being performed by those organizations.
It is heartening to read in the Minister’s second-reading speech that additional sickness benefits have been provided for, but I wish now to mention a matter which is causing some concern in the community at the present time. I refer to young people under the age of sixteen years who are in employment, and who, through industrial unrest, a.re thrown out of work through no fault of their own, but are not entitled to receive unemployment benefits. Last year there was a great deal of industrial unrest in one State and, as a result, many girls under the age of sixteen years had to be dismissed from their employment. Many of them were a long way from their homes and were placed in a difficult situation, because, owing to their ages, they were not eligible for unemployment benefit. I ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to cases of that kind. I am speaking especially on behalf of young girls working in metropolitan areas who may, if they ave thrown out of work, encounter great difficulty in returning to their homes in country areas. I congratulate the Government upon the attitude that it has adopted in this bill to recipients of war pensions. I am very glad that war pensions will not in future be taken :into consideration when recipients apply for social services benefits. That is a step in the right direction.
I do not wish to delay the passage of this humanitarian measure, which will assist thousands of people in this country. I am certain that every honorable senator wishes it to be passed speedily in order that those persons who will benefit from it shall do so as soon as possible. I ask the Government to consider the points that I have raised. I again urge the Minister to consider the possibility of assisting in providing houses for aged people, not only in the capital cities but also in rural areas, in order that old couples may be enabled to spend the rest of their lives together in the places in which their children have grown up, where they have their friends and in which they have lived for the best years of their lives. I ask him to consider whether houses for aged married couples can be erected in association with hospitals, so that the old people can be cared for when either or both are ill. I ask that sympathetic consideration be given to the problems confronting civilian widows in what may be called the “ inbetween “ years. I refer to the period between the time when the youngest child of a civilian widow reaches the age of sixteen years and the time when the widow becomes eligible for a B class widow’s pension. In those years, it is often difficult for a civilian widow to obtain employment.
I am proud to be associated with an Administration that is honouring the promises it made to the people and greatly improving the position of beneficiaries under the social services legislation. The bill makes provision for the greatest increases of pensions ever to be granted in this country. We all believe that those who need assistance should receive it and I am certain that we all hope that eventually it will be possible further to liberalize the operation of the means test, because we do- not want persons who have been thrifty to be penalized for their thrift. This bill will bring much happiness to many people in this country. I congratulate the Government upon it and support it whole-heartedly.
– The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), in his second-reading speech, said that the provisions of this bill fell into two classifications. The Minister furnished particulars of present rates of pensions and proposed increased rates. I think that it is well that honorable senators should consider why, in 1950, it should still be necessary for the Australian Government to provide social services. The fact is that many people in the community do not enjoy social security, which is a plank of Labour’s platform. The measure before the chamber is founded on Labour’s principles. I wish to deal particularly with the subject of maternity allowances, which were first provided by the Fisher Labour Government in 1912. The amount of the maternity allowance then granted was £5 for each child, which was more than twice the basic wage then operating in Queensland. When we bear in mind the numerous items of expenditure with which mothers are faced, it can be appreciated that maternity allowances are very valuable to them. Cotton and flannelette squares, as well as many other special items of babies’ clothing, have to be bought, and in addition domestic help is necessary at that period. Therefore, the grant of £5 proved a boon to mothers in those days. In 1943, when the basic wage was £4 17s. a week in Queensland the maternity allowance was increased to £15. To-day the basic wage in that State is £6 19s. a week. If the amount of the maternity allowance still bore the same relationship to the basic wage as it did in 1912; the allowance should be about £21 10s. I should be glad if the Minister, when replying, would inform the Senate why the ratio has not been maintained.
Child endowment in respect of children under the age of 16 years is now payable at the rate of 5s. a week for the first child, and 10s. a week for the second and subsequent children. The 10s. a week rate was decided upon in 1948, when the basic wage in Queensland was £5 19s. a week. If equated to the present basic wage in that State, the rate should be increased by about ls. 6d. a week. Therefore it is apparent that the increases of the rates of social services have not kept pace with the increased cost of living.
In 1945 provision was made for the payment of unemployment and sickness benefits at the rate of £1 5s. a week for a man, and £1 a week for his wife. If the relationship of that benefit to the basic wage had been preserved, the payment should have been increased by £1 a week. The funeral benefit of £10 was introduced in July, 1943, when the basic wage in Queensland was £4 15s. a week. If the funeral benefit were equated with the basic wage operating to-day, the amount payable should be about £14 12s. The shortage of juvenile workers since the early 40’s is attributable to the fact that birth control was practised during the financial depression of the 30’s. It became apparent that, in the national interests, encouragement would have to be given to increasing the birthrate, and child endowment on a national scale was introduced in 1941. Even as long ago as 1924, Mr. Justice McCawley, who was President of the Industrial Court of Queensland, had commented on the necessity for child endowment, following the introduction of a child endowment scheme in New South Wales several years previously. On that occasion he stated -
It seems to me that Mr. Piddington is right in considering that it should be the institution of child endowment on a national peale. His arguments are set forth in his little book which all should read - The Next Step, published in 1921.
I can see no other way of substantially raising the standard of living of those who are at present the most unfairly treated, married men with young dependent children who now receive the basic wage or a little more. Those who desire to consider further the subject of child endowment should read Miss Rathbone’s recent book “ The Disinherited Family “, Professor Paul Douglas’ pamphlet on “Family Allowances” (published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, February, 1024), “Family Allowances in French Industry “ (International Labour Review, February. 1P24), and Dr. Eduard Hermann’s article on “ The Family Wage Controversy in Germany “ (Economic journal, December, 1923).
At that time a prominent Australian was giving considerable thought to the subject of child endowment. Of his work, Mr. Justice McCawley wrote -
The principle of child endowment has long been affirmed by the platforms of the Labourparty. Mr. J. T. Sutcliffe, the able secretary of the Basic Wage Commission, has given evidence upon the matter before the Federal’ National Insurance Commission, now sitting, and it is possible that that Commission will express its views upon this universally discussed question.
That was written long before child endowment was introduced.
Another provision of the social Services Consolidation Act relates to unemployment and sickness benefits. It is generally accepted that if present conditions had been normal during the last twenty years, no provision would have been made for unemployment. To-day, unemployment is practically unknown, but when the benefit was introduced there had been severe unemployment throughout Australia for the previous ten or twelve years. Indeed, at one time, more than 23 per cent, of the population was unemployed. The majority of workers today receive sick pay under the awards which cover their employment, but when their rights under their awards are exhausted, they must look elsewhere for help. Therefore, it was necessary for the legislation to make provision for that contingency, and sickness benefit was introduced. However, this bill does not provide for increasing the rate of sickness and unemployment benefits, although the cost of living has greatly increased. Perhaps the Minister, in replying to the debate, will tell us why the rates were not increased. He may say that, because there is very little unemployment to-day, there was no need to increase the rates. I point out, however, that Australia is passing through a period of unprecedented prosperity, and if the rates are not increased new it is extremely unlikely that they will be increased should the country fall on lean times.
There is not much unemployment, but there is some in certain seasonal industries. In Queensland, there are three important seasonal industries - those associated with sugar production, shearing and slaughtering. The sugar season extends from May to January, and shearing is conducted over much the same period. There are two slaughtering periods at the meat-works during the year. The works commence operations in March of each year, and continue until June. Then there is a break of a month or so, and operations, when resumed, continue until late in November or early December. It is necessary that workers be available, and it is better that they live in the neighbourhood of the meat-works. Most of the workers do, in fact, live in centres adjacent to the place of their employment, and in the slack periods they are unemployed. In Rockhampton, over 1,000 men are employed at the meat-works, and in the slack period it is not possible to find employment in Rockhampton for all those men. Many of them are necessarily unemployed for a month or more at a time. They are entitled to draw unemployment benefit, but no provision has been made in this bill for increasing the benefit.
Widows’ pensions have been increased, but the increases are not commensurate with the increased cost of living. Many age pensioners are suffering distress, and the slight increase of pensions granted will not improve their position to any appreciable degree. Their distress arises chiefly from lack of proper housing, and of suitable medical care. The aged and infirm reach a stage when they cannot look after themselves, and cannot afford to employ domestic service. The demands of civilization require us to maintain social services at the highest possible level, but the bill now before us falls short of what we are entitled to expect. The pension increases provided for in the bill are insufficient, and no attempt is made to increase other social services payments. In short, this measure fails to ensure the maintenance of the high standard of living to which we believe every member of this civilized community is entitled. For some time now, the rising cost of living has been reducing the value of our social services payments. In August, 1942, the average basic wage for the six capital cities was £4 13s. a week. In November, 1949, it was £6 9s. a week. That steep rise over a period of seven years was due to the increased cost of living, and unprecedented prosperity. Prom the 10th December, 1949, up to the present, the basic wage has risen from £5 9s. a week to £7 2s. a week, an increase of £1 13s. In other words, whereas, under Labour’s administration, the average basic wage increased by £1 16s. in seven years ; under the administration of the present Government, the basic wage has increased by £1 13s. in less than twelve months. This has inflicted great hardships on social services beneficiaries. Ignoring prosperity loadings, we find that, during Labour’s seven years of office, the increase of the average basic wage in accordance with the “ C “ series index, was £1 9s., whereas during the eleven months of office of the present Government the increases have been 4s. in February, 2s. in May, 2s. in August, and 3s. in the current month, making a total of 13s. When the Minister replies to the second-reading debate, I should like him to tell us the reason for those increases. The further prosperity loading of £1 a week that is to come into operation shortly, will further reduce the purchasing power of pensioners, and recipients of other social services payments. When the new basic wage takes effect, manufacturers will increase their prices to meet higher production costs. Retailers will have to huy at the increased rates, and therefore they will have to sell to the public at higher prices. Ultimately, the increased production costs incurred by the payment of an additional £1 a week will be passed on to the public, with the result that the purchasing power of social services payments will decline further. I know of no fairer way of adjusting social services payments than to tie them directly to the basic wage so that they will rise and fall according to variations of the basic wage. That was the practice until a few years ago, when there was a reduction of the basic wage. Dissatisfaction was expressed at the possibility that pensions, too, would be reduced, with the result that the method was changed. Since that time, .pension rates have been determined by the Parliament. If the Parliament is to continue to fix those rates, it should review them at least every six months. I should like the Minister to tell me in his reply on whose advice the social services increases provided for in this measure were determined. Cabinet has no expert knowledge of these matters, and would not be in a position to decide that the invalid and age pensions, for instance, should be increased by 7s. 6d. a week. Pension rates should be determined by experts advising Cabinet and departmental heads.
The provisions of the bill are divided into two classifications - those relating to pension increases and those relating to the liberalization of other benefits. I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to one instance in which there has been no liberalization. Speaking of the sickness and unemployment benefits, the Minister said -
The means test for these benefits allows 20s. a week for income, and at present a war pension is regarded as income.
An unemployed person is permitted to earn 20s. a week without suffering a reduction of the unemployment benefit. Provision for a permissible income of 20s. was made in 1944, when the basic wage was approximately £1 a day. Since then the basic wage has been increased by at least £2 a week and accordingly the amount of permissible income should be increased to approximately 30s. I ask the Minister when he is replying to the debate to state why the Government did not fix a higher amount, particularly in view of existing high living costs.
Senator Robertson referred to the Dickensian characters, David Copperfield and Oliver Twist. Another Dickensian character came to my mind whose reputation is more in keeping with that of the Minister for Social Services and his officers. There is no generosity and human understanding among the members of the Cabinet when dealing with social services. The policy adopted by this Government ever since it has been in office is the policy of Scrooge. The money which the Government will provide under this bill has been wrung from people who receive no benefit from social services. The Government has deprived many persons of their pensions in pursuance of its “ Scroogian” policy. The increased rates of pension proposed in this bill in the final analysis will not deprive the Government of any money because its revenues are rapidly increasing.
I direct the attention of the Senate toa specific case in which the Department of Social Services has been guilty of injustice. It relates to a young man, 25- years of age, who had been granted an invalid pension on the ground of deformity. The young man had not developed physically beyond the standard of a boy twelve or thirteen years of age. He wears a coat which would fit a boy eleven or twelve years of age. Because there was nothing wrong with him mentally, the Department of Social Services said to him, “ We shall teach you a trade so that you can work in industry and make wages for yourself “. The young man’s affliction prevented him from travelling by train from his place of residence to the district in which the trades school was established, and because he failed to attend the school the department deprived him of his pension.
Another case to which I direct attention is that of a widow who has washed at the tubs of other people for many years in order to support her family. She had the good fortune to purchase, jointly with one of her daughters, a lottery ticket which won a prize of approximately £600. She and her daughter shared the prize equally. With her share of the prize money the widow re-furnished her house as far as she could afford to do so. Honorable senators will appreciate the fact that a widow who had had to work hard all her life in order to bring up her family would not be living in a palace. She bought new furniture and furnishings, crockery and clothing and, as many other mothers would do in similar circumstances, she allowed one of her daughters to go away on a holiday. She frankly informed the department of h?r good fortune, whereupon the department promptly deprived her of her pension. That happened about eight months ago.
– The honorable senator did not bring the facts of the case to my notice?
– No.
– If the honorable senator had done so he would have learned the truth and he would have realized that what he is now saying is completely unjust.
– I should not take to the Minister a weak case. I am reluctant to ask him to override the decisions of his officers, who are conscientiously carrying out the policy laid down by him.
– The honorable senator is aware that there has been no change in the policy of the department since this Government has been in office.
– I have investigated these cases thoroughly and I can vouch for the accuracy of -the information which I have given concerning them. If the Minister so desires, I shall furnish him with the names and addresses of the persons concerned. Under the Chifley administration, the department adopted a positive attitude; under the administration of the present Government its attitude is purely negative. A claimant is now called upon to prove his claim beyond all doubt before a pension is granted. I realize that it is the duty of public servants to safeguard public funds. I do not ask the departmental officers or the Minister to go beyond the provisions of the act to give favorable treatment to applicants.
– The honorable senator did not give the Minister a chance to consider the cases which he has mentioned.
– If the Minister is interested in them, I shall place all the information I have concerning them at his disposal. Another case to which I wish to direct attention is that of a man who for many years had been in receipt of an invalid pension. Having no home of his own he obtained board with a widow. The departmental officers placed the very worst possible construction on the fact that both the man and the woman lived in the same house. The pension paid to the man and the wages received by the woman for cleaning work were averaged and the man’s pension was reduced. I have a complete file relating to the case in my office which I shall be glad to make available to the Minister if he wishes to peruse it. As I have previously stated, I am reluctant to take to the Minister for Social Services matters that relate to the policy of his department. He has formulated a certain policy and I do not wish to ask the officers of his department to depart from it.
– The same policy has been in existence for years.
– I do not think that that is the case. I consider that the policy has been changed.
– The act has not been altered.
– That is clearly understood, but the administration has been changed, and the administration is everything.
– The same officers are there as were there previously. There has been no change in policy or in administration. I am sure that if the honorable senator-
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Order! The Minister will have an opportunity to reply.
– I draw the attention of the Government to the long periods which people who have qualified for the receipt of sickness benefits are obliged to wait before payment is made. The experience of other honorable sena- « tors in connexion with that matter is no doubt the same as mine. In the public hospitals there are workmen who have been in hospital for three or four weeks and have not received any payment on account of sickness benefits. I do not know why that should be, but I point out that after those men have exhausted the sick leave rights provided by awards, they are more or less bankrupt and are temporarily in indigent circumstances. To be of the greatest benefit, sickness benefits should be paid immediately, or at least weekly, while the worker is sick and without income. In the case of a workman with a wife and two or three children, perhaps the greatest of his worries is that he is not receiving any regular payment. In some cases, men have been sick for two or three weeks before receiving the first payment. There appears to be a desire on the part of departmental officials, in some cases at least, to lump the payments together and pay every two or three weeks. That is not a fair method of payment when a man is sick, and I suggest that payments should be made at least weekly.
– I approach this bill with a sense of exhiliration because the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) has done something, at any rate, to provide for additional payments to those who are entitled to social service benefits. I also approach it despondently, because I think that the question of such payments has been dealt with in a haphazard way. There has been no set method of applying the increases, and some categories of pensioners have been entirely overlooked. Senator Benn has mentioned sickness and unemployment benefits, which have not been increased in.. any way, and last night Senator McKenna pointed out that dependants of pensioners receive no increase at all. Notwithstanding the fact that the value of the Menzies Government £1 is disappearing at a much greater annual rate than the value of the Chifley Government £1,. those people have not received any increase in pensions. Senator AnnabelleRankin has expressed her extreme disapproval of the treatment of widows-
– I said “ concern “.
– I wholeheartedly agree with the honorable senator’s disapproval. The treatment that has been meted out to some of the widows of Australia has been not only unfair to them but unworthy of the legislatorsof this country. The Government has selected certain classes of widows and has given them a larger increase than, it has given to others. As Senator Annabelle Rankin pointed out, a. widow in class A may have brought up children.. When the youngest child reaches the age of sixteen years, she may be at that agewhen it is impossible to- return to industry for employment, and no provision has been made to cover that period. That matter adds weight to my statement that no plan has been followed by the Minister, but I have no doubt that the dissatisfaction that has been expressed by Senator Annabelle Rankin will bear fruit. I understand the attitude of the Minister sufficiently well to know that he will beaware of the political significance of the raising of the question bv the honorablesenator, and that, in order to “ put oneover “ the Australian Labour party, an effort will be made in the near future to grant a slight increase in benefits to widows.
I am concerned that there has not beenany increase of the pensions payable tothe dependants or the wives of invalid pensioners. Even if the amount had been increased by only a couple of shillings,, so that it would be 26s. instead of 24s., it would have been of some satisfaction to those pensioners, but no increase at all lias been allowed. Generally speaking, the wife of an invalid pensioner is required to devote a large part of her time to the care of the invalid. She has not much opportunity to go out and earn money, and even if she has, the same provisions apply to-day as in the days when the Australian Labour party was in office. I do not altogether quarrel with the point of view taken by the Australian Labour party at that time. As honorable senators will remember, within a very short period after it came to office, the permissible income rose from 12s. 6d. a week to 30s. a week, but provision was made that if a pensioner earned more than 30s. a week, the pension would be reduced. Since the time when that provision was made, there have been considerable increases in the cost of living, which has risen more since this Government has been in office than in any other equivalent period. I consider that the permissible income should be increased, and I am fortified in that belief by statements that were made by Liberal party candidates when seeking votes before December last. Honorable senators will recall that those candidates stated that if elected there would be a revision of the whole of the social services in order to make them more equitable. Having said that, they condemned the Australian Labour party for not liberalizing the means test or abolishing it altogether. Accordingly, I hoped that after the Government was elected to office there would be some amelioration of the means test; yet pensioners are still permitted to earn only 30s. a week. I suggest that the increased benefits granted under this bill represent an effort to try to appease the people and to make them believe that the Government is attempting to honour its promises.
Senator Annabelle Rankin stated that she was satisfied that the provision of the extra benefits meant that one more promise was being honoured by the Government. The honorable senator’s conscience must be very easily satisfied if that is her belief, because I consider that the benefits do not in any way honour a promise. If the honorable senator had stated that she considered that a step had been taken towards honouring the promise, there might have been some justification and a semblance of truth in her statement. But to say that it is an honoured promise is a long way from the truth. In fact, it is an attempt to score against the political opponents of the Government. The Minister for Social Services made a very nice speech and not much fault could be found with it until, right at the end, he said, in effect, “ This is the biggest increase that any government has given “. In saying that, he clearly demonstrated a desire to make political capital out of the difficulties of the pensioners of this country. In introducing this measure, the Minister dwelt upon the fact that the property means test had been raised, insofar as it related to the surrender value of assurance policies, from £200 to £500. All that that means is that it is a sop to the insurance companies of Australia for the support that they gave to the Government parties when fighting the- election campaign against the Australian Labour party. The property means test has not been raised by £500 in the general sphere ; it merely boosts the insurance companies by inducing people to insure with them.
Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m.
– I ask for leave to. continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 2499
– I desire to inform the ‘ Senate that His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend and Right Honorable Dr. G. F. Fisher, a member of the House of Lords, is within the precincts of the chamber. With the concurrence of honorable senators, I shall invite him to take a seat on the floor of the Senate beside the President’s chair.
Honorable Senators. - Hear, hear !
His Grace thereupon entered the chamber, and was seated accordingly.
page 2499
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator COOPER’ read a first time.
– I move -
That the bill be now read a second time.
This bill deals with an amendment of the Post and Telegraph Rates Act 1902-1949 to adjust certain postal and telegraph charges in order to give a more equitable return for the services provided under present costs and conditions. I shall indicate to honorable senators the manner in which it is proposed to revise, not only the postal and telegraph rates covered in the act, but also certain other charges which can be adjusted by the authority of the Governor-General in Council. I. shall also explain briefly the reasons why it is imperative that the existing rates structures should be varied at this stage.
The bill provides for the following charges for postal articles and telegrams posted or lodged for delivery within Australia to be adjusted : -
Letters. - The existing charge of 2id. for the first ounce or part of an ounce will be increased to 3d. The charge for each additional ounce or part of an ounce will be increased from 2d. to 2id.
Letter-cards. - The existing charge of 2£d. will be increased to 3d.
Post-cards. - The existing charge of 2d. will be increased to 2£d. .
Commercial papers, patterns, samples” and merchandise. - The existing charge of lid. for the first 2 oz. or part of 2 oz. will be increased to 2d., but the present charge of lid. for each additional 2 oz. or part of 2 oz. will he continued.
Printed matter, including printed papers, circulars, catalogues and books, and publications not registered- for transmission as newspapers or periodicals. - The existing charge of lid. for the first 4 oz. or part of 4 oz. will be increased to 2d., but the present charge of 1-Jd. for each additional 4 oz. or part of 4 oz. will be continued.
Ordinary telegrams. - The existing base rate for ordinary telegrams up to fourteen words will be increased from ls. 3d. to ls. 9d. where the offices are not more than fifteen miles apart, and from ls. Gd. to 2s. in all other cases. The charge for each additional word in excess of fourteen will be increased from Id. to lid.
Urgent telegrams. - Urgent telegrams will continue to be charged double the rates applicable to ordinary telegrams.
Commonwealth and State Hansards will continue to be carried at the existing concession rate of 1½d. for each 12 oz.. The charge of 1-Jd. for each 6 oz. for publications registered for transmission! as books and for single copies of newspapers and periodicals will not be altered, and no change will be made in the bulk rate of 2½d. for each 16 oz. which applies to publications registered by the Postal Department as newspapers and. periodicals. These tariffs are being left, undisturbed for a number of reasons.. The Government feels that reports of the proceedings of the Federal and Stateparliaments should be disseminated as widely and cheaply as possible. It alsoconsiders that Australian authors andpublishers should be encouraged by maintaining a low rate for books, and that the continuance of a cheap bulk rate fornewspapers and periodicals is most desirable, seeing that the concession is enjoyed not only by metropolitan journals, particularly in respect of copies despatched to subscribers in country districts, but also by country newspapers which utilizethe system for distributing copies to subscribers in outlying areas and by noncommercial bodies, including churches, exservicemen’s associations and organizations of employers and employees, which, avail themselves of the bulk rate.
The Government does not propose toraise the charges for lettergrams and presstelegrams. The use of lettergrams is decreasing owing to the greater availability of air mails, whilst the number of press telegrams is also declining as theresult of the growing number of leased teleprinter services. At present the main users of press telegram services are country newspapers.
I shall now indicate to honorable senators the alterations in charges which it is proposed to effect by Executive action.. The postage rates for Empire and foreign, countries must be fixed in relation to the domestic tariffs. Consequently, it will’ be necessary to make some adjustments.. The most pronounced variation is an increase from 3-Jd. to 5-Jd. for the firstounce in respect of letters addressed toforeign countries, this adjustment being- necessary to comply with the scale of charges prescribed by the Universal Postal Convention, to which the Commonwealth subscribes.
The present rates for parcels posted for delivery within Australia were adopted twenty years ago and are insufficient to meet existing handling, conveyance and delivery costs. Therefore, it is proposed to increase the tariffs to bring them more into conformity with these costs. The minimum charges applicable to a parcel weighing up to 1 lb. will be raised in the following manner : -
For delivery within 30 miles - Increase from 6d. to 9d.
For delivery elsewhere -
Within State of posting - Increase from 9d. to1s.
In adjacent State - Increase from Is. to ls. 9d.
In distant State - Increase from ls. 3d. to 2s.
Corresponding adjustments will be made in. the rates for heavier parcels. The maximum increase will be from 7s. 3d. to Ss. Od. for a parcel weighing 11 lb. addressed to a distant State.
The rentals for private boxes have not been varied for nearly 40 years and are much too low under present circumstances. Under the new scale proposed, the annual charge for an ordinary-sized box at a general post office will he increased from £1 to £2 and the annual rental of a box of similar size at any other post office will be raised from 10s. to 15s.
At present an additional fee of 2d. is charged for a phonogram - that is, a telegram telephoned to a telegraph office for onward despatch - but, as this amount is insufficient to cover operating costs, it will be increased to 3d.
In common with the practice observed in overseas countries, daily newspapers, commercial firms and government departments are increasingly availing themselves of the facilities provided by leased teleprinter services. Many of these services are used on a part-time basis, but others are leased for 24 hours daily. “When this bill is enacted, the rentals for leased teleprinter services will be reviewed and an appropriate adjustment made in each case. Where a private teleprinter service connects with a telegraph office, the fee for lodging a telegram by this means for onward transmission will be raised from 2d. to 3d.
The rentals for telephone subscribers’ services are to be increased by amountsranging from 7s. 6d., for subscribers in. local call areas with 1,001 to 2,000 lines, to £1 15s. for business services in Sydney and Melbourne. The rentals for businessservices will be raised by £1 12s. 6d, in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, and by £1 7s. 6d. in Hobart and Newcastle, whilst the rentals for residence serviceswill be increased by £1 5s. in Sydney and Melbourne, £1 2s. 6d. in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth, and 17s. 6d. in Hobart and Newcastle. One effect of the adjustments will be to widen the margin between rentals for business and residenceservices in those telephone networks wherethere are differential rates. The rentalsfor services connected to exchanges with local call areas of 1 to 300 lines will bereduced by 5s., but no variation will be made of the rentals in areas of 301 to- 1,000 lines. The Government is making these exceptions to the general increase in order to give effect to its policy of improving conditions in rural areas and also to offset, to some extent, the increase of the unit fee for local calls in thesegroups,
The unit fee for a local telephonecall is now 1½d. where the local call area is restricted to 300 lines or less. It is 13/4d. in other country districts and 2d. in metropolitan areas and Newcastle, where special network conditionsapply. It is proposed to introduce a uniform.’ unit fee of 2d. for local calls. The Postal Department makes no distinction in the charge for postal articles and telegrams, and it is desirable to extend the principle to local telephone calls. The charges for trunk line calls made between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. will be increased by amounts varying from1d. for calls under7½ miles to 4s. 2d. for calls over 1,300 miles. Bates for calls made between 6 p.m. and 9 a.m. will be raised by sums varying from1d. for calls under7½ miles to 3s. 2d. for calls over 1,300 miles. It is also intended to increase, by amounts varying from1d. to 2s., according to the direct distance between the trunk line offices concerned, the additional fees which are charged in cases where trunk line calls are made to specified persons or extension telephones. Although these fees were raised in 1949, they do not compensate for the special service provided and the extra trunk line time occupied. Extra mileage charges for telephone subscribers’ services extending beyond a radius of 2 miles from the exchange will not be increased. These rates have been fixed at a nominal figure to meet the peculiar needs of outlying localities, and recently my colleague, the Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony), gave an outline of the more liberal conditions which the Government has introduced in regard to the provision of telephone services in country districts.
Honorable senators will recall that Post Office rates were increased by the Chifley Government in the middle of 1949 and some senators may be inclined at first sight to question the need for making a further adjustment at the present time. “When I have explained the underlying factors, however, I am confident that honorable senators will agree that there is full justification for raising the tariffs again, without delay. The facts are quite clear and can be expressed concisely by saying that the increases arc- essentia] to meet inescapable additional financial burdens which have been thrown upon the Postal Department as the result of spiralling wage and material costs. The Postal Department serves every settled community in Australia, and its 90,000 employees, including non-official postmasters and mail contractors, make it the largest commercial enterprise in Australia. To provide and maintain the postal and telecommunication services so essential to national development and security involves expenditure which in many cases cannot be justified on purely financial grounds, but is more than warranted from the standpoint of fostering the growth and spread of primary and secondary industries and providing amenities for country living, which will promote decentralization.
Honorable senators will agree that the employees of the Postal Department are entitled to reasonable wages and working conditions, and that they should participate in any improvements resulting from arbitration awards - and cost of living adjustments. Since the war ended the department’s annual wages bill for operating and maintenance staff has grown from £14,000,000 to more than £38,000,000 allowing for the recent basic wage judgment and the cost of living adjustment from the 1st November. Wages of new staff account for only £8,000,000 of this increase, the remaining £16,000,000 being directly attributable to increases in wage rates. In passing, I may mention that the recent basic wage judgment will add considerably more than £4,000,000 to the department’s yearly operating costs. The 40-hour week which came into force in January, 1948, reduced the effective working time of a substantial proportion of the Postal Department’s staff by at least 8 per cent., and the immediate direct result was to increase the wages bill by more than £1,000,000 annually. Since then, other heavy additional expenditure has also been incurred as a result of the introduction of the shorter working week. For example, in 1946-47 the department’s annual overtime bill was £317,000, whilst last year it was £1,300,000.
Then again, the department has also had to meet greatly increased material, freight and other costs as a result of the shorter working week and higher wages in industry generally. Since 1944-45, extraordinary increases have taken place in the prices - of materials used by the department. To quote instances, the following rises have occurred during the period : - Public telephone cabinets, from £41 to £71; telephone instruments, from £3 3s. to £5 2s.; 100-pair cable, from £333 to £600 ; copper wire, from £142 to £310 a ton; postal uniforms, from £5 8s. to £7 14s. Costs of conveying the mails by road, rail, sea and air have also risen steeply, and the estimated expenditure for 1950-51, without allowing for the probable effects of the recent basic wage and costofliving increases, will be more than £1,000,000 greater than in 1948-49.
Although the tariff adjustments made by the Labour Government in 1949 produced annual revenue of approximately £5,500,000, this amount was insufficient to balance the department’s commercial accounts for 1949-50, because of unforeseen additional costs which occurred during the year. These included increases in wages and salaries as a result of arbitration awards, prices of materials, payments to non-official postmasters, and freight, cartage and mail conveyance charges. It is for these reasons, and these alone, that the department’s commercial accounts for the financial year 1949-50 will show a deficit of about £1,500,000.
A close review of the position for the current year shows that a loss of more than £8,000,000 will be inevitable if existing tariffs are continued. This deficit will be due to increased costs of labour and materials, which are quite outside the control of the department, and which will occur despite the vigorous efforts of the administration to secure economy and the maximum degree of efficiency consistent with its vital obligation to meet the postal and telecommunication needs of the community. The alternative to the adoption of new charges to place the department on a sounder financial footing would be to curtail services and maintenance work with consequent detriment to national development and depreciation of valuable public assets, or to dismiss large numbers of staff, throw an additional ‘burden on taxpayers, or stimulate the demand for postal facilities by making them available at rates much less than those justified by the costs incurred or by their value to users. Honorable senators will surely agree that the adoption of such measures would retard national progress and impose grave inconvenience, if not hardship, on some sections of the community. No government would, I feel sure, lend itself to a course of action which would have such serious effects on the development of an important and essentia] public undertaking and on the lives of the people it has been established to serve. Moreover, even if these drastic measures were resorted to, it would not be possible to balance the department’s budget by such means, particularly as they would immediately affect adversely the department’s revenue. The Government and the controlling officers of the department would like to see it “break even “ in its accounts during the present year, but to achieve this goal a prohibitive rise in tariffs would be necessary. In fact, the increases would have to be more than twice as great as those proposed.
Accordingly, in reviewing the present rates, the following factors have received special attention : The cost of providing services; the corresponding charges in other countries; the need to maintain and expand efficient facilities for the public; and the importance of providing relatively cheap service to rural areas.
Since taking over his responsible portfolio, my colleague the PostmasterGeneral has investigated the operations of his department and is fully satisfied that it is exercising economy, is adopting the latest labour-saving devices, is observing modern methods and procedures, and is applying checks on the engagement of employees and the output of the staff. It has been urged in some quarters that, rather than increase tariffs, the department should effect drastic savings, and to a casual, uninformed observer this claim might appear to have some justification. However, the need for economy in public expenditure requires no emphasis to the postal administration, which is constantly on the alert to detect and remedy weaknesses in organization and practices.
Let me give honorable senators a few examples of how the department’s efficiency and output have been stepped up as the result of a realistic and businesslike policy. Since 1938-39 telegraph business has risen by more than 100 per cent., but staff has grown by less -than 80 per cent.; telephone traffic has increased by 60 per cent, but little more than 40 per cent, additional staff are employed. The growth in postal staff has been only slightly greater than the increase in business in spite of the greater frequency and scope of mail services and letter deliveries, as well as a substantial growth in the volume and diversity in services carried out for other departments. Administrative and professional officers now represent only 7.2 per cent, of all employees, compared with 7.8 per cent, in 1939. The decline in the ratio of professional and administrative staff employed is indicative of the economy and efficiency with which the department is administered. From time to time some criticism has been levelled at the Postal Department in this chamber and elsewhere, concerning its inability to meet all public demands for facilities, particularly in regard to applications for new telephone services. Due to the suspension of normal capital and maintenance works during the war and early post-war years, the department is facing the most critical period in its history, but is striving with all its energy and initiative to overtake the arrears as soon as possible. The Government is fully conscious of the grave problems confronting the department, and is assisting it in every possible way. Adequate financial provision has been made in the budget, and stocks of materials have been built up to meet the pressing and unusual requirements. The programme of works has been greatly accelerated, and will continue to be expanded until the ideal of a comprehensive and fully effective service has been reached.
Although the proposed rates for postal and telecommunication services will be higher than at any time in the past, they are relatively lower than they were twenty years ago when allowance is made for the higher level of prices and wages generally. During the last ten years, these costs have more than doubled, but the 1949 adjustment of postal tariffs, the first since 1941, resulted in an overall increase in earnings of only 16 per cent. The cumulative effect of the 1949 and the proposed adjustments will be to increase earnings by only 35 per cent. - a very moderate increase in comparison with the rise in Australian and overseas prices generally. The new charges will still compare favorably with those in force in overseas countries.
The revised rates will not suffice to balance the department’s commercial accounts for 1950-51. It is expected that they will bring in additional annual revenue of £6,700,000, but as they will operate for only seven months of the present financial year, the extra revenue this year will be slightly less th’an £4,000,000. In view of the expected deficit of more than £8,000,000 which would be recorded if charges were not increased, the result for 1950-51, even allowing for additional revenue from the new rates, will still show a substantial loss - probably more than £4,000,000. In these circumstances, and in the light of the rise in costs which is likely to continue for some time, the rates may require to be further reviewed at a later date.
And now a few final words. The Postal Department is, as I have said, a very big business - the largest in the Commonwealth. In its operations it requires huge quantities of materials of almost every conceivable type and it must, of course, employ a large staff scattered throughout the Commonwealth in every village, town and city. In common with other business undertakings, the department feels the full effect of rises in costs, both in wages and materials, and when, as the Government believes, it is controlled and operated in a sound and business-like manner, the department must adjust its rate3 to meet the increased expenditure or continue to show large deficits. Such losses would have to be met by taxpayers generally, and such a contribution would obviously not be in the interests of the general community or of maintenance and expansion in the primary and industrial fields. I am confident that honorable senators will, after hearing the facts, see the need for making a further revision of charges, and will agree that the Government’s proposals are very reasonable. I commend the bill to honorable senators, and hope that it will have their full support.
Debate (on motion by Senator ASHLEY) adjourned.
page 2504
Debate resumed (vide page 2499).
– This bill provides that a pensioner may have an insurance policy with a surrender value of £500 without its affecting his pension. At the present time, the amount is £200. That provision discriminates in favour of the man who puts his savings into insurance, and against the one who banks his savings or invests them in property. If a man has £500 in the bank, cognizance is taken of that fact in fixing his pension. The Government should place on the same footing those who invest money in insurance policies, and those who bank it or invest it in property. At present, a man may have property to the value of £100 without his pension being affected. The limit, should be- raised to: £500, and. that would be one way in which to ameliorate the means test.
– The Government is looking after its “friends, the. insurancecompanies.
– Yes, the Government is recompensing the insurance companies for the financial help which they gave to the Government parties before the last election. This pro.vision will help to boost the business of the companies, because they will be able . to say to prospective clients, “ You. can insure up to a. surrender value: of £500 without its affecting your pension “. There, used to be a government insurance office in South Australia, but the State government decided to abolish the office, and place govern. ment insurance in the hands of private insurance offices. Some one in the know slipped around to the private insurance offices, and thousands of pounds changed hands in the form of commission over the placing, of the- policies. I do not suggest that any one is benefiting financially out of what is. being done by this Government in connexion with insurance policies, but there is always a possibility that some one will cash in. Care should, be exercised to ensure that, when policies are surrendered, no one shall get any commission on the deal.
A pensioner may own a cottage in addition to the one he lives in. It may have cost anything from £300 to £500, and although it is old, the value is probably greater now than the original cost. Sometimes such cottages are let at rentals of from 15s. to 25s. a week. The value of the cottage, say £500, is taken into consideration in fixing the owner’s pension, so that the thrifty person who saves his money, and puts it into property, is penalized. Another thrifty person who has had the foresight to take out an insurance policy, the surrender value of which has reached £500 is still entitled to a full pension. That discrimination between methods of thrift is undesirable. I ask the Minister to examine the matter because it is a problem that is exercising the minds of many people. I am informed that the total abolition of the means test would cost many millions of. pounds,, but I am not convinced that our pension system would not work much more, equitably without any property bar. Then, a. single- pensioner, who had a cottage to let could receive- up to 30s. a week for. it, or a married couple, £3 a week, without suffering a reduction of pension. Any income beyond those figures would however be taken into consideration in assessing the pension and, again in the case of a married couple, a pension would’ cease altogether when the income reached £7 or £8 a week. I ask the Minister to make a careful study of this matter. I have examined it with the aid of departmental officials whom I thank now for their valuable assistance. I have no doubt that the abolition of the. property bar would be costly, but the whole pension scheme would then operate more equitably than it is operating to-day-
One matter mentioned by Senator Benn caused several honorable senatorsto squirm in their seats. Even theMinister himself was inclined to take umbrage. I refer to the administration of the widows’ pension scheme. There is some justification for the complaint that Senator Benn voiced. I have some knowledge of the anomalies that can be caused by departmental officials placing the wrong interpretation on answers given to them by applicants for the widows’ pension. I have already mentioned this1 matter to the departmental authorities. I have in mind particularly one case that has now been settled, but I shall mention it to illustrate my point. The applicant was asked whether she had changed her place of residence, and havinganswered in the affirmative, she was asked, “ Where are you living now f” She replied that she was living with Mr. So and So, at such and such a place. An entirely wrong construction was placed on that answer. As we all know;, ordinary everyday phrases are often capable of two meanings. When the matter was brought to- the notice of the departmental authorities,, the same official had another interview with the widow. Again he asked her whether she was living with Mr. So and So at such and such a place, and she said that she was. The official left the matter at that, and once again the applicant was denied a pension. However,, she happened to have a friend who was able to interview the Minister, and eventually the pension was paid. I have come to the conclusion that some of the officials employed in this section of the Department of Social Services are either straitlaced or have been so frustrated throughout their lives that they are always suspicious of their fellows and are only too ready to place a wrong interpretation on information that is given to them. I remind the Senate that not many years ago bathers of both sexes were compelled by law to wear costumes that covered them almost completely. If any one dared to disobey the law, there was a public outcry, and any lady who discarded the then fashionable robes for something more modern was regarded as a hussy. The moralists of those days carried their suspicions to absurd lengths. However, the custom has changed considerably since then, and, nowadays, nobody, except perhaps the departmental official to whom T have referred, is offended at the sight of bathers wearing next to nothing. The Department of Social Services, apparently, adheres to outmoded moral standards. Just because a widow provides accommodation for a man in her home, officials are prepared to place the worst possible interpretation on the situation.. Quite naturally, no government department wants to contribute to moral degeneracy, but I contend that the attitude of the officials who administer the widows’ pension scheme is altogether wrong. Thu human element in such situations cannot be ignored. After all, the prime consideration should be the well-being of the individual. Officials should not be concerned with the morals of recipients of social services, except in cases of promiscuity, which, of course, is an entirely different matter. The Minister was rather hasty in dealing with Senator Benn this morning. After all, Senator Benn is a newcomer to this chamber, and probably does not know that administrative decisions that appear to be wrong can be brought to the notice of the Ministers for redress. I myself have felt obliged on several occasions to bring matters to the notice of the higher authorities. I am inclined to wonder whether the official who was concerned in the ease to which I have referred is now in
Brisbane, because Senator Benn’s experience appears to have been remarkably like mine.
I do not oppose this measure. I am glad that the Minister has seen his way clear to increase pensions and to liberalize the conditions under which certain other social services are paid. However, 1 am somewhat disappointed to find that he has not been able to go a little bit further, and has omitted certain reforms that I had hoped would be made.
.- The first duty of a civilized country is to look after its sick, aged, and other citizens who, through no fault of their own, are afflicted by misfortune. That duty is now recognized by people of all political persuasions, and I commend this measure as one more step towards fulfilling it. I do not propose to indulge in any profitless squabble about which political party should receive the credit for having introduced this or that social service. The record, which is available to those who wish to read it, shows that in many instances measures which were introduced by one political party were implemented by another. In the long run, I suppose the credit really belongs to the conscience of the community which is prepared to elect politicians and leave it to them to carry out this necessary work.
This bill is particularly commendable because it has been introduced at a time of great financial difficulty, and it is not helped in any way, as some people think it is, ‘by the existence of the so-called National Welfare Fund. That fund is supplied by cash contributions, deductions from the wages of employees, and pay-roll tax and on the 30th September, 1950, totalled, I ‘believe, approximately £132,000,000. When it was found that demands were not . made on all the fund, the balance was used to redeem treasury-bills which had been already issued. I do not quarrel with that step as a financial measure. It is a sensible step for any government to take, but its effect is that money is no longer available in the fund for the payment of social services benefits. To bring this matter down to lower heights than those of government finance, an exact parallel of what has happened may be put in this way: Let us suppose that I have a bank overdraft - that, I admit, requires little imagination - and that I am appointed’ to collect money from people in my district for, say, a Christmas picnic or something of that kind. The people hand me £1 notes and 10s. notes which I place in a strongbox, making the requisite entries in a book. As contributions begin to come in, say, in June or July, or at all events a long time before Christmas, it occurs to me that I could save interest if I used that money to reduce my overdraft, and I do so. That, in effect, is precisely what the Government has done. Whether it would be illegal for me and legal for the Government to act in such a way is beside the point. When Christmas comes, and the people who had subscribed the money wish to hold their picnic, I should either have to increase my overdraft again in order to provide the money or if I had reached the limit of overdraft which my banker would allow, I should have to go to gaol. Since the Government never reaches the limit of its overdraft it would have to issue an additional £132,000,000 worth of treasury-bills to the Commonwealth Bank; in other words, it issues £132,000,000 of new credit. That is because the £132,000,000 now standing to the credit of the National Welfare Fund has in part been spent. I believe that that is exactly what has happened.
The Government deserves to be commended for having introduced this bill which the Opposition finds difficulty in attacking. Indeed, I doubt whether Opposition senators really want to attack it. I disregard such hysterical criticism as that of Senator Benn, who has claimed that all the benefits payable under it have been wrung from existing pensioners. That sort of criticism may be made at any time by less responsible Opposition senators. But before I leave that point I hope that if in future Senator Benn receives complaints of injustices inflicted upon people under the existing social services legislation, he will at least try to do something about them; that he will approach, not necessarily the officers of the department, but the Minister and ask for such injustices to be rectified, and if he is not then satisfied, that he will raise the matter on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate. In his view, it may be a good move to save these matters up in order to endeavour to make political capital out of them, but I remind him that while he does so the victims are still suffering injustice.
I commend Senator O’Flaherty for his attitude in such cases. I agree with him that mistakes are made under all administrations and that action should always be taken immediately to rectify them. If satisfaction cannot readily be obtained such mistakes should be brought into the open without delay. The attack on this bill was expressed most forcibly by Senator McKenna, who led the Opposition debate and delivered his speech in the skilful way that we have come to expect from him. However, he experienced manifest difficulty in attempting to attack any specific proposal. His criticism was either concentrated on matters which are completely outside the ambit of the bill or dealt with his claim that the bill should in some respects have gone further than it does. He said that the Government was not keeping an election promise which he quoted. That promise, which was contained in the joint policy speech of the leaders of the parties now in office, was -
Existing rates of pensions will, of course, be maintained.
Strictly speaking, I suppose that the Government is not keeping that promise because it is not maintaining existing rates but increasing them. In their joint policy speech the leaders of the present Government parties also said -
We will, more importantly, increase the purchasing power of the pension.
Statistics reveal that the purchasing power of the new pension will be greater than it was in December, 1949, when that policy speech was delivered. In December, 1949, the pension represented 32 per cent, of the basic wage. Under this bill, it will represent 35 per cent, of the basic wage. Thus, the promise that the purchasing power of the pension would be increased has been honoured in this bill. Senator McKenna said that this is an inflationary measure. I suppose that is true. Any measure which proposes the expenditure of government money oan be so described. But are we to infer from that criticism that the Opposition believes that the bill should not have been introduced, that it should be withdrawn and that the increased pension should not be paid? If that is not suggested, there is no force in criticising the measure as inflationary.
The next, and I think the last, point of criticism in the rather long speech made by Senator McKenna was that the Government had not sufficiently ameliorated the incidence of the means test. That is an argument which appeals to me. I trust that as its next forward step, thi Government will greatly ameliorate the means test; but I point out that when criticism of that kind is made by the Opposition nobody should be misled into thinking that it is the policy of the Opposition to ameliorate the means test. In the same speech, very shortly afterwards Senator McKenna said that Labour would concentrate on the provision of social services benefits for those who had nothing but the pension on which to live rather than for those who received incomes from other sources who needed a little more to other sources. “Whilst I still seek the amelioration of the means test and believe that some step in that direction could have been taken now had the National “Welfare Fund been in existence instead of being merely a myth, I point out that Opposition senators have criticized the bill in this regard, not because they would ameliorate the means test, but because to pretend that they would do so seemed a good argument to submit at the time.
The only other point with which I wish to deal was raised by Senator O’Flaherty who did not so much attack the raising of the permissible surrender value of insurance policies, as claim that a similar benefit should be extended to other forms of savings. I do not know whether it occurred to other honorable senators but it struck me as amusing and as a complete reversal of form that the honorable senator adopted that attitude. The whole burden of his attack on the Government was that it was throwing a sop to the insurance companies because, in effect, it was urging people to use insurance companies as vehicles for saving, and
Senator Gorton. by that means helping those companies. Helping them against whom? Senator O’Flaherty supplied the answer to that question. He said that the Government was helping insurance companies to the detriment of the banks. For the first time since I have been a member of this chamber the Government has been attacked for having done something to the detriment of the banks.
– “What is the difference?
– The only difference is that during the last year, in speech after speech, we have been attacked by Opposition senators for upholding the banks. Now we are told that we are doing something to the detriment of the banks. Apparently they are the only institutions which could be damaged, if indeed any institution could be damaged, by this proposed amelioration of the means test, which, whatever else may be said against it, will be well received by those elderly people who throughout the years have contributed to insurance policies in an attempt to gain security in their declining years. Any criticism on these lines falls into its proper place against the background of Labour’s policy when in office for it increased the permissible surrender value of insurance policies. I commend this bill to the Senate. I believe that it will assist the sick and the aged, whom it is the duty of the Government to assist. I could have wished that the provisions of the bill had gone further, but I understand, as I believe the members of the Opposition understand, why they cannot go further at the moment. I trust that this hill will be only one more step forward, and I am sure that, as far as the Government is concerned, it will not be the last.
– At the outset, I wish to pay tribute to the magnificent way in which I have been treated by all officers of the Social Services Department with whom I have come in contact. On the many occasions that it has been necessary for me to convey to them complaints that I have received, I have had from those officers nothing but the greatest assistance, and on most occasions” I have been successful m obtaining satisfaction for the person .w.hom I thought was entitled to receive it.
The bill before the -chamber gives some relief to the people with whom it is ‘concerned, but I believe that never in the wildest .dreams -.of “the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) did the right honorable gentleman -think that he -would be a member of the Government .after the 10th December. Otherwise, he would not have made so .many lavish promises to the people prior to that date. ‘One- of the promises made by the Prime Minister and those who support him was that greater -value would, be placed in the £1. The electors of Australia, no doubt, gave some thought to .that statement, which was also given prominence in the press and in. broadcasts. The people were entitled to believe that even .though they might not receive increased pension rates, they would at least be able to purchase the .same commodities with the pension in the future as in the past. As Senator McKenna stated yesterday, there is no doubt that pensioners to-day would prefer to have the previous rates of pension, and to be able to purchase the necessaries of life, .than to have increased rates with lower purchasing power. Some honorable senators opposite, including the Minister for .Social Services (Senator Spooner), have stated that the La”bour Government, when it was in power, did not promise anything to the people. That is -correct. The -only promise given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley) in his policy speech was that if the Australian Labour party was returned to office pensions and all other social services payments would be viewed in the light of economic ‘Conditions prevailing after the elections. He gave no promise intended to influence the people, but I suggest that the electors would naturally be influenced by the promises made by the supporters of the present Government. As T have previously said, if the promise to restore -value to the £1 had been honoured, the pensioners would have received a tangible benefit.
Although it is almost twelve months since the last general election, this measure represents the first beneficial legislation introduced by the Government. Notwithstanding .the fact that it has had ample ‘time to introduce ‘legislation to stem -the rising of prices, all that it .has done has been to -play -at party politics. It has introduced legislation -that, while meaning -nothing to the people, -is designed to play -on their political feelings. I suggest to honorable senators that the pensioners will not -really receive benefits under this measure, because purchasing power -cannot be stabilized unless there is an -organization which will control prices. During the debate in this chamber on the prices control measure introduced by the Opposition, honorable senators opposite who spoke on the measure stated that the Federal Government could not control prices. As proof of their insincerity, I remind honorable senators that they told the people in 1947, at the time that the last referendum was held, that the con tool of prices was a job for the Parliament. In 1949, the Prime Minister also told them -that it was a job for the Parliament, but when the referendum was defeated, the supporters of the present -Government parties stated that parliaments could not control prices. Yet within ihe last few weeks they .have stated, without proviso, that no parliament could control prices without returning .to wartime controls. It cannot be denied that this Government has at all times introduced legislation from a. purely party point of view. I suggest to honorable senators that the welfare of the people should be above party politics, and that no party, whether it be the Australian Labour party or the Liberal party, should go before the electors and misguide the unfortunate and infirm old people with a political catchcry aimed at influencing votes.
– .Satan reproving sin !
– Not at all. I .support the policy speech of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley), made when he was Prime Minister, because he made .no false promises to the people. It was not possible to see into the future and to visualize the manner in which . prices would rise when the legislation to .control prices was rejected, nor could a correct estimate be made of what the position would be in 19-50. Had these miserable increases to the old people of the country been made in 1949, when they were promised, they may have provided those people with a little more purchasing power, but from December, 1949, until the introduction of this measure, the Government did not see fit to do anything for them. Even so, not all sections of pensioners have received increases, as the Prime Minister promised in his policy speech. The increase to the majority is only 7s. 6d. a week, and it is a miserable 5s. a week to others. If the payments had been made retrospectively, the pensioners may have received some benefit from them.
During the debate last night, Senator Wedgwood stated that it was not only the Labour Government that had provided social services benefits for the people. I wish to correct that statement, because I consider that the Labour party, both in England and in Australia, has been the only party to grant such benefits. T invite honorable senators to think back to the years prior to the inception of the great Australian Labour party and of the Labour party in England. If Senator Wedgwood reads history, I should like her to tell me what social services were given to the people by the party she supports. She might also tell me. what that party did for the unfortunate widow and the orphaned child. All social benefits have been brought about because of organized labour and organized trade unions. I ask the honorable senator what was the position in England prior to the inception of the trades union movement in that country. She may remember that the poor people of England were sent to the poorhouse and left there to starve and ultimately to die in misery. That is not so to-day, but it is only because of agitation and organization by the people who belong to the Labour party and to the trades union movement. The same state of affairs applies to Australia. I remember only too well - and I lived on a mining field - that when the wife of a miner lost her husband and was, perhaps, left with three or four children, some of the old busybodies, over a cup of tea, would decide that they would go along next day and give the widow some old clothes that had been given to them by more fortunate people. She might also be given an order on the grocer for some groceries. Those were the social benefits that were given prior to the inception of the Australian Labour party and the trades unions.
– I should hate to think that it was as crude as the honorable senator has painted it.
– I can assure the honorable senator that it was. Nothing was done to provide social benefits for the people who needed them in England and Australia until the inception of the Labour movement. The old-age pension and the invalid pension are monuments to the great Australian Labour party, whatever may be said to the contrary by honorable senators opposite. I ask them what happened in those days to the poor little orphaned children who were left to the mercy of the world ? They may not be aware that those children were farmed out to irresponsible people and made to slave. Those conditions applied only 40 years ago. The unfortunate children, without boots or socks, spent their mornings driving cows to the paddocks, milking cows, or carting produce to the markets. I defy any honorable senator opposite to say that I am not correctly stating the conditions that then applied.
– What has that to do with 1950?’ We live in a more enlightened age to-day.
– But that has been brought about only because of the sacrifices and the organization of the members of the great Australian Labour party. If it had not been for the formation of that party, we should probably be living in the same misery to-day.
– There were great reforms made long before the Australian Labour party came into existence.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Nicholls). - Order! The honorable senator will have an opportunity to take part in the debate, and he will then be at liberty to discuss the matter.
– I wish that Senator Kendall on some occasion would make some contribution to the debates and endeavour to substantiate the interjections he makes.
When Senator Wedgwood was speaking last night, she stated that no credit was taken over from the National Welfare Fund by the Government when it assumed office. I wish to read from a speech made by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) on the 12th October this year. In statement No. 12 of that speech he said that the National Welfare Fund balance carried forward from 1949 to 1950 was £99,880,011, and that the estimated balance to be carried forward to 1950-51 was £1.31,114,816.
– I said that there was no cash.
– I agree that that is what the honorable senator said, but I should still like to see the Treasurer running about with £131,000,000 in his pockets. I inform the honorable senator that Treasurers do not carry in their pockets all the money of the Commonwealth.
– No, they spend it!
– The position is that that fund was used to meet maturing government bonds. If the money had not been used, it would have been lying idle, and government bondswould have been accruing interest. The money in that fund was used to redeem treasury bills which are now available to meet social service payments if the Government is prepared to do so. I am sorry that the Minister for Social Services is not at present in the chamber. I arn becoming a little afraid of the Minister. The other clay in this chamber I thought he was going to pull or punch some one’s nose. Last night, when I interjected when Senator Wedgwood was speaking, he said, “ You ought to be ashamed of yourself “, or something to that effect. I tell the Minister that Senator Wedgwood can look after herself. If she requires male assistance, she has a good husband who can give it to her. She is not dependent upon the support of the Minister for Social Services. If she were, she would find that it was not forthcoming when she really wanted it.
– Most gallant ‘.
– What I have said is quite true. When Senators Wedgwood, Robertson, Tangney and Annabelle Rankin entered the Senate, they did so on the understanding that they had equal rights with the men. They are entitled to equal rights with the men. If, when Senator Wedgwood is making a speech in this chamber, I consider it to be proper for me to interject I shall do so, in the same way as I should interject if, for example, Senator Mattner were speaking.
– We appreciate the honorable senator’s interjections.
– I knowthat. I advise Senator Wedgwood not to look to the Minister for support, because ir will not be forthcoming if she requires it.
The Minister said, obviously for political purposes, that this bill would confer upon the people of this country the greatest benefit that had been conferred upon them since federation. When the Labour party came into power in 1941, the annual social services commitment was £1S,000,000. In 3 949 it was £90,000,000. During eight years of Labour administration, the social services commitment increased by £10,000,000 each year. Therefore,, it will be seen that the Minister’s* statement was all “hooey”.
We must not “ kid “ ourselves that we are doing something for the aged and invalid people of this country. We are doing nothing for them, while we are living here in the lap of luxury. The fact that the Government has proposed that the pensions paid to the persons who built this nation should be increased only by a miserable 7s. 6d. a week, shows that there is something wrong with the set-up at Canberra. People who are unfortunate enough to be invalids or widows have the same right to live as we have. I hope that when the next budget is introduced, irrespective of the party that is in power then, provision will be made in it for further increases of pensions and a reduction of the cost of living.
In my opinion, civilian widows are entitled to be treated equally as well as waiwidows. I do not wish to detract from the great sacrifices that war widows made, but I want to point out that many civilian widows were the wives of soldiers who fought in the first World War and who, after their return to this country, died from causes attributable to their warservices, although it has been impossible to convince successive Ministers for Repatriation that their deaths were due to those causes. Those women are expected to maintain themselves upon a pension smaller than that paid to war widows. I hope that the Minister for Social Services will discuss with his colleagues as soon as possible the possibility of bringing the pensions paid to widows of ex-servicemen who died after the war to the same level as pensions paid to war widows.
Senator Annabelle Rankin delivers very impassioned speeches in this chamber. I remind her of the old proverb, “ A little help is worth a bushel of pity “. When she was a member of the Opposition, she shed crocodile tears over the dear old people who lived in the slums of Mascot. I can remember that as clearly as if it occurred only yesterday. To-day, she indulged in “ sob-stuff “ when speaking of the people who will be assisted by this bril. If the honorable senator is sincere, there must be a rift in the lute in the caucus room, because surely she has raised at caucus meetings .the points that she has raised in this chamber. The speeches that she has .made upon social services since she has been a member of the Senate could well have been delivered by honorable senators on this side of the chamber. I hope that, when she is- in the caucus room, she will persist in her advocacy of the claims of people who need her support.
– said that Senator McKenna stated that the bill should be withdrawn. We do not want the measure to be withdrawn unless that is to be done for the purpose of enabling the Government to amend it and make provision for bigger increases of pensions, or to introduce other legislation designed to put value back into the £1. During the “last general election campaign, the people were told that the £1 was worth only 10s. If the £1 was worth only 10s. then, I venture to say that now it is worth only 5s.
– also said, referring to the speech delivered by Senator 0’Flaherty, that this was the first occasion on which the Government had been criticized for interfering with the banks.
Senator O’Flaherty did not suggest at any time that the present Government parties would interfere with the banks, because he knew that it would not do so. I agree with Senator 0’Flaherty that the Government has given the insurance companies a boost by providing that insurance policies to the value of £500 shall not be taken into consideration in calculating the income that a pensioner may receive before his pension is affected. If a pensioner has £500 in a bank, his pension is reduced. This provision means that, although he may not have £500 in a bank, he may have it in policies issued by insurance companies, which are part and parcel of the associated private banks. That was Senator O’Flaherty’s point.
– The policies must have been taken out some years ago.
– A pensioner may take a policy out now, and his pension will not be affected.
I have never had any complaint to make about the members of the staff of the Social Services Department. On every occasion when I have had anything to do with them they have been most courteous and have done everything possible to ensure that the person on whose behalf I have- been making representations has been- given everything to which he is entitled. I do not oppose the bill. In common with other honorable senators opposite, I shall vote for it, but T am disappointed that this Government, twelve months after it assumed office, is prepared to increase, age and invalid pensions by only 7s. 6d. a week. The increase will be quite insufficient to compensate pensioners for the rising cost of living. I believe that pensioners will accept the increase because it is at least something, but I believe also- that the majority of them will be very disappointed with it and will look forward to receiving further relief in the near future.,
– My criticism of the proposed pensions increases is that they will be insufficient- to offset the increased cost of living. The Government has introduced this measure very belatedly. During, the last general election campaign, the present Government parties made a definite promise that, if they were successful «t the election, they would immediately give consideration to increases of pensions, but they allowed eleven months to elapse before introducing this bill. It should have been one of the first measures presented to the Parliament by the Government and should have taken priorityover the measure under which child endowment is now payable in respect of the first child in every family. The need to assist the aged and invalid people in this country is much greater than was the need to extend child endowment to the first child. Generally speaking, age pensioners are the persons who made it possible for us to sit in this Parliament to-day and enjoy all the privileges and ‘benefits associated with this institution. 1 believe that the extension of child endowment to the first child was only a political bribe. The Government knew that a large number of people had families consisting of only one child, and hoped to gain favour with them by extending child endowment to first children. The wage rates prescribed by industrial arbitration courts are calculated upon the basis of the needs of a man with a wife and one child. Therefore, the need to endow the first child was not nearly so urgent as was the need to assist aged people, who, on their present pensions of £2 2s. 6d. a week, are finding it very difficult to exist. By the time many old people have paid their rent, they have very little money left with which to purchase the bare necessities of life. I agree with the action of the Government in introducing this ‘bill, but I deplore the fact that it has delayed for so long in giving .assistance to elderly people.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced, recently that the Government would adhere to the decision of the people upon prices control and that it had no intention to enter that field. T am convinced that the Government does not intend to endeavour to check rising prices, although the position in that connexion is going from bad to worse. The increases of pensions for which provision is made in this hill will not improve the position of pensioners, because they will be .absorbed by the increased cost of living. If the Government is sincere in its announced desire to assist pensioners, it should introduce another measure in the near future to provide further increases. The Minister stated that the present Government had determined the increased rate of social services benefits in a sympathetic and generous manner. Whilst the determination may have been reached in a sympathetic manner, I cannot agree that the Government has displayed generosity. It is unfortunately time that human nature is such that whilst many people are prepared to offer sympathy, they leave it to others to effect an amelioration of the conditions that arouse their sympathy. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that adequate assistance is extended to people who have insufficient means to provide them with more than bare subsistence. They would not even be able to exist if they had to rely wholly on the sympathy and benevolence of the society in which they live. It has been freely acknowledged in recent years that it is the responsibility of society as a whole to look after people who are unable to do anything for themselves. In this respect, society is represented by responsible government. It has been claimed in some quarters that the opponents of Labour have ameliorated the lot of the common people. However, very little legislation to assist those people has been introduced by non-Labour governments since federation.
– What about age and invalid pensions?
– In the main, social services have been provided for the people of this country by Labour governments. The Minister placed a halo of righteousness around his head, and claimed that no previous Australian government had submitted such a progressive social services programme to the Parliament during its first year of office. Why ‘could not the Government have called the Parliament together in January or February in order to enact legislation to increase age and invalid pensions by 7s. 6d. a week? Instead, it preferred to introduce legislation during the first sessional, period of this Parliament to endow the first child in every family .under the age of sixteen years, and to leave the age and invalid pensioners to carry on as best they could.
The extension of child endowment involved an increased expenditure of £15,000,000 a year. The measure before the chamber seeks to provide increases of age and invalid pensions, at a cost of £8,250,000 a. year, increases of widows’ pensions at a cost of £700,000 a year, and other concessions at a cost of £115,000 a year. The Government has made very little effort to ameliorate the means test. An additional expenditure of £115,000 a year to provide concessions other than increases of age, invalid, and widows’ pensions is a relatively small contribution, bearing in mind the manner in which the Minister has lauded the Government in this connexion. A major eulogism has been delivered about matters of minor importance. If attention is centred on small things, there is a. corresponding effect on the people. I submit that the Government has followed that practice both in the measure before the chamber and in the budget. It has sought to create the impression of considerable munificence towards sections of the people. This aspect of the matter should receive serious consideration.
Some supporters of the Government are apparently not satisfied with the proposals contained in this measure. Senator Robertson has stated that insufficient consideration has been shown to widows, while .Senator Annabelle Rankin has drawn attention to an inequitable practice in connexion with unemployment benefits. I have never been able to understand why both Labour and non-Labour governments have differentiated between the rates of pensions payable to class A civilian widows, and war widows, because all widows are faced with similar obligations. I do not for a moment advocate any alteration to the detriment of war widows, but I consider that civilian class A widows are entitled to the same consideration as war widows. They do not enjoy any concessions in relation to the costs of commodities or in any other way. I think that the Government could have achieved something worthwhile by extending the permissible earning capacity of civilian widows beyond £1 10s. a week. In view of the exorbitant cost of living, I consider that they have been treated unfairly. It has been stated by both Senator Mattner and
Senator A7«a/>.
Senator Gorton that there was not a penny in the National Welfare Fund when the present Government took office. In fact, Senator Mattner incurred the displeasure of the President by his remarks to that effect last night.
– They were correct.
– I recollect hearing a statement just before the present Parliament assembled that there was no money in the National Welfare Fund to meet social services commitments. J think that the statement emanated from the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) when the right honorable gentleman was commenting on a suggested alteration of hospital benefits. The statement caused me considerable anxiety. I should like to know more about this aspect of the matter, because year after year budgetary documents bearing many signatures are presented to the Parliament. ‘The budget bears the signature of the Treasurer, and is accompanied by statements of accounts, duly audited and certified as correct. If there is something “phony” about the National Welfare Fund, what are we to think about all the other Government accounts? Are they wrong too?
– If the Labour Government had a balance of £131,000,000 in the National Welfare Fund why did it finish with a deficit of £35,000,000?
– I can only suggest that expenditure exceeded revenue, which is not uncommon. In fact, according to the present budget, the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) expects to finish the year with a deficit, but that does not indicate that there is no money in the trust fund. Honorable senators who say there is no money in the trust fund merely show their stupidity, or they are trying to reflect upon the Labour Government. They have sot themselves out to prove that the. trust funds established by the Labour Government are no more than paper credits. Well, was the position any different under the first Menzies Government, or under the Governments that preceded it? What the Chifley Government did was in accordance with the practice that has always been followed. Honorable senators opposite know that they ai-e
Baying something which is designed to create a false impression. Even the present Treasurer was so foolish as to say that balances in the “War Gratuity Fund and the National “Welfare Fund did not exist at all, but were merely paper wed its. That is what honorable senators opposite are saying now.
– That is so.
– I answer that allegation by referring to a speech made in the House of Representatives by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Chifley), and I am sure that he told the truth. He had no need to hide anything. Honorable senators opposite say that the trust fund balances are no more than I 0 TPs. That may be so, but the I 0 TPs are covered by security. The Leader of the Opposition said -
It is a fact that the money did not exist in the funds except in the form of credit balances, hut there is nothing unusual about that, because it is the normal Treasury practice.
No one can dispute that. In the light of that statement, how can honorable senators opposite say that there is not a penny in the National Welfare Fund?
– It is true.
– It is not true, because the collateral has been there all the time. The present Government must meet its commitments under the Social Services Consolidation Act. How is it to get the money to do so?
– It can issue new treasury-bills.
– The Leader of the Opposition continued -
So that the position may be quite clear T point out that when money is paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund from which a particular sum is set aside for a certain purpose -that sum is credited to the fund concerned. All the cash surplus possessed by the Treasury after its commitments have been met is paid to the Commonwealth Bank to redeem treasury bills. It must be clear, therefore, to every one that the previous administration was merely following normal practice when it credited the two funds mentioned by Mr. Fadden with certain sums without actually pitying the moneys into those funds.
If there is no money in the fund how, I repeat, can this Government meet its commitments? It will do so by issuing treasury-bills. According to the audited statements of accounts for 1949-50, the balance carried forward in the National Welfare Fund was £131,114,816. Now, will honorable senators say there is no money in the fund?
– It was the honorable senator himself who said it.
– All revenue received by the Government must be paid into special accounts. From those accounts, the Commonwealth Bank advances to the Commonwealth money with which to meet its commitments. At the end of the financial year, if there remains a balance in the accounts, it is carried forward to the next year. If the accounts have been overdrawn, there is a deficit at the end of the year which must be covered by the issue of treasury-bills. If there is no money in the National Welfare Fund, the Government cannot honour its promise to increase pensions. It is just an unfair political trick for honorable senators to suggest to the people that there is no money in the National Welfare Fund.
– We are not suggesting it; we are saying it.
– Then how will the Government carry on?
– It will take what it needs from the wool-growers. Perhaps the Government wants the wool-growers to finance it.
– Exactly. We are prepared to be honest about it.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT. - If Senator Mattner continues to interject, I will name him.
– I do not agree that there is no money in the National Welfare Fund. I believe the money is there. It may not be there actually. Perhaps there is not £130,000,000 lying on the floor waiting to be picked up. I am not so dull as to believe that, but there is a credit to that value in the- trust fund. Money paid into the Treasury is invested, and earns interest. According to the budget statement, interest on theinvestment of trust funds amounted last year to £750,740. How can the Treasury receive interest on money that does not* exist? I have yet to find the person’; who is prepared to pay interest on a nonexistent debt. The money that - is in,the National Welfare Fund was raised” as. the result of direct taxation. When the Treasurer says that the return from income tax for the year amounts to so much, honorable senators opposite do not suggest that he is dealing in myths. Why, then,, should they say that the money in the National Welfare Fund, is mythical? Their statements are merely so much political eyewash and humbug.
Senator Hannaford claimed that nonLabour governments had made important contributions to the provision of- social services, and that, long before the Labour government came into office after the outbreak of the war, social services legislation had been enacted. Last year, £92,803,625 was expended from the National Welfare Fund on social services. For the years 1938-39, 1939-40, and 1940-41 the average expenditure on social services- was between £16,000,000 and £18,000,000. There immediately isthe answer to Senator Hannaford. Clearly, the credit for the high standard, of social services in this country must go to the Labour party. In 1909, the age pension was introduced in this country. The Deakin non-Labour Ministry was then in office, but the age pension was introduced as the result of strong pressure from the powerful Labour Opposition at that time. The age pension started at 10s. a week, and has since been increased on many occasions. Most honorable senators will recall, however, the time when the age pension was reduced by an anti-Labour government from 17s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. a week. The invalid pension first came into operation on the 15th December, 1910. The Fisher Labour Ministry was then in office. Legislation providing for the payment of maternity allowances was introduced in the same year and by the same government. Originally, the maternity allowance was £5. At that time, a great fuss was made by members of the present Government parties who- claimed that to place a price on maternity was intolerable. They prophesied all kinds of dire results. They claimed that the payment would be pin money for certain peoplein’ the- community because there was no means test on it. Subsequently, a nonLabour government reduced the maternity allowance to £4, and applied a means “ test to- it. The result was that the wife of any man who earned, more than £3 Ss. a week was not eligible for the maternity allowance. Years later, Labour removed the means- test, and to-day the maternity allowance is payable to all mothers regardless of their financial circumstances. Senator Robertson has eulogized this important aspect of our social services scheme. In the- years, between 1909 and 1912, the only social services: legislation introduced by a non-Labour government was the Old Age Pensions Act, and that, as I have pointed out, resulted from pressure applied by the Labour Opposition. Anti-Labour governments held office in the Commonwealth sphere from the end of the Fisher Ministry until 1941 almost without a break, but, what social service legislation did they pass- in all those years? In 1941, the first Menzies Government introduced child endowment, but was defeated shortly afterwards- and did not have to meet the financial responsibility of that scheme. The burden had to be carried by Labour. In the years that followed, the Labour Government, despite its pre-occupation with a complete re-organization of our economy so that we could win the wai” - we did not have a dog’s chance of winning it before Labour came to power - undertook a complete’ programme of social, services. When the Menzies Government introduced child endowment, the first child of each family was specifically excluded. We were told that there was no need for the first child to be endowed. However, at the last elections the present Government parties offered to extend endowment: to the first child as an election bribe. That was, done to the detriment of age and invalid pensioners and widows. On the 1st July, 1942, the Curtin Government introduced its widows’ pension scheme. In 1944, the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act was passed. In 1945, provision was made for hospital benefits, tuberculosis benefits, and pharmaceutical benefits. Apart from social services, the Chifley Government introduced a scheme of rental rebates for tenants of homes built under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Clearly, had it not been for- Labour governments, the Commonwealth would still be doling out a miserable few shillings a week to age pensioners. Unfortunately, members of the present Government parties endeavour to frustrate not only Labour’s pharmaceutical benefits scheme, but also ali other social services legislation introduced during Labour’s term of office. In October, 1945, action was brought against the Commonwealth in the High Court by the Attorney-General of Victoria, who, to the best of my knowledge, was not a. Labour man. He asked the High Court to declare the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act invalid. The High Court did so, and the Chifley Government was forced to consider the possibility that other social services legislation that it had placed on the statute-book for the benefit of the Australian people would meet a similar fate. Consultations with eminent legal authorities confirmed the view that an amendment of the Constitution was desirable. On the 20th March, 1946, legislation was introduced for a referendum of the people on the question of empowering the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws in respect of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment and sickness benefits, hospital benefits, medical and dental benefits, benefits to students, and family allowances. That question, and several others, one of which, I think, related to organized, marketing, were submitted to the people at a. referendum held on the 28th September, 1946. However, only the proposal relating to social services received an affirmative vote. That amendment of the Constitution was agreed to by a majority of the voters of the Commonwealth, and not merely by a majority of the States, but by all the States. Therefore, the challenge to the validity of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act served a very useful purpose. It led to a referendum at which the people empowered the Commonwealth, to legislate in respect of social services. Perhaps that is why Labour’s political opponents are somewhat perturbed to-day. They realize that .there is an obligation upon them to comply with, the will of the people expressed at the social services referendum. I trust that this Government will’ give more consideration to social services than was given by previous administrations of the same political complexion. “Whilst I support the bill, I believe thatit could- have’ .gone much further. For instance, there could have been a further relaxation of the means test. I realize that pensioners will appreciate the increase of 7s. 6d. a week, but I repeat that the Government should have brought this legislation down as one of its first measures. The cost of living has imposed severe hardship on people who are dependent on social services payments; However, although the proposed increases are by no means what I had hoped for, they will be of decided benefit to the recipients.
.- In supporting this bill, I congratulate the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) and his colleagues on their sympathetic treatment of those members of the community who are in receipt of benefits from the National “Welfare Fund. Approximately 3,000,000 men, women, and children are drawing money from the fund., and, of that number, approximately 2,600,000 are in receipt of the age -pension or child endowment, both of which were introduced by non-Labour governments. Although this Government has been in office for only about twelve months it is no small achievement for it to have been able to introduce, so early in its political life, legislation to increase social services benefits by £24,000,000, comprising £15,000,000 for child endowment and £9,000,000 for age and invalid pensions and allowances, thus making available an additional £2,000,000 monthly for very deserving sections of the people. That is indeed a noteworthy effort.
Senator McKenna, in his secondreading speech, said that this bill would lead to greater inflation; but paradoxically,, he went on to say that the proposed new rates- of pensions were insufficient and should be further increased^ If there is any validity in his argument that, this bill will have an inflationary effect, surely if the rates; of pension- were further increased, as. he has suggested-, the hill would have a further inflationary effect. The attitude of the Opposition reminds me of its attitude to an earlier measure which provided- child endowment for the first child. Honorable senators will recall that the Chifley Government refused to provide endowment for the first child on the ground that it was impracticable. During the general election campaign when we said that if we were returned to office we would endow the first child, Labour spokesmen ridiculed us on the hustings saying that it would be impossible for the Commonwealth to finance such a scheme. Later, when we introduced a bill to provide for the payment of 5s. a week for the first child, Opposition senators objected to the proposal on the ground that such a payment would be taken into account in the computation of the basic wage. They used the weight of their numbers to amend the bill to increase the endowment to 10s. a week. If a payment of 5s. a week would affect the basic wage, surely a payment of double that amount would affect the basic wage still more seriously. When the bill, as amended by the Opposition in this Senate, was rejected by the House of Representatives honorable senators opposite somersaulted and accepted it in its original form. When the Commonwealth Arbitration Court recently delivered its judgment in the basic wage case it was found that the court had not taken child endowment into consideration in computing the basic wage.
It is of little value for us to delve into the record of past governments in relation to social services. The political parties represented on both sides of the Senate have a very good record in that field. Invalid and old-age pensions were introduced by Mr. Deakin, a Liberal Prime Minister; later maternity allowances were introduced by Mr. Andrew Fisher, a Labour Prime Minister. Labour and anti-Labour governments alike have improved the social services legislation. Political parties on both sides of the chamber . are guided by the basic principle of the welfare of the State.
The figures relating to the increasing number of pensionable persons in each 10,000 of the population, which were cited by Senator Wedgwood last night, are alarming and will give future treasurers many headaches. I add my plea, to that made by other honorable senators on behalf of civilian widows who regard them as the most hard-pressed and most deserving section of the community. I know that the Minister for
Social Services (Senator Spooner) is sympathetically disposed towards them and because of that I have great hopes that, having noted the plea that has been made on their behalf in this debate, the Minister will take such action as he can to improve their lot. I realize, however, that, as a responsible Minister, he must cut his coat to suit his cloth.
The Government has done right in providing increased pensions for the greatest number of pensioners. We have been told that 96 per cent, of the pensioners are unable to earn the existing permissible income of £1 a week. The Government’s decision to increase the permissible income will give the greatest benefit to the greatest number of pensioners. As the impact of the recent basic wage increase is felt by industry the prices of commodities will rise still further. The people confidently look to the Government sympathetically to watch and to deal with that trend.
I also congratulate the Government on raising the exemption applicable to the surrender value of life insurance policies from £200 to £500. Encouragement of thrift is one of the basic principles of the Liberal party and consequently it gives me great pleasure that the Government has given practical expression to its adherence to that principle. I listened with a great deal of interest to what Senator O’Flaherty had to say on that aspect of the bill. The honorable senator took the Government to task for endeavouring to score off the Opposition. Apparently he thinks that it is right for the Opposition to score off the Government when it can do so, but that it is wrong for supporters of the Government to score off the Opposition by directing pointed attention to the excellent provisions in this bill. Senator O’Flaherty has said that this proposal constitutes a sop to the life insurance companies. In extravagantly exaggerated language he unworthily endeavoured to convey the impression that this is the “pay-off” for assistance granted to the anti-Labour parties during the general election. This is no more a sop to the insurance companies than was the action of the Chifley Government in 1947 when it decided that up to £200 of the surrender value of life insurance policies should, he disregarded in applying the means test. In consonance with its policy of encouraging thrift this Government has merely extended the principle laid down by the Chifley Government.
Repeated criticism has been levelled at the Government for not having increased pensions by a greater amount than is proposed in this bill. Almost all honorable senators opposite have said that it should have made greater increases. The Launceston Examiner of the 7tb January, 1950, in an article headed “ Senator Lamp criticizes Australian Labour Party Policy”, stated that that gentleman, who was formerly a representative of the Australian Labour party in this Senate, speaking on the steps of the Hobart Customs House on the declaration of the poll, said -
Promises had not been fulfilled and when the Labour Government had plenty of funds nothing had been done for the invalid and old age pensioners and little fur the returned servicemen.
That, criticism was uttered by a sound and honest Labour man who was a supporter of the Chifley Government and had been a member of this Senate for twelve years. Opposition senators, should be the last to criticize the social services legislation introduced by this Government.
I join with other honorable senators in expressing the hope that it will be practicable in the not distant future to abolish the means test. That is the goal of all political parties represented, in the Senate. We should strive to attain it as soon as practicable. I congratulate the Government on its humanitarian approach to the problem of providing adequate social services for the people and I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.
– The purpose of the bill before the Senate is to provide increases of social services payments to the amount of £9,000,000 annually. The Government has at long last attempted to honour a promise made during the election campaign when the anti-Labour parties used improved social services benefits as an election catch-cry. I admit that when the Labour Government was in office it might have given this subject more consideration than it did, but in fairness to that Government it must be remembered that the revenues of the Commonwealth were not then as buoyant as they are now. In view of the steeply rising costs and changing economic conditions are the proposed increases adequate? In the opinion of many thousands of pensioners they are not. Will the provisions of this bill increase the purchasing power of pensions ? Not at all. Every fortnight that goes by pensioners find to their dismay that the purchasing power of their pension has still further decreased. As soon as the money is in the hands of the pensioners they must pay the rent, of their miserable rooms and buy the food and clothing that they need. We have all noticed that when there are increases of the basic wage prices automatically rise because those increases are taken into consideration when the cost of manufacture of an- article is being determined. Pensions, like wages, are controlled and fixed, but prices are not. There is an important difference between the amount of money which people earn and the quantity of goods that the money will purchase. Pensions are fixed periodically, but nothing has yet been done to determine the vital point of what that amount of money should purchase. Pensions and social services benefits, generally should be reviewed periodically. In this changing world a. review should be made at least every six months, and I suggest that they should be reviewed both consistently and sympathetically.
The basic increases provided in the measure now before the Senate mean that the age and invalid pensioners will receive an additional 7s. 6d. a week, taking their pension from £2 2s. 6d. to £2 10s., civilian widows with one or more children will receive an increase of 7s. 6d. a week, and other classes of widows increases at the rate of 5s. >a week. Those are the three basic increases, although throughout his very long speech the Minister for Social Services mentioned many other minor concessions designed to assist pensioners. However, when they are all boiled down and the three basic increases arc taken away, the total of the minor concessions amounts to only £250,000.
But whatever concessions tare made, this bill indicates that the ‘Government is moving towards that state of affairs which was mentioned by Senator Henty during this debate, when he referred to the welfare state. In this enlightened world, we all believe that we have an obligation to assist each other and especially those who are less fortunate than ourselves. Australia, England, ‘and all the democratic countries of the world are gradually working round to what is broadly called the welfare state. Before that very desirable state can become a reality, we must all play our part in its attainment. “We .must play our part on the government level as well as on. the individual level. Each of us, in his ordinary way of life, and in his political, social and moral attitudes, must help to create that state of affairs. It must be approached on a. moral as well as on a spiritual level. If we do that we may, at some future date, achieve our purpose, but at the .present time we are :groping along towards that end, with a great distance still to travel.
Buring this debate I have been particularly interested to hear frequent references to the policy speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) prior to the last election. It behoves each member of the Opposition to repeat and to emphasize the promises made in that speech, because those promises contained the -basic factor which could make these increased pensions worthwhile. I refer to the Prime Minister’s promise when he stated -
Australia still needs a contributory scheme of national insurance against sickness, widowhood, unemployment, and old age. It is only under such a scheme that we can make all benefits a. matter of right, and so get completely rid of the means test.
From that statement it is obvious that the right honorable gentleman, along with many thinking members of the Australian Labour party, is envisaging the attainment of the welfare state. His statement continued -
During the new Parliament we will further investigate this complicated problem, with a view to presenting to you at the election of 1952 a scheme for your approval. Meanwhile, existing rates of pension will, of course^ be at least maintained. We will, much more importantly, increase their true value by increasing their purchasing power.
I suggest that .when the Prime Minister spoke of the elections in 1952, he was being unduly optimistic-. Unless something is done quickly to honour the promise he then made, his chances of success at those elections will be very bleak indeed.
I admit that the increases of pension rates will be appreciated by all those who are concerned. A little is better than nothing, but in my opinion the amounts provided are too little and ‘too late. The Minister in charge of this bill stated that these are the largest increases ever given to pensioners in the history of social services. That may be true, but it is also true that the greatest increases of wages, dividends, and advances made by financial institutions, have been of recent origin. I suggest to the Minister that the increase of pension rates is not in keeping with the undeniable increases that have occurred throughout Australia in the earning capacity of the wage earner, the profit-making capacity of industries and businesses, and dividends paid to shareholders. I remind him that very large increases have been made in the pay of members of the armed forces and i-n the salaries of State and Commonwealth public servants. The increases in the salaries of Commonwealth public servants were made retrospective, whereas pensioners have not been so generously treated.
Sitting suspended from 5.29 to 8 p.m.
– Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I was dealing with the welfare state, about which Senator Henty had made some remarks. Sir William Beveridge, an authority on that subject in Great Britain, has expressed the opinion that, sooner or later, the stage will he reached when every one “will be covered by social services from the cradle to the grave. An obligation rests upon every member of the community, from the highest to the lowest, to do his best to make the welfare state a really workable institution. We must all play our part in that task, because satisfaction will not be achieved unless we do so.
The Minister for Social Services ((Senator Spooner) said that the pensions increases for which this bill makes provision will be the largest ever made in the history of Australian social services, and that may well he so. But this is an era of great increases. I consider that the increases of social services bene<fits proposed in this measure are not commensurate with the increases of wages, productivity and prices of primary products that have occurred in recent years. The purchasing power of the increases will be small. It is anomalous that, although the recent increases of the basic wage and the pay of members of the armed forces and Public Service were made retrospective, the increases of pensions proposed in this bill are not to be made retrospective. I do not suggest for a ,moment that the Government is showing any discriminations in this matter, but it may be that the hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country have not received the consideration that they should have received from the Government because the majority of them are worn-out workers and, therefore, possibly Labour voters.
I am very pleased to note that in this measure blind people have not been overlooked. There is a large institution for blind and deaf persons near my home, and I know some of the inmates. I am amazed at the skilful way in which, after they have been trained, they can produce articles for everyday use. It is pleasing to know that, when this bill becomes law, a blind worker, in addition to having his pension increased from £2 2s. 6d. to £2 10s. a week, will be permitted to earn £S a week before his pension will be affected. The existing provision permits him to earn only £5 17s. 6d. a week. Blind workers, despite their disabilities, produce brushware, leatherwork and rugs. In the operation of hand’ looms, their highly developed sense of touch is useful. They are able to earn more than the ha.sic wage. The Government is to be congratulated upon the assistance that it proposes to give them.
Senator Gorton and Senator Mattner made a great deal of play on the £1 31 .000,000 that was left in the National “Welfare Fund by the previous Government. A credit is a credit, however we look at it. I have a credit in my bank. It is not n large one, but it is there. I know that I can draw upon it whenever I want to do so. In all system? of bookkeeping, there are debit and credit sides. The AuditorGeneral and the present Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) have acknowledged freely that, when the Chifley Government vacated office, there was a credit of £131,000,000 in Government securities allocated for the National “Welfare Fund. The criticisms that have been voiced by honorable senators opposite regarding the alleged non-existence of the fund or the disappearance of the money reveal a peculiar state of mind. They have said, in effect, that a credit is not a credit unless it is in a tangible form such as wheat, wool, cattle or two shilling pieces. It is impossible for any financial system to operate without- credit and confidence. Australia has confidence in Great Britain. “We have accumulated vast credits in that country, but we do not send the Treasurer to the Bank of England every month to inquire whether our money is there. “We know that it is there, because the credit of Great Britain is undoubted, as is that of Australia. In governmental financial operations, there must be debits and credits, and a credit is a credit, irrespective of whether it is something written on paper or represented by bags of gold. I have an account with a bank, but I do not go to my bank every week to crossexamine the manager and ask him to bring out the two-shilling pieces, stack them neatly in piles and tell me which of them are mine. My bank manager tells me that I have a credit and that I can draw upon it whenever I want to do so. The amount that the Chifley Government left standing to the credit of the National “Welfare Fund is available for this Government to utilize to the best of its ability. A credit must be backed by something, and whatever credits we have are backed by the full resources of this country.
I am disappointed that no provision is made in this bill for the rehabilitation of invalid pensioners. There are many people in the community who are maimed. Their disabilities either existed at birth or were caused by accidents. By judicious training in the use of their remaining facilities, they could be enabled to take their places in the community. Training is essential. Many servicemen were maimed during the war, and, quite
Tightly, the Australian Government set to work to rehabilitate them by training them in the trades for which, with their disabilities, they were most fitted. Today, the Government is paying invalid pensions to many thousands of people who feci that they are mendicants and are not wanted. If those people were trained to do the jobs that they could do, it would not be necessary to continue to pay invalid pensions to them for they would become assets and not liabilities to Australia. Insufficient attention has been paid to that matter. With training, the skill of partly disabled persons could be utilized profitably, and they could he removed so to speak, from the debit side of the national ledger and placed upon the credit side of it. This country needs all the hands and brains that are available. The Government, instead of saying to disabled people, “ Here is your pension. Now you must get along as well as you can “, could, by continuing and widening the scheme for the rehabilitation of exservicemen and applying it to disabled civilians, do a better job than it is now doing. Similar considerations apply to crippled children. If they can be trained when they are young, their self-respect can be restored. Then they can look the world in the face and earn their own living.
I am disappointed also that the Government does not propose to increase funeral benefits. In 1943, the Curtin Government made provision for the payment of a £10 funeral benefit to persons who were responsible for the burial of deceased age and invalid pensioners. Economic conditions in this country have changed greatly since 1943, and I believe that the Government should consider increasing the amount of the benefit. I know of old couples who led an affectionate “Darby and Joan “ existence, and when one of them died, relatives and other persons have approached me with requests to pass the hat around and collect money to pay funeral expenses of the one who had died. It is pitiful to see a surviving partner pawn cherished possessions in order to give the dead loved one a decent burial. With them, a decent burial is a matter of personal pride. Some people are rather blast about that, but to many persons it means a great deal if a departed loved one can be decently interred. I suggest to the Government that consideration be given to an increase of the funeral benefit before the next social services measure is presented to the Parliament.
I have given a great deal of thought to the problem of assisting old people. I believe that they should have a new deal. The people of this country fall into three major categories. First, there are the very young people. They constitute the most important section of the community, because upon them rests the responsibility for the future progress of this country. Secondly, there are the youthful and middle-aged persons who are virile and active. Thirdly, there are the old people who have carried the burden and heat of the day in the development of this country and are now in the eventide of their lives. In considering social services generally, consideration must be given to institutions. I believe that institutions should be places for old people to live in and not places to which they go to die. Although many very worthy private philanthropic organizations in this country are doing a first-class job, I do not consider that sufficient is being done for the old people in our community. There are eventide homes run by religious organizations in various States, Jewish old people’s cottages, Masonic aged people’s homes, and institutions such as the Gellibrand Home for Aged ex-Servicemen in Tasmania and many others conducted by friendly societies. In these institutions there are many fine types of people, living out the remaining years of their lives. I should like to see established on an Australiawide basis a scheme whereby the aged members of the community could live in planned social units, with canteens and amenities properly supervised. I consider that they deserve such treatment. One of the almoners of the Sydney Hospital has stated that many elderly people enter the existing institutions to die. The following paragraphs appeared in. an article in the Current Affairs Bulletin of the 2nd January: -
Institutions: The demand for entry into homes and institutions is far greater than the accommodation available. In recent years. ihi? situation has been aggravated by the bousing shortage and the shortage of nurses and domestic workers. Because of lack of staff, beds in many instances are left unoccupied while some “privately-run homes have been forced to close down altogether.
Many of the existing institutions for the aged bear little resemblance to a home. In sonic of the church institutions there are single bedrooms, but most of these and nearly all State institutions have dormitories or wards, and communal dining and recreation rooms. -There can bc no more depressing sight than an old people’s dormitory with bare floors and tidy rows of beds and small lockers, or a common room full of men or women who look as though they are merely waiting to die . . .
That is an indictment of a wealthy community. If we are able to- provide £2,000,000 a day for the purpose of killing people in war, we should be able to provide sufficient’ money and amenities to maintain in a reasonable state of comfort elderly members of the community who have contributed so much to the development of this country. In Great Britain communal areas are being developed for the housing of elderly people in cottage type flats. The occupants are provided with hot meals at a nominal cost, and superintending nurses and medical officers visit them periodically. Surely such a prosperous country as Australia could make better provision for the aged than it has done. At least we should be able to provide facilities for the aged similar to those that are being developed in Great Britain. The problems associated with old age are particularly important to Australia, a3 they are in most other civilized western countries. In the East the problem does not exist because, generally speaking, a life in those countries is not worth more than a snap of the fingers. I have seen coloured people dying like flies from dysentery and cholera. Although we are proud of the progress that we have made in the field of social services, I repeat that we should be able to make better provision for the aged members of our community. There is no excuse for this enlightened country not doing more in that direction. I am sure that the great majority of people in this country consider that there is a moral obligation on the community as a whole to support elderly people. Economists and social workers are greatly concerned about whether we shall be able to fulfil this obligation in from 30 to 40 years hence if a start is not made now. I live in the vicinity of an aged person’s home in Tasmania, and I frequently give elderly people from the home a lift into town in my car. The majority of them are fine, clean, well-spoken people who, through no fault of their own, have suffered reduced circumstances and have been compelled to become inmates of that institution. It is unfortunately true that, in many instances, young people have been responsible for pushing old people out of jobs, and out of their homes. Many inmates of old people’s institutions have been persons of high estate, who have occupied prominent positions in the community. It is unfortunately true also that society does little to assist elderly people who have occupied high positions. Yet immediately after their death obituaries in the newspapers declare what fine people they were. Would it not be preferable for the Government to do something for them in the evening of their lives ? In Australia the proportion of people over 65 years of age to the total population increased from 4 per cent, in 1901 to 8 per cent, in 1947. That trend is continuing. A greater expectation of life is now exemplified in life assurance actuarial tables, as a result of medical and scientific research, lt is axiomatic that as we progress in the fields of medicine and science, life is prolonged. Ignoring the influence of immigration, the proportion of aged people in our community will probably rise to 14 per cent, by 1990. Therefore society will be forced to devise new means of utilizing the talents of the aged. Aged people should not be banished into forced retirement at the age of 60 or 65 years, as frequently happens at present. I could not do better at this stage than to read to the Senate portion of an article by George H. Johnston that was published in the .Sydney Sun on the 16th October. It reads -
All Australia is crying out for labour. Surely there are innumerable avenues where the elderly could still be usefully employed? It is patently absurd to arbitrarily say that a man is no longer fit for work after the age of 65. or a woman after 60. Let pensioners have their pension as a right - and what they can earn over and above it is surely their own business. There are many men in Sydney in their late sixties, seventies and even eighties who are still efficient workers. The two great Sydney breweries, for example, continue to employ - as a mutually appreciated gesture of appreciation for long service and goodwill - a remarkably large number of employees beyond retiring age. Scores of jobs should be available to the- elderly - watchmen, lift-drivers, caretakers, simple clerical work, gardeners - but, in the first place, they should be entitled to the money they earn. Obviously they cannot live, other than as dejected animals, on the bounty which society grants them.
I consider that it is. unfair to retire a man arbitrarily when he reaches 65’ years of age if he is capable of performing his duties conscientiously and well. I remind honorable senators that daring the war period many elderly people were recalled to their former jobs, and did’ excellent work. Dwarfs, as well as onelegged and blind men, were called in from circuses and elsewhere.. I consider that if pensioners are able and willing to perform light duties in order to earn a few extra pounds, they should be permitted to do so without- being hampered by red. tape. Although the newspaper article that I have just read only cited the. continued employment of aged: employees by two breweries in Sydney, I point out that other firms also adopt that policy. Some years ago,. I was employed by a maritime company in Melbourne. When the masters and mates employed by that company became too old to go to sea, or when, their eyesight failed,: the company,, in addition to paying them superannuation,’ continued, to employ them to watch cargo on. the wharfs. They were reliable men, whose integrity and honesty had been proved over the years, and they carried out those duties ashore equally as well as men only 40 years of age. Because of the limitation of permissible income, many age pensioners decline to accept light duties for fear of jeopardizing their pension rights. They are prepared to drift along idly in retirement, and their skill is therefore lost to the community. As has been pointed out already by honorable senators on this side of the chamber,, in view of the decreased, purchasing value of money, the proposed increases of pensions will not enable pensioners to obtain all of the necessaries of life. The article to which T have already referred continued -
In Australia, however, the emphasis fa strongly upon the well-being of the young and virile members of the community. The- average worker in the prime of his years has better conditions and wages, and a greater share of leisure, than ever before in our. history. The young - the children of school and pre-school age - -receive, a. lesser1 consideration from society.
The greatest factor in. the development of this- country is the manner in which we care for- our young and for our elderly people. I have endeavoured to address myself to.- this, subject on the highest level, because I sincerely believe that I have an obligation to the elderly people who have helped to develop Australia. I stress that the time has arrived when a scheme should be developed- for caring- for the elderly people in the community in a manner benefiting- Australia. I have read a good deal about what is being done in the way of social services in Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I have always had a high regard for the people of Switzerland, who have tackled the problem of social services in a very forthright way. During two world wars Switzerland managed to maintain its neutrality. I quote the following extract from an article dealing with the Swiss approach to social services : -
The Swiss decision to provide pensions for all citizens was an outgrowth of Switzerland’s experience in two World Wars. The Swiss kept out of both these- wars only by mobilizing their well-trained citizens’ army to discourage potential aggressors. But the first World War showed them that their defence system was marred by one dangerous defect. The Swiss who served in the army during World War I. were paid! almost nothing, while civilians were getting rich. As that war dragged on year after year, many of these Swiss soldiers and their families used up their savings. In 1918, when the war ended, these soldiers were, so resentful that Switzerland came very close to revolution.
The injustice of this unequal sacrifice was widely recognized, and during the twenty years between the World Wars, Swiss businessmen, trade union leaders and officials cooperated in devising a plan to correct the abuse. When World War II. broke out, the so-called Compensation Act had been drafted and was immediately applied. This act guaranteed, up to- a reasonable maximum, the peace-time wages of every soldier as long as ho served in the army. For this purpose. 2 per cent, was deducted from the wages of every civilian worker, and this 2 per cent, was matched by every employer. The scheme worked so well thai Swiss- soldiers did not need to worry about their families. No widespread social unrest followed the war’s end, and a reserve fund of $250,000,000 was accumulated from the 4 per cent, of the wartime earnings of the Swiss population.
Four per cent, of the national income of Australia would represent a tremendous amount. If we had in this country the same system of making up the pay of members of the armed forces, it would provide a stimulus to recruiting. Everybody wishes for economic security, which is really what we fought for in two world wars. Recruiting is lagging at the present time largely because young men are uncertain of their economic future. The budgetary income of the Australian Government amounts to £788,700,000 a year, but that is a mere fleabite compared with the total national income. I do not say that the adoption of the Swiss system would provide a cure for all of our ills, but the system has worked well in Switzerland, which is an enlightened and democratic country.
I propose now to say something about the administration of social services.. I have always found that the deputy directors of social services, and the officers associated with them, have been courteous and helpful. They are not infallible, but I have had from them the same sympathetic reception since this Government has been in. office as I habitually received during the regime of the previous Government. If there is anything wrong with the act which they administer, I recognize that I am partly responsible, because I helped to enact that legislation. It is human to err, but the officers who administer our social services legislation give of their best no matter what government is in power. In this we are more fortunate than the people of the United States of America, where the system of” spoils to the victor operates, and where senior public servants are changed with every change of government. Our public servants are career men, who do their jobs to the best of their ability irrespective of what government is in .power. If I have ever found myself at odds with them, it 13 always on some matter of principle, not of politics.
Party politics should not enter into our consideration of social services. We should be moved only by a desire to serve the community of the people who put us here. In particular; we should seek to serve that most deserving- section of the community, the men and women who- have grown old and weary in the service of the nation and who have made it possible for us to be here to-night.
.- The bill before the Senate is a machinery measure, the purpose of which is to increase certain pensions. Governments have a tendency to preen themselves on their alleged generosity to pensioners. As a matter of fact, a government that increases pensions does no more than give to the pensioners what they are entitled to. Over the year9, pensioners always receive less than enough, to enable them to maintain a reasonable standard of living. In. this age, pensions are not charity. They represent the payment of a debt due from the community to certain individuals. Pensioners have well earned whatever they get. To-day, we have heard some criticism of the National Welfare Fund, but I maintain that our present social services would not be possible had not the Labour Government, established that fund as something independent of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.. In this bill, it is proposed to increase age and’ invalid pensions by 7s. 6d. a week, the pensions of A class widows by 7s. 6d. a week, and that of others by 5s. a week. Considering the increase in the cost of living, those increases are not enough to enable pensioners to maintain their standard of living. As far back as November- last, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) said that, £1 wasworth only 12s. when considered’ in relation to the “ C “ series index, and that the actual value of the- £1 was not more than 10s. Since’ then, the value of the £1 has depreciated considerably. If the Prime Minister’s assessment of the £1 in November last was- correct, then the £1 is not worth more- than 6s. 8d. to-day; yet the Government is proposing to increase pensions by only three-eighths of of a pound, which, on the .basis of the 1939 £1, represents 2s. 6d. for the 7s. 6d. increase and. ls. 8d. for the 5s. increase. Once again the Government is doing too little too late. The basic wage has been increased by £1 a week. There is a tendency to speak of that increase as. relating to present conditions, but actually it. relates to conditions that existed eighteen months ago, when the application for the increase was first made. Already, the new basic wage is out of date, just as the new pension rates will be out of date when they become payable. Pensions, should not be made a political football. Pensioners should not have to wait an inordinate time for relief while costs are rising. There should be an automatic scale of adjustment under which pensions would always represent a predetermined percentage of the basic wage., lt makes me sick to hear men who live in the best of circumstances prating of their generosity to those less fortunate members of the community who are not even receiving what is due to them. There should be no charity about pensions. They should be social payments that people can justly and proudly claim at the end of their working lives or when society determines that they should retire from industry.
I have a particular plea to make on behalf of blind people. As recently as the 10th November, great concern was felt amongst these people when it was announced. in the press that the Minister for Social Services had said that although their pension was to be increased to £2 10s. a week, the permissible income would remain at £5 7s. 6d. a week. A deputation waited on the Minister. All members of it were blind, and they entered the room with their hands on one another’s shoulders. I believe that they made a great impression on the Minister, and I am pleased to note that, under this legislation, the permissible income of blind persons is fixed at £8 a week. I believe that the Government could well abolish the means test on blind pensioners. Their earnings are necessarily limited. Their physical handicap is greater than that of any other afflicted person. Recently I received a letter from a -blind friend who said -
It appears from this report that Senator Spooner is unwilling to increase the earnings of the blind beyond £5 17s. 6d. This gives me great cause for concern.
I would point out that in 1920, the Hughes Government altered the pension act to allow the blind to receive the basic wage including their pension. In 1041 the John Curtin Government altered the act. so that a blind person could earn the basic wage and still receive the blind pension in addition.
I might say that although totally blind having had both eyes removed I received no pension for 20 years until the Curtin Government altered the act.
I have been employed for the last 28 years, in the Blind Institute at Maylands as a factory foreman.
The writer of that letter has threechildren. I know him personally and have had the privilege of assisting him on several occasions. Because of his affliction he is unable to do such jobs as mowing lawns and cleaning clothes. He has to pay for all those services that, most people do for themselves. As he states in his letter, although he had been blind for twenty years, he did not receive a pension until the Curtin Government altered the provisions of the relevant legislation. His earnings were only a little better than the basic wage. He is a fine husband and has a fine family. If the Government seriously believes that the means test on social services should be abolished, there is a worthy field in which a start could be made. Blind people are necessarily involved in considerably more expense than their more fortunate fellows who are in possession of all their faculties. So far, I have spoken only of the totally blind. The partially blind also have a claim for better treatment. They are able, of course, to earn larger incomes than totally blind workers. Many of them have left institutions for the blind at which they learned trades and arcearning good wages in industry. Because they are able to earn reasonable wages., however, many people are inclined to overlook the serious disability for which they suffer. Blind and partially blind workers have to pay taxes just as other members of the community do, and I ask the Minister for Social Services to give sympathetic consideration to their problems.
The provisions of this bill which relate to the conditions of payment of the sickness benefits and other social services provided by the Government are tiddlywinking, although some commendable improvements are being proposed. The Government should bear in mind that of the 416,000 pensioners in this country, 370,000 have no other income whatsoever. It is with this majority that we should mainly concern ourselves. Whatever we may do for the minority, commendable though it may be, our chief .concern should be the majority. Pensioners who depend solely upon their pensions have only £2 10s. a week on which to live. That is far too little. It is only 35 per cent, of the latest basic wage, which itself is twelve months out of date, compared with 36.4 per cent, when the Curtin Government tied the pension to the basic wage. On the 8th of this month, the McLarty Liberal Government in Western Australia announced that it would introduce a bill to permit landlords to increase rents by 25 per cent. That will hit the pensioners very hard indeed, particularly those who depend entirely upon the pension for their livelihood. For some time now, many of them have been forced to live in squalor because of the rising cost of living. Their standard of living is far below that of which we boast as being general in this country. Usually, landlords are not very happy about having pensioners as tenants, and frequently the pensioners are harassed until they get out. Now in Western Australia, they are to be called upon to meet a 25 per cent, increase of their rents.
– The Labour government in Tasmania is doing the same thing.
– -If that is so, 1 can only say that it is proof positive that this n reposed pension increase is too little, too late, and too political. The pension should be tied to the basie wage so that a decision on. whether pensioners are to be permitted to enjoy an Antralian standard of living will not depend o:i the magnanimity of a Minister or of a government. The fact that a Labour government in Tasmania is unpegging rents merely strengthens my argument.
– The honorable senator was criticizing a Liberal government for doing that.
– I said earlier that pensions had become the plaything of party politics. If a Liberal government in Western Australia and n, La’bour government in Tasmania are unpegging rents, why is this Government increasing pensions by only 7s. 6d. a week, and permitting the relationship of pensions to the basic wage to deteriorate, compared with that which existed in the years when rentals were pegged and living costs were stable? The pensioners to-day are on a political hook. People who travel around the country endeavouring to sell themselves as politicians on their promises to increase pensions or to provide benefits for some other section of the community, are no better than junk salesmen. The pensioners are not receiving as much as they are entitled to receive. Pensions should be tied to the basic wage, so that the recipients will not have to wait for’ a Parliament to decide how much they should get and when they should get it.
– The invalid and age pension was 33 per cent, of the basic wage in the last year of the Chifley Government’s admi n istra tion.
– It was 36.4 per cent, when the Curtin Government first tied pensions to the basic wage. Obviously, a government that has reached the end of its term of office cannot introduce a bill to increase pensions when expenditure for the year ahead had to be determined by the budget of the incoming Government. The honorable senator’s interjection only supports my argument that pension increases should not depend upon budgets. 1. repeat that when the invalid and age pension was fixed by the Curtin Government, it was 36.4 per cent, of the basic wage, and at that time, prices and rents were pegged and the cost of living was stable. Now, the invalid and age pension is only 35 per cent, of the basic wage which itself is twelve months out of date. Since that wage was fixed, th’i spiral of inflation has carried prices to even greater heights. In spite of all that, the Government is not prepared to do anything to fulfil its promise to put value back into the £1. Spokesmen for the present Government parties told the electors from the hustings that the obligation to safeguard the living standards of pensioners was n primary responsibility. The Minister for National Development has said that the restoration of the purchasing power of our currency must take priority even over defence. Honorable senators opposite told the pensioners prior to the election that regardless of the. monetary figure of the pension, if it did not buy all that they required, it was of no use to them. The Government has been given an opportunity to .do something .about .that. The Premiers have asked the Commonwealth to do .something about it. Tie prices authorities of the States have .asked the Prime Minister to do something about it, hut he has refused flatly.. A year ,ago he said that the Australian £1 was worth only 12s., in terms of the “ 0 “ series index, which he admitted was not a true reflection .of living costs. It is quite true .that the “ C ,: series index is not an accurate indicator of price increases, because it is designed primarily for basic wage adjustments. Costs are always higher than the “ 0 ‘: series index indicates. The right honorable .gentleman said .that the real value of the £1 at that time was probably 10s.
– It is .only 6s. to-day.
– I should not like to estimate its value to-day, hut it is certainly very much lower than it was when the Chifley Government relinquished office. The Government merits criticism for its failure to increase the unemployment and sickness benefit. Today unemployment is low, but even a minority deserves justice. The plight of persons who receive the sickness benefit is bad. The Government is following a course completely opposite to that on which the Labour Government had embarked. Labour’s objective was to protect the sick in the community. Recipients of the sickness benefit are still to receive only £2 2s. 6d. a week, although their financial commitments far exceed those of persons in normal health. When a bread-winner becomes sick, not only is his pay stopped, but also the earning capacity of other people in the home is sometimes impaired. The Government does not intend to do anything about that. It inherited from the Chifley Government an excellent health and medical service scheme under which liberal pharmaceutical and medical benefits were provided for the people but it has done nothing to implement the scheme. The Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), whom I prefer to call the Minister for Illhealth, has repeatedly promised to institute a health scheme for the benefit of pensioners and other sections of the community, but from month to month he has put .off the formal announcement .of the scheme. Undoubtedly .he will continue to do so from year .to year until this Government is removed from office. The right honorable gentleman has not honestly endeavoured to formulate a worthwhile health and medical service scheme for the .people. Pensioners have received .a ‘raw deal from this Government. For too long the .pension has been chasing the £1 because the Government has done nothing to honour its promise to put value back into the £1 and to stabilize .costs.
I commend Senator Annabelle Rankin for having made a plea for the .provision of houses for the aged and invalids in this community. The housing schemes of the Commonwealth and of the States should be completely revised and provision should be made for the erection of houses especially designed for those living on social services benefits. I know of many invalid persons and widows who are suffering very acutely as a result of the housing problem. This Government has said that houses should be provided under the State housing schemes for a rental equal to one-fifth of the family income, but it has done nothing to provide houses for those dependent on social services, benefits at anything like that rental. I know an invalid pensioner suffering from arthritis who has unsuccessfully endeavoured for years to obtain a house through one of the housing schemes. The housing authorities have admitted that her case is pitiable, hut they have also told her that thousands of other people similarly afflicted are ahead of her in the housing list. There is little possibility that this Government will give effect to Senator Annabelle Rankin’s proposals for the housing of these unfortunate people. Rentals are now to be increased by 25 per cent, in certain States. This additional charge will impose a very heavy burden on many pensioners who are solely dependent on their pensions.
Other honorable senators have asked that the increases of pensions proposed in this bill be paid retrospectively to the beginning of the financial year. I heartily endorse that request. Pensioners should not be penalized because of the inability of the Government to present its budget and the complementary legislation to give effect to its budget proposals within the normal time after the commencement of the financial year: The Government has said that administrative difficulties would prevent it. from acceding to the request. I cannot see what administrative difficulties could be involved. I worked in a government department which was called upon to pay arrears of wages, including overtime, to very many of its employees who were working under different and complicated industrial awards. No difficulties were experienced by that department in calculating the amounts due. If this Government so desired, its officers could very quickly make the necessary computations. The computation of arrears of pension should be a simple matter. Arrears need not be paid immediately; they could be paid in a lump sum, either on some future pension payday, or on a day other than a pension pay-day. If retrospective payments can be made to justices of the High Court, and to public servants under the recent award of the Commonwealth Public Service Arbitrator, I know of no reason why retrospective payments cannot be made to pensioners. The calculation of amounts involved in retrospective increases of the salaries and wages of public servants- is. much more complex than the calculation of retrospective increases of pension payments-. The Government’s claim that to do as I have suggested would involve administrative difficulties must fall to the ground.
The Minister has said that increased payments to age and invalid pensioners, who are paid in advance, will commence with an improved fortnightly instalment due on the 2nd November, and that increased payments to widow pensioners, who are paid in arrears, will commence with the fortnightly instalment due on the 7th November, and accordingly widows will be placed in a somewhat better position than age and invalid pensioners. The advantage in f avour of the- widows may be only 5s. or 7s. 6d., which I am pleased to see them obtain, but I point out that even 5s. or 7s. 6d. represents a great deal to all aged and invalid people in these days of high prices. The only equitable and fair thing to do is that the increase to- all pensioners should be paid from one specified date. The Opposition suggests that that date should be the 1st July, 1950. The Government may be able to put one over the aged and invalids, but it would not successfully put one over a section of the trade unionists who are working under awards, because they would immediately go to the court and obtain an order which would require the Commonwealth to pay all trade unionists alike. The Minister has said that the Opposition is seeking to make political capital out. of this aspect of the bill. Nothing is further from the truth. “We are merely pointing out that an injustice will be done to a very deserving section of the community and that the Government would not ba game to inflict a similar injustice on those who work under industrial awards.
The Government should review the whole of the social services legislation with a view to bringing the basic pen- sion rate more into conformity with the basic wage. The Government should, provide a pension rate for a single man which represents a fixed percentage of the basic wage and determine a minimum below which the rate shall not fall. If it did so- it would rid pensioners of the feeling that they are the political took of governments.. Aged people should be complimented rather than insulted because they obtain a share of the wealth of this nation which during their working lives they helped to produce. Pensioners should be made to feel that their pension is a right and not something given to them out of the generosity of heart of the government of the day. They should be given their right without any suggestion of magnanimity on the part of a government.
– The subject of social services should be treated by honorable senators with sympathy, understanding and common sense. Every honorable senator believes that the aged, invalids and widows of this community should not be compelled to live on a standard lower than that which the country can afford. All governments, irrespective of their political complexion, should do all they can to assist these worthy sections of the community. Governments must always remember that they handle money which belongs to the people and that common sense must play a big part in its distribution. Unfortunately, it is the habit of governments and of members of the Parliament to regard public moneys as belonging to the Parliament and not to the people. The Government and the Parliament are merely the channels through which the people’s money is distributed. It is the duty of every government to formulate a balanced programme of social services in keeping with the prosperity of the country and the requirements of the people. They must always keep in mind the fact that in the final analysis it is the people themselves who pay these pensions.
No member of this Parliament has greater sympathy than has the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) for the aged, the invalids and the widows, and no one of us has a better understanding of their needs than he has, and accordingly we may rest assured that he will sympathetically administer this legislation. The Government is deserving of commendation for having introduced a bill to increase the pensions paid to those unfortunate people by £9,000,000 per annum. It is rather alarming to realize that of every eight persons in the Commonwealth three are receiving some form of social services benefit.
– Does the honorable senator object to that?
– Not at all.
– Then what is the honorable senator complaining about?
– If the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) will bear with me, I shall complete what I was about to say. The fact that, of every eight persons in the Commonwealth, three receive some form of social services benefit, graphically illustrates the fact that the number of persons who provide the revenue from which such benefits must be paid is not very great. In deciding what rate of pension the country can afford to pay the Government must keep that important factor in mind. The increase’s of pension proposed in this bill will bring the pension to approximately the same percentage of the basic wage as it was after the last adjustment of the pension rate was made. An honorable senator opposite said last night that it would be 1 per cent, lower than it was when the last adjustment was made. That may have been so at the time when the previous increase was made but subsequent adjustments of the basic wage to meet rising prices quickly changed the percentage. In the following budget, notwithstanding the fact that prices had greatly increased in the intervening period, the Chifley Government did not vary the pension rate.
A good deal has been said by Opposition senators about the desirability of liberalizing the means test. They conveniently forgot that, during the eight years in which they were in office, they made no attempt to alter the provisions of the means test. This Government proposes to ameliorate to some degree the harshness of the means test by increasing the exemptions relating to life insurance policies and also in respect of blind pensioners. At least it has taken a step in the right direction, however small that step may be. When the Chifley’ Government was in office the then non-Labour Opposition pressed - strongly for the liberalization of the means test but on every occasion its representations were ignored. Now, when Labour is in Opposition, its supporters say, “ What about the means test ? “
– Well, what about the means test?
– What did the Chifley Government do about the means test during the eight years in which it was in office ?
– The honorable senator does not know?
– Some honorable senators opposite believe that they alone have sympathy for and a fellow-feeling with those unfortunate people in the community who have little or no money. I would cheerfully swap my bank balance for that of many Opposition senators. I should be very much in credit on the exchange, and so would many other honorable senators on this side of the chamber. Instead of being subjected to criticism, I consider that the Minister for Social Services and the Government deserve congratulations for the very fine .bill which has been introduced into this chamber. The fact that the ratio between pensions and the basic wage has been more or less maintained is something for which the Government should also be commended.
There is one feature of this bill that I consider should have received greater consideration. I refer to the benefits payable to widows with children. Honorable senators will agree that a woman who is left with children to bring up has a very difficult task in many respects and possibly they could have been permitted to earn a greater amount of income in order to supplement their pensions. Children who are of an age when they are not able to earn money to assist in the support of the household are then at the most costly age, and for that reason it seems to me that widows in that category should have received greater consideration. Of course, there are avenues of employment open to such women, and there are child minding centres where they may leave their children while they earn supplementary incomes, but as one who knows what it is for a mother to have the upbringing of a couple of children with very little assistance from her husband, I fully appreciate what a trial and a hardship it can be. I trust that the Minister will further consider this matter and that the permissible income of widows in such circumstances will be liberalized. If it is not done in this bill, I suggest that it should he done on a later occasion, and, as I am reminded, the cost would not be great.
This bill has given, rise to a very mixed debate. Some speakers have been critical and some have offered constructive suggestions. Unfortunately, there have also been displays of political kite-flying. Last night when Senator McKenna made his speech, which was broadcast, he availed himself of the opportunity to sound a firstclass battle cry for the Australian Labour party. He criticized the measure from beginning to end and endeavoured to eulogize the previous Government. There was nothing constructive in his speech. It was pure ranting about the
Government. Then he said that he would support the measure. On the other hand, Senator Murray provided some very thoughtful and constructive suggestions. That is the kind of contribution which is needed in the debates in this chamber. I consider that the honorable senator’s remarks contained the genesis of ideas that could be profitably considered. It is possible that during a long period of time we have been following a certain avenue in the development of our pensions scheme, when there may be entirely different avenues that may be much more suitable and much more beneficial to the community. I. was greatly impressed with Senator Murray’s suggestion concerning the establishment of a contributory scheme. When one considers the size of the pensions bill to-day, the consideration of a contributory scheme which would ultimately place the payment of pensions on a sounder and a better basis, is worthy of careful consideration by the Government. Every good citizen in this community would prefer to receive a pension from a contributory scheme rather than to have it handed out as it is at the present time.
I think it was also Senator Murray who made a suggestion concerning the housing of pensioners. On that aspect, I suggest that pensioners should not be housed in any cheapjack manner. When people reach old age they have greater need of the little amenities and comforts of life than when they were young. The City of Mackay has devised a plan, in conjunction with the Government of Queensland, to establish a small municipal housing scheme, based on modern lines. Despite pressure that has been applied from Trades and Labour Council circles and from other directions, they resisted the proposal that cheapjack units should be built. When that scheme is completed, there will be in existence a first-class community settlement for pensioners who will be able to enjoy every comfort, including hot water in their homes. Tenders are being called at the present time, and the houses have been designed by an architect, so that the pensioners living in that tropical region will live in homes that are cool, because the houses are being constructed on scientific lines. The houses that are erected will be let at a nominal rental. That is my idea of the way in which elderly people should be housed.
As I have previously stated, there has been destructive and constructive criticism during this debate. It is unfortunate that the plight of the old people who are provided for by this measure should so often .be discussed with political ends in view. It is wrong that their misfortune should be used as a political bait. It is the duty of this Parliament to see that everything that can be done is done towards the care of old people, widows, the blind and others who require social services benefits, and it is regrettable that election catch-cries should be heard during a debate on such a subject. When this Government first assumed office there were continual interjections and catch-cries from the Opposition benches. The first was, “ What are you going to do about petrol rationing?” When petrol rationing was removed, nothing more was heard of that catch-cry. It was replaced by, “ What are you going to do about child endowment?” That, in turn, “was dropped when the endowment legislation was passed. The Opposition then made great play with the Communist Party Dissolution Bill and did its best to prevent the passage of that measure, but eventually allowed it to pass. Then the Opposition adopted the catch-cry, “What are you going to do about pensions? “ Now that the Government has introduced this hill, the Opposition says that too little is being done too late.
– What does the Government intend to do about the cost of living?
– The Opposition now talks about prices and the restoring of value to the £1. I remind honorable senators that when the Attorney-General asked Senator McKenna which prices he thought the Australian Government should control, Senator McKenna said he did not know, and that the matter would have to be referred to the High Court. The honorable senator was helpless when that question “was put to him. He resembled a hen that had been struck by a cyclone and left without a feather.
The bill before the chamber provides for the expenditure of an additional £9,000,000 in pension payments tothe deserving, people of the Commonwealth. I am. .sure that any one with a proper feeling for the people who require pensions will be pleased that they are to receive the contemplated increaseswhich I sincerely hope will assist them in their battle with life. It has been mentioned by honorable senators that no consideration has been given to the recent increase of the basic wage, but I point out that the Government could not takethat increase into account because its payment has not yet been authorized by the appropriate tribunals. The increase may not be anticipated, but knowing the Minister for Social Services as I do, I believe that when the time arrives to present further legislation in connexion with social services, his sympathy, human understanding and practical business knowledge will ensure that such legislation will be in keeping with the requirements of the times. If the Minister has charge of the department for a sufficient length of time, the fine qualities of which he is possessed will manifest themselves in the presentation of a. much more comprehensive measure than the one now before the chamber. Although such a measure may he on entirely new lines, I am sure that it will be designed for the benefit of the people of this country.
– I regret that during this debate the facts have not been adhered to as they should have been. The Government, perhaps because it has gained possession of the treasury bench by a policy of deception, is now endeavouring to extend that policy to the Parliament. Honorable senators, whether on this side of the chamber or on the Government side, should speak with a degree of responsibility and should not make statements that they cannot support. I speak to-night on this bill because of suggestions that have been made by honorable senators opposite and because deliberate accusations have been levelled by them concerning the National Welfare Fund. According to the budget papers, a balance of £131,114,816 has been carried forward “to the National Welfare
Fund for 1950-51. If that money is not there, the document is fraudulent. Honorable senators opposite deny that the money is available. Let me trace the history of the National Welfare Fund. Prior to 1945, some social services were paid from the National Welfare Fund, child endowment was paid partly from the pay-roll .tax, and age and invalid pensions were a charge against ‘Consolidated Revenue. In 1945, a Labour government made provision for all social services to be .paid from the National Welfare Fund. In 1946-47, the balance carried forward to the fund was approximately £46,000,000; in 1947-48, it was approximately £49,000,000; in 1948-49, it was approximately £69,000,000; in 1949-50, it was approximately £95,000,000 ; and in 1951, it was approximately £131,000,000 - the amount in dispute. While, this debate has been in progress, I have approached the Minister for Social Services and asked him the position in regard to the money for the payment, of war gratuity, which has been placed in a reserve fund. He replied, “ Itis the same as the National Welf are Fund. It is not there “. That was a stupid answer from a Minister whose financial audi business ability has been lauded in this chamber.
If a store has grocery, drapery, ironmongery and millinery departments, the returns from all departments are paid into one account, but the office staff can tell whether any of the departments has made a loss or a profit. If, for instance, the drapery department has made a loss, that does not mean that the store has made a loss. The returns from all departments are paid into a pool. Moneys for the National Welfare Fund, the War Gratuity Reserve and other trust funds go into a pool, and that pool is utilized to redeem treasury-bills and reduce short term indebtedness. Last year, the money standing to the credit of the National Welfare Fund earned £750,740 in interest, and this year it is estimated that it will earn nearly £1,’000,000. Do honorable senators opposite understand the principle now? If the £131,000,000 were required to-mor.row. it could be obtained at call.
– Where from?
– It could be obtained from the Treasury at .call. The Government could -get it to-morrow, if necessary. Honorable senators opposite have put over a “furphy”. It is not light for them to make inaccurate statements. I challenge .the Minister to tell me, .after he has consulted his advisers, that the £131,000,000 is not available at call and that he could not obtain it to-morrow if he wanted it. The £131,000,000 has gone into the general fund.
This Government, strangely enough, is following in the footsteps of the Labour party. During the war, the Commonwealth indebtedness incurred by the issue of treasury-bills reached the figure of £343;000,000. Labour governments reduced that indebtedness by £100,000,000 by redeeming treasury-bills with moneys from the National Welfare Fund, but the money standing to the credit of that fund is available to-morrow if the Government wants it.
– The Labour party used it.
– It is useless for Senator Mattner to chirp like a parrot, “ The Labour party has used it “. I resent his interjection. It is obvious that he does not understand the position; otherwise he -would not have said what he has said.
For propaganda purposes, the Government has said that, although the Chifley Government stated there was a balance of £131,000,!000 standing to the credit of the National Welfare Fund, the money is not there and the credit is a mythical one, but I say to the Minister that there is no legal impediment to the Government using that money to-morrow if it wishes to do so. It belongs to that fund, and there is nothing to prevent the Government from using it. If a depression were to occur in Australia next week, next month, or next year - I hope that a depression will never occur in this country, whatever political party is in power- that £131,000,000 could be utilized. The Government could get it without raising a finger. Lf the money is not available, where has it gone? I should like that to be explained by the Minister when he replies.
I did not intend to intervene in this debate, and I have only done so because I do not believe it to be right for honorable senators opposite to make statements that they cannot support. The irresponsible statements that they have made do a grave injustice, not to the Labour party but to the Australian nation. Statements of that kind are not helpful, either to the Opposition or the Government. The object of investing this money is to use it to advantage when it is not required to be expended, but if a depression occurred it would be available for expenditure upon the purposes for which it has been collected. That would be the proper time to expend it. I hope that the Minister will make a statement upon this matter when he replies to the second-reading debate. If he does not do so, I shall raise the matter in committee.
– in reply - At the outset of my remarks, I thank the Opposition for the cooperation which facilitated the introduction of this measure in the Senate. A. Minister is always keen to introduce legislation for which he is responsible in the chamber of which he is a member, and it is a good thing for that chamber when that occurs. In these troublesome times, there must be an understanding between the Government and the Opposition before that can be done. In this instance, an understanding was reached.
I turn to the realm of more practical politics. The fact that in this debate criticisms and suggestions have come from both sides of the chamber shows the interest which all parties take in this legislation. A general reply can be made to all the proposals and suggestions that have been advanced. It is that the benefits for which the bill seeks to provide will cost £9,000,000 a year and will represent a susbtantial addition to the present level of social services benefits. At the present time, the level is such that payments from the National Welfare Fund are approximately equal to payments into the fund. We have reached the stage when there must be a recasting of the manner in which social services benefits are financed. Having decided the approximate level of social services bene fits, the Government had to consider how the money available could be expended to the best advantage. After much thought, it was decided that it should be expended in directions where the need was greatest. That decision meant that a liberalization of the means test had to be deferred. The Government accepts responsibility for that decision. Its desire to liberalize the means test has not abated, and it has not departed in any way from its policy, but it realizes that in a given set of circumstances it must act, not in the interests of one section of the community but in the interest of the community as a whole. We have clone what was right in the set of circumstances that we had to face. I shall cite a few facts and figures in order to illustrate the nature and extent of the problem that confronted the Government. Most of the figures that I shall mention have already been referred to during the debate, but I shall piece them together to show the true position. Departmental records reveal that 96 per cent, of age pensioners are unable to earn more than £1 a week, and rely upon their pensions, plus £1 additional earnings at the most. In the great majority of instances, those earnings do not exceed 5s. a week. The Government had to consider whether those people were fairly equipped to meet the circumstances of life with a total income of less than £3 2s. 6d. a week. Would it have been right for the Government to have introduced into the pension field another group of people whose income was considerably greater than that amount, instead of increasing age pensions? It has .been suggested that the means test should have been liberalized. If we were to increase the permissible income from 30s. a week to 50s. a week, the cost to the Government would be £7,000,000’ a year.
– That would be a big jump.
– If the permissible income were increased by 10s. a week the cost to the Government would be £3,500,000. If we were to increase the property disqualification from £750 to £1,000, the increased cost to the Government would be £1,500,000. The suggestion has been advanced frequently that the means test should be eased in. proportion to the age of pensioners, that is, that as people grow older, they should not be called upon to augment their earnings.
– Does the Minister suggest that age pensioners should work?
– An Opposition senator has raised the same line of thought this evening. If we were to decide that the means test should not be applied to all persons over 75 years of age, the estimated cost to the Government would be £16,500,000 per annum.
– Is the Minister quite sure of that?
– Yes. If we were to decide that superannuated persons should be able to regard only £1 a week of their superannuation as free of the means test, the cost to the Government would be £1,500,000. The truth of the matter is that the number of pensioners is so great that practically nothing can be done in the provision of social services, except by substantial annual expenditure. In view of the position that I have outlined, the Government considered that the correct course to adopt was to provide assistance where it was most needed, that is by increasing the general pension rate. It was a difficult decision to make. However, I believe that it was the correct decision. Ry the tenor of the debate I am convinced that there is general agreement in that connexion. I was fortified in that view by the tenor of Senator McKenna’s speech particularly. In truth, Senator McKenna did not criticize to any appreciable degree the benefits and the proposals contained in the bill. His attack was not on the bill before the chamber. Rather was it a fanfare of trumpets about putting value back into the £1, and general financial and economic conditions. In other words, the honorable senator ran away from the problem with which he was confronted, and took refuge in some other line of approach. Indeed, he very unfairly misrepresented the situation, because the interests of the pensioners had been protected. If we compare the cost of living as reflected by the “ C “ series index as at December, 1949, when this Government took office, with the “ C “ series index at present, it is clear that it would have been necessary to increase the pension to 47s. 6d. a week to give it the same purchasing power as in December, 1949. However, it is proposed to increase the pension to 50s. a week, which will give it a substantially higher standard of value than when this Government entered office.
– It has nearly caught up that leeway now.
– The Government will deal with the facts as they arise. “When the proposed pension increases were agreed to and the budget was introduced the position was as I have stated. The “ C “ series index is the best index to the position.
– It is not comprehensive.
– It is the best index at our disposal. I consider that the criticism that was expressed by Senator McKenna did neither the honorable senator himself nor the Opposition as a whole any credit. He was not prepared to face the matter that was before the chamber, but took refuge in another line of attack. It is for the Opposition to decide, in its wisdom, whether it has made the correct political approach to this matter. I consider that Senator McKenna’s speech contributed to an excited condition in the community. By representing that the position is worse than it is, the honorable senator did national harm. It is for the Opposition to weigh national harm against political advantage. I consider that honorable senators opposite will lose both ways, because I am convinced that the people of Australia have the situation sized up accurately. They know the economic forces that are operating throughout the world, and many people have already realized that the Opposition is doing little more than to cry wolf in the hope of causing further ‘ trouble. I shall now deal with some of the points that have been raised during the debate. At the outset I should like to say that when the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) spoke to me about the National Welfare Fund, I told him that the technical officers of my department were available to him, and that he could confer with them.
– They convinced me of the truth of my interpretation of the position.
– The Leader of the Opposition has expressed the view that the amount of £130,000,000, in round figures, at the credit of the National Welfare Fund is money at call, and that, therefore, it is available at any time. All I can say is that the Leader of the Opposition did not understand the explanation of the technical officers, because that is not the situation.
– If money is required from the fund it must be made available.
– It is producing interest.
– I shall explain the position clearly. This fund was established by the receipts from a special tax that was imposed for the purpose of financing social services benefits. The first point that must be appreciated is that not all of the receipts from that tax were used for the purpose for which the tax was imposed. They were used for the general purposes of the Government. The next point is that, as the receipts were used for general purposes, the asset in the fund is not a cash balance.
– Nobody has said that it was a cash balance.
– The Minister’s explanation is very weak.
– The asset in the fund comprises internal treasurybills. By and large treasury-bills are evidence of a debt due by the Government. The Government usually issues treasury-bill’s to the bank, which discounts them, and the Government pays the bank interest on the amount owing at the rate of 15s. per cent. ‘ But in this instance the Government did not. issue treasury-bills to the bank.
– It gave itself an I OH.
– Prom its lefthand pocket the Government pays interest of 15s. per cent, into its right-hand pocket.
Opposition, senators interjecting,
– I suggest that the right course for the Leader of the Opposition to adopt is to sit quietly in his place, hear my explanation, study the Hansard report to-morrow, and then see if he can understand the explanation. His comments indicate that he does not understand it at this stage. Instead of issuing treasury-bills to the bank the Government used the funds of the National Welfare Fund and replaced them by internal treasury-bills. The income of the National Welfare Fund 13 derived from the interest on these internal treasury-bills. Theoretically, the Gorvernment could issue treasury-bills to any one, but in practice it only issues them to the Commonwealth Bank. The fact is that there is now no cash balance in the National Welfare Fund. I want honorable senators to grasp that point clearly.
– No one has suggested that there is a cash balance in the fund.
– The money has been expended, and the asset now comprises internal treasury-bills. They represent debts due by the Government to itself. They are a promise on the part of the Government to pay the amount involved te- the National Welfare Fund. To get the cash, the officers of the National Welfare Fund would have to go to the Government and ask it to issuetreasurybills. We must get it clear in our minds that the money is not in the fund.. The amount involved, £130,000,000, is so vast that it is an important ingredient in the national finances. A rise or fall in the level of the fund immediately affects the budgetary position of the country. If the Government, in its capacity as administrator of the National. Welfare Fund, called upon the Treasurer to find £130^000,000, it would create a first-class problem. The Labour Government had the money and spent it. The present Government, if it is required to replace the money, must do one of three things. It must increase taxation, it must raise a loan, or it must go to the Commonwealth Bank and ask it to discount treasury-bills for the; amount required. The Government cannot merely say, “Hey, presto!”, and £130,000,000 will pop up on the Treasury table. It is quite wrong to- say that the Labour Government left £130,000j000 available in the National Welfare Fund. That Government took credit for establishing certain reserves, and at the same time it took credit for spending the cash that those reserves represented. It actually levied and collected social services contributions in cash, and then promptly used the cash, not for the purposes for which it was collected, but to reduce the Government’s indebtedness.
– The Labour Government merely followed the normal Treasury practice.
– That is not denied, but the practice was not necessarily a good one. Does any honorable senator suggest that it was fair to the nation to levy in tax £130,000,000 more than was needed, and then to expend that money for a purpose other than that for which the tax was levied?
– On what was the money expended ?
– The money was used to defray ordinary governmental expenditure. I now propose, having effectively disposed of the argument-
– It will be a long time before the Government has finished with that argument.-
– Am I to interpret that interjection as meaning that the Opposition will use its majority to delay the passage of this bill until the Government acquiesces in an argument that it knows to be false? I assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am prepared to stay here as long as he is. I have stated the position fairly and frankly. If, in the face of that, the Opposition reverts to threats, I can take it for as long as the Opposition wishes to hand it out. It will never force me into the position of admitting something that I know to be untrue.
A good deal was said during the debate on behalf of civilian widows, as distinct from war widows. I can only repeat what I have said previously. It represents the view of this Government and, I think, of the last Government, also. As much as we wish to improve the position of civilian widows, and as much as we sympathize with them, this Government believes, as did the last Government, that the civilian widow has not as much claim on the community as the widow of one who gave his life in defence of his country.
– What nonsense !
– That is the view of this Government, and it was the view of the Labour Government.
-. - Our Government was wrong, too.
– A good deal was also said about the proposal to liberalize the provision in regard to the surrender value of life assurance policies. I think it was claimed by some members of the Opposition that the Government’s scheme for liberalizing this provision represented a recompense to the life assurance companies for assistance allegedly given by them to the anti-Labour parties during the election campaign. Actually, it was the Labour Government that first introduced the provision, so that any criticism of this proposal should properly be directed against the Labour Government. In any case, the criticism is rather silly because the companies, such as the National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited, and the Australian Mutual Provident Society are cooperative concerns owned by the policyholders. They are not profit-making organizations.
I am sorry that I interjected as strongly as I did when Senator Benn was speaking, but I have always believed that it is unfair to attack departmental officers. There has been no change in the administration of my department. Indeed, I hold the view that the officers of my department would withstand the attempt of any Minister to change the method of administration. I have even gone to the length of opposing a proposal for the insertion in the act of a provision giving departmental officers discretionary power. If that were done, officers would be subject to all sorts of pressure. Let them administer the department within the four corners of the act, and they can then stand their ground, not only against applicants for benefits, but also against the government in power, if need be. If Senator Benn submits papers regarding the cases that he mentioned it is an even money bet that he will find that the department has acted properly. I do not regard complaints lightly. Most of them I look at myself, but it has been my experience that, in the great majority of cases, the decisions of officers are correct, as the members of Parliament, through whom the complaints were transmitted, are generally ready to admit.
Senator McKenna oversimplified the position in regard to national insurance.
– Order ! The Minister’s time has expired.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In committee:
The bill.
– I should like the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) to elaborate his statement regarding the National WelfareFund. Is it not a fact that, if money were needed from the fund, it would be made available from the resources of the Treasury? Is it not also a fact that, in its dealings with the National Welfare Fund, the Labour Government followed an established practice ?
– I can only repeat what I said in my second-reading speech. If the Government wished to get the ?130,000,000 with which the fund is credited, it would have to do one of three things. It would have to raise a loan, or approach the Commonwealth Bank to discount treasury-bills, or increase taxation. Before doing any one of those things, it would have to pay due regard to the financial position of the country.
– I ask the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) whether the amount of ?130,000,000 credited to the National Welfare Fund was used for the redemption of treasury-bills, and whether the interest saved through the redemption of those bills has been credited to the National Welfare Fund? Secondly, is it not a fact that the asset, which is represented by the credit in the National
Welfare Fund, is just as liquid as if the money had been invested in any other way? Thirdly, is it not in accordance with general Treasury practice in both the Federal and State sphere, to utilize trust fund moneys for various purposes provided the credit in the fund remains liquid and can be turned into cash by the issue of treasury-bills which can be discounted by the bank.
– The answer is that the amount is not invested in treasury-bills. Before honorable senators can understand any furtherstep, they must appreciate that bonds must be held. There are two essential ingredients. The cash is not there and it is not invested in treasury-bills, Commonwealth loans, or anything else. As I have said, the money was used for ordinary governmental expenditure. It may well be that some of it was used toredeem treasury-bills. That is an ordinary governmental expenditure, but nobody at this stage can trace back the transactions and ascertain what this ?1,000,000 or that ?1,000,000 was used for. All that we know is that the ?130,000,000 is represented by what I have termed internal treasury-bills. In other words the Treasury said to the National Welfare Fund, “ We are taking ?130,000,000. Here is a chit to show that you are entitled to have it back at somefuture date”.
.- The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) says that theTreasury has a chit for ?130,000,000. When a person buys Commonwealth bonds, he gets a chit from the Commonwealth Treasury.
– He gets a receipt.
– Yes, and I venture to say that that is what has happened in respect of the ?130,000,000 that was in the National Welfare Fund. If the Department of Social Services, which controls the National WelfareFund, does not hold such a chit, there should be a royal commission to ascertain how it was possible for any Treasurer to get rid of ?130,000,000 without leavingany trace. My view of the matter is that this £130,000,000 was collected but not used because of the full employment policy of the Labour Government. It was set aside to be used at a later date should unemployment occur. In the meantime, the £130,000,000 has been used to redeem treasury bonds that had been issued as the result of the maladministration of previous anti-Labour governments. As the money was used also to meet interest payments on those bonds, the equivalent of those payments should also be credited to the National Welfare Fund. If the £130,000,000 had been kept in the treasury vaults, it could be seen there to-morrow, but the redemption of £130,000,000 worth of bonds would still have been a commitment on the Federal Treasury. In other words, if the present Government did not have to find £130,000,000 for the National Welfare Fund, it would have to find an equivalent sum to redeem bonds.
– There is, one matter that I should like to put right. When I said that the money could not be traced, I was not suggesting that it had been put to improper use. Apparently, in the minds of some honorable senators opposite, I left the impression that I was accusing the Chifley Administration of having done something improper. I was endeavouring to say that, after the lapse of years, it was practically impossible to show exactly what the money had been used for. Undoubtedly it was used for proper governmental purposes.
– I enter this debate because of the misunderstanding that has occurred. I have been accused of knowing nothing about finance, but I have had enough dealings with banks to know when an account is in the red. I am not imputing any wrong motives to honorable senators opposite, but the fact remains that, under the last Chifley budget, there was an -estimated deficit of £35,000,000. The £130,000,000 that was in the National Welfare Fund went into general revenue, -amongst other things to meet the deficit of £35,000,000. I have yet to be convinced that it is possible to expend money and still have it.
– The Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner) has said that it is not possible to trace how the money was expended. That may be a fair statement, but I am sure that if he made some inquiries from his departmental officers he would be able to get a fair idea of what had happened to it. In the budget papers presented by the Treasurer (Mr. Fadden) on the 12th October, there is a statement relating to the National Welfare Fund. On that statement one item is -
Interest on investment of funds, £750,740. -
Can the Minister tell me where that interest has come from?
– I return again to the internal treasurybills to which I have referred. The Government, in effect, .says, “Here is an I O U. Here is the token payment. If we discounted the treasury-bill with the Commonwealth Bank we would be paying 15s. per cent, interest. So, as we have taken your money and used it, we shall give you a chit - these internal treasurybills. We shall credit the fund with interest at the rate of 15s. per cent., and charge that 15s. per cent, as an ordinary working expense of the Government”.
– As there has been not only implied criticism, but also direct criticism of the Chifley Government’s methods of finance, I ask the Minister for Social Services whether there has been any alteration of those methods of finance since this Government assumed office?
– I should like to know whether the transaction that we are now discussing is similar to that which takes place when an ordinary trading company sets aside a certain percentage of its profits as a reserve against contingencies such as depreciation. The money is used, but the reserve is still credited with the amount involved. In effect, what has happened is that the company has saved a certain proportion of its assets for the reserve for which its profits have been set aside.
SenatorSPOONER (New SouthWales - Minister for Social Services) [10.27]. - Replying first to Senator Willesee, there has been no change in the methods of finance up to the present, but honorable senators will probably know that a bill now before the House of Representatives contemplates a certain change. Coming now to Senator Arnold’s question, if this were a transaction by a solicitor he would be bound, in New South Wales, at least, to pay the moneys into a trust account and have that account audited. If an ordinary business concern was involved, the answer would not he so simple. Certain companies, such as shipping companies, make a practice of establishing funds of assets to represent the accumulated charges for depreciation for the good reason that the replacement of capital assets involves such substantial expenditure that unless there is a specific asset for that purpose it becomes involved in the general assets of the company. In other cases reserves are created and the amounts so reserved become involved in the assets of the company.
– I press my question. In the event of the £130,000,000 being required by the National Welfare Fund, would not the Treasury make that sum available immediately ?
SenatorSPOONER (New South Wales - Minister for Social Services) [10.29]. -We are getting into the realm of pure theory. Nobody can say whether the Treasury would be able to produce £130,000,000 immediately on demand. That is a vast sum of money. It would be necessary to look at the whole financial situation of the country before determining whether the money could be provided. I venture the opinion that no Treasurer in the history of the Commonwealth has ever been in a position to produce £130,000,000 at once.
– Order! In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question -
That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.
Question put. The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. M. Nicholls.)
AYES: 25
NOES: 20
Majority . . . . 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolvedin the affirmative.
The Chairman having reported accordingly,
page 2540
– In accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The President having put the question and directed that the Senate should divide,
– I rise to order. Honorable senators had not been given a proper opportunity to resume their seats when the motion was put from the Chair, “ That the Senate do now adjourn “. I am sure that my colleague, the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner), who is in charge of the measure on which discussion has just been interrupted, would like to’ have an opportunity to speak on the motion.
– Under the sessional order at the hour of 10.30 p.m. I am required to put the question, That the Senate do now adjourn “. I formally put the motion and some honorable senators said “ Aye “ and others said “No”. If the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan) had been quick on the up-take he could have spoken before I put the question. The Senate is now in process of division.
– I press my point of order, Mr. President. No honorable senator was in a position to speak to the motion because when it was put from the Chair no honorable senator had had an opportunity to resume his seat. As you are aware, it is disorderly for any honorable senator to speak from other than his proper seat in this chamber. Because no honorable senators were seated when you put the motion, no opportunity was given to any honorable, senator to avail himself of his right to speak to the motion.
– An honorable senator may address the Chair from any seat in this chamber. I have availed myself of the right to do so on many occasions. When I put the question and some honorable senators said “ Aye “ and others said “ No “, I had no alternative but to direct the Senate to divide. However, if there is a keen desire for me to put the question again I shall do so.
– May I point out, Mr. President, that the Sessional Orders have not been suspended, and consequently, when you returned to the Chair at 10.30 p.m., you had to put the formal motion for adjournment.
– When I put the motion, “ That the Senate do now adjourn “, it waB competent for any honorable senator to speak to it. However, in order to put honorable senators at ease, I shall again put’ the question. The question is, “ That the Senate do now adjourn “.
– I should like to make a request to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Ashley) and his confreres that on this occasion they make an exception to the general -rule and, instead of insisting on dividing on the motion for the adjournment of the Senate at this juncture, they should proceed with and complete theconsideration of the Social Services; Consolidation Bill. As far as I anaware, there is only one point at issuebetween the Opposition and the Government on this bill. As far as lies in my power, I am prepared fairly and frankly to answer any questions addressed to me by Opposition senators. I should like the bill to be passed by the Senate tonight because it has yet to be passed by the House of Representatives. I should like to place my departmental officers in a position to pay the first instalment of pension at the increased rate during November and avoid the necessity for payments to be made in the first and second weeks of December, when the post offices are particularly busy. If we can pay the increased pensions to the pensioners quickly and at the same time reduce the pressure of work on the post offices we shall all be more content.
– I have no desire to delay the ‘passage of the bill, but I have been disgusted at the treatment which I have received from the Minister for Social Services (Senator Spooner). To-night, when I asked the Minister about a balance of £131,114,816 standing to the credit of the National Welfare Fund, he said that that money was not in the fund and never had been in it. I then .asked him if I could consult one of his officers on the matter and he consented to my doing so. The information which I obtained from the officer convinced me that the amount of money which I had stated was in the fund is available in the fund. I suggest that we suspend consideration of the bill until Tuesday next to enable the positionto be clarified. A delay of a few days should not make any great difference. By Tuesday, I shall have obtained full’ information on the matter. Honorable senators - on both sides of the Senate have sought to make political capital out of this bill. Opposition senators have asked the Government why, having £13 1,114,81 6 at’ its disposal in the National Welfare Fund, it is not prepared to grant greater increases of pensions and that question has needled members of the Government to retorting that that amount of money is not available in the fund. If, in fact, that money is not in the fund, how can the Minister produce a document which purports to show that an amount of £750,000 had been paid in interest on it ? To what money did that credit relate if not to the balance standing in the National Welfare Fund?
SenatorO’Sullivan. - That was merely a book entry. .
– The Opposition will not yield to the Government’s request that we should continue the debate to-night. We shall seek further information regarding the £131,114,816 which we contend is available in the fund, but which the Minister has described as a myth.
Question put -
That the Senate do now adjourn.
The Senate divided. (Thepresident - Senator the Hon. Gordonbrown.)
AYES: 25
NOES: 20
Majority . . . . 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 2542
The following papers were pre sented : -
Lands Acquisition Act- Land acquired for - Department of the Interior purposes - Meekatharra, Western Australia.
Postal purposes -
Perth, Western Australia.
Seat of Government Acceptance Act and
Seat of Government (Administration) Act-
Ordinances - 1950 -
No. 7- Motor Traffic.
No. 8 - Police.
No. 9 - Police Superannuation.
No. 10 - Seat of Government (Ad ministration ) .
No. 11 - Canberra Community Hospital.
No. 12- Meat.
Regulations - 1 950 -
No. 5 - (Education Ordinance).
Senate adjourned at 10.48 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 November 1950, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1950/19501116_senate_19_210/>.