Senate
1 December 1953

20th Parliament · 2nd Session



The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 153

ADDRESS-IN-REPLY

presentation to the GovernorGENERAL.

The PRESIDENT:

– I desire to inform the Senate that on Thursday last, accompanied by honorable senators, I waited upon His Excellency the Governor-General and presented to him the Address-in–Reply to His Excellency’s Speech on the occasion of the opening of the Second Session of the Twentieth Parliament, agreed to on the 11th November. His Excellency was pleased to make the following reply: -

Mr. President,

I desire to thank you for the AddressiuReply which you hare just presented to me. It will afford me much pleasure to convey to Her Most Gracious Majesty the Queen the message of loyalty from the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia to which the address gives expression.

page 153

QUESTION

UNDESIRABLE LITERATURE

Senator BROWN:
QUEENSLAND

– Oan the AttorneyGeneral, in the absence of the Minister for Trade and Customs, say whether or not it is the sole prerogative of the Minister for Trade and Customs to ban a book? Oan the Minister ban a book on his own initiative, without consulting any other member of thu Cabinet or officers of his department?

Senator SPICER:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I hope that the honorable senator will excuse .me for approaching the answer to this question with some hesitation. I have been placed in charge of the Department of Trade and Customs temporarily. My recollection is that in dealing with such matters a censorship committee assists the

Minister in his determination. However, I shall obtain precise information for the honorable senator and let him have it.

Senator CAMERON:
VICTORIA

– Recently, I received a number of complaints concerning the fact that indecent literature is allowed to circulate in Australia. Consequently, I ask the Minister representing the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the November issue of Peep and the December issue of Man Junior, both of which are registered at the Sydney General Post Office for transmission by post as periodicals? If so, does he approve of the pornographic nature of their contents? If he does not approve of them, is he prepared to notify the persons responsible accordingly, and, failing improvement, to cancel the registration of the periodicals?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · QUEENSLAND · CP

– I undertake to draw the attention of the PostmasterGeneral to the matter to which the honorable senator has referred and to ask him for a considered reply, which I shall communicate to the honorable senator as soon as possible.

page 154

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I preface a question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport by stating that a number of people in South Australia sincerely regret the recent closure of the United States consulate in Adelaide. Will the Minister make representations, through the correct channels, with a view to an early re-establishment of this friendly office which, in the past, meant much to the South Australian people?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Yes, I shall be pleased to do so.

page 154

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LOANS AND FINANCE

Senator ASHLEY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs been drawn to the failure of the Australian £10,800,000 sterling cash conversion loan last week in London, and is be aware that underwriters were obliged to take up to 56 per cent, of the loan? Is it true, as was reported by the editor of the London Financial Recorder, that the failure of the loan was due to

Australia’s false stability and rickety economy ?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I think that that is a matter which comes under the control of my distinguished colleague, the Minister for National Development, who represents the Treasurer in this chamber. Therefore, I suggest that the question be directed to him.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Treasurer inform the Senate whether the Government regards such projects as the development of the harbour works and . the industrial area of Kwinana and the Western Australian comprehensive water scheme as appropriate undertakings to receive assistance when further dollars are secured from the International Bank of Re-construction and Development under the five-year 250,000,000 dollars assistance loan that was negotiated with the bank by this Government? If such projects are not regarded by the Government as appropriate to receive assistance from that type of loan, will the Minister explain why? If such projects are regarded as eligible for assistance, will the Government give complete and sympathetic consideration to their inclusion in the programme of proposed works which has been or will be submitted to the bank?

SenatorSPOONER. - I canvassed the matter to which the honorable senator has referred on a previous occasion. I believe that I told the honorable senator then that although the Government regarded the development of Western Australia as a matter of great importance, Western Australia was in the same position as all the other States in that it received its fair and proper share of the loan moneys that were allocated by the Australian Loan Council. I have said previously that the works to which the honorable senator has referred have provided a great stimulus to the development of Western Australia. Those works were initiated by the Western Australian Government, and it has the prime responsibility to arrange any finance that is required for them. From the Commonwealth’s point of view, the Australian Government will watch with sympathetic interest the progress that is made by

Western Australia. However, the Australian Government is bound by the terms of the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States in connection with the allocation of loan moneys as determined by the majority of the States.

Senator FRASER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer read the report that was published recently in connexion “with, the conversion loan in London, which stated that the underwriters had had to take over 54 per cent, of the conversion loan?

Senator McLeay:

– I rise to order. Is Sena tor Fraser in order in stealing Senator Ashley’s thunder?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! There is no point of order involved.

Senator FRASER:

– Has the Minister read reports that Australian prices stability is false, that the economy of the country has deteriorated during the past year and that the Government has failed completely to stabilize the economy of the country because it has not put value back into the £1 as it promised? “Will the Minister admit now that the poor response to the last conversion loan in London is a definite indication of the Government’s failure and of want of confidence in its policies?

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have seen the newspaper report that the Australian, loan in London was not fully subscribed. T have no information other than that about the matter. Those things happen in loan flotations. I have no doubt that the underwriters, who may he left with a proportion of the loan, will find over a period that they have not made a had bargain. The remainder of the honorable senator’s question had no relation whatsoever to the ‘raising of the loan in London hut was typical of the usual propaganda indulged in by members of the Opposition. In respect of that portion of the question, I refer the honorable senator to a survey of secondary industry in Australia that was made recently by the Di vision of Industrial Development in my department, as a result of which that division produced a report that is a very heartening document for any Australian to read. Regardless of the false alarms that the Opposition is trying to raise by alleging lack of stability in our economy and increasing unemployment, the fact is that Australia’s economy to-day is very strong and sound. Instead of there being any lack of employment, the truth is that we are now approaching a situation in this country of over-full employment; and that is evidence of the fact that the Opposition’s attempt to do great harm to our economy has failed completely. Despite the Jeremiahs on the opposite side of the chamber, Australia is now in a happy position under the present Government.

Later:

Senator ASHLEY:

– I now address a question to the Minister for National Development, who represents the Treasurer in this chamber. If the £10,800,000 sterling conversion loan was undersubscribed by 56 per cent, in London, does it not indicate lack of stability in our economy, as was claimed by the Editor of the London Financial Recorder ? Will the Minister take steps to create a more favorable impression of the Australian economy, which has not only been declared false in London but also designated as rickety and unstable on many occasions in Australia during the past four years?

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– I know that the honorable senator rests most of his hopes of defeating the present Government at the next elections on the success of his propaganda decrying the state of the Australian economy. I can only say that he will be disappointed, because our economy is constantly becoming stronger and is certainly in a much sounder position than it was when the party which he represents was in power.

Senator AYLETT:
TASMANIA

– Is it a fact that the loan to which Senator Ashley has referred failed by 56 per cent, and had to be taken up by the underwriters? If that is so, does the Minister contend that the Australian economy is regarded as sound in London?

Senator SPOONER:

– The answer to the first part of the question is that I do not know. I did not hear the second part of the question.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. . Is it a fact that Swiss francs arc a freely convertible currency, and, therefore, available to make purchases in the United States of America?
  2. If so, is there any restriction imposed on the Australian Government by the lenders as to the countries in which the ]oan may bc expended ?
  3. Does the Government propose to expend the loan by purchases in dollar areas?
Senator SPOONER:

– The Treasurer has supplied the following information in reply to the honorable senator : -

  1. The Swiss francs obtained under the loan will bc freely convertible into dollars which could be used to make purchases in the United States of America.
  2. No.
  3. It has not yet been determined how the foreign currency obtained under the loan will be used.

page 156

QUESTION

JUTE SACKS

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– On the 19th November, 1953, Senator Guy asked the following questions : -

Can the Minister acting for the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture indicate to the Senate the present position in connexion with the supply and cost of bags for potatoes? Does the Jute Controller purchase bags for this purpose, ot hae the practice of private procurement been reverted to?

I now have the following information in reply to the honorable senator’s questions : -

  1. There are adequate supplies of cornsacks available for potatoes from the Australian Wheat Board stocks, the present selling price of which is 47s. Gd. a dozen ex store.
  2. The Commonwealth Jute Buyer is the sole buyer of cornsacks for potatoes and other purposes. The Government is considering the future policy relating to the purchase and distribution of jute goods, including cornsacks, and discussions will be held with interested organizations in the near future. The Potato Marketing Boards in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have been advised of this intention.

page 156

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH BANK

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. If he is not in a position to give a reply forthwith, will he be good enough to obtain the information from his colleague as soon as possible? Is he aware that the Commonwealth Bank still persists in refusing to grant accommodation to municipalities, water supply and sewerage authorities and other semigovernmental bodies which apply to it for funds for the purpose of financing developmental works? Is he aware that private banks, and, in Victoria, the State Savings Bank, are able and willing to make such advances? The reply usually made to these applicants by the Commonwealth Bank is that it has not sufficient funds to meet all requirements. Will the Minister have the matter investigated in order to ascertain why the bank, which these bodies regard as a national institution, refuses to provide funds for developmental works of the kind that I have indicated ? I understand that the private banks are now issuing funds even for hire purchase finance. I should be pleased if the Minister would give me some information on this matter because it is of vital importance to Australia’s development.

Senator SPOONER:
LP

– The honorable senator’s question is not easy to answer. I would say first that, by and. large, there is not the slightest doubt that the Commonwealth Bank lends to the utmost of its ability and its capacity to do so, particularly to semi-governmental authorities. The Commonwealth Bank, of course, has two responsibilities. In addition to being a. trading bank, it has a responsibility to safeguard the economy of Australia as a whole. As I said in reply to an earlier question, we are again reaching a state of over full employment, and I have no doubt that the Commonwealth Bank takes that fact into consideration in determining its advances policy. In other words, the bank would take the view that it should not make available to the community financial resources that cannot be absorbed economically by existing man-power and material. Speaking in general terms, I should not think that the honorable senator is not correct when the says that the Commonwealth Bank is not making advances to the same degree as are the private banks and the savings banks.

On the contrary, the Commonwealth Bank has, proportionately, a larger share of that business than the private banks if its savings banks activities are included.

page 157

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister representing the Postmaster-General inform “the Senate of the cost of providing a residence for the postmaster at Margaret River, Western Australia? I should like to know the cost of the prefabricated house, the cost of transporting materials to Margaret River, the cost of construction, and any other costs that have been incurred?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I shall ask the Postmaster-General to look into the matter and let the honorable senator have a considered reply at an early date.

page 157

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Yesterday I made arrangements with the Repatriation Department in New South Wales to send a car for ex-CorporalF. W. Hiscocks, No. 77782, who is suffering severely from dermatitis. The car conveyed him to the Repatriation Department, where Dr. Flynn saw him. He did not examine Hiscocks, but told him that he had better get himself admitted to a public hospital. This man receives a 30 per cent, pension because ho is suffering from dermatitis. Mrs. Hiscocks came to see me last night. Roth of her legs were in irons. She informed me that she had had no sleep of any consequence for three weeks, and that she was unable to give her husband any further attention. Will the Minister extend the hand of humanity in this case by instructing the Sydney branch of his department to arrange for Hiscocks to be admitted to the Concord Military Hospital ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– Surely the honorable senator does not expect me to be able “to answer that question offhand. However, I assure him that I will look into the matter. I will furnish him with a considered reply in due course. On the 25th November, Senator Hendrickson addressed to me the following questions : -

  1. What is the number of special rate pensioners under the Australian Repatriation Act?
  2. What are their respective classifications, i.e., blinded, totally and permanently incapacitated, tubercular, or other?
  3. Do they or their dependants participate in free medical treatment and free medicineas provided to other pensioners?
  4. If not, what is the reason?

The following answers are now furnished : -

  1. 13,044
  1. The special rate pensioners receive free medical treatment for all disabilities accepted as due to war service. They also receive active remedial treatment in respect of any discase or disabling condition not due to war service except an infections or contagious disease, alcoholism, drug addiction, or a chronic or incurable disease requiring treatment inan institutionfor a prolonged period. The dependents of special rate pensioners are not eligible to receive free; medical treatment.
  2. Provision has never been made under the repatriation regulations for treatment of dependents of incapacitated members.

page 157

QUESTION

MILK

Senator COOPER:
CP

– On the 19th November, Senator Laught asked the following question: -

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Health aware that in some parts of Australia difficulty is being experienced in the supply and distribution of milk to school children? Where such difficulties occur, will he investigate the possibility of supplying to school children instead of milk a piece of mild cheese wrapped in cellophane?

The Minister for Health has now furnished the following reply: -

I am aware that in some parts of Australia difficulty is being experienced in the supply and distribution of free milk to school children. However, the scheme is being implemented in stages, and as these difficulties are overcome, additional schools are being included in the scheme.For example, in areas where it is not practicable to supply whole milk, the question of using powdered or evaporated milk is examined. The scheme operates under the authority of the States Grants (Milk for School Children) Act 1950, and there is no provision in this act which would enable cheese to be distributed as an alternative to milk.

page 157

QUESTION

HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES

Senator CAMERON:

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by pointing out that I have received many letters from age pensioners, complaining that private medical practitioners are not permitted to prescribe life-saving and other expensive drugs for age pensioners who have previously been inmates of public hospitals, here they were treated with such drugs, ft appears that when they were discharged not cured, due to lack of accommodation, they reported to private medical practitioners for further treatment. Will the Minister say whether free life-saving drugs are withheld from age pensioners in those circumstances?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– I am not aware that free life-saving drugs are withheld from age pensioners. However, I shall direct the attention of the Minister for Health to the honorable senator’s question, and obtain a considered reply for him.

page 158

QUESTION

COST OF LIVING

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that the prices of flour, bread, and eggs - three items in the regimen relating to the C series index - have been increased ? In view of these increases of food costs, does the Government intend to introduce legislation this session to amend the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, in order- to provide that the Commonwealth Arbitration Court shall give effect to fluctuations in living costs? Will the Minister say whether the Government intends to continue to collect information relating to the C series index or to abandon that activity?

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I believe that there have been some fluctuations, both upwards and downwards, in items in the C series index. I should have thought that the honorable senator would know that this Parliament has no power to introduce legislation requiring the court to restore quarterly adjustments of the basic wage. This Parliament can provide the machinery for conciliation and arbitration, but it has not the legislative power to direct the court as to the manner in which it shall settle industrial disputes.

page 158

QUESTION

BERRY FRUITS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister for Shipping and Transport aware that a trade treaty has been sighed between

Japan and China for the supply of £30,000,000 worth of Japanese goods to China ? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether consideration could be given to finding markets in Asian countries for jams, fruit juices and fruit pulp made from black and red currants, raspberries, strawberries, loganberries and gooseberries produced by the Tasmanian berry fruit industry which is in a very serious position and is badly in need of markets? If markets cannot be found for these fruits in Asian countries will the Minister make representations to the supply officer of the United Nations forces in Korea with a view to obtaining a substantial order for the products of the Tasmanian berry fruit industry?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– Government representatives are constantly inviting the attention of other parts of the world to the goods that Australia has to offer. I understand that one of the factors affecting the export sales of Tasmanian berry fruits is the price of that fruit. The subject of future assistance for the industry is now under consideration and when I am in a position to make a statement on it I shall do so.

page 158

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator CRITCHLEY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture seen press reports from London which strongly criticized and condemned the bad quality of some Australian beef, particularly cow beef, which has been exported in excessive quantities? If these reports are true what steps does the Government propose to take in order to redeem the good name of most Australian meat exporters?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– Australia has had a good name for many years as a beef exporter. Honorable senators will appreciate that the Government has an army of inspectors which exercises a strict control over the quality of exported goods. I am not in a position to make an immediate statement on the matter to which the honorable senator has referred, but I know that it is being examined by the Australian Meat Board and as soon as I receive the report of the board I shall provide the honorable senator with a copy.

page 159

QUESTION

ADVERTISING

Senator SPICER:
LP

– On the 15th Octoter, Senator Ryan asked the following -question : -

Will the Minister for Trade and Customs inform the Senate whether it is a fact that a number of publications which are permitted entry into Australia contain advertisements which feature articles the importation of which is prohibited. If this is so, will the Minister correct the position by prohibiting the entry of publications containing such advertisements lt Will the Minister also recoup persons who have paid moneys for any such advertised goods and who have subsequently had the goods confiscated under customs regulations?

The following answer is now supplied : -

There are publications which carry advertisements for what are possibly prohibited imports. However, in many instances it is not possible to ascertain that fact unless the goods are subjected to a physical examination. The honorable isenator will also appreciate that it would be undesirable to prohibit the importation of what may otherwise be commendable publications solely because they contain advertisements regarding goods which may on examination be found to be prohibited imports. I would point out that it is not possible in terms of the Customs Act to compensate persons from whom prohibited imports have been seized and I am sure that the honorable senator will agree that such a course could not be justified because importers can inquire from the Department of Trade and Customs as to the likelihood of any particular articles being declared prohibited imports and so safeguard themselves from possible forfeiture of the goods on arrival.

page 159

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport say whether it is a fact that, despite the organized tornado of abuse and propaganda indulged in by the members of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party against the Australian Labour party last week, the Australian Labour party candidate was returned with a greatly increased majority at a byelection held in Queensland last Saturday? Is it a fact that the press generally either did not consider the matter of sufficient news value or was ashamed to announce that the Australian Labour party had won that by-election?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I have not had an opportunity to study the report, but I can assure the honorable senator that he will receive a shock when the results of the

Gwydir by-election are announced, having regard to the way in which the members of his party are quarrelling with one another.

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– Does the Minister for Repatriation agree with the reported statement of the federal president of the Australian Country party, Sir Earle Page, that the Liberal party is out to smash the Australian Country party ?

Senator COOPER:
CP

– The statement which the honorable senator has attributed to Sir Earle Page may or may not be true, but I have not seen it.

page 159

SENATOR R. C. WRIGHT

Senator BENN:

– Is the Minister foiShipping and Transport aware that Senator Wright, who, in this chamber on the 25th October, spoke with more wrath than reason concerning certain legislation which was being considered by a State parliament, wished to absent himself from this week’s sitting of the Senate in order to earn fees in a court-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! That question is not in order.

page 159

QUESTION

IODIZED SALT

Senator CRITCHLEY:

– In view of the fact that recently the Department of Health reminded residents of Canberra and district that they should use iodized salt, will the Minister representing the Minister for Health ensure that, in future, iodized salt will be used at all times in establishments under the control of the Department of the Interior, instead of haphazardly, as at present?

Senator McLEAY:
LP

– I shall refer that matter to my colleague, the Minister for the Interior, and see that the honorable senator gets an extra issue.

page 159

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Senator COOKE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice -

  1. Will the Minister furnish the Senate with full information regarding the massacre in New Guinea of Cadet Patrol Officer Geoffrey Harris, Patrol Officer Gerald Leo Szarka anil six natives?
  2. Is it a fact that a new policy of sending untrained men into uncontrolled territory was responsible for the deaths of Messrs. Harris and Szarka ?
  3. Will he give details of any new policy, and was the previous practice departed from or altered; if so, on whose authority?
Senator SPICER:
LP

– The following statement, which has been prepared by the Minister for Territories, shows that two Europeans and two natives were killed, and not two Europeans and six natives as alleged : -

During the last fortnight, honorable senators have asked several questions relating to the killing of Administration officers near Telefomin in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea and I promised that as soon as I had received a full report I would give fuller information. The Administrator of the Territory has now forwarded tome a preliminary report by Mr. A. Timpcrley. District Commissioner for the Sepik District, with a covering report by the Director of District Services, Mr. A. A. Roberts.

The known facts arc that Mr. Harris, a cadet patrol officer, left Telefomin on a patrol to the eastern end of theEliptiman Valley on or about the 27th October, 1953, accompanied by three native constables, a medical orderly, a personal servant who could act as interpreter, and a small number of carriers. The purpose of the patrol was to conduct a census of nearby villages, all of which had been visited many times before. He arrived at the village of Teraptavip on the 4th November, conducted the census, and remained in the village on the 5th November. Harris was sleeping in the rest house in the village and the other members of his party occupied the police barracks. Early in the morning of the 6th November it is alleged that a group of natives arrived, with the ostensible purpose of engaging in barter. Apparently by prearrangemcnt, however, some of the group surrounded the police barracks and other members of the group stormed the rest house and attacked Harris while he was still sleeping. As he stumbled out of the rest house he was again attacked before he couldbe brought under the protection of the constables, one of whom had been badly wounded and two of whom had lost their rifles in the struggle at the police barracks. The. medical orderly, Bunat, mid the wounded constable, Kombo, who still had his rifle, defended Mr. Harris and attended tohis wounds. The attackers retreated but hemmed in the area, occupied by the barracks and rest house. Later in the day, after having setfire to the barracks, they fled. Mr. Harris died of his wounds late in the afternoon and his body was taken into Telefomin by the members of his patrol and friendly natives.

It appears that the patrol officer in charge : tt Telefomin, Mr. Szarka, left Telefomin on the 3rd November, accom pan ied by three con stables, an interpreter, a personal servant aud a small line of carriers. As far as can be ascertained, he intended to patrol the northwestern end of theEliptiman Valley. He apparently camped on two successive nights at the villages of Okfekamun and Inantegin. His body was found at the village of Misimim, on the Dornier River. The remains of one of the constables, . Buritori, were also found in thevicinity. It is assumed from reports received from natives that his patrol was attacked at Misimim on the same morning as the attack on Harris.

Reports have been received from natives that another constable, Purari, a member of Mr. Szarka’s patrol, was killed at Komdavip and his body was subsequently recovered there.

It would appear that, after starting out, Mr. Szarka further divided his party. This action and the fact that the two European officers were patrolling separately instead of together is found incomprehensible by the District Commissioner.

No eye-witness of these three last-mentioned killings has been interviewed.

Investigation of the whole series of incidents is being continued by District Commissioner Timpcrley, who has already been provided with special assistance in the way of staff and materials for that purpose. Mr. Timperley estimates that it may take as long as six months for him to complete the investigation. In his report he describes the area of operations as follows: -

The area wherein the murders were committed is confined to the valley drained by the Dornier River. The general name for the valley is Eliptiman. The Donner River enters the Sepik River at a point approximately 20 miles west-north-west of Telefomin. The western extremity of the valley, i.e. in the vicinity of Misimim, is narrow, steep and heavily wooded. Hamlets are located on razor-backed ridges and for the most part comprise only a few houses, the approaches to which are steep and consequently exposed. Roads linking hamlets run across the grain of the country with the result that travelling involves great inconvenience. The high mountain peaks rise to 8,000 and 0,000 feet. The country is for the most part rain and moss forest. The nature of the country provides every advantage to the people involved in the murder of Mr. Szarka and Constable Buritori.

The eastern extremity of the valley is more open and patches of grassland exist. It was in this area that Mr. Harris was murdered at Teraptavip. I have not been in the area but the view from the western end of the valley and from the air leads one to believe that patrolling is not difficult …

The whole Eliptiman valley has a population of only 1,800-2,000 natives in an area of about 200 square miles. Present reports indicate that only two small factions were involved in the killings. Following the attacks, those natives thought to be implicated took to the bush, and removed their possessions from their villages - an action which indicates that they will try to remain in hiding and avoid questioning.

In all other respects the situation in the immediate vicinity of Telefomin is reported to be normal with local natives giving ready co-operation to the officials.

The Director of District Services reports that the natives of the area have had reasonably long contact with Europeans, hut this was of a sporadic nature until 1948 when the patrol station was permanently established. The savagery they exhibited on the present occasion had not previously been encountered and was not possible of anticipation. The fact that the native constables accompanying the patrols had no warning of the attacks is considered, by the Director to confirm this view. It was contrary to instructions which had been specifically given by the District Commissioner for the two officers to go on patrol separately and with so small a patrol party and this disregard of instructions also suggests that they had no idea of any danger threatening.

The area has been patrolled several times in the past, the people have co-operated in the taking of village censuses, and have also kept up rest houses and police barracks in their villages for the reception of patrols. Roads have been maintained by them.

The causes of the attacks will not be known until the investigation has been completed. The opinion of the District Commissioner is that the reason is deep-seated and that it could reflect back to the initial impact during the war years. The District Commissioner’s investigations to date indicate that the attack wass premeditated and local natives state definitely that it was not one of “ pay-back “ for the loss of carriers who were drowned during a government patrol a few months ago. I suggest that, until the true cause of the attack is known as the result of a careful investigation, speculation and surmise should be suspended.

No.

No new policy had been made and no new practice had been authorized.

page 161

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Reports

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– I present reports of the Public Accounts Committee on the following subjects: -

Eighth Report - Parliamentary procedure in the House of Representatives on the Supply and Appropriation Bills.

Ninth Report - “ Stephan “ Prefabricated Buildings, together with Treasury Minutes on First and Third Reports of the Committee, and Statement on the Privileges and Immunities of Members of the Committee.

page 161

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA (VALIDATION OF APPOINTMENTS) BILL 1953

Motion (by Senator Spicer) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an Act to remove doubts as to the validity of the appointments of the Chief Judge and other judges of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and Now Guinea and of certain officers of the Public Service of that Territory.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER (Victoria- Attorney-

General) [3.45]. - I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to remove certain doubts that have arisen in regard to the validity of the appointments of (a) the Chief Judge and other judges of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea ; and (b) certain officers of the Public Service of that Territory. Under section 59 of the Papua and New Guinea Act 1949-50 it is provided that the Chief Judge and each other judge shall be appointed by the GovernorGeneral by commission under the seal, of the Commonwealth, and may he removed from office by the Governor-General on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity, but shall not otherwise bp removed from office.

During 1949, Chief JudgeF . B. Phillips and the three other judges constituting the Supreme Court - Judge Gore, Judge Bignold and Judge Kelly - were appointed by commission under the hand of the GovernorGeneral pursuant to section 59 of the act. However, in each of the commissions, the tenure of office was expressed to be subject to the pleasure of the Governor-General. Doubt was recently expressed whether this was consistent with the provisions of the statute. The Government’s legal advisers considered that, notwithstanding such restriction on the tenure of office which each commission purported to impose, the appointments as made were valid, but that it would nevertheless . be advisable to remove any question of doubt by validating legislation.

The present bill is designed to do this. Tlie bill also provides for the reappointment by the Governor-General, by commission under the seal of the Commonwealth, of the Chief Judge and of the three judges concerned; for the seniority to be assigned to the judges, upon re-appointment, to be according to the dates of their respective original commissions - the Chief Judge’s seniority is already adequately provided for by section 58 (5.) of the act, which specifies that the Chief Judge shall be the senior judge of the Supreme Court; for a person re-appointed as Chief Judge or judge under the provisions of the bill to hold office as if it were an appointment under section 59 of the act, and for the tenure of office after re-appointment to be deemed to be a continuation of his tenure of that office before re-appointment.

Sub-clause 4 (4.) applies to the special case of one of the judges who, before the date of his reappointment under the provisions of this bill, will have reached the age of 65 years. Section 59 (4.) of the act says that a judge who has held office as judge of the Supreme Court of Papua-New Guinea may continue in office during the pleasure of the Governor-General after he has attained the age of 65 years. Judge Gore will be in that position after his re-appointment in the terms of the present bill. The present bill simply recognizes Hint situation and provides that, in keeping with the provisions of the present act, he shall continue in office during the Governor-General’s pleasure.

Doubt has also arisen with regard to i hrs validity of certain appointments thai, have been made to the Public Service of the Territory. Pursuant to the provisions of section 30 (2.) of the Papua and New Guinea Act, the Governor-General, by instrument dated the 29th June, 1949 dole-gated to the Minister for External Territories power to make appointment-; to the Public Service of the Territory. On the 11th May. 1951, the Department, of External Territories was abolished and the Department of Territories created. Legal opinion has been given that when this administrative change was made, the instrument of delegation to the Minister for External Territories ceased to bt effective and should have been replaced by one in favour of the Minister for Territories. The present bill is, therefore, designed to validate those appointments purported to have been made by the Minister for Territories from the time of the abolition of the Department of External Territories in May, 1951, to 25th June, 1953, when an instrument of delegation to the Minister for Territories under section 30 (2.) of the act was issued by the Governor-General. I commend the bill.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– Thanks to arrangements that were made by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), the Opposition has had an opportunity to consider this measure. We recognize that there should be no possible doubt about the validity of the appointment of judges in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, and we concede, too, that it is not desirable that there should be any doubt about the validity of appointments of officers in the service of the Territory. For those reasons, the Opposition supports the measure.

I think that I might let the matter rest there with, just the one comment that in perusing the bill and listening to the Attorney-General’s second-reading speech, one learns that judges are appointed in the Territory until they reach the age of 65 years. Of course, it would not be possible under the Constitution to do that in Australia. However, that position merely directs attention to the fact that the Australian Government has really plenary ‘ powers in dealing with its territories. Whilst, in Australia, appointments could not be made to a court that limited the tenure of judges that procedure can be and has been followed in respect of the territories. I assure the Attorney-General that his second-reading speech fully sets out the purposes of the bill. The Opposition cordially supports the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 163

THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES BILL 1953

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate in this bill.

page 163

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1953 [No. 2]

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill, (on motion by Senator Cooper) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Australia is fortunate in having found it possible, not only to develop a national health scheme whose principles have earned the unanimous approval of those most qualified to speak in 53 countries of the world, but also to have it operating smoothly, efficiently and economically over the whole of the continent, before the final legislation incorporating the scheme in the law is ratified by the Parliament. A happy augury in this is that, as Treasurer in the ‘twenties, the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) was able to have a voluntary loan council working for four years with such satisfaction to the people of Australia that the Financial Agreement on which it was based was incorporated in the Constitution by a four to one vote in every State in Australia.

The most important thing in the world is individual and national health. Once people cease to live, the other issues, however important they seem, no longer concern them. Good health is the first priority of the whole world. Its attainment places tremendous responsibility on the medical profession because medical direction and medical knowledge are indispensable. The medical profession must therefore be ready to make its best minds available for this purpose; in fact, it should insist that these minds should be used to the full in all health schemes. To secure health, medical direction and contacts with all countries and their health plans are indispensable. Unfortunately, this need is not generally recognized. Engineers are always called in to build dams, railways or roads, and lawyers to draft new laws. There is a much greater need for calling in doctors to plan for health, on which life itself depends. Good health speaks all languages. It is therefore especially valuable to get such medical direction and contacts from all countries. The common frame of human anatomy, physiology and pathology automatically binds all people of all races. Good health is the one great common interest of all peoples. The consistent pursuit of health in unison by all governments and peoples of the world may easily be the magic talisman that will give us that universal peace so necessary to enable the devotion of the whole of our human and physical resources to the improvement of the health and happiness of mankind. In fact, the whole complicated processes of modern civilization, such as transport, communications generally, power development, and so on, are really designed to make available supplies of water, food, clothing, housing, schools, hospitals, and even recreation, so as to sustain or prolong healthy life.

A national health scheme, to be permanently successful, must be something much more than can be stated in figures or money. It must have substantial social and moral values which are intangible and not measured in money terms. Restoration of health and prolongation of life is the task of the physician, who must be dedicated to the practice of the healing art, just as the priest is dedicated to the saving of souls. The work of those dedicated to medicine and religion is essentially personal and individual. It is the person with his idiosyncracies. allergies and family heredity and personal and. financial problems who must be cured. It is the individual with his physical and mental disease and his own peculiar symptoms who must be treated. It is personal, continuous contact of the doctor, with an interest in the patient and his family, that must be maintained. These results can best be secured by maintaining the position, prestige and fullest usefulness of the general medical practitioner. His intimate contact and knowledge of the history, constitution, life and circumstances of the patient, make the preservation of his opportunity to use to the full all modern improvements in knowledge and technique, one of the mostimportant factors in a national health scheme. The report of the General Practice Review Committee set up by the Council of the British Medical Association in London states - . . the general practitioner is the only person whose view ranges over the whole complex field of modern practice. He selects’, on behalf of his patients, from his knowledge of the scope and potentialities of all the special branches of medicine, those services and those specialist practitioners’ most suitable for the individual needs of the patient.

Australia is fortunate in that although its method of government may have diverted national commercial development, yet the conditions produced have stimulated the quality and capacity of the general medical practitioner. Country hospitals, situated hundreds of miles from big centres, have been built. Eor many years a very inadequate system of transport and communications forced local doctors, without the assistance of metropolitan specialists, to many surgical and medical activities and to make considered diagnoses with the aid of their nearest available colleagues. Australian general practitioners have worked in two wars alongside those of many countries, as well as practise throughout Australia, and one can confidently say that their capacity, energy and enthusiasm are as high as anywhere else in the world. Britain, has one of the best specialist systems in the world; but its present national health service is causing deterioration of general medical practice.

It is interesting to consider the reasons why the quality of Australian medical practice is so high. At the turn of the century, many new medical and surgical techniques and processes were discovered and applied. Our medical schools, then in the first flush of their youth, began to turn out graduates from relatively small classes which gave students most intimate contact with their teachers. The medical men who migrated from Britain and Ireland to a new country such as Australia were also mostly young men with the new knowledge, so that we had a wonderful basis on which to build, as well as the general geographical set-up I have just men tioned. The aim of our scheme is to conserve this high quality of general medical practice, as well as high specialist efficiency. Only recently, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and the Minister for Health discussed, with the leaders of medical education, the problem of maintaining high teaching standards in Australia. The fact that the general medical practitioner may follow his cases in suburban as well as in country hospitals, as I have mentioned, has been of tremendous assistance in the general high result. Recent reports on the British service reveal that the great fault of that system is the deterioration of the general medical practitioner due to inadequate hospital contacts and to lack of time for proper examination because, under the panel system, a doctor may have several thousand people to care for. In one startling paragraph the report of the committee which investigated the working of the British national health scheme condemned a prevalent practice of doctors examining the abdomen with the patient standing up fully clad, because of lack of time.

The most important point in medical treatment is complete and early examination and diagnosis, whether the treatment is later given by a general medical practitioner or by a specialist. It is imperative to preserve this cardinal feature of complete and early examination and diagnosis. This was emphasized by the Minister for Health in his address to the World Medical Association conference at The Hague last September, and he received letters from leaders of the profession in various countries saying how right he was in his approach. Apart from this aspect, it is absolutely necessary foT the doctor to have time to be the friend and confidant of the patient and his family.

Retention of the intimate doctorpatient relationship must also be supported by social and psychological factors that build up the morale, indepen-‘ dence, benevolence and community spirit of the individual. The presence of these social factors enables individual financial risks, like costs of sudden or serious catastrophic illness, to be averaged on a community basis. This system of averaging by the use of insurance, amounts to payments for these costs on a time-payment plan. Its success is assured by the fact that over the whole nation the proportion of illness each year is fairly constant, even though the sickness of the individual occurs spasmodically. The development of these psychological factors is promoted by a nation-wide partnership of the Government, the individual, all the providers of medical and therapeutic services and the voluntary organizations that have specialized in providing benefits for the sick. Such a partnership can use all these agencies in making a national health programme run smoothly. The principle of the Government’s national health scheme, therefore, is to build up such a partnership of mutual aid, supported and stimulated by governmental aid. Substantial government aid towards meeting the cost of hospital and medical care and treatment is, however, only a small part of the assistance given. As well, the Government’s approach to the problem offers many intangible benefits to the moral and social uplift of community life and co-operation that cannot be measured in money terms. These have great influences in maintaining a social balance in both the individual and the community in these difficult, threatening and uncertain times.

This scheme has been made to work despite constitutional and administrative difficulties inherent in our federal system, especially where, as in this case, the subject-matter of health is constitutionally a State obligation. It is true that in 1946, an amendment, primarily intended to place child endowment payments beyond constitutional doubt, added to the Constitution a clause covering a fragment of the subject of health. By this clause, provision could be made by the Commonwealth for pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits and medical and dental services, but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription. The Commonwealth already had constitutional powers over quarantine. Thus, the total health powers of the Commonwealth, apart from its appropriation power in clause 96, cover only a small portion of the health field. Registration of doctors is only possible by the Commonwealth in its own territories. It has been necessary to include a special clause in this bill to ensure that a medical practitioner who is employed by the Commonwealth is entitled to perform, on behalf of the Commonwealth, the duties of his profession in any other State or territory notwithstanding that he is not registered in that other State or territory. When this subject was before the Parliament iri 1946, the Minister for Health pointed out that the minimum satisfactory constitutional course, if the Federal Government really wished to deal with health, was to give the Commonwealth concurrent power with the States in health. Placing the word “ Health “ as one of the placitums in section 51 of the Constitution would do this. Commonwealth health powers and legislation would then be placed beyond legal or constitutional doubt. This advice was not heeded. Now, by the irony of fate, we are in the unenviable position of having to make bricks without much constitutional straw, and not too much clay, and to do it on a legal foundation that already has been challenged on constitutional grounds before the High Court.

In these difficult circumstances the following three factors have contributed to our success in framing a workable scheme: First, the co-operative approach that we have adopted; secondly, the possession of a medical background that understands the practical problems of the sick; and, thirdly, the tackling of the problem gradually, step by step. By this approach, the whole Australian health system is now working as a partnership between individual citizens, the healing professions, insurance and hospital organizations, and State and Federal governments, with a minimum increase in governmental officers and a maximum use of self-help and voluntary co-operation. Each partner has specific functions and obligations and a wide power of control over the implementation of its specific field. Every partner’s aim is to cure disease, to shorten the duration of sickness, and to make the scheme pay more than it costs by getting sick people back into their normal occupations as quickly as possible.

The whole scheme was set out to the British Commonwealth Medical Congress in Brisbane, in May, 1950. This bill describes the method of its implementation, and its detailed provisions were set out fully to the Parliament in March last.

The following four features are indispensable to the permanence of the scheme : First, the quality of medical service must be kept high; secondly, the cover of the people must be very wide; thirdly, the costs of the scheme must be controlled; and, fourthly, hospital administration must be kept solvent. A comparison of these features with those of previously proposed Australian schemes, and health schemes operating in other countries, will show to the advantage of the present legislation. I have already indicated how our methods have maintained and even improved the quality of medical and hospital treatment. Early and accurate diagnosis by the general medical practitioner determines early and successful treatment, and especially early reference of serious cases to specialists. This is encouraged by adequate insurance cover. The shortening of the duration of disease, the quicker recovery of the patient, and the lessening of cost to all sections of the community depend greatly on this early diagnosis. The division of the schedule for medical benefits into a compulsory minimum range for general practitioner benefits, which must be covered by every insurance organization, and an optional schedule for specialists, which may or may not be covered, makes the minimum cost payable for the general practitioner schedule a very low premium. In actual practice, people are insuring for the greater cover. The cover possible under the present Australian scheme is at least equal to that of any other scheme in any other country, and much greater than most, in many ways. First, that section of the community that is least able to fend for itself - pensioners and their dependants - is provided with a comprehensive medical treatment and medicine service free of charge to the pensioner. In addition, 12s. a day is payable in respect of a public hospital. Under the bill, a “ pensioner “ is a person to whom, or in respect of whom, there is being paid -

  1. an age pension, an invalid pension, or a widow’s pension, under the Social Services Consolidation Act 1947-1949;
  2. a service pension, under Division 5 of Part III. of the Repatriation Act 1920-1949 ; or
  3. an allowance under the Tuber culosis Act 1948.

It will be seen that the pensioner medical service covers the treatment of active tuberculosis cases. Although acutely infectious, the sufferers are given special allowances, which I shall describe, and while a sufferer is unable to work he is paid an invalid pension. Both of theseallowances entitle sufferers from tuberculosis to free medical treatment and medicine. Their hospitalization is free in public hospitals.

Second, a voluntary insurance system has been evolved whose terms for insurance are extraordinarily low, by reason of a substantial governmental contribution towards benefits. For instance -

  1. By a payment of ls. a week a single person can insure forall the items of medical treatment that are set out in the first, or minimum, schedule. He canbe covered for all the items in both schedules by the payment of ls. 4d. a week, and for hospital benefits to the value of £6 6s. for the . payment of as little as 3d. a week premium.
  2. The premiums payable to insurance organizations by married people, to insure for benefits for the whole of the family and dependants, are ls. 6d. a week for the minimum general medical practitioner service and 2s. a week for the maximum benefits, which include the optional specialist service.’ The minimum premium payable by a married person for hospital insurance is 6d. a week, which ensures a benefit of £6 6s. a week for84 days’ hospitalization. By the payment of a weekly premium of1s., a married person and his dependants oan insure for benefits of £S Ss. a week towards hospitalization.

Persons may insure for increased fund benefits by the payment of relatively increased premiums. Every one is eligible to join the organizations.

The benefits that I have mentioned are the combined governmental and organizational benefits for hospital and medical treatment. For actuarial reasons, organizations must have a limit to the number of days’ hospitalization and the total annual cost of medical treatment. However, the Government’s contribution depends not upon the length of time or the cost of treatment, but on the fact of insurance. From the day that a. person insures, even though the organization’s rules may impose a waiting period before be or his family may receive a benefit, the Government’s contribution, both for medical and hospital benefits, is payable through the organization. It will be continued for the duration of the illness, provided the patient is insured with an approved organization.

The Government’s benefit and insurance contribution are paid for ordinary consultations and visits to doctors, as well as for major sicknesses. This enormously w idens the scope of the service. It has been estimated that this provision accounts for from 50 per cent, to 60 per cent, of the cost of the benefits. In many countries these expenses, which are individually small in’ themselves, are not paid nut of insurance funds, but through a system of co-insurance in which the patient bears the first £5, £10, or £20 of the cost of treatment.

Third,, all the insurance organizations in this country provide a cover for a married man and his dependants. This is in sharp contrast with the compulsory insurance schemes that were originally passed by British and Australian legislatures, and those of most other countries. Those schemes only cover the employed person; if family cover is desired, additional voluntary insurance must be undertaken. This factor was one of the main reasons why the British system of national insurance by individual contributions was changed into a system under which the cost of the bulk of national health service is paid out of general taxation. However, it is estimated that not more than 90 per cent, of the people of Great Britain avail themselves of the service, although they pay taxes to provide for it, despite the fact that any one in that country who employs a private doctor cannot get free medicine.

Fourth, the width of ‘ the cover is further ensured by the provisions that the Australian Government has made with respect to the aged and those with preexisting and chronic diseases. The insurance organizations which will not insure to cover these diseases are willing to insure coverage for all other diseases. The Commonwealth has said that it will pay to all those who are insured the Commonwealth benefit in respect of those diseases which are not covered by the organizations. Already, however, as a result of the rapid growth of insurance, and the consequent relatively big cross-section of people covered, organizations have improved their conditions, by eliminating age as a bar, by removing from the excluded list chronic diseases which occur after insurance, and by the acceptance, by some organizations, of cases of pre-existing diseases if they are insured in a group of if they have established an equity in the insurance fund by having been insured for two years. These provisions will undoubtedly be extended as the volume of insurance grows, which it is rapidly doing, and the financial resources of the organizations become clearer and more substantial. In fact, some organizations already have covered all those conditions by a slight increase in their premium. Even uninsured persons receive 8s. a day whilst in an approved hospital.

Fifth, a completely universal cover is given to every resident in Australia in connexion with the distribution of free life-saving drugs when ordered on a doctor’s prescription. The Government is removing a very unfair prohibition on the supply of these drugs free to people in public hospitals, which was imposed by the previous Government.

Sixth, children up to the age of thirteen, who attend approved creches, kindergartens and public and private primary schools throughout Australia, are entitled to one-third of a pint of milk every school day. The object of this provision is to build up children’s constitutions and thus save later sickness.

Seventh, it will be observed that all these factors are available throughout the whole continent of Australia. For instance a special feature of the Government’s plan is that hospital and medical insurance can be effected in any part of Australia and no matter where the insured person needs medical care or hospitalization he can secure these benefits. That is, a person insured in northern Queensland may take ill on holidays while in Perth and receive the same benefits as if he had received the care in his home town.

No restriction is placed upon any one who wishes to insure. Encouragement is given by Government subsidy, with special attractions, for every one in Australia to join some non-profit-making, approved insurance organization. The greater the number of persons insured, the greater will be the benefits available. The Commonwealth subsidy towards the cost of medical treatment has resulted in the premium payable by the insured person being made so low that every one can afford to pay the few shillings that will guarantee hospital and medical care when it is needed. Persons in the higherincome group may insure for greater benefits.

Experience in other countries has shown that health plans on a national scale generally have been accompanied by confusion and lack of understanding of procedure due to the complicated -administrative machinery of such largescale planning. The Government is proud that its national health plan has been put into operation with a minimum of inconvenience to every one concerned. The use of existing societies and the coordination of medical services without upsetting long-standing practice and tradition have made for a simplicity, which has been appreciated by the medical profession, hospital authorities, the Government and the public generally. The smooth implementation and operation of the plans have been achieved without setting up a large government department. In order to join an organization a person fills in a form of application showing simply his name and address, date of birth, occupation and details of any illness or disability suffered by him at the time of, or immediately prior to joining. This form can be completed by any person in the community in a matter of a minute or so. When the hospital or doctor’s bill is received the member pays the account and forwards the account, to the insurance organization, which rnakes the refund to him. It would be difficult to find a scheme more simple in operation and less inconvenient to doctors, hospitals, organizations or the individual members.

A further indication of the Government’s desire not to interfere with thi; traditional and accepted practices is thi’ manner in which the doctor-patient relationship has been preserved. The patient is free to choose the doctor he wishes to attend him. If he so desires, he may change his doctor from time to time. At no stage does the Commonwealth come between the patient and his doctor.

The control of costs depends largely on the prevention and elimination of abuse, especially of so-called free services. This bete noire of all social service schemes, especially those entirely paid for by the taxpayer, is being successfully handled by decentralization of control through the medical and pharmaceutical professions, and the insurance organizations, and aided by the cooperation of State governments. The method of control of the medical benefits scheme is specifically designed to prevent abuse. The Commonwealth medical benefits paid are most comprehensive and are set out in the First and Second Schedules to the bill. Benefits in the First Schedule, which cover the ordinary services provided by a general medical practitioner, must be at least matched by the organizations, and most organizations also provide the Second Schedule benefits which are mainly of a specialist nature. Thus, an insured person receives a total benefit of at least double the amount shown in the First Schedule and also receives double the Second Schedule amount if he is so insured. Thus, for a very modest weekly contribution, the contributor and all his dependants receive very substantial benefits which cover the major portion of

Iris medical expenses in the event of sickness, leaving him with only a nominal sum to pay.

Supervision and control of the governmental expenditure are ensured by the fact that the insurance organization at least matches the Commonwealth benefit, pays the combined Commonwealth and fund benefit to the patient, and only receives recoupment for the Commonwealth benefit which it has paid on production of the doctor’s receipt for the whole amount. Thus, the Commonwealth payment is in arrear; that is to say, only on production of the receipted doctor’s bill will the Government benefit be paid to the organization. As payments from its own funds are involved, the organization must carefully scrutinize the account for its own security as well as that of the Government. Also, as the patient pays the balance between the combined benefits and the actual fee, opportunities for collusion are much less than if the whole fee were found out of benefits and the patient had nothing to pay.

The most costly free service in the scheme is the pharmaceutical benefits service, which provides for free lifesaving drugs on a doctor’s prescription to every resident of Australia. This part of the scheme has been operating since August, 1950. During the last year, its costs have been brought well under control by a co-operative partnership with the British Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Guild of Australia. The methods securing this result are unique in the world and will be described subsequently. The previous Government’s attempt to provide free medicine was a complete fiasco. Only 155 doctors out of 8,000 in Australia were willing to prescribe the stereotyped general prescriptions laid down by that Government. In contrast, up to date, under the present Governments’ scheme, over 8,000 doctors, practically the whole of the Australian medical profession, have prescribed 20,000,000 prescriptions of free lifesaving drugs for the sick. The provision of these drugs has had an extraordinary influence in improving the health of patients, and the finance of the hospitals, and has brought a much earlier return to work of the people who were sick. These cumulative benefits to the nation would probably equal the cost to the Government of the free drugs.

The Australian scheme, alone of all the schemes in the world, seems able to keep the number of prescriptions and consequent drug cost under control. The cost in 1952-53 was £800,000 less than in 1951- 52, even though there has been a continuous increase in population. This reduction in cost has been secured although each prescription of free lifesaving drugs under the national health scheme, because of quality and. potency, costs three to four times as much as it would cost in New Zealand or Great Britain or under the previous Australian Labour Government’s scheme. Lifesaving drugs, under the Australian scheme, have proved more effective in combating sickness than have general medicines in other schemes. At the same time, die expenditure on compounded drugs under the pensioner scheme has risen steeply.

The provision of free drugs has proved the Achilles heel of other national health schemes. It must be carefully safeguarded in Australia or else costs will bolt. At the inception of the New Zealand health scheme in 1941, it was estimated that the drug cost to the Government would not exceed £500,000 a year. In 1945-46, it passed the £1,000,000 mark, and in 1953-54, drugs are estimated to cost the Government £3,200,000. During the whole period, since the inception of that scheme, the New Zealand Government drug bill has steadily risen at the rate of from £300,000 to £400,000 per annum. The DirectorGeneral of Health in New Zealand, in his 1953 report, said that one of the main causes of this increase was irresponsibility because of complete freedom from cost to the patient.

The free drug section of the British health scheme was estimated to cost £12,700,000 for the first nine months of 1948-49. In 1951-52, the cost has risen to £43,600,000. Even though a charge of ls. a prescription was imposed in 1952- 53 the estimated cost is still £40,000,000. From inquiries made in London, the cost is still rising, despite the charge which the chemist receives in addition to the government payment. On a similar basis, a comparison of Australian figures shows that the drugs cost £7,327,000 in 1951-52, and £6,486,000 in 1952-53, or approximately £800,000 les3 for the year. The 1953-54 budget figure includes a sum of £1,300,000, which includes a retrospective act of grace payment to give back to State public hospitals the cost of free life-saving drugs denied to them by previous Labour legislation.

The methods evolved to secure this result are unique in the world, and have proved crucial to the whole success of the Australian health scheme. These methods have brought about the most intimate collaboration and planning with the federal council of the British Medical Association and the Federal Pharmaceutical Guild. Machinery has been developed that ensures the policing and disciplining of the whole drug service by the professions actually implementing it.

At this point I cannot speak too highly of the activities of the doctors of Australia, as a whole, in this matter. The medical profession has no pecuniary interest in the proper management of the mechanics of the free life-saving drugs distribution. The interest of the doctors is the welfare of the patients. Yet, the doctors have helped to elaborate machinery, which they are working under regulations, whereby they not merely control free drug provision, but also prevent abuse in other parts of the health scheme. These regulations are reproduced in the bill in order to give them statutory sanction. Part VIII. of the bill, in clauses 105 to 131, deals fully with these matters. Experience has shown that the committees constituted under these rules, are able to exercise control, not only over the free life-saving drugs position, but also over other sections, such as the pensioner medical and medicine services. Their existence and collaboration are seen to be invaluable in our genera] dealings with the whole of the insurance aspect of this scheme as set out in the bill.

Determination of appropriate items of free life-saving drugs is a specialized technical and expert matter. The drugs recommended for inclusion must be decided on medical grounds alone. A specialist advisory committee, therefore, has been appointed by regulation and will now be endorsed by statute to carry out this function. The bill provides, in clause 100, that additional drugs or medicines shall not be prescribed as general pharmaceutical benefits, except in accordance with a recommendation of the committee to the Minister. The constitution of this specialist advisory drug committee, officially called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, consists of four medical experts, one chemist from the Department of Health, one chemist chosen from a panel nominated by the Pharmaceutical Guild, and one pharmacologist.

Control over abuse of the scheme as a whole is vested in the hands of committees of doctors or pharmacists respectively, according to whether abuse is committed by a member of one or other of the professions. A federal medical disciplinary committee is appointed by the Minister for Health. This consists of the Director-General of Health and four doctors chosen from a panel of six nominated by the federal council of the British Medical Association. State committees, with a similar constitution, are also appointed. Pharmaceutical committees are also appointed in a similar way on a Federal and State basis. These committees have wide powers of inquiry, which are fully set out in Part VIII. of the bill. Inquiries already made by these committees, and action taken by the department, have resulted in successful prosecutions and other minor penalties.

The prescription of costly life-saving drugs in adequate doses to patients suffering from appropriate acute diseases has already saved many lives. Many cases of acute disease ha ve been cut short. The necessity for patients to enter hospital has been obviated in thousands of cases. Crippling and often fatal sequelae following acute disease have been prevented. Thousands of men and women workers have been able to return to their normal occupations much earlier, thus adding millions of man-hours to the productivity of the community. Use of such drugs has proved an important factor in the restoration of hospital finance. This phase of the national health scheme is paying for itself by preventing disease, by cutting it shorter if it comes, by quicker convalescence, and earlier return to normal health and activity. In addition, it shows a net gain to the taxpayer. lt has also played a big part in the evolution of machinery for streamlining the working of the health scheme as a whole.

The fourth indispensable feature of a successful national health scheme is that hospital administration must be kept solvent. Hospital revenues have improved rapidly with the operation of the scheme. Before its inception, the hospital system was almost bankrupt. Now it has been changed into one of current surpluses and of optimism that old deficits will be wiped out and new hospital gains built up. It is worth noting that the only other countries in the world where new hospitals are being built are those which have developed voluntary hospital insurance schemes, such as Switzerland, the United States of America, Canada and Sweden.

In Britain the taxpayer, in one way or another, provides the whole huge cost of the health scheme, some £515,000,000 per annum. Despite this enormous expenditure, a British official statement of 1953 points out that their scheme has not yet been able to build a single new hospital. Of the 20,000 health centres, which were said to be indispensable five years ago, the first specially constructed one will be completed this year, and two more are under construction. I shall now show that each step of the Australian scheme improves the general hospital position.

The well-equipped hospital ward has become, since the war, one of our most precious assets. Pressure on man-power, materials and money has made it almost impossible to increase the number of hospital beds. Therefore, a successful health scheme must make the best use of existing beds. The Australian scheme attacks this problem in a co-ordinated way, which aims to lessen the duration of sickness, and while increasing the revenues of hospitals, it also provides a means whereby the patient is able to meet his hospital bill.

First, early diagnosis and treatment of disease are stimulated by the introduction of medical and hospital benefits insurance. Patients frequently delay taking medical advice in the early stages of disease for fear of facing ultimately an overwhelming hospital and medical bill. Insurance removes this fear, and the period in hospital is shortened. The Commonwealth’s medical and hospital benefits scheme enables such bills to be taken care of at a very low premium rate by reason of the Australian Government’s subvention to voluntary insurance. This Government assistance is given and safeguarded in such a way that the insurance organizations handle the whole project in distributing by their traditional methods, both their own and the Government’s benefit.

Second, the new antibiotic drugs given free on a doctor’s prescription to all sections of the community often prevent, and in all cases cut short, the duration of sickness. For instance, in the case of pneumonia the patient may be out of danger inside three days instead of three weeks, as previously. The result is that it is often not necessary for the patient to enter hospital at all. If he does go into hospital, his stay is much shorter than it would have been otherwise. An analysis made in Canberra of the cases able to be treated at home shows that 10 per cent, fewer now enter hospital than previously were forced to do so.

Third, the Australia-wide free milk scheme inaugurated for the first time in Australia in December, 1950, for children under thirteen years of age who attend public and private primary schools and approved kindergartens and creches, will have a definite, beneficial effect on the hospital bed position. More than 750,000 children are obtaining free milk in all the States, and the answer to the problem of children in the outback districts is being carefully sought. The experience of Great Britain in the war, despite its terrific housing problems owing to the blitz, and destruction of houses, accompanied by shortage of many kinds of food, showed conclusively the value of the gift of milk to children. Measurements taken after the war showed that, despite these appalling conditions, this gift of milk had increased the average weight by 2 lb. as compared with, pre-war years, raised the average height by 1 inch, and strengthened the children’s constitutions.

Healthy children are more likely to make healthy adults, with less sickness, less need of hospital treatment, less absence from work, continuous earning capacity and a much longer life. This milk provision will prove to be one of our best national investments. The method of distribution in the schools by senior boys and girls gives an education in community effort and a sense of personal importance that will prove of great value in their ultimate view of life.

Fourth, the Government’s provision of free medical treatment and medicines to pensioners, in which more than 5,000,000 services have been rendered already, enables many of the aged to receive treatment in their own homes. This relieves pressure from that group on the hospital bed position to the extent of 6 per cent, of admissions, and also provides much more comfortable conditions for the pensioners themselves. Many of these pensioner oases are of a chronic nature and usually the patients have a long stay in hospital, thus using beds urgently needed for acute cases. The hospital position is, therefore, helped by the average stay in hospital being shortened because of this service. This provision, which no previous government over contemplated, has given a tremendous psychological fillip to the pensioners.

Fifth, practically all State governments are now charging at least the cost of board in hospital, even though actual nursing may not be charged for. This fact also tends to lessen the time spent in hospital until the patient is cured. Australian hospital statistics show that the average period in hospitals has been reduced from 14-15 days to 12-13 days. This quicker turnover of beds last year saved 1,200,000 bed days, compared with the previous year. In 1953-54 it is estimated that the hospital bed days saved will be much greater than in previous years. The effect on hospital finance is already very striking. Many of Australia’s large hospitals, which last year had big deficits, are now showing surpluses.

The following table illustrates the way in which hospital revenues have increased under the health scheme: -

In Western Australia, in 1952-53, the revenue of public hospitals increased from Commonwealth aid and patients’ fees by £381,000.

In 1952-53, though the hospital insurance scheme had not operated in all States for the full year, the increase of income from Commonwealth aid and patients’ fees, including the additional Commonwealth hospital benefit’ and the insurance organization fund benefit, exceeded £3,500,000.

This improvement in hospital maintenance income leaves other funds available to keep the hospital building programme in line with the needs of an increasing population, and provides the necessary modern and improved equipment necessary to cope with the progress made in medical science.

The improvement in the financial position of large metropolitan hospitals applies equally to small country hospitals. The Dubbo Base Hospital reports that the credit for 1953 is the first since 1947. Likewise, the Yass District Hospital records the first surplus for many years, while the Kyogle Memorial Hospital made history by finishing the year with a credit balance for the first time in eighteen years. These examples could be multiplied many times. The revolutionary change in hospital finance has been achieved in the first year of operation of the hospital insurance scheme, and has given inspiration to hospital administrators throughout Australia. No doubt the president of the Bairnsdale District Hospital, in Victoria, expressed the opinion of many hospital workers when, in his annual report, he stated -

Had it not been for the additional source of revenue derived from the Commonwealth

Hospital Benefits Scheme, the hospital would have shown a substantial deficit on the year’s transactions.

The hospitals tell their own story as to whether the health programme pays. New hope has been given to the members of hospital boards, administrators and all workers in the hospital field. Difficulties, which in the past seemed insuperable, will be tackled and overcome. A new spirit has been born, and this will be reflected in the progress that the relief from financial difficulties will make possible. This will be especially evident among the auxiliary workers, who have given such fine, voluntary assistance to hospitals over many years.

Perhaps the most striking contribution of the national health plan to Australia will be the eradication of tuberculosis and the conversion to general use of the special hospitals now being built for the treatment of tuberculosis, when eradication is completed. All these hospitals are being constructed with this ultimate purpose in view. The first effective step taken to eradicate tuberculosis was in July, 1950. The Government was able to make this successful attack through the presence on the statute-book of an act following on a report by Dr. Harry Wunderly, the present Commonwealth Director of Tuberculosis, and passed by the previous Government in 1948 under the appropriation powers of section 96 of the Constitution, which the present Government parties actively supported. In December, 1949, when we took office, we found that although the bill had been passed in November, 1948, two of the States had not signed the agreements. Immediately approaches were made to the States of New South Wales and South Australia to get into line. The stage was then set for a frontal attack in eradicating the disease.

The first thing done was to draw out of circulation acutely infectious cases who were concealing themselves in the fear that, if they ceased work and underwent treatment, their homes would not be maintained. Until that time, the only allowance they could receive was the invalid pension at the ordinary rate. The Minister for Health immediately discussed the whole matter of allowances with Treasury officials, who were per suaded of the wisdom of making the allowance sufficiently large to assure maintenance of the domestic economy of sufferers. These are the most generous tuberculosis allowances in the world. They are -

Immediately thousands who had been concealing their disease offered themselves for diagnosis and treatment. In Queensland, for instance, where facilities for treatment of tuberculosis and the segregation of patients had been very inadequate, the number notified during the eighteen months after the beginning of the tuberculosis allowances scheme was almost exactly double the number notified in the eighteen months preceding the introduction of the allowances.

At the same time, the Government started a mass X-ray chest service and made financial provision for new hospitals in the States to enable the segregation of tubercular cases from ordinary cases. The succeeding four years have shown most extraordinary results from this policy. Though the number of cases notified has increased, as was anticipated, the number of deaths has been very substantially reduced, falling from 1,964 in 1949 to 1,289 in 1952. The rate of deaths from tuberculosis fell from 25 per 100,000 in 1949 to 14.9 in 1952. At the beginning of the scheme, the number of allowances paid rose steadily to 6,518 in December, 1951. Now the number has fallen to 5,700. This decrease is not due to a falling off in the number of new eases, because the intensive search mentioned has revealed many unsuspected cases, but i3 due to the number of persons returning to full-time employment after being cured, and thus no longer requiring the allowance. Their danger to their family and fellow-workmen has been removed. Patients have been restored to full citizenship. Surely every one will agree that this health scheme is paying for itself !

In 1952-53 the Commonwealth Government provided £1,907,945 for tuberculosis allowances and £2,968,012 for maintenance of tuberculosis hospitals in the States. In the years 1950 to 1953, it provided £2,500,000 capital expenditure for new hospitals for the treatment of tuberculosis and committed itself for a further sum of £4,000,000. Altogether, 1,000 additional hospital beds have been found for patients suffering from tuberculosis, and commitments have been made for a further 1,500. Treatment of such patients in these hospitals is quite free, the Commonwealth finding approximately 80 per cent, of the maintenance cost and the States about 20 per cent. The building programme in every State, which is financed wholly by the Commonwealth, is making provision for special beds for tubercular cases to be well decentralized throughout the State and not confined to the metropolitan districts.

I venture to say that there is no more ‘ interesting story of the attack on tuberculosis in the world than this. Our generous allowances for acutely infectious cases assured its success. These have been described by the tuberculosis journals of Great .Britain as the most generous in the world. I am glad to say that practically every State has now brought in provisions making submission to mass X-ray compulsory.

Before concluding my story of the gradual and steady growth of the Australian national health scheme it is only right that a tribute should be paid to the assistance given by all the officers of the Department of Health and other departments and the co-operation of State governments. However, I should especially like to mention that the continued active working of the scheme depends upon the consistent co-operation of the governments and the community generally, and of the federal organizations which direct the policies of the doctors, chemists and insurance organizations.

On the 12th January, within a month of taking office, the Minister for Health called together representatives of all these bodies, and he would like to thank their organizations as a whole, and the individuals of the organizations, for the loyalty and support that they have shown in this long struggle to present a health plan acceptable to all partners in the undertaking. Especially is he glad to announce that, in the last few months, a federal council of the insurance organizations has been brought into existence. I am sure its advice will be as valuable in the future progress of the national health scheme as that of other federal organizations in the past. He has been struck by the manner in which public interest has been displayed and opportunities for disinterested public service seized by these organizations. He is sure that personal contacts and administrative relationships that the scheme has made inevitable will be invaluable to Australia in the future.

The Government’s well-designed- plan has been accepted by all the people of Australia, as is proved by its smooth operation in practice. In four years since this Government took over the reins of office, successive steps of the scheme have resulted in every stage of life being touched : -

Children are immunized against infection and 750,000 are supplied with free milk.

Young people who are so prone to tuberculosis are protected. .

The most generous allowances in the world, are paid to sufferers from active tuberculosis. The community is protected by such a programme.

Every one is provided with free lifesaving and disease-preventing drugs.

Pensioners are provided with free medical service and free medicines over and above the free life-saving drugs available to every one.

Hospital and medical benefits are made available to encourage earlier diagnosis, and cheapen the cost of hospital, and medical insurance and treatment.

Anomalies regarding age restrictions, chronic diseases, pre-existing complaints, &c, are being rapidly overcome.

These services are estimated to cost, in the current financial year, £31,213,000, or approximately £25,000,000 more than in the 194S-49 financial year, the last complete year during which the Labour Government held office.

The Government is proud of’ its achievements in the health field and believes that the people have endorsed its plans. The fact that approximately 5,000,000 persons are now covered for hospital and medical benefits is proof positive that the National Health Scheme is no longer a fantasy but is, in fact, a reality. In the period of its operation it has become an integral part of the life of the Australian people. Voluntary cooperation, mutual understanding, selfhelp and mutual help breathe the spirit of service into the whole system. They provide a realistic basis for the attempt, on a national scale, to relieve human suffering, prevent sickness, provide the best possible service, and bring to all individuals maximum health and happiness.

Debate (on motion by Senator Benn) adjourned.

page 175

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator SPOONER read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

5.1] . - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In this bill it is proposed to give the force of law to a convention signed on the 14th May of this year by the Governments of Australia and the United S tit tes of America for the avoidance of the double taxation of incomes and the prevention of fiscal evasion. Honorable senators are aware that a similar agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom came into effect in 1947. That agreement has, by relieving double taxation on incomes flowing between the two countries, removed a serious deterrent to the investment of United Kingdom capital in Australia. It was in these circumstances that the Government agreed to talks between Aus- tralia and the United States on the double taxation of incomes.

Australia, like other countries, levies tax on income derived from sources within its territories. Where the recipient of the income resides in the United States of America or is a United States citizen, that income is also subjected to United States tax. Some relief from this double taxation is already granted by the United States, and the convention will not only provide for appropriate relief but will also ensure its continuance throughout the currency of the convention. Double taxation in respect of some classes of incomes is completely eliminated by provisions of the convention which ensure that tax is levied only in the country in which the recipient resides. Income falling within this category includes shipping and air transport profits, pensions, purchased annuities, cultural royalties, remuneration of businessmen on visits up to six months and business profits not derived through a permanent establishment in the country in which the profits arise.

It will be observed that the convention contains a broad definition of the expression “ permanent establishment “, and United States enterprises with a branch, an office or other fixed place of business in Australia will continue to pay Australian tax on profits arising in this country. A United States enterprise which has no permanent establishment in Australia will, of course, be liable for United States of America tax on its Australian profits. In this connexion, I mention that the rate of tax on corporation profits in the United States of America exceeds the Australian company rate of tax. The convention will not, therefore, provide any incentive to American corporations to bring themselves under the residence basis of taxation. In addition to business profits generally, other classes of income not specifically mentioned will continue to bear tax in the country of their origin. The country of residence will not be prohibited under the convention from imposing tax on these incomes but, if it doe3 so, it will be required to allow an appropriate credit to relieve the double taxation. The credit given by the country of residence will reduce the total burden of tax to an amount equal to the greater of the taxes imposed by the two countries on the material income.

A great part of American investments in Australia’ is, of course, to be found in subsidiary companies incorporated in Australia. The profits of these companies will continue to bear the full rate of Australian tax. In addition, dividends paid by these companies to their parent corporations in the United States of America will be taxed by Australia. The rate of tax payable by United States shareholders, whether individuals or corporations, will be limited to 15 per cent, of the dividend. In this respect, it is material to observe that, under the law of the United States of America, these dividends will also be included in the assessable income of the parent corporation. Furthermore, when the parent corporation makes a distribution to its shareholders, the dividend paid will bear the United States tax. It is accordingly evident that there is justification for the maximum rate of 15 per cent, provided in respect of dividends flowing to shareholders in the United States of America. It should not, however, be thought that Australia is being deprived of a just amount of tax in respect of dividends. For example, in the case of a public company the total weight of Australian tax will, at present tax rates, reach almost 9s. for each £1 of profit earned in Australia and distributed to a shareholder in the United States of America.

Honorable senators will note from the terms of the convention that Article X VI. provides that each country will, where practicable, collect tax on behalf of the other country in order to ensure that the benefits of the convention are not. granted to people not entitled to those benefits. Clause 20 of the bill contains the provisions enabling the Commonwealth to fulfil its obligations under this article. Where information is required for the purpose of carrying out the terms of the convention or to prevent fraud or the avoidance of tax, Article XVIII. provides for the exchange of available information between the taxing authorities of the two countries. It is specifically provided, however, that no information shall be exchanged relating to trade secrets or trade processes, and moreover, secrecy will be maintained in relation to information which is exchanged.

The Government is confident that the convention which has already been ratified by the United States of America, will do much to encourage investment in Australia of United States capital which will materially assist in the promotion of this country’s development. As I mentioned previously, a double taxation agreement between the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom has been in force for some years. The relevant provisions of the law relating to this agreement are now included in the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act. It is, however, desirable to incorporate in one statute all the provisions applicable to the double taxation agreement and it is proposed in a separate bill to repeal the existing provisions relating to the United Kingdom agreement. The bill now before honorable senators will, however, ensure that the agreement with the United Kingdom shall continue to have the force of law. In addition, it includes a number of machinery provisions relating to the practical application of both the United Kingdom agreement and the United States of America convention.

Debate (on motion by Senator

Armstrong) adjourned.

page 176

ESTATE DUTY CONVENTION (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator SPOONER read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

It is proposed in this bill to give effect to a convention signed in May of this year between Australia and the United States of America for the avoidance of double taxation on the estates of deceased persons. Under the present law, the estate of a person who dies domiciled in Australia may be liable to double death duties upon personal property situated in another country. Similarly, if the deceased were domiciled outside this country, double duties may be imposed upon property situated in Australia. Certain relief from double taxation is already provided under the laws of Australia and of the United States of America. However, where there is a difference in the rules determining the situation of property, the relief granted may be inadequate.

The purpose of the convention is to preserve the existing practice of granting credits and to ensure a more uniform basis in determining the situation of the property. With the exception of shares in companies, it has been practicable to arrive at mutually satisfactory rules governing the situation of property. These rules accord substantially with those which apply at present for purposes of Australian estate duty, and it is expected that with few, if any, exceptions adequate relief will now be granted. In order to assist in carrying out the terms of the convention, the bill provides for the exchange of information between the taxation authorities of the two countries. Secrecy is to be observed in relation to information exchanged and, moreover, no information will be exchanged relating to any trade secret or trade process. The convention has already been ratified by the United States Government and will become operative when instruments of ratification are exchanged between the two countries.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 177

GIFT DUTY CONVENTION (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give the force of law to a convention signed by

Australia and the United States of America for the avoidance of double taxation of gifts and the prevention of fiscal evasion. The convention is similar in principle to that which was signed by the two countries for estate duty purposes, and will result in the relief of double taxation on gifts. As in the case of conventions signed in respect of income tax and estate duty, the convention for the avoidance of double taxation on gifts has been ratified by the United States Government, and will become operative when instruments of ratification are exchanged between the two governments.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 177

INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 3) 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER (New South Wales - Minister for National Development [5.16].- I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to remove from the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act those provisions which relate to agreements for the relief of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. In my speech on the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill, I mentioned that it was desirable to incorporate in one statute all the provisions of the law relating to double taxation agreements. At the present time, the provisions relevant to the agreement between the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom. are contained in Part IIIb, of the assessment act and the agreement itself is set out in the Third Schedule to that act. It is proposed to omit both Part IIIb. and the Third Schedule from the assessment act and to incorporate corresponding clauses in the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill. It is proposed also to repeal section 159 of the assessment act as from the year of income which commenced on the 1st July, 1953. Under that section, a taxpayer was entitled to partial relief in respect of income taxed both in this country and in the United Kingdom. Following upon the United Kingdom-‘ agreement coming into force, the section became redundant and its repeal will delete provisions which are inoperative in respect of income derived in recent years. If there should be any claims under the section still requiring determination, the provisions of the section will remain in effect for the purpose of settling those claims. Certain amendments of a drafting nature are also included in this bill and are referred to in the explanatory memorandum, a copy of which has been made available to honorable senators. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 178

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION (“REFUND OF CHARGE) BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

[5.201-1 move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize a refund to wheat-growers of moneys collected from them by way of export tax on wheat sold and shipped overseas by the Australian Wheat Board from the 1950-51 crop, known as No. 14 pool, together with interest that such moneys have earned in the meantime. The tax so collected was paid into the Wheat Prices Stabilization Fund, the development and the maintenance of which have been fundamental features of the five-year wheat stabilization plan that expires with the marketing of the 1952-53 crop. This fund is a trust fund and its purpose has been to provide the moneys needed to meet any liability to wheat-growers in pursuance of the Commonwealth Government guarantee under the wheat stabilization plan. The Commonwealth guarantee over the period of the plan has meant that wheat growers would receive in each year of the plan the established costs of production in respect of up to 100,000,000 bushels of wheat exported. If at any time the moneys in the fund, representing wheat industry contributions, should prove insufficient to meet the guarantee, the plan provided that the Commonwealth would then contribute from revenue the further moneys required to do so.

The continuance of strong overseas demands and favorable export prices for wheat for a number of years has precluded any necessity to pay growers from the stabilization fund in respect of the guarantee. In fact, it has been possible in recent years to make repayments from the fund to growers from time to time. At present, slightly over £20,000,000 remains in the Wheat Prices Stabilization Fund, representing about £11,000,000 collected on exports from, the 1950-51 crop - No. 14 pool - and about £9,000,000 collected on the 1951-52 crop - No. 15 pool. Tax collections were suspended during the 1952-53 wheat export year - No. 16 pool. The procedure following the passage of this bill will be that an amount of about £11,000.000, plus interest, will be transferred from the Wheat Prices Stabilization Fund to the No. 14 wheat pool account, and distribution to growers will be effected by the Australian Wheat Board on similar lines to earlier payments to them of the trading proceeds of the No. 14 pool. .This, together with an amount of about £700,000 at present in the trading account, will represent, the final payment on No. 14 pool, and will amount to about ls. 4d. a bushel. The policy of the Government, endorsed by the industry, is that the stablization fund should operate as a revolving fund and that, when repayments are made to the industry, they should be effected from the oldest contributing pool. As I mentioned earlier, the term of the first fiveyear plan has now virtually expired and there is no possibility of this money being required in connexion with that plan.

The withdrawal of this amount will leave in the Wheat Prices Stabilization Fund an amount of about £9,000,000, being moneys retained from No. 15 pool. This is being held as the nucleus of a new stabilization fund, in the possible event of a further wheat stabilization plan developing. Whether there will be a new plan or not will depend upon negotiations at present proceeding between the Commonwealth and State governments and wheat industry representatives and, finally upon the wishes of the growers themselves, since the Commonwealth Government is not prepared to legislate for a new plan unless the growers in the wheat-producing States indicate at properly conducted ballots that they favour the introduction of the plan finally proposed to them. I commend this bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Sheehan) adjourned.

page 179

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER (Victoria - Attorney-

General) [5.25]. - I move -

That the bill he now read a second time.

This bill covers tariff amendments which are at present in operation and were introduced at various dates during the course of the present year. The amended duties relate to a comprehensive range of goods and commodities entering the import trade of the Commonwealth. The amendments cover three main categories, namely, those associated with -

  1. the adoption, in broad principle, by the Government of recommendations made by the Tariff Board, after full public inquiry, as to the protective needs of various Australian industries;
  2. the Government’s 1953-54 budget proposals under which the revenue duties on potable spirits have been reduced ; and
  3. the elimination of anomalies to facilitate administration of the tariff law.

The main items affected by Tariff Board reports are those relating to carpets and carpeting, engine cleaning waste, flax canvas piece goods, metal working lathes, ironing and washing machines, internal combustion engines, precision type roller chains, spectacles, elastic, polyethylene plastics, gaskets of metal and asbestos, corks, and articles designed or produced for use and used exclusively in the practice of religion. The second group is confined solely to potable spirits, namely, brandy, whisky, gin, rum, &c. There are corresponding reductions of duties on like potable spirits produced in Australia which are subject to excise duties, and these excise amendments will come up for discussion later.

The main items covered by the third group are those related to wines, knife sections and ledger plates for agricultural field machines and vegetable oils imported for subsequent dematuration in Australia.

I do not propose,at this stage, to deal with each of the items concerned because a comprehensive memorandum showing the amendments, compared with the existing provisions of the Customs Tariff 1933-1952, has already been circulated to honorable senators. If further information is required, however, by honorable senators about any of the amendments, I shall endeavour to make the information available when the relevant item is under consideration. The comparative memorandum that I mentioned earlier also sets out the position in relation to amendments under the Excise Tariff Bill 1953 and the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Bill 1953. Both of these bills will come up for consideration at a later stage.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 179

CUSTOMS TARIFF (NEW ZEALAND PREFERENCE) BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Tlie object of the bill before the Senate is to give effect to an alteration which the New Zealand and Australian governments have agreed to make in Article X. of the Australia-New Zealand Trade Agreement of 1933. Article X. is essentially interpretative. It defines for administrative purposes, the conditions to be fulfilled before a product is regarded as a product of Australian origin or of New Zealand origin for purposes of applying the trade agreement. In practice, the conditions as originally laid down in Article X. of the agreement of 1933 have resulted in some anomalous situations and the agreed alteration is designed to remove these anomalies. Under the original provisions of Article X. goods manufactured in Australia but not wholly from Australian materials did not enjoy the benefits of the agreement when imported into New Zealand, if they contained less than 50 per cent, of Australian content in terms of Australian materials and labour cost. Several products manufactured in Australia., chiefly from imported raw materials, did not fulfil these conditions. Similar conditions applied to New Zealand products imported into Australia.

The amendment to Article X. agreed upon in discussions between the two governments varies the provisions of the original article by adding alternative conditions to be applied on a reciprocal basis. The bill now before honorable senators embodies these alternative conditions insofar as they affect the importation of goods from New Zealand into Australia by providing that a product imported into Australia which contains at least 75 per cent, of New Zealand, Australian and United Kingdom content, or alternatively 75 per cent, of New Zealand and United Kingdom content, shall be regarded as a product of New Zealand origin for purposes of the trade agreement. A 75 per cent, minimum content conforms with the normal conditions applying to imports from the United Kingdom. The New Zealand Government has put into operation a similar amendment applying like conditions to Australian exports to New Zealand.

Debate (on motion by Senator Courtice) adjourned.

page 180

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer) read a. first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The bill implements the excise concessions that were accorded by the recent budget. The amendments have been in operation since the 9th September, 1953. In all instances, they have effected reductions in the excise duties on potable spirits, namely, brandy, whisky, rum, gin, &c, by 21s.. a proof gallon. A corresponding reduction in the duties on like imported potable spirits is provided for in the Customs Tariff Bill. Honorable senators will recall that in the 1951-52 budget the revenue duties on potable spirits were increased by 31s. a proof gallon. The reduction of 21s. a proof gallon will mean that 10s. of the 1951-52 budget increase will still be retained.

In proposing a reduction of 21s. a proof gallon, the Government has been influenced by the substantial decline in the production of locally distilled spirits which has taken place since the extra duty of 31s. a proof gallon was imposed in September, 1951. Not only has this decline in production reacted against the distilling industry, but it has had an adverse affect on other important industries which produce raw materials for the distilleries. For example, certain grape-growers have been affected by a lack of demand for grapes for use in the production of brandy. In the circumstances, I feel sure that honorable senators will agree that some action on the part of the Government is necessary in order to safeguard those industries and the employment that they provide.

Debate (on motion by Senator COURTICE) adjourned.

page 181

N ATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1953

[No. 2].

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 175).

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.Legislation to provide for national health has been before the public mind of Australia for a number of years. As long ago as 1948 the people were hopeful that a health scheme, truly national in character, would be introduced. It has been emphasized over the years’ that, from the point of view of the advancement of the nation, no subject is as important as the subject of national health. As we know, medical science has developed techniques to cure disease and prolong life. It is noteworthy that in March last the Government introduced “ a national health bill, and the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who represents the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) in this chamber, delivered a lengthy second-reading speech on it. Several months later, the Senate election was held. I do not suggest for one moment that the Government parties were politically conscious ! Not at all ! At all times they had uppermost in their minds the desirability of introducing a health scheme which would benefit the people of this country! WV know that a general election will bo held in the relatively near future. So what happens? Behold, another national health bill is introduced, on which the Minister has delivered a very long second-reading speech ! For all we know, still another national health bill may be introduced before the general election. I emphasize that I do not impute political consciousness to the Government. The main consideration is that there shall be introduced a health scheme which will benefit the people of Australia. It is obvious that one group of people in the community is deliberately deluding itself in connexion with this matter, and at the same time the Government is attempting to delude the people as a whole. The main provisions of the bill now before us have been dictated not by the Government but by the British Medical Association. The Minister referred to the-

Senator Kendall:

– Wharf labourers !

Senator BENN:

– I thank the honorable senator for his interjection. However, as I develop my speech he will probably regret it. I come now to the subject of job control, which has been advocated by the Communist party for a number of years. It may bo true that certain ships may not be loaded at certai n hours without the consent of certain people, and that ships may not put to sea without their approval. We have before us for consideration a measure, the main provisions of which would not have been framed in their present form without the approval of the British Medical Association. That association has been virtually authorized by the Government to exercise job control. I make it clear that I refer to the official actions and attitude of that association I do not in any way implicate the individual members, for whom I have the highest respect. I have many acquaintances in the medical profession, and I worked in close co-operation with one or two of those gentlemen for a number of years before I became a member of this chamber. The medical profession is an idealistic and efficient profession, which numbers in its ranks some of our best citizens. On a number of occasions the British Medical Association has publicly opposed national health schemes. But for its attitude, a truly national health scheme would have been in operation in this country some years ago. Although the majority of the members of the British Medical Association are not worshippers of Mammon in their dealings with the sick persons in the community, the official attitude of the association is that those people constitute the association’s domain. It is from them that it reaps its harvest. That cannot be denied.

The Minister for Repatriation stated in his second-reading speech that, as a result of the keeping of statistical records by insurance companies over the years, it is now possible to classify the various diseases, and to compute the percentage of the people who suffer from them. From that information can be estimated the number of doctors needed to attend to the sick members of the community, and therefore the doctors can estimate their probable yearly income. The British Medical Association, has a callous outlook towards the curing of the sick members of the community. The association says, in effect, “ This is our preserve. Nothing shall come between us and our harvest. Away with your national health scheme ! “ Supporters of the Government favour free enterprise. Let us consider the application of the principle of free enterprise to the curing of the sick.- The Minister made a passing reference to the doctor-patient relationship. That is a relationship in which the doctor provides the skill and the patient provides the fee. It does not, extend beyond that. When we speak of a national health scheme it should be such that the people can take it to their hearts with the thought, “ Here is something which will look after us when we are ill “.

Senator Robertson:

– That is exactly the kind of scheme for which the bill provides.

Senator BENN:

– I shall endeavour to show that the bill provides for nothing of the kind. In thinking of this subject, we naturally envisage a generous national health scheme, in consonance with the outlook of the majority of the people, and which will make the best service available to the people at all times. But the British Medical Association has an aversion to a health scheme because it savours of government control.

The main objection of the British Medical Association to a national health scheme inaugurated by a Labour government is that in some way the service that it3 members would be required to render to the people Avould be subject, to some degree, to government control and that the fees that they could charge would be fixed by the government. These objections have impeded the introduction of a national health scheme for a number of years. Now that a national health scheme has been placed before the Senate we find that the British Medical Association has influenced the actions of the Government to such a degree that this is a wishy-washy health scheme. The implementation of the scheme will devolve on two sets of organizations, the medical benefits organizations and the hospital benefits organizations. These are the two wheels upon which this vehicle of national health will jog along. Let me examine the organizations that the Government has brought into existence in connexion with its medical services. What do they accomplish and what is the relationship between them and the Government? The benefits organizations cannot be maintained unless the people contribute to them. On the amount of the contributions to an organization will depend the extent of its benefits. The Government has boasted that it will not swell the Public Service by employing more staff in order to administer this scheme. But it has provided for the establishment of these organizations which will have to be supported by the contributions of the people who want benefits.

Senator Henty:

– Those organizations were established before the honorable senator was born.

Senator BENN:

– Although some friendly societies may have been established before I was horn, mushroom organizations are cropping up every day. The people of Queensland are being pestered by persons canvassing them to join these organizations.

Sitting suspended from 5.50 to 8 p.m.

Senator BENN:

– I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted ; debate adjourned.

page 182

NEW GUINEA TIMBER AGREEMENT BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spicer) read a. first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I move -

That the hill be now read a second time.

The Senate will recall that, by the New Guinea Timber Agreement Act 1952, approval was given to an agreement between the Commonwealth and Bulolo Gold Dredging Limited to form a company to be known as Commonwealth-New Guinea Timbers Limited for the purpose of working the timber stands at Bulolo in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. The text of that agreement was appended as a schedule to the act. The agreement provided for a nominal capital of Commonwealth-New Guinea Timbers Limited of £2,000,000, and by the act of 1952 a sum of £500,001 was appropriated from Consolidated Revenue as the first Commonwealth contribution to that capital.

Commonwealth-New Guinea Timbers Limited has proceeded with a great deal of energy in the establishment of the mill and plant at Bulolo and is on the point of commencing operations. As a result of this rapid development it was decided that a further £500,000 would be required during 1953-54 to bring the paid-up capital of that company to £1,500,000. Of the additional amount of £500,000 to be provided this year, the Commonwealth share will be £250,000. The sole purpose of the bill now presented to the Senate is to appropriate that amount. Provision of the sum has already been made by the recently completed session of this Parliament in the budget for 1953-54. No new principle nor any point of policy is involved in the appropriation of this amount.

I commend the bill to the Senate as very heartening evidence of the rapid progress being made in a great joint enterprise which should be of marked value in the progress of the Territory. I also take the opportunity to express appreciation of the way in which the company has applied itself to the purposes for which it was formed.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition stated its views concerning the New Guinea Timber Agreement when the 1952 bill was before the Senate. The opinions of honorable senators on this side of the chamber were expressed so fully then that I do not propose to repeat them now. This measure is merely consequential upon, and stems from, the original act. There is an obligation under the agreement to pay the amount referred to. In those circumstances, the Opposition offers no objection to the passage of the measure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 183

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

. - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to make such provision as will enable a member of the defence forces of the Commonwealth on service outside Australia, who possesses the required franchise qualifications but is not enrolled on the electoral roll, to record an effective vote on the occasion of a federal election. The new section proposed by the bill to be inserted in the Electoral Act provides, in effect, that such a member of the forces shall be deemed to be enrolled for, and be entitled to vote for, the electoral division in which, immediately prior to leaving Australia for overseas service, he wa.3 ordinarily resident.

A similar provision was contained in the Electoral (War-time) Acts of 1940- 1945. As these acts have been repealed under the Statute Law Revision Act of 1950, there is at present no section of the electoral law under which an unenrolled member of the forces serving overseas is able to record an admissible vote.

At future elections, members of the forces stationed outside Australia will record their votes under the postal voting provisions of the law. The adininistration will, of course, take all practicable steps to facilitate such action. Specially printed and addressed application forms will be distributed throughout units, while, under the law as amended last year, assistant returning officers, appointed at suitable places overseas, will, upon receipt of applications, forthwith issue postal vote certificates and postal ballot papers direct to applicants in their respective areas. However, at present only an enrolled person is entitled to record a postal vote, and as it is known that the names of a proportion of the members of the forces stationed overseas, including those who have attained the age of 21 years while on service, do not at present appear on the electoral roll, it is proposed, by the provision contained in this hill, so to extend the law as to provide that, if qualified, an unenrolled member of the forces serving outside Australia, as well as one who is enrolled, will be able to record a valid vote.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

.- The Opposition has no objection to the provisions of this measure and supports the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– In the normal course, the bona fides of an elector are carefully checked before he records his vote. Can the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) explain the methods that are used to check the bona fide3 of members of the forces overseas who record votes on papers that are subsequently returned to this country? At what point is a check made to ascertain whether the serviceman who has voted is in fact eligible to vote in the electoral division for which he claims eligibility to vote as a citizen of Australia? Is any check made to ensure that votes by servicemen who were not previously enrolled as electors are properly recorded?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I understand that the electoral office makes adequate arrangements with the appropriate military officers on the spot. Experience under the war-time legislation has shown that ballots have been properly conducted. I remind the honorable senator that, in the course of my second-reading speech, I stated that there is at present’ no section of the electoral law under which an unenrolled member of the forces who is serving overseas is able to record an admissible vote. I do not think that any complaints have been received concerning the arrangements.

Senator COOKE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wish to know exactly what check is made.

Senator McLEAY:

– I understand that the arrangements are left entirely in the hands of the military officers in the particular area in which the votes are cast.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

.- Clause 3 of the bill seeks to insert in the act a new section 39a., sub-section (2.) of which reads as follows : - (2.) For the purposes of the last preceding sub-section, a person, not being a member of the Defence Force, who accompanies a part of the Defence Force shall be deemed to be a member of the Defence Force and on service with that part of the Defence Force.

I should like to know to whom that provision will apply. To me, it is not immediately intelligible on reading it.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I take it from the second-reading speech of the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) that the provisions of this bill will apply only to servicemen who are over the age of 21 years. If that is so, I wish to voice an objection. It seems to me that if young men under the age of 21 years are prepared to go overseas in order to serve their country, this Parliament should extend to them full citizenship rights. If a man risks his life for the defence of his country and the democracies generally, surely this Parliament should give him the franchise. I point out that many servicemen under the age of 21 years have become commissioned officers. Some have been captains of bombers at the age of twenty years. I ask the Government to extend the franchise to all the members of the forces who are serving overseas. If men are good enough for that service, this Parliament should recognize its responsibility to them and give them the franchise.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

– I wish to refer to the point, that has been raised by Senator Cooke. Those who have experience of the Army and elections held among the members of the forces will know that normally the Army authorities seek from within the units those who have had electoral experience in civilian life. They may have been presiding officers or maybe worked in an electoral office. Those selected for the work by the Army are not strange to electoral law. It is well known that an army can find within itself persons with experience in every walk of life. That is because the Army represents a broad cross-section of the community. Every branch of the armed forces, whether it is the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, carries records relating to the personal details of its members. Obviously the orderly room has’ a complete record of the places from which the men were enlisted. There would be no difficulty in establishing those facts. I presume that when the vote is returned it will be checked just as a postal vote is checked at the divisional returning office.

Senator McLEAY (South Australia - Minister for Shipping and Transport) f8. 19]. - I thank honorable senators who have had practical experience of these matters for the information that they have given. In reply to Senator McCallum, I can inform the committee that men working with the Young Men’s Christian Association and similar organizations and canteen officers who are attached to the defence forces will come within the provisions of this measure.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania Leader of the Opposition

– I was interested in the reply that was given by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) to Senator McCallum. I direct attention to clause 3 of the bill. Sub-section (2.) of proposed new section 39a states -

For the purposes of the last preceding subsection, a person, not being a member of the Defence Force, who accompanies a part of the Defence Force shall be deemed to be a member of the Defence Force and on service with that part of the Defence Force.

Persons including Salvation Army officers, Young Men’s Christian Association representatives, officers of the Australian Comforts Fund, newspaper representatives and canteen workers would come within the category of persons who accompany part of the defence force. They do excellent work, and I can see no objection to giving them the same voting facilities as are given to members of the defence forces. I suggest, however, that the wording of the sub-section is exceedingly loose. All that the Minister has implied and all that can be read into the measure suggests that it refers to persons who are authorized by the defence force to accompany it or part of it. The bill, however, merely refers to persons who accompany a part of the defence force. There are hangers-on at all camps who could answer that description. I suggest that the bill would be improved if words were added to require the person who accompanied the defence force to have the authority of the force to do so.

Senator McLeay:

– Is that not implied in the wording of the bill?

Senator McKENNA:

– I do not consider that it is. The bill refers to a person who accompanies a part of the defence force, but does not state whether the person should do so with or without authority. I believe that the point was implicit in the statement that was made by Senator McCallum. “While honorable senators understand perfectly that the measure is designed to include such persons and all honorable senators approve of that fact, “I believe that the spirit of the bill would be safeguarded if the subsection read -

A person, not being a member of the defence force, who with the authority of that defence force, accompanies a part of the defence force . . .

I am sure that the Minister would want to eliminate persons who accompanied a defence force without being actively or officially authorized to do so. I do not, propose to move an amendment bur I believe that the clause as drafted shows a weakness that it should be altered as I have suggested.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I should like the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator MoLeay) to clarify the intentions of the measure in connexion with applications for postal votes. In his second-reading speech the Minister stated -

A member of the forces shall be deemed to be enrolled for and entitled to vote for the electoral division in which immediately prior to leaving Australia for overseas service he was ordinarily resident.

Will that provision take effect automatically upon the member of the forces leaving for overseas or will it take effect upon his application for a postal vote? If a member of the forces does not apply for a postal vote, willhe be entitled to vote at any camp in the ordinary way that votes are cast in an election in Australia, or will he have to make an application for a postal vote before he is entitled to cast a vote?

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– A person requiring to vote must make an application to the returning officer giving the information that is required. A man who was under age when he left for overseas would not be able to enroll before he left Australia. When the applicant has satisfied the officers that he lived in the area for which he claims enrolment, that information will be supplied with the application for p. vote to the returning officer where the vote is being cast. In reply to Senator McK.en.na, I believe that the provision ir this bill is similar to that which applied from 1940 until 1945. Although T am not in a position to give the honorable senator the exact details, I am satisfied that the point that he has raised is amply covered by the bill.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– I support the view that has been expressed by Senator Aylett. If my memory is accurate, I believe that men who enlisted in World War II. were given a vote upon attaining the age of eighteen years. I believe that the bill that is before the committee is extremely loose. The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has stated that the members of the forces have to satisfy the returning officer that they are 21 years of age and they must state the division for which they are to be enrolled.I have no objection to that provision if the divisions are wide apart, but I should be concerned if they were close together. No honorable senators would want to prevent a member of the defence forces from having the right to vote, butI believe that the measure should be more explicit. If it was right to give a soldier eighteen years of age a vote during World War II.-

Senator Gorton:

– I do not believe that they had the vote at eighteen years of age.

Senator KENNELLY:

– I am not sure that they did not have a vote.

Senator Gorton:

– They had a vote in World War I.

Senator KENNELLY:

– If men had a vote during World War I. I should be surprised if men were deprived of a vote during World War II. Irrespective of party considerations, honorable senators want to be certain that elections are being conducted properly in the armed forces. I believe that the measure is loosely worded. In that connexion. I direct attention to the provision for enrolling a member of the forces in an electoral subdivision. I believe that we should be on safer ground if provision were made for every member of the forces aged eighteen years or over to have a vote. If that were done 1 believe that practically every one in the armed forces would get a vote. I trust that the Minister will see the wisdom of giving the right to vote to every member of the armed forces when he is on active service. I suggest that in order to clear up the points that have been raised the Minister might agree to postpone further consideration of the measure which is of the greatest importance. Honorable senators desire to be fully assured that the bill will achieve the objectives for which it has been introduced.

Senator McLeay:

– In order that honorable senators may be supplied with the fullest information on the matters that they have raised, I suggest that progress be reported.

Progress reported.

page 186

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP BILL 1953

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 186

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1953

[No. 2].

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 182).

Senator BENN:
Queensland

.- Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was discussing the provisions contained in the bill in respect of approved organizations. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), in his second-reading speech, said that the Government did not seek to control those organizations but desired that they should be enabled to function as free units. However, under the measure, the Government is empowered to determine the amounts of benefits which an approved organization should pay to contributors and also the rate at which contributors should be obliged to contribute to such an organization. The Government has exercised those powers up to date, and it will continue to exercise them in the future. To that degree it will control these organizations. Furthermore, approved organizations are non-profit-making. They rely entirely upon the contributions that they receive from their members. That is their only source of income. From that income they must provide benefits in accordance with rates determined by the Government. Thus, directly and indirectly, the Government will control the whole of the operations of approved organizations. Indirectly, the Government will determine the rentals that an organization should be permitted to pay for premises that it occupies, and also expenditure it shall incur in respect of wages and salaries and other items, such as m office equipment. Therefore, the officers employed by these organizations will be, in effect, governmental officers, although T do not suggest that the Government will have power to sack the employees of an approved organization. The Government will have the right to authorize officers to examine the accounts of approved organizations and to report upon every aspect of their operations. Consequently, this scheme is, in effect, a socialized scheme. The organizations will be socialized from top to bottom. In that respect the British Medical Association has deluded itself in its appraisal of this scheme. Up to the introduction of the scheme that association would have nothing whatsoever to do with a national health scheme, but, now, because the present Government has placated it by instituting these approved organizations, it pretends that the scheme will not be controlled by the Government.

I turn now to the payments that will be made to members of the medical profession under this scheme. First, a proportion of those payments will represent payments from Consolidated Revenue to which every citizen contributes through direct and indirect taxes. In addition, the approved organizations themselves will make payments to doctors from the income that it derives in contributions by members. Whilst it is pretended that the scheme is a full-blooded national health scheme, an examination of the provisions of the measure discloses that it is really a private medical scheme that has been set up within what the Government purports to be a national health scheme. What will be the position in respect of the scheme of persons who do not contribute to approved organizations? Such persons will not receive benefits that will be paid to members of such bodies. At the same time, non-contributors, as taxpayers, will be obliged to provide at least a proportion of the amount of the benefits that the approved organizations will pay to the doctors on behalf of their members. In respect of the administration of the scheme as a whole, disciplinary committees are to be set up and these will consist of members of the medical profession. The Director-General of Health will directly control the scheme as a whole, and there will be a Deputy DirectorGeneral in each of the States. If a member of the British Medical Association commits a misdemeanour he will be charged before one of those committees, which will have power to impose certain penalties. Those committees, which T repeat will consist entirely of members of the British Medical Association, will, in the hearing of such complaints, ignore the normal rules of evidence.

I repeat that the British Medical Association has completely deluded itself if it believes that this scheme is in accordance with the principles of free enterprise. From beginning to end, it is a socialized scheme. Unfortunately, also, many people believe that the scheme is, in fact, a national health scheme, merely because the Government gives it that title. It is nothing of the sort. For instance, whilst a person who enjoys good health may join an approved organization, a person suffering from a chronic complaint will not be accepted as a member by such organizations for payment of benefit in respect of that complaint. The people as a whole will also find that they have been badly deluded when they claim payment of benefit from approved organizations in respect of many kinds of medical services. For instance, in respect of certain classes of operations, a contributor is entitled to receive a benefit of £11 5s. from an approved organization, -whilst a similar amount is payable by the Government to the doctor who performs the operation, making a total benefit of £22 10s. However, if the doctor charges a fee of £80, or £90, for that, operation, who will make up the balance? The contributor himself will have to pay the balance to the doctor. Therefore, it is only a partial scheme even as it affects contributors to approved organizations.

Whilst the scheme make3 special provision for the tuberculosis sufferers it fails to make any provision whatsoever in respect of many health hazards which arise in industry and which are too numerous to mention offhand. However, I refer to the combating of silicosis, which can be contracted in various callings, including quarry work, employment in brickworks, soapworks, foundries and mines. To-day, many individuals are suffering from silicosis, which they have contracted in the course of their ordinary avocation. This is a serious complaint in itself, but in many instances it can develop into tuberculosis. Under this scheme, the Government has not made any provision to combat hazards of that kind, and to that degree it has failed to stand up to its responsibility in respect of the health of the community as a whole. It may be said that the State governments make special provision to combat health hazards of the kind that I have indicated, but if this Government really desires that this scheme should be a national health scheme in fact as well as in name, it would make provision for these diseases and thus do justice to thousands of workers in this country who, in respect of their complaints, will not be assisted in any way under the scheme in its present form. Many of the sands that are normally used in a foundry for moulding purposes contain silica which, when inhaled, causes silicosis. The same disease is caused by the inhalation of facing and parting powders. The Government has not made provision under this scheme to assist sufferers from such complaints. No provision is made in this bill for workers engaged in the mining or processing of lead. Some of the worst industrial health hazards are in the printing industry and other similar undertakings where lead has to be handled. The Government has ignored entirely the people engaged in such work. No provision is made in this bill for regular health checks to prevent the spread of industrial diseases. Another disease that is prevalent to-day is dermatitis. Strong cleansing fluids used in foundries cause dermatitis when they come in contact with the skin and every year this disease puts many men off work for indefinite periods. The Minister, in his second-reading speech, mentioned the importance to industry of reducing absence from work through illness to a minimum, but the Government has only taken half a step in that direction in this measure. There is much more that could be done to provide a truly national health scheme.

T come now to the subject of hospital benefits. I have the honour to represent a State which still provides free hospital treatment and free medicine for patients. There is no charge whatever in Queensland for those services. To the States in which, unfortunately, no such scheme applies, the Australian Government, pays a subsidy of 12s. a day in respect of each occupied bed provided the hospital benefits organization with which the patient is insured provides 6s. a day. A deplorable aspect of the Government’s scheme is the complete lack of provision for capital expenditure on hospitals. Every one who has had any association with hospitals knows of the substantial expenditure that is required to equip a modern hospital. First, of course, a hospital has to be built, and that is a most expensive undertaking to-day. Then it has to be equipped with cooking facilities, laundry, and staff quarters. The cost of all these items is much greater than it was even ten years ago. Apparently the Government is content to operate its hospital benefits scheme through the institutions that exist to-day. No provision is made for new buildings. This is not the first hospital benefits scheme that has been introduced by an Australian government. In 1945, the Chifley Government introduced a scheme that was of great benefit to Australian hospitals. The Minister has boasted of the improvement in hospital finances that has occurred since this Government’s scheme was introduced; but this scheme is only the follow-on of Labour’s scheme. In 1945, the Labour Government undertook to pay to the States 6s. a day for every occupied bed in the public or non-public wards of hospitals. The States collected no fees from patients in public wards, and reduced their charges to patients in nonpublic wards by 6s. a day. In 1948, the subsidy was increased from 6s. a day to Ss. a day. The Commonwealth then undertook to reimburse to the States the amount paid in salaries to medical and other professional personnel who attended in-patients in public wards. In 1948, also, the Commonwealth undertook to pay to the States the cost of medicine supplied by public hospitals to patients in nonpublic wards and to out-patients. The cost of medicine supplied to patients in public wards had been paid by the Commonwealth since the beginning of the scheme in 1945. Labour also abolished the means test in 1945 to ensure the provision of free medical attention, free accommodation, and free medicine for all citizens. The social services contribution was collected by the Taxation Branch and it was based on ability to pay. In other words, the social services contribution was determined by a taxpayer’s income. It was paid into the National Welfare Fund which was administered by the Commonwealth, and was used to meet social services payments and hospital benefits charges. The sum paid to the States annually by the Commonwealth for every occupied bed in public wards was more than the States had been able to collect annually from public ward patients prior to 1945. Under Labour’s scheme, the Australian Government and the State governments met 80 per cent, of hospital costs, and the patient met 20 per cent. It is worthy of note that in the United States of America the government pays 14 per cent, and the people pay the remaining 86 per cent.

I am not satisfied with this bill at all and I am sure that thousands of my fellow Australians are not satisfied with it. Therefore I move -

That all words after “bill” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “be withdrawn and redrafted to place greater emphasis, through cooperation with the States and local authorities, on the promotion of positive health -

in the establishment and maintenance of an adequate number of diagnostic and health centres;

in dental care of children under six teen years of age;

the provision of adequate medical training and research facilities and a system of regional hospitals and to provide -

for substantially increased rates of hospital benefits having regard to the rise of hospital costs;

for the negotiation of fresh agreements between the Commonwealth and the States to ensure that throughout Australia there should be no charge and no means test for qualified patients occupying beds in public wards of public hospitals;

that registered organizations shall be subsidized to ensure that their benefits will be extended to chronic sufferers and those suffering disabilities at the commencement of their membership of registered organizations;

to devise in consultation with the medical profession and State Governments machinery to stabilize medical charges and to determine just variations of those charges;

that medical benefits be extended to mileage charges of medical practitioners incurred by patients especially those in outback areas.”.

Senator ANDERSON:
New South Wales

.- I support the bill. At the outset I should like to make it . clear that I regard the measure, as no doubt most other honorable senators do, as p committee bill. It has 139 clauses and its schedules cover 30 pages. I believe, therefore, that the best debating will come at the committee stage. However, I should like to make one or two genera1 observations now, and to deal briefly with some of the broad principles of the measure. A good starting point is the fact that good health is of prime importance. Without good health nothing else really matters. I well remember as n child being told that the American millionaire, Rockefeller, had offered half his fortune to anybody who could improve his health and give him the ability to eat a good, square meal. I mention that ro give point to my claim that health is of primary importance. As I said in my Addess-in-Reply speech, good health pays for itself. It is the best investment of all. It is gratifying to know that progress in medical science has always been made available to mankind. Doctor*, do not retain for themselves the specialized knowledge that they acquire. They pass it on for the benefit of the great suffering public. In that connexion ( think that some of Senator Benn’s remarks were quite unfortunate. He made a quite unnecessary and unprovoked attack on the British Medical Association. His charges were in poor taste. He started off by trying to have “ two bob each way “. He said he would not attack doctors individually, but would level his charges at the British Medical Association. However, he could not resist the temptation ultimately and he said that doctors had a callous outlook towards thi. curing of the sick. I cannot imagine a poorer statement being made in thi? important place. I can only say that the day will dawn when the honorable senator himself will be sick, and, if I am judge, he will bellow for a doctor. 1 hope he will have to wait a litte time before a doctor comes. While he is waiting and feeling very ill, perhaps he will remember the occasion when he referred to doctors as being callous towards the curing of the sick.

The medical profession has a wonderful history. It is a history of great men rendering magnificent service right down through the ages. Senator Benn should realize that he will not get anywhere by trying to bolster up his argument by saying cruel, untrue and miserable things about the medical profession. We have much for which to thank members of that profession. As I have said, it is to the credit of medical men that their discoveries have been readily made available in the interests of suffering humanity. When a doctor discovers a new technique he does not say, “ This will give me a glorious advantage over the other medicos. I will keep it to myself and let the patients of other doctors suffer and perhaps die “. Whenever a new healing technique has been discovered or devised, the details of it have been published imme- diately in the interests of mankind. Rapid progress has been made in medical science in the last half century. The expectation of life has risen from 30 years to 70 years or even more for women. The infant mortality rate has fallen from 1 in 8 to 1 in 4’0. As the Minister for Health has said, good health pays for itself in many ways. It pays for itself in the greater availability of hospital beds for people who are seriously ill or are accident victims. It pays for itself also in the reduced cost of hospitals. I understand that in New South Wales the cost of maintaining a hospital bed is between £3 and £3 10s. a day. Good health pays for itself also in reduced absence from employment due to sickness. It returns thousands of sufferers to useful work and citizenship. A glorious example of how good health repays the community may be found in recent achievements in the field of tuberculosis. This is a field in which a valuable contribution has been made by both this Government and its predecessor. In four years the death rate from tuberculosis has fallen . from 25 people per 100,000 to fourteen people per 100,000. I believe that the bill represents a victory for the protagonists of co-operation. There has been the utmost co-operation between all sections of the community that are concerned with the’ care and curing of sick people. There has been complete co-operation by the medical profession, the pharmacists and chemists, hospital funds organizations and benefit lodges, hospital administrations, and the public generally. The degree of co-operation by the medical profession is evident from the fact that about 8,000 doctors are taking an active part in the scheme. This is in marked contrast to the position that developed in connexion with the health scheme that was introduced by the previous Labour Government in 1945, to which Senator Benn has referred in glowing terms, and in which only about 155 doctors co-operated. The degree of co-operation by the public as a whole can be gauged from the fact that approximately 90 per cent, of the persons who are now treated in hospitals are members of registered organizations. I think that it is true to say that already the various societies are experiencing difficulty in coping with the number of applicants to join them, although the medical benefits scheme has been in operation only since the 1st July last. As honorable senators know, the scheme is based on voluntary membership of approved organizations. It retains the principle of the independence of the individual. It represents a victory for the principle of the self-reliance of the individual as against the underlying principle of the socialist scheme that was introduced by the Chifley Government, and which was such a dismal failure. This scheme is a blow to the socialist concept, which was a form of thinking under which the individual relied on the government for everything. Under the present scheme, the Government and the members of the public work as a team, and individuals exercise a free choice. It is for that reason that the scheme has been tremendously successful.

The bill now before us contains many provisions. I shall not attempt to deal with them at length. Suffice it to say at this juncture that the scheme provides many benefits, including the free immunization of children against infection by disease, and the provision of milk free to approximately 750,000 school children. Protection is provided for young people who are prone to tuberculosis, and generous allowances are paid to sufferers from active tuberculosis. Life-saving and disease-preventing drugs are provided free to all persons for whom they are prescribed. Pensioners are provided with free medical services and free medicines. Hospital and medical benefits are made available in order to encourage early diagnosis, and so cheapen the cost of treatment. The achievement of all these things reflects great credit on the Government, particularly on the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page). The scheme is already actively working. Therefore, the present position is unique, inasmuch as the Parliament has been asked to validate a scheme which is known to be operating successfully. A testing time in relation to the legislation will not be necessary, as the period of trial and error has already passed. Therefore, I regard this bill as a clean bill - clean in the sense that it will not become necessary in future to amend its provision? in the light of deficiencies revealed during a testing period. Our national health scheme has been introduced section by section. A new section was not implemented until the Government was satisfied that the part of the plan already operating was working efficiently. Pitfalls have been avoided in the light of the experience of the nations I health scheme that was introduced in Great Britain some years ago. That scheme, as a result of being introduced in one parcel, shall we say, ultimately got completely out of hand. As the Chifley Government’s health scheme of 19-15, to which Senator Benn has referred, was based on nationalization, it was doomed to failure. The present scheme is based on freedom. Therefore, its success )? assured. As I have already mentioned, the British scheme, based on the principle of socialization, was introduced in one fell swoop. Lord Beveridge has emphasized that the fatal flaw in the British scheme, that led to much dissatisfaction, expense, and fraud was the divorce of the voluntary organizations from the implementation of the scheme. He stated in his writings -

The British Government of 1911 sought the maximum of co-operation between the State and voluntary agencies in the field df social insurance. The Government of 1946 has divorced the two completely. Economy of overheads made possible by this combination will now be lost to the State and to the Friendly Societies alike.

Sir Allen Daley, who was for twenty years the chief medical officer of the London County Council, and had handled the cases .of 20.000,000 people said, after examining the Australian scheme -

The approach of using these voluntary organisations, if it hud been adopted by Britain, would have enabled the British Government to avoid every trap into which it had fallen.

Therein lies the difference between the approaches that have been made to this subject by the British and the Australian Governments. An outstanding feature of our national health scheme is that it did not disturb the existing excellent relationships between patients and doctors. A person exercises a free choice in the selection of a doctor to treat him. There could be no better arrangement. As a layman. I have not a full knowledge of all of the intricacies of the situation. I do know, however, that an essentia] ingredient of doctor-patient relationships is the element of confidence. It is generally conceded that when a doctor is able to gain the confidence of a patient, in normal circumstances he is well on the way to effecting curative treatment. That fundamental principle has been observed by ensuring that every person shall exercise a free choice in relation to doctors.

I remind honorable senators that the national health scheme introduced by this Government has assisted the State governments to maintain hospitals. In the political arena, it has been stated frequently that the Commonwealth has starved the States of funds. A perusal of some of the provisions of the bill shows that the Commonwealth is providing considerable financial assistance to the States. Under the Labour Government’s scheme, the Commonwealth paid to the States a subsidy of 6s. a day for all occupied beds in public wards of public hospitals. We must not forget, however, that at that time it cost the hospitals about £2 a day to maintain each bed and provide treatment for the patient. It is obvious, therefore, that under that scheme, the States had to make huge contributions from their consolidated revenues to the hospitals in order to enable those institutions to keep their doors open. I have had practical experience of the position in New South Wales, where I have been an honorary treasurer of a 200-bed hospital. That hospital was literally carried - in the financial sense - by the traders of the district. The butchers, bakers, milkmen, and other traders were required to wait up to six months for settlement of their accounts. Even when the Government subsidy was received, and accounts were paid, payments were still months in arrears. The hospital always had on hand a tremendous stack of accounts from the tradespeople. As a result, there was a tendency by the hospital administration to cut down on items that were not absolutely essential. That state of affairs often affected the quality of the food, and medical equipment was not replaced at the proper stage. Finally, some of the biggest hospitals in New South Wales, including the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, declared that they would have to close down beds. That is the story of the period prior to the time at which the present Government came to office.

I should like Senator Benn, who referred to the wonderful scheme of the Chifley Government, to remember that the facts that I have related are not airy fairy stories. They have been a part of my experience as a director of a hospital with 200 beds. Under the Chifley Government that hospital was unable to .pay its bills, which were usually six months in arrears. Every metropolitan hospital in Sydney was in difficulties in connexion with the replacement and renewal of equipment. A Labour government wa« in power in New South Wales also, at that time. Large numbers of sick people were waiting to gain admission to hospitals. In January, 1951^ the present Government decided to pay 8s. a day in respect of each patient occupying a hospital bed. The States remained free to collect hospital fees in addition to that amount. .Later the Commonwealth agreed to pay to the States 12s. a day for each hospital bed that was occupied by a pensioner. The Government also announced that, in respect of citizens who had joined a hospital fund, the Government would supplement its contribution of 8s. a day by an additional 4s. a day. By paying ls. a week into a hospital contribution fund a person was then able to obtain hospital benefits for himself, his wife and all his children under sixteen years of age. Such persons then had the full cost of their hospitalization met by the benefits that they received from the Government and the benefits fund.

As a result of this scheme, hospital finances were put on a proper basis. The days of huge hospital deficits are now over. Hospitals are able to pay their bills promptly. They are able to provide proper food for their patients. They are able to puy proper equipment, which is of such tremendous importance to them. They are also able to retain some of the money that they receive for capital expenditure if the Hospitals Commission will allow them to do so. In place of the dispirited attitude that was becoming evident among the wonderful people who do the work of hospital auxiliaries there is now f new feeling. I know that all honorable senators will agree that- the work that is done for hospitals by voluntary workers is magnificent. Because those people can now be told when they attend hospital board meetings, that the hospital’s finances are on a proper basis, that the hospital is no longer closing beds, that the general management of the hospital has improved, and that they are able to secure new equipment, their morale has been greatly improved. In 1952, the Royal Melbourne Hospital had a deficit of £77,861. At the 30th June, 1953, as a result of the functioning of the hospital benefits scheme, that hospital had a surplus of £44,465. That is a magnificent improvement. For the three months prior to October, 1952, the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney had a deficit of £51,672. For the three months succeeding October, 1952, that hospital bad a surplus of £6,378. In three months there was an improvement of £58,050 in the finances of this hospital. The finances of other hospitals in New South Wales have also been vastly improved under this Government’s scheme. But the hospitals do not set out to make profits. All the money that they make is used in the care and treatment of the sick. If hospitals have to operate with huge deficits, of necessity the treatment of patients is not as good as the hospitals themselves would like it to be. Under such circumstances the nurses, matrons, sisters and doctors all work harder, but they are subject to limitations over which they have no control. The scheme that has been introduced by this Government is a magnificent achievement.

Senator Benn mentioned that the benefit organizations were non-profit-making. One hospitals contributions scheme in New South Wales is a voluntary scheme which is controlled by men who have given a lifetime in medical service to various hospitals. Any surplus made by that fund at the end of a period is given to the hospitals. I know that the Treasurer of at least one hospital receives a cheque from this hospital contribution scheme each year with great satisfaction. Because of the increased interest in the hospital benefits scheme which this bill will bring about, even greater amounts will be paid to the hospitals by that scheme. As late as July of this year many benefit organizations were seeking registration with the Commonwealth. By June of this year eighteen such organizations had been approved in New South Wales. Nine of them were friendly society organizations and seven of them were industrial organizations, namely: - The Northern District Miners Medical Fund, Newcastle; the Federated Mining Mechanics Association of Australia, Newcastle ; Commonwealth Rolling Mills Medical Club, Port Kembla; Amalgamated Employees Union Medical Fund, Cessnock ; Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited Steel Work (Employees and Staff) Medical Benefit Fund, Newcastle; Stewarts and Lloyds (Employees) Medical Benefit Fund, Mayfield. In Tasmania, Paton and Baldwins Employees Medical Benefit Society has been formed. Although the Parliamentary Labour party is attacking this bill, industrial Labour recognizes the fact that it provides for a scheme under which the people may retain their independence and freedom of choice. They are eager to participate in it and to derive the benefits that flow from it. This magnificent bill will remain on the statute-book to the lasting glory of the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), who piloted it through the House of Representatives. I believe that it will confer great benefits on all Australians. I commend the bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cameron) adjourned.

page 193

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1953

Bill received from the House or Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Spooner) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator SPOONER:
Minister for National Development · New South Wales · LP

– I move-

That the bill be now rear! a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give certain members of the permanent naval forces a further opportunity to elect to become contributors under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act and thus qualify, on retirement, for a pension as an alternative to retaining their deferred pay rights under naval financial regulations.

Under the terms of the principal act, which became operative on the 2nd July, 194S, officers and ratings of the permanent naval forces who had an entitlement to deferred pay, were permitted to elect either not to become contributors under the act or to contribute on a full or limited basis according to whether they wished their deferred pay entitlement to be applied to the purchase of fully-paid units and entitlement to full pension or, alternatively, to be retained to their credit at interest and paid as a lump sum on retirement, with entitlement to a proportionate pension. A number of those members who, in 194S, preferred not to become contributors have, however, realized the value of benefits payable under the scheme and. have requested a further right of election to become contributors.

This Government appreciates the desire of career members of the defence services to acquire pension rights under the act, and this bill makes’ provision for any permanent naval officer or rating, who previously elected not to contribute to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund, to revoke that previous election and enter the scheme on a full contributory basis with effect from the 2nd July, 1948. Any such member who desires to avail himself of this further opportunity to become a contributor must, however, first satisfactorily establish his medical fitness before his new election is accepted, and will be required to pay to the fund arrears of contributions from the 2nd July, 1948, a? well as the deferred pay to which, at that date, he held an entitlement under Naval Regulations.

Provision is also made in the bill to permit the limited benefit contributor to elect for full contributory benefits. This class of member will have no additional liability for contributions by virtue of such an election, as it will involve only the transfer from the service vote to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund of the deferred pay to which he would not have acquired entitlement until retirement.

This latter provision will be of advantage to a number of permanent air force officers who also, at the 2nd July, 1948, elected to contribute to the fund for limited benefits and may now desireto become contributors for full benefits.Those members of the permanent forces who will have a further right of electing for benefits or additional benefits under this bill, will have a period of four months from the date upon which Royal Assent is given to this bill within which to exercise their rights of election. The remaining provisions of the bill involve matters of a minor nature concerning existing provisions of the act which have been found to be necessary or desirable in the administration of the act. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Armstrong) adjourned.

page 194

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1953 [No. 2]

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 193).

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– I was most impressed by the statement in the second-reading speech of the Minister to the effect that the most important thing in the world is individual and national health. I was also impressed by the statement that a national health scheme, to be permanently successful, must do something more than can be stated in figures or money; it must have substantial social and moral values which are intangible and not measured in terms of money. As I studied the bill, however, I found that it is 100 per cent, in principle and intended very little in practice. The two statements to which I have referred, therefore, represent a fundamental contradiction.

The amendment which has been moved by Senator Benn, and which emphasizes the need to promote positive health, should be studied by honorable senators opposite. I propose to explain the meaning of positive health by referring to the work of a very well-known authority, Dr. Alexis Carrel, who, in my opinion, is much more qualified in the field of medical science than is the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) or the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) who is in charge of this bill. Dr. Carrel was one of the leading biologists of his day.

I have in my hand a copy of his book Man, the Unknown, which was first published in 1935, and subsequently in 1948. I have read a number of books on the subject of allopathy and homeopathy, and I consider that this is one of the best. It points out that little or nothing has been done to establish or promote positive health, as referred to in the amendment. Or. Carrel divides health into two categories, natural and artificial. At page 198 of his book he states -

Modern civilization, with the help of hygiene, comfort, good food, soft living, hospitals, physicians, and nurses, has kept alive many human beings of poor quality. These weaklings and their descendants contribute, in a large measure, to the enfeeblement of the white races. We should perhaps renounce this artificial form of health and exclusively pursue natural health, which results from the excellence of the adaptive functions and from the inherent resistance to disease.

At page 284 he proceeds to explain what is meant by natural health, as distinct from artificial health. He says -

There are, as we know, two kinds of health, natural and artificial. Scientific medicine has given to man artificial health, and protection against most infectious diseases. ,It is a marvellous gift. But man is not content with health that is only lack of malady and depends on special diets, chemicals, endocrine products, vitamins, periodical medical examinations, and the expensive attention of hospitals, doctors and nurses. He wants natural health, which comes from resistance to infectious and degenerative diseases, from equilibrium of the nervous system. He must be constructed so as to live without thinking about hia health. Medicine will achieve its greatest triumphs when it discovers the means of rendering the body and the mind naturally immune to diseases, fatigue, and fear. In remaking modern human beings, we must endeavour to give them the freedom and the happiness engendered by the perfect (soundness of organic and mental activities.

This conception of natural health will meet with strong opposition because it disturbs our habits of thought. [n my opinion that is correct. Dr. Carrel has challenged most convincingly the orthodox ideas of health on which this bill is based. The measure makes no attempt to establish the difference between cause and effect. It deals essentially with effects and makes no reference at ail to causes.

Honorable senators will note that the amendment also refers to the need to provide adequate medical training and research facilities, and a system of regional hospitals. That is exactly what Dr. Carrel recommends in this comprehensive book, which, I understand, has been endorsed by the leading medical practitioners of the world. Dr. Carrel continues -

Its ideal is to intervene in the work of tissues and organs with the help of pure chemicals to stimulate or replace deficient functions, to increase the resistance of the organism to infection, to accelerate the reaction of the humours and the organs to pathogenic agencies, &c. We still consider a human being to be a poorly constructed machine whose parts must be constantly reinforced or repaired.

Dr. Carrel then suggests that the human being is degenerating because of lack of knowledge and want of sustained effort to do any better. That is implied also in this bill. Dr Carrel then states -

Physiology cannot be compared with economics. Organic, humoral and mental processes are infinitely more complex than economics and sociological phenomena. While directed economics may ultimately be a success, directed physiology is a failure and will probably remain so.

In my opinion., the human being is not fully understood by medical practitioner-? or by politicians. If it were not so, there would be a different approach to these problems. Dr. Carrel states -

Artificial health does not suffice for human happiness. Medical examinations, medical care are troublesome and often ineffectual. Drug? and hospitals are expensive. Men and women are constantly in need of small repairs although they appear to be in good health. They are not well and strong enough to play their part of human beings fully. The growing dissatisfaction of the public with the medical profession is, in some measure, due to the existence of this evil. Medicine cannot give to man the kind of health he needs without taking into consideration his true nature. We have learned that organs, humours and mind are one, that they are the result of hereditary tendencies, of the conditions of development, of the chemical, physical, physiological and mental factors of the environment; that health depends upon a definite chemical and structural constitution of each part and on certain properties of the whole. We must help this whole to perform its functions efficiently rather than intervene ourselves in the work of each organ. Some individuals are immune to infections and degenerative diseases and to the decay of senescence. We have to learn their secret. It is the knowledge of the inner mechanisms responsible for such endurance that we must acquire. The possession of natural health would enormously increase the happiness of man.

When we refer to natural health, we speak of positive health and not merely the watching of persons or giving them a shot in the arm. We refer to natural health which enables a human body to function and develop it as it should. The provisions of the bill, in the light of statistics regarding the number of persons in hospitals, gaols and lunatic asylums, provide evidence that although man has excelled in mechanical engineering, he is still in the primitive stage in social engineering, including knowledge of medicine and the human body. Dr. Carrel states upon that point -

The marvellous success of hygiene in the fight against infectious diseases and great epidemics allows biological research to turn its attention partly from bacteria and viruses to physiological and mental processes.

His book is to be found in the Parliamentary Library and I commend it to honorable senators who want to know more about homo sapiens. The amendment provides for the negotiation of fresh agreements between the Commonwealth and the States to ensure that throughout Australia, there shall be no charge or means test for admittance to wards of public hospitals. Whatever honorable senators, may have to say in favour of this bill, none will suggest that everything that is to be said upon the matter is said in the bill. In my judgment much more remains to be said. While I accept the hill in principle, I believe that in practice it will do little good.

I invite honorable senators to consider the plight of aged persons. So far as I can ascertain there is no provision in the bill for hospital accommodation for persons of 60 years of age and over. Statistics show that persons in that group number 1,050,000 or approximately 12 per cent, of the population. They cannot join a hospital benefits organization because of their age. They cannot gain admission to a hospital until it is ordered by a doctor for the purpose of urgent treatment such as appendicitis, and admission for an operation has to be approved by the hospital superintendent who often has a waiting list of persons for urgent operations. They cannot enter homes for aged persons unless they are in good health and certainly not when they can travel only in an ambulance. Public hos pitals have no room for aged chronic patients. Homes for the aged will not take them. I have known aged persons who were refused admission to public hospitals and had to lie in a park all night to ensure hospital treatment. This health scheme makes no provision for the aged. I can find no reference to them in any part of the bill. Apparently they do not exist in the eyes of the Menzies Government.

I direct attention to those who require eye treatment. The bill appears to cover all the medical and surgical needs of the human body, but there is no reference in it to optical benefits. It provides for every part of the human body except the eyes and they are among the most important organs. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) stated in his second-reading speech -

A national health scheme to be permanently successful, must be something much more than can be stated in figures or money.

But he made no reference to eye treatment. Why has the Government made this discrimination? Obviously the people want optical benefits. Any measure that purports to set up a national health scheme should meet all the needs of the people. That is especially true of persons over 60 years of age. As I have said they number in Australia more than 1,000,000, and they cannot afford to pay for spectacles although they require them. People in that class have worked hard all their lives and have reached their physical limits. They are unable to work. During their working lives they have contributed substantially to the wealth of the country. No matter how hard they have worked and how much they have contributed to the national wealth, they have received no more than a. subsistence. This bill has been designed to provide a national health service. It should embrace everybody and not a privileged few. In 1S45, the Earl of Beaconsfield, who was also known as Benjamin Disraeli, said the privileged and the people formed two nations in every nation. Under this bill, the privileged will receive benefits but persons who are more than 60 years of age and require glasses will not he able to get them. I refer to the testing of eyes for refractive errors. I notice that in the second schedule to the bill, at page 75, provision has been made for operations to be performed for diseases of the eye, but no provision has been made for spectacles to be provided for a patient whose cataract or glaucoma has been operated upon. Such persons are not able to see without glasses. A person who has had an operation for cataract must have glasses but they are not to be .provided according to the terms of this measure.

It may be said that aged pensioners can obtain glasses from hospitals, but that is not so. I know of one large hospital in Melbourne which will not permit, any new patient to enter the eye clinic unless he or she has a letter from a medical practitioner, yet the bill does not include an eye examination by such a medical practitioner as one of the services to be paid for by the Government. In the case of refractions, 80 per cent, of the curative work is done by opticians and 20 per cent, by oculists. That is a most deserving section of the community. Senator Anderson said that under this scheme they would receive certain services free, but in fact, every one will pay, either directly or indirectly, for any benefit that he may receive under it. The provision for the payment of contributions at a flat rate again discloses a fundamental injustice to which I have directed attention on many previous occasions. Under that method, the needy pay equally with the wealthy in the community. Government supporters give lip service to the principle that taxation should be levied on the basis of ability to pay, but they do not implement that principle in any way whatsoever. Consequently, I am not surprised that this scheme provides for the payment of contributions on a flat rate basis. Persons in Queensland will be more favorably placed in respect of hospital and medical services than persons in the other States. In Queensland, treatment in hospital will be provided free insofar as no patient will be asked to pay directly for that treatment. This scheme is being operated through approved organizations which, inevitably, must incur substantial expenditure in respect of overhead charges. The Government resorts to this method simply in order to finance the scheme by contribu tions on a flat rate basis. The whole of the expenditure that it is necessary to incur for the provision of medical and hospital services should be financed from Consolidated Revenue. That is the only fair method of financing a scheme’ of this kind as it ensures that the more fortunate sections of the community shall contribute towards the cost in proportion to the contribution that, is made by the less fortunate sections of the community. That is the only way in which the principle of taxation in accordance with ability to pay can be implemented in the financing of a national health scheme. The bill contains nothing that commends itself to me. I conclude on the note on which I opened my remarks. Prevention is better than the cure ; but the bill does not make any provision whatsoever for the prevention of disease. Under this measure, the Government will not, in fact, do what it says that it intends to do. I have no doubt that the measure will be passed and that the moderate amendment that has been moved by the Opposition will be rejected. I warn Government supporters that they will not be able to escape the consequences of their action in this matter. The provisions of the bill, no matter how valuable they may appear to be theoretically, will, in fact, operate to the detriment of the people, and the Government will not escape responsibility iri that respect. The Minister cannot justify this measure merely by introducing it in a lengthy second-reading speech. Incidentally, while his speech consisted of 27 pages it could, with moderate sub-editing, be reduced to three pages. It was so much froth and bubble designed to mislead people who believe that the length of a speech is its real strength, whereas a long speech frequently reveals its fundamental weakness. Even if the amendment were agreed to, considerable room would still remain for improving the scheme. All that the scheme will do will be to patch up defective humanity whose ills have been caused mainly as a result of the defective system under which the community lives. The scheme deals with effects whereas it should seek to remove the causes of those effects.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

– At this stage, I propose to discuss the principles of the bill and to leave the consideration of its details to the committee stage. Senator Benn and Senator Cameron, I believe in good faith, made assertions which they would not have made if they had read the bill carefully. Eor instance, Senator Benn said that the benefits to be provided would be made available only to persons who voluntarily contributed to approved organizations whilst persons who did not contribute to such organizations would not receive any benefit at all. I point out that the bill makes provision for a number of free services. The first of them is the ordinary benefit, amounting to £2 16s. a week, which is made available to everyone who receives treatment in a hospital. An additional benefit is made available to persons who insure with approved organizations in respect of treatment in hospitals. Secondly, pensioners will be given completely free medical services of every kind. Thirdly, there is the free distribution of milk to school children. That scheme has a prophylactic objective. It is intended to prevent the occurrence of tuberculosis and other diseases. Fourthly, free medical and hospital treatment is provided for tuberculosis sufferers who, while undergoing treatment, will also receive a living wage. Those free services are being provided in addition to the main services for which the bill makes provision. Consequently, I believe that Senator Benn and Senator Cameron have deceived themselves because they have read the bill only cursorily. The free services that are provided for tuberculosis sufferers is a part of a definite war on that disease and they are being provided in accordance with the promise that was made in the joint policy speech of the present Government parties during the general election campaign in 1949. At that time, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) warned that the Government should not attempt to do too much at once in providing a national health scheme. He said that it was wise to pick out a particular aspect of health services and to make a thorough job of that before proceeding further. If we can eliminate tuberculosis from the community we shall achieve something similar to that which has been achieved by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in its war upon the rabbit. Already, enormous benefit has accrued to our economy as a result of that organization’s efforts in that sphere. Similarly, the elimination of tuberculosis will have its effect on the community as a whole. We know that in the past consumptives have been fairly numerous and have lived in the same houses with persons who did not suffer from the disease. Evidence is available of the valuable results that have already been obtained in the war on tuberculosis.

I turn now to the main provisions of the bill. It is the purpose of the measure to avoid a scheme that is based simply on hand-outs by the Government and that will be completely controlled by the Government. The basis of the Government’s policy in this respect is that the free relationship between doctor and patient must be respected and preserved. Without dealing with any particular scheme, I am convinced that the whole tendency in a nationalized health scheme is to destroy that relationship. Nobody who has been a member of the armed forces and is aware of the sort of medical service that is provided under army conditions fails to rejoice when he returns to civil life. I have the greatest admiration for medical officers in the defence forces. They work under most unfavorable conditions. Many of them have performed acts of heroism on the battlefield. But under army conditions there is no such thing as the doctor-patient relationship because the patient is ordered to do this, or not to do that. When Senator Benn says that under this measure the doctor will merely provide the skill and the patient will provide the fee, he completely misunderstands the whole principle of that relationship. Indeed, that relationship really makes the great doctor. I recall that in my youth the family physician was not only the family doctor but also the guardian and friend of the family. Under a nationalized health scheme that relationship is completely destroyed. That is why the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), with his personal knowledge of the principles of the medical profession of which he is a member, is so enthusiastic about this scheme. It is all very well for some persons to say that a doctor should not be in control of a scheme of this kind because his outlook will be biased in favour of members of the medical profession. The Minister, when he was an active medical practitioner, proved himself to be one of the finest doctors that this country has produced. That view has been expressed not only by many of my relatives who were under his care, but also by many people who have given me a record of which he did both as a physician and as a surgeon. He realizes that the general practitioner is indispensable in the operation of any national health scheme.

The second main objective of the bill is to make full use of the voluntary societies that already exist, such as the friendly societies and newly formed medical organizations. The basis of the relationship between the Government and those organizations is that they are better qualified to carry out the work in which they have gained considerable experience than a newly established government department would be. For the greater part of my life, I worked in a government department and I know that however pure the intention of a department may be or however able its officers may be, something always tends to destroy the personality of the individuals that work within it. That would be the inevitable result in a completely nationalized medical service. One cannot speak of medical attention as if it were something that can be bought over the counter. It is infinitely more than that. It is the general consensus of opinion in countries where nationalization has been fostered that nationalized medical services inevitably tend to deteriorate. Here in Australia we have one of the finest medical services in the world. For many years the University of Sydney has had the reputation of having a splendid faculty of medicine and although I have had no personal contact with other universities in this country, I believe that they too have an excellent reputation in this field. Undoubtedly, the Australian medical profession stands very high. Indeed, it compares more than favorably with that of other countries, including new countries where conditions are somewhat similar to our own. The general effect of this partnership between the Commonwealth and the friendly societies and other insurance organizations will be to cover about 90 per cent, of the illnesses to which man is subject. I count it an advantage and not a disadvantage that this scheme is not completely free. I have found in the course of my life that that which is given freely is not valued nearly so highly as that for which some payment has to be made. I recognize, as everybody does, that for operations and for costly drugs the individual purse is too small. Therefore, we have this combined scheme under which the people are encouraged to insure against illness, or in other words, to pay for illness on the time-payment principle. In addition, of course, they are subsidized by State funds.

I had intended to deal with the improvement of hospital finances under this Government’s scheme, but that matter has been adequately covered by Senator Anderson. I merely wish to say in passing that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of the success of this scheme is that in New South Wales at least, and I believe in the other States, hospitals which were on the verge of bankruptcy are now financially sound. The evidence for that is the personal testimony of people who give their private time to the management of these institutions. I have spoken to many of them and that is their view. In conclusion, I shall sum up what I consider to be the chief virtues of this “bill. Any detail that I may care to add I shall leave to the committee stage. I say that the wholesome and necessary relationship between the individual patient and the individual doctor has been preserved by this bill. The Government is not forcing people to insure themselves and it is not refusing to come to the aid of a patient who has not made provision for himself by way of insurance. However, the Government encourages thrift and independence by providing additional advantages for the person who does insure. By using voluntary bodies, the Government is avoiding extending its activities too far and adding to the already too great and top heavy Public Service. Much of the work of administering the scheme is being thrown upon people connected with societies which know how to deal with such matters because they have been dealing with them for generations. I refer particularly to the friendly societies. Finally, I say that the Government is building up individual character. Instead of bringing in a scheme that would encourage people to take it easy and make no provision for the future, it is encouraging people to help themselves. The whole purpose of this scheme is that the Commonwealth will help everybody who is in need, but will give the greatest measure of help to the person who helps himself.

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Australia

– I second the amendment that has been moved by Senator Benn and I propose to refer specifically to one or two of the provisions of that amendment to show the falsity of the claim that the Government’s national health scheme is comprehensive. Labour’s medical benefits scheme which was sabotaged by the non-co-operation of the British Medical Association, was to be financed out of the National Welfare Fund. That fund, as honorable senators are aware, was established and maintained by a social services contribution levied on all taxpayers in accordance with their ability to pay. It must be admitted at once that Labour’s plan did not provide for the payment by the Government of 90 per cent, of a patient’s medical bills. But this Government’s scheme makes no such provision either as I shall show shortly. Labour’s proposal was that the Government should pay .”>0 per cent, of medical expenses and that the patient should pay 50 per cent. The Government’s 50 per cent, was to be paid, as I have said, out of the National Welfare Fund. Senator McCallum said that the friendly societies, because of their previous experience, should be permitted to participate in the administration of the national health scheme. I point out, however, that not all the insurance organizations approved by the Commonwealth are friendly societies. For instance, one organization in New South Wales is controlled by the British Medical Association and it is expending considerable sums of money in its endeavours to secure public support. Presumably if the operations of this organization are successful, it will be able to pay dividends. The Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) himself has admitted that not all members of the public will be able to obtain the benefit of the increased Commonwealth payment that is made in respect of patients who are members of approved societies. The fact is that those societies exclude many people from full membership. For instance people with chronic illnesses are not covered by friendly societies, or are entitled to only a very limited cover. Therefore, these people will be denied not only the contribution that is made by the friendly society in the event of illness, but also the Commonwealth’s additional contribution which is conditional upon membership of such an organization. The Minister has informed us that the insurance organization which is controlled by the British Medical Association will accept chronic sufferers after a certain qualifying period. That statement is a clear admission that there are some members of the community who, for some time at least, will not be able to enjoy the full benefits of this scheme. They will have to wait some time before they have any chance of obtaining the full benefits. The Minister for Health is reported as having stated that most sufferers from chronic ailments are in receipt of pension payments of some kind and therefore are entitled to free medical attention. I maintain however that there are thousands of chronically ill people who are not entitled to any pension payment whatever. I have before me a copy of a publication called Voice. The practice of this journal is to publish articles of interest and then to give to persons who have been criticized in those articles an opportunity to state the answer. In the issue that I have before me a doctor criticizes certain aspects of the medical benefits scheme.

Senator Robertson:

– What is his name ?

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– -He is not named. The article is written under the name “ Doctor “. His name does not matter. The point is that the Minister for Health has gone out of his way to answer the charges. The article by “ Doctor “ states -

The main purpose of a national health scheme should be to remove the patient’s incentive to avoid seeking medical treatment, and to provide every one in the community with access to the best medical attention available - at no direct personal cost.

This is the purpose of the British and New Zealand schemes. It appears to have little relation to the recently announced Australian health scheme.

Debate interrupted.

page 201

ADJOURNMENT

SYDNEY City Council - Sittings or the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GRANT:
New South Wales

– I take this opportunity to direct the attention of the Senate to a statement that was made last night about me in the New South Wales Legislative Council by the Honorable A. D. Bridges, M.L.C. He took advantage of parliamentary privilege in order to make an attack on me, without having one tittle of evidence to support his statement. According to to-day’s Sydney Morning Herald, Mr. Bridges stated -

On another occasion the Department oi Agriculture prosecuted a barrowman in Liverpool-street for “ topping ‘’–

That means, putting good fruit in the front - and a member of the .Federal Parliament, who was formerly a Labour alderman of this city, went into the witness-box and testified that he had bought fruit from this barrowman and it had been of excellent quality.

My information is that this Federal member and former alderman has a financial interest in this and other barrows, and that he has been seen calling on the barrow to collect his dues.

The language used by Mr. Bridges was rather vague, I shall reply to one particular point. That does not mean that I shall not reply to, or deny all that he said about me. I have endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to glean from the Parliamentary Library the exact date on which I left the Sydney City Council. However, approximately ten years have elapsed since I was a member of that body. There is not a scintilla of truth in the statement that Mr. Bridges made about me. Although I have been a member of this Parliament for a long time, I have never used my position in order to attack, under privilege, persons outside who are not in a position to defend themselves. I have never said anything in the Parliament that I was not prepared to say outside.

After Mr. Bridges made his statement in the New South Wales Legislative Council, representatives of the Sydney Morning Herald and the Sydney Daily Telegraph rang me at my home about 11 o’clock last night. I told them as quickly and as well as I could, exactly what had happened in connexion with that fruit barrow. To-day I gave to Mr. Delaney, the Commissioner of Police in New South Wales, a sworn statement in connexion with the matter, and I indicated to him my willingness for him to take whatever course he deemed fit. I do not know what action he intends to take. I asked Mr. Delaney whether he had any objection to my supplying copies of my sworn statement to the press. He said “ Certainly not “. I subsequently supplied copies of my statement to the Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph. I did not have time, after doing all of the things that I had to do, to supply copies to the evening newspapers before I boarded a plane to come to Canberra; indeed, it was necessary for me to ring the two morning newspapers and ask them to send representatives for the copies. The sworn statement that I supplied to Mr. Delaney reads as follows: -

In the Legislative Council last night it was definitely *stated, amongst other generalities, by the Hon. A. D. Bridges, M.L.C, that I, Donald MacLennan Grant, of 531 New South Head-road, Double Bay, had gone into the witness box and testified that I had bought fruit from a barrowman in Liverpool-street who was being charged with “ topping “, and that the quality had been excellent. Mr. Bridges then implied that my reason for doing so was because I had a financial interest in this barrow. Mr. Bridges’ statement so far as my giving evidence is concerned, is correct, with the possible exception of the word “ excellent “, but when he says that I did so because of some financial interest in the barrow, his statement is absolutely false.

I hereby swear, as I did before the magistrate who heard the case-

That is the case against the barrowman for “ topping “ - that some time towards the end of April 1 bought 2 lb. of beans from a barrow in Liverpool-street. About a week afterwards, this barrowman stopped me and asked me if I had been responsible for his being prosecuted for “ topping “ fruit. I said to him “ I had nothing to do with it”. He then said, “It is peculiar that shortly after you left, the inspectors came along to the barrow “.

He meant inspectors of the Department of Agriculture -

I subsequently received a subpeona to appear as a witness, which I did.

The facts are, as can be seen from the Police Court depositions, that I did give evidence and said that the beans were all right. As can be seen, also, from the depositions, I was asked under cross examination if I had frequently purchased from this barrow. I stated that it was the first time in my life that I had been to that barrow.

I hereby further swear that I have not, nor never have had, any financial interests whatever either directly or indirectly in this barrow, nor have I any personal interest in any one connected with it. I further swear that I did not either directly or indirectly play any part in having a licence issued for the barrow, nor have I any idea when or under what conditions the said licence was issued.

I now say emphatically, that there is not a tittle of truth to back up the specific charge that was made by Mr. Bridges. It is a nice state of affairs when the character of a man who has given his life to the service of the people can be besmirched because he happened to buy a couple of pounds of beans from a barrowman. It is extraordinary that the barrowman accused me of being responsible for his prosecution, and on the other hand Mr. Bridges has stated that the reason that I gave evidence in favour of the barrowman was that I gained a financial benefit for so doing. I believe that Mr. Bridges is a devout Christian, and as I cannot force him to divulge the source of his information. I ask him to make inquiries about the statements that I have made in my affidavit, in order to prove whether they are true. Although the press wrote up in a sensational manner the statement by Mr. Bridges about the reason why I gave evidence at the police court in favour of the barrowman, I point out that I gave that evidence openly. Everything that I said before the magistrate is set out in the depositions. There was nothing surreptitious about it. On receipt of the subpoena I was very pleased to go to the court and tell the truth about the matter.

As Mr. Bridges has refused to reveal the name of his informer, he should make inquiries whether the statements contained in my affidavit are correct. There is nothing to prevent Mr. Bridges from asking the individual who gave him the information about me to now inquire whether the statements contained in my affidavit are true. If they are true, Mr. Bridges should admit that there was no ground for his allegation against me. On the other hand, if he still maintains that his statements are correct, I hope he will be man enough to come out publicly and say so, and not shelter in a cowardly manner behind parliamentary privilege.

I challenge anybody to prove that I, in any way, have been guilty of corruption in this or any other instance. I am sorry that parliamentary life has deteriorated to such a degree. Even in this chamber a week ago, supporters of the Government stated that Labour was gagging freedom. Yet, individuals like this use the freedom that is given to them in a democracy to make unfounded charges against another person’s character. I hope that some honorable senators on the Government side, who have given me a very patient hearing, will tell Mr. Bridges that this is over the odds. I have sent a copy of my sworn statement to the Sydney Morning Herald with a letter which reads as follows : -

This is a copy of a statement which I have handed personally to Mr. Delaney, Commissioner of Police. I hope that you will give it something like the same publicity which you have given to the statements of Mr. Bridges, M.L.C.

Perhaps it is not too much to hope that Mr. Bridges will now admit, in view of my sworn statement, his allegation regarding me is without foundation, or, if not, that he will come out in the open and substantiate it. If he does neither of these things, he must take the consequences of being branded an irresponsible individual who makes malicious and slanderous statements which he cannot substantiate whilst he cowardly shelters behind Parliamentary privilege.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

.- The Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has informed me that if the motion is negatived, it is his intention to keep this chamber sitting until 3 o’clock to-morrow morning. I recently drew attention to the way that this Senate has been abused by the Government in recent weeks. We have sat for only three weeks since the Parliament reassembled after the winter recess. In the first week we sat for a total of eleven hours on two days; in the second week we sat for a total of four hours on two days; and in the third week we sat for only six hours. This constitutes a very shameful abuse of this chamber. We resumed at 3 p.m. to-day, and now I understand that we are to continue until 3 o’clock in the morning. I protest emphatically against that procedure. I trust the motion will be carried, so that the Senate will adjourn. To continue to sit until the early hours of the morning would impose an undue strain on many members of the Opposition, some of whom have come from Western Australia. At least one honorable senator has travelled all night without sleep. The Opposition strongly suspects that this kind of thing is due to the fact that the Government has made up its mind to terminate this session in very short order. This procedure is a very ruthless exhibition of gagging by the Government, and is being taken in complete scorn of the Senate. I suggest, quite seriously, that the kind of thing that has gone on in recent weeks and is now contemplated is the very thing that will speed this chamber on the way to its abolition. This is the kind of thing that will convince the people of Australia that this chamber is not worth retaining. It is clear that the Government is treating the Senate with utter contempt. On behalf of every member of the Senate on this side of the chamber I record an emphatic protest and trust that the motion before the Chair will be carried.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in entering my protest against the action of the Government. I understand that the Government intends to continue this debate until at least 3 o’clock in the morning. The Senate has met for six days since it began this session on the 10th November. The Leader of the Opposition has men tioned the amount of work that has been done since that date. I ask that some consideration be given to senators who have travelled a great distance in order to be present in this chamber to-day, and that the ordinary hours of business should ‘be observed. Surely the Government should he satisfied with the manner in which the business of the Senate is being conducted. Bills of minor importance are being dealt with very rapidly. They could not be turned out faster by a sausage machine. The motion for the second reading of the National Health Bill was moved in this chamber only this afternoon, and the speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) on that motion was of considerable length. Yet honorable senators are expected to have completed an intelligent discussion of it by 3 o’clock in the morning. I suggest that the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) should consider starting our proceedings early to-morrow instead of keeping us here all night and passing legislation by exhaustion. I ask him also to remember the officers of the Senate. The staff of Hansard and every one else who has to perform duties for this Senate should be considered. Therefore I enter my protest against the proposal to con tinue the sitting until 3 o’clock in the morning.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) put-

That the question be now put.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 25

Majority 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the Senate do now adjourn.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 204

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1953

[No. 2].

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 201).

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
South Aus tralia

– The reply of the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) to the doctor whom I have mentioned was as follows: -

The basic principle upon which the Commonwealth Government’s medical benefits scheme rests is voluntary insurance. Under this principle, financial assistance is given to people who, through their united effort, insure themselves against the costs of medical expenses. In a nutshell, the Commonwealth policy could be said to he, “ The Government helps those who help themselves “.

No reference is made to the poor devils who cannot help themselves, but only to those who can.

Honorable senators will note that there are two schedules to the bill. The doctor who has written the article in Voice, to which I have referred, points to that fact and says : -

The Government has divided the operations into two schedules. The first schedule covers nine pages and includes the common operations. These are the only ones which insurance societies are required to cover. But the vast majority of major operations are in the second schedule which covers seventeen and a half pages. These do not have to be covered by the insurance societies, although the Government will still pay out £11 5s. for each of these operations. As shown above, this is only a small contribution even when brought up to £30, by the M.B.F.

Perhaps the worst feature of this scheme, and one which regrettably tends to lend to it an element of farce is the societies’ refusal to cover chronic illnesses evident at the time of joining the society. Although the Government will pay the contributions (three-eighths of total assistance in the case of the M.B.F . ‘s Comprehensive Scheme) this will not go far towards offsetting these heaviest and most tragic of all medical burdens. It is people with chronic illnesses (and they constitute a surprisingly large proportion of sickness - stomach ulcers, blood pressure, arthritis, to mention only three common ones) and people who need major operations, who require most assistance. Yet they receive the least.

It will be seen that the schedules occupy nine pages which relate to common operations which are covered by medical benefits societies, and seventeen and a half pages which relate to operations which may not be covered by such societies, although the Government will pay as much as £11 5s. in respect of those operations. It is therefore obvious that the majority of operations will not be covered by the societies, which apparently intend to make a profit from those who suffer from chronic illnesses. Surely that fact indicates that this is not a national health scheme at all. It excludes too many people. I point out that persons on superannuation, whether from the public service or private organizations, will not be eligible to benefit under the pensioner medical service. If they should be sufficiently unfortunate as to suffer from a chronic complaint they will be outside the scope of the scheme. Nevertheless, the Government will permit the medical benefits societies to rob them of their contributions. As I have already said, those who are in greatest need of assistance will be outside the range of the medical benefits scheme.

It is interesting to read the answer that has been made by the Minister for Health to the claim by the doctor to whom I have referred that many people will not benefit. The Minister states -

Thus any person who is insured both for hospital and medical benefits will know that, so long as he keeps his contributions up to date in accordance with the rules of the particular organization to which he belongs, he and his wife and family will he secure against the threat of heavy and disastrous medical or hospital expenses.

The position is that, the scheme takes no account of the man who is in financial difficulties and cannot keep up his payments, although he may have paid into a society for two or three years. I know of men who paid into friendly societies for very many years and are now being mulcted of greater contributions in order to obtain limited benefits. Under the old friendly society schemes, they received much better cover in respect of both medical and hospital expenses. There is nothing equitable about this scheme. Those who can afford to pay will benefit and those who cannot afford to pay will obtain no benefit.

Some years ago, the British Medical Association indulged in constant agitation against the health scheme introduced by the Labour Government. Opposition to the scheme was expressed in leaflets, pamphlets and statements in the newspapers. Many doctors stated that they were unable to comply with the terms of the scheme because to do so would interfere with the relations between doctor and patient and detract from the privacy which should exist. The present Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna), who was in charge of the scheme, denied the allegation and stated that the privacy which should exist between doctor and patient would not be disturbed in any way. He explained that all that the doctors were asked to do was to prescribe on a certain form and to enumerate on their accounts the charged made in connexion with the treatment of patients. To-day, the British Medical Association has adopted a completely different attitude. It has accepted the scheme introduced by the present Minister for Health, who has this to say concerning the maintenance of privacy between patient and doctor : -

The Commonwealth at no stage directly comes between the doctor and the patient. The patient goes to the doctor of his- choice, receives and pays his accounts and then goes to whatever registered organization he has decided to join. From this he receives the organization’s financial benefit for the particular services he has received, together with the matching Commonwealth benefit which the Commonwealth Government has authorized the organization to pay on its behalf. If the contributor so desires, arrangements can be made for the organization to pay the combined benefits to the doctor on the patient’s behalf.

I recollect that a similar statement was made by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the Labour Government’s scheme. The British Medical Association, however, said that it would have nothing to do with the scheme because it would interfere with the relationship between patient and doctor. It said that if doctors were to do as the Government wished them to do, they would be obliged to disclose to the Government the nature of the ailments for which they were treating their patients. In connexion with the question of privacy between doctor and patient, the doctor to whom T have referred said : -

The B.M.A. and the present Government were ardent in their condemnation of the Chifley -McKenna health plan in the early postwar period, mainly on the grounds that it interfered with the privacy of the DoctorPatient relationship. It is strange, therefore, that they both give their blessing to the present plan which is a blatant violation of this relationship. When applying for any assistance, the patient has to itemize the treatment received. This could lead to considerable embarrassment for many patients with operations, for example, such as hysterectomy, amputation of a breast, haemorrhoids, circumcision of a middle-aged man.

As a way out of this complaint, the B.M.A. complain that the doctor issues the receipts to the patients. If the patient then surrenders them to the societies, this is his (her) own business. But the B.M.A. would only be hiding its head in the sand of make-believe.

The British Medical Association is a highly political body. It is opposed to anything that the Australian Labour party would attempt to introduce. It opposed the Australian Labour party’s scheme for the provision of medicine. Its opposition then was political. It set out deliberately to break down the medical services of Australia. It opposed any suggestion by the Labour Government for the provision of benefits for the sick. Why? Because the Labour Government would not pay extras to the doctors. The Labour Government did not propose to allow the doctors to make a profit out of the ailments of the people. That is the only reason. This Government’s proposal is the British Medical Association’s scheme and it provides everything for the doctors. Those people who can afford to do so will contribute to the insurance societies and the societies will pay the doctors. The doctors in turn will receive more recompense from the Government. Everything goes to the doctor. But the persons who are outside the age and invalid pension schemes, and who have not the ability to pay insurance, will not get anything. The Government merely proposes to grease the fat pig and in this case that is the doctor.

Voice draws a comparison between this scheme and the schemes that are in operation in Great Britain and New Zealand. It points out that the idea behind the British and New Zealand schemes is to save the people from illness if possible, so that they will visit a doctor and get a diagnosis or treatment before a serious illness occurs. That is all that the previous Labour Government wanted to do, but that cannot be said of this Government’s scheme. Under the British and New Zealand schemes, a given amount is paid to the doctors for the patients who are on their books. That is similar to the system that has been followed by the friendly societies. The result is that the doctor still receives about £2,000 to £2,500 a year and if he can keep his patients well, he saves his own health and strength. Under this scheme, the doctor receives more because the people really get ill.

Neither this scheme nor the hospital and medical benefits provided by this Government comply with the requirements of a national health scheme. Because of the financial burden they operate against the incentive of the patient to seek medical attention. The patient must be saddled with the cost. That was not the case with the Australian Labour party’s scheme, nor does it apply to the other two schemes that I have mentioned. On that point Voice stated -

The British scheme is transforming the health of the community and the outlook of the profession. Medical science is being made the servant of the public for the welfare of the public and not the servant of the doctor for the welfare of the doctor. It is this latter relationship which is being consolidated and extended in the Australian scheme.

Senator Benn referred to another matter to which I shall give some attention. It is rather a peculiar circumstance that before a recent federal election, the Government announced a health benefits scheme. Its announcement took the form of a propaganda speech covering 24 pages. lt was read over the radio network and after the Minister had squeezed every ounce of propaganda from it, the discussion of the bill was adjourned. The Senate adjourned for three weeks. The Parliament was prorogued and the whole thing went by the board. In this case another speech covering 27 pages has been read over the radio by the Minister. As Senator Benn has reminded honorable senators, a federal by-election is to be held soon and the Government apparently believes that its prospects in the by-election will be assisted by this proposal. I do not believe that that will be the case. If this bill is not carried to-night, the health scheme will still operate because its provisions have been implemented Deregulation. A medical scheme and a hospital scheme are in operation already under regulations issued under the principal act. If this bill were rejected, it would make no difference to the operation of the scheme.

What is the reason for this so-called consolidating bill? It is a propaganda bill. The Government is merely trying to direct attention to its so-called national health scheme upon which it continually harps. It claims that it will help all the people to get hospital attention. Its announcement has been accompanied by wild and woolly statements such as its claim that hospital finance is much better than it was during the regime of the Labour Government. Certainly the hospitals get more money, but because of the inflationary trend they need more to pay their way. Their funds actually are no better than they were four years ago.

Senator Wedgwood:

– Rubbish !

Senator O’FLAHERTY:

– Generally speaking, they are no better than they were four years ago. They receive more money but they have to pay more for everything. Previously patients had to pay only 9s. to 10s. a day for a hospital bed but this Government has forced the State governments to impose a charge of 18s. a day. If they do not do so, the Australian Government will not pay them a subsidy. The Government talks about removing the means test from social services, but it has enforced the means test in the hospitals after the Labour Government had abolished it.’ Patients have to undergo an inquisition so that the hospital authorities can determine whether they will be charged or not. This health scheme will not benefit those who need attention. The Labour Government provided a certain number of beds in a hospital for pensioners. Now there are twenty to thirty beds in a ward. Sometimes all are occupied by men and sometimes by women pensioners, and they are not getting the treatment that they received under the previous scheme because this Government is paying only Ss. a day for them, although it insists upon a charge of 18s. The people are crammed into the wards and one can hardly move between the beds. That applies to hundreds of cases. The health scheme does not mean anything to the pensioners. They Iia ve the greatest difficulty in getting into public hospitals and they cannot afford to enter private hospitals. This scheme is not a national scheme by a long shot. Instead, it should be called a scheme for the purpose of helping doctors, for their own benefit to exploit the sick people of A ustralia.

Senator ANNABELLE RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wholeheartedly support the bill, and I congratulate the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) on introducing it. All of us realize the importance of good health. It is important not only to us as individuals and to those who are nearest and dearest to us but. also to the well-being of the nation as a whole. I deplore the criticism that some honorable senators opposite have levelled at members of the medical profession. I pay a special tribute to the doctors and nurses who work day and night, unceasingly, in caring for the sick. They are engaged, indeed, in saving life. With no thought for their own convenience, they serve those in need, because it is their calling and profession to do so. Consequently 1 was alarmed to hear honorable senators opposite say that members of the medical profession exploit their patients. Surely, in considering a measure of this kind all of us can join in paying tribute to our doctors who give unremitting service for the. benefit ot the community. I pay a tribute also to the great army of men and women who serve the nation in the field of medical research, constantly seeking new ways of preventing and curing diseases. Looking back over our lifetime, we should be grateful for the achievements that have been made in all branches of the medical profession. To-day, as a result of that work many diseases, the very name of which once struck dread in the human heart, practically hold no fears for the community. New drugs and new methods of treatment have conquered them. We should remember these things when we are dealing with a measure of this kind.

A pleasing feature of the bill is that it ensures that the doctor-patient relationship shall not be impaired in any way. That relationship is most important as it springs from a feeling of faith and security on the part of a patient in hia or her medical adviser. I am strongly opposed to any scheme that would have the effect of impairing that relationship in any way. The bill, however, will ensure that that relationship shall be preserved. Prevention of disease must be one of the most important factors iu any national health scheme. It is not sufficient that provision be made only for the cure of disease. That consideration is one of the fundamental principles of this scheme. I need hardly remind the Senate of the value of the scheme for the free distribution of milk to school children. At present, over 750,000 children are benefiting from that scheme under which onethird of a pint of milk is provided daily for each child who attends creches, kindergartens and public and private primary schools. Milk plays an important part in strengthening children’s resistance to disease and will enable them to enjoy good health when they attain adulthood. Another excellent feature of the scheme is the provision of serums for the prevention of diseases such as diphtheria and tetanus. The mere thought of the possibility of an epidemic of diphtheria used to strike fear into the heart of every mother. To-day, every facility is made available for the immunisation of children against infection by these diseases, and that service has already proved of untold benefit to the community. Consequently, those diseases have now lost much of the dread that they once held for the community.

It is proper that a national health scheme should make special provision for assistance to pensioners. They are entitled to that assistance not as a charity but as a right. Under this scheme, aged persons may arrange to be treated in their own home. That is an important provision because the majority of old people do not like to be moved from surroundings with which they have become familiar. The provision of free medical treatment removes from their mind the fear that was once widely entertained by old persons that they might fall ill and might not be able to obtain adequate care. Under this scheme, a wide range of drugs and medicines will be made available free of charge in addition to life-saving drugs. One of the greatest achievements that have been recorded in the sphere of national health during the last few years has been the successful fight that has been waged against the terrible disease of tuberculosis. That success has been most spectacular. The scheme provides for early diagnosis. Having regard to results that have already been obtained, it is no exaggeration to say that we shall, I believe, see the day when this dread disease will be entirely eradicated from Australia. We should be proud of the lead that our country is giving in the war against tuberculosis. Another excellent feature of the scheme is the free provision of life-saving drugs. The facility is now provided for every citizen to obtain these wonderful drugs upon the production of a prescription of a doctor. These drugs have achieved spectacular results. By reducing the period of illness they enable patients to return earlier to their normal occupation and thus reduce the loss of man-hours in industry.

Senator O’flaherty referred to hospital services. He said that hospitals had not been able to increase their revenue. I refer him to the facts that were cited in this respect by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) in his second-reading speech. The Minister revealed that as a result of this scheme hospital revenue had increased considerably, the increases during the preceding twelve months for various hospitals being £41,104 at the Sydney Hospital, £43,36S at the Crown-street Women’s Hospital, £125,316 at the Royal Melbourne Hospital and £55,948 at the Prince Henry Hospital. Hospital services are a principal part of any national health scheme. Inherent in this bill is the idea that the provision of hospital facilities is now the earned right of everybody in Australia. It is not a charity and it is not an ordeal that has to be faced under great strain and dire necessity, but it is an earned right. Just as age pensions, invalid pensions, child endowment, widows’ pensions and all similar social services are now earned rights, I believe that under this bill the provision of hospital facilities becomes the earned right of every family.

I am of the opinion that the Government should not fail to investigate whether there are sufficient beds to cope with this very real need in the community. I think that the efforts of the State governments in order to provide hospital facilities is a matter that is of great importance to the Australian Government and particularly to the Minister for Health (Senator Page). I should like to refer briefly to the position in the States. I have taken out some figures which I think will be very illuminating to honorable senators. I shall deal first with my own State of Queensland. In Queensland there are 10,970 hospital beds to cater for the needs of a population of 1,23S,000 people, or an average of 8.9 beds per thousand of population. That is not a very large proportion, but it is to the credit of the Queensland Government that it has provided more beds per thousand of population than any other State government in Australia. That number of beds is insufficient, and I base my statement on the comments of the Queensland Minister for Health and Home Affairs. In the Courier-Mail of Saturday, the 21st November, the Minister for Health and Home Affairs admitted that there was overcrowding at the Brisbane General Hospital. The press report states - “ I think it is better to admit patients and put them on verandahs and in passageways in hospital where they get good attention than turn them away Mr. Moore said. i think honorable senators will agree with the Minister’s statement. The position in Brisbane is different from that which obtains in Sydney and Melbourne where, I understand, people are turned away. Although Queensland has the greatest number of beds per thousand of population, the Minister for Health and Home Affairs himself states that that percentage is not high enough.

In New South “Wales, where there has been a Labour government in office for many years, there are 24,250 hospital beds to cater for a population of 3,384,000 people, or 7.1 beds per thousand of population. If New South Wales were to bring its facilities up to the level of those in Queensland, which the Minister for Health and Home Affairs admitted were inadequate, it would need more than 30,000 beds. That means that New South Wales has a shortage of at least 6,000 beds. In Victoria, where there is also a Labour government in office, there are 15,315 beds to serve the needs of 2,335,000 people, or 6.5 beds per thousand of population. That also is a very small percentage. If Victoria were to adopt the Queensland figure of 8.9 beds per thousand of population, it should have over 20,700 beds. That means that Victoria lags behind the Queensland percentage by 5,000 beds. I think that a similar position obtains in the other States also. Those figures disclose a very serious state of affairs to which members of the Australian Parliament cannot close their eyes. I do not think it is going too far to say that the two main eastern States, which are under an obligation to care for the needs of two-thirds of the people of Australia, have failed in the important task of providing necessary hospital accommodation. It is very important that up-to-date and adequate hospital accommodation should be provided so that sick and ailing people may obtain it when they need it. If the hospitals were to supply these large num-bers of extra beds which is the people’s right, the cost would be approximately £30,000,000. Probably more than that sum would have to be spent before hospital services were brought up to the standard to which I think the people are entitled.

The State governments have been very loud in their condemnation of this Government, but I think that there are many ways in which they are not giving adequate hospital service to their own people. I have pointed out that the idea is inherent in this bill that hospital facilities should be made available to those who require them, not in crowded and cramped areas, but in well equipped, modern, well staffed and scientifically sound hospitals. I have some little knowledge of the problem with which the Minister for Health is faced in his task of persuading the State governments to recognize their responsibility in this matter. I think that this scheme should be well operated, that the people are entitled to this earned right to the provision of hospital facilities and that the time has arrived for some straight talking to the States in order to ensure that they give these very necessary services to the community. I hope that the time is not far distant when the States will be able to provide necessary and up-to-date hospital facilities. Prevention of sickness, early diagnosis and good treatment all play their part in the building of a healthy nation, and if Australia is to have facilities for early diagnosis and good treatment it must have the necessary hospital facilities. I think that the State governments should be made to realize their responsibility in the operation of a national health scheme.

I again commend the Minister for Health for his work. It is gratifying also to note that all sections of the community have been catered for. I believe that, in future years, because of the work that has hcen clone in relation to prevention of sickness, and particularly in relation to child health, we shall see strong, healthy people enjoying life in this country. I emphasize again that if this scheme is to be effective and is to provide the people of Australia with the services to which they are entitled, the States must play their part in providing the necessary hospital beds. I have much pleasure in supporting the bill.

Motion (by Senator Willesee) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate being in process of division,

Senator McKenna:

Mr. DeputyPresident, I have just recalled that, as I am paired with the Minister for Trade and Customs, I should not be voting. I must plead guilty to forgetfulness in this matter. By leave of the Senate T shall withdraw at this stage if that be permissible.

Senator Brown:

– I regret that I am in the same position. In my hurry to reach the chamber when the bells were ringing I overlooked the fact that I had been paired with Senator Guy. I am very sorry that this has occurred.

Senator Wright:

– I suggest that to enable the two honorable senators who are present in the chamber to meet their undertaking with two honorable senators who support the Government, the division should be called off.

Senator McKenna:

– In the circumstances, the Opposition will call the divison off.

Division - by leave - called off.

Question resolved in the negative.

Sitting suspended from 11.58 p.m. to 12.35 a.m. (Wednesday).

Wednesday2, December 1953.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Aus tralia

– I shall make some general observations about an appropriate approach to a national health scheme for this country. In my opinion, the second-reading speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) did not establish a desirable atmosphere in which to consider a subject of such magnitude and importance. A very grave disservice has been done to the community by the manner in which this subject has been allowed to drop so deeply into the realms of party politics during the last eight or ten years. In 1949 many doctors who were caught up in the hurly-burly of the emotions of those days, expressed the hope that some day, by some manner or means, the Australian Parliament would introduce an adequate national health serviceSuccessive Ministers for Health have worked hard in an endeavour to do so. My mind goes back to my friend and colleague, Senator Eraser, who was Minister for Health during some of the darkest days in the history of this country. He had the difficult job of trying to sell to the medical profession and the people of Australia the idea of a health scheme. In any walk of life, the pioneers who try to sell an idea to the people are the men who lay the foundations for subsequent structures. Senator Fraser was followed in the office of Minister for Health by the present Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). He held conferences galore in order to obtain acceptance of the principle of a national health scheme, which was completely new to the Australian people. Unfortunately the health services which have been introduced in other parts of the world have been criticized unduly by the press, particularly in Australia. It was implied, for instance, that the British health scheme contained no good points at all. A year or two after it was introduced I attended a reception in Perth to a visiting British doctor. He said that although he did not want to enter into the politics of the matter, he had heard since his arrival in Australia all sorts of criticism about the provision free, under the British scheme, of wigs and false teeth. He pointed out that only 2,000 wigs had been issued in Great Britain, which, had a population of 48,000,000 people, and that most of the wigs were for women, who had lost their hair as a result of disease. From the point of view of personal prestige, it is essential for such women to wear wigs, particularly when seeking employment. The doctor stated that the British Government had decided to provide false teeth free, to enable people to masticate their food, and thus avoid stomach troubles.

I have digressed somewhat in order to show that many considerations enter into this matter. In the short period that I have had to study this measure since T arrived from Perth, I have formed the impression that the Government has completely missed the boat in the present health scheme. I have read a roneoed copy of the Minister’s second-reading speech, which obviously was not designed to create the appropriate climate in which to discuss this subject. I think it is fair to say that the speech contains many platitudes. For instance, the Minister said-

A happy augury in this is that, as Treasurer in the ‘twenties, the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) was able to have a voluntary loan council working for four years. . . .

What relation that statement bears to a national health scheme is beyond my comprehension, unless, like the racing news published in the press on Fridays, it was intended as a guide to form.

Senator Arnold:

– It carries more weight on this occasion.

Senator WILLESEE:

– The second paragraph of the Minister’s speech contains the following father of all trite statements -

Once people cease to live, the other issues, however important they seem, no longer concern them.

At least that is something with which we can all agree. What profundity! I find it difficult to connect many of the Minister’s statements with the bill. For instance, he said -

A national health scheme, to be permanently successful, must be something much more than can be stated in figures or money. It must have substantial social and moral values which are intangible and not measured in money terms. Restoration of health and prolongation of life is the task of the physician, who must be dedicated to the practice of the healing art, just as the priest is dedicated to the saving of souls. The work of those dedicated to medicine and religion is essentially personal and individual.

The flowers that bloom in the spring, trala, have nothing to do with the case. I think that the Minister’s last observation could be applied to many professions in the community to-day. I presume that the Minister intended the term “ priest “ to include the whole range of persons engaged in ecclesiastical work, and, therefore, that the saving of souls is akin to the saving of health. I think that he drew a most unfortunate and inappropriate simile.

What does this bill do? The Minister stated that, to be permanently successful, a national health scheme must be something much more than can be stated in figures or money. I contend that the bill deals only with the economic side of medicine. It does not say that we should move to a higher level of education for our doctors. It does not say that we should try to import from the United States of America some aspects of the successful medical services that are provided in that country. That has never been pretence at any stage. Indeed, our whole approach to medical services should be to help people to finance their obligations when they are sick and in need. I regard as so much drivel the statement that the priest is in the same category as the doctor. A priest does not receive payment when he responds to a midnight call in an emergency. The statement is a mere platitude-

Senator Maher:

-A simile.

Senator WILLESEE:

– It is a most unfortunate simile. The Minister would have been better advised to use hyperbole.

Senator Maher:

– The body and the soul are closely related.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I cannot agree with Senator Maher. This bill is concerned with the economic side of medicine, and has nothing to do with the soul. If this bill went beyond the ambit of the economics of medicine, Senator Maher’s argument might have some merit.

Senator Critchley:

– The, statement is as clear as” the rest of the Minister’s second-reading speech, and the bill itself.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I agree with Senator Critchley. The Minister also referred to the high quality of Australian medical practice. He was guilty of another platitude when he said -

Australia is fortunate in that although its method of government may have diverted national commercial development, yet the conditions produced have stimulated the quality and capacity of the general medical practitioner.

Until the advent of the Chifley Government, the only persons who could afford to qualify as medical practitioners were the sons of wealthy persons.

Senator Kendall:

– .Nonsense !

Senator WILLESEE:

– It was not until the Chifley Government provided financial assistance that the sons of comparatively poor persons were able to attend our universities as medical students. This morning Senator Tangney, in a question, directed attention to the fact that the University of “Western Australia had been endeavouring to establish a medical school for some years. I mention, in passing, that this ambition is in keeping with the great development which has taken place in that State since “World “War II. Indeed, Western Australia has developed to a greater degree than has any other State in that period, because of the happy wedding between primary and secondary production. However, that is by the way. The Chifley Labour Government, and its much maligned leader, the late Mr. Chifley, promised a contribution of ?125,000 towards the establishment of a medical school at the University of Western Australia. Before the contribution was made, the Labour Government was defeated and vacated office. The Minister for Health boasts of the high quality of the Australian medical profession. Has he attempted to honour the promise that was made to the University of Western Australia by the Chifley Government? Of course, he has not! The present Government withdrew the offer. The Minister for National Development (Senator Spooner), who is noticeably employing the jargon of his profession of cost accountant, has said, with a grandiose flourish, that university finance is the responsibility of the States, and that Western Australia has an opportunity equal with that of other States to make the necessary provision. I ask, how has a claimant State such as Western Australia an opportunity equal to that of the non-claimant States to finance a university? Health cannot be related to a State government or road board. It is the responsibility of the people of Australia and, above all, it is the responsibility of the representatives of the people wherever they meet, whether it be in a Parliament, municipal council or road board.

All the time I am discussing the Minister’s second-reading speech, I have the uncomfortable feeling that my remarks are not relevant to the bill. I now draw attention to the following bold statement : -

Britain has one of the best specialists systems in the world, but its present health service is causing deterioration of general medical practice.

I see no document, opinions of learned men, or other evidence of any sort to support that statement. It is just a bald pronouncement in this completely confused speech. Another platitude in the speech with which we all agree is the reference to the importance of early diagnosis, as follows: -

The most important point in medical treatment is complete and early examination and diagnosis, whether the treatment is later given by a general medical practitioner or a specialist.

Of course, that is elementary. We know perfectly well that the prevention of disease, and the diagnosis of disease in its early_ stages, are most important. Cancer and consumption can be checked only if they are accurately diagnosed in the early stages. I have no quarrel with that statement, but I point out that the bill does not contain any provision dealing with early diagnosis.

Senator 0’Flaherty read to day some passages from an article in Voice, a magazine

Senator Robertson:

Senator O’Flaherty read the extracts from that magazine yesterday.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, it was yesterday. We are crazy to debate the bill_at this hour of the morning. Senator 0’Flaherty read some passages from an article signed by “ A Doctor “. I think that Senator Laught endeavoured to persuade Senator O’Flaherty to reveal the name of “ A Doctor “, but Senator O’flaherty is hard of hearing and continued to read. I have read the article, and I know that it bears no name other than “ A Doctor “.

Senator Robertson:

– One always questions an anonymous article.

Senator WILLESEE:

– It is not an anonymous article.

Senator Robertson:

– Yes, it is.

Senator WILLESEE:

– The editors of Voice approached “ A Doctor “ and the

Minister for Health and invited them to contribute their views for that article. “ A Doctor “ argues that the provision of free medicine is essential if persons are to consult their doctors at the first signs of the onset of disease. He considers that a person will seek an early diagnosis if he is not concerned about the expense of the consultation and possible treatment. That argument is difficult to controvert, but I do not agree with it, because experience of medical schemes in other countries reveals the importance of placing some responsibility on the individual. That factor is most important. This bill imposes some financial obligation . on the individual, and, therefore, people will not be encouraged to seek an early diagnosis, because of the monetary consideration. It is satisfactory that such provision is made in the bill, but the Minister should not claim that the legislation will induce people to seek an early diagnosis.

I became positively incensed at the complete hypocrisy of another statement in the Minister’s second-reading speech. In fact, it is completely irrelevant to the bill. The Minister claims that insurance averages the risk in the national partnership. He says that the presence of certain social factors, which he mentions, enables individual risks, such as costs of sudden or serious catastrophic illness, to be averaged on a community basis. Of course, tlie scheme does not make provision of that kind. An individual who suffers from a prolonged illness is vulnerable from the economic stand-point, because friendly societies and approved organizations pay his hospital expenses for only 84 days a year. Elderly people are prone to slip and fracture a hip, and they may be in bed for one or two years. Those persona should be protected under the scheme against the costs of “ sudden or serious catastrophic illness “. The bill will not afford any protection to them. It does not necessarily give a person financial protection in respect of the expense that he incurs during the 84 days he is in hospital. The patient will worry, because he will be entitled to receive only the Commonwealth benefit when the payments from the approved organization cease. A patient must pay £6 10s. a week for hospital accommodation in Queensland, £8 8s. a week in Western Australia, and up to £14 14s. a week in other States.

What will be the position of the family that cannot afford to insure itself ? There are many such families in our community. A person who receives little more than the basic wage may contribute to a benefits fund for several years. Then, finding it increasingly difficult to pay his contributions, he may decide to take a risk and discontinue them. People who have plenty of money may say that such a person should not take that risk. But one cannot change human nature. The Government’s scheme will not average the cost of health services over the community. It will penalize the lower income earners who are the very people who should be protected by this legislation. If a person is confined to a hospital bed for twelve months this scheme will not cover his expenses for 2S1 days of that period. This scheme will benefit only those who insure themselves and some people will not insure because they cannot afford to and others will not insure because of their psychological outlook. Men such as metal tradesmen who receive the best of industrial margins have told me that it is a real problem for them, to find the £8 8s. a week necessary for hospital expenses. I ask that the Government analyse this bill with a view to improving it even after it has forced it through the Senate by weight of numbers.

The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has also claimed simplicity of operation as a virtue of the scheme. In the course of his second-reading speech he said that in order to join an organization a person only had to fill in a form of application showing his name and address, date of birth, occupation and details of any illnesses or disability that he had suffered at the time of or immediately prior to joining the organization. There lies the nigger in the woodpile. What about the chronic sufferer? Those unfortunate people who have a recurring illness are the very ones whom we should protect. We need not be concerned with the person who, once in twenty years, has an injection costing £2 2s. The man with an allergy complaint or the man with a recurring illness such as ear trouble, sinus trouble or nose and throat trouble, is barred by this bill from receiving benefits from benefits societies. This bill will protect the person who does not need protection and it will overlook the person whom the Government should protect. The Minister also said that medical costs were no longer a spectre. They are a spectre. A friend of mine told me that he was completely satisfied with the Government’s health scheme except that if he went into hospital with a prolonged illness the scheme would not be of much assistance to him. This man has a good job and is able to insure himself, yet he said that he was afraid of the position that he would be in if he contracted a prolonged illness. So medical costs are still a spectre. This man considered that after he had contributed to his benefits fund for years ho would still have to incur heavy medical expenses because at the end of 84 days in hospital he would no longer be protected by the Government’s scheme.

Senator Annabelle Rankin referred to what she called “ earned rights “. I presume that she meant that the fact that a family was contributing to a medical benefits fund would entitle it to the benefits provided in this bill. But I fail to see that there is any difference between an “ earned right “ under the health scheme and an “ earned right “ in relation to child endowment. I am sure that the honorable senator will agree that every mother in this community has earned the right to receive child endowment benefits. I do not think that the honorable senator would disagree that every widow has earned the right to receive a widow’s pension because of her widowhood. I think that medical benefits would be an “ earned right “ even if people have not paid a special tax into the Government’s coffers and a special contribution to benefits organizations for them. Honorable senators sometimes advocate equal pay for the sexes, but they do not mention the position of wives. If wives have not earned their place in the community, nobody has. The payment of a stipend does not establish any special entitlement to benefit. The right exists, whether the benefits are provided from general revenue or from a special insurance fund. I shall put aside the terrible speech of the Minister for Health and try to dis- abuse my mind of the right honorable gentleman’s statements.

What should be our fundamental approach to the problem of providing a national health scheme if we think clearly about it and eschew all considerations of party politics? What fundamental principles should we apply? What are the responsibilities of the Government to the people of Australia ? I suggest that we should approach the problem, first, with the object of protecting those people who suffer from long and expensive illnesses. It should not be the responsibility of the Government to worry about small amounts of one, two, or three guineas. Such expenses should .be a responsibility of citizenship. We accept them when we become citizens, and we add to them if we marry and raise families. There are many persons in the community who, thank God, have never seen the inside of a hospital, or who have spent no more than a day or so in a hospital bed, or even perhaps an hour or two in a casualty ward to receive an injection or to have a toe bandaged. Why should we place on those people the responsibility of paying £8 or £10 a year? If father takes Johnnie to have an injection, he pays a fee of £1 ls. Then, under the present scheme he has to go through all the business of filling in forms in order to recover a certain amount from the Commonwealth and another sum from the medical society to which he contributes.

There is no need for the Commonwealth to become involved in such small transactions, but it should say to everybody in the community, “ We shall not allow you to bear the expense of a long and costly illness. That will be our responsibility. In other words, it will be the responsibility of the whole community”. If we could smooth out some of the eddies and whirlpools of this Government’s scheme, we could say to every basic wage earner in Australia, “You shall be responsible for the first £5 of your medical expenses in any one year, but the Commonwealth will pay for any costs over and above that amount “. Of course, it would be necessary with such a system to apply as means test. A person earning £1,500 a year should be held responsible, say, for the first £10 or £15 of his medical expenses in a year, and the scale should be graduated until Commonwealth responsibility ceases when the income of the individual is £10,000 or £15,000 a year. These figures have been selected almost at random merely for the sake of illustration. The plan would have to be based on the calculations of treasuryexperts. I am sure that it would be welcomed by the Treasurer because, although I have not gone closely into the details of the proposal, I have no doubt that it would be much less burdensome on the treasury than is the present scheme.

The plan would be simple in operation. It would preserve the principle of applying a certain degree of financial responsibility to the individual, but the commitment in each case would be no more than the individual could afford to pay. It would protect the person who suffers a long and expensive illness and most needs protection. Furthermore, it would obviate all this fiddling and fooling about to recover 10s. 6d. here and 17s. 6d. there, which involves a colossal waste of manpower and requires the Commonwealth to worry about details that it should not have to worry about. I emphasize the fact that it would apply the principle of imposing a certain degree of responsibility on the individual and the principle of using Commonwealth funds to help the people who really need help. Its simplicity commends it. All government schemes should be made as simple and inexpensive as possible. I do not visualize a great deal of trouble in ths recovery of benefits under such a scheme. The taxpayer would be required merely to prove to the Department of Social Services, first, that he was a basic wage earner, a salary earner receiving £1,500 a year, or a wealthy man with an income of £20,000 a year. ‘ That could easily be done by presenting a copy of the taxation group certificate or, in the case of a businessman or farmer, the taxation assessment for the previous financial year. The lag would not exceed twelve months, and there could not be much variation of income in a period of less than a year. The second requirement would be to prove to the department that a certain amount had been paid in medical expenses.

Senator Gorton:

– Why not eliminate the means test altogether ?

Senator WILLESEE:

– That could be done too. It is a point that J. proposed to discuss.

In order to eliminate the means test, it would be necessary merely to fix a flat rate and say that every person in the community must be held responsible for, say, £12 or £15 of his medical expenses in any year, according to the figure decided by the Government’s advisers. That system would obviate the necessity to provide proof of income, and the applicant in each instance would have to provide proof only of the amount of medical expense incurred in any year. Such a scheme would be simple to operate and everybody would understand it. It would be cheap to operate also, and a check could be maintained on individual taxpayers by means of an uncomplicated card index system. It would be difficult for anybody to perpetrate a fraud. Obviously, very few doctors would deliberately try to cheat the Government. The risk involved would be out of all proportion to the prospective gain because, if detected, a doctor would be deregistered and, in addition, would suffer any other penalties that might be fixed. The individual citizen could not defraud the scheme of large amounts or for a long time. If a great big strapping man repeatedly applied for benefits, suspicion would naturally fall upon him. Furthermore, his risk would be increased by the fact that he would have to forge doctors’ certificates. There is no doubt that such a person would soon be apprehended. That is the sort of approach that the Australian Parliament should make to the problem of providing an efficient and satisfactory national health scheme.

Senator Kendall:

– To whom would the Commonwealth pay benefits?

Senator WILLESEE:

– To anybody whose medical expenses in any year exceeded a certain amount.

Senator Kendall:

– To the individual?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, or to the doctor if that were thought advisable.

Senator Kendall:

– And the individual would be able to obtain free hospital accommodation?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes.

Senator Kendall:

– Who would pay the hospital bill ?

Senator WILLESEE:

– The entire plan would be financed from revenue.

I come now to the only snag in this scheme, and it is a snag that has emerged from all the eddies and whirlpools that have swamped free medicine schemes during the last ten years. My plan presupposes a fixed scale of medical fees. Obviously, if a taxpayer had his appendix removed by Dr. Jones, who charges £200 for such an operation, the Commonwealth could not undertake to pay the entire amount in excess of £15. But surely there is a fixed scale of medical fees throughout Australia! My family doctor charges a standard fee for each consultation at his surgery and a slightly higher fee for a visit to my home. There must be a standard scale of fees, especially amongst general practitioners ! The problem of persuading doctors to cooperate in such a plan is entirely a manmade problem, which has arisen from the hates and prejudices that have been engendered by politics entering into the health scheme. Surely nobody will say that the principles of the health plan that I have proposed are wrong. Can there be any objection to the principle of holding the individual responsible for a certain amount of his medical expenses? Such responsibility is a duty of citizenship, and it would be wrong for the Commonwealth to be worried with small amounts. Is there anything wrong with the principle of giving aid to those people who most need help? That is a most important principle. I have spoken to many doctors about my plan, and they have expressed no great objection to it. On the question of medical fees, they told me that the majority of Australian doctors would not object to it, but they warned me that there might be certain specialists who would wish to retain the right to charge whatever fee they considered applicable, no doubt having regard to the wearing or otherwise of an old school tie by the patient. I have not come across such doctors, but I was warned about them.

I was most interested in the statistics which Senator Annabelle Rankin cited concerning the hospital accommodation position in Queensland. The shortage of hospital beds is a real problem, particularly in view of the influx of immigrants to this country. In that connexion, incidentally, I hope that in the next few years a greater number of immigrants will come to this country than came here during the past year. However, it is disturbing to think that the future of hospital accommodation in Australia depends on the provision of hutments. When Senator Annabelle Rankin was speaking to-night my mind flicked back to a few months ago when I inspected hospitals in northern Pakistan. In that country I was proudly shown what was #aid to be a 400-bed hospital. However, the building was not much bigger than a private home. I learned that hospital accommodation in that country is provided not so much for the purpose of housing patients as instruments. The Pakistanis consider that the position is met by a ward which accommodates twelve or fourteen of the very serious eases, a records room, an out-patients’ room and an X-ray room. The remainder of the patients are accommodated in tents. The provision of such a hospital is regarded as an achievement in that, part of the world. In this supposedly enlightened country, with more than 150 years’ experience behind us, we should not be speaking about the provision of hutments to accommodate hospital patients. To do so indicates that we have not seriously applied ourselves to the problem.

What is to be the future of hospitals in Australia, particularly private hospitals? Are we to say that there are to be no more private hospitals? Is hospital accommodation to be provided solely by the Government? Has inflation completely destroyed the possibility of hospitals continuing to be operated by members of religious denominations and other groups? Are they to be prevented from carrying on the good work that they have done in the past? There has been no clear declaration of policy in this connexion. When I pressed for such a declaration I was told that the future of hospital accommodation in Australia depends on the provision of hutments. In my opinion the figures cited by Senator Annabelle Rankin should be examined. I have not much sympathy with those who say that the provision of hospital accommodation is a matter for the States. Surely it is also the responsibility of the Australian Government to see that the people of the Commonwealth are provided with suitable hospital accommodation.

Senator Kendall:

– Provision for it could be included in the grants to the States.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, but let us be specific about it and see that the job is done. Should another war break out, I shudder to think what would be the position of hospital accommodation in Australia. Surely we should apply ourselves now to this question. We could adopt, with advantage, the fine American scheme of taking the hospital ‘ into the home, so to speak. The bugbear of hospitals to-day are the chronic sufferers. Yet very often all that such persons require is the attention of a doctor or trained nurse twice a week. In the United States of America and other parts of the world, a properly equipped van, staffed by a doctor and a nurse, calls at the homes of such sufferers once a week or at other specified times. By that means, chronic sufferers can be treated at home and the hospital accommodation position be relieved. I have heard no suggestion that that Government proposes to adopt such a system. Public health in Australia has reached a stage where a clear-cut lead is required, so that we may know where we are going.

The Opposition has presented a series of amendments, I suggest in all earnestness. I deplore the fact that the smog of politics is enveloping this very vital question of national health. If honorable senators examine the amendments that have been moved, they will see that they seek the establishment and maintenance of an adequate number of diagnostic and health centres, and adequate provision for the dental care of children under sixteen years of age. The dental care of children, particularly those in outback areas, is something to which proper consideration has never been given. The amendments also seek the provision of adequate training and research facilities, and a system of regional hospitals. One almost shudders on reading the comments of hospital authorities about the lack of such facilities. The amendments seek the provision of substantially increased rates of hospital benefits, having regard to the increase of hospital costs. Although the supporters of the Government have stated that the finances of hospitals have improved as a result of the Government’s health schemes, it is the opinion of the Opposition that there is need for further improvement, having regard to the inflationary trend.

The Opposition amendments propose the negotiation of fresh agreements between the Commonwealth and the States in order to ensure that throughout Australia there shall be no charge and no means test for qualified patients who occupy beds in public wards of public hospitals. The amendments contain positive suggestions. There is nothing negative about them. It is futile for the Government, or the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), to contend that this legislation represents a great achievement, because the very people who should be protected by it are those who will not be protected. The Government has said that if people join benefit societies it will hold the umbrella of protection over them. However, it cannot compel those who, perhaps because of lack of education, think along different lines, to get under the umbrella. Such people will not join the societies. Even those who are members of approved societies and who experience financial difficulty, so that they are unable to keep up their contributions, are deprived of benefits at the very time when they most need them. The Government’s scheme must fail because it does not protect those people in the community who most need protection. On the administrative side, which to my way of thinking is equally important, the Government is fiddling about with 5s. here and 10s. or a couple of guineas there, and is leaving vulnerable the very people whom it should protect. Therefore, I say in all sincerity that the Government should consider the positive proposals made by the Opposition. Whatever the fate of this bill may be, we can rest assured that the final word on a national health scheme is not being spoken in this Parliament to-night. Let us approach this matter la the cooperative spirit in which an Australian Parliament should approach it.

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– I support the bill and congratulate the Government on having put into operation a national health scheme that has been acclaimed a3 the best in the world. I was shocked by the remarks made to-night by Senator Benn and Senator O’Flaherty. Senator Benn said that the doctor supplied the skill and the patient supplied the fee. From that remark, I deduce that Senator Benn has very little knowledge of the medical profession and no appreciation of the services it renders to the community. Certainly the doctor supplies the skill, but he is able to supply it only after long years of study. He serves the community devotedly. Any honorable senator who has any experience of a doctor’s home knows that not only the doctor himself, but also his family spend their lives in giving service to the community. I was shocked to hear Senator O’Flaherty talk about exploitation by doctors. I say the community owes to doctors in private practice and in hospitals a debt that it can never repay with money. The reason why so many leading medical men die of heart disease, the increasing death rate from which is causing great concern, is that their constitutions cannot stand the strain imposed on them. In the Health Instruction YearBooh for 1952 there is an article headed “ Heart disease in doctors “, in which the following passage appears: -

Morris, Heady and Barley of Great Britain report a study of heart disease among G,000 physicians in Great Britain. This study revealed that between the ages of 45 and 05 years the chances arc one in five that a physician who is a general practitioner will have coronary heart disease. The actual prevalence of coronary heart disease among physicians between the ages of 00 and 04 years was 9 per cent.

The article goes on to say that the incidence of heart disease in non-medical groups is much below that among fulltime general practitioners. Those facts give an indication of the strain that is imposed on the health of general practitioners as well as highly skilled specialists.

I was interested to hear the attacks made on the British Medical Association. Let us have a look at this association that seems to cause so much concern among Labour senators. It was established long before Senator Benn was born. It is over 100 years old. Its members are the majority of medical men in Great Britain and the Dominions. Certainly, it has done much to secure adequate rates of pay and improved conditions for the medical profession, but it has fought also to make the profession more attractive for men and women of the highest ability. It has sought to preserve high standards of etiquette and behaviour and, by the preservations of those standards, has maintained the dignity of the profession.

I agree with Senator Willesee that health should not be talked about only in terms of party politics. Senator Rankin stressed the importance of health to every member of the community. Health is our most important possession. Without it, we are very poor indeed. It is important to our happiness, because the danger of losing it causes us worry and concern. Therefore, we should consider how the operation of a national health scheme will affect every member of the community. Nobody can foretell the day or the hour on which sickness will strike a member of a household. We cannot forecast the duration or seriousness of an illness. I cannot agree with some of the statements made by Senator Willesee. He said he did not think the Government should be concerned with small amounts. I do not agree with that contention. I believe that most of us, at some time or other, will require medical attention. We may require such attention only for a minor illness or a minor accident, but we shall require it. Many of us will require more specialized care, some for maternity and others for major illnesses and major accidents. Some people will be ill for long periods as a result of serious or chronic diseases or major accidents. In many cases, they will not recover from their illnesses. The point I want to make is that very few people in the community will not be affected, to a greater or a lesser degree, by some form of sickness or accident. The blow falls hardest on people in the lower income group. [Quorum formed.’] In cases of slight illness, the problem is not so great but between 50 and 60 per cent, of all cases come under that beading. Therefore it is important that some assistance should be given to every person who is sick. In the case of a serious illness, the expense constitutes a real problem. Sickness is no respecter of financial resources. It. attacks the rich and the poor. All honorable senators will agree that the cost of medical care and attention is beyond the capacity of any but the rich. It places an intolerable burden upon the family man. Therefore, I believe that the Government has acted correctly in introducing a scheme that gives substantial assistance to those who are ill. It enables those in the small income group to pay for medical care and lessens the effect of loss of income while sick. Without assistance, a proportion of all families could be forced to enter into obligations entailing the expenditure of all accumulated savings and placing a burden upon them for many years.

No government can entirely remove the economic difficulties that result from sickness and accidents, but this Government has sought to reduce their effect by the best known method. That is by way of insurance. Practically everybody accepts the principle of insurance and I was interested to note that Senator Willesee stated that he did not do so. Generally it is accepted in the community to protect the home from fire, burglary and other risks. People insure their lives against all kinds of hazards. I believe that the Government acted correctly in asking the people to make some contribution towards the insurance of their health. Many persons are banding together as members of approved associations. Each member is making a small regular contribution to a common fund. In that way the risks and the costs are spread over a number of people for a period of years. In other words, the people are being encouraged to help themselves by voluntary insurance.

In the matter of hospital benefits, I believe that the Government acted rightly in 1951 in removing the controls that the Chifley Government had placed upon hospital finances, and in passing those controls back to the hospitals. Senator Anderson referred extensively to the state of hospital finances earlier in the debate, and I do not propose to say more about the matter. Senator Annabelle Rankin quoted figures supporting the statement that since that power was given back to the hospitals, their finances have improved considerably. Although it has been claimed that the payment of an extra 4s. a day above the original 8s. paid to qualified patients in public hospitals is not a valuable contribution, I suggest that it is proving an incentive to people to insure themselves against ill health. The lessened strain upon hospital accommodation itself is a valuable benefit. Senator Annabelle Rankin also dealt with the free lifesaving drugs and immunizing agents, and I do not propose to enlarge upon that subject except to add that as fewer people enter the hospitals and the stay of those who are admitted is lessened, the problem of hospital accommodation also is eased.

An interesting feature of the bill is the introduction of the pensioner scheme. Senator Willesee said that the Government had not provided for persons who were unable to provide for themselves. I point out that under the previous Government’s health scheme, no special services were provided at all for the pensioners. This Government has provided free medical and pharmaceutical benefits. In addition it has provided 12s. a day for each pensioner who is in hospital. During the committee stages of the bill, I intend to have something to say about infirmary patients in benevolent homes. I believe that an anomaly exists in connexion with those people under the existing legislation. I was interested to learn that in another place the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) had stated that he would investigate the matter as it affects those people. Honorable senators may not know the facts but when pensioners are admitted to a benevolent institution, they receive the social services pension. That amounts to £3 10s. a week. Most of the patients are age and invalid pensioners-

Each pensioner is allowed to retain £1 4s. 6d. a week and the institution receives £2 5s. 6d. Immediately the patient is placed in the infirmary of the institution, the pension payment to the institution ceases and is replaced by the 8s. a day hospital benefit. There is an anomaly there. The pensioners receive the benefit of the payment of 12s. a day while they are patients in any public hospital, but only 8s. a day is paid for them while they are in the infirmary of a convalescent home. Many people may consider that that is not an important matter, but it is very important to the homes themselves. In the largest institution for the aged in Victoria the bed capacity is 726 patients and only 166 are dormitary or ward patients. It follows that 75 per cent, of the inmates are infirmary patients and the payment of the additional 4s. a day would materially assist the financing of these homes. No doubt honorable senators will all agree that the free milk scheme for school children will be of tremendous value to Australia. Perhaps its value will ‘ be more apparent in years to come than it is to-day, because it has been designed to safeguard the health of school children. It has been well established that if a nation’s children are healthy, when those children reach maturity the people of the nation will be healthy.

The wonderful campaign that this Government has launched to eradicate tuberculosis has been mentioned during this debate. The Labour party is entitled to a share of credit in respect of the scheme, because anti-tuberculosis legislation was passed by the Parliament as far back as 1948. However, no tuberculosis sufferer’s allowance was paid until the Menzies Government came to office in 1949. Indeed, at that time New South Wales and South Australia had not even joined the Commonwealth scheme. Therefore, as the present Government entered into the tuberculosis campaign practically from its beginning, it is entitled to take great credit for the success of its efforts. It is interesting to notice that in 1950-51 the expenditure on the anti-tuberculosis scheme was £2,749.000. In 1952-53 it was more than £6,000,000, and in the present financial year it is expected to exceed £7,000,000. There has also been a great decrease in the death rate from tuberculosis during the last 50 years. At the beginning of this century, 185 persons out of 100,000 of the population died of tuberculosis. This year only fifteen out of each 100,000 died from that disease. Those figures will give honorable senators some idea of the success of our campaign. I have always been particularly interested in the whole subject of tuberculosis. When I first entered the Senate I spoke about it on several occasions, and we in Victoria are now feeling very satisfied that while in 1900 there were 2,000 deaths in that State from tuberculosis, last year there were only 346. Moreover, there has been a great increase in the beds available for tuberculosis patients. The Minister has claimed that during the regime of this Government more than 1,000 additional beds have been provided for sufferers, and I know that in my own State, for the first time in history, there is no waiting list for these patients. Several years ago it was very difficult for a tuberculosis sufferer to find accommodation in a Victorian sanatorium, but to-day in some of our sanatoriums empty beds may be found. That is a great achievement by those responsible, and reflects much credit on them.

I shall deal with the matter of mental hospitals during the committee stage of this measure. I believe that the Government’s health scheme has been developed stage by stage, and its main object has been to provide certain services free of charge. That has been shown by the provision of some free services and free life-saving drugs, and by the provision of partly free medical and hospital attention for all who are capable of paying. I believe that the Government has shown wisdom in its method of working out the scheme, and in ensuring that the very highest professional standard shall be maintained. Therefore, I believe that when the whole of the health scheme is considered, it may be said that the Government has nothing to fear from the Opposition’s criticism, and I am certain that the Australian people will regard it as the best scheme that has yet been introduced in any country of the world.

Motion (by Senator Byrne) put -

That the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 26

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question” so resolved in the negative.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– At this early hour of the morning it is extremely difficult for honorable senators to make an intelligent examination of this important measure and to assess fully its impact upon the nation. I take this opportunity to repeat the protest that has been voiced by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) against the tactics to which the Government has resorted in requiring honorable senators to consider the bill under these conditions. Certainly, the Government is not showing that solicitude for the health of honorable senators that it professes to entertain for the health of the community. This measure is most important, but it hardly justifies the verbal extravagance and hyperbole in which the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) indulged in his secondreading speech. It is foolish for Government supporters to exaggerate merely in order to make a case in support of the bill. Much of the Minister’s speech was quite unintelligible. Although I have read it carefully and have done my best to understand it, many of its passages remain quite meaningless to me. I crave the assistance of Government supporters to help me to understand the following extravagant phrase which appears in the Minister’s speech in that section of it. which deals with the general principle of the scheme -

As well, the Government’s approach to the problem offers many intangible benefits to the moral and social uplift of community life and co-operation that cannot be measured in money terms.

Precisely what that means, I do not know; and I doubt whether the Minister knows what it means. That is only one instance of the language in which the Minister’s second-reading speech was couched and which, of course, leads one to conclude that the measure cannot stand on its own feet, but must be introduced with language sufficiently embellished to divert the minds of honorable senators from its many defects. Dealing with the doctor-patient relationship the Minister said -

Retention of the intimate doctor-patient relationship must also be supported by social and psychological factors that build up the morale, independence, benevolence and community spirit of the individual.

What does that mean? That passage is another example of the spirit manifested in the presentation of the bill. I could quote similar passages practically from every page of the Minister’s speech.

The fundamental difference that exists between the thinking of Government supporters and that of members of the Opposition in relation to this scheme is whether services of this nature should be provided free to the public or whether they should be paid for by individual citizens under a system of the kind that has been devised by the Government.

Senator Wright:

– What does the honorable senator mean when he says that the services should be provided free?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– It is a question of whether services of this kind should be financed from Consolidated Revenue or whether they should be provided under a system of compulsory contributions. I do not propose to deal with every aspect of the measure that relates to that fundamental difference of principle. In that respect, I propose to direct attention specifically to the provisions of the bill in relation to hospital benefits. On that point the fundamental difference that exists between the thinking of Government supporters and that of members of the Opposition is revealed in that amendment that lias been proposed by Senator Benn, particularly in paragraph (2) of the amendment which proposes that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide “ for the negotiation of fresh agreements between the Commonwealth and the States to ensure that throughout Australia there shall be no charge and no means test for qualified patients occupying beds in public wards of public hospitals “. In respect of hospital services, this measure seeks to re-enact the provisions contained in the 1951 act. Under that act, agreements were completed between the Commonwealth and the States to provide for the payment in certain circumstances of moneys to the States on the basis of occupied beds. It is unnecessary at this juncture to recite the history of the difficulties that existed between the States and the Commonwealth on that point or the history of this Government’s departure from the scheme that had been introduced by the Chifley Government. The repeal of those agreements is a sad chapter in the history of national health services in this country. The Chifley Government did not at any time attempt to stand over the State Governments. It was always prepared to respect and preserve the interests of the States in respect of hospitalization. It was prepared to observe the schemes that the States had endorsed, and it did not lay down any conditions that affected the independence of the States in that respect. To-day, the Australian Government possesses tremendous power in respect of health. It has terrific financial power which can be exercised equitably and justly, or wantonly and brutally as, unfortunately, this Government has exercised it to the detriment of the States, particularly Queensland. As, under the Constitution, the Senate exists primarily to protect the rights and sovereignty of the States, and having regard to Senator Wedgwood’s statement that our approach to this matter should be divorced from party politics, one would expect that the first objective of honorable senators on this occasion would be tofulfil that purpose.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– The Government believes in liberty.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– It is one thing to believe in liberty, but it is another thing to take an active step to protect it. Under the Chifley Government the integrity of the State governments in relation to hospital finances was protected. The fundamental difference between the approach of the Government and the approach of the Opposition is the difference between payment under compulsion and payment by means of taxation which is levied equitably on a graduated scale on all people in the community. The Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), in his second-reading speech, said that the most important thing in the world is individual and national health. That, statement has been well criticized by Senator Willesee as another piece of profound philosophy. The Minister also said, “ Once people cease to live, the other issues, however important they seem, no longer concern them”. I am not complaining about the philosophy in that statement. I am conceding the fact that the Minister, when he. made that statement, made it the peg upon which he hangs this legislation. There are two things which may be put in the same category. One is the question of national health and the other is the question of national education. I suppose that throughout the history of this country they have been the two principal goals towards which people, irrespective of their party, have striven with tremendous effort and under great disabilities and in some cases without great achievement. Our approach to education is a very old approach. It was an approach that was determined before the turn of the century. The conclusion reached was that education should be free. I do not suppose that any honorable senator - certainly none on this side of the chamber - would claim that primary education should not be absolutely free but, on the Minister’s own words, education is not as important as health. He said that the most important thing in the world was individual and national health. I ask the Minister and his colleagues in this chamber whether health is more important than education. If they are prepared to concede that there is no case against free primary education, what is their objection to a free health service? lt is a matter of sheer and plain logic. The decision is inescapable. Is any supporter of the Government prepared to rise in his seat and oppose the system of free education that operates in the States? I repeat that the Minister in charge of the bill says that health is more important than education.

Senator Robertson:

– So it is.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Then I want to know the reply of supporters of the Government to my question. If education is free, and if it is agreed that health is more important than education, why should the people have to pay for their health services? I should like supporters of the Government to answer that question during the course of this debate, because their attitude does seem to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding or even prejudice against a free hospital and public health scheme. Queensland has had an outstanding public hospital system for many years. The provision of a free public hospital service has been a tradition in Queensland. Hospitals in that State formerly were on the same financial basis as that of most of the hospitals in other States to-day. They were on a voluntary basis and operated under a catch-as-catch-can policy. Like all these other hospitals, they were staggering along under financial disability until the Labour Government said : This cannot continue. The provision of hospital services in this State is so important that it cannot be left any longer on a voluntary basis. This matter must become the responsibility of the State Government to the extent to which the State is able to provide for it “. Then there was an allocation of financial responsibility between the State budget and the hospital budget. In 1946, the provi sion of hospital finance in Queensland became the exclusive responsibility of the State Government. As a result of that policy, Queensland had and still ha? an outstanding system of public and private hospital services, with the provi sion of private wards in government hospitals. Any senator from Queensland, including .Senator Maher who has travelled extensively in Queensland and who knows the standard of hospitals in that State, and Senator Rankin, who very generously acknowledged the standard of hospital services in that State, must acknowledge that that standard has been achieved because hospital finances were placed on a firm and modern financial basis.

Senator Maher:

– By the use of revenue from the Golden Casket?

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– If Queensland did not have one Golden Casket, it might have many more wooden caskets. I should say that, of the two alternatives, a golden casket is the better. But the Golden Casket has not been the sole support of the Queensland hospitals. It has been necessary to find money from general revenue. Because the Queensland Government recognized the right of every person to adequate medical and hospital treatment, the system became part of the tradition of the State and of the Labour Government. It remained in operation until this Government assumed office. In the exercise of the colossal strength of concentrated financial power at Canberra, the Government attempted to steamroll that system. It is easy for honorable senators to say that the Queensland Government resisted the Australian Government. It did, but this question went beyond mere resistance and the upholding of a principle in relation to hospital finance. It was almost a case of the David of Queensland casting his sling against the financial Goliath of Canberra. It was not an easy fight. It was a fight that was undertaken by the Queensland Government at great financial risk, because there was no guarantee as to how long Queensland could maintain its hospital services. Because its system was a tradition, because it had worked and because it was outstanding in Australia, the Queensland Government said, “ We will hold out for this as long as we can “. I think it will be to the everlasting shame of the central administration and to the everlasting shame of the Australian government, irrespective of the party affected, that an attempt was made to override the sovereignty of a State which, really did not have the financial strength to resist the Australian Government.

Senator Wood:

– Queensland misunderstood the position.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Queensland did not misunderstand the position. I did not expect this matter to be raised again at. this late stage because I thought that this bogy had been destroyed and that there would be no further attempt to exonerate the Australian Government on the ground that the Queensland Government did not understand the attitude of the Australian Government at that time. As honorable senators will remember, the controversy raged from March or April to October in the year 1952. I draw the attention of honorable senators to a circular which was issued by the Department of Health in Canberra on the 5th September, 1952. It is entitled, “National Health Service - Hospital Benefits “. Paragraph 4 of that circular states -

Basic principles of the scheme are that the Commonwealth benefits will not be payable unless a charge is made for the hospital treatment and that the Commonwealth benefits must not exceed the amount of the hospital charge payable by the patient.

It is all very well to say that there was a misunderstanding. The circular from which I have quoted was issued by the Commonwealth Department of Health in the heat of the controversy. It set out explicitly the condition upon which the payments would be made and that condition was that a charge should be levied on patients in public hospitals. Undeniably the Australian Government on that occasion stepped in and tried to override the decision of a sovereign State. Honorable senators opposite may argue that it was merely a different political approach, but we must recognize that all decisions made by State governments emerge as political considerations. Even though there is a different political approach, once a decision is made, it is the decision of a sovereign parliament, and for the Commonwealth Parliament to intervene and attempt to override that decision is a complete negation of the federal idea. It is perhaps the classic example of such an attempt since the Australian Government became the sole tax ing authority and, virtually, the custodian of the finances and credit of this country. A monument is to be erected to the memory of the late Mr. Hanlon, who was Premier of Queensland at the time of the controversy. It is to take the form of a bronze statue, and it has been- suggested that it should be placed outside the Brisbane General Hospital, because that institution is part of the pattern of hospitals that he established. I think that monument will be more than a tribute to Mr. Hanlon. It may become a national shrine, symbolic of the spirit of a small and financially weak State in its fight against centralization. I should expect all senators, regardless of their party affiliations, to commend the Queensland Government upon the stand it took on that occasion. The principle that it succeeded in establishing may well become one of the safeguards of federation in the years to come.

The Queensland hospital system ha.~ been an outstanding success. Senator Annabelle Rankin quoted statements by the Queensland Minister for Health, Mr. Moore, about overcrowding at the Brisbane General Hospital. The honorable senator admitted certain facts in favour of the Queensland hospital system and I thank her for her generosity, but she indicated in conclusion that there was still grave overcrowding in Queensland hospitals. It may be true that there is overcrowding at the Brisbane General Hospital, but I do not think the overcrowding is grave. It is a fundamental principle in Queensland that nobody should be refused hospital treatment. That is the principle behind the Queensland Government’s drive to provide adequate hospital accommodation. If hospitals in Queensland are overcrowded, how much worse is the position in the other States? The situation in Queensland is not ideal and we still have a long way to go, but perhaps some honorable senators would be interested to hear just how far we have gone in that State. In the year ended the 31st December, 1952, 41,000 people in Brisbane alone were admitted to public hospitals. In the same period, 93,000 Queenslanders were admitted to public hospitals in the rest of the State. Therefore, in the aggregate, more than 135,000 people, or 1 in 9 of the population, were admitted to public hospitals in a single year. That gives an idea of the tremendous burden that is continually imposed on the Queensland hospital system. Nevertheless, the position in Queensland is much better than it is in the other States, as I am sure Senator Wood “will agree. Let us compare Queensland with Victoria. The latter State has 7,062 public hospital beds or 862 beds fewer than there are in Queensland. Yet Queensland has only about half the population of Victoria!

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– That is because of. the rotten climate in Queensland.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP; QLP from 1957; DLP from 1968

– Queensland’s climate is excellent as the honorable senator is well aware. The more adequate hospital provision that is made in the northern State is due to a higher sense of public duty, coupled with capable financial administration. I invite honorable senators opposite to have a look at Queensland towns such as Stanthorpe and Warwick. There they will see first-class hospitals. A magnificent hospital has been completed at Townsville in recent times ; but only in size is it unique. In pattern and appointments it is paralleled in many other parts of the State. If there are any outmoded hospitals in Queensland it is because the old system of voluntary contributions still operates in some places. In Cloncurry, the old system has gone, but the Government has not yet been able to obtain a contractor to erect a modern hospital. Most of Queensland’s mid-nineteenth century style hospitals disappeared when the old voluntary system of finance was abandoned and the .burden of safeguarding public health was placed on the shoulders of the Queensland Government. That is the system of free public hospitals which the Commonwealth Minister for Health tried to break. The incident was most regrettable because it was a wanton and callous use of financial power. Fortunately it was not successful. In an angry atmosphere the Queensland Government stood up for its rights. It saved its free public hospital system and since that time the Queensland Government’s attitude has been continually endorsed by the people of that State. At the most recent elections, when free hospital treatment was perhaps the main issue, the Queensland Government was returned with an all-time record majority, and I am certain that such votes of confidence will continue in future. Honorable senators opposite will recall with interest the election result in Maryborough on Saturday last when the Government candidate’s 1953 majority was increased by more than 1,000. That was a further vindication of the policy of the Queensland Government, particularly on the hospitals issue. Reverting again to Senator Annabelle Rankin’s statement about overcrowding at the Brisbane General Hospital, I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to some figures that I had prepared before leaving Brisbane. They relate to the provision that is being made for additional hospital accommodation in Queensland. A new 100-bed ward is being provided at the South Brisbane Auxiliary Hospital. The first floor of the new ward was occupied on the 8th October, 1952. The second portion was occupied on the 4th March last. The nursing accommodation for that unit was occupied on the 1st March. A. new hospital is in course of construction at South Brisbane. It will provide accommodation for 710 beds. The first section, a block containing approximately 250 beds, is expected to be completed by June, 1954, and the whole job should be completed by December, 1955. New nursing quarters have recently been opened at the Brisbane General Hospital - the women’s hospital. Queensland senators, particularly those who reside in Brisbane, are aware of the modern standard that has been achieved in the nurses block, which contains accommodation for 208 beds. In addition, suites have been provided for senior members of the nursing staff. The first section was opened in March last, and the second section should be opened very soon. I have endeavoured to outline the progress that has been made by the Queensland Government in the provision of modern hospitals. That Government believes in the provision of free hospital treatment for the people. The Minister stated in his second-reading speech -

It is worth noting that the only’ other country in the world where new hospitals are being built are those which have developed voluntary hospital insurance schemes

I have referred to the recent construction of modern hospitals in Queensland. That policy will be continued. The Minister’s statement was not correct. The hospital scheme in Queensland has been financed from revenue derived by tax reimbursement from the Commonwealth and profits that have been made by the Golden Casket. The facts that I have related to the Senate contradict the Minister’s claim that modern hospitals cannot be constructed in the absence of a scheme such as the one that he has outlined. Therein lies the fundamental difference between the views of the Government and the Opposition in this matter.

I shall now direct the attention of honorable senators to several aspects of the medical benefits provisions of the proposed legislation. It should be made clear to the public that the scheme does not provide for the complete recoupment of insured persons for costs incurred for medical and hospital treatment. The Minister used terms such as “ comprehensive insurance”, which would appear to indicate that the scheme provides a complete cover. The minds of the community should be disabused of the thought that this is a comprehensive scheme, a thought that must arise as a result of the indiscriminate use by the Minister of such terms. Persons who are suffering from such a delusion could be pulled up with a round turn and saddled with heavy medical expenses. The Queensland Minister for Health and Home Affairs made the following statement several months ago : -

I recently had personal knowledge of a case for which the Medical Board decided that £92 would he a reasonable charge for a doctor.

In Queensland, there is a. medical assessment tribunal, to which appeals may be made. He continued -

Against that charge, the highest benefit that could be obtained for the ls.6d. per week, would be £30, leaving a balance of £62 to he paid by the patient.

The figures that the Minister quoted were those applicable in August last. A slight variation of rates may have occurred since. He went on -

In addition, the patient would have to pay his private hospital fees, possibly £15 15s. per week. If he were also a member of a hospital insurance scheme, he would receive £2 2s. a week from his fund, and £4 4s. from the Commonwealth Government, or £66s. in all, leaving a further balance of £9 9s. a week tobe found by the patient. In this case, if the patient were in hospital for three weeks, he would have to meet, out of his own pocket an amount of £90 7s., over and above the benefits he received under the Commonwealth Health and Hospital Benefits Schemes, even though he had been paying weekly payments to ensure against this very thing. Whilst it might be claimed that a charge of £92 for an operation is not common, it cannot be denied that the fee for very many operations performed by specialists frequently exceeds £50. In these cases, the patient would have to find, out of his own pocket, a balance of £27 10s. to meet the doctor’s bill, in addition to a substantial balance on his private hospital bill for accommodation.

There are plenty of cases like that. We must make it clear to persons who join medical benefits and hospital funds that they are not covered for the full cost of treatment. To use a colloquialism, because of the build-up that has been given to the scheme, and the fact that politics have entered into the matter, a confusion of thought has been caused in the minds of the people. I am convinced that the average member of the community really believes that, as a member of a medical fund and a hospital fund, he is covered for every penny of medical and hospital expenses that he may incur. Every member of this chamber has a personal responsibility to disabuse the minds of the public of such misunderstandings.

I come now to a minor aspect of the matter in relation to unemployment and sickness benefits. Although I have read the bill carefully, I have been unable to find any provision to protect people who are in receipt of such benefits. The Minister should make it clear whether persons who are in receipt of such benefits may also claim benefits under the national health scheme. Persons are paid unemployment benefits or sickness benefits as a right. They have established that right by the payment of taxes. I recently asked the Director of Social Services in Brisbane for rulings on two hypothetical cases. On the 6th November he replied as follows : -

  1. refer to your letter of 3rd November, 1953, in which you enquire as to what entitlement a person has to a sickness benefit if he is also in receipt of payments from a welfare or hospital fund. The Social Services Consolidation Act provides that the first two pounds of a weekly payment made to an eligible member

*y an Approved Society is not regarded as income. In addition, the law provides for an allowable income which a claimant may receive without affecting the maximum rate of benefit. The maximum rate of benefit is reduced by that amount by which a claimant’s income may exceed the allowable income. This allowable income varies according to a claimant’s age or conjugal status. The amounts allowed are set out below: -

Person aged Ki years - 5s. per week.

Person aged 17 years - 10s. per week.

Person aged l.S-21 years - 15s. per week.

Adult person, married person with dependent spouse, or married person with dependent spouse and child or children - 20s. per week.

An’ approved society could pay £2 5s. a week to a person aged sixteen years who was not receiving income from any other source and the maximum rate of benefit payable would not be affected. Similarly, the amount of £2 a week may be added to each of the allowable amounts [ have given. All payments from an approved society, whether payment is made from the welfare or sick fund, or a hospital benefit fund, are treated in the same manner.

The first example I propose. to cite is as follows: - The claimant, an adult, is not hospitalized and is receiving a weekly payment of £3 10s. from an approved society’s sickness or welfare fund. The maximum weekly sickness benefit payment is £2 10s. The weekly payment from the society is £3 10s. An amount of £2, which is not regarded as income, is deducted, which leaves a net income of £1 10s. An amount of £1 a week allowable income is also deducted, and the result is that the weekly benefit payable is £2. So the person suffers a reduction of 10s. a week in unemployment or sickness benefit. Such a position is fantastic. He is entitled to the sickness benefit as a right, because he has contributed for it. He is a member of a scheme sponsored and endorsed by the Government, and when he draws from the fund of an approved society he immediately becomes ineligible for the full unemployment or sickness benefit. The net result is that he is worse off by 10s. a week than he would have been, had he not insured.

The second case that I put is in reference to an adult who is hospitalized in a private or intermediate hospital approved by the Department of Health and is receiving £12 12s. a week from an approved society’s hospital fund. The maximum sickness benefit payment is £2 10s. a week, and the weekly hospital charge is £13, less the subsidy paid direct to the hospital of 8s. a day, or £2 16s. a week, which reduces the amount to a net charge of £10 4s. a week. The weekly payment from the society is £12 12s., and the addition of the Commonwealth subsidy of 4s. a day, or £1 8s. a week, makes a total of £14. The net charge of the hospital, which amounts to £10 4s., has to be deducted, and the weekly amount left after the hospital has been paid is £3 16s. An amount of £2, which is not regarded as income, has to be deducted, so that the net income is £1 16s. a week. A further reduction of £1, which is allowable income, further reduces the income to 16s. a week, and the weekly benefit payable is £1 lis. I can understand the perplexity of honorable senators when I read those statements and figures rapidly, but I summarize the second case by saying that the net result is that the man receives, by way of sickness benefit, not £2 10s., but only £1 1.4s. a week. Such an anomaly seems extraordinary, and I hope that the Minister will be good enough to explain it in committee. The man who has paid for the right to the full payment is disqualified from receiving it because he is a member of a scheme that the Government has encouraged him to join.

The provisions of this bill are most comprehensive. Many of them have existed in the form of regulations. The Regulations and Ordinances Committee, of which Senator Wood is now chairman, directed the attention of the Minister for. Health to the regulations under which many parts of the national health scheme were operating, and pointed out that such matters should be the subject of legislative enactment. The Minister replied that he intended to introduce the necessary legislation. This bill is the outcome of that assurance. I should like to think that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee is responsible for this bill, not in its content, but in its form. Perhaps such a thought is somewhat presumptuous, but we are glad that the authority for various sections of the national health scheme has moved from the regulation to the statutory stage.

I support the amendment which has been submitted by Senator Benn. In view of our experience in Queensland I strongly support that part of the amendment which proposes to place the other States on the same basis as Queensland in respect of free public hospitalization. In view of our experience in Queensland and the need to preserve State integrity 1 expect honorable senators to support us on this issue. I shall be most interested to see whether honorable senators, particularly in view of Senator Wedgwood’s plea, will forget party politics and try to restore to the States some measure of independence of which the present Government has done its best to deprive them.

Debate (on motion by Senator

Marriott) adjourned.

page 228

WOOL STORES BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to transfer to the Australian Wool Bureau the future control and operation of certain wool stores which were purchased by the Commonwealth from the Joint Wool Disposals Organization when that organization went into liquidation. These stores form part of a total of 400 wool stores constructed to house the considerable quantities of wool accumulated in Australia during the last war. When the wool was transferred to the Joint Organization in 1945, the Australian Government acquired a half share in the stores as well as in the wool. Some stores were demolished or sold as the sale of wool proceeded.

The Joint Organization went into liquidation on the 22nd January, 1952, and it was obvious that, unless arrangements could be made for the continuance of the remaining stores under new management, they would have to be sold. At that time approximately 334 stores were left, about half of them being on freehold land and the remainder on land held under lease, licence or some other form of tenure. The Government felt that disposal of the stores would not be in the best interests of the nation or the wool industry. It considered that they should be retained for use in the event of another war so that, should wool accumulate again under similar conditions to those which prevailed during the last war, it would not then be necessary to construct new wool stores. The Government also considered that, in the meanwhile, income from the letting of the stores as a commercial enterprise could make a useful contribution to the well-being of the wool industry.

The Government, therefore, arranged to purchase the stores from the Joint Organization for £1,259,000. Upon payment of this amount to the Joint Organization, one-half of the money became available for distribution to the United Kingdom Government, as a shareholder in the Joint Organization and thus as a part owner of the stores. The remaining half, £629,000, returned to the Australian Government by way of profits from the Joint Organization, is being distributed to war-time wool-growers in the form of Joint Organization profits. The £1,259,000 paid to the Joint Organization for the stores was drawn from the unspent balance then remaining in the Wool (Contributory Charge) Trust Account. This balance had been accumulated in the postwar period by annual contributions by wool-growers, principally for the purpose of providing operating expenses for the Joint Organization, and was required by legislation to be used for the benefit of the wool industry.

The Australian Wool Bureau agreed to accept the Government’s invitation that it should assume responsibility for operating the stores, and it has set up a committee of growers for the purpose. The bill now before the Senate, therefore, vests the stores in the Australian Wool Bureau subject to a condition that, in the event of war or the danger of war, the stores will be returned to the Commonwealth, without compensation, if required for defence purposes. In this way, provision may be made, if necessary, for the stores to be transferred to any authority which may be set up in war-time to handle the Australian wool clip. While the stores were the property of the Joint Organization and since they have been acquired by the Commonwealth, they have been managed by the Australian Wool Realization Commission, and the Australian subsidiary of the Joint Organization. The letting policy of the commission has been to give the wool industry first priority, governmental and semigovernmental authorities second priority and other forms of commercial enterprise third priority in tenancy. It is the hope of the Government that the Australian Wool Bureau will follow this same policy which has been so successful in the past and which makes due provision for the needs of the wool industry.

Income received from the rental of the stores will be paid into a wool stores rental fund from which will be met all the costs of administering the stores together with the share of the Australian Wool Bureau in operating the Wool Statistical Service which has now been set up under the bureau’s administration. I should perhaps mention here, for the information of honorable senators, that, with the co-operation of representatives of wool-growers and wool-selling brokers, the Australian Wool Bureau has been able to devise a satisfactory method of continuing the Wool Statistical Service which was formerly conducted by the Australian Wool Realization Commission. The Wool Statistical Service has already proved of great benefit to the Australian wool industry and will, in the future, be financed partly from Consolidated Revenue and partly from the income received from wool stores. The balance of the income from wool stores will be paid to the Wool Use Promotion Fund and so will increase the annual amount available to the Australian Wool Bureau for wool use promotion. I am sure that honorable senators will agree that, with the challenge of synthetics to wool becoming so strong, the provision of maximum funds to publicize wool is a sound policy.

Sale and demolition of stores by the bureau will in certain instances be necessary but will require the approval of the Minister. Proceeds from the sale of stores will be paid to the Wool Use Promotion Fund unless the bureau decides and the Minister authorizes that all or part of those funds should be held for the time being for expenditure on capital account relating to the stores. Ownership of the stores passed from the Joint Organization to the Commonwealth as from the 23rd January, 1952, and provision is made in the bill for payment to the Australian Wool Bureau of the net income received from the letting of the stores and proceeds received from the sale and demolition of the stores since that date. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator McKenna ) adjourned.

page 229

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES BILL 1953

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator McLeay) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The object of this bill is to provide for the application of the share of the proceeds of prize captured during World War II. for the benefit of members of the Royal Australian Air Force. The terms “ priz.3 “ and “ prize money “ which are referred to in this bill have a history which links them closely with the many wars in which England had been engaged throughout the years. “Prize” is the term applied to a ship or goods captured by the maritime force of a belligerent at sea or seized in port. “Prize money” is the sum paid in respect of an enemy ship or goods captured by the maritime force of a belligerent at sea. For centuries, prize money has been a subject of considerable interest not only to seamen, who have always had an incontestable right to it as the actual captors, but also to monarchs. In the very earliest days, the question was comparatively simple, since the sailors who made the actual capture then proceeded to loot and keep the proceeds. This led to abuse and common piracy and eventually resulted in the establishment of a prize court, which had its origin in the authority vested in the High Court of Admiralty, in order to try cases of piracy and “ spoil that is, the capture by English ships of foreign vessels.

Until World War I., it had been the custom for a grant to be made to the actual captors. By the British Naval PrizE. Act 1918, the proceed? of prize were paid into a naval prize fund which was divided between officers and men of the Navy, generally. Distribution, however, continued as previously to be made in accordance with the Royal prerogative. In addition to prize money there was also a reward called prize bounty. This could be paid by the Crown to officers and crew of ships of war actually present at the taking or destroying of an enemy armed ship. It was payable at the rate of £5 for each person on board the enemy ship at the beginning of the engagement. The amount of prize bounty decreed was payable by the British Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purpose.

The United Kingdom Government took the view in the circumstances of 1939-45 war that prize bounty had very little significance for the fleet and was relatively small in amount. Moreover, it would have been exceedingly difficult in the conditions then obtaining to arrive at a fully correct assessment of prize bounty since it was based, on an exact knowledge of the complements of enemy ships. The United Kingdom Government considered therefore that prize bounty should be declared obsolete. In December, 1945, the United Kingdom Government, with the agreement of dominion governments, announced that it had been decided that prize money in respect of proceeds derived from the sale of captured enemy merchant ships and cargo which had been traditionally granted to the Navy should again be granted but that a proportion of the proceeds should be allocated for the benefit of Air Force personnel. Further, it was decided that a grant of prize bounty should not be made as such. a grant was inappropriate under modern conditions of war. The United Kingdom Government also announced that it was its inten- tion that this should be the last occasion on which prize moneys should be paid.

In June, 1947, the United Kingdom Government proposed that two-thirds of the proceeds of prize at the disposal of the United Kingdom Government should be treated as available for distribution as prize money and that one-third would accrue to the United Kingdom Exchequer. The portion of the two-third attributable to the Royal Navy would be distributed in accordance with precedent to individual members of the fleet, but the portion attributable to the Royal Air Force would be paid to certain Air Force charities and not to individuals. Admiralty distribution was to persons qualified by six months’ sea service between the 3rd September, 1939, and the 2nd September, 1945. Distribution was to be according to rank scale.

The United Kingdom Government left to Commonwealth governments the distribution of their share of prize money. Of the amount allocated to Australia, a previous government allotted £249,000 to the Royal Australian Navy and £229,000 to the Royal Australian Air Force. It also approved individual distribution to members of the Royal Australian Navy on the basis of six months’ sea service in the war, distribution being made equally, irrespective of rank or rating. A total of 30,000 members of the Royal Australian Navy participated in that distribution. Distribution to individual members of the Royal Australian Air Force was considered. The view was taken that the question of eligibility was so complex as to render equitable distribution virtually impossible. Distribution on the same basis as for the Navy would have provided insignificant shares for each participant with all the attendant administrative difficulties and cost. Distribution to individuals would have had to be determined after examination of such questions as length of service, operational or semi-operational service, whether the members were operational aircrew or ground staff who contributed directly to the successful completion of air operations, and whether personnel served iti particular theatres of war. The claims of about 200,000 men who served in the Royal Australian Air Force would have had to be investigated. In 195Q,’ the then Minister for Air approved the Air Board recommendation that the Royal Australian Air Force share of the prize money be used to set up a residence or residences for Air Force veterans. In making its recommendation, the Air Board pointed out that various funds already established by the Services Trust Funds Act 1947-50, the Canteen Services Trust Fund and the Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund, made adequate provision for the education of children of present and former members of the Air Force as well as for those former members or their families temporarily in needy circumstances. The original conception was the provision of a residence to provide a retreat for ex-Air Force personnel in necessitous circumstances who might require sanctuary in their old age, either permanently or temporarily. The idea was to purchase a large country home, preferably in New South Wales or Victoria, for the purpose.

The purpose of the bill before the Senate is to place £229,000 now standing to the credit of the Prize Money Trust Account, established under section 62a of the Audit Act 1901-1953, at the disposal of the trust for the purposes of the Air Force Veterans Residences Trust Fund. The purpose of the fund is to provide a residence or residences in which former male members of the Royal Australian Air Force in necessitous circumstances, and if the trust so approves, the wives of those members, may be accommodated or supported. It is proposed that the trust will consist of three persons to be appointed by the Governor-General and to hold office during his pleasure. One of the trustees will be a person who is or has been an officer of the Royal Australian Air Force, and one will be a person who holds or has held office in the Air Force Association. The third member will be a person who has had substantial business and financial experience and is, at the date of his appointment, a member of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. By virtue of the act, the trust will be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal capable of acquiring, holding, and disposing of real and personal property and of suing and being sued in its corporate name.

The trust will be given wide powers to apply the prize money and any other moneys or property which may be donated to the purposes of the fund. The trust will be empowered to acquire and dispose of land and buildings, and to erect and improve buildings. The trust will determine the conditions under which former male members of the Royal Australian Air Force and their wives will be accommodated and supported at the trust’s residences, and any charges to be paid. In order that it may carry out its functions, it is obviously necessary for the trust to have authority to employ staffs and to have bank accounts. It is expressly provided that, in the allotment of accommodation, preference is to be given to former members who served during World WarII. and their, wives. Widows of former members in residences may, at the discretion of the trustees, be permitted to remain in residence and to receive support. The trust is required to keep books and accounts as directed by the Treasurer and to have them audited yearly by the Auditor-General. The latter is to report to the Treasurer, who will cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament. Express provision is made that the property and income of the trust shall not. be subject to Commonwealth or State taxation and that members of the trust shall not be entitled to receive remuneration, except reasonable expenses.I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Critchley) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from3.1 a.m. to3 p.m..

page 231

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I lay on the table the following papers: -

Reports of the delegates who represented theAustralian Government at the 36th session of the Internationa] Labour Conference held at Geneva in June, 1953.

In the interests of economy, it is not proposed to print the reports, but copieswill be available from the parliamentary officers for honorable senators who areinterested.

page 232

MICA

Tariff Board Report

Senator SPICER:
LP

– I lay on the table the report of the Tariff Board on the following subject: -

Mica and manufactures thereof.

At present, copies of the report are not available for circulation to honorable senators.

Ordered to be printed.

page 232

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Message received from, the House of Representatives requesting the concurrence of the Senate in the following resolutions : -

That a joint committee be appointed to consider such matters concerning foreign affairs as are referred to it by the Minister for External Affairs.

That twelve members of the House of Representatives be appointed to serve on such committee.

That the Minister for External Affairs shall make available to the Committee information within such categories or on such conditions as he may consider desirable.

That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders -

the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of senators or members referred to in these resolutions:

the committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of four or more of its members; and to refer to. any such subcommittees any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to examine;

the committee orany sub-committee shall have powerto sit during any adjournment of the Parliament and during the sittings ofeither House of the Parliament;

the committee and its sub-committees will sit in camera and their proceedings shall bc secret unless the Minister at the request of the committee otherwise directs ;

(i) one-third of the number of mem bers appointed to the committee for the time being shall constitute a quorum of the committee, save that where the number of members is not divisible by three without remainder the quorum shall be the number next higher than one-third of the number of members for the time being;

three members of a sub-committee shall constitute a quorum of that sub-committee :

the committee shall, for considerations of national security, in all cases forward its reports to the Minister for External Affairs, but on every occasion when the committee forwards a report to the Minister it shall inform the Parliament that it has so reported. Provided the Opposition is represented on the committee, copies of the committee’s reports to the Minister for External Affairs shall be forwarded to the Leader of the Opposition for his confidential information;

subject to the consent of the Minister for External Affairs, the committee shall have power to send for persons, papers or records; and, subject to paragraph 4 (d), all evidence submitted to the committee shall be regarded as confidential to the committee;

a message be sent to the Senate requesting its concurrence and asking that seven members of the Senate be appointed to serve on such committee.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

by leave - I move -

  1. That the Senate concurs in the resolutions transmitted to the Senate by the House of Representatives for the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider such matters concerning foreign affairs as are referred to it by the Minister for External Affairs.
  2. That Senators Gorton, Maher, McCallum and Wordsworth be members of such Joint Committee.
  3. That the foregoing resolutions be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

The resolution that has come to the Senate from the House of Representatives complies in substance with the form in which the committee was constituted during the previous session of this Parliament. Owing to the prorogation, it has become necessary to re-appoint the Foreign Affairs Committee. In the resolution that now comes before honorable senators from another place there are two important alterations to which I shall direct attention. Under the previous constitution of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it was required always to sit in camera. Under the resolution that is now before the Senate, the Minister for External Affairs can, at the request of the committee, authorize it to sit otherwise than in camera. The second important alteration is that in clause 4 (/) of the resolution provision is made for furnishing to the Leader of the Opposition, as well as to the Minister for External Affairs, reports of the committee if the Opposition is represented upon it. It is still the desire of the Government that the Opposition should be represented on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I believe that the provision that has been inserted in the resolution is some further evidence of the desire of the Government that the Opposition should take advantage of the invitation that has been extended to it.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The motion that has been moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) ha3 been rendered necessary by the disbanding of the Foreign Affairs Committee as a result of the prorogation of the Parliament. The Opposition has no objection to the rather necessary step of reconstituting the Foreign Affairs Committee. I note that some changes have been made in the terms of the resolution setting up the committee. I point out, however, that the Government has not seen fit to meet all the objections of the Opposition to the basis upon which the - Foreign Affairs Committee is constituted. The Opposition has not yet had an opportunity to consider whether or not it will participate on that- committee in the light of the alterations that have been effected by the terms of the resolution that is now before the Senate. An early opportunity will be taken to consider the variations to which I have referred. I point out that in relation to the very first clause, the Opposition sought an amendment, but its wishes have not been met. The clause as it reads now states -

That a joint committee be appointed to consider such matters concerning foreign affairs as are referred to it by thu Minister for External Affairs.

The Opposition had asked that there should be added to that clause the following words: - or by either House of the Parliament, or as are decided upon by a majority of the committee.

It is quite clear from the terms of the motion that the Opposition’s desire has not been met in that matter and that the committee may still consider only such matters in relation to foreign affairs as the Minister for External Affairs refers to it. In explicit terms, that leaves the scope of the committee quite within the determination of the Minister and of the Minister alone; and, up to date, that has been a stumbling block to the Opposition. We thought it reasonable to propose some time ago that the committee should be empowered to consider any matter that this chamber or the House of Representatives might refer to it, or any matter which a majority of the members of the committee itself might consider to be worth pursuing, or determining. However, for reasons that, no doubt, seem good to the Government, it has not met our wishes. I can only say to the Government that the Opposition will give consideration to the new terms that have been included in this proposal. We do not oppose the setting up of the committee. We recognize that the Government desires that it should be set up; and we do not oppose the Government in any way in that respect.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- I ask the indulgence of the Senate to put before it some thoughts concerning this motion. It was hoped that the Foreign Affairs Committee would be constituted with nineteen members of whom eleven would represent the Government and eight would represent the Opposition. However, the Government did not purpose, and I believe that responsible leaders of the Opposition realize that it never could purpose, that a committee such as this, could approximate in respect of either its work or its powers a similar committee of the United States Senate because that committee is autonomous and is responsible for foreign affairs in that country, and is . empowered to call Ministers to account. A committee of that kind which harmonizes with the system of government that pertains in the United States of America cannot be reconciled with the system- of responsible government in Great Britain and in this country. So, the object of the Government in setting up this committee was rather to give to a select group of members of the Parliament, who were interested in the field of foreign affairs, facilities and knowledge which could not be made available to both Houses of the Parliament as a whole; and through the wholehearted contribution of those facilities and that knowledge to establish nuclei of informed opinion in all parties in the Parliament so that we could contribute to informed responsible debate both inside our respective party rooms and in the Parliament itself. Perhaps, that occurs now; but, at least, the establishment of this committee with those facilities must help in that direction.

When this matter was first brought up, the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) moved four amendments to the proposal which the Government placed before the Senate. Speaking from memory, it was suggested in one of those amendments that reports that were to be presented by the committee and submitted to the Minister should be made public if either House of the Parliament so required. I suggest to honorable senators generally that it would be extremely difficult and dangerous from the viewpoint of the Government to agree to such a procedure because if the. Minister referred to a committee of this kind some matter of delicacy, as he well might, the position would then arise that the report on that matter could be made public whether the Minister, or the committee, desired it or not. Such a report could be made public by a vote of members of the Parliament who could not know, before they voted to make it public, what was in it. That procedure would inhibit the committee “in its approach to the various matters that were referred to it. Another suggested amendment was that sittings of the committee should be held in public whether the Minister wished it or not. The Government has moved towards the adoption of that suggestion by providing, for the first time, that meetings may be held in public; but again, if meetings are to be held in public whether the Minister wishes it or not it is unlikely that the very kind of things that we should discuss - the things that are delicate and of considerable importance not only in Australia but also overseas - would be referred to the committee, and again its operations would be inhibited. A further amendment suggested was that the committee should have power to send for persons or papers.

That, of course, would help the operations of the committee, but it would entail the conferring on the committee of power to punish citizens of this country. A person could be punished for contempt of the Parliament if he did not appear before the committee when it sent for him, or if he did not produce papers for which the committee had asked. I am not at all sure that the conferring of power to punish citizens would be wise, and I believe that on further consideration many other honorable senators will see the danger inherent in such a proposal.

Senator Nicholls:

– What kind of punishment could be imposed?

Senator GORTON:
VICTORIA · LP

– The committee would possess all the powers that the Parliament itself possesses when it is defied by any person who is called to the bar of the House. I am sure that honorable senators will see the danger inherent in that proposition, and will realize why the Government will not accept it. I am not stating these views in a disputatious manner. I am expressing, for the information of honorable senators, the thoughts that I believe are in the mind of the Minister and the reasons for his present attitude. The fourth suggestion advanced was that the committee should itself have power to decide the subjectsthat it would discuss, and, speaking personally, I see no objection whatever to that. That procedure is, in fact, being followed to-day and if it were madeofficial, the Minister would still have power to inhibit any discussion of a matter that he did not want to be discussed by withholding information in the possession of the department. However, I do not think that is an important point because, as I have said, the procedurethat has been advocated is, in fact, what is happening now. It has been suggested that unless the committee is given all these powers its operations will beentirely futile. Deciding the truth of that is a matter entirely for the judgment of each individual senator. As I said at the outset, the Foreign Affairs Committee is not a responsible committee in the sensethat the Minister is a responsible Minister and it is not a powerful committee. It never will be and never can be thosethings. But if the committee’s operations- can provide to members of this Parlia- ment a fund of knowledge if its deliberations and discussions with the Minister have some influence on our foreign policy, its work cannot be described as futile, and I for one shall endeavour to keep it going and to urge members of the Opposition to participate in its discussions, because however furiously I may oppose them on other issues, this I believe to be a non-party matter.

Senator ARMSTRONG:
New South Wales

.- The Foreign Affairs Committee that is now proposed is much better than the original body. As honorable senators are aware, the committee was born in an atmosphere of political strife. Certain difficulties presented themselves to the Opposition, but I am pleased to say that the Government has accepted many of the ideas that have been advanced to make the committee more workable. Had those suggestions been accepted in the early stages, the Opposition would have had a vote on the matter and would have advised the Government of its firm decision. There is a substantial body of opinion in the Opposition that is firmly in favour of the committee system. As honorable senators know, to-day is the second last day of the last effective session of this Parliament. T imagine that the next session, which will be opened by Her Majesty the Queen, will be formal and of only 3hort duration. There will be a general election, probably in April or May. Therefore the activities of the committee between now and the election would be very restricted. I consider that the matter could well be left for consideration by the new Labour Government; my conservative approach to these matters is well known. However, irrespective of the outcome of the general election, this matter can be considered anew by the next government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 235

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th November (vide page 137), on motion by Senator McLeay -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

.- The purpose of this bill is to remedy the position that was discovered on the death of the chairman of the Public Works Committee, the former member for Corangamite, Mr. Allan McDonald. It was then found that under the existing provision the committee could not appoint another chairman. Since Mr. McDonald’s death the committee has carried on under the vice-chairman, the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins). The bill provides that the committee may elect a chairman from time to time, and it gives retrospective power to the vice-chairman to act as chairman from the day following Mr. McDonald’s death.

I should like to pay a tribute to the manner in which our late chairman presided over the committee. He evinced a wide understanding and great wisdom in the performance of his duties. I take this opportunity also to pay a tribute to Mr. Watkins, for the able manner in which he has carried on since the death of the chairman. He has been in an invidious position owing to the absence of statutory power for him to act, as chairman. I do not wish to delay the passage of this measure through the Senate. The necessity for any other amendment to the principal act can be considered during a subsequent session of the Parliament. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 235

TARIFF BOARD BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th November (vide page 129), on motion by Senator Spicer -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The purpose of the bill before the chamber is to amend the Tariff Board Act. It has, according to its tenor and the secondreading speech of the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer), two main purposes.

One of its purposes is to increase the number of members of the Tariff Board from four to seven, with the object of permitting the board to sit in two divisions concurrently. As the Minister explained, in the course of his secondreading speech, a heavy accumulation of business awaits the consideration of the board; for the reasons that he mentioned. It appears that about 46 references are pending before the board and that other cases’ are under consideration by the Department of Trade and Customs, which will determine whether they should be referred to the board. We can acknowledge at once that it is vitally important to the business of this country that the determinations of the board should be made as rapidly as possible. People who make application to the Tariff Board are invariably in some form of distress and if relief is to be given it is infinitely better if it is given quickly. Without fault on the part of the Tariff Board, delays have occurred.

I hope that now that the number of members of the board is to be increased to seven’ - a proposal which the Opposition supports - the increased number of members will be used to enable two separate boards to sit at one time. Similar action to that proposed by this bill was taken in relation to the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration some time ago. The number of judges of that court was increased in order to permit two courts to sit concurrently, but I understand that since the additional judges were appointed the court has never sat in two divisions concurrently. I hope that the Tariff Board will not fail to sit in two divisions. As I listened to the Minister I had the feeling that it was really intended that two boards should sit concurrently in order to dispose of the business before the board. The Minister paid a well-deserved tribute to the members of the Tariff Board. The members of the Tariff Board are, and always have been, men of high qualifications, deep understanding and insight, with a wide knowledge and experience of Australian industry. They have rendered sterling service to Australian secondary industry and to Australia itself. The Opposition joins with the Minister in his tribute to the members of the board.

The second main purpose of the bill is to extend the term of office of members of the board from three years to five years, with the object of attracting, to the service of. the board men of even greater ability. In other words, it is. hoped that the best-qualified persons, in the community will be prepared to serve on the enlarged, board. The Opposition considers that to be a desirable provision of the bill and it is one which we support. Having supported the main purposes of the bill, I hesitate to embark upon the provocative elements of the Minister’s speech. However, I shall touch very lightly upon one or two phases of it. The Minister, in referring to Australian secondary industries, said -

Many of these industries essential’ to the country in pea.ee as well as war have been established in the post-war era of high capital costs and, while, in many cases, this has carried the compensation of ensuring that equipment is efficient and up to the minute, some manufacturers are experiencing difficulty in meeting the competition of their overseas counterparts whose capital costs were incurred at a lower general level.

Insofar as those high capital costs of which the Minister speaks are due to local conditions, I say that the Government must accept a high measure of responsibility for them. I remind the Senate that this is the Government which undertook to reduce costs. We find to-day that Australian industry is labouring under difficulties because costs have risen almost to danger point. It is clear that if that process continues, many of our industries will, as the Minister acknowledges, be in grave difficulties.

I say to this Government, throughout whose term of office the basic wage has almost doubled, thus adding a vast burden to the cost structure, that it must accept a high measure of responsibility for the situation which now disrupts Australian industry, having regard to its failure to honour its promises, its inactivity and its various economic and financial policies.

The Minister, in the next paragraph, himself admits the danger of high costs. He says -

The changes in cost levels have also exposed some efficient Australian manufacturers to competition that it is difficult for them to meet with the present levels of tariff protection.

The Opposition is keen to have such additional protection extended where it is needed, on the usual terms on which the Tariff Board recommends it. Honorable senators on. this side of the: chamber trust that this- bill will he given, not only a speedy passage,, but also speedy implementation. Wei hope that in. the near future there will be boards composed of highly qualified and competent personnel who wiU be able to speed industries! on their way and so enable their development to take placet.. I regret that it has been necessary for me to say anything which might appear to indicate, dissent from the main purposes of the bill, but I assure the Senate that, the- Opposition,, without hesitation, sup porta the bill in. its two main purposes.

Senator SEWARD:
Western Australia

– I support the bill and commend the Government for having- introduced it. There is no doubt that the Tariff Board has a very important position in o’ur economic life,, and it is necessary that it should be: able to deal, promptly with, the applications that come before it. According to the latest report of the board, approximately thirty reports were submitted! to- the Minister last year. In addition, thirty-five reports were submitted in connexion with matters that had been referred to the hoard by the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan). Despite that fact, at the end of the year- there were forty-seven a ^plications f oi hearings; by the board which, apparently, it had not, haid time, to consider. Because of the. way in which the report is drawn up. it is somewhat difficult to. be certaiin that those. figures; a.ue correct. It would seem preferable: for the report- to- state- that so nMumy applications had been, submitted during tire yeanr, so mans dealt with and sa. manyheld over. I p-resumej however,, that the figures, that I haw quoted are. correct.

It is,, of: course, very important that this board sfeo-Tild give prompt attention to applications for iwea-eatsedl iairiff protection, by reason of tfe fact that,, with the rehtxaition erf import restrictions, some of our industries may he faeed with competiition which will render further protection necessary. That brings, me fi© a matter which has interested me for some time.- when reading’ thic reports of the Tariff’ Braird1. I refer to the question whether sufficient attention is1 given to efficiency of management in the examinations which the board carries out. 1 hare been particularly moved to inquire into this matter during the last two years when, in connexion with a factory of which I have knowledge, some 200 men were dismissed because coke was not available. As a result of the shortage of coke, the factory was; mot able to carry out its work. The- interesting point is that before those men were dismissed the production of the factory was approximately 3.5 machines a day. After their dismissal, production rose to 5.2 machines a day. I maintain that a management which employs SffJO1 surplus employee5; should, be able to determine the fact that’ they are- surplus without having to- dismiss them in order to do so. Therefore,. I say that the Tariff Board1 might, withgreat advantage, pay particular attention to that aspect. It does not necessHrilrfollow that because an applicant applies for a higher rate of duty in order, to compete with overseas markets, ipso, facta a higher rate of duty should be granted to him. That brings me to the point that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) concerning the high costs of production, which has a great effect, on the price of articled. It is one of the duties, of the Tariff Board to ensure that management is efficient so that, costs of production can be kept down to. the lowest possible level.

When an; industry is established in thiscountry it is obviously our duty to giveit such protection as- is required to enable it to market its product at a reasonable price. If is hardly reasonable, to expect aw infant company to place its product on the market at the same p-riee as that at which products produced by 1’aTge overseas organizations1 can be sold. Nevertheless, it is the duty of such a company, as itf gra dually expands, by means of efficient management to reduce its costs. Therefore, if the Tariff Board considers that as duty of 25 per cent, is necessary in order to allow such aa* industry to’ become established’, it is- reasonable to expect that with the gradual growth and expansion of the industry, within five years1, seven: years or’ ten years, it should be able to carry on with reduced tariff protection. If that cannot be dene, it is fairly obvious that there is something wrong with the management of the industry.

Another matter which requires careful consideration is the quality of the product which is manufactured. A little while ago an application was made to the Tariff Board for a duty on matches because the competition of mechanical lighters was reducing our match manufacturers to a position where they could not carry on economically. In my opinio) the increase of the use of mechanical lighters was due mainly to the decline in quality of our matches. Certain brands, when first placed on the market, were excellent. Subsequently, however, they became of such inferior quality that it was usual for purchasers of matches to stipulate that they did not want such and such a brand.

Senator Grant:

– The same thing applies to cigarette lighters. Their quality is not good now. either.

Senator SEWARD:

– That is a different matter. Obviously if manufacturers want to make goods for sale, their products should be of the best quality. If they are not, the industry is not worthy of support. I am interested in another aspect of this matter. I have a drawer in my locker that is full of Tariff Board reports. I have been astonished to read the number of industries that are being investigated by the Tariff Board. One of them is an industry for the manufacture of cotton, waste. Why should an Australian industry be bothered with the manufacture of cotton waste? The waste that was produced was not suitable for the railways in Western Australia and the State Government there could not get all its requirements inside Australia. As a result, it imported cotton waste. That material should be left to another country to produce. If we want to sell our wool, meat and butter overseas we must be in a position to buy manufactures from other countries.

I notice that the Tariff Board is also investigating the manufacture of iron bolts, spokeshaves, elastic and kitbag frames. Some of them could be left to other countries that are already manufacturing them. The Australian employees that are being enticed into those industries might be made available to primary industries which are short of labour. The Tariff Board might consider that aspect, and whether it is economic to establish some of the small industries for which tariff protection is sought.

I join with the “Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) in commending the proposal to extend the period for which members of the Tariff Board are appointed. Members of the Tariff Board should have business experience and standing in the community. If members are appointed for only a short period, the best men for the job might not make their services available. I support the bill, but I hope that consideration will be given to the quality of the goods that are produced, the efficiency of the managament and the value of some of the smaller industries.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 238

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1953

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 25th November (vide page 132), on motion by Senator SPICER-

That the hill lie now read a second time.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Aus tralia

– In addressing myself to this bill, I am conscious of the fact that, it is a further step towards the development of the vast area that comprises the Northern Territory. That is the aim of this measure. It is designed for further development beyond the terms of the legislation that was passed by the Chifley Government in 1947. Prior to World War I.T., the development of .the Northern Territory proceeded at a slow pace. The rate of progress was accelerated after the war and particularly since 1947 by the discovery of uranium. It is remarkable that so little time has been devoted in this chamber by supporters of the Government to the extensive outback areas of the continent in general and the Northern Territory in particular. The conditions to-day are different from those that obtained in 1947 when the Chifley Government introduced its measure.

That legislation gave the Northern Territory a measure of selfgovernment for the first time. It established the Legislative Council to which seven members were nominated and six were elected. Everything that was done under that act was purely experimental. Since then, six years have passed. In the light of the operations of the Legislative Council and the experience of residents of the Northern Territory who know what work it can do for the development of the area, the Opposition believes that this bill does nol. go far enough. Therefore, it is my intention to move that the hill as presented to the Senate should be withdrawn and redrafted for the specific purpose of providing that the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory shall consist of a majority of elected members. That is the first provision that the Opposition would like to see included in the bill.

Honorable senators may say that the Labour Government put a majority of appointed members on the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory in the proportion of seven official members to six elected members. That is quite true, but a decision upon that matter was reached at a time when the future of the Northern Territory was in the melting pot. The legislation was experimental. The Northern Territory has had six years’ experience of partial selfgovernment since 1947, and the time has arrived when directly elected representatives of the people of the Territory should be in a majority in the Legislative Council. That is the first portion of the amendment that I intend to move. lt is a fact that when the Legislative Council was inaugurated in .1947, its charter was in very general terms. Its powers and functions were to make ordinances for the peace, order and good government of the Territory. That comprised a good deal but it excluded the council from having any power over the expenditure of public moneys in the Northern Territory. That means that if there is a surplus in one government department and a deficit in another, and if money is needed on one hand and is available on the other, there is no power under which the council can direct the expenditure of any public moneys in the

Territory. Therefore, the Opposition suggests that before the Estimates for the Northern Territory are drawn up, the Legislative Council, which is the body directly in contact with the people of the Northern Territory and their needs, shall be empowered to consider and report upon estimates and. expenditure in the Northern Territory. I am sure that thcPublic Accounts Committee will agree with that suggestion. The Legislative Council, having framed its estimates of expenditure, would transmit them to the Minister in Canberra to be embodied in the Estimates for the Territory for the following year.

As a result of a visit which I made to the Territory and discussions that I had with the people who live there, I know that many territorians feel that too much control over the Territory is exercised from Canberra. They desire to be allowed to get on with the job of helping to develop the Territory, and to be given more than a merely nominal voice in the control of their affairs. The Legislative Council of the Territory where possible should be given power to make decisions along the lines that it considers should be followed, without having the last word in that respect. At least, it should be enabled to help in shaping a developmental and financial policy for the Territory. The members of the council are on the spot. They are the representatives of the people who live in the Territory, and know what is required for its development. The opinions of members of the Legislative Council could be of great assistance to the Minister and to the Treasurer in framing the Estimates for the Territory in respect of each financial year.

Senator GEORGE RANKIN:
VICTORIA · CP

– Some of them arc “ wharfies “.

Senator TANGNEY:

– I object to the honorable senator’s scornful designation of some members of that body as “ wharfies “. Every one in the community, regardless of his calling, so long as he does his job and lives up to the standards of good citizenship, is entitled to the respect that is due to a member of a body of this kind. If they, as members of the Legislative Council, have their heart in their work, they will do a good job regardless of the calling in which they are engaged.

The proposed amendment also urges that the council he empowered to take steps to co-ordinate the functions -of departments operating in the Territory. Too frequently, these departments are regarded as being water-tight compartments. All of them, ultimately, are controlled from Canberra. At one time, considerable dissatisfaction existed in the Territory because of the fact that houses were being built in Darwin that were more suited to Canberra’s climate than to the tropics. Those houses were planned in Canberra. That criticism was fully justified. Blocks of flats were erected so close to each other that one would imagine that there was no room for housing sites at all in the Territory. That position was a direct result of centralized control. Following my visit to the Territory on that occasion, the present Legislative Council was set up by the Chifley Government because that Government realized that the people in the Territory had the right to representation even though the council gave them only a limited form of self-government. The Opposition urges the Government to take cognizance of the amendment which I shall move formally before I conclude. The amendment will not alter the basis of the bill, with which the Opposition agrees. At the committee stage, members of the Opposition will propose a number of amendments but, by and large, we agree in principle to the bill, which is intended to extend the pattern -of self-government to the Territory. If the ‘Government accepts the proposed amendment, it will improve the bill. At this juncture I shall not deal with matters of detail, which we shall have an opportunity to consider fully at the committee stage. However., the Opposition feels strongly on this matter. The Northern Territory is an integral and valuable part of Australia from the viewpoint of our economy and defence and its claims should not be lightly dismissed when a measure of this kind comes so infrequently before the Parliament. The Government should give to the Senate a greateropportunity on such occasions to discuss the problems of the Territory as well as those of other outback areas in this vast continent. If the National Parliament fails to face up to those problems, perhaps we may not ikmg have the opportunity to do so. The bill, by and large, continues the provisions of the 1947 act. Whilst wedonot agree with, some of the proposals in the bill, we shall support it with the qualification that we desire the -Government to . amend it inrespectof the matters that I have indicated. I move -

That all words after ‘“bill” be left out with a view to insertin lieu thereof the following words : - “ be withdrawn and redrafted to provide -

that the Legislative Council shall consist of a majority of elected members;

that the legislative Council be empowered to consider and report upon estimates of expenditure for the Northern Territory;

) that the council be empowered to take steps to co-ordinate the functions of departments operating in the Territory.”.

SenatorCritchley. -I second the amendment.

Senator McCALLUM:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

. -I listened with . great interest to the remarks of Senator Tangney. As a result of a visit that I paid recently to the Territory, I . believe that there is some argument for administrative charges which would give to the Administrator and his officials greater power over expenditure. However,I do not think that this bill deals with a matter of that kind. Furthermore, I do not think the time is opportune to increase the powers of the Legislative Council in the Northern. Territory. In the early stages of our history, when the States were colonies, it was necessary to give to each Governor and his officers more power than their successors enjoy at present; and it was also essential that officers of the administration be appointed to the Legislative Council. Tn respect of population, the Northern “Territory today is in much the same position as ‘Victoria was in during the days of Superintendent Latrobe. In this matter, we have to consider not only the people who live in the Territory to-day hut also those who will live there in the future. I am afraid that the National Parliament, as the guardian’ and trustee on behalf of future generations, would not be justified at this stage, in giving; greater power to the Legislative Council of the. Northern Territory.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Austrafia

.- During’ the course of a visit that I paid recently to the Northern Territory, I had’ a lengthy discussion with the Administrator- from which I gathered that since the Minister’ for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) assumed control of the Northern- Territory a great deal of additional latitude has been allo wed to- the Administrator and to- the Legislative Council in dealing with a number of the matters to which Senator Tangney has referred. Whilst the proposed amendment has merits I do not think the present is an opportune time to agree to the proposals that it contains. Strategically and; commercially, the Northern Territory is a valuable part of Australia. I found during my visit that, throughout the Territory, residents re* f erred to the “black hand” of Canberra, and claimed that Canberra administration of the Territory had retarded development. However, the Administrator was quite open in discussing with me the fact that, more latitude had been given to him and that, under the new administration, more decisions were being made in Darwin itself and fewer in Canberra. That is a desirable trend. The bill makes provision for the appointment of seven government nominees to the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory,, and I hope that, as has been done in New Guinea, women will be considered for such appointments. During my trip I met very fine territorian women, some of whom had lived in the Territory since Darwin’s very early days. They had grown up in the Territory and had experienced the vicissitudes to which all such remote areas are subject. They understood the needs of the people and I hope that the Minister for Territories will suggest to the Administrator the names of some women whom he believes would be suitable members of the Legislative Council.

The appointment of an assistant administrator will lighten considerably the burden carried at present by the Administrator.. When L was in Darwin, the Administrator was finding his respon sibilities: in connexion with, that very important, airport a little: irksome,, and rightly so-, because, they interfered, considerably with, his more important functions as Administrator of the wholeTerritory.. I regret that-I cannot, support Senator Tangney’s amendment., Her proposals I believe, are not timely. However, I da commend the Minister for Territories for the- work that he has done, since- he assumed; control of this important part of the Commonwealth. I commend the Administrator, too, for the excellent manner in which he is discharging his responsibilities,, and I. wish the bill every success.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

.-I support Senator Tangney’s amendment. We on this side of the chamber were amazed to hear Senator McCallum say that the residents of the Northern Territory are akin to the inhabitants of Victoria in- 1856.

Senator McCallum:

– I said the numbers we’re comparable.

Senator KENNELLY:

– Apparently any argument will be used to justify a harsh administration of the people who occupy an area that is of vital importance to the Commonwealth from a defence point of view. I hope that the Minister in charge of this bill will not subscribe to Senator McCallum’s opinion. Certain aspects of this measure are, I believe, difficult to justify. It is true that the 1947 legislation was more or less experimental. The administrative problems of the Northern Territory are unique and cannot be likened to those of the States. Expenditure in the Northern Territory is under the direction of the Minister for Territories (Mr. Hasluck) and is carried out through the various departments. I hope that the time is not far distant when we shall have enough faith in the residents of the Northern Territory to provide them with funds so that they can carry out their own administration. The 1947 act provides for a Legislative Council of seven government nominees and six elected members, and this preponderance of government nominees on the council is a sore point with local residents as all honorable senators who have visited the Territory must be aware. “What is wrong with having a majority of elected members? After all the council has only recommendatory powers, except in relation to certain matters such as transport in respect of which ordinances may he issued. If I remember correctly, one ordinance relating to the sale of liquor caused a certain amount of trouble among half-castes. Although my views on this subject are well known, 1 do not deny to others the right to enjoy the privileges that are common to the people of Australia. No harm could be done, I believe, by providing for a majority of elected members on the Legislative Council. One undesirable feature of the legislation, I believe, is the provision that no permanent or exempt public servant may be an elected member of the council. Such officials can, of course, be nominated members.

Senator McCallum:

– Is there not at present an elected public servant on the council ?

Senator KENNELLY:

– I refer Senator McCallum to the Minister’s secondreading speech. I submit that the Government should be consistent. The Commonwealth proposes that the Administrator shall nominate a suitable person to fill a casual vacancy occurring in the first two years of office of an elected member. What would be wrong with the people electing a new member? I concede that it is essential, in the interests of efficient administration, for high government officials to be included in the council, but it is not right for the Government to prevent other government servants from offering themselves for election. That is not logical. One of the Government’s proposals does not dovetail with the other. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this aspect of the matter.

The Government has gone only a. part of the way. It proposes to amend the principal act so as to bring some of its provisions into conformity with the Commonwealth electoral laws of this country, but it has neglected some important points. Why does the Government contend that if an elected member of the council ceases to be a member, as a result of resignation or death, within a year of the next election, the- Government must appoint a member in his place? Why has not the Commonwealth electoral law been adopted in its entirety? The Government now contends that there should be an election for the council every time that there is a federal election. It says that the term of office of the council should be three years, or longer, at the discretion of the Administrator, if an election is near at hand. I do not mind that. But it, is not right to provide that, when an elected member ceases to be a member after two years in the job, with only another year to go, the Administrator shall nominate a person to fill the vacancy. The Government should learn from the lessons of history. I remind the Minister that the last two persons who were nominated under the existing provision were “ turfed “ out by the people at the first opportunity. The Government should bring the Northern Territory administration legislation into line with the Commonwealth law, instead of adopting only those provisions of the Commonwealth act that suit it.

I urge the Minister to consider the important points that have been raised by the Opposition. At least, the elected members should constitute a majority on the council. The Government should not prevent a public servant from submitting himself for election. If an elected member wishes to resign, the Government says that he may do so merely by sending a letter to the Administrator. The position is similar in this chamber, although the position does not arise very often. If a nominated member of the council wishes to resign, the Government says that he may do so by sending a letter to the Administrator. That is true, but it is also provided that he cannot resign without the consent of the Governor-General. Does the Government want people to remain on the Northern Territory Legislative Council against their will? I understand that there was a recent instance of such a situation. In view of the state of affairs in the East, we should ensure that the Northern Territory shall be administered in such a way as will promote goodwill. With respect, I consider that this bill was hastily drawn. Even the few contradictions to which I have directed attention are such that the Minister should derive no pleasure from the bill.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

in reply - At the outset, I make it clear that the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. A great deal of the discussion that has taken place has centred on the question of whether or not there should be a majority of elected members on the Northern Territory Legislative Council. In that connexion I must say that our friends of the Labour party speak with one voice when in government, and with an entirely different voice when in opposition.

Senator Kennelly:

– The Minister will recall that I referred to the 1947 legislation.

Senator SPICER:

– I agree readily that Senator Kennelly is frequently frank in his inconsistencies. The existing provisions in relation to the council were onacted, as Senator Tangney quite properly said, by the Chifley Government in 1947. In relation to an experiment of this kind, I suggest that a period of six years is a very short period in which to see how it works. On the whole, I think it has worked out well. The first election for the council did not take place until February, 1948, and the first general election for the council took place, in the ordinary course of events, in December, 1949. Since then there has been another election, and the council is now functioning on that basis. I am not prepared to accept the suggestion, relatively soon after the council was constituted, that the basis of its constitution should be changed from the basis that was established by the previous Labour Government in 1947.

Senator Kennelly referred to the fact that the bill provides that a vacancy for an elected member of the council which takes place within two years after the election will be filled by another election but that if it takes place in the last year of the three-year term it will be filled by nomination by the administrator. Senator Kennelly has objected to that provision and suggested that if the vacancy occurred within, say, three months of the date when the general election would normally be held it would not be unreasonable to provide that the vacancy should be filled by nomination. I am prepared to consider an amendment upon that basis.

However, some of the other matters to which Senator Kennelly referred as difficulties are not difficulties at all. For example, he referred to the provision for the resignation of official members. The bill provides that an official member who desires to resign from the council shall tender a written resignation to the Administrator for transmission to the . Governor-General and that the resignation shall not become effective unless and until it has been accepted by the Governor-General. The reason for that provision is made plain in an earlier clause of the bill. Official members are appointed by the Governor-General, as they were under the Chifley Government, and they hold office during his pleasure. For that reason it is appropriate that their resignation should go to the Governor-General and be accepted by him. That is the reason for that provision of the bill. The present position is that I am not prepared to accept the amendment thathas been proposed by Senator Tangneybut that I am prepared to consider an amendment in relation to Senator Kennelly’s suggestion concerning the election of members of the council.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Tangney’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 6

AYES

NOES

Questionso resolved in the negative.

Question put -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Sena tor the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 25

Majority 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Clauses 1 to 7 agreed to.

Clauase 8 -

– ‘(1.) Sectionsfour f ito four k (inclusive)of the Principal Act are repeated . and the following sections inserted in their . steads - “ 4j. -(1.) Where a casual vacancy occurs in the office ofan elected member of the Council less than two years after the date of the last preceding general ‘election, an election shall be held in the Electoral Districtin which the vacancy occurs for the purpose of . filling the vacant office for the remainder of the term of officeof the member who last held that office. “(2.) Wherethe casual vacancy occurs in the officeof an elected member of the Council two years or more after the date of the last preceding general election, the GovernorGeneral may,on the recommendationof the Administrator,ap point a person who is qualified to be an elected member of the Council to hold the vacant office, from and including the date of the appointment, for the remainder of the term of office of the member who last held that office. “4ka. - (1.) A person is not qualified to be a candidate for election as -a member of the Council if, at the date of nomination -

. he isem ployed in the Public Service of the Territory or of the Commonwealth.;

Section proposed to be amended. -

After section foura of -the Principal Act the following sections are inserted- - “ 4j. The qualification, of an elected mem- ber of the Council . shall be . as follows: -

He must bea British subject of the full age of twenty-one years, and must be an elector entitled to vote at (he election ‘of members ofthe Council, ora person qualified to become such an elector, and must have been for six months at the least resident withinthe Commonwealth and. three months at “the least residentwithin the ‘Territory at the date ofnomination. “4k. An elected member of the Council shall be deemed to have vacated his . office if -

he becomes bankrupt or insolvent or applies totake the . . .

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

.I move-

That in paragraph (1.) o’f proposed new sub-section 4k., after the word “years’” the following words be inserted: - “ and . nine months “..

I invite the attention of honorable senators to the principles embodied ‘in this bill. If a vacancy ‘Occurs on the council within two years of the date of an election, another election will be held, but should a vacancy occur -at anytime after two years have elapsed, it can be filled by nominationbythe Minister. Experience has proved during the las; few years that wherevacancies have been filled in thisway, the members soappointed have been defeated at the next elections. The Opposition is of the opinion that if a vacancy occurs within a reasonable time of the date of the next general election an election should be held. As honorable senators are aware, a by-election will shortly be conducted to fill the vacancy in the House of Representatives caused by the death of Mr. T. J. Treloar, who was thehonorable member for Gwydir. I am sure that no honorable senator would suggest that the GovernorGeneral or anybody else should fill that vacancy by nomination simply ‘because of the imminence of a general election. The Opposition considersthat the same principle should applyin respect ofthe Northern Territory LegislativeCouncil. However, it is conceded that in the Northern Territory,where distances are great and electoral difficulties more numerous than those in connexion with an ordinary federal election, when a vacancy occurs within a short time before the expected date of an election the new nominee could be selected by the administration, so that it would not be necessary in all such cases foran election to be held We believe thatan election should be held if a vacancy occurs more than three months before the expected date of a general election of members of the council. I also intend to move an amendment of proposed new sub-section , (4j.)

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– I am prepared to accept the amendment which the honorable senator has moved. With regard to the secondamendment that the honorable senator proposes to move, I suggest that this is a mere matter ofpreference of language and that the amendment might be worded in this way -

That, in paragraph , (2.) of proposed new sub-section 4j., -the words “ twoyearsor more after the date of the last precedinggeneral election “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “.otherwise than as provided in the last precedingsubsection “.

If the honorable senator acceptsthat wording, I shall accept that amendment also.

Senator Tangney:

– Yes,that is acceptable to me.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment (by Senator Tangney) agreed to -

That,inparagraph (2.) ofproposed newsubsection 4j., the words “two years ormore after the date of the last preceding general election “ beleft out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “otherwise than asprovided in thelast preceding subsection “.

SenatorTANGNEY (Western Australia) [4.43]. - I move -

That sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph(1.) of proposed new sub-section 4kabe leftout.

This is a matter of principle, as far as the Opposition is concerned. As the act stands at present, amember of thePublic Service may be a nominatedmemberof the council, buthe cannot be an elected member. In respect of all other legislativebodies in Australia, it is competent for a member ofthe PublicService to nominate as a candidate, ‘but if he is successful and is elected he must resign from the Public Service. However, he is not denied the right to nominate merely because he is amember of the Public Service. A different situation exists in respect ofpublic servants who wish to nominate for membership of the Northern Territory Legislative Council. Membership of the Legislative Council is not a full-time job. It does not carry a salary upon which a man might exist if he had to relinquish his position as a public servant. Moreover, in parts of the ‘Territory and particularly inDarwin which is the main centre of population, a large proportionof the residents are public servants. They should not be classed with criminals, lunatics and others whoare barred from membership of the Legislative Council, and prohibited from becoming elected members of itsimply because they are officers of the Public Service. If it iswrong in principle for aman to be elected tothe Legislative Councilbecausehe is a public servant, surely, it is equally wrong for him tobe nominated to the same council because he is apublicservant. In a council of that kind doing the type of workthat it is doing, I cannot understand why experts from thevarious offices in the Territory shouldnot be able to advise the Council and assist in the work of government in the Northern Territory by their deliberations. The Government cannot divide a principle and- declare that it is against its principles to have a Commonwealth public servant elected to the Legislative Council. It admits in this measure that the same public servant can be nominated by the Minister to be a member of the council. The Opposition urges that all seats in the Legislative Council, whether nominative or elective, should be open to all members of the Commonwealth Public Service.

Senator SPICER:
AttorneyGeneral · Victoria · LP

– The Government is unable to accept the Opposition’s amendment. The principle that is applied in the matter is that which is applied to the election of members of all elective bodies. In this case, the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory is not a completely elective body. It is true that some members are nominated and, as Senator Tangney knows, the nominated members are public servants. That appears to me to be a fairly sound reason why those concerned might claim that they will not have any more public servants as members of the council. If all the nominated members are public servants, those directly concerned with the Legislative Council might well declare that they will make sure that the elective members will be other than public servants. I believe that is a sound proposition. The Government is applying to the elective section of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory the same principle as is applied to other elective bodies.

Senator TANGNEY:
Western Australia

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer) to inform the committee whether it is necessary for all the nominated members of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory to be public servants? Is it not possible that the Government may consider other residents of the area who are not public servants as nominees to the Legislative Council? Must all of the members be public servants? If the idea is to limit the number of public servants in the council, surely, that could be done by declaring that in a Legislative Council of thirteen members, not more than a prescribed number should be public servants, rather than by declaring that no public servants can be elected to the council? A further inference is that the Government will not nominate any private citizen outside the public service to the Legislative Council.

Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia

– I also am disturbed by the Government’s refusal to accept the amendment. The Opposition believes that it should establish the principle of the democratic rights of public servants in the community at least. Throughout the years, there has been a marked community effort to raise the status of those who give their lives to the public service and who wish to enter the legislative halls of the Commonwealth. Not many years ago, conditions in the States of Australia in that connexion were not far removed from those that apparently apply still, in the Northern Territory. I am at loss to understand the Government’s refusal to establish the principle that is involved in the amendment. If there is danger that the Legislative Council will be composed entirely of public servants, a remedy for that contingency can be found. At the same time, I believe that there is sound reason why an opportunity should be afforded to public servants to become elected members of Parliament, and I ask the Attorney-General (Senator Spicer) to consider that aspect.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Tangney’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 9 to 20 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 247

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1953

[No. 2].

Declarationof Urgency.

Senator McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · South Australia · LP

– I declare that the National Health Bill 1953 [No. 2] is an urgent bill.

Question put -

That the bill be considered an urgent bill.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 28

NOES: 26

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time.

Motion (by Senator McLeay) pro posed -

That the time allotted in connexion with the consideration of the hill be as follows: -

For the second reading of the bill - until 10.30 p.m. this day.

For the committee stage of the bill - until 2 a.m. the 3rd December.

For the remaining stages of the bill - until 2.10 a.m., the 3rd December.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The National Health Bill now before the Senate is, as the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) indicated in his second-reading speech, a most important bill. Quite obviously, the Minister does not believe his own statement because after only four or five members of the Opposition have spoken, the Government now proposes to “ guillotine “ it. The second-reading debate is to terminate at 10.30 o’clock this evening. The bill consists of 139 clauses, which cover 56 pages of close print and also schedules which cover another 29 pages, making a total of 85 pages. Between now and 10.30 p.m. only three,” or, at the most, four more members of the Opposition will have an opportunity to speak on the second reading, and the committee stage is to be concluded at 2 a.m. A period of three and a half hours is to be allowed to the committee to consider all the clauses and schedules contained in the bill; and of that period, half an hour will be taken up for supper at midnight. The proposition now made by the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) has only to be stated to be seen to be completely ridiculous. The Opposition had hoped to move some 23 amendments dealing with only the highlights of the measure. As the Senate is to be allowed only ISO minutes to consider those amendments, only eight minutes, on the average, will be available for the consideration of each of them. That is simply reducing the proceedings of the Senate to a farce. Furthermore, if five minutes is allowed for a division in respect of each of those amendments, the time that will be available for actual debate will be reduced by nearly one and a half hours. The Opposition has a right not only to put its viewpoint adequately but also to hear a reply from the Minister. As a result of the application of the “ guillotine “ it will not be possible for any honorable senator to argue properly upon any one of those amendments.

This is not only a gross abuse of parliamentary procedure; it is also an absolute affront to democracy. It, staggers mc that Go vera ment supporters should tamely accept a proposal that is a rank injustice not, only to the Opposition but also to themselves because, if my information is correct, many of them are eager to speak on this very extensive bill. The bill is bewildering if only by reason of its magnitude and the multiplicity and complexity of the matters with which it deals. I do not propose to take up very much time in protesting against the proposed allotment of time, and I trust that honorable senators will not do so either. The application of the “ guillotine “ in this instance is an absolute affront to the Senate, and to the Opposition in particular. I shall content myself with recording the Opposition’s most emphatic protest against the Government’s action. The gagging of this debate is all the more shameful having regard to the fact that for a period of weeks the Government had no business at all to place before the Senate. As I said yesterday, such action not only brings the parliamentary institution into disrepute but also inevitably leads the people to question the worth of a chamber in which legislation cannot be considered properly and adequately. I have never felt po futile in my life as I feel at this moment when I am faced with the task, of moving 23 amendments under conditions which permit only a few minutes to be allotted for the consideration of each of them. The Opposition cannot even begin to put a case in respect of those amendments and there will he no opportunity to obtain replies from the Minister. Apart from the amendments that I have indicated, the Opposition will require explanations in relation to scores of clauses in the bill. What chance shall we have to obtain an explanation of any one clause when we shall not have time in which to move our amendments ? This action brings disgrace not only upon the Government, but also upon the Senate.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I voice my protest against the tactics of the Government in continuing one sitting from day to day and thus preventing the representatives of the people in this chamber from asking questions upon important matters. To-day, I received a communication upon which I desire to address a question to the appropriate Minister. I shall be denied the right to do so because of the snide tactics of the Government in suspending instead of adjourning the sitting which commenced yesterday afternoon. I have no doubt the sitting will again be suspended so that to-morrow honorable senators will again be denied the opportunity to ask questions upon important matters. I protest most strongly not only against the Government’s action in bludgeoning this important bill through the Senate but also against the snide tactics that it has adopted in order to silence members of the Opposition.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– I protest against the proposed allotment of time for the consideration of this important measure. For a number of years we have boasted that important measures that come before the Parliament have received due consideration, at least, in. the Senate. It has been the proud boast of those who have made that claim that this chamber plays an important part in the political life of the country. The gagging of important measures is not uncommon in the House of Representatives where many bills have been “ guillotined “ and, consequently, the opportunity has not been given to the elected representatives of the people to consider those measures properly. Generally speaking, however. such an opportunity has been given in the: Senates. This, bill will have a most important effect upon the community. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper),, in his- second-reading speech, claimed great credit for the fact that after a considerable lapse of time the. Government had at last brought down a measure- which would make adequate provision in respect of the health of the community. Honorable senators who heard the Minister’s speech will readily admit,, if they speak the truth, that many clauses of this bill require clarification. The bill contains over 100 clauses which make provision for medical, hospital and pharmaceutical benefits and for the control and. operation of organizations that are being set up for the purpose of collecting, contributions from members of the community and distributing those benefits. Surely honorable senators, as the representatives of the people, have a right to scrutinize these proposals. The Government must incur grave- censure if it persists in “guillotining” this measure. Rather than allow members of the Opposition,, or even the rank and file of Government supporters-,, to suggest, how this bill could be improved, the Government is. “ guillotining “ the discussion. I recall that, when the bill was before- the House of Representatives, the. Government refused, even to listen to the advice of one of its own supporters, himself a medical man, who found merit in a suggestion that had been made from the Opposition benches. Quite obviously, the Government does- not intend to allow the bill to be examined closely. It has thrown the measure into the ring and has said, “ Take it or leave it “. As time goeson, of course,, the people of Australia will find that the bill is not as the Government, has represented it to be. There is no reason why the present sittings of the Parliament should be terminated this week. We are still three or four weeks I away from the Christmas period, and we I have often sat until much nearer the holiday time than we are doing on this occasion. There is no valid reason why the Parliament should not be permitted to give to this most important measure the consideration that it merits, and I register my emphatic protest against, the Government’s refusal to let my colleagues. and; me know precisely what this bill purports to do. Surely the elected representatives of the people are entitled to express their opinions.

Senator CRITCHLEY (South Australia) [5.17). - I rise to add my word of protest against this motion. This is by no means the first occasion on which the discussion by the Senate of important legislation has been stifled in spite of the Government’s assurances that it does not care how long the sittings of the Senate continue. Honorable senators opposite would have us believe that this legislation is, from the point of view of the Australian people, the most advantageous that has ever been introduced into these legislative halls. We received the measure from the House of Representatives only yesterday. Throughout this session, the Senate has met for only one* day a week, and I am sure that even members’ of the Government parties, in their innermost mind’s, are perturbed and disgusted by the “ spin “ they are receiving from the Government. The people of Australia who are to be the participants in the Government’s national health scheme are entitled to know exactly what the bill contains. Since the measure was first introduced into the- Senate yesterday, our consideration of it has been continuously interrupted by the interposition of other business. _ We considered the bill until 3 a.m. to-day, and then suspended our sitting until 3 p.m., but, although the Opposition has: assisted the Government in its efforts to expedite its legislative programme for the session, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator- McLeay) has now risen with smug complacency to move a brutal motion limiting the debate on the National Health Bill. T hope that the people of Australia will not forget this. I am certain that this incident, added to many others that have occurred in the last three or four years when legislation had been ruthlessly gagged through this chamber, will result, in the not-distant future, in a decision by the people which will give the Minister for Shipping and Transport and his colleagues plenty of time to contemplate their wrong-doing.

Senator O’FLAHERTY (South Australia) [5.22).. - I, too, rise to protest, although perhaps from a different point of view, against the ruthless dictatorship that is being imposed upon this chamber. Although the Senate has sat for comparatively short periods throughout the life of this Parliament, the gagging of debates has been a commonplace occurrence. The Government has repeatedly used its brutal majority to suspend Standing Orders to enable the Senate to sit until the early hours of the morning. Although we sat until 3 a.m. to-day, the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Senator McLeay) is imposing an allotment of time which will necessitate a sitting until at least 2 a.m. to-morrow morning and I have no doubt that when that hour is reached he will change his mind. He is as changeable as the wind. We never know exactly where we stand. It is useless for us to make agreements with him. We can trust the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator O’sullivan), but we cannot trust the Minister for Shipping and Transport to fulfil his undertakings to us. Probably at 2 a.m. to-morrow, when the discussion on the National Health Bill terminates, he will discover some other legislation that must be hastened through the Senate and we may continue our sitting until a much later hour. The Minister may have an iron constitution, but I warn him that he is ruining the health of his own supporters as well as that of members of the Opposition. There is ample evidence that the continued nervous strain of late sittings is affecting members of this chamber. There is plenty of time to consider this measure fully between now and the Christmas recess without all-night sittings. Therefore, I protest most emphatically against this procedure.

Senator CAMERON:
Victoria

– Honorable senators will recall that the Minister for Shipping and Transport, who has moved to curtail the debate, on the National Health Bill, has always been critical of idleness on the part of workers. Yet the carrying of this motion will prevent highly paid members of the Senate from doing the job that they have been elected to the Parliament to do. He is well aware that the Senate is constantly open to the criticism that it does little in return for the large sum of money that is expended on it. That is perfectly true, and the carrying of motions such as this will do little to alter the opinion of the general public. As Senator O’flaherty has said, a dictatorship is being established within the Parliament. That dictatorship has already precluded a full discussion of the legislation that is the subject of this motion. The stifling of discussion is not political democracy; it is absolute dictatorship. Yet honorable senators opposite, and particularly the Minister, have the audacity to proclaim from public platforms that they are 100 per cent, democratic ! Government supporters should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. We have plenty of time before Christmas to discuss this bill on its merits. I have already spoken on it, but I express the opinion now that the Government is afraid of a full discussion because the obvious anomalies of the scheme would be ventilated. By preventing honorable senators from recording their views in Hansard, the Government is saving itself from the embarrassment in future of having the truth of our assertions brought home to it and to the people. As I have said, the bill is full of anomalies, yet not one member of this chamber will be able to criticize it as fully as he may wish. The Minister for Shipping and Transport takes some pride in his ability to get business through the Senate regardless of. the merits of the legislation. He cares little about the Opposition’s views or indeed the views of the people generally. The Government has a majority in, this chamber, and it proposes to use that majority to bludgeon the measure through. However, as I said yesterday, the Government will be unable to escape the consequences of actions such as this, just as, at the 1943 and 1946 elections, it was unable to escape the consequences of its behaviour prior to 1941. It is clear that the Government realizes that this bill cannot stand the light of day. Much business could have been transacted by the Senate in the weeks that have been wasted. By this unseemly haste to end the present sitting of the Senate, the Government is’ laying all members of this chamber open to a charge that their jobs are mere political sinecures, the holders of which draw substantial allowances but provide little service in return.

Question put -

That the motion (vide page 247) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 29

NOES: 26

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Debate resumed (vide page 228).

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– The bill before the Senate makes statutory provision for this Government’s very fine national health scheme. I amsure that it will be generally conceded that great advances are made in medical science as a result of research work conducted, and the experience gained during war-time in the treatment of wounds and diseases. That is true in relation to World War II. The medical profession has also made a tremendous advance during the post-war years. During the period of the war the Labour Government that was then in office, on the grounds of necessity, took to itself previously undreamed of powers, and the socialist objectives of the Labour party, which had lain dormant, were re-awakened. Successive attempts were made by the previous

Labour Government between 1945 and 1949 to socialize the banking system of this country. The newspapers of that period contain many pages of reports in that connexion. Up to the 10th December, 1949, all that occurred in relation to a national health scheme was that the Labour Government had attempted, unsuccessfully, to nationalize the medical profession. Only chaos resulted from the McKenna national health plan. This Government came to office as a result of the 1949 elections. The people of this country are fortunate that a man of such wide experience as the present Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) was chosen for that portfolio. As a former Treasurer, the right honorable gentleman has an extensive knowledge of government finance, and, as a practising doctor, he enjoys a high reputation. He immediately set about restoring order out of the conditions that existed in the field of national health in 1949.

In May, 1950, the Minister outlined his plan for a national health scheme to a medical congress in Brisbane. He adopted that approach to the subject in order that the people who would be requiredto play an important part in implementing his scheme would know of this Government’s objectives in that connexion. In July, 1950, the Minister announced that this Government had approved of the payment of allowances to sufferers from tuberculosis. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), who was Minister for Health in the previous Labour Government, will explain why that Government did not pay allowances to such people. If my memory serves me correctly, a conference of the Australian Labour party that was held in Tasmania during Labour’s regime passed a resolution demanding that the Australian Government should take action in that direction. Up to the time that Labour relinquished office, action had not been taken to implement that resolution. In July, 1950, the Minister for Health announced that lifesaving drugs would be provided free for the treatment of persons for whom they were prescribed. I understand that already about 20,000,000 prescriptions for life-saving drugs have been written for the people of this country. The- march of progress continued. In December, 1950, ‘the Government approved of the provision of milk free to school children. That scheme has benefited 750,000 children. -Shortly afterwards, provision wa-s made for the free immunization of children -against infection by certain diseases. In January, 1951, the Commonwealth informed the States of the details of its hospital benefits scheme. That was foli’owed by the introduction, in May, 1951, -of this ‘Government’s pensioner medical scheme, under which 6,000,000 prescriptions ‘have been written. That scheme has been of great assistance to the pensioners -of this country, In July of this year the (Government announced the introduction of its medical benefits and hospital Q-wnefits ‘schemes, which have been ‘of great vafee to the people. Most of the organizations “that are registered under those schemes do not impose age limits insist on the medical examination of applicants. Tfliey provide full benefits to . all members of . a family. Some . of the organizations announced recently that they would consider providing . benefits for sufferers from chronic diseases . after two years’ membership.

One of the principal attributes ; of the GoverMffinent’s ‘heailth : scheme, ito -wihicih tMs bill gives legislative ‘effect, ‘is that it provides a ‘bulwark against tike nationalization of the ‘Medical p.i’ofiessioai. I am certain that tfec people of this ‘.country “will readilsapprove >of ‘this ‘Government’s . action ito prevent the nationalization iof ‘the health and medical services of this (country by amy future socialist government. We have developed a partnership between the Commonwealth, . the State governments, insurance (companies, and the medical and pharmaceutical professions. The [shareholders of the partnership are the -5,000,000 Australians who are members -of registered benefit organizations. Let . us try to -sift the wheat from the chaff, in order to ascertain Labour’s objective in the field of national health. The following report appeared in the Hobart Mercury of -the 2nd July . last : -

Senator McKenna gaud the mew scheme amounted to practical (compulsion of prospective patients to insure, . and that while . H was desirable people should insure against sickness, it was undesirable that they should be coerced into doing so.

The Leader of the ‘Opposition was referring to this Government’s health scheme. While he does not believe in the principle of compulsory insurance, the party that ‘he . ‘supports favours the introduction into Australia >©f the -principle of compulsory unionism. It is indeed strange that a former Tasmanian ‘should criticize this Government’s health scheme in the way -that the Leader of the Opposition has done, because industrial organizations in Tasmania have led the way in the provision . ©f ‘hospital and medical benefits. I refer !to the great organizations that are conducted by the Mount Lyell Railway and Mining Company Limited of ‘Queenstown, on the west . coast of Tasmania, and ‘the Electrolytic Zinc Company . of Australia Limited, ait Risdon. Those -organizations appreciate the increased benefits that have been aaaade available under this’Government’s scheme. I do not think that the representatives of the Labour party in this chamber will have many friends in those industrial unions if they persist in their criticism of this ‘Government’s health scheme, which is developing on very . sound lines.

In Australia to-day there is approximately one medical practitioner to each 1,000 persons. Considerable progress is being made hy the States in the building and extension of hospitals. The Commonwealth has made considerable finance available to the States to (extend ihospital accommodation. Let ais consider the benefits it-hat have (been -provided to -the people under this Government’s health scheme, which has ibeen . operating by regulation. ‘The . hospitajls . have benefited considerably. The . Royal Melbourne Hospital had aisur-plus of £48,465 for the yeao- ended March, 19,53., compared with a -deficit of £76,851 , for ithe previous . twelve months. A similar : state of affairs ‘exists in relation to many other hospitals in this counstry. Under this Government’s health scheme their revenue has been greatly increased. In turn, that /has enabled them to improve ithe’ir service to the community. That is a most important point ; in the scheme. Previously, hospitals were starved for finance, but -under this scheme they see a light on the hill as far ; as finance is . concerned.

During the last . year of office of the Labour Government the distribution -of free medicine cost £ 149,000. During the current year,under . a Liberal-Country party government, free medicinewill cost the -Government £8,000,000. Hospital benefits cost the Labour Government £6,000,000 in its last year of office, but will cost the present Government double that amount during the current financial year. Tuberculosis benefits cost £134,000 during the Labour Government’s last year of office, but will cost £6,000,000 during the current year. The present Government has adopted a veryfine programme for the purpose of eradicating the scourge of tuberculosis from thecommunity. The pensioner medical . scheme was not in operationunder the Labour Government, but during the current financial year it will cost the present Government £3,000,000. When Labour ruled the waves there was no free milk scheme. The distribution of free milk will cost the Government £2,000,000 during this financial year. Although this scheme had its early troubles and, in some cases milk was wasted, nobody who has seen the scheme in operation will deny ite greatvalue to our children.

In making his second-reading speech the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) made the following statement : -

Ishould especially like to mentionthat the continued! active work of the scheme depends on the . consistent co-operation of the . governments and the community generally and of the federal organizations which direct the policies of the doctors, chemists and insurance organizations.

As I said before, this scheme is a partnership of those organizations with the people . of Australia . acting as shareholders receiving dividends.

Once this debate has finished, I think that honorable senators on both sides of the chamber -should try to make this scheme a bigger success than it has been already. . The scheme could be killed if the health services of this nation were used -as a political football. That is whathappened in Tasmania. The scheme did not get off to a good start there because one political party would not co-operate, but I believe that it is now seeing the light of day. It is tobe hoped that all members of Parliament will do all that they can to encourage people to insure their health . and help the Government’s scheme to develop. People who insure their health will take a greater interest in the scheme and the whole subject of health and medicine than those who do not. The premiums necessary for . health insurance are not high and the amount “feat a family receives if it suffers sickness More than repays the premium’s that havebeen contributed to the benefits fund.In conclusion, I express thehope that the Government will continue to do all that it can to -assist the national fitness organization. I have pleasure in reaffirming my -support for thebill.

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to , 8 p.m.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) has placed before the Senate a bill which deals with a scheme that purports to care for the health ofthe Australian people. The measure follow? a pre-election statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) that one of the greatest problems which the Liberal party and the Austraiian Country party would attack, if elected tooffice, was the problem of ill health and the institution of a scheme to meet that problem. To refresh the minds of honorable senators concerning the statements which the right honorahle gentleman then made, I propose to read portions of the joint Opposition policy speech of 1949. ‘The right honorable gentleman said - “The real . problem is that of the prevention of disease try adequate and proper food supPly, by an attack upon . causes, . . . We must have more hospitals, both centralized and decentralized. We need many more doctors, which means a great extension of our medical training centres. We need to reduce the high cost of diagnosis in a -specialized age by including diagnostic clinics in . hospitals….. It is a grave error to treat the problem of . a national medical health service as if it mean! nothing more than the making of monetary payments to . citizens from the ‘Treasury.

Having in mind those statements and the publicity which the Government has poured out concerning the benefits of its health scheme, one would have thought that the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) would ‘have tried to tackle the problems that exist and to put before the Australian people a plan ito provide for the raising of medical standards and the training of doctors, for better hospital treatment and the establishment of diagnostic centres, and for the development of preventive measures by providing the fresh foods, such as milk, to which the Prime Minister referred. But all that the bill before the Senate seeks to achieve is another way of paying the doctor. It does not propose to make the slightest change in our medical system. Does the Minister suggest that the only problem which affects the health of the nation is how to find money with which to pay the doctor? If he does, he is one of a very small minority. Does he believe that it is possible to introduce a satisfactory medical scheme in Australia without disturbing the present set-up?

For many years we enjoyed a fairly good general medical practitioner service, which was provided by the friendly societies and other organizations. The payment of a small contribution entitled the average citizen to cover himself and Ids family against the costs entailed by ill health. At the same time, because of the club-like nature of those societies, he was provided with an opportunity for social intercourse with his fellow members. The Minister for Health, by means of this bill, proposes to destroy that system. He intends that a different kind of organization shall be set up which will not cover, as did the friendly societies, the expenses incurred in respect of doctors’ fees. The Government’s scheme provides that the organizations with which individuals insure will pay a portion of the charges made by doctors. By doing away with the friendly societies, the Government will remove a facet of our society that has been developed over many years. I regret the passing of the friendly societies as we have known them, and the substitution of a scheme under which those who contribute will have little say in the distribution of benefits. Their passing will remove from the scene something that has become very dear to the Australian people.

Senator Laught:

– They were to be removed completely under the McKenna scheme, were they not?

Senator ARNOLD:

– I do not propose to be side-tracked, but I deny that that was so. The Labour Government proposed to utilize the friendly societies. My point is that this Government intends to destroy them and to set up in their place a scheme which will be more costly and which will provide fewer benefits, tinder the Labour Government’s scheme, the means test was completely removed as far as admission to public wards of public hospitals was concerned. Under that scheme, the only test applied to persons who wished to avail themselves of such accommodation was the acuteness of the illness, whereas to-day, practically the whole of the cost of hospital treatment has to be met by the patient himself, irrespective of his means. This Government has re-applied the means test. Before being admitted to a hospital, a sick person is submitted to a quizzing concerning his means.

It is true that a person who insures with an approved organization is enabled to meet a portion of his hospital expenses. Under the Labour Government scheme, as the result of the payment of a social security tax, citizens were entitled to free hospital treatment for the duration of their illness. If an individual experienced a serious illness and was required to “remain in hospital for a period of six months, he was able to do so and to leave the hospital without having a debt round his neck. His expenses were met from the social security tax which was imposed on a graduated scale. That system of a flat rate contribution has been replaced by the harsh method introduced by this Government.

The people of Australia now pay far heavier taxation to provide health and medical benefits than they paid under the Chifley Government. In addition, they are now compelled to pay further amounts in respect of medical and hospital insurance. Having done so, when they enter hospital they become liable to meet other expenses, because the insurance benefits which they receive, together with the government subsidy, are not sufficient to cover the whole of their debt. The Opposition considers that that position is entirely unfair. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber make it perfectly plain that when the Australian Labour party is returned to office it will immediately remove the means test in respect of admission to the public wards of public hospitals. The people of Australia are entitled to free medical treatment. The only test should be the seriousness of the illness from which they are suffering. That is not the test at the present time, because if a person is able to alford private ward attention he is able to secure a bed in such a ward. During recent months it has become customary, in our big hospitals, for more and more of the beds to be transferred from public wards to private wards. Consequently, there are more beds available for those who are able to afford private accommodation and less for those who cannot afford it. The test to-day is not the seriousness of the illness but the amount of money which a patient possesses. The Australian Labour party believes that that is inequitable. When we are returned to office we shall see that the system is changed.

Senator Pearson:

– The honorable senator may find that that promise will be a little difficult to live up to.

Senator ARNOLD:

– We did not find it so before. The next point that I wish to make concerns the question of who is a specialist. Under this scheme, the Government proposes to make additional payments to specialists. I have looked through the bill very carefully, and the only interpretation of “ specialist “ that 1” have been able to find, is that he is a doctor to whom a patient has been referred by another doctor.

Senator Kendall:

– Surely, he is one who specializes!

Senator ARNOLD:

– Or who says he specializes. 13 he to be the one to apply the test? Is the Government satisfied that any medical practitioner who sets himself up in Macquarie-street, Sydney, or any other street, and says that he is a specialist, is a. specialist without any other inquiry being made? I suggest that a Minister who is content with such a self-test is not giving to the Australian people a really worthwhile health scheme.

Now that payment is to be assured to doctors for operations which they perform, it is perhaps well to ask ourselves how much unnecessary surgery will be promoted. Will it mean, in addition, that operations will be performed by people who are not qualified to operate? Lest honorable senators opposite think that I am making comments which arc unfounded, I wish to read an extract from a report to the President of the United States of America by a commission on health in that country. The report was issued early last year by outstanding authorities in the United States of America who stated - >

There are services performed by physicians who know they are not qualified for certain work but who will attempt almost anything in order to retain the fee. The results are often gruesome. . . . Unnecessary surgery is performed by reasonably competent physicians who know better but want the money.

That is one of the problems that worries the medical profession in the United States. Yet in Australia, we have no safeguards of any kind. Senator Kendall has admitted that a specialist is one who declares that he is a specialist.

Senator Kendall:

– No. One whom the university declares to be a specialist.

Senator - ARNOLD.- I should likeSenator Kendall to show me any authority for his statement that a university dubs a doctor a specialist. There is no test in Australia for a specialist. In Great Britain and the United States certain qualifications are required. The Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain requires the following: -

Consultants on first appointment should have a minimum of seven years experience after qualifying, and hold an appropriate higher degree or diploma. This period should include at least five years in approved posts at hospitals in the registrar and senior registrar grades.

I challenge the honorable senator or the Minister to show me where any hospital in Australia or any other authority sets up a qualification of that kind for a specialist. As I have said there is no test in Australia for a specialist.

Senator Robertson:

– Some of those specialists may have moved to Australia to practice here.

Senator ARNOLD:

– I hope so. Senator Robertson has missed the point. When a health scheme is designed, those who plan it should try to make it worth while. The Prime Minister said in his speech that greater training facilities were needed. He said that; Australia must set up diagnostic: centres, and. yet under this- scheme nothing, is to be done about it. All that the Minister, has tried to do, and all that he has achieved, is to find another way of shifting’ the cost of medical services from the government to the individuals: so that they can pay the doctor.

I have waited to hear the Minister for Repatriation, who is representing the Minister for Health, explain how the health services of Australia are to be improved.. Is anything to be done for the trainingof our doctors? Only last night, Dr. Schlink of the Royal’ Prince Alfred Hospital,. Sydney, pointed out that the standard of training in Australia was declining. He said that medicine in Australia was’ slipping. Those are the words of one of the great medical superintendents of Sydney. The Government, is about to launch a new health scheme and there is no indication, that the resources of the Australian Government will be directed towards improving the training of medical men. Therefore, I repeat that the Government is merely achieving another way of paying the doctors. As to the standards of training in Australia, I have a book Trends in Modem Medical Education by Dr. V. M.Coppleson, Honorary Director of Postgraduate Medical Studies in the University of Sydney. He stated -

The medical course of the University of Sydney was established more than fifty years ago at a time when under-graduate courses were intended to provide the whole of the clinical, scientific and vocational training necessary for the training of a doctor. This, in essence, is still its present form. . . . In New South Wales and Australia generally, methods of training are, at present, not well organized. There is no generally accepted method, such as the British Registrar system or the American resident system . . . There is a complete absence of this type of training in New South Wales.

That means in Australia.

Senator Kendall:

– Cut it out.

Senator ARNOLD:

– Lest I contradict Senator Kendall without written evidence,, I. confine my reference to New South- “Wales. There is a complete absence in New South Wales of that training; I wish, that there were something better in the other States. From, the publicity that has been, given to this scheme, I had hoped that it would have been the beginning of something really good! in the development, of medical schools in. Australia. The promises of the Prime Minister supported that hope: I looked for something that would have helped those living in the country districts to get better medical attention. I expected some contribution- to the preventive side of medicine and towards the rehabilitation of persons who had been ill, but the Minister has. carefully steered; a course through the present system without disturbing existing methods and; arrangements, and has. merely found a different way to’ make payments to the medical profession.

In an endeavour to help the scheme, the Opposition is suggesting amendments to the bill. I ask the Minister to give careful consideration to the amendments. Thefirst deals with diagnostic and health centres-. Surely the Prime Minister recognizes the need for them1. He did so four years ago, and I am certain that if the Minister will discuss the matter with the Prime Minister, the right honorable gentleman will inform his colleague that there is an urgent need for diagnostic centres. I ask honorable senators to consider the effect of this bill. When every general practitioner can perforin an operation if he desires without restraint and be paid the fees for doing so, will people tend to group together and seek the formation of diagnostic centres? The effect will be the opposite. I ask the Minister to use the resources of the Government to set up adequate training centres and to establish regional hospitals, particularly in country areas where hundreds of thousands of country people are now denied specialist attention. If the Government would be prepared to subsidize specialists and set up base hospitals with satellite hospitals throughout the country areas, the country people would . receive a service that is now denied to them. The Opposition suggests that consideration should be given to that matter.

New Zealand has shown how much can be achieved in the care of children’s teeth. This Government does not propose to do anything about that problem.

The Minister is ‘concerned too much, with paying -the . ‘doctors -and ihe has forgotten that the most important ‘person in health scheme is the sick person.

SenatorWedgwood. - And the doctor who supplies the treatment.

Senator ARNOLD:

– No, the important person is the patient. That is the person for whom the scheme should be designed. The doctor is an important unit in & health scheme, but his duty is to make the . sick person well. I suggest to Senator Wedgwood that her thoughts upon this matter are wrong. The important person is the Australian citizen who becomes ill ..Sick persons . should not be worried about finding money to pay for medical treatment. This bill is of little value to the people. It is true that hospitals throughout Australia are in a better financial position than they were.

Senator SPICER:
VICTORIA · LP

– T’hey are in a better position than they were during the regime of the Chifley Government.

Senator ARNOLD:

– When the ‘Chifley Government was in office, there was one tax and from that tax the hospitals throughout Australia were kept going. People were able to go into the public wards and receive attention. If they did not have money to pay the hospital, they were entitled to free treatment.

Senator Wright:

– And not one new hospital was built for years.

Senator ARNOLD:

-Senator Wright knows very little about the matter or he would not have made that statement. Now that the people are paying not once but three times, the Government states that the hospitals are showing a surplus. Of course they are. As I have said, the people are paying three times. Those who are acutely ill but are not financially strong are often denied admission to hospital because there are more private ward beds and fewer public ward beds available and because the test that, is applied to the patients nowadays is, “ Can you pay your bill? “ Therefore, the hospitals have more money. Does the Government propose to continue to give subsidies to the hospitals or does it intend ‘to use their surpluses to cut down on general revenue ? The scheme hans little tocommend it, and the Opposi- tion asks the Ministerto give serious consideration to theamendments thatit has put forward.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Western Australia

. I support the bill. Before dealing with its provisions, I Shall correct a number of misstatements that were made yesterday by honorable senators opposite. I deplore greatly the attack that Senator Benn made upon the members of the British Medical Association, . and,, to-night, I was pained beyond expression when Senator Arnold, who usually speaks in a sane manner, fell into the same, trap and cast . grave reflections upon that association which the great majority of Australians regard with respect. I have no doubt that . self-seekers are to be found in the ranks of members of the British Medical Association just as they are to be found in the ranks of any organization, including every political party. My relations with the British Medical Association during a long period have been among the happiest experiences ofmy life. I like to speak about people as I find them. However, I believe that, upon reflection, . Senator Benn, Senator Arnold and other honorable senators opposite who spoke so disparagingly about the British Medical Association will recognize that they overstepped the bounds of courtesy in the remarks that they made about the members of the honoured medical profession. The British Medical Association resisted the attempt that was made by the Chifley Government to force . a socialistic national health scheme upon the Australian public under which doctors were to be regimented. It was only natural that the doctors should resent that Government’s attack upon their profession. I remember the wonderful fight that the British Medical Association put up ©n that occasion. In resisting that scheme, the members of that association struck a blow for liberty and democracy in ibis country. Therefore, it ill behoves any honorable senator to-day to cast reflections upon such an honoured profession.

Senator Benn declared that under this scheme no benefits at all were payable to people who did not join an approved organization, and he addedthat insurance for benefit was compulsory. It is obvious that the honorable senator, when he made that statement, had not read the bill. The scheme which it embodies has been working successfully for over two years j and it will continue to succeed despite Senator Benn’s criticism of it. People are completely free to join or refuse to join an approved society. However, persons who are not members of an approved society are eligible to receive hospital benefit at the rate of 8s. a day, whilst those who are members of an approved society will receive that benefit plus an additional 4s. a day. Every one who incurs expense in respect of treatment in a private or public hospital is eligible to receive benefit at the rate of Ss. a day, that is £2 16s. a week, whether lie is insured with an approved society or not. Therefore, Senator Benn was guilty of making a gross misstatement when he said that nobody could derive any benefit unless he. was insured with one of the approved organizations. Senator O’flaherty made copious quotations from an article that was published in a certain magazine. I read that article a little while ago and found that its author remained anonymous. For that reason, I refused to take any notice of its contents. I ndeed, I was astonished when the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), no doubt with a desire to set the author of the article right on the matters about which he wrote, answered some of the fallacies that the article contained. The voice was the voice of Jacob, but the hand was the hand of Esau. The article advocated the complete socialization of health services in this country.

Senator 0’Flaherty said that pensioners received treatment of a standard lower than that which was given to other classes of patients in public hospitals. That statement caused me some alarm. All I can say is that it is the bounden duty of the honorable senator, if he ha3 in his possession facts to substantiate such a charge, to make them available to the Minister in order to enable him to inquire into the matter and take remedial action. The honorable senator’s statement cast a grave reflection upon the matrons and nurses who are employed in our public hospitals. Certainly, his charge is groundless insofar as the treatment that is given to pensioners in public hospitals in Western Australia is concerned. I take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the doctors, matrons and nurses who are engaged in the hospitals in that State on the wonderful work that they are doing in the interests of the indigent and the needy, as well as of other classes of patients who come under their care. I am able to speak with some authority on this matter, because I have been priviledged to engage in community service among pensioners and the poorer sections of the community in Western Australia. I urge Senator O’Flaherty to make available to the Minister any facts which he has in his possession. Nothing is further from the mind of the Government than that pensioners who enter public hospitals should be placed in the position in which they will be forced to accept inferior treatment.

Senator Cameron read some interesting extracts about health services from various publications. He would have utilized his time to better advantage if he had given to the Senate a few constructive thoughts of his own in relation to this scheme. He declared that the bill really made no provision for any scheme at all. Does he not realize that this scheme ha* actually been in operation for over two years and has already benefited thousands of people ? I made a point of ascertaining whether, in fact, some people are dissatisfied with the scheme. For that purpose, I interviewed five pensioners. Only one of them made a minor complaint, which was quickly rectified, whilst the remaining four were completely satisfied with the service that is being provided for pensioners under this scheme. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), in his second-reading speech, stated that in respect of pensioners the scheme provides for a complete general medical practitioner service, a wide range of drugs and medicines over and above the free life-saving drugs that are made available to everybody and hospital benefit at the rate of 16s. a day. Thus, liberal assistance is provided for pensioners. Yet, Senator Cameron said that there was really no scheme at all. T remind him. further that 750,000 school children are being supplied daily with milk free of charge. That scheme is being operated as a preventive measure. The honorable senator said that it was not perfect. Where is the perfect scheme? The honorable senator did not outline a perfect scheme. As I have said, this scheme as a whole has been in operation for over two years. Anomalies are gradually being ironed out. Another honorable senator opposite said that persons suffering from chronic complaints could not derive any assistance from the scheme. The difficulty with respect to the provision of benefit to such persons through approved organizations is now being ironed out. The Minister has appointed a committee to inquire into that aspect and to advise him upon it. I have no doubt that a solution will be found to that difficulty. I repeat that the provision of free milk for school children is a preventive scheme that is designed to build up youthful bodies and thus ensure the health of future generations in this country.

I agree with Senator Arnold that New Zealand has been in the forefront in the provision of health schemes of this kind, particularly schemes to protect the health of children. That country has had in operation since .1935 a .scheme for the free distribution of milk to children, which is highly commendable. Australia has been a long time catching up with schemes of that kind and similar schemes that have been in operation for many years in European countries. However, we have now made a start in the right direction; and any loose bolts in the scheme will be tightened up in due course. Senator Willesee, after dealing somewhat sarcastically with the Minister’s secondreading speech, advanced certain ideas which were to a degree constructive. However, he said that healthy persons would not need to insure under the scheme and would not bother to do so. That is a ridiculous statement. Surely the honorable senator knows that the average person will naturally make provision against the possibility of accident or sudden illness as a result of which he may be obliged to incur considerable expenditure for medical and hospital treatment. There was an element of truth in his statement that we are apt to condemn schemes without really understanding them. Grave criticism was levelled at the English scheme when it was first introduced, and some of that criticism still holds good to-day. Perhaps the most significant criticism that was made about that scheme was that it involved too great an expenditure. I was interested recently to read a report of a statement by the manager of a big bus company in England that after the English scheme had been in operation for about three years about 3,000 parcels had been left by passengers in buses that his company controlled. When, none of those parcels had been claimed by their owners after a reasonable lapse of time, an investigation showed that most of them contained false teeth, glass eyes, wigs, sun glasses and spectacles which, evidently, had been distributed under the national health scheme in Great Britain. Apparently, it was a ease of “ Easily gotten, easily gone “. That is exactly what happened under the English scheme. However, it has been improved in a number of respects. For instance, persons are now charged for prescriptions. In formulating the scheme embodied in this bill, Australia has had the opportunity to learn from the experience of New Zealand, Great Britain, the United States of America and European countries in establishing national health schemes. It is true to say that 53 countries have approved of the Australian scheme. There cannot be a very great deal wrong with it when we find that it has received world-wide approval.

One honorable senator opposite complained about the economics of the scheme. In that respect, I shall cite a few figures which will contrast the actons of this Government in the field of national health, with things the Labour Government attempted to do. Whereas during the regime of the Chifley Government not one penny was expended in the provision of free milk for school children, this Government is expending £2,000,000 per annum under that heading. Whereas the Chifley Government expended approximately £134,000 annually for the purpose of eradicating tuberculosis, this Government is expending nearly £6.000,000 anually for that purpose. Incidentally, that scheme is preventive in character, and, already it has achieved spectacular success. Provision is made for alL piersonsi to be X-rayed,, and sufferers from tke disease are given a living wage, while,- they undergo treatment), mwahi of whiehi cam. be rendered in tke borae.. Under that, system- sufferers are given peace of mind, which is> indisliensablft to recovery from that diread. disease. Whereas the Chifley Government, expended. £148,000. annually on its: free medicine scheme,, which, really existed only on. paper,, this Govei’maaient is expending. £17,.000,000 annually under that headsingL The Chifley Government did not, expend one penny ha the. provision of free: medical, services,, hut. this Government is now incurring an expenditure, of over. £2;000,000 annually foir that pqairpxDse. Compared with amr annual, expenditure of £6,000,000. by the Chifley Government in respect of hospital services,, this Government is expending £12,.000;,000r annually. As? a direct result; of that, scheme; tha financial position of. publie hospitals as- a whole has already been, immensely improved.

I return now to two cases to which I intended to refer earlier m my speech. Not long ago I spoke toi a young married man who had a wife and1 three children and’ who pays 4s. a week health insurance. T aisked brim what he thought of the swfteme. He- said, “ I think it is excellent. I have-jwsf had medical attention- for my three children and the bill’ was1 £1’9 1.9s. 1: received’ £1? 93. back Another man to whom I spoke had himself been seriously ill and,, in addition,, bis wife, his son, and smother nsemher of the family had beem iti. He said,. ‘“Witihout this: scheme. I should have had) to> spend the i-es:ii of my life paying for thei treatment that we received. The scheme has assisted ine to thei extent of 95> per cent, of my expenses “. The proof of the pudding- ia in. the eaiting. Thousands’ of people all. over the Commonwealth are en joy ing- the benefits’ of: the scheme and) are satisfied. with thei pravrLsiofHi that it makes foar them. Let us give! credit- where credit is due. Let uafiind, out wheare’the aaaomaldes in this scheme; lie,, if there be: amy anoaaaiaMes. Let, us find the ways in which; the scheme i3 not working- paroperly,, and) then let us ap.pfy the remedies1 that, are necessary to make the« scheme as nearly perfect as possible. Senator Anderson, commented upon thei number of clauses isa. thei bill, and wisely said that there should be good, discussions in aomnaittee. As I have premised to shorten.’ my speech, I do not intend to< go tkroiugh the bill at this stagey, and four tbat some: honorable senators, opposite,. I am sure,, will be thankful. I agjree with Senator’ Anderson tha* thecommittee stage should produce interesting debates; hut I believe that the; discussions, should, be confined absolutely to the terms, of tha clauses of the- bill- Criticism should be ccmstructive. Yesterday all thecriticism offered by honorable, senators apposite; was; destructive. There was no*, one concrete suggestion to; improve1, the: scheme. Senator Byrne rather painted the lily when ha spoke: of the Queensland free, hospital scheme., Undoubtedly the Queensland Government, has; done a good job as Senator- Annabelle Rankin has- said), but, after all not; every State has a “‘Golden Casket;” to help its hospital finances. Senator Byrne was ratherscathing in his- comparison of conditions in Queensland with those, in Victoria,, hut pechaips the. Victorian people, will, be. helped considerably when “ Tatts.” moves, to. that. State.

  1. congratulate the Minister for1 Healthupon, having devised a national health scheme; containing such a strong note of

CQ-opeitatioH… The assistance of individuals^ heaWiy and; sick, of organizations suein as the British Medical’ Association and the friendly societies, and of chemists-, has; been, enlisted to help this country safeguard’ the heart’th of its, people. The most important thing- in Mfe is good’ health, and amy money tha* a government spends in; the prevention; of sickness- and the: proimotioT). of good health is money well) spent. I think I am correct in staging thaft 53 coimtries; have acclaimed our national health scheme asi one of thefinest iia the world. Apparently, therefore1, there me some elements in the scheme that have world-wide appeal’. I includ® amongst those1- the sane approach that thescheme makes to the problem of national healthr and the coroperative spirit, in which, healthy members of the community are helping their less fortunate fellows1. ATI those factors; make the scheme, a most reinaarkaHc one. Australians; wonderful! range of climate and abundant foodsupply make this lamd one of the most envied in the world. The scheme, of health, insurance operates throughout the. Commonwealth, and its, value is. greatly enhanced by the Commonwealth contributions in respect of both medical and. hospital’ care. I. commend to honorable, senators the words of the Minister for Health that voluntary co-operation - as, opposed’ to the compulsion in which, honr orable senators, opposite believe - mutual’ understanding, self-help and mutual help breathe the spirit of service into the whole scheme. The Minister added- -

They- provide a realistic basis- for- the attempt, on-, the national- scales, to, relieve, human suffering,, prevent, sickness, provide the’ best’ possible service, and bring to all individuals the maximum Health and’ happiness. The: Government’s’ well- designed plan has been accepted’ by all, the people, at. Australia, as- is proved by its smooth operation: in practice,

I conclude by quoting- the following passage from the Minister’s sescond.reading’ speech -

In the- four- years since this Government took over the: reigns of” office, successive steps of, this scheme have, resulted, in- every, stage of life being, touched: -

Children are immunized against infection, and 750,000 are supplied with free milk.

Young people who- are so. prone to tuberculosis are protected1. The- most generous: allowances in the1 world, are: paid, to sufferers from active tuberculosis. The. community is protected by such a programme.

Every one is’ provided with free lifesaving’ and: disease-preventing drugs-.

Pensioners are- provided’ with free- medical1 service and free medicines over, and above the free life-saving drugs available to” every one:

Hospital and1 medical’ benefits are nrade available: to- encourage earlier diagnosis and, cheapen, the-, cost of hospital and medical, insurance and’ treatment..

Anomalies, regarding age restrictions; chronic diseases, pre-existing, complaints,&c., are- being rapidly overcome.

I have much- pleasure, in. supporting thisbill’.

Senator. McKENNA (Tasmania - Leader of the Opposition [8.52]. - I begin; by reassuring’ Senator. Robertson, that, the; debate! at the committee stage, of. this- bill, will’ be. “ confined “ as she, hoped..I point, out. that, she and her associates on the Government, side’ have- decided to confine the debate- at the committee, stage, to only- three- hours. Therefore, we shall have.only three- hours, to. deal with a, bill of:86 pages and;” 130- clauses..

L assure, the honorable senator that if she. is- endeavouring, to persuade- herself that, there willibe; ample- discussion, of the. measure, at the committee- stage, she is: merely deluding: herself., This measure, is. the successor to, its still-born predecessor introduced into- the. House, of Representativesin March,, 1953.. That measure lay. undebated for a period, of seven months until, it was decently interred by the prorogation of the Parliament early in November.. The March, bill, was-,, of course,, mere window dressing and political stunting on the part, of the Government on the eve of the Senate: election. If anybody doubts’ the truth, of that statement, he has only. to: look at the many differences, between the March measure and tlie bill now before the Senate. Clearly the earlier legislation was acompletely ill-digested measure designed’ solely for the purpose that I have indicated.

This bill, does two. main, things. First, it incorporates some> of the. enabling provisions of Labour’s National Health Service Act. I say that some provisions are included because undoubtedly very many others of considerable importance have been dropped. Secondly,, the bill embodies in legislation certain provisionsthat, are contained in regulations at the moment. Before I deal with the contents of the- bill -I propose- to- do that rather fully - I’ shall make some comments on the speech with which the bill was introduced at the second-reading stage in this cham ber. Whilst the voice that delivered that speech was the voice of the Minister for Repatriation. (Senator Cooper),, there. isno- doubt, whatsoever that, the words were- those of the; Minister- for Health (Sir Earle Page). It was, I’ think,, tlie. most, extraordinary,,, lengthy and: tedious! speech; - there were 27 pages, of it - to which I have ever listened’. It did; everything except, explain! the contents of: the. bill It dealt with: matters’, that- had; nothing whatever to do. with-, the bill. It dealt, at length, with tuberculosis It even, dealt with: the Financial Agreement. and. the. arrangements! relating’ to it; that were-‘ made away back in the 1920’s,.What connexion’ that had) with. the National Health Bill, only the- Minister- for.- Health himself appears to know. The speech made extravagant claims. It also made false statements, and I shall deal with those later. Finally, I should say that the speech was the greatest collection of banalities and platitudes that I have ever seen grouped together in any speech, let alone in a speech introducing the second reading of an important hill in the National Parliament. Let me refer to just one or two such utterances by way of example. The Minister said early in his remarks -

The most important thing in the world is individual and national health. Once people cease to live, the other issues, however important they seem, no longer concern them.

Senator Robertson:

– Is that not true?

Senator McKENNA:

– It is a veritable gem of wisdom. It means in short that when you are dead you are dead. I agree with the honorable senator that the Minister’s statement was true indeed; but it was also exceedingly fatuous. The next remark with which I wish to deal was as follows: - (rood health is the first priority in the whole world.

That, I suggest, is a very materialistic outlook and I do not think it is true.I believe that peace of mind, of which good health is a contributing factor, is the most important thing in the world. The Minister overlooked the fact that man lives far more in his mind than in his body. After all, things that are mental and spiritual are of the very essence of living, and soar far above the things of the body. The Minister then said -

Good health is the one great common interest of all people. The consistent pursuit of health in unison by all governments and people of the world may well be the magic talisman that will give us that universal peace so necessary to enable the devotion of the whole of our human and physical resources to the improvement ofthe health and happiness of mankind.

If those claims even begin to be true I suggest that Sir Winston Churchill and President Eisenhower should abdicate in favour of this Minister for Health and send him over to Mr. Malenkov to resolve the world’s problems. It is, unfortunately, true that the healthier mankind is the more likely it is to fight. I repeat that the outlook of the world will be conditioned by mental and spiritual things and not by this bemused health scheme of the Menzies Government.

Whatever strictures I pass on the second-reading speech of the Minister for Health, which the Minister for Repatriation had the misfortune to read to us, I think that the Senate will understand that they are not directed to the Minister for Repatriation personally.

Senator Sandford:

– He was merely the pawn.

Senator McKENNA:

– He is a highly respected Minister. I comment on the false claims that have been made, not only during this debate, but also continuously by prominent members of the Government, from the Prime Minister down. It has been claimed that this Government’s national health scheme first provided free immunizing agents. That is No. 1 item in the scheme. The truth about the matter is that immunizing agents were first provided free iu this country in 1947 - nearly three years before this Government came to office. I refer to immunizing agents against diphtheria, whooping cough and goitre, every one of which was provided by the Chifley Government. Yet the present. Government has falsely claimed, again and again - and I have no doubt that it will keep on claiming - without any sense of propriety, all the credit for the actions of its predecessors.

I come now to the vastly important matter of tuberculosis. The Minister claimed in his second-reading speech, as has been done many times outside the Parliament, all the credit for the tuberculosis eradication scheme that is functioning very well in Australia to-day. What is the truth about the inception of that scheme? It was originally born in the mind of the present DirectorGeneral of Health, Dr. Metcalfe. It bore fruit in the appointment . by the Labour Government of Dr. Wunderly to the charge of the Tuberculosis Division of the Department of Health, which was established by the Labour Government. That lead to the evolution, by Dr. Wunderly primarily, of a complete medical and social approach to this great problem. It led to discussions by the Chifley Labour Government, through its technical officers, with the States, and finally, by the Commonwealth and States Ministers for Health. The whole scheme was embodied in legislation in 1948. The financial basis of the scheme was that the Commonwealth would find the whole of the additional moneys that were required by the States - every additional penny - both for the erection of capital buildings and for the maintenance of the various services relating to tuberculosis. We commenced the very first system of tuberculosis allowances in Australia. It is just as well to get these things right. The Minister said in his second-reading speech that the first effective attempt to eradicate tuberculosis was the present Government’s scheme of tuberculosis allowances that was introduced in July, 1950. In the light of the facts that I have presented to the Senate it will be seen how untrue that is and how unfair it. is to present the tuberculosis eradication campaign to the people of Australia in that light. I have very little doubt but that we shall hear that same claim made again and again. I point out that the scheme of tuberculosis allowances was instituted by Labour, on a minor scale at the beginning, until we saw how many cases came to the surface as the result of the compulsory X-ray campaign throughout Australia. There was lying on the Minister’s table on the day that he took office, a statement setting out a scheme for the payment of increased tuberculosis allowances, approved by the government of the day. He promulgated that schemesix months later. The disgrace is that it took him six months to do it. Based upon that fact he, on behalf of this Government, seeks to take the whole of the credit, quite falsely and improperly, for that very great scheme.

The bill deals with the provision of five different types of benefits. I ask the Senate to note particularly the word “benefits”. They are: Hospital benefits, in respect of both public and private hospitals; pharmaceutical benefits for the Australian public; pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners only; medical benefits for the populace generally; and medical services to pensioners only. They are five schemes, each of which, as I said earlier, is covered already by regulations. The Labour party has no quarrel with the provision of any one of those benefits.

Not only have we no quarrel with them, but we initiated them; we sponsored them; we promulgated them; and we went through the whole process of pioneering this new idea, in the face of all the conservatism that was abroad, and which is always available to run counter to every new idea. Labour was the pioneer of these very benefits; so we approve them. Our quarrel with the Government is about the method that it has chosen to implement them.

At this juncture I wish to commend some provisions of the bill. I prefer to utter words of praise before I come to a condemnation of certain provisions. I refer to the pensioner medical service, under which free medical attention is provided for pensioners, I commend the Government for introducing that scheme. It is a good social service, and it is good as far as it goes. However I defy any honorable senator to point to any clause of the bill which contains one word about a pensioner medical service. There is not one single line or one word in the whole of the bill that gives any indication whatsoever of the nature of the benefit. Yet the Minister had the audacity to ask this Parliament to approve an arrangement that has been entered into by him with the British Medical Association. I refer to the arrangement mentioned in Part IV., clause 32 (2.) (a). When I asked the Minister to produce the agreement he wrote a letter to me stating that it was not in agreement form, but it consisted of a series of letters that had been exchanged between him and the Federal Council of the British Medical Association. He was asked to produce the agreement to this Parliament so that we could study its provisions. He has never produced either the agreement or the letters. The Minister seems to believe that this is his personal, private, matter, which is not related to a great national benefit. If we are prepared to adopt this hole and corner business by the Minister for Health. I contend that we would be absolutely recreant to our duty. We want to know the details. I made application for, and subsequently received a copy of the letter that was sent by the DirectorGeneral of Health to each participating medical practitioner concerned in the scheme. It contains very interesting features, which have led me to some conclusions that I shall mention later. It says ‘that the «cope of the service is that of the common form of agreement between medical officers and friendly societies, . and such other services of a minor or special character as are ordinarily rendered in the surgery or in the home. That is the scope of it. Concerning the . charge, the letter states that the amount paid to a medical practitioner is fs. for a consultation at his surgery, and lis. if he visits the home of the patient. He is paid for mileage at the rate of 5s. a mile, ithat is, outside the . three-mile radius from his surgery. Ji=. of which the pensioner has to pay, and is. of which the ‘Government pays. The administrative system operates as follows. The doctor has , a . counterfoil hook; he gets the pensioner whom he visits to sign a form, which he fills in and sends to the Government as. a claim. The doctor is paid on that document. As to the broad outline of the pensioner medical service, not . one word appears in the bill. Vet the Senate is asked Muntly . to approve a (Scheme presented in . that form. Whilst it is a good scheme, I point out . that it is exceedingly limited. It applies only . to . a. !)s. service or an lis. service mendered by a doctor. It . does not cover the patient or pensioner in relation to an acute or serious illness. As far as hospital ‘treatment of a pensioner in concerned,, there is iprovision only for . the payment of 1.2s. a day by the Commonwealth , to the hospital. ‘Unless . the pensioner happens to live in a State where hospital . tn&atm.ent Ls . provided free ito ipensioners, he is obliged ; to pay . the hospital for his treatment. S.o that, . good and . commendable as the scheme is, it does -not go very far.

Senator ROBERTSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP; CP from 1955

– Is not payment a matter for the States?

Senator McKENNA:
TASMANIA · ALP

– The facts are as I !hav.e stated. I emphasize that this benefit is ‘in relation to the treatment of sickness and disease. There is -no element of ‘promotion of positive ‘health in “the provision.

I come now to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. ‘The ‘benefits are in two forms; the main part of the ‘.scheme ‘is applicable to all mem hers of the community, Snc’luding pensioners. It authorizes the provision of ivhat are called ‘lifesaving and disease-preventing drugs. The second part of the scheme is confined to pensioners. It gives to pensioners and to doctors who write prescriptions for them the benefit of all the drugs which appear in the British Pharmacopoeia, other drugs that the Government prescribes, and compounds , of any of those drugs. ‘The evil of the latter scheme relating to pensioners is apparent. The Minister stated -recently, during his ‘second-reading speech on the Therapeutical Substances Bill, that he deplored the undue cost involved in a system of completely unregulated prescribing. That is the difficulty that the Labour -Government sa-w -when i-t asked for a formulary. It was inevitable that there must be excessive cost. To-day, the Minister is alarmed at ‘the cost. After studying the schemes that were operating in other parts of the world, the Labour Government realized that if the ‘licence to prescribe was not limited, exorbitant cost would ‘be unavoidable. The Minister is running directly into that position, and, very properly, is greatly concerned about it. Again, I point out that this benefit is for the treatment of disease and sickness. It has nothing to do with the promotion of positive health.

I shall now deal with . the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Labour had a scheme with a f orm.ulary, . but the doctors were not prepared to co-operate in . the. implementation of. Labour’s scheme. They had objections, many . of which they . have now abandoned. “What iB the position . in relation to that scheme to-day ? The first factor is the vast cost. “It is true . that the cost is coming down, because the Government is . now closing the -s.ta’ble door after ‘the horse has ‘bolted ! lOlause 84 ‘(2.) contains -very stringent provisions in Telation to the quantities of antibiotics and -wonder -.drugs ‘that a doctor may prescribe. In addition, the particular disease ‘for -which ‘he may prescribe ‘.the drugs ‘“has also to ‘be determined by the Government. Those two provisions -are apparently accepted by the -medical profession, “Che members of whidh recognized ‘that we were -verging on a nationa1! scandal. Tor -fhe sake of their own good name, they have had to accept these severe limitations by the Government. The Minister used descriptive words, such as “ abuse “ waste “, extravagance “ and “ cost “. He, himself, is as severe a critic of the scheme as has yet emerged. There are dangers in this. I have already mentioned them and they have been mentioned by the doctors themselves. Last year a leading article in the Medical Journal of Australia headed “ Anti-biotics Amok “ stated that because doctors were restricted to prescribing these expensive, powerful and, to some extent, dangerous drugs they were disposed and even induced to prescribe them for minor as well as major ills. Two great evils flow from that circumstance. Over-use of these drugs which takes place on a grand scale produces an immunity to them in the patient. If they are over-used or mis-used for minor complaints and a serious disease emerges, the drugs then have no effect against that disease. The medical profession has acknowledged that these drugs ought to be saved for an emergency. They not only kill disease germs but they also affect what are termed the “ flora “ of the body. The whole balance of the body can be thrown out by the wrong use of these drugs. Doctors have appreciated that fact and have accepted the very severe limitations set out in clauses 84 (2.) and 85 (2.) of this bill. This benefit, which is completely free, and completely desirable, is, nevertheless, not a specific contribution to positive health. It provides for the treatment of disease rather than its prevention.

I come next to the medical benefits scheme. This very important scheme affects all the people of Australia at a time when medical costs are high. Yet the Government has said that benefits will be available only to people who, at their own expense, have insured themselves with insurance organizations that have been approved by the Commonwealth. Senator Roberston said that the Government had not imposed any compulsion. But there are two kinds of compulsion - legal and financial. The financial thumb screw that has been applied to the people of Australia, is the condition that no Commonwealth benefit will be granted unless they are insured. No uninsured person can receive a farthing under the national medical benefits scheme of this Government. At this point the scheme introduces financial compulsion of the strongest kind. I should have had much more respect for the Government if it had used its almost unlimited powers in relation to insurance clearly to order everybody to become insured. That would have been an honest course of action. But this bill provides only for indirect and unfair compulsion. The bill sets out about 604 medical services in two schedules, one dealing with what J might call the ordinary run of general practitioner services and the other with the specialties such as radiology pathology, and major surgical operations. The financial benefits set out in the schedules range from 6s. to £11 5s. I repeat that one must be insured in order to receive a benefit in respect of the general practitioner items which are mentioned in the first schedule to the bill. The vital weakness of the scheme lies in that fact that it provides for no administrative control, and, judging from what has been said by the Minister for Repatriation, the Government has not made the slightest attempt to achieve administrative control. Assuming that the fee that the doctor charged for a particular service prior to the introduction of this scheme was £30, the benefit payable by the Commonwealth is £11 5s. But there is nothing to prevent the doctor from raising his fee for that service to £41 5s. It is clear that this scheme can be used, or abused, so as to provide a benefit for the doctor and confer no benefit on the patient.

Senator Guy:

– The honorable senator has a poor opinion of doctors.

Senator Tangney:

– It has happened before.

Senator McKENNA:

– As Senator Tangney said, this kind of thing has happened before. The British Medical Association obviously has a very great fear that it will happen again, because it has begged its members not to raise their fees. That constitutes the frankest admission that what I have said could happen may happen, and there is not the slightest safeguard in this bill against its occurrence.

The Government’s scheme contains a grave administrative flaw. What a shocking commentary on what purports to be a national medical benefits scheme that at the will of the doctors it can be turned into a benefit scheme for the doctors ! What protection has been provided for the patients? What a foul scheme it is that has a great, gaping flaw such as that! As I said before not a f:irthing medical benefit will be received by a person who does not insure under this scheme. What a mean provision ! The scheme has been completely misdescribed as a national medical benefits scheme, because it discriminates between people. Those who have insured themselves receive a benefit. Those who have not insured themselves do not receive a penny.

Senator (Jamkuon. - lint they have to p:i.v their taxes just the same.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I shall come to that point later. The ideal scheme could be formulated if the medical profession would co-operate with the Government as it has done in relation U> the pensioner medical service. If the (Jot-tors would recognize that they have a social obligation in this matter, and would collect from patients only the moiety that ilii’ patients must pay, and would send their accounts weekly or monthly to the Commonwealth as they do in connexion with pensioner medical services, that procedure would enable the scheme to be carried out by a handful of clerks who would have to handle only 8,000 accounts ii month instead of the millions that are being handled by the various organizations under this scheme. One would have thought; that the Government would prepare a scheme such as that. There is not the faintest indication that the medical profession has been asked to cooperate in this general medical benefits scheme as it has co-operated in the medical benefits scheme for pensioners.

Referring now to the interjection that those benefit’s have already been paid for in taxation by all the people of this country according to their capacity to pay, I agree that the people have more than paid, for these benefits because the National Welfare Fund has £186,000,000 to its credit.

Now, in order to become eligible for benefits for which they have already paid, people are called upon to join medical benefits organizations. It will cost a married man £7 10s. a year to obtain the full amount of medical benefits available from the Government. Honorable senators should compare the Government’s niggardly reductions in taxation with the amount that the people of Australia are now obliged to pay to insurance bodies. The Government’s scheme is an insidious form of new taxation. Those who wish to ascertain their taxation liability must now count the £7 10s. which it costs a married man for full medical insurance cover, plus the £7 4s. required for similar cover under the hospital benefits scheme. If honorable senators do that they will find that instead of paying less in taxes this year they are paying a great deal more.

Another wretched feature of this scheme is the vast number of people who are not covered by it. The Minister for Repatriation claimed that it covered 5,000,000 people. As the Leader of the Opposition in another place (Dr. Evatt) said, that is a figure without any foundation. It has been conjured up out of the air. But even if we concede that it is correct, this scheme covers only half the population of tincountry. Yet the Government seeks to dignify such a scheme by the title of “National Medical Benefits Scheme”. That term is a complete misnomer. Another aspect of the scheme is that tinvarious organizations with which people must insure in order to be eligible for benefits will not accept people with chronic diseases, or, if they accept them, will pay them no benefit in respect of the chronic diseases. The same condition applies to pre-existing illnesses. The Commonwealth benefit is available in respect of such illnesses if the patients are insured, and they receive a benefit from their fund if they develop a now complaint. But the most sick people in this country, who are the chronically ill and those suffering pre-existing illnesses, have been placed in a pitiful position by the Govcr:-.~nent. They have been pushed into the background. They will draw the least from the scheme. What a shocking medical benefits scheme it is that pushes into a most unfair position these who are most sick in the community : There is also a class of person who does not like the nature of his disease to 1» known by all and sundry. He may not mind dealing with an official in a Public Service department, the officers of which are under an obligation of secrecy, have traditions, and are subject to discipline. But under the Government’s scheme the details of his illness must be described, not only to a. Government department, but to one of these private organizationwith vastly swollen new staffs. While he thinks he is enjoying privacy, one oi his next door neighbours, who is working for the organization, may be reading about his illness. Because of that consideration, -many people will not insure at all. They will not be eligible for ;i penny benefit under the Government scheme.

Under the medical benefits scheme for pensioners a doctor who goes more than three miles in order to attend to a patient may be paid a mileage rate of 5s. a mile. But this scheme does not attempt to make the slightest provision for the people i:: outback Australia who live hundreds of miles from a doctor. They are not abb.’ to claim a refund of mileage, yet the major portion of the charge made by doctors in the outback for medical services is in respect of the distance travelled to attend patients.

Senator Scott:

– That must always be so.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. What I am complaining about is that this medical benefits scheme does not acknowledge that fact. What is the use of paying a moiety of a fee of three guineas, when the mileage charge is perhaps £30?

Senator Scott:

– What about the flying doctor service?

Senator McKENNA:

– That is very largely free, although they collect what they can. I am speaking now of many areas in Australia, not served by that service, where doctors travel great distances and where the main part of the charge is in respect of mileage. In the medical benefits scheme promulgated by Labour in November, 1949, just before it went out of office, mileage charges were covered. I invite the Government at once to recast its attitude in this matter. It does not do financial justice to patients in the outback to omit provision for a contribution to mileage charges.

Of course, the administration of this scheme means that a number of new organizations will appear in the community. The old friendly societies are well established, but this scheme will bring into the field a whole group of new organizations, many of which will be concerned only with providing jobs, building up staffs and taking people away from industry. Some of them will have colossal staffs. The Government has approximately 130 of these organizations functioning in Australia to-day. They differ as to their benefits, their rates and their exclusions, and the poor benighted people of Australia cannot make up their minds which of them have advantages and which have not. I make the comment, for the fourth time, that this medical benefits scheme, with all its serious faults and defects, is designed for the treatment of disease and illness and not for the promotion of positive health.

I wish now to say a word or two about hospital benefits. I ask honorable senators to cast their minds back to the Chifley Government’s scheme. In 1945. the Labour government of the day approached the States and ascertained the average daily amount which the States were able to collect in respect of each patient in public hospitals. It was found that in New South Wales the average amount was 4s. 5d. a day, in Victoria 3s. 3d., in Queensland 4s. 10d., in South Australia 4s. Id., in Western Australia 5s. gd., and in Tasmania 4s. With n degree of real generosity, the Commonwealth said to the States, in effect, “ If you do not charge the people any more, we will pay you more than you can collect from them “. All of the States accepted that proposition. We paid 6s. a day on that basis. Two years later we raised that amount to 8s. a day, although the agreement was due to continue on the basis of 6s. a day for much longer. Within a very short time, apart from one or two denominational hospitals which had proper and particular reasons for not joining in the scheme, accommodation in public wards of all public hospitals in

Australia was free. There was uniformity in the matter. No charge was made to the patient for medical attention, accommodation or medicine. There was no means test. Not only were the hospitals paid by the Labour government more than they could have collected themselves, but they were also able to get rid of staffs which had been kept busy keeping accounts against patients. They thus obtained a two-way relief.

What was the position of the patient under that scheme? He was in the position that if he had the misfortune to fall ill, the Commonwealth safeguarded him, and he paid nothing. Of course, he could not merely walk into a hospital, nor could he gain admission only because of intervention by his own private doctor. He was admitted if the independent salaried staff of a public hospital determined that his illness was sufficiently acute to justify his admission.

Senator Gorton:

– And if there was a bed available.

Senator McKENNA:

– I point out to the honorable senator that I am speaking about the position which obtained in 1945, when that scheme was commenced. Surely he will be sufficiently fair to admit that hospitals cannot be built in war-time. At that time the war was still in progress. I also point out that when we offered 6s. a day to the States, and they accepted it, the average daily cost of a hospital bed in Australia was 13s. 6d.

Senator Wright:

– And what was it in 1949?

Senator McKENNA:

– It was more, but not very much more.

The Labour Government paid Ss. a day to the States in 1948. It is still 8s. a day. In the meantime, the basic wage has risen from approximately £5 9s. a week to £11 19s. a week, which is more than double. Hospital costs have soared out of all proportion. Yet this Government provides the niggardly benefit of 8s. a day, on the condition that the hospitals make a charge. The Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) has denied repeatedly that he has compelled the various hospitals in the States to make charges. In answer to that, one has only to look at regulation 41 of his Hospital Benefits Regulations to see that the additional benefit of 4s. a day will not be payable unless, first, the patient is insured, and, secondly, the hospital makes a charge of not less than 18s. a day. I think that it was Senator Byrne who cited yesterday the Department of Health circular of the 5th September, 1952, which, in referring to the provision of 8s. a day and the additional benefit of 4s. a day, stated -

Basic principles of the scheme are that the Commonwealth henefits will not be payable unless a charge is made for- the hospital treatment and that the Commonwealth benefits must not exceed the amount of the hospital charge payable by the patient.

Therefore, on the 5th September, 1952, after the other agreements had expired on the 20th August, the Minister for Health, on behalf of this Government, compelled the States to make a charge as a condition of entitlement to the 8s. a day. If there were any doubt about that -

Senator Kendall:

– There is no doubt about it.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Minister for Health has denied it. I am glad to hear Senator Kendall acknowledge that it is true. However, if there were any doubt about it, it would be necessary only to refer to the agreements entered into by this Government with the various State governments. One of the recitals begins -

And whereas a State has made arrangements acceptable to the Commonwealth whereby the hospital revenues of the State will be increased.

The following words, which refer to charges, appear in clause 10: -

The State shall ensure that the charges” per day payable by qualified persons in respect of beds in public hospitals shall be reduced by the Commonwealth hospital benefit rate.

Yet the Minister for Health, in almost every public statement that he has made, has denied that the 8s. a day is paid on the condition that the hospital shall make a charge. I am sure that every honorable senator has heard that statement. If they have not done so, they certainly will have read it. It is completely untrue.

Senator Gorton:

– I take it that the honorable senator is referring to the original 8s. a day?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. I am speaking of the agreements made in

August of last year by the Minister for Health with the various State governments, .and I am .reading from the agreements into which he entered. I can understand that Senator Gorton is amazed to hear that that is so and is not aware of the contents of these agreements, because the Minister has never produced one of them in this Parliament. Nevertheless, he has bad the audacity to ask, in this bill, that this Parliament approve of agreements which very few people hav. seen. I obtained them by direct application to the Minister.

Senator Kendall:

– They are available to any one who wants them.

Senator McKENNA:

– The same thing could be done about these agreements as we did when, we incorporated them in the actual bill. “We set out the agreements substantially in the schedule. Again, the Minister for Health seems to think that this scheme is his own private property and is not the concern of any one else. If ever we reach the relevant clause during the committee stage, which I doubt, [ invite honorable senators to insist on the production of these agreements before they agree to that clause. Unless they do so they will be perpetuating a stupidity by approving of agreements the contents of which they do not know.

Under the Labour Government’s scheme, not only did the patient pay nothing, but also he was not quizzed concerning his means. In States where private as well as public wards were available, he was not drafted like a sheep into the appropriate ward. If he cared to insure, at the time that he fell ill .he held out his hand, took his insurance benefit, and kept it for himself. Under the present scheme, he pays taxes as well as contributions to a registered organization. When he collects his benefit, he is not permitted to retain it but must pass it over to tlie hospital. In addition, he is obliged to put his hand into his pocket again in order to pay the difference between the benefits and the actual expense incurred. The position of the patient under this restricted scheme has worsened very seriously.

I admit that the finances of hospitals have improved. But are hospital benefits provided for hospitals or patients? Are they to assist institutions or sick people? I suggest that when the relevant provision was written into the Constitution in 1948 it was intended that they should be for the benefit of sick people. Whilst it is true that hospital revenues have benefited under this scheme, the improvement has been made at the expense of the sick people of Australia. Money has been taken from them. A scheme which is founded and designed on that base is a disgrace. Again, we have exactly the same position regarding the miserable additional benefit of 4s. a day, in that an individual must be insured before he is able to attract any portion of that benefit. That means compulsion to insure and discrimination between patients who are insured and those who are not. Having dealt with the five benefits of this bill, we find that all of them are directed to the treatment of disease. We also find that they are defective and, in many instances, completely niggardly.

Some time ago I indicated that I would like to make a comment upon the position of the British Medical Association in regard to these schemes. I find much consolation in the fact that the British Medical Association is now prepared to accept a greater degree of social responsibility than it did when the Australian Labour party was in office. I am not suggesting that it was opposed to the Labour Government simply because it was a Labour government. I think that it has been reassured by several things. As the result of a decision of the High Court of Australia, the association knows now that medical practitioners cannot be conscripted. It knows that there can be no socialization of medicine in this country. It feared that, and it also feared the newconcepts and ideas. Its fears were understandable, but it is obvious that it has been reassured. Medical practitioners are now using the prescribed forms. In my time they objected to the use of official forms. Now they use them freely. They write duplicates in connexion with the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the pensioner medical service. They have also accepted limitation in regard to prescribing, as I indicated earlier. They lodge claims with, and collect moneys directly from, the Government, which they would not do previously, when their attitude was that they would not deal directly with a government of any political colour. It is consoling to notice that they have abandoned that principle in relation to the pensioner medical service. I express the hope, in the interests of an efficient and economical scheme, that presently the British Medical Association will co-operate on somewhat the same basis in the wider scheme of medical benefits.

As to registered organizations, I believe it is highly desirable to encourage the people to insure but I suggest that as a condition of attracting Commonwealth benefits, it is completely wrong to compel people to insure. In view of the record that has been read by Senator Robertson, I shall speak briefly upon the record of the Australian Labour party. If Senator Robertson listens objectively, as I am sure she will do, she will find many more items by way of contribution to positive health in the items I have to announce than to the one achievement by this Government. I refer to the free milk for children under thirteen years of age. That is the one positive contribution to health that this Government has made in four years of office. What was achieved by the previous Labour Administration? Its first great contribution to health was to persuade the people of Australia to confer adequate powers upon the Australian Government to implement the health schemes. The referendum was initiated by the Labour Government and approved by the people.

Senator Gorton:

– Who supported it?

Senator McKENNA:

– It was supported not by the Australian Country party but by another section of the opposition of the day. The Labour Government introduced a scheme to eradicate tuberculosis in Australia. Thai was a valuable contribution to positive health and towards the protection of every person who breathes Australian air. Nothing more important as a contribution to positive health has been made in Australia in decades. The Labour Government established a chair of child health at the University of Sydney to undertake research into children’s diseases and for the training of doctors as children’s specialists. The

Labour Government put into the University of Sydney, at Commonwealth expense, a unit of industrial hygiene. That unit is engaged to-day in investigating all the problems that afflict persons at their work such as noise, dust, light, heat, vibration, and smells. All those conditions affect health. A number of medical practitioners are being trained in that field before working in industry and so making a substantial contribution to positive health in Australia. The Labour Government provided public hospital benefits, private hospital benefits, mental hospital benefits-

Senator Wedgwood:

– Amounting to ls. 2d. a day.

Senator McKENNA:

– That is all that the mental hospitals were able to collect from patients, and the Labour Government relieved the patients from that payment. According to public announcements, this Government now proposes to abolish those payments. The Labour Government provided unemployment and sickness benefits and pharmaceutical benefits on a scale that was not acceptable and did not function to any great extent, but the idea was there. It was pioneered by the Labour Government and it is accepted to-day. We promoted a scheme of medical benefits, free immunizing agents, to which I have referred, and sponsored the establishment of rehabilitation centres where disabled persons were reconditioned and put back into industry. Acoustic laboratories were set up throughout Australia. The publicdoes not hear much of them, but they are doing wonderful work. They are not. only helping deafened ex-servicemen, but are also providing services for deaf children from one end of Australia to another. As a result of the work of those laboratories, children who could not hear have been introduced to the sounds of the world for the first time. The Labour Government pioneered the dental scheme that is operating free of charge for the children of Canberra. This Government has not made any attempt to abolish it. It is a shame that, although the Australian Dental Association four years ago was prepared to co-operate fully with any government in starting a national scheme to care for the teeth of the children of Australia, nothing has been done in that direction in the four years that this Government has been in office. The Government has no reason to be proud of its record in that respect.

On behalf of the Opposition, Senator Benn has moved an amendment to the motion for the second reading. Senator Arnold dealt with it at some length, and I do not propose to traverse the same ground. 1 conclude on the note that there is nothing in this Government’s five health benefits scheme of which it can be proud. They are not directed to the prevention of disease, but only to the treatment of them. The one tangible contribution to positive health that has been made by this Government in four years is the provision of free milk for children. The people of Australia can find little in the scheme with which they can be satisfied. The Opposition is not satisfied with the methods that the Government has adopted, and great dissatisfaction exists among the people of Australia with the provisions of this bill.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

.- In beginning to speak upon this bill, I wish to refer to two or three points that the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) made at the beginning of his speech and which do not properly fall within the province of the bill. He began by regretting that the Senate did not have more time in which to debate the provisions of the bill. He indicated that it was entirely wrong to run a measure of this magnitude through the Senate before honorable senators had had a chance properly to discuss all the clauses in the measure.

Senator Aylett:

– The Opposition has not had time to read it.

Senator GORTON:

– As has been said so often by honorable senators on the Opposition side, this bill is designed to provide statute in place of regulations that have been in force for years. All those regulations, as they were made, were tabled in this Senate and the Opposition had then full and ample opportunity to debate them and move for their disallowance. Because the Opposition had that opportunity to debate all the clauses, I believe that there is no force in its claim that there is being sprung on honorable senators opposite something that they have not had an opportunity to discuss previously.

Another matter that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition in his preliminary remarks was a complaint that no credit had been given to the Opposition for the operation of the tuberculosis payments and the tuberculosis services in Australia. That is completely untrue. In the second-reading speech made by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), it was clearly and definitely stated that the bill under which those payments are made was introduced and passed in 1948. But it is also true that when this Government achieved office, no agreement had been made with the State of New South “Wales or the State of South Australia to pay those benefits, and for that reason they were not being paid. It is only since this Government achieved office that the benefits have been paid. That fact is incontrovertible and is not a matter that should be attacked by the Leader of the Opposition.

The bill itself, as 1 have said, gives a statutory recognition to many regulations that have been introduced in order to make a health scheme in Australia work. There may be reasons why this scheme had to be introduced piecemeal and through the medium of regulations. One of the most cogent reasons, as most honorable senators will remember, is that at one stage when this Government first achieved office, the present Opposition had a majority in this chamber. That majority was used with a capriciousness and a ruthlessness that has never been surpassed in the history of the Australian Parliament. Measures of moment were pushed into the background so that time could be wasted. That was the sole objective of the Opposition of those days. For that reason, the method of regulation was used in order to introduce this scheme.

The main provisions of the bill are four. It brings in a pensioner health service scheme, a medical benefits scheme for the payment of doctors’ fees, a free medicine scheme and a scheme to help hospitals and hospital patients. But before I deal with those heads in any detail, I wish first to establish the facts. The first fact that I wish to establish is that although the necessity for bringing in a health scheme in Australia had been mooted by many persons in many parties for many years, and although the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister foi Health, had grappled with this problem for many years, when this Government achieved office there was not in Australia a health scheme which in any respect worked. I am not now discussing whether it ought to have worked. I am not discussing whether the doctors were correct in believing that the Labour Government’s scheme, which I shall call the McKenna scheme, conscripted them and was an invasion of civil liberty. I am not discussing whether they are right in thinking that the desire of the McKenna scheme was to nationalize medicine or whether the High Court of Australia was right in ruling that the McKenna scheme was an interference with civil liberty and was, in fact, civil conscription. All I am interested in establishing at this moment is the incontrovertible fact that when this Government achieved office, practically no Australians were drawing any benefit to help them to pay their doctors’ fees. Practically no Australians were drawing any benefit in the form of free medicine. There was no scheme to give free medical attention to pensioners. Hospitals- were rapidly going bankrupt throughout Australia. Whether that should have been so or not and whether the silver tongue of the present Leader of the Opposition should have been able to make people cooperate with him or not, the cold and incontrovertible fact is that when this Government achieved office, no benefits were being drawn by the people of Australia under those headings. That is the first fact that I want to establish.

The second fact that I want to establish is that benefits are now being drawn by the citizens of Australia under a health scheme-. I am not interested in whether this scheme can be attacked or not. Citizens of Australia are being helped to pay their doctors’ fees. They are being provided with free medicine, and, if they are pensioners, they are provided with an entirely free medical service; whilst the hospitals of Australia have converted deficit after deficit into a surplus. When we balance the fact that when the Government came into office none of these benefits was accruing to Australians against the fact that they are now accruing to Australians we are inevitably led to the conclusion, whether in the opinion of the Opposition it ought or ought not to be so, that for the first time Australians have a health scheme that works.

That scheme works in four ways. Because we have heard a great deal from time to time about the terrible thing that the Government has perpetrated in causing people to help themselves through insurance, I shall deal first with the two main headings of the bill which contain no element whatsoever of insurance but which confer completely and utterly free benefits upon the people of Australia in so far as these things ever are free. They must be paid for one way or another, and that is something that we should always bear in mind. The first beading with which’ I shall deal is the provision of a service to pensioners. “Pensioners” means all the citizens of Australia who draw any kind of pension in this country. It docs not mean only those who draw a full pension of any kind;, it means all citizens of Australia who draw a full or a part pension of any kind. To them and their dependants these benefits are now available. Such persons now have completely free medical attention whether it be in the nature of surgery, or physiological, or any other service that is provided by a doctor. They can get. that attention free either in a hospital or in their own homes. They can get it free from any doctor whom they may desire to choose. In addition, they get not only the free life-saving drugs which are available to all citizens of Australia but also a large range of other drugs which, in spite of the declaration by the Leader of the Opposition that they are not so specified, are specified in the bill. With the full agreement of the Commonwealth Government, although this is a State matter, they get hospitalization without any question of being insured, and this Government makes available to them a benefit at the rate of 12s. a day for each occupied bed. They get this free service covering all aspects of a health scheme. That is something which is entirely new, and it is entirely due to the action of the present Minister and the present Government. It is something which was not envisaged under any other scheme by any other Government. That is a great step forward in the health and care of the elderly people of Australia. It brings with it something which does not entirely meet with my own approval, that is, persons in the same age group who are drawing superannuation benefit or who have, through their own thrift, taken off the shoulders of the taxpayers the burden of supporting them are not covered, in other words, persons in the same age group who are not pensioners do not get the benefits which are made available to pensioners. That is an anomaly which runs through each one of our social services. It is an anomaly too, because it involves the means test, which this Government is pledged to remove and is gradually removing. But it; is an anomaly which, if we are to believe the statements of members of the Opposition, will never be removed by them because they believe in retaining the means test. I desire to be fair. I qualify that statement by saying, if wo are to believe the leaders of tlie Australian Labour party other than the right h moraine .member for Barton (Dr. Evatt).

The next benefit that is regularized by this bill and which is entirely free and has no content of insurance whatsoever is the provision of pharmaceutical benefits, that is the provision of medicine. The most important medicines in Australia to-day are now available and are now being prescribed for .and consumed by Australians completely free of any immediate charge. Here arises a rather interesting point of comparison between the present scheme which has worked .and the previous abortive scheme which did not work. Under the scheme which the Opposition, when it was in office, sought to bring in and which I have referred to as the McKenna .scheme, an endeavour was made to prescribe for the people .of Australia not the most important or (Jio most expensive drugs, or life-saving drugs, but rather a middle range of mixtures which had some efficacy but could not be compared with life-saving drugs. Those life-saving drugs could not be proscribed under the. McKenna scheme. Under that scheme, the Chifley Government desired to force the doctors to proscribe not only a limited range of mixtures but also a limited dosage of each mixture which was set out in the regulations. In short, a doctor was to be regarded not as a man who, practising the art of medicine and looking at his patient would say, “ This is what you want and this is the quantity you want but as a civil servant charged with the duty of filling in a form and saying to his patient, “ This is what the Minister says you can have, and this is the dosage that the Minister says you can take “. Naturally, the doctors would not fall in with that limitation which the Chifley Government sought to impose upon them. And because they would not fall in with that scheme they did not use the official form which the Minister of the day sought to make them use. Instead, they wrote their prescriptions on their own pads according to their own judgment of what a patient required. Because the Minister of the day did not like that defiance he had passed a regulation which made it an offence for a doctor to write a prescription of that kind except on the official form and also prescribed great pains and penalties that would be inflicted upon doctors who did not bow to his ukase. Fortunately, the High Court stepped in and ruled that such a regulation was civil conscription and, therefore, unconstitutional. That is what the Chifley Government sought to do, and because it sought to do it in the manner that I have indicated, its scheme did not work and nobody got anything. Under this bill, this Government makes a completely different approach. The present Minister has said - honorable senators opposite, in the course of this debate, have approved of this principle - that if a man needs a bottle of aspirin, a bottle of cough mixture or something of that nature, let him buy it out of his own pocket because he should be able to look after himself to that degree. Self-help to that degree is necessary for selfrespect; and self-respect is necessary for a healthy moral nation. But it is- a different matter when we come to some of the serious illnesses and the provision of some drugs that cost from £40 to as much as £200, because a man can scarcely be blamed if he leans upon other persons for help to enable him to meet such a. grievous charge. In short, the attitude of the present Minister and of the

Government is this : A man can be protected against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but he should bear the pinpricks of daily life himself. So, the Government has provided not the hodgepodge of mixtures which the Chifley Government sought to provide but the dear, expensive, life-saving drugs which, already, have produced marvellous results in curing people more quickly and consequently getting them back to work and making more hospital beds available. Because the Government approached the problem in that way and sought to work with the members of the medical profession rather than over them, and because it sought to co-operate with them rather than drive them, it has been able to bring into practice a scheme which works where no such scheme existed before. That is the second success which has been gained and to which this bill gives its imprint.

I come now to the two other main headings of the bill in which there is an element of insurance on the part of the patient. The first of them is the medical benefits scheme, that is help in the payment of doctors’ fees. Here again we have a scheme which now works as opposed to a previous scheme which did not work. And here again we have an objectlesson showing how this problem should be approached and how it should not be approached as it was approached by the previous Government. [Quorum formed.] As I have said, the medical benefits provisions of this scheme give to the people of Australia help in the payment of doctors’ fees that was never given to them previously. Here again let us contrast the approach of the Chifley Government, which did not work, with the approach of this Government, which does work. The previous Government sought to introduce a scheme which would provide for the payment of 50 per cent, of doctors’ fees for most of the range of medical attention. In doing so, however, it insisted that charges should be fixed and that they should be completely controlled by regulations even to the point of enforcing reductions as time went on. In short, the Labour Government wanted to hold the whip over the heads of the doctors and force them into compliance with whatever the Minister for Health sought to make them do by means of regulation. It was another example of seeking to drive rather than to lead, and of seeking to compel rather than seeking to work in co-operation. But now we have a different approach altogether. The doctors have agreed, in free co-operation with this Government, to a scheme that will cover not 50 per cent, of most of the range of doctors’ bills, but 90 per cent, of most of the range of doctors’ bills provided a person has sufficient self-respect to insure himself with a friendly society or some other health insurance organization. By taking that step, any citizen of Australia may have, unless he obtains the services of some extremely high-priced specialist for some extremely difficult operation, 90 per cent, of his medical fees covered.

It is perfectly true, as the Leader of the Opposition lias pointed out, that this scheme could be wrecked if doctors were to raise their fees sufficiently to wipe out the benefits that this bill seeks to confer upon the people of Australia. Theoretically, that could happen; but the British Medical Association has gone to great pains to impress upon its members the necessity that that should not happen. Quite obviously it would not be possible for one or two doctors here or there to dislocate the scheme by raising their fees because if they did raise their fees and the others did not, patients would not go to them. The only way in which this theoretical objection could become a practical one is for doctors throughout Australia to say, “ Right ; we shall all raise our fees and wreck this scheme “. But doctors have shown themselves to be reasonable and responsible Australian citizens. They know if they do wreck this co-operative scheme they will run the danger of being nationalized. The British Medical Association is making great and successful attempts to stop this coming about, and doctors are loyally fulfilling their agreement. The scheme will be constantly under the eye, not merely of Government members of the Parliament, but of the Parliament as a whole. I believe, therefore, that the theoretical objection remains purely theoretical and has no practical force or validity whatever.

I come now to hospital benefits. It is perfectly true that when this Government came to office an agreement was in operation with the States under which State hospitals were paid Ss. a day in respect of every occupied bed provided no charge was made to patients in public wards. It iti also true that beds in public wards were becoming scarcer and scarcer. Maternity patients had to make bookings months before the accommodation was needed. Patients requiring urgent operations had the utmost difficulty in securing admission to hospitals. Casualty clearing wards overflowed into the corridors, adjacent small rooms, and even cupboards. That was the hospital position under the Chifley Government. No compulsion was used by the present Government to remedy that situation. It merely said, “ We will continue to pay that 8s. a day in any circumstances, but in addition we shall pay 4s. a day in respect of beds occupied by insured patients provided a charge is made by the hospital “. If we add to that 12s. the minimum payment of 6s. a day by a friendly society we find that 18s. a day, or £6 6s. a week, is available to be picked up by any hospital without any cost to the patient whatsoever. The introduction of this scheme has meant that hospitals have been able to transform deficits into surpluses. They have also been in the happy position of being able to re-open wards that had previously been closed. In addition, new hospitals are being built throughout Australia. Theoretically, a person who occupies n bed in a public ward now is not as well off as he was under Labour’s scheme because whereas previously he had to pay nothing at all, now he has to pay 2s. or 3s. a week in insurance. To that extent he is worse off, but whereas previously there was no hospital bed for him to occupy, now he can get a bed. There in a nutshell is the difference in the approach to this problem of the Labour Government and of this Government. Labour, by a rigid adherence to a doctrinaire theory insisted on having beds that could be called free. It did not matter that the beds were not actually available so long as they could be said to be free. We prefer to see the beds available to patients. Because of that difference in approach, not only in relation to hospitals but also in relation to all the other matters to which I have referred, things are being done. We have not stuck to some rigid doctrinaire demand that things must be done our way, and because we have not stuck to such a demand, we have managed to produce a scheme that works and the people of Australia are securing benefits that they have never before been able to secure.

No one will suggest that the last word in national health is written in this measure. I should like to see the friendly societies make an actuarial survey to see whether it would be possible, without raising premiums or perhaps by increasing them slightly, to insure patients against the present range of risks and also against the risk of going insane. I believe that the provisions which now apply to beds in ordinary hospitals should also apply to beds in mental homes. I should also like to see - and here I find myself in agreement with some members of the Opposition - an actuarial survey made to ascertain the cost of protecting people against a crippling blow such as an illness which involves the payment of expenses amounting to, say, £300, or even £500, in a year, or two years, and also necessitates the patient entering hospital for months on end. Those are things that could be added to the scheme and which I am sure will be added to it. However, it is incontrovertible that for the first time we have before us the basis of a health scheme that actually works.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– There is little that I can say in the two minutes that remain before the secondreading discussion is terminated in accordance with the allotment of time forced upon us by the Government this afternoon. Unfortunately the previous speaker, Senator Gorton, exceeded by eight minutes the time allotted to him under a gentleman’s agreement. I have never before listened to such an illinformed individual or to such a pack of lies.

Senator Gorton:

– I rise to order. I should like you, Mr. President, to request the little senator over there to withdraw the words “ a pack of lies “.

The PRESIDENT:

Senator Aylett must withdraw the words to which objection is taken.

Senator AYLETT:

– I withdraw the words. I say instead that I have never listened to a statement so full of untruths as that made by Senator Gorton to-night. I repeat that the honorable senator exceeded by eight minutes the time allotted to him for his speech “under a gentleman’s agreement. Senator Gorton said that until this Government came to office there was no free medical treatment or free hospital treatment. Has he never heard of the free hospitals that were in existence long before this Government was elected ? Is he not aware that under the Labour Government free hospital treatment was provided without any means test whatever? That right to free hospital treatment has now been taken away from the people of Australia. Is Senator Gorton not aware that under Labour’s national health scheme free medicine was available at public hospitals throughout the Commonwealth. Has he never heard that medicine is free on a doctor’s prescription in parts of Tasmania ? It is because of those things- that I described the honorable senator’sspeech as a pack of untruths. Apparently the only thing he does know is how to indulge in propaganda to discredit the accomplishments of the Labour Government. I cannot imagine how any honorable senator can have the audacity to describe this scheme as a national health scheme. There is nothing national about it. Surely the word “ national “ implies that provision is made for everybody in the community. We are informed, however, that sufferers from chronic illnesses will not be entitled to the benefits of this legislation for two years.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The time allowed for the debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill has expired.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Benn’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin.)

AYES: 26

NOES: 29

Majority . . . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill road a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

.- I refer to clause 6, which reads -

  1. – (1.) The Minister or the DirectorGeneral may, in relation to a matter or class of matters, or to a State or part of the Commonwealth, by writing under his hand, delegate any of his powers and’ functions under this Act (except this power of delegation and powers and functions under section ninety-four of this Act).

I move -

That in sub-clause (1.), after the word “delegate” the following words be inserted: - “ to an officer or to a person included in a prescribed class of persons “.

I am pleased that the Senate has decided to consider the bill as a whole. That will enable honorable senators to move from clause to clause, which will’ be an advantage, having regard to the fact that we have very limited time. By sub-clause (1.) of clause 6 the Minister or the Director-General may delegate any of the powers or functions that either of them will exercise under the measure: That power of delegation is as wide as a power could be, because the delegation can be made to any person whatsoever. I notice that by the March bill - rather aptly named - the delegation could only be made to an officer or to a person included in the prescribed class of persons. That power was not so large. I submit that there must be a reason why the Government has departed from its original outlook in this matter and adopted a wider outlook. Not only may a power now be delegated to an officer of the department, but it may go very far beyond that and extend to any person in the community. I should like the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to explain the need for this very wide power. The effect of the amendment is that persons who may take a delegation must be either officers of the department, or persons nominated by the Government. Why should the Government not be prepared to circumscribe itself to that very limited degree ?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

.- The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment, which would restrict the power of delegation by the Minister or the Director-General to an officer or to a prescribed person. The words proposed by the amendment to be inserted were in the March draft of the bill, but it has been found necessary to give delegations to State officers in respect of the approval of private hospitals, and for certain other purposes. Therefore, for administrative convenience the clause has been drafted in its present form. There is no question of principle involved in the amendment. Its sole effect would be to restrict the administration unnecessarily.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am amazed by the character of the. amendment. Legislation that was introduced by the previous Labour Government, in which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) was a Minister, abounded in powers for delegation to unspecified persons. Sub-clause (4.) of clause 6 prescribes limits for the delegation by the Director-General, and therefore sub-clause (2.) is material only for the purpose of delegations by the Minister. It is idle to discuss the abuse of the power of delegation by the Minister, be cause this Parliament at all times exercises vigilance to correct any wrongful exercise of such power.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I thank the Minister for his explanation. If the sole purpose of taking this exceedingly wide power is to give to the Minister or to the Director-General the right to make a delegation to a State officer, why should not that be specified in the bill? If the words proposed to be inserted were inserted, State officers could be prescribed by regulation. I point out that under the clause as drawn, delegation may be made to any of the bodies in the field, such as registered organizations, the British Medical Association or its Federal Council, and the Pharmaceutical Services Guild. I think that the Minister would be the first to acknowledge that that would not be a proper exercise of the power. I shall now refer to Senator Wright’s contention. Although practices have varied in this matter, particularly during wartime, the most usual practice has been to confine the ambit of a. delegation, as is done in sub-clause (4.) in relation to the Director-General. Under that sub-clause, he is delimited, not generally, but only in relation to pharmaceutical benefits. The reference there is to Part VII., which refers to pharmaceutical benefits. In the course of exercising his power of delegation in relation to that Part, he is compelled to delegate to a person who is a pharmacist, but his broad general power still remains in sub-clause (1), which refers to the Minister or the DirectorGeneral. The very wide power of either the Minister or the Director-General is cut down only in a relatively minute particular by sub-clause (4.). The very wide ambit of the power still rests with either the Minister or the DirectorGeneral. No matter what has been done in the past by any government or anybody else, I think that it is a completely wrong principle for the Parliament to hand to a Minister or an official a completely unrestricted power of delegation. After all, I think that this Parliament should ensure that the great powers that are being conferred upon the Minister or a departmental head shall not be delegated to any person. The delegation could be to any of the organizations that are interested in the benefits provided under the bill. That would be a completely legal exercise of this power of delegation but it would be a most improper one. Nobody would know about that delegation until, in fact, the delegated power had been exercised and then only if it was exercised in some prominent public way. So the amendment that the Opposition is proposing, in effect, recognizes that there is need for power to delegate but we want to restrict t hat power to officers of the department or to people whose names or whose class is disclosed publicly by regulation. 1 am not suggesting that the provision should he narrowed too much. I only ask that if it is not to be limited to an officer it should be limited to a prescribed class of persons, in other words, to a class of which public notice has been given. I suggest that this alteration would cost the Government no inconvenience. If the whole reason for the change from the legislation of March of this year is that, it is desired to give power to State officials then the Minister should be prepared to accept the proposed amendment because it will enable him to prescribe State officials. That would be a proper exercise of this very important power of delegation.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– As the Leader of the Opposition has said, this clause certainly could permit the delegation of power to an organization. But the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) is the responsible person and he must be allowed a certain amount of discretion in determining those to whom he will delegate power. The Government considers that it is necessary for the Minister to h a ve that discretion.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The amendment proposed by the Opposition will not in any way limit the discretion of the Minister for Health or the DirectorGeneral of Health. The Opposition pro- poses the delegation of power to an officer or a person included in a prescribed class of persons.

Senator Cooper:

– That limits delgation to a prescribed class.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. But there is no limit to the type of class that may be prescribed. The effect of the proposed amendment is to cause the Minister to make public the class of person to whom this Parliament authorizes him to make a delegation. The argument of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) is not sound in view of that fact. The Opposition does not propose a. restriction on the discretion of the Minister. The proposed amendment would only make the Minister give public notice of how he proposes to exercise his discretion.

A men d m en tnega ti ved .

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Clause8 reads as follows : -

  1. Notwithstanding the repeal effected by the last preceding section - (c)the National Health (Medicines for Pensioners) Regulations, made under that Act, as in force immediately before the commencement of this section, shall continue in force until the commencement of section eighty-one of this Act;

    1. the National Health (Pensioners’

Medical Services Committees of Inquiry) Regulations, made under that Act, as in force immediately before the commencement of this section, shall continue in force until the commencement of section one hundred and five of this Act; and

  1. tlie Pensioners’ Medical Services Federal Committee of Inquiry

I move -

  1. – That in paragraph (c) the words “ eighty-one “ bo left out with a view to insert in lien thereof the words : - “ eighty-two “.
  2. – That in paragraph (d) the word “and” (last occurring) be left out.
    • That after paragraph (e) the following paragraphs be inserted: - “ (f) the National Health (Medicines for Pensioners Committees of Inquiry) Regulations, made under that act. as in force immediately before the commencement of this section, shall continue in force until the commencement of section one hundred andfive of this act; and
    1. the Medicines for Pensioners Federal

Committee of Inquiry and the Medi cines for Pensioners State Com mittee of Inquiry for each State which were established by the Minister in pursuance of section sixteen of that act shall remain established until the commencement of Part VIII. of this act.”.

These are formal amendments for the purpose of saving the regulations that have recently been made and the committees that have already been constituted by the Minister under the existing legislation. The relative regulations were not promulgated earlier as it was desirable to have them in the form that is provided in the bill before the Senate.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I have no objection to the amendment, but as this bill was in draft form last March it is rather extraordinary that it has only been discovered at this late stage that these two sets of regulations needed to be saved. It is remarkable that during all these months two obvious matters of this nature should have been missed.

Amendments agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 9 reads as follows : -

  1. – (1.) The Governor-General may provide, or arrange for the provision of -

    1. aerial medical and dental services;
    2. ) diagnostic and therapeutic services for medical practitioners and hospitals :

I move -

That in sub-clause (1.), paragraph (b), the words “ for medical practitioners and hospitals” he left out.

Clause 9 enables the Governor-General to make provision for certain purposes, one of which is diagnostic and therapeutic services for medical practitioners and hospitals. It surprises me to learn that diagnostic and therapeutic services should be provided for medical practitioners and hospitals. It seems to me that that type of service should be provided by medical practitioners and hospitals for patients. I submit to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) that some error must have occurred in the wording of this clause. I should like the Minister to explain the position.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

.- The effect of this amendment would be to authorize the provision of diagnostic and therapeutic services by the Commonwealth without any limit. It is not the policy of the Government to provide any authority for the general provision of diagnostic and therapeutic services in such a way that the Government could introduce a system of socialized medicine. That would be the effect of the amendment. The clause, as it stands, authorizes the provision of these services by health and other laboratories of a special kind only through medical practitioners and hospitals. This has been a function of the Commonwealth Department of Health for many years and it provides a highly specialized service in its laboratories and the Commonwealth X-ray and radium laboratories, which are not otherwise generally available, lt is not the intention of the Government to provide general medical, diagnostic or treatment services by establishing a State-owned and controlled clinic and, therefore, the Opposition’s proposal is unacceptable. The National Health Act that was introduced by the Labour Government in1948 included a provision which had the same effect as the proposed amendment would have, but the only kind of diagnostic and therapeutic services that that Government provided were for hospitals and medical practitioners and it never attempted touseits authority under the old legislation.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) should know that the socialization of medicine is not possible under the Constitution for two reasons. The Commonwealth power in the sphere of health is very limited. It has only the power to provide medical benefits. The Minister should know that that power already has been under consideration by the High Court of Australia. The power to provide medical services which is conferred under the Constitution is subject to the words “but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription “. In these circumstances there can be no nationalization of medicine or socialization of medicine in the sense in which the Minister used that term.. All the benefits provided under this bill are social, to an extent. But if that is the only reason for the Government’s proposal it is a very unnecessary proposal. The Minister referred to the fact that diagnostic and therapeutic services were provided only for medical practitioners and hospitals. I, know that pathological laboratories established at about fifteen centres in Australia are operated by the Department of Health. I believe that there are not enough of them, and that they are scattered somewhat irregularly around Australia. I appreciate that the clients of these laboratories are medical practitioners in the neighbourhood who send subject-matter for pathological tests for helping in the work of diagnosis in a very limited field. We are speaking of diagnostic and therapeutic services. The Minister has pointed to what is done in one very limited field of diagnosis. Pathological investigation, of course, is only one of the aspects involved’. If the reason of the Minister in refusing to delete the words “ for medical practitioners and hospitals “ is as he has stated it, I contend that it is misguided and confirms my belief that paragraph (J>) should end :it the word “services”. All that is necessary is to provide that the Governor-General may provide diagnostic and therapeutic services. There is no need to say for whom those services should be provided. The Opposition believes that it is desirable to set up in the various major cities, as testing places, what might be referred to ;t.- medical centres where local doctors, pathologists, radiologists and others could come together, and in their completely private capacity, in buildings rented from the Commonwealth, put their patients through all the processes involved in diagnosis. Private practitioners would thus have an opportunity to confer amongst themselves. I suggest that that is a very desirable development which lias nothing to do with -dcialism. The Government should encourage private practitioners to come together in what might be called health centres.

Senator Hannaford:

– Like a clinic?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes. If that were done, not only would practitioners be free to continue to treat their private clients, but also a .great convenience would be provided for the public. In addition, it would enable doctors to rationalize their lives, to work regular hours and to divorce their practices from their homes and thus take a tremendous burden from the shoulders of their families, which is most desirable. I think that the Minister has completely misconceived the meaning of the words “ diagnostic and therapeutic services “ They refer simply to services relating to diagnosis and treatment, the two essential elements of medical attention. It is first necessary to diagnose the complaint before it can be treated. In moving this amendment, the Opposition had in mind the kind of development that should be promoted in Australia. During the regime of the Chifley Government we were very keen to establish, at Commonwealth expense, medical centres throughout Australia so that they could be tested in actual operation. On behalf of the Opposition, 1 regret that I shall have to insist upon the amendment that I have moved.

Question put -

That the words proposed to he left out (.Senator McKENNA’S amendment) bc left out.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 25

NOES: 28

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 11 reads, in part -

  1. – (1.) The Governor-General may enter into an arrangement . (2. ) An arrangement entered into under this section may provide for payments by the Commonwealth to the State in respect of capital expenditure or maintenance expenditure incurred by the State at the request of the Commonwealth in connexion with the service per formed by the State.

I move -

That,in sub-clause (2.), after the word “State”, the following words be inserted: - “ and particulars of the arrangement shall, as soon as practicable, be tabled in the Parliament “.

The effect of the amendment is that particulars of such an arrangement should, as soon as practicable, be tabled in this Parliament. The Opposition has no objection to the Minister or the GovernorGeneral, which means the Government of the Commonwealth, making arrangements with State governments regarding the performance of services. That is a very proper thing. All that the Opposition asks is that when such an arrangement is made it shall be tabled in the Parliament. What possible objection could there be to that proposal? There must be the fullest information available to the Parliament in connexion with such matters, which arc not the private business of the Government. They also concern the people. I cannot imagine that the Minister would experience any difficulty in accepting the amendment. If he does so, I shall be interested to know what it is.

Senator COOPER:
Minis ter for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

. -On the face of it, the amendment seems in order, but its effect would be to require the tabling of arrangements made by the Governor-General with the States for the provision of the services referred to in clause 9 of the hill. Such arrangements might relate to leases, accommodation, the nature of services, and all the minute domestic matters associated with the provision of hospital and medical facilities, It is important to note that this provision is identical with that contained in section 9 of the previous Labour Government’s National Health Service Act 1948, which authorized the Governor-General toenter into an arrangement with a State. Subsection 2 of section 9 contained a provision which is identical with that contained in sub-clause (2.) of clause 11 of the bill now before the committee. I suggest that if there was no need in 1948 to table such arrangements in the Parliament, there is surely no greater need for this provision to be made now.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I regret that I must disagree with the Minister. A provision of that nature was unacceptable at a time when the Government was making perfectly public the nature of its acts. In the light of comment which has been made in thi* chamber to-night, it is obvious that the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) has entered into arrangements with private bodies and has kept the record of such arrangements on his own file. Although he has demanded parliamentary approval of those arrangements, he has not seen fit to make them available to the Parliament. That is a very different situation from that to which the Minister has referred. Although a similar provision may have appeared in a bill drafted by the previous Labour Government, there was never any question of that Government not making public the nature of all the arrangements that it made. That government, in respect of hospital benefits agreements with the States, exhibited the agreements to the relevant legislation. The whole objection of the Opposition in this matter relates to the Minister for Health arranging matters of vast importance to the people and the Parliament behind the back of the Parliament. Any such arrangement certainly would be reduced to writing and would not be oral. All that is asked is that when such an arrangement is made it be tabled in this chamber. The only work involved would be that of lifting up the document and bringing it into the Parliament. Surely the real reason of the Government in refusing to accept the . amendment is that the Government and the Minister for Health wish to keep entirely in their own hands information concerning their activities in relation to the business of the nation.

Senator Guy:

– It did not occur to the honorable senator to table such documents when he was Minister for Health.

Senator McKENNA:

– The previous Labour Government always did so. We always gave such arrangements the fullest publicity.

Senator Guy:

– But they were not included in the legislation.

Senator McKENNA:

– We gave the Parliament the fullest information.

Senator Guy:

– How does the honorable senator know that this Government also will not do that?

Senator McKENNA:

– Because it is very clear that the Minister for Health has refused to make available to the Parliament the terms of arrangements into which he has entered with the Federal Council of the British Medical Association. Is Senator Guy prepared to justify that action? I should like to hear him discuss the matter. Why should the Minister for Health keep in his personal possession documents concerning an arrangement he has made with a body such as the Federal Council of the British Medical Association?

Senator Guy:

– Who says that he is keeping it in his personal possession ?

Senator McKENNA:

– The Minister has indicated in the Parliament that he is doing so.

Senator Guy:

– Does the honorable senator mean that the Minister is keeping an official document in his pocket ?

Senator McKENNA:

– It is in the file and I have his own letter to mc to establish that fact. In the course of that letter, the Minister indicated that the arrangement reposed in a series of letters between himself and the Federal Council of the British Medical Association.

Senator Guy:

– Did the Minister state that he would keep it in his possession?

Senator McKENNA:

– He has been asked in the Parliament to produce it and has refused to do so.

Senator Guy:

– The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) claims that the Minister would keep it in his own personal possession ?

Sena tor McKENNA. - It is in writing, It is by reason of that fact that I claim that the Government is adopting a hole and corner attitude.

Senator McCallum:

– Does the honorable senator mean that if this Minister were replaced by another Minister, his successor would not have this document?

Senator McKENNA:

– I have little doubt that he would. Undoubtedly it would be available to the next Minister and if he were a Labour Minister, the details of that arrangement would be made available immediately to the Parliament.

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA · LP

– The honorable senator is talking rubbish.

Senator McKENNA:

– Will Senator Marriott inform me why the Minister for Health should refuse or fail to table in this Parliament details of an arrangement that he has made with the Federal Council of the British Medical Association ?

Senator McCallum:

– The Minister cannot refuse to do so if it is insisted upon.

Senator McKENNA:

– It has been insisted upon and he has not produced it.

Senator McCallum:

– He must doso ultimately.

Senator McKENNA:

– It leaves him open to the suggestion that there is something in that agreement that he does not want the public to know. He will not allow the representatives of the people to know the details. For that reason, the Opposition wants details of such an arrangement tabled in this chamber,I t is not the private business of the Minister. It is the business of the nation.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandMinister for Repatriation · CP

. -I point out to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the committee is dealing with the documents associated with the Governor-General and not simply with the British Medical Association.

Senator McKenna:

– I realize that but that is completely in line with the Government’s intentions.

Amendment negatived.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I refer the committee to clause 14, to which I intend to move an amendment. The clause reads as follows: -

  1. – (1.) Where a contributor incurs nodical expenses in respect of a professional service specified in the First Schedule, to this Act and under the rules of the registered medical benefits organization to the uiedic.il benefits fund of which the contributor pays contributions the contributor is Qi title.1 to a fund benefit equal to or greater than the amount specified in that Schedule in relation to that service, Commonwealth benefit of the amount bo specified is payable subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Part. 1 move -

That, in sub-clause (1.), the word “contributor “ be left out with a view to insert in lien thereof the word “ person “. 1 also propose to foreshadow a second amendment to clause 14 which will be submitted separately. However, the two amendments dovetail and one would be meaningless without the other. The second amendment that T foreshadow is ;is follows : - (2.) That in sub-clause (1.) the following words be left out: - “and under the rules of tlie registered medical benefit* organization to the medical benefit funds of which the contributor pays contributions the contributor is entitled to a fund benefit equal to or greater than the amount specified in that schedule in relation to that service “.

The two amendments to clause 14 would make the provision of the benefit under the medical benefits scheme available to anybody in the community without the obligation to join a registered society and pay fees to that body. I do not propose to develop the argument at length, but the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) will recognize that this is a vital focal point in the bill. Proposed medical benefits range from 6s. to 1.1 5s. They will be available only to persons who insure with an organization registered by the Government. The Opposition objects to people being compelled to join such organizations and will voice very strong objections to the fact that this will mean discrimination between sections of the community who have contributed according to their means and capacity to the revenues of the nation. Why should the Government, which uses revenue provided by the people, adopt the attitude that it will provide benefits, as high as £11 5s. only to persons who insure? Those who do not insure will receive no Commonwealth benefit. The amendment is designed to ensure that everybody in a community will attract these medical benefits, whether privately insured or not. I admit that that strikes at the root of the principle that has been adopted by the Government.

Senator McCallum:

– That means tearing the bill to pieces.

Senator McKENNA:

– It means tearing the clause to pieces, and is in line with the criticism that I have voiced on behalf of the Opposition. I make no secret as to the effect of the amendment. I am endeavouring to make it plain because I believe that it is important. If the clause is amended as I propose by both amendments, it will mean that when a person incurs medical expenses in respect of a professional service specified in the first schedule to the act, Commonwealth benefit of the amount so specified will be subject to payment in accordance with the provisions of the paragraph. If the Minister and the Government propose to adhere to the clause as it is drafted, they will stand committed to a policy of compulsion upon the people to insure. That will mean the application of a financial thumb-screw as I have already stated. The Government and the Minister will be committed to discrimination between the citizens of Australia. In this case the Opposition will insist upon the amendment to a division if need be.

Senator McCALLUM:
New South Wales

.- The terms in which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has submitted his amendment mean that the Opposition insists that persons who are thrifty and make some contribution will receive no greater benefits than those who do nothing for themselves. The point is fundamental to the bill and I believe that the clause should stand as printed.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– If the Government would accept the amendment, the health scheme would fit its title much better than it does now. There is nothing national about the health scheme in its presnet form. If the amendment were carried, the health scheme would be truly national. It would cover all sections of the community and allow them to receive benefits in line with a national health scheme. Under the previous arrangement with the States, persons who were treated in public hospitals received some benefit. If they went to a hospital, they were treated, and if they needed medicine it was given to them. They were not put out of hospital because they did not have any money to pay for their treatment. They did not have to pay three times in the form of social services contribution, insurance with a registered society and then by finding the full amount of the hospital expenses before they could get a refund. Under this bill, persons will not receive benefits until they pay the full amount that is owing. If they have not sufficient money to pay, they cannot participate in the benefits that are provided under the bill. This measure perpetuates that anomaly. Yet the Government has called it a national health scheme.

Senator Anderson:

– I rise to order. Senator Aylett is not speaking to the amendment that is before the committee. It relates to medical benefits and not to hospital benefits.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! No point of order is involved.

Senator AYLETT:

– If Senator Anderson wants to split straws I can do so as well. The same principle applies to medical benefits and hospital benefits. Previously a person from any section of the community could go to a hospital and obtain free medical treatment. Those who could best afford to do so paid for the treatment that they received. Many people cannot afford to pay for medical benefits now and they cannot afford to join an- approved society. Therefore, they are placed out of court. Those who have sufficient funds to join a registered society do not have their medical bill paid for them. They receive only a small fraction of the medical benefits. The section of the community that is not insured will get nothing and neither will persons who suffer from chronic complaints. In the circumstances it is difficult to understand how the Government can claim that this is’ a national health scheme.

Reference has been made to free drug3. That is all nonsense. I have had some experience of that matter and have had to pay £30 a year for life-saving drugs because they did not come under the scheme. The Government supporters speak of assistance from the medical profession. No assistance is given. Until those in charge of the bill have to pay for lifesaving drugs themselves, honorable senators will continue to hear clap-trap about free drugs. I hope that the Minister will see reason and make the scheme truly national by accepting the’ Opposition’s amendment.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– I shall reply first to Senator Aylett. He stated that a person who was not in an approved society or was not contributing to one would get no benefit at all. Such a person gets full benefits in the way of life-saving drugs free if they are prescribed by a medical practitioner.

Senator Aylett:

– That is the” catch.

Senator COOPER:

– It would be useless for a person to obtain life-saying drugs if they were not wanted. The medical practitioner must prescribe the drugs because he decides whether a particular drug is necessary. Lifesaving drugs are made available free on the production of a prescription of a medical practitioner. It is incorrect to say that a contributor to an approved organization is obliged to pay the full amount of his doctor’s fees. The contributor pays only a proportion of the fee and the remainder is paid by the organization.

Senator Aylett:

– I said that a patient is obliged to pay the full charge for hospital service.

Senator COOPER:

– That is not so.

Senator Aylett:

– In that case there is discrimination, because I, personally, have been obliged to pay the full amount in respect of hospital treatment. I could not obtain a refund until I paid’ my account.

Senator COOPER:

– The patient does not pay the full amount. For instance, the benefit at the rate of 8s. a day for an occupied bed is paid direct by the Government.

I inform the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that the Government cannot accept his amendment . because it is aimed at the destruction of the whole purpose of the bill and at the insurance system, which has already been inaugurated and is functioning effectively. The acceptance of such an amendment would completely wreck the present insurance scheme, which has been accepted and endorsed by the people of Australia. Under the scheme as it stands, persons who- are contributors to an insurance organization can cover themselves- against the major cost of illness, but if the amendment is accepted it would result in only the Commonwealth benefit becoming available and people not covering themselves by insurance for the . balance of their costs. Under the Labour Government’s medical benefits scheme which never worked, the Government would have paid 5s. 3d. for each ordinary visit to a general practitioner, but under the present scheme a patient receives at least 12s. against this cost; and if he insures for a greater amount the benefit is even larger in respect of an ordinary visit to a general practitioner.

Senator AYLETT:
Tasmania

– I should- like the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to tell me how I can obtain hospital benefit under this scheme without first supplying a receipt for payment of the full amount to the society of which I am a member. I have not otherwise been able to obtain payment of benefit. Secondly, I should like the Minister to tell me on what basis a drug is said not to be a life-saving drug when, in’ fact, a specialist declares that unless it is administered a patient’s complaint will prove fatal. If the Minister can inform- me where I can obtain life-saving drugs free of charge it will save me an outlay at the rate of £30 a year.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– If a person goes to a chemist and asks, for instance, for penicillin but does not produce a prescription, he will be obliged to pay for that drug. However, if it is prescribed by his medical adviser the drug will be provided to him free of cost. The other point that Senator Aylett raised, which was in respect of the pay ment of hospital benefit, is’ covered by clause 56.

Question put -

That the word proposed to be left out (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be left out.

The committee divided. (Thechairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 0

N oes . . . . . . 28

Majority . . . . 5

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendment (by Senator McKenna) negatived -

That, in clause 14, sub-clause (1.), the following words be left out : - “ and under the rules of the registered medical benefits organization to the medical benefits funds of which the contributor pays contributions the contributor is entitled, to a fund benefit equal to or greater than the amount specified in that Schedule in relation to that service”.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Sub-clause (1.) of clause 19 reads -

Commonwealth benefit is not payable in respect of a professional service where the medical expenses in respect of that service are paid or payable to an authority conducting a- public hospital or to a personor body of persons acting on behalf of an authority conducting a public hospital. 1 should like to know the reason for that particular provision. Apparently, it is intended to prevent doctors on the staff of a public hospital charging under this medical benefits scheme in respect of patients whom they treat at the hospital. If that is so, the provision is unexceptionable. However, I am far more interested in sub-clause (2.) which reads -

The last preceding sub-section does not apply where the Minister is satisfied that a professional service rendered at a public hospital at a particular place is not otherwise available at that place.

  1. confess, frankly, that I do not understand that provision. I am particularly concerned about it, because it seems to me that it is proposed to allow private practitioners to use facilities at a public hospital for the treatment of a patient and to charge the patient in respect of the use of those facilities. I should like to have a fuller explanation of that provision. What is the reason for it? How extensive will this practice be? What payment will the medical practitioner make in respect of the use of public facilities?
Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– It is true that clause 19 does exclude from the payment of the Commonwealth benefit medical expenses payable to a public hospital except where the Minister is satisfied that the professional service is only available at a public hospital. The purpose of that provision is to ensure that Commonwealth funds shall be used for the purpose for which they are paid. Such funds may be used for X-rays and specialist services which are not provided for in a town and district where they are required. However, the funds may not be used for the ordinary general hospital services which are a State function.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

– I regret that I am not very much further ahead than I was when I began. I should like the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to tell me what has happened to make sub-clause (1.) necessary. Is it a fact that medical practitioners on the staffs of public hospitals have been seeking to be paid medical benefits either for themselves or for the benefit of the hospitals by which they are employed? I refer the Minister also tosubclause (2.). Do I correctly understand from his earlier answer that if theonly X-ray facilities that are available in a particular area are in a public hospital, a private practitioner may use those facilities and make a charge to his patient in respect of their use ?

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

.- No. The K-ray would not be done by a privatepractitioner. It would be done by the staff of the hospital. Take, for instance, Canberra. If there were in this city a private hospital in addition to the Canberra Community Hospital, the facilities at the latter institution would have to bc used if they were not available at the private hospital or from private practitioners.

Senator Sheehan:

– And the private hospital would charge its patients for the use of those facilities?

Senator COOPER:

– The Canberra Community Hospital would charge for the use of those facilities. Commonwealth money that is paid to a State hospital has to be used for the purposes for which it is paid. The operation of an X-ray plant is a State function, but in a town where such facilities are not provided by the State, Commonwealth funds may be used to make those facilities available, not to private practitioners but for general hospital purposes.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I notice that although a definition of “ the British Pharmacopoeia “ is given in clause S3, there is no definition of the Australian Pharmaceutical Formulary. I should like to know why such a definition has been omitted. I should think that it is more important to define the Australian Pharmaceutical Formulary than it is to define the British Pharmacopoeia. After all, it is the formulary which the Government recognizes that is important to the patient, the doctor and the chemist.

Senator Spooner:

– What about the undertaker ?

Senator COOKE:

– More than 50 per cent, of the citizens of this Commonwealth will receive no protection under this measure and unfortunately those are the people who, generally speaking, ave most in need of health services. The other 4S per cent, or so can afford to pay anyway. I am afraid that some of the people who will not be able to make provision for themselves under this measure may need an undertaker, and it is with the welfare of those people that I am most concerned at the moment. Again I suggest to the Government that if it is considered necessary to include in this measure a definition of the British Pharmacopoeia it is much more essential that the Australian Pharmaceutical Formulary should be defined. We are not concerned about the British Pharmacopoeia because the Government does not recognize it. Labour’s formulary has been brushed aside, and in its place we have a formulary that is completely inadequate. Consider, for instance, Chloromycetin in relation to life-saving drug?.. If it is to be taken orally it is free, but if it is prescribed, for instance, for a serious eye ailment it is not free. If mercurochrome is included in a prescription for healing it is not free because it is not included in the formulary, yet it. could be life saving and should be included. In some cases it would be proscribed and in other cases it would not. Who is to bc the judge? Then we find that, in certain cases, the British Pharmacopoeia is referred to as the basis for prescribing. If an Australian proprietary line is, in effect, the same as a drug listed in the British Pharmacopoeia, provision should be made for the inclusion of that proprietary line in prescriptions under the formulary. What happens, in effect, is that the chemist receives a prescription. It has been prescribed by a doctor who has been accustomed to using the name of a proprietary line, but because he has not used the nomenclature permitted under this bill the patient has to pay for the prescription. However, usually the chemist rings up the doctor and points out that the drug prescribed is exactly the same as a certain proprietary line. To allow the patient to get the prescription free, the doctor amends it and sends it back to the chemist. The chemist then dispenses it and is paid for it. I suggest that the Government should indicate in the formulary that certain drugs may be substituted. For instance, tincture of chloroform and morphia, which are not free, are frequently used in compounds of bismuth for stomach complaints. Syrup of ginger is free and is sometime.used as it makes the mixture more palatable, but it does not relieve pain as tincture of chloroform and morphia do. Should not the doctor be given the freedom to .stop pain in the most effective manner ?

Silling suspended from 12 midnight lu U.J,0 u.m. (Thursday). /

Senator COOKE:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I pointed out thai a doctor may prescribe a bismuth mixture for a person suffering from a stomach ulcer, in order that the person may obtain the mixture free because its ingredientarc included in the Australian Parmaceutical Formulary. The doctor has to proscribe a less effective medicine to alleviate pain than is actually possible because of the limits of the formulary. Let us assume, for instance, that a doctor prescribed the following mixture : - Bismuth carbonate, gr. x; sod. bicarbonate, gr. x ; mag. carb. porch, gr. x; syrup ginger, 111 xxx ; aqua meth. pips to it oz. ; supply S oz. - -i- thrice daily. A patient would be able to obtain that mixture without payment. I point out that some persons are allergic to syrup ginger. For a person who was suffering from a complaint such as the one that I have mentioned, a doctor may substitute tincture of chloroform foi syrup ginger. Again, a similar substitution may be made in the case of a patient who was suffering pain continually. Both tincture of chloroform and morphia are frequently used in compound bismuth mixtures for stomach complaints, but if a prescription contains either of those ingredients, the patient is required to pay for the mixtures. As the Government has adopted a socialist approach to the subject of national health, it should permit a doctor to prescribe a mixture containing ingredients that will be most beneficial to his patient, but which will not preclude the patient from obtaining th, mixture without payment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Reid:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– -Order ! The hon ora hie senator’s time has expired.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

– I refer to clause 79, which reads - (1.) The Minister may, by notice in writing, suspend, for such period as is specified in the notice, the registration of an organization, or may cancel the registration of an organization, where -

  1. the Committeehas recommended the suspension or cancellation of the registration of the organization; or
  2. the Minister has reason to believe that-

    1. the organization has failed to comply with the terms and conditions subject to which the organization is registered; or
    2. the organization has contravened, or failed to comply with, a provision of this Act. (2.) The Minister may, in his discretion, revoke, by notice in writing, a suspension or cancellation made under the last’ preceding sub-section and may direct that the revocation take effect from such date, either before or after the date of the notice, as is specified in the notice.

I have discussed the provisions of the clause with the Director-General of Health. The Independent Order of Oddfellows, which, at the time of registration as an approved society, had a membership of 5,000 persons, arranged for an insurance company to canvass for additional subscribers. Within a short period of time, the society’s enrolment was increased by thousands of subscribers. Some months afterwards, the DirectorGeneral of Health ordered it to withdraw its agency from the insurance company. The secretary of the society pointed out to the Director-General that his society was being penalized unduly, because it had, at considerable expense, provided administrative machinery to cater for the additional enrolments, but the DirectorGeneral insisted that the society should withdraw its agency from the insurance company. Thereupon the society appealed to the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley), who was at the time acting for the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page), and in due course the Minister revoked the Director-General’s order. T submit that provision should be made for an appeal to the Minister in such cases, although, as the legal members of this chamber will probably concede, the appeal would be in the nature of an appeal from

Caesar to Caesar, because the committee’s recommendations in relation to disqualification are endorsed by the Minister. I consider that such organizations should enjoy rights similar to those that have been given to the chemists and medical practitioners.

New clause 79a.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I move -

That, after clause 79, the following new clause be inserted: - “79a. - (1.) Where, in pursuance of the last preceding section, the Minister suspends or cancels the registration of an organization -

the Minister shall, at the request of the organization, state in writing the grounds for the suspension or cancellation; and

the organization may appeal to the Supreme Court of the State or Territory in which the principal office of the organization is situated. (2.) The Supreme Court of each State is invested with Federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is conferred on the Supremo Court of each Territory, to hear and determine appeals under this section. (3.) The Minister shall be the respondent in the appeal. (4.) Upon an appeal under this section, the Court shall have regard to the documents which were before the Committee or the Minister and the report (if any) of theCommittee. (5.) If the Court is satisfied that theorganization has not contravened, or failed to comply with, a provision of this Act, ora term or condition subject to which theorganization was registered, or that it is not just and equitable that its registration should be suspended or cancelled, as the case requires, the Court shall allow the appeal and order theremoval of the suspension or the restoration of the registration. (6.) If the Court is not so satisfied, it shall dismiss the appeal. (7.) The Court may, where it considers it just to do so, instead of dismissing an appeal in accordance with the last preceding subsection, order the suspension of the registration instead of its cancellation, or order thereduction of the period of suspension imposed by the Minister. (8.) The Court may order either party topay costs to the other party. (9.) The jurisdiction conferred by this section is exercisable by a single Judge of the Court, whose decision is final and conclusive.”.

I take this opportunity to express my thanks to the Parliamentary Draftsman for moulding my amendment into its present form. The purpose of the amendment is to provide a right of appeal to> the Supreme Court against suspension or cancellation of registration by the Minister. It does not provide for an appeal against refusal of the original registration, or against conditions imposed in relation to the original registration. Acceptance of the amendment would overcome the difficulty to which Senator Ashley has referred. It will be seen that the right of appeal provided by the amendment is similar to the right of appeal that is contained in clause 96. It is generally conceded that an appeal against suspension or cancellation should be made the subject of judicial review, because it is quite probable that an organization, after operating for a period of years, may have accrued rights on behalf of its contributors. Therefore, if it is aggrieved by reason of suspension or cancellation, it should be afforded the protection provided by the right of access to a court of law. I believe that the amendment will be acceptable to both sides of the chamber, because the spirit of it is in line with the sentiments that have been expressed by Senator Ashley.

Senator COOKE:
“Western Australia

– I agree that the amendment may be necessary. However, in order to enable honorable senators to consider it fully, perhaps copies of it could bc distributed.

Senator GORTON:
Victoria

Senator Ashley has referred to a set of circumstances with which I have come in contact.

Senator Ashley:

– I have several letters which may be of interest to the honorable senator.

Senator GORTON:

– I believe that he referred to the case that I have in mind, in which the Independent Order of Oddfellows was the prime mover. I under.stand that the insurance company which the society appointed as its agent had been already refused registration in its own right, because it was considered to be not sufficiently stable to take part in this scheme as a principal and that the order would lose its registration if it did not cancel its arrangement with the company. It is obvious that companies must be financially stable in order to be able to pay claims that are submitted to them.

As the company in question had been refused registration, it was able, by acting as an agent for the society, to obtain business which had been previously refused to it. I should like the Minister to say whether I have stated the case correctly.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Naturally, the Opposition will support the amendment moved by Senator Wright. I had prepared an amendment of the clause in terms almost identical with those of Senator Wright’s amendment, though his has the advantage of requiring the Minister for Health to specify the ground upon which he acts and I shall therefore support his proposal. I join with Senator Wright in hoping that the Government will not need any pressing in this matter. The right of appeal is given to everybody else who may be adversely affected. Details of the pensioner scheme should be comparable with those of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I regret that the law does not give an opportunity to appeal from the refusal of the Minister to register an organization in the first place. Only three or four days after the health legislation was presented to the Parliament in March the High Court decided that it was not possible to confer an administrative function on a judicial tribunal. Therefore I agree with Senator Wright that, it is not possible to provide, in direct form in this measure, for an appeal from a refusal by the Minister to register an organization. But I shall be very happy to support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Wright. I hope that the Minister will accept it.

Senator ASHLEY:
New South Wales

Senator Gorton inquired whether it was a fact that the Independent Order of Oddfellows had been informed that its registration would be withdrawn if it did not cancel the arrangement that it had made with the insurance company, due to the fact that the insurance company itself had been refused registration under the health scheme. I understand that that is correct. I received that information from the Director-General of Health. I have also received a letter from another organization. It reads as follows: -

The matter of registration, de-registration i>r suspension is of vital importance to organizations and I submit it is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice that an organization should be denied the right of judicial appeal when faced with nonregistration, de-registration or suspension.

I think that the interference with organizations has occurred as part of tlie Government’s policy to give preferential treatment to the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia. The first advertisement of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia contained extracts from the national health booklet that was issued by the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page). This was the only organization that was able to incorporate reprints from that booklet in its advertisements at that time. It has been suggested that the Government is endeavouring to impede the activities of other organizations and assist the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia which was established by doctors. In the first place, each doctor subscribed £10 to the fund and I think that £14,000 was collected in that way. Now subscribers are providing money so that the funds are in a healthy state. In fact, one might say that the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia is a real bonanza and a veritable gold mine. I have a copy of the minutes of the sixth annual meeting of the society which was held on the 25th September, 1952. Those present included twelve medical members of the association, the Honorable H. V. Budd, M.L.O., Mr. D. H. A. Neil and Mr. J. F. Cade, the secretary nf the organization. In moving the adoption of the annual report, which contained a recommendation to transfer the sum of £27,000 to reserve for unpresented claims, the chairman, Dr. H. B. R, Grieve, outlined the progress of the fund, particularly during the last twelve months. Revenue collected in New South Wales and Queensland had amounted to £113,400 compared with £39,400 in the previous year. Those figures are very significant. The sum nf £27,000 which was placed in reserve in 1952 was almost equivalent to the total revenue of the previous year. In the last financial year contributions to the fund amounted to £401,693. It is now receiving much more according to honorable senators who support the Government in another place. It paid £166,909 in benefits in the last financial year and its expenses amounted to £52,377. It spent £1,600 of contributors’ money on one advertisement. Its expenses were equal to 30 per cent, of its payments. lt transferred to an appropriation account a surplus of income over expenditure of £1S5,000. This fund is progressing very well and it has received preferential treatment from the Government since its initiation by the British Medical Association. It has been nursed and fostered by the Menzies Government. Its activities will result in the ultimate destruction of many of the friendly societies that are trying to compete with it. In industry, this fund is receiving preferential treatment over established friendly societies which have been serving the people of Australia for over 100 years. Ultimately, those societies will be destroyed because this fund will be allpowerful. Having the doctors behind it, it will eventually squeeze out all the other funds.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– What Senator Gorton said was substantially correct.

Senator Ashley:

– What about what 1 said ?

Senator COOPER:

– I think that we can place Senator Ashley in the same category as Senator Gorton. What Senator Ashley said was substantially correct also. Senator Wright’s proposal has been examined carefully and the Government is prepared to accept it.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I have heard little from the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) on the matter that I raised concerning the interpretation of the clause to which I referred. Is the Minister prepared to consider allowing doctors to prescribe an alternative such as morphia or tincture of chloroform when a patient is obviously in pain? I should also like the Minister to state whether he would be prepared to correct another anomaly which is irritating doctors, chemists and patients. If a doctor writes a prescription for a patient and uses a proprietary name instead of the monograph appearing in the British Pharmacopoeia the chemist cannot provide the medicine free of charge to the patient. Consequently, the patient has to return to the doctor and have the prescription written out according to the monograph of the British Pharmacopoeia. Then he has to take it back to the chemist in order to have it dispensed. In the cases to which I refer there is no difference between the proprietary medicine and the monograph in the British Pharmacopoeia, yet in one instance the drug will be provided free of charge and in the other it will not be provided free. I suggest that if a doctor writes a prescription which contains ingredients which are not listed in the British Pharmacopoeia, but which accord with the Australian pharmaceutical formulary the prescription should be provided free of charge. If the Department of Health is not prepared to pay for such prescriptions, the whole of the expense involved will be thrown on the individual. If he goes to a chemist and asks for a particular drug, the chemist may say to him, “ I have not that drug, but I have a proprietary line which is manufactured in Australia and is practically identical “. The chemist may send the man back to his doctor to have the presscription altered.

Senator Guy:

– This is tedious repetition.

Senator COOKE:

– I have not yet received an answer to my question. I do not twist, like the honorable senator does. When I am dealing with a matter, I continue to do so until I have finished with it. I do not scab-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Senator COOKE:

– I am answering an interjection, Mr. Chairman. I am not speaking to you.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator will address the Chair.

Senator COOKE:

– When I subscribe to a policy, I carry it to its conclusion. I have not yet received an adequate reply from the Minister. I ask him whether his department will recognize the Aus tralian pharmaceutical terms when used to describe drugs if they are identical with drugs covered by the British Pharmacopoeia, and thus enable persons, who may be pensioners, to obtain such drugs free of charge.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Now that the honorable senator has given me a chance to answer the questions that he has asked, I shall endeavour to do so. . I point out that proprietary medicines are not used when prescriptions are being made up because similar ingredients are listed in the British Pharmacopoeia and can be supplied at very much less cost than can the proprietary lines. The department considers that as the ingredients listed in the British Pharma copoeia can be made up into the same medicines, proprietary medicines should not be used. The position is exactly the same as if proprietary medicines were used. In regard to drugs such as morphia, I understand that they are available under the pensioner medical service but not under the free life-saving drug scheme.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– The Government has provided that morphia and tincture of chloroform shall be made available free of charge under the pensioner medical service. However, should an ordinary member of the community require such drugs under the free life-saving drug scheme, the Government has provided that tincture of ginger, which does not stop severe pain, shall be supplied. I point out that a person may suffer great pain because of a stomach ulcer or some other disability, and if he is not prepared to accent tincture of ginger, which would not be effective in stopping his pain, he is obliged to pay the whole of the cost of morphia or tincture of chloroform. Does the Department of Health consider that persons who require those drugs should be deprived of them because they are unable to afford them ? The department obviously considers that they should be supplied in some instances, because it makes them available under the pensioner medical service. It says, in effect, that pensioners must not suffer pain, and for that reason tincture of chloroform and morphia will be supplied free of charge. However, an ordinary individual who requires those drugs for the treatment of a stomach ulcer or some other ailment must pay for them himself. Is that the1 attitude of the Minister?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the proceedings would be much more intelligible if we were to deal with the proposed insertion of new clause 79a before we proceed to discuss other clauses of the bill.

New clause agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– [ wish to advert to the matter raised by Senator Cooke. I think I understood the Minister to say that, in relation to what are termed lifesaving and disease-preventing drugs, no proprietary brands may be prescribed and supplied free of charge.

Senator COOPER:
QueenslandMinister for Repatriation · CP

– I was speaking about drugs supplied under the pensioner medical service which are made up in accordance with the British Pharmacopoeia: Senator Cooke asked why proprietary lines should not be supplied, instead of prescriptions being made up solely from ingredients listed in the British Pharmacopoeia.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Then I take it that proprietary lines may bo prescribed in respect of general pharmaceutical benefits, but not in relation to the pensioner medical service?

Senator Cooper:

– That is true.

Senator McKENNA:

– I refer now to Clause 26, which reads, in part -

Payments by the Commonwealth under this Part to a registered medical benefits organization shall not be made unless the organization furnishes to the Director-General, as soon as practicable after the end of each month, a claim in respect of that month, in the form authorized for the purposes of this section, togelher with such . . .

I move -

That the word “ authorized “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ prescribed “.

I foreshadow that I shall move for the insertion of a new clause 26a in the following terms : - 20a. A medical practitioner who has rendered a professional service for a person shall on request by that person supply to him a statement in writing giving particulars of the professional service and of the charge made therefor.

Honorable senators will see that clause 26 deals with registered organizations.

The amendment I have moved proposes to delete the word “ authorized “, which, according to the definitions clause of the bill, means “ authorized by the Director-General “. I appreciate that that gives to the Director-General a wide discretion and enables him to vary theform from time to time, as required. On, the general principle that matters of this kind should be made known, I have moved’ that the word “ prescribed “ should besubstituted for the word “ authorized “. In addition to submitting a claim in the form authorized, an organization must send along such further information and such vouchers relating to the claim as are shown in the form to be required, or as the Director-General requests. In order to receive payment, a registered organization must submit claims on a particular form and also furnish whatever vouchers the Director-General may require. It is obvious that one of the documents he will require will be thereceipt from the medical practitioner, so that before the organization can obtain a refund or payment from the Commonwealth it must first supply a receipt from the medical practitioner as evidence of the service that has been rendered by him. The point I make is that there is an obligation on the organization to supply such a voucher to thedepartment, but there is no obligation at all upon a medical practitioner to supply the form that is required. I take it that there is no argument about that. It is for that reason that I have moved, on behalf of the Opposition, that an obligation should be cast on the medical practitioner to supply such a voucher at the request of his patient. That is the purpose of the proposed new clause 26a. There may be difficulties in the mind of the Minister concerning the constitutionalposition in relation to that matter, by reason of the fact that, allied to the words “ medical benefit or service “ arc the words “ but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription”. The High Court of Australia has held that those words prohibit the casting of an obligation on a medical practitioner to write a prescription on a particular form. I point out, however, that the writing of a receipt for an account could certainly not be held to be a part of a medical service. When the time comes for the receipt to be written out, the medical service has ended. Under those conditions, if any medical service is involved, there is an incidental power in the Constitution which would enable the Government providing a medical benefit to say, in effect, to the medical practitioner or any other person in the community, “ You must do whatever is incidental to the implementation of the benefit “. If a medical practitioner were to refuse to issue an account or write a receipt, a patient would not be able to collect the benefit and an organization which paid the claim of a patient would not be able to get reimbursement from the Commonwealth. I suggest to the Minister that the Government should intimate that it will accept my foreshadowed amendment.

Senator COOPER:
Minister for Repatriation · Queensland · CP

– Under the amendment, the Opposition proposes that wo should delete the word “ authorized “ and insert the word “ prescribed “. I am informed that the word “authorized” merely indicates’ that, for purely departmental administrative purposes, organizations shall make their monthly claims in a way that is deemed desirable and proper for the purpose. To insert the word “ prescribed “ in lieu of “ authorized “ would mean that regulations would have to support the form that the claim had to take. Any variation from this rigid form that was found necessary would require an amendment of the regulation before any change could be made. This is not a matter of great substance, but only concerns mechanical administration, and the amendment would introduce complications to normal administrative latitude without any compensating advanttage. The form to be used has been carefully worked out between the department and the organizations and the arrangement is working smoothly. The use of the word “ authorized “ in this bill as applied to departmental forms is not new and follows on health administration processes that were passed by the previous Government.

In connexion with the foreshadowed amendment regarding vouchers, I can assure the honorable senators that there is no coercion upon doctors to send in vouchers or different forms. The British Medical Association was circularized and agreed upon a pattern of receipts. It has circularized all its members regarding the form of receipt to be used. The doctors have accepted the form and have agreed to the recommendation. I submit a copy of the form for examination by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna).

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I thank the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) for his explanation of the difference between “ authorized “ and “ prescribed “. I understand the difference thoroughly. The motive of the Opposition in moving the amendment was merely a desire to bring before the public action that is being taken in connexion with the scheme. The purpose that I set out to achieve could easily have been reached had the words been along the lines, “In a form substantially in the form prescribed “. I agree that this is not a matter of great substance and a3 departmental convenience is involved to some degree I shall not press that amendment.

I have_ not had an opportunity to peruse the documents that are in use, but I have examined the form that the Minister has handed to me. The form of receipt bears the doctor’s name and the patient’s name, and gives particulars of the service rendered for the fees. I assume that a document that has been handed to me under the signature of the president of the British Medical Association, Victorian Branch, dated the 10th June last, is a copy of a letter to medical practitioners urging them to use the form that has been agreed upon between the department and the medical authorities. I still make the point that from the viewpoint of the law, if any individual doctor decides not to use the form and not to give a receipt at all, there is nothing in the bill to oblige him to do so. In short, an entitlement on the part of the registered organization and the patient for the payment of the Commonwealth benefit depends entirely upon the goodwill of the medical practitioner.

Senator Cooper:

– Upon goodwill and the ordinary commercial instinct of the doctor to carry on his practice succesfully.

Senator McKENNA:

– I can imagine that the ordinary commercial instinct that would be followed by that rara avis, that rare bird in the medical profession who has a commercial instinct would be to issue receipts, but some practitioners might not issue receipts at all. There have been such cases and when the Commissioner of Taxation has discovered them, trouble has followed. For various reasons, an individual might want to take cash and not give a receipt. There are strong commercial reasons why he would avoid doing so if he were evilly disposed. It may be a rare case in which a practitioner would not issue a receipt, but how would the patient fare in such an event?

Senator Cooper:

– The patient would demand it.

Senator McKENNA:

– But supposing the doctor declined to give it? Is it not a component part of the scheme that the patient must have a receipt and a memorandum of fees as the basis of his entitlement? Surely the Government should ensure that patients will get the requisite documents? That is a completely reasonable proposition.

Senator Cooper:

– I cannot see the need for such a provision.

Senator McKENNA:

– The Government should cast this legal obligation upon doctors. The absence of such a provision is one of the gaps in the scheme.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I should be surprised if the petty detail to which the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has referred is not already covered by the stamp duties acts of the various States. Let us suppose that there is a transaction between a doctor and a patient and the patient tenders three guineas to the medical man and asks for a receipt. I should be surprised if any man of professional status would reply, “ I deny your right to a receipt “. At this late hour, as this bill proceeds to a magnificent climax, it is pathetic that the committee should be called upon to devote time to a suggestion that medical men should be placed under a legal obligation to give a receipt. Those who have thoughtfully studied this bill should be consoled by the fact that sections 94, 95 and 9G have been drawn in such terms as to ensure that adequate disciplinary measures could be taken against a chemist or a doctor who resorts to withholding a receipt.

I believe that this generation is privileged to see procedures written into this bill which will make for magnificent social progress. This measure represents achievement and it should not be spoiled by flapping flies off the wall in this way. Previous efforts to give the community medical, pharmaceutical and hospital schemes have failed. One reason for the failure was the rigid legalistic approach to the proposals 6ueh a? that which arises from an inadequate understanding of the psychology of the people. When we substitute a piece of legislation, drafted according to appropriate technical requirements of the law but nevertheless observing rules of common sense for matters of this kind that need not be expressed, then only will we get the co-operation of all the sections of the community who have been brought together by the magnificent statesmanship of the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page). He achieved that co-operation not by writing into bills penalties upon people for not handing out a piece of paper in a prescribed form, but by displaying to reasonable people that degree of goodwill that he himself feels is the spirit of this measure. I hope that my remark will provide the antidote to the petty amendments that have been advanced by the Opposition. In that connexion, I recall that just after the portfolio of Health was handed over to the present Minister, there is on record in volume 206 of Hansard at page 1130 a statement that was made by the Minister’s predecessor to this effect -

  1. noticed in the press on the loth March - two months later - that he was still saying the same thing. I was reminded of an act I once saw in a little vaudeville show at a beach. There was a large crowd of people on the stage. One by one they retired through a door at the rear of the stage, leaving only two people facing the audience, a young man and a very old doddering man, who, up to this time had nol uttered a single word. The young man looked at the old fellow and said, “ Well, go on “. The old man asked in quavering tones, “ Will you do me a favour? “ The young man said that he would, and his companion said, Will you turn me round?” The young man turned the old fellow around, pointed him at the door, and proceeded to walk off the stage, but the old gentleman said, “ Will you do me a nother favour? “ The young man replied in the affirmative, and then the old fellow said, “ Give me a start”. I think that it isup to the Government to take its Minister for Health in hand,

It casts me into the utmost despair to note that resentment of a political defeat could cause an honorable senator to refer in such a contemptible way to the experienced and statesmanlike manner in which the present Minister for Health was addressing himself to this problem in March, 1950. Since that time, the Minister has demonstrated that a little understanding, if backed by specialized experience in the art of dispensing medicine to the community, can succeed in an Australian community, which responds ro appeals but will rebel against rigid and petty sanctions that are imposed by law on every act of men and women in their ordinary avocations. The committee should recognize the despicable reference that was made by the present Leader of the Opposition to the present Minister for Health at that time. It should also recognize the magnificent product of that experienced statesman which we now have before us in the form of this bill. If the Opposition has any major amendment to propose to the measure, let it submit such an amendment; but let it not waste the time of the committee in proposing amendments of this kind. In this instance it seeks to oblige doctors to deliver receipts. The provisions contained in clauses 94, 95 and 96 are adequate to correct any evil that might arise from the practice about which the Opposition has complained. In any event, State laws pro vide adequate remedies in that respect. The most important thing of all is the spirit in which medical business is carried on, and so very few instances of abuse are likely to occur that the committee should not be asked to affront the great majority of members of the medical profession by accepting the amendment proposed by the Opposition. Most doctors, of their own volition, deliver a receipt to a patient.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition

Senator Wright has introduced some vigour into the debate at this very early hour in the morning, and I am glad that he has done so. He said that he would be surprised if there were one doctor who would decline to give a receipt to a patient. The honorable senator, obviously, is not very experienced in this matter. If he enjoyed less ruddy good health and had more occasion to visit doctors he would find, as I have found, that a speeialist passes the patient on to a lady who holds out her hand and says, “ Three guineas,please “, and does not give a receipt. I have had that experience ; and the honorable senator’s failure to appreciate that that sort of thing happens merely shows his lack of experience in this respect.

To-night, Senator Wright has detailed for the first time a matter which he has raised obliquely from time to time in this chamber. I refer to the reference I made to the present Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) some considerable time ago. Without having checked my remarks since I made them, I am prepared to say that the honorable senator did not finish quoting the last sentence of the remarks that I made on that occasion. He stopped at the words, “It is time the Government took this Minister in hand “.

Senator Wright:

– “ Turn him from his present course and point him in the direction of national health.”

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes; the honorable senator pulled up short in the middle of a sentence from which he was quoting. Thus, he completely distorted my remarks on the occasion to which he referred. That fact shows the perverted twist of

Senator Wright’s mind. I have been a member of the Senate for nearly ten years and I have said nothing in a personal sense about anybody during the whole of that period. Only an honorable senator with a perverted mind like that of Senator Wright would think that the remarks that he has quoted were meant to be personally offensive to the Minister for Health. I shall mention the circumstances in which I made those remarks. At that time the Minister for Health was vacillating. He was saying one thing to-day and reversing his statement to-morrow, and announcing one scheme to-day and disowning it the next day. He had gone on and on with that sort of thing for some time. Having, as I said, witnessed a certain incident, the thought came to my mind that the Minister should be turned round, and given a start with a national health scheme. Of all honorable senators, only Senator Wright would think that I would be capable of attempting to picture any individual in that position. I assure the committee that when, facetiously, I told that story I did so, first, to come to the point of it which Senator Wright improperly suppressed; and, secondly, to inject a little levity in the telling of the story. I am sure that every honorable senator, including Senator Wright, will believe me when I say that in telling that little story I had no more a picture in my mind of the Minister for Health than I had of the honorable senator himself. I saw the incident happen. I thought that it was funny and I thought that if would amuse the Senate. I have nothing on my conscience in respect of this matter, but I do not think that Senator Wright comes well out of this incident.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I. should like to know whether the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) intends to reply to the matters that I raised.

Amendment negatived.

New clause 26a (Senator McKenna’s amendment) negatived -

That, after clause 26, the following new clause be inserted: - “26a. A medical practitioner who has rendered a professional service for a person shall on request by that person supply to him a statement in writing giving particulars of the professional service and of the charge made therefore.”.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

Clause 31 reads - (2.) Notwithstanding the repeal effected by the last preceding sub-section -

  1. an arrangement made with the Federal

Council of the British Medical Association in Australia in pursuance of regulation throe of the repealed Regulations and in force immediately before the commencement of this Part shall be deemed to be an agreement entered into by the Minister under the next succeeding section ; and

  1. an arrangement or agreement made or entered into by the DirectorGeneral with a medical practitioner in pursuance . .

I move -

That, in sub-clause (2.), paragraph (a), after the word “ arrangement “ the following words be inserted.: - “ set forth in the Third Schedule “.

The “next succeeding section” is clause 32 (1.) of the bill, which confers upon the Minister power, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to enter into an agreement with the Federal Council of the British Medical Association in Australia. I regard subclause (2.) of clause 31 as one of the most important clauses in the bill. The whole of the important pensioner medical service swings upon the arrangement that has already been made by the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) with the Federal Council of the British Medical Association. For the second time since 1 raised the matter yesterday, I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) whether any honorable senator has ever seen that arrangement. Can any Government supporter say, “ The agreement that we are deemed to approve and accept as one made under clause 32 is one that my mind approves because I have seen it and know its contents ? “ Can one honorable senator opposite tell me what the agreement contains, or give one reason why the details of that arrangement have not been placed before the Senate? The Minister for Health, in a letter that he wrote to me. indicated that the agreement is not in agreement form, but rests upon a series of letters that have been exchanged between himself and the British Medical Association. I now make a demand for the production of those letters. I want to know the details of the arrangement that has been made. I should be surprised if every honorable senator is not as concerned as I am to have a look at that arrangement. Therefore, I should like the Minister to tell me how many letters were exchanged on each side, and when the Senate may have a look at those letters.

Senator COOPER:
Minister forRepatriation · Queensland · CP

– The effect of the proposed amendment would be to require the insertion of the existing pensioner medical arrangement with the British Medical Association in a new third schedule to the bill. The arrangement, which is actually in operation, consists of a series of letters that have been exchanged between the Government and the Federal Council of the British Medical Association, and nothing will be achieved by embodying such correspondence in a schedule. All of those letters are on the files of the department. I am also informed that if the amendment is accepted and all this correspondence is not embodied in the bill, it would have the effect of nullifying the whole of the present arrangement in respect of the pensioner medical service. The clause is a saving clause, and its object is to continue the present arrangement. For that reason, the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– T disagree with the statement by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) that the clause is purely a saving clause, because it says that an arrange ment made between the Government and the Federal Council of the British Medical Association now in force shall be deemed to be an agreement entered into by the Minister. I am asking whether any reason exists why the details of that arrangement should not be tabled in the Senate. Would the Minister be prepared to table the file containing this correspondence ?

Senator Cooper:

– No.

Senator McKENNA:

– What has the Minister got to hide? Is it his own private correspondence, or does it directly concern the nation’s business ? There is a great feeling of uneasiness on the part of the Opposition as there should be on the part of every supporter of the Government about this matter. There is a series of communications upon which a pensioner medical service rests, and the Government says that it will not allow honorable senators to see the letters. But, at the same time, the Government asks the Senate to agree that it be deemed than an agreement has been entered into under sub-clause (2.) of clause 32. I invite the Minister for Repatriation to look through Part IV. of the bill, which deals with the pensioner medical service, and to point to one detail of that service. What is the scope of the service? What amount is to be paid? Why are these things suppressed and omitted from the bill? I put it to the Minister that a most uneasy feeling is created when the bill gives not one single detail about such matters as mileage for doctors in small local areas. Provision is made, for the payment of 5s. a mile beyond the 3-mile limit in small highly congested areas as compared with outback areas. What has gone on between the British Medical Association and the Government that the Government will not table this agreement?

Senator Kendall:

– Why does the Leader of the Opposition think: that there is a file?

Senator McKENNA:

– I have good reason for that. I wrote tothe Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) and asked him to let rae have a copy of the agreement referred to in the bill. I am sure all honorable senators will agree that that was a perfectly natural inquiry. The Minister wrote me a letter on the 6th November in which he stated -

The Pensioner Medical Service is provided by authority of the National Health (Medical Services to Pensioners) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1950- No.50). A copy of these Regulations is forwarded herewith. I am also forwarding a copy of the National Health (Pensioners Medical Services Committees of Inquiry) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1952 No. 100).

There is no formal document embodying the agreement between the Commonwealth and the British Medical Association relating to the provision of the Pensioner Medical Service. The arrangement is contained in a number of communications between the Government and the British Medical Association.

There is the source of my information. It is only natural surely that I should want to find out what is in the arrangement to which we are asked to give our blessing. When a similar request was made to the Minister for Health during the proceedings in the House of Representatives, he declined to make the information available. I should like to know the reason for his refusal. Is there anything to hide? I am not prepared to approve a clause that confirms an agreement the contents and nature of which I do not know. There are two minutes left for the committee stage of the bill. I hope that the Minister will take advantage of those two minutes to reply to my questions.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I rise merely to point out that clause 31 shows clearly that the “Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) has displayed completely false colours in regard to this matter. The provision is drawn in language which is as stereotyped as language can be. It states - (2.) Notwithstanding the repeal effected by the last preceding sub-section -

  1. an arrangement made with the Federal Council of the British Medical Association in Australia in pursuance of regulation three of the repealed Regulations and in force immediately before the commencement of thisPart shallbe deemed to be an agreement entered, into by the Minister under the next succeeding section ; and

Paragraph (b) then provides for the arrangement being maintained. The criticism of the Leader of the Opposition is based on the misinterpretation that we are here asked to ratify an agreement. That agreement derives its authority from the regulations and this clause simply says so.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time allotted for the committee stage of the bill has expired.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator McKenna’s amendment) be so inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator A. D. Reid.)

AYES: 22

NOES: 25

Majority . . . .3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Remaining clauses, schedules, title, and the circulated amendments of the Government, agreed to.

Circulated amendments -

Clause 97- ( 1 . ) Whenever -

an approved pharmaceutical chemist requests that his (2.) Whenever -

an approved pharmaceutical chemist ceases to carry on the pharmaceutical chemist, medical practitioner or hospital authority shall notify the Director-General forthwith.

Penalty: One hundred pounds.

Amendment. - In sub-clause (2.), leave out “one hundred”, insert “Ten”.

Clause 98- (l.) The Minister may determine therates at which, and the conditions subject to which, payments shallbe made in respect of the supply of phamaceutical benefits.

Amendment. - In sub-clause (2.), after “ may “ insert “, after consultation with the Federated Pharmaceutical Service Guild of Australia “.

Clause 105 -

The National Health (Pensioners’ Medical Services Committees of Inquiry) Regulations are repealed.

Amendment. - After “ Regulations “ insert “ and the National Health (Medicines for Pensioners Committees of Inquiry) Regulations “.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments ; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 299

FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that Mr. Bostock, Dr. Donald Cameron, Mr. Downer, Mr. Drummond, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Roberton and Mr.Wentworth had been appointed to serve on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

page 299

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The following bills were returned from the House of Representatives, without amendment : -

Tariff Board Bill 1953.

Papua and New Guinea (Validation of Appointments) Bill 2953.

Public Works Committee Bill 1953.

Navigation Bill 1953.

page 299

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Australian Imperial Force Canteens Fund Act - Thirty-third Annual Report by the Trustees, for year 1952-53.

Australian Wool Board - Seventeenth Annual Report, for year 1952-53.

Commonwealth Railways Act - Report on Commonwealth Railways operations for year 1952-53.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act -

Sixth Annual Report by the Chief Judge, for year ended 30th September, 1953. Annual Report by the Chief Conciliation Commissioner, for year ended 7th October, 1953.

International Labour Organization - Thirtysixth Session, Geneva, June, 1953 - Reports of the Australian Government, Employers’ and Workers’ Delegates.

Lands Acquisition Act - Land, &c, acquired for -

Defence purposes - Nowra, New South Wales.

Department of Civil Aviation purposes - Mascot, New South Wales.

Public Service Act - Appointments - Department -

Defence Production - V. B. Mursell.

Repatriation -R. S. Flynn.

National Development - D. E. Catley, W. D. Parkinson.

Social Services - H. J. B. Home.

Works- R. C. Hilton, P. W. Jeffries, D. P. Ruff.

Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations by the Arbitrator, &c. - 1953 - No. 78 - Commonwealth Telegraph Traffic and Supervisory Officers’ Association.

No. 79 - Hospital Employees’ Federation of Australasia.

Stevedoring Industry Act - Australian Stevedoring Industry Board - Fourth Annual Report and Financial Accounts, for year 1952-53.

Sugar Agreement Act - Twenty-second Annual Report of the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee, foryear ended 31st August, 1953.

War Gratuity Act - Report of the Central War Gratuity Board.

Senate adjourned at2.11 a.m. (Thursday).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 December 1953, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1953/19531201_senate_20_s2/>.