21st Parliament · 1st Session
The President (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 279
– As the Prime Minister has announced that the Government will subscribe money liberally to send missions overseas with the object of developing new markets, will the Government consider including some members of this Parliament in those missions? Does he consider that in that way members could render valuable service to the missions and the nation?
– I am not completely aware of what is precisely the mind of the Prime Minister in this connexion, but as I understand the position, his thoughts are that merchants and those who specialize in the merchandising of goods for which there are markets overseas will be encouraged to go out and seek markets abroad, taking as it were samples in one pocket and an order book in the other. I shall have the honorable senator’s question brought to the notice of the Prime Minister, and supply an answer in due course.
page 279
– I direct a question to the Minister for Repatriation which relates to the rejection of a war widow’s pension to the wife of Royal Australian Air Force navigator Charles Latter. This gallant and courageous officer died of cancer of the abdomen, but as a result of his privations in action and in a prisoners-of-war camp he suffered the cruel affliction of dysentery prior to the onslaught of cancer. The application by his widow for a pension has been rejected notwithstanding that, in the opinion of at least two independent medical practitioners and an eminent specialist, the cancer may well have been caused by the same infective agent as caused his war-time dysentery. I understand that the Minister has undertaken to review this case and I, therefore, now ask him if he will examine especially how, if at all, the provisions of the act relating to the onus of proof were applied, and that he will ascertain if due consideration was given to the provision that applicants for pensions must be given the benefit of any doubt? Should it be found that in this sad case those instructions have not been completely followed, will the Minister ensure that they will be carried out, and will he also consider the introduction of amending legislation should it be found that the provisions of the act are not adequate to meet such cases?
– by leave- The case referred to by the honorable senator was featured in the newspapers yesterday morning, and since then I have been interviewed by representatives of the press. I told members of the press that I would immediately get in touch with officers of the department in Sydney, that I would also look into the case myself, and that full inquiries would be made regarding it. I have now received a report from the officers of the department which discloses that the final decision in that matter was made by a war pensions entitlement appeal tribunal, and not by the Repatriation Commission as stated in the newspapers. In this connexion I point out that applications for war pensions and medical benefits, and claims by widows for acceptance of their late husbands’ deaths as due to war service, are first submitted to the Repatriation Board. If an adverse decision is recorded, the claimant has the right of appeal to the Repatriation Commission. In the event of the Repatriation Commission upholding the decision of the State board, the claimant then has the right of appeal to an independent war pensions entitlement appeal tribunal.
– Not so independent.
– I should like to detail these various procedures in regard to a claim for a war pension. The claim is made in the first instance to a repatriation board. That is a body composed of three members, one being a representative of ex-servicemen. Ex-servicemen’s organizations of a federal nature are asked to send in panels of three names, and from those panels one person is chosen to become a member of the Repatriation Board. Of the other two members of the board, one is usually a member of the Repatriation Department, and all three are ex-servicemen. Appeals are made from the Repatriation Board to the Repatriation Commission. The commission is composed of three members, one of whom is appointed from a panel of names submitted by ex-servicemen’s organizations. The other two are the chairman of the commission and the deputy chairman. All those persons are ex-servicemen and, as I pointed out before, one is a representative of ex-servicemen’s organizations.
There is an appeal from the decision of the Repatriation Commission to an independent tribunal. Senator Sandford has suggested that this tribunal is not so independent, but I have been Minister for Repatriation for about six years, and during that time I have never interfered in any way with the entitlement or assessment tribunals except when I first came to office. At that time, I sent a letter to those tribunals expressing my opinion of the meaning of the provisions in the act regarding the onus of proof and the benefit of the doubt. I received information from the tribunals that they were applying in their work the same interpretation as I had expressed as being mine. In 1953, an expression of opinion was given by the Attorney-General’s Department about the way in which that department considered that the Repatriation Act should be implemented. That expression of opinion was sent to the chairmen of the various tribunals, and they again stated that, by and large, they were following the opinions that had been expressed by the AttorneyGeneral.
These tribunals were established in 1929 at the express wish of the returned servicemen’s organizations, and since then they have been working, in the main, very efficiently. There are 582,000 members and dependants who draw pensions and allowances from the Repatriation Department, and when one considers that fact, it is extraordinary that so few cases of all the thousands of cases that have gone through the tribunals, the commission, and the Repatriation Board have given rise to disagreement.
– But they arp not infallible.
– I am not saying they are infallible. I am merely saying that, during the period since I have been Minister for Repatriation, I consider that’ the boards, the commission and the tribunals have done an excellent job. In my opinion, they have conformed to the requirements of the act in regard to the onus of proof and benefit of the doubt. There always will be some cases in which there is a difference of opinion, but I have kept a very close watch on these tribunals, and to my knowledge, since I have been in office, the tribunals have performed their duties properly. When I became Minister for Repatriation there were only two entitlement tribunals and three assessment tribunals. We now have three entitlement tribunals and six assessment tribunals, the additional tribunals having been appointed so that we could keep pace with appeals being made by exservicemen, through the various procedures, to the commission and the tribunals, and so that ex-servicemen would not be kept waiting for an undue period of time before their appeals were heard.
– They are still kept waiting.
– Very few are kept waiting. There are now not nearly somany on the waiting list as there were in 1949, when I came to office.
I shall now continue to deal with the appeal that is before us at the present time. In order that all claimants should be aware of their right of appeal to the tribunals, since I have been Minister for Repatriation, I have issued instructions that when a claimant is notified of an adverse decision by the Repatriation Commission, a form of appeal to the entitlement tribunal should be enclosed with the notification. That method gives everybody an opportunity to appeal. They have only to sign the form, fill it in. and state that they want to appeal.
My examination of the late Mr. Latter’s case discloses that he enlisted on the 19th July, 1940, and after overseas service, was discharged from the forces on the 15th October, 1945. On the 12th October. 1945, he claimed acceptance of dysentery and nerves, and after investigation, the Repatriation Board accepted recurrent diarrhoea, following dysentery, as being attributable to war service, with 10 per cent. pensionable incapacity, but no nervous disability was found. A claim inrespect of dermatitis was later accepted as related to war service. On the 21st November, 1947, the Repatriation Board determined that the member was suffering from no pensionable degree of incapacity, and pension was cancelled as from the 11th December. 1947.
The ex-serviceman was admitted to the Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, on the 1st March, 1948, and after investigation, diagnosis of anxiety state, post-dysenteric irritable colon, and early arthritis, right knee, was made. These conditions were accepted as related to service, with a nil pensionable degree of incapacity. Following further admittance to the Repatriation General Hospital, Greenslopes, on the 9th January, 1952, he was found to he suffering from a condition of lymphoma, with malignant changes, or lymphosarcoma. After careful consideration, the Repatriation Board determined that the condition of lymphoma, with malignant changes, or lymphosarcoma, was not attributable to war service, and the member’s subsequent appeal was disallowed by the Repatriation Commission on the 19th March, 1952.
The member appealed to a war pensions entitlement appeal tribunal against the commission’s determination, and the tribunal, on the 5th August, 1952, disallowed the appeal. The member died at Royal North Shore Hospital, St. Leonards, on the 13th February, 1953, from follicular lymphoma, and the Repatriation Board, on the 25th March, 1953, determined that death was not related to war service. On the 3rd September, 1953, the Repatriation Commission disallowed the widow’s appeal against the board’s determination, and Mrs. Latter then appealed to a war pensions entitlement appeal tribunal. The appeal came before the tribunal in Sydney on the 16th February, 1954, when further evidence in the shape of certificates from Dr. James Isbister and Dr. L. V. Armati were tendered in support of the claim.
In accordance with section 64 (4.) of the Repatriation Act. the tribunal referred the case to the commission and Dr. A. H.
Tebbut, the commission’s consultant in pathology, was requested to express an opinion on the case. After consideration of all available evidence, the commission adhered to its previous determination, and the case was re-transmitted to the tribunal which, on the 16th July, 1954, disallowed the appeal. On the 6th September, 1954, further evidence, consisting of an opinion by Professor Harvey Sutton, was tendered for consideration under section 64 (7.) of the Repatriation Act, and the commission, having regard to Professor Harvey Sutton’s opinion, referred the case to Professor E. S. J. King, Professor of Pathology, University of Melbourne, one of Australia’s leading pathologists.
On receipt of Professor King’s opinion, the commission reconsidered the case under the provisions of section 64 (7.), and on the 25th November, 1954, determined that the evidence of Professor Harvey Sutton had not a substantial bearing on the claim. Mrs. Latter then had the matter referred to a pensions entitlement appeal tribunal, and in view of additional comments by Professor Harvey Sutton, the tribunal referred the case back to the commission for further consideration. A further opinion was requested from Professor King, and he supplied the following: -
The file of the above deceased member has been perused again with special attention to the developments since my last report on the 10th November, 1954. These consist of further opinions which have been given and a copy of the post mortem findings of theRoyal North Shore Hospital. This information does not modify the original opinion given. Not only is it clear from the clinical course and the account of the post mortem examination that the condition was a reticular sarcoma. This diagnosis was also made by the pathologist. The various points which have been raised and which possibly require some comment are -
The relation of that reticular sarcoma to other disturbances of lymphatic nodes ;
The problem of terminology of this condition;
The significance of Hodgkin’s Disease; and
The relation of ulcerative colitis to carcinoma. Reticular sarcoma is a tumour of lymphatic tissue and is often regarded as being related to other tumours of this tissue.
This is in the general pathological sense that different conditions occurring in one tissue are necessarily related to each other, irrespective of their precise nature or their particular aetiology. Whatever opinions may be held in this direction, there is no doubt among pathologists that reticular sarcoma is a characteristic condition and a malignant tumour.
The question of differences in terminology has been raised. At one stage during tho clinical investigation of the patient a diagnosis of follicular lymphoma, that is to say a relatively innocent form of tumour was made, and at another time, Hodgkin’s Disease was suggested. As more information was collected however, the diagnosis was finally made even before death, of lymphoma sarcoma, that is, reticular sarcoma, and this was confirmed at post mortem. There has been no real discrepancy in the terminology used except what would naturally occur during the early clinical phases. A good deal has been made of the difficulties surrounding Hodgkin’s Disease. Although some examples of this condition progress rapidly, and resemble the sarcoma of lymph nodes, it is histologically easily distinguishable and does not really enter into the matter here. Though related to lymphoid tumours in the sense that it occurs in the same kind of tissue as the reticular sarcoma, its features do not provide any clue regarding the aetiology of the tumours. The relation of ulcerative colitis to carcinoma has been raised again. That there is some, though distant, relation is generally agreed, but the important point is that even tumours in different parts of the body are not necessarily closely related, nor do they have the same cause. This particularly applies when tumours are of different kinds and occur in different organs. Any arguments that could be applied to the development of carcinoma of the bowel are completely irrelevant when we are considering a recticu]ar sarcoma of the lymph nodes. Tumours which develop in relation to ulcerative colitis or other disturbances of the bowel develop in the bowel wall. They do not develop in other parts of the body. Various overseas authorities have been quoted. Their work is well known and in the proper context is generally accepted. None of the quotations, however, is in real relation to the problem presented here by this case. Incidentally, these are only a few of the authorities of tumour development, but in the absence of information or statements with a direct bearing on the problem here, do not appear to me to be relevant. In my view, no information has been adduced to justify or even suggest the desirability of a change of opinion. This member died of a malignant tumour of lymph nodes and the development of this condition hart no relation to any illness from which he is recorded to have suffered while on active service.
That is the end of the quotation. I am quoting from one of the most distinguished specialists in Australia.
– Too many specialists and not enough mercy; that is thi trouble.
– When the honorable senator was a member of the Government, tribunals and the department under his direction had to conform with the act, and we must conform with the act to-day.
As a result of my examination of this case, I am satisfied that the onus of proof and benefit of doubt provisions of the Repatriation Act have been faithfully observed by the Repatriation Board, Repatriation Commission and entitlement tribunal. In this connexion, section 47 of the act provides that the commission, a board and a tribunal in hearing, determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case, shall not be bound by technicalities or legal forms or rules of evidence and shall give to the claimant, applicant or appellant the benefit of any doubt. Section 47 further provides that such boards, commission or tribunal determining or deciding a claim shall be entitled to draw, or shall draw from all the circumstances of the case - not from one point - all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant, and in all cases, the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the claim should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed. That is to say, the onus of proof is on the determining authority. It is not on the physician, the medical practitioner or on those who present the evidence, but it is on the determining authority to determine whether it thinks that certain parts of the evidence balance with other parts of the evidence, whether one outweighs the other or there is a doubt. In conclusion, I should like to point out to honorable senators that these appeal tribunals were established at the express wish of soldier organizations, and, in fact, those organizations are represented on the tribunals. Contrary to general belief I, as Minister, have no jurisdiction over the decisions of the tribunals. In the case of Mrs. Latter, the matter cannot be re-opened until further evidence is submitted which is material to, and has a substantial bearing on, the claim.
page 283
– by leave - Mr. President, His Excellency the Governor-General has been pleased to accept the resignation of Senator the Honorable John Armstrong Spicer, Q.C., as Minister for Shipping and Transport, and to appoint Senator the Honorable Shane Dunne Paltridge to administer that portfolio. Senator Paltridge will represent in this chamber the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, the Minister for the Interior and the Minister for Air and the Minister for Civil Aviation. In the House of Representatives, Senator Paltridge will be represented by the Minister for Civil Aviation. On behalf of his colleagues and friends on both sides of this chamber I extend very warm and hearty congratulations to Senator Paltridge. I am sure that we are all confident that he will serve the Parliament and the people of Australia with unqualified and unstinted loyalty, efficiency and energy.
– by leave - On behalf of the Opposition, I extend to Senator Paltridge very hearty congratulations upon the great honour which he has won. It is indeed a great honour to make Cabinet rank in Australia. In the federal sphere, there are only about twenty Cabinet Ministers to be appointed from a population of some 10,000,000 people, and it is a very signal distinction and honour, not only to the man but to his State, when he is able to win his way to that position. I do not disguise the fact that it carries with it a great responsibility, even under the best of conditions. I suggest that the Prime Minister might have had a very clear mental picture of the late Minister for Shipping and Transport when he chose his successor. As I survey the ranks of Government members in this chamber I cannot see any one who could fill the vacant position as well as Senator Paltridge. However, I am sure that he was not chosen merely because of his physical proportions. We know that he has brought industry, thought and a capacity for hard work to his efforts in this Parliament and, I am happy to say, he has done that in an objective way that has been quite refreshing. I can assure him, Mr. President, that we on this side will watch his progress with sympathetic interest. I had better warn him that we members of the Opposition will gauge the measure of his success by the extent to which he is able to modify, and in some cases reverse, policies of the Government. That is the standard that we. shall apply to him. But, all banter aside, I do very sincerely and seriously congratulate him. We wish him well in the administration of his two very important and arduous portfolios. We shall now be interested to discover on whose shoulders, on. the other side of the chamber, the mantle of chief strangler of debate will fall in the future. I say to the new Minister, through you, Mr. President, that we shall not expect him to know to-day all the answers to questions about the activities of his departments. We shall be prepared to give him a breathing space. I am very pleased, however, that the Leader of the Government has thrown him into the ring now and made him available for assault by the Opposition.
– by leave - I assure honorable senators that I have derived great pleasure from the knowledge that my appointment to the Cabinet has been, so far as I can gauge, well received. I trust that I shall fulfil my tasks of office with efficiency and dignity. If I do not do so, it will not be for want of trying.
– We shall quickly tell you if you do not.
– I have no doubt about that. After 24 hours in office, I am just beginning to appreciate the magnitude of the work that was performed as Minister for Shipping and Transport by Senator George McLeay. I trust that I shall be able to bring to the office the same measure of goodwill and broad common sense that he always applied to the administration of the department. Mention has been made of the fact that I am physically qualified to succeed Senator McLeay. I hope that I shall meet the requirements, of the Government and the Senate in other ways also. I thank honorable senators for their expressions of goodwill, and assure them that I shall do my best. I do not expect that honorable senators will get favorable answers to all the representations they make to me, but I shall do the best I can for them in the circumstances.
page 284
– I congratulate the Minister for Shipping and Transport upon his appointment to the Cabinet, and wish to ask him whether he will continue the’ good work of his predecessor, Senator George McLeay, in connexion with Tasmanian shipping services. Will the Minister visit Tasmania, particularly the north-west coast, as early as possible to acquaint himself with Tasmania’s shipping problems?
– I assure Senator Cole that I propose to visit Tasmania as soon as possible. I realize the particular problem that arises in connexion with shipping services to and from Tasmania, and I shall do my best to make myself familiar with Tasmania’s problems as early as possible.
page 284
– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport inform the Senate whether discussions with the Government of Western Australia have reached a stage that will permit a firm submission to be made for the construction of a standard-gauge railway between Kalgoorlie and Fremantle? What is the estimated cost of the construction of that railroad ?
– Discussions Have taken place between the commissioners of the Commonwealth Railways and the Western Australian railways, and information has been supplied as a basis for further discussions, but finality has not been reached. The estimated cost of the new line from Fremantle to Kalgoorlie & £22,000,000. Rolling-stock is estimated to cost £5,000,000, and depots, station yards, &c, £10,000,000, making the total cost of the project £37,000,000.
page 284
– On the 7th September Senator Critchley asked for information in regard to an extract from a letter an ex-serviceman had received from the Repatriation Department in a certain State. The extract read -
Following a recent amendment to repatriation regulations, your entitlement for the provision of surgical footwear (including repair and replacement) has been suspended.
When replying to the honorable senator on that day I was under the impression that the letter referred to a recent decision that there was no authority under the repatriation regulations to provide specially constructed surgical footwear, or surgical aids, for recreational purposes. I have since had inquiries made, and I now find that the type of case referred to in the letter mentioned by the honorable senator is one where an ex-serviceman has lost a leg due to war service, and requires surgical footwear for normal wear in respect of a disability of the remaining foot, and such disability has not been determined to be due to war service. In such a case, provided medical opinion is that surgical footwear for the disability not determined to be due to war service is necessary as part treatment for the disability due to war service, in the case under review amputation of a leg, surgical footwear is provided at departmental expense. ‘ My inquiries revealed that several ex-service personnel received similar communications from the Repatriation Department in the State concerned and, as some misunderstanding had occurred in that State in regard to these types of cases, I arranged for each case to be carefully reviewed. As a result, surgical footwear will continue to be provided at departmental expense, and the ex-service personnel concerned have been advised accordingly. I add that the form of advice forwarded to these members, and as quoted by the honorable senator was incorrect, as there has not been any amendment of the relevant, repatriation regulations.
page 284
– Has the Minister for Shipping and Transport yet received the plans of the English ferry boat Lord
Warden from the Chief Secretary of Tasmania? If so, can he say whether it is a fact that the draught of the vessel is only 12 feet, and is he aware that such a shallow draught presents a great danger when the vessel is passing through the “ rip “ at Port Phillip Heads? Is it not a fact that if such a vessel were used in the Bass Strait ferry service, it would have to be based on Westernport, or some similar port?
– I have not yet received from the Tasmanian Minister plans and specifications of the vessel referred to by the honorable senator, but I shall be pleased to examine them when they come to hand. In honesty, I should inform the honorable senator that I am not aware that a vessel of 12-feet draught presents great danger when passing through the “ rip “.
page 285
– I preface a question to the Minister for National Development by stating that the conditions associated with the marketing of Australian primary products abroad may become worse, and that, in such circumstances, it may be necessary to exploit further Australia’s mineral resources. I, therefore, ask the Minister whether his department has been requested to undertake a survey of some of the mineral resources of Queensland. If so, can he say at this stage what progress has been made with the survey?
– The honorable senator is doubtless aware that, primarily, the survey and exploration of mining areas rests with the States, rather than with the Commonwealth. However, in Queensland, and indeed in the other Stales “.s well, the Bureau of Mineral Resources, which is within my department, ‘has done some work. It included a detailed geological survey of the Clon.carryMount Isa area. That survey proved to be particularly useful in connexion with the uranium deposits exploration and survey at Mount Isa. That original geological survey is now being reduced to maps and reports which should soon become available. The next area to be surveyed is the Forsayth-Georgetown district. That work is to be done by field surveys. The preliminary work has been completed. That work also has been based upon the original work carried out in the Cloncurry-Mount Isa area. We have an Auster aircraft, which is a smaller aircraft than the Douglas and Dakota aircraft used in the Herberton and Chillagoe area. The Auster flies at lower altitudes than the other machines, and is used for the more detailed surveys, and for the checking of anomalies found during the first airborne exploration. The other work that the Bureau of Mineral Resources is carrying out in Queensland is a testing of coal deposits at Nebo, to try to settle a question that has often been the subject of discussion and argument, namely, whether the deposits of coal at Nebo are suitable for coking purposes. That is a reasonable outline of the work that the Bureau of Mineral Resources is doing in Queensland at the present time, at the request of the Mines Department of that State.
page 285
– Can the Minister for National Development say whether the Government, or the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, is making arrangements to divert a reasonable amount of the power now being developed by the authority for the development of the Mumimbidgee and Murray Valley areas, or will it all be transmitted to the City of Sydney, to increase the size of the already top.heavy octopus which is sucking the life out of New South Wales?
– The basis of the arrangement with the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority is that power, as it is developed, is sold to State governments. Those governments purchase the power from the authority, and it then rests with the State governments to decide in which areas the power shall be used.
– In other words, the gun is given to the bushranger
– It is not for the Commonwealth Government to say that the power shall be used in this or that, area. The only specific area in which the Commonwealth Government has clearly defined rights is the Snowy Mountains area itself, and, of course, the Australian Capital Territory. An agreement in principle has been reached, and it is now left to departmental officers to prepare the actual documents to give effect to it. A draft document has been in the hands of the two State governments concerned for seven or eight weeks. I do not care how soon those governments deal with it so that finality can be reached in this matter.
page 286
– Has the attention of the Minister for Trade and Customs been directed to the fact that licences granted to television companies for dollar and sterling imports of films for telecasting are dated for the year ending the 31st March next? Is he not aware that these companies do not expect to start their television services before November, 1956, at the earliest? Does that mean that additional licences will be issued to the companies next March so that when they start operations they will work on a two-year licence period for a little more than six months’ telecasting? Will this matter be given further consideration in view of the representations made by trades unions in the entertainments industry for a guarantee of employment for Australian artists, musicians and technicians?
– I am not aware of the precise details involved in the honorable senator’s question, but I know that the quotas were fixed after a full and complete discussion between the parties interested and the responsible officers of the Department of Trade and Customs. I know also that those who are proposing to engage in telecasting have in mind using, as far as possible, Australian talent for the purpose of providing local programmes. I understand that programmes imported from the United Kingdom or the United States of America are very expensive, and I have been assured that the fullest possible use will be made of Australian talent in the provision of local programmes.
page 286
– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that a private trading bank is embarking on a vigorous policy of opening savings bank branches throughout the Commonwealth? In view of the dependence of local government authorities on loans from savings banks, will the Minister assure the Senate that all savings bank deposits received under this new venture of the private bank will not be diverted for trading purposes at high interest rates, and so jeopardize the traditional source of finance for local government bodies? Have private banks constitutional power under their charters to operate savings banks ?
– I do not know whether private banks have constitutional power to operate savings banks, but I certainly hope they have, and I certainly wish this venture good luck in the future. A little competition in savings bank activities will be a good thing for us all. As I understand the terms of the Banking Act, the bank concerned will have to make application to the Treasurer for consent to operate in the way it contemplates, but I do not know whether that application has been made. It would be a matter for my colleague, the Treasurer, to give a formal answer to the honorable senator’s question, and I should be surprised if there will be let or hindrance to this venture on the part of the Government. I should also be surprised if the Government did not encourage the new venture.
page 286
– In addressing this question to the Minister for Shipping and Transport, I congratulate him upon his appointment to his present high office. Is the Minister aware of the necessity to develop the trade of outports in Western Australia in order to reduce the cost to the consumers in outback areas of goods from the eastern States? Is he also aware that for many years before World War II. regular weekly calls were made at Albany by passenger and cargo vessels, which resulted in an increasing tourist trade to the port, and assisted primary producers in the area? In view of the fact that the visits of regular passenger vessels have been discontinued altogether, and that those of cargo vessels are few and far between, will the Minister confer with the associated shipowners of Australia with a view to having these essential services restored, particularly during the summer months?
– I assure the honorable senator that I am aware of the matters mentioned by her, and of the difficulties that exist in connexion with them. I propose to consider this problem as soon as possible, and I shall advise the honorable senator of the results of my investigations.
page 287
– Will the Minister for Shipping and Transport, during his projected visit to Tasmania, discuss with representative citizens of that State the design of the proposed new passenger vessel to operate between Melbourne and northern Tasmanian ports, particularly with regard to facilities for vehicles to be driven on and off the vessel, cabin accommodation for passengers and refrigeration facilities for perishable cargoes?
– I shall consider the interesting proposal of the honorable senator, and perhaps discuss it with him before I visit Tasmania.
page 287
– On the 7th September, Senator Amour asked a question concerning an alteration, by Sydney commercial broadcasting stations, of the times of broadcasts and commentaries concerning horse races. I have now received the following reply from the PostmasterGeneral : -
Early this year certain commercial broadeasting stations in and near Sydney decided to discontinue, after 11 a.m., the broadcasting of selections and discussions on the prospects of horses on race days. No other alterations to race broadcasts were involved. It is understood that the decision was taken following conferences between representatives of major racing clubs and commercial broadcasting stations and that the objective was to boost falling race attendances and combat illegal betting. No direction in the matter was issued by myself or the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Australian Broadcasting Commission and licensees of commercial broadcasting stations are free to make any programme adjustment or change in programme content which they consider desirable.
page 287
– I preface a question’ to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply by saying how pleased I was, on attending the opening of the Australian Aluminium Production Commission’s works at Bell Bay last Friday, to see that wonderful project coming into production-
– Order! The honorable senator must ask his question.
– In view of the fact that the Bell Bay project has commenced production, and that the demand for aluminium in this country is at present 20,000 tons a year, with the prospect of it rising considerably as our population increases, will the Minister inform me whether consideration has been given to increasing the potential output of the Bell Bay plant? As the Minister is no doubt aware, the capacity of the plant is only 6,000 tons for the present year, with an ultimate limit of 13,000 tons. Since the output of hydro-electric power in Tasmania will be doubled by the Tasmanian Hydro-electric Commission within the next five years, could plans be made now to double the present maximum potential output of the Bell Bay aluminium project ?
– I am sure that if the capacity of the Bell Bay plant needs to be increased, the Government will contemplate such a step. I shall bring the honorable senator’s question to the notice of my colleague, the Minister for Supply, and let him have a considered answer.
– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Supply say whether it is a fact that the plant at the aluminium project at Bell Bay is capable of producing 13,000 tons of aluminium ingots per annum? Is it. also a fact that, in the first year, it will produce only about 6,000 tons and in the second year, 9,000 tons, and that it will be three years before 13,000 tons per annum is produced, owing to the fact that insufficient power is available from the present Tasmanian
Government’s supply? What amount of power will be needed annually to produce 26,000 tons of aluminium ingots if the present plant is doubled, and what prospect is there of obtaining such power?1 Is this lack of power supply forcing the Australian Government to investigate the possibility of erecting another aluminium production plant in New Guinea, in preference to doubling the plant at Bell Bay?
– I cannot give an immediate answer to the honorable senator, but I shall bring his question to the notice of the Minister for Supply, and J am quite sure that he will be able to give a considered answer.
page 288
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice -
Has the Minister received a special report on three properties at Mawbanna, Tasmania, which will enable kim to review contracts made with the three soldier settlers concerned?
– The Minister for the Interior has furnished the following reply: -
Last July the. Parliamentary UnderSecretary to the Minister for the Interior, accompanied by the Commonwealth Director of War Service Land Settlement, inspected Mawbanna estate. Settlers were met on their farms and at a combined meeting. Generally speaking, farms are developing satisfactorily and settlers are confident of success. Three settlers considered their farms needed further developmental work. It was arranged for their claims to be investigated by Agricultural Bank officers who would report on their findings. Recent inquiries confirm that the properties have been visited and the officers are awaiting information promised by the settlers in order to complete their reports and recommendations. As a point of interest on this estate, a recent investigation by veterinary officers has shown stock generally to be suffering from cobalt deficiency. All properties are, therefore, being top-dressed with cobalt superphosphate, the extra cost of which will Tie written off.
page 288
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -
– The following answers have been provided by the Minister for Labour and National Service : - 1 and 2. The recent biennial All-Australian Trade Union Congress adopted certain “ principles” which, if implemented, would involve considerable changes in the form of oi:r arbitration system. Broadly there would be a panel of arbitrators and a panel of conciliation commissioners. The latter would seek to settle disputes by conciliation, failing which one of the arbitrators would arbitrate. Claims relating to the basic wage, standard hours, female basie wage and long-service leave would be dealt with by three of the arbitrators. The Minister understands that the president of the Australian Council of Trades Unions will shortly be seeking an opportunity to place before him the views of congress. The Government has the working of the arbitration system continuously under review. The outcome of the challenge in the High Court to the sanctions provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act has some relevance to this.
page 288
Debate resumed from the 20th September (vide page 192), on motion by Senator COOPER -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Senator McKENNA (TasmaniaLeader of the Opposition) [4. fi “I. - The purpose of the measure now before the Senate is to amend the Repatriation Act. I congratulate the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) upon the fact that he has been able to introduce this bill and permit original debate to take place on it. The bill does two things: It. provides additional benefits for those who are in the category of ex-servicemen and their dependants, and it imports a number of drafting changes which are improvements, but to which no particular significance is attached.
Before I embark upon a consideration of the contents of the bill I shall make some general observations upon the principles which should be observed in determining repatriation pensions and benefits, and also comment on the background of the vast expenditure that takes place in that area. The nation and the Parliament believe that they owe a special duty to those who interposed their bodies, or were willing to do so, between the enemy and ourselves and our country. Their sacrifice has earned special consideration from the generation in existence at the time the sacrifice was made, and imposes an obligation that extends down the decades to succeeding generations. Without the intervention of ex-service personnel, we might not be here to enjoy our present existence. It must be conceded, however, that when an attempt is made to give monetary compensation to people for disabilities arising from war service, the matter should not be overdone to the detriment of both the individual and the nation. By that I mean that it would not be wise to give to a person suffering disabilities that impair his opportunities to enjoy life such a pension as would induce him not to work when he is still capable of working and making a useful contribution to the life of the community. It would better promote his psychological adjustment and the welfare of the community to have the benefit of his production. That is always a conditioning factor; but, having regard to those considerations, pensions, whether for exservice personnel or their dependants, should be adequate. They ought to be more than tinged with generosity; they should really be permeated with it, and every rightthinking person in the community would wish the Parliament to see to it that that is the case.
I should like to place in perspective the £47,500,000 which the Minister said would be spent on war pensions this year. That sum does not include benefits, but is confined to pensions alone. Item No. 11 of the annexure to the Treasurer’s speech shows that this year £120,710,000 will be spent on war and repatriation services. The £47,590,000 for war pensions is but one item.. Interest and sinking fund payments are estimated to be £56,891,000. That figure represents mainly interest payments on loans raised to fight wars and the repayment of the principal. Th, other major item is repatriation benefits, £11,551,000. In all, arising out of two world wars, paying off debts, paying interest on the balance outstanding and looking after the ex-servicemen and their dependants who have suffered disabilities in those wars, there is the colossal continuing burden of more than £120,000,000 per annum. Simultaneously, the Government has been spending, or purporting to spend in recent years, £200,000,000 per annum on defence. This year. £190,000,000 is scheduled to be spent under that head. In other words, Australia is incurring that expenditure because of the threat of war and the need to be prepared for it.
One might throw in many other items if one were to scan the budget particularly, because the expenditure on an activity like the security service of Australia is but one more contribution to defence under the threat of war which, unfortunately, is ever present. A cursory examination reveals that this year £310,000,000 will be spent on the aftermath of war, and preparation for the next one. Having regard to the fact that this year Australia is to spend £1,114,000,000 in all under the authority of this Federal Parliament, it follows that war is causing more than one-fourth of the total expenditure of the Commonwealth. I cannot approach this very important subject without deploring man’s stupidity in allowing war to impose such a burden upon the people, thus preventing the attainment of higher living standards. These considerations emphasize how important it is that peace throughout the world should be assured, and that all peoples should work hard for it through various organizations, and especially the United Nations organization.
I come now to one more matter involving statistics - the number of war pensioners in Australia. According to appendix 4 to the latest report available from the Repatriation Commission, at the 30th June, 1954, there were 563,666 war pensioners. I should imagine that the greater proportion of that number would be the dependants of ex-service personnel. The Minister, in answering a question to-day, intimated that, at the 30th June, last, the figure had risen to 582,000. In a population of approximately 10,000,000, that is a large number to have a claim upon the responsibility and generosity of the Parliament and the nation. “When one has regard to the fact that dependants are being endowed, one must acknowledge, incidentally, that a wife and children have also had their opportunities curtailed, and their capacity for enjoyment impaired, by the fact that a parent, either mother or father, who is the ex-service person, constitutes some kind of burden because of a war-caused disability. It is right that the burden placed upon wives and dependants should be compensated for per medium of war pensions. Reading the second-reading speech of the Minister, I was surprised to find one argument that he developed in the course of which he sought to compare what had been done by a previous administration in 1949 with what his own Government has done in the interim. I found, too, that he brought child endowment payments to his aid in making the comparison. It reminded me of an expression that the French have, “ Qui s’ excuse, s ‘accuse “ - “ He who excuses himself accuses himself “.
It is rather interesting to see the Minister on this occasion anticipating arguments from this side by urging that there should be greater and more substantial payments and that there should be more generosity in them. I should have thought rather that the Minister when introducing this bill would have stated the fundamental principles and then confined himself to an explanation of particular provisions of the measure. But the Minister has certainly embarked upon a dissertation which, frankly, I think, is political and which I think, is also futile, because if a comparison between the generosity of this Government and the generosity, or the lack of it, of another government is established, how much further does that take us ? The fact may be established, but that is not the problem before the Senate to-day. The whole question is: What is needed and what can we, with due generosity, give to these people to whom we are so deeply indebted ? An argument of the type indicated by the Minister does not advance us in our approach to that particular problem. Now that he has raised it, of course it is inevitable that it will be dealt with by honorable senators on this side. I merely say that I think the Minister has very unwisely chosen a particular basis of comparison. He selected the date September, 1949, just before the previous Administration went out of office, and compared the position of pensioners then with what their position will be under this bill. I ask, first of all, why he chooses September, 1949. Might he not with greater propriety have chosen October, 1948, which was the last date on which the government of the day had addressed its mind to the question of the quantum of war pensions ? That Government determined the amount in the light of facts as at October, 1948. Why should the Minister pick a date twelve months later and three months before that Administration went out of office? I merely point out that it is an arbitrary choice made because it can be used more advantageously by the present Administration than if he had chosen October, 194S.
Then he made a comparison of the cost-of-living adjustments as set out in the C series index for the six capital cities of Australia. Again I say he has chosen unwisely because that particular regimen is limited. It has been repudiated by the trade union movement over a very considerable period and has been completely rejected as a true measure of rising living costs over the whole field by everybody with practical experience in running a home or keeping a family. He has chosen the wrong measuring-stick. If we must embark upon a comparison, surely the figure that should be taken as a basis is the basic wage itself. It is well understood in Australia that the basic wage is the amount paid to an unmarried, unskilled worker to enable him, if he wishes, to keep himself, a wife and at least one child in a frugal way without any extravagance.
– No, I meant to say that. It is one thing to say that the basic wage is paid to a family man; but it goes further than that because it is paid to the unmarried man as well. The unmarried man gets the basic wage. I meant to indicate that it would enable him, if lie wished, according to his outlook in the matter, to provide for a wife and one child. So, my first point is correct, that the basic wage is paid to the individual; and he may be unmarried. From that I address this argument: Thinking particularly of the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman, surely it is not too much to pay at least that figure to an ex-serviceman who is disabled, totally and permanently. Can there be any real argument against the proposition, that the man who is denied all opportunities through being totally and permanently incapacitated should receive a basic pension not less than that paid to the lowest unskilled worker in the country? Surely, that is a better and a proper test. And it is no answer to me to be met with the debating point in relation to that, that the present basic wage includes a special prosperity loading of £l 7s., because, instantly, I can reply that that is the norm, the standard set in this community, no matter how it is done. In dealing with those who are totally and permanently incapacitated in the service of their country in war, surely that standard should be the minimum to be applied. I suggest that if that were done it would not indicate any degree of generosity, but would be bare justice.
I shall comment upon the other provisions in this bill presently. I say that whilst the increases mentioned by the Minister, and set out in the bill, are substantial - I do not attempt to deny that - they are inadequate, unimaginative and lacking in generosity. I exempt from that what has been done in relation to the cancellation of ceiling limits imposed in 1948 where the Commonwealth was paying two pensions to the one person, a war pension and a civil or service pension. A ceiling amount less than the total of the two pensions was determined so that the Commonwealth would not be paying to the one person two pensions in respect of similar disabilities or the one disability. That ceiling has been completely removed. That will enable many war pensioners to qualify for the proposed increase who otherwise would not be given any increase. The Opposition applauds the action of the Government in granting that relief.
Now, let me deal with totally and permanently incapacitated persons. As the Senate well knows, they are provided for under schedule 2 and include the blind, the blind and deaf and those suffering from cerebro-spinal difficulties and others whose defects are such that they could not earn any more than an absolutely negligible amount of income. Then there is a second class covered in both the fourth and fifth schedules and, by and large, they receive a similar amount to that awarded to the totally and permanently incapacitated. They are amputees for the most part, people suffering grievous disabilities; and probably the great bulk of them receive 100 per cent, of the general rate under the fourth schedule plus a special amount under the fifth schedule which brings them up to the total paid to the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner plus, in certain restricted cases, an attendant’s allowance. The amount that is paid or has been paid up to date is £9 5s., and pursuant to this bill it will be increased to £9 15s., plus an attendant’s allowance which, in turn, will be increased. I shall deal with that later. I do not want it to be thought that I am overlooking that matter. I think that we must look solely at the basic figure of £9 15s. which will be granted, following the increase of 10s. a. week. The Opposition contends that that amount is inadequate. As I have told the Senate previously, that figure is less than the basic wage. The basic wage to-day, which has been pegged since September, 1953, is £11 16s. If the cost-of-living adjustments had been continued, the basic wage would now be £12 5s. I should like the Minister to tell me, in due course, why £9 5s. a week is regarded as adequate payment for a person who is totally and permanently incapacitated.
Let me remind the Senate of some of those persons who are so affected. Schedule 5 of the bill refers to people with two arms amputated, with two legs and one arm amputated, two legs amputated above the knee, two legs amputated and one eye lost - really serious mutilations of the body. Of course, there are other cases of persons who are totally and permanently incapacitated because of various diseases. Why should a person who is suffering what I might call the height of total inactivity, who has lost all the normal pleasures of living in a community like ours, be considered as adequately treated when granted less than the basic wage?
– The honorable senator is always assuming that the person to whom he refers is single.
– I do not assume that he is single. I recognize that there is an allowance for a wife, of £1 15s. 6d., but that figure should not be taken into account when considering the man’s disability, because the wife gets a pension in her own right. It is paid to her, and not to the man, in order to compensate her for all the losses she suffers in the multifarious activities of life, flowing from the fact that she is married to a man suffering from a serious disability. It is her own disability in the eyes of the nation, and when determining what is fair for the man it is quite wrong and improper to take into account, as the Minister has done, what the wife is receiving in her own right for her own handicap and disability suffered because of what has happened to her husband. That argument applies equally to the allowance for children. The amount paid to a child is a grant to the child itself. That is why I join issue with the Minister when he throws in for comparison the wife’s allowance and the payment to the child in determining whether the amount that the man receives is a fair thing.
I remind the honorable senator who interjected of the plight of a totally and permanently incapacitated soldier who, though once married, is now a widower. He receives £9 15s. a week plus, up to date, in many cases, an attendant’s allowance of only fi 15s. I have before me a letter from one man, which indicates that he is suffering from about five complaints, including deafness, nerves and cerebro-spinal trouble. He is completely immobilized. He has a home, but every single service that he wants performed has to be done for him. He cannot get out of bed. He has no wife and no family, butlip has a house, and all the necessary chores have to be done, such as caring for his garden. Up to date he has received fi 15s. attendant’s allowance. That will be increased to £2 15s., which is a substantial increase on normal standards, but it is still completely inadequate for such a case as that.
I do not accept the argument that in considering what should be paid to these men regard should be had to the wife’s allowance, to the child’s allowance, and certainly not to the child endowment. The child endowment is an element that the Minister has introduced into his calculations, but that is a payment common to everybody in Australia, and it should not be used by the Minister to make weight in what, after all, is a political and a futile argument about who has done the right thing and the best thing.
It is interesting to consider the position of the totally and permanently incapacitated person in relation to the basic wage. I have made a check of the figures, and I have found that in October, 1948, when the pension rate was last fixed by the prior administration, the totally and permanently incapacitated soldier received £5 6s. a week when the basic wage was £5 16s. That payment represented 91 per cent, of the basic wage at the time. The amount that will be paid under the provisions of this bill bc £9 15s., the basic wage being £11 16s. If I accept that basic wage figure at present, the payment of £9 15s. represents only 82 per cent, of the current basic wage. It is no answer to me to say that the basic wage includes prosperity loadings, because, as I said previously, that is something which is shared by the whole community, and should be shared equally by these exservice personnel. It is a community benefit. On that basis of comparison the ratio of the pension to the basic wage has dropped from 91 per cent, to 82 per cent. If I make the true comparison, £9 15s. as against £12 5s., which the basic wage would be at present if it were not pegged, the payment to the ex-servicemen represents only 79 per cent, of the basie wage. That shows a further drop of 3 per cent., making a total fall of 12 per cent, in the ratio of pension to basic wage. I am not suggesting what the exact amount paid to these men should be, but I have developed the argument, and I emphasize, that it should not be less than the amount payable to the lowest-paid unskilled worker in Australia. The truth of the matter is that there is scarcely a worker in Australia to-day who is receiving the basic wage. There are margins for skill, margins for dirt, and all kinds of incidentals, so that it would be hard to find an adult Australian worker who is receiving only the basic wage. But the ex-serviceman, totally and permanently incapacitated in the service of his country, who is in the plight that I indicated a while ago, receives far less than the basic wage worker gets.
I claim no particular merit in that argument. I am sorry that the Minister embarked upon it. He has forced a discussion on it, of course, and more will be heard about it from this side. But if the Minister wants a comparison of that nature, let him make a fair one. Let him not include the amount that a wife is entitled to in her own right, or the amount that a child is entitled to in his or her own right, and let him completely forget about child endowment, which is a benefit common to every one.
The case for the totally and permanently incapacitated soldier has been very well put by the Commonwealth association of those people, in a document which, I understand, has been circulated to everybody in the Parliament. I do not propose at present to do more than formally direct attention to it. It is a document in printed form which was sent out in 1’ebruary of this year, entitled, “ The Case for the Special Kate Pensioner “. It puts a very powerful and convincing case, and any honorable senator who has not read it should do so in order to gain a proper appreciation of the position. The Australian Labour party had a mind on this matter when it last wooed the electors. The policy speech in April, 1954, indicated that there should be paid to the totally and permanently incapacitated soldier an amount of £12 10s. a week as basic pension. I mention that to give’ an indication of the direction in which Labour thought is moving. I do not say that that should be the figure now. If the prosperity that is causing so much embarrassment at present ends up in what some people and some Ministers in this country fear - a depression - and costs have to be cut to enable Australia to compete again in world markets, then I would not be prepared a t this stage to commit my party to that figure.
– Who said there would be a depression?
– I understand that the Minister for the Interior (Mr. Kent Hughes) indicated that he feared a depression, and that he said conditions were the same as they were before the last depression. His statements have been interpreted by the press as forecasting a crisis.
– That is different.
– A number of people in the Australian community fear it. It is a pity that there is so much double talk by this Government about prosperity. That sort of propaganda is the cause of real irritation to the man in the street, who lives with reality and knows that Australia is in an embarrassing situation economically. He knows how hard it is to sell our goods abroad, and fears the results of import and credit restrictions. Why does not the Government say, “ We are in difficulty.” ? Why does it not admit that the current conditions exist, and state that something must be done about it instead of indulging in double talk about so-called prosperity, which it claims to be so overwhelming that something has to be done to curb it. That sort of talk makes the pensioners bitter because they, more than anybody else, have felt the fierce blast of inflation which this Government has allowed to run freely ever since it took office. Inflation is not a recent development. Those on fixed incomes have to suffer hardship. In particular, the war pensioners in the totally and permanently incapacitated class, most of whom cannot earn anything at all, have suffered most from the inflation that has run in the past six years. For that reason, the Opposition believes that the provision in this bill to increase the rate of the totally and permanently incapacitated pension by 10s. a week, is inadequate and lacking in generosity. The Government, proposes to increase the general rate of pension from £4 10s. to £4 15s. a week. Labour party thinking a year ago wa* that the’ rate should be £5 a week at that time. In consonance with the general line of thought of the Opposition, we feel that, the Government’s proposal is inadequate.
– What did the Australian Labour party think about this matter six years ago ?
– We were able to think far more clearly then because the £1 at that time really had some value. There was a balanced economy which was praised throughout the world and acclaimed as the national economy that had kept the utmost stability. It was a world in which people were not worried and fearful of the future as they are to-day.
– Not much !
– It was a sane world, and there are many people in Australia who would be happy to go back to the relative peace and stability of those days.
– And the coal strikes ?
– The coal strike was an isolated incident. I have made some reference to the attendant’s allowance. It was £1 los. a week in some cases and, in serious cases, £3 10s. a week. I recognize that among the categories of amputees under the fifth schedule there are people who are able to work. They have surmounted their difficulties and have been helped in that regard, but I am referring, in particular, to those who are immobilized. I mentioned that sort of case earlier in my speech. The proposed provision of £2 15s. a week in one case, or £4 10s. in another, is still completely inadequate. Where, in this period of relatively full employment and labour shortages, is a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner, particularly a widower living alone, going to get permanent help needed from day to day at the rate of £4 10s.? Where can he get any help for seven days a week -for £4 10s., Applying the principle to the worst cases, and they should be the first to be considered, I need not argue that £4 10s. a week is inadequate, just as £2 15s. a week is inadequate in other cases.
I submit strongly to the Government that not many persons are involved in the payment of the attendant’s allowance. It is a field where the Government could afford to be generous. Appendix 5 of the last report of the Repatriation Commission shows that in the fifth schedule, there were only 48 amputees getting attendant’s allowance. In the general field of totally incapacitated pensioners, there were 920. Therefore, the total number of persons obtaining attendant’s allowance at June, 1954, was only 968 and I should imagine that their numbers would total to-day about 1,000. No great sum is involved in generous payments in that field. Honorable senators on the Opposition side suggest that the Government might well review that provision.
– An amount of £52,000 is involved in every increase of £1.
– I agree that every £1 rise would involve a total of approximately £50,000, but I put it to the Government and its supporters that that is a relatively insignificant amount having regard to the increases granted Under this budget, which are at the rate of £1,750,000 for the balance of this year and £2,400,000 for an average full year. The amount to which I have referred is insignificant in the overall picture, but it could make a vital difference in the field of human activity where the need is really great and the loss of the individual is severe.
There are certain omissions from the bill to which I direct attention. No provision has been made for increases of pensions for wives. Nothing has been done for the widowed mothers. In each case, I exempt what they might get from dual pensions as a result of the repeal of section 91 (a). There has been no change in part of the fifth schedule for many years. The persons concerned have been suffering disabilities of one kind or another but their pensions have been left static for a long period. I refer to amputees with one amputation above the knee and one below the knee, two legs amputated below the knee, one arm amputated and one eye destroyed, one leg amputated above the knee, one leg amputated below the knee, one arm amputated above the elbow, one arm amputated below the elbow, and loss of vision in one eye. The additional benefit in the lastmentioned case goes down as low as £1 6s. a week, and has remained at that rate for a number of years. I believe that the Government might well consider those cases in the fifth schedule. I shall not be satisfied with any answer that those men all get some percentage of pension under the fourth schedule, and that they will be participating in some rise under that heading. The special amount that is added there might well be revised upwards.
Honorable senators on the Opposition side strongly believe that the amounts proposed are inadequate. We feel so strongly on this matter that I propose to move that the bill be redrafted, in the light of the fallen purchasing power of money, to provide substantially greater benefits for the beneficiaries, and to grant them from the 1st July. I intimate now that in committee I shall move certain amendments. One of them will be directed to ensuring that when a child pensioner reaches the age of sixteen years, and is unable to work, the provision of a pension by the Repatriation Commission for that child shall be mandatory, and not permissive. At present, there is a discretion in the commission to continue or discontinue the pension. I shall move that the pension be made mandatory.
We on this side also feel that where an ex-serviceman has been discharged as medically unfit, but not due to his own misconduct, that discharge should lead to automatic entitlement to a pension. By that I do not mean necessarily that he shall then be paid a pension, because there will still remain the assessment of the quantum of pension that should be paid to him. But, surely, if an individual in the community enters the armed forces, and is discharged as unfit for service, not through any misconduct on his part, that is what the lawyers call res ipsa loquitur - the thing speaks for itself. There is clear proof of disability. In committee, I shall propose that a discharge of that nature shall afford automatic entitlement to a pension.
Another proposal that I shall make will be in relation to the onus of proof. Every honorable senator knows that that has been a contentious issue in recent years. There is the strongest feeling among members of the Opposition that the provisions of section 47 of the act are not being observed. I say that the Minister must accept, as I am sure he does, a high degree of responsibility for whatever happens. That section of the act provides that, whilst the administration is vested in the Repatriation Commission, it is all subject to the control of the Minister.
– Excepting decisions of tribunals.
– I am speaking of the commission. The right to appeal to a tribunal is not invoked until the board and the commission have addressed themselves to the task, and have sought to apply the provisions of section 47. At that point, I think that the Minister should have exercised his rights; and he may be able to tell us that he has done so. The fact remains that in our party room we hear of case after case - desperate cases, and prima facie clear cases - where a pension ought to have been granted, and where entitlement obviously is justified. These cases come before us with such frequency that we cannot but be impressed with their force. Even listening to the Minister to-day, when he referred to a case which was cited in the newspaper, we heard a lot of Latin words such as lymphoma and reticular carcinoma. Latin words, long words, and confusing words that ordinary people cannot understand, are used to daze them and halt them. Let us look at that particular case. I know nothing of it beyond what I heard in this chamber to-day. We gather that there were irritations over one part of the man’s body for many years, and that the man subsequently died of cancer in that area. There are grounds for concluding that the irritation caused the cancer.
– It was not a cancer, but a tumour.
– The difference between a cancer and a tumour is a technical difference. It is immaterial whether the irritation caused a tumour or a cancer. The outstanding fact is that the man died of a tumour, or a cancer, following a prolonged irritation in that part of his body. I am prepared to say that, apart from a tribunal, or the Repatriation Commission, or the Minister, ordinary Australians will say that the tumour was attributable to the initial trouble. Further, when we reflect that the act says that the applicant in such cases is to be given the benefit of any doubt, and also that the onus of knocking the claim back is completely upon the commission, we wonder how,, in such cases, any one can say that that onus has been discharged. When there is medical evidence both for and against, clearly there is at least a doubt. If some medicos say one thing, and other medicos say something else, does that resolve the matter? Surely, there must be doubt when there is a difference of opinion among medical men. The case cited in the Senate this afternoon is the very kind of case that is contemplated by section 47. In such a case the board, the commission, and the tribunals, should fall down on the side of the applicant once there is doubt and conflict between responsible medicos. There is a feeling abroad that the Repatriation Commission has made up its mind that it will not regard cancer as a war-caused disability, and that all the organs set up under the legislation in operation act upon that broad principle, instead of acting in accordance with the provisions of section 47. When we look at the number of people who are involved in these applications, and see the results of applications made to the various War Pensions Entitlement Appeals Tribunals, we wonder still more whether the onus of proof provisions are being enforced. Let me refer to the records contained in the latest reports of various appeals tribunals. The No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeals Tribunal in the year 1954, which is the latest report available, heard 1,915 appeals by members of the forces. Only 15.93 per cent, of those appeals were allowed, whilst 84.07 per cent, were disallowed. The No. 2 War Pensions Entitlement Appeals Tribunal heard 2,0S3 appeals. Of that number, 211, or 10.13 per cent, were accepted by the commission, 205, or 9.84 per cent., were allowed by the tribunal, whilst 1,667, or 80.03 per cent., were rejected. The No. 3 tribunal sat for only three months during that period. Of the appeals heard, 87 were allowed and 170 were disallowed. On the 20th September the Minister brought up to date the figures for Victoria when, in reply to Senator Sandford, he said that, of the appeals heard, 295 were allowed and 1,435 were disallowed. If we refer to the report of the federal executive of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, which I understand has been circulated to all honorable senators, we shall find some extraordinary figures on page 15. They show that, in respect of World War I.’, out of 43,493 applications only 7,000 were allowed, and that in respect of the more recent war, out of 23,345 applications only 3,633 were allowed. In other words, about 80 per cent, of the applications were disallowed by the tribunals. What does that mean ? If those are just findings, the figures indicate that there are many exservice personnel who are presenting completely hopeless cases to the tribunal. I do hot believe that to be the case. If those findings are just, the figures indicate that there are lots of leadswingers among the applicants - men who try to get something to which they are not entitled. I refuse to believe that the proportion of men in that category is as high as 80 per cent. Let us realize that with the benefit of the doubt accorded to the appellants, and with the onus of proof on the commission, SO per cent, of the appeals are rejected.
– That is not quite correct.
– The fact is that 80 per cent, of the appeals, after they have been dealt with by the Repatriation Board or the Repatriation Commission, are rejected.
– Many applications do not go as far as the appeals tribunals.
– That is so, but nevertheless it is amazing that there should be such hopeless cases coming before the appeal tribunals that they are justified in rejecting SO per cent, of them. I suggest that such a result indicates the need for a thorough probe into the way in which section 47 of the Repatriation Act is. being administered. Indeed, honorable senators from both sides of the chamber have been pressing for such a probe for years. When this matter is in the committee stage, we propose to put it to the test. We consider that the question of determining whether section 47 has been properly applied should be left to a justice of the High Court, or of the
Supreme Court of the State in which the applicant resides. All the papers in connexion with the case should be referred to that justice, and he should be required to determine whether the onus of proof has been accepted by the commission, and whether the benefit of the doubt has been given to the applicant.
I believe that these matters would be most expeditiously dealt with by a single judge, and I suggest that his decision should be final and conclusive. Moreover, there should be no question of costs between the applicant and the Repatriation Commission, and I hope that an amendment to that effect will commend itself to the Senate. “Would there be anything wrong in allowing a truly judicial mind to consider all the circumstances, of each of the cases that we are dealing with, or a case in which the medical evidence was completely in conflict and the decision had gone against the appellant? Is it not proper that a judicial mind should intervene at that point, and decide whether the benefit of the doubt has been given to the exserviceman? I hope that when the amendment to that effect comes before the Senate it will receive some support.
– But a judicial mind thinks the same way as other minds.
– A judicial mind is capable of appreciating the terms “benefit of the doubt” and “onus of proof “. Judges are used to dealing with such matters.
– Two judges recommended an increase of £1 and one judge recom mended no increase at all when the matter of a prosperity loading was before the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation *nd Arbitration. Yet, the three judges considered the same evidence.
Senn tor McKENNA.- The position of the permanently and totally incapacitated ex-serviceman has deteriorated since this Government assumed office, and he is the man whom, we should consider particularly.
– Do I understand Senator McKenna to say that if there is a conflict in the medical evidence the appellant should succeed in his appeal?
– I do not put the matter as broadly as that, because one must consider all the circumstances. Prima facie, there is a doubt when medical opinions conflict.
– In that case should the appellant be given the benefit of the doubt?
– I should not put is as broadly as that. If a medical man of ill-repute furnished an opinion, I should not expect that opinion to be accepted. A witness might give evidence about a certain matter, but the world might be well aware that he was not expert, skilled or experienced in that matter. That evidence would not be taken into account. I do not baldly affirm that where opinion conflicts there is a doubt, and that the appellant must get the benefit of that doubt, but I say that a justice of the High Court or of a supreme court of a State would be better able to determine the matter in a dispassionate way, free from the argumentative atmosphere of the appeals tribunal, and without costs being involved.
It appears to be strange that under this measure benefits that will be accorded to ex-servicemen for the remainder of the financial year will be £1,753,000. In a full year the benefits will be £2,300,000. Honorable senators should remember that this year the Government had a surplus of £78,000.000, £70,000,000 being disclosed and £8,00.0,000 being carried to a trust fund. Thirty million pounds of that was used to retire treasury-bills. Everybody in the Cabinet who was sympathetic to exservicemen must have protested about those treasury-bills being retired instead of the money being devoted to the needs of ex-servicemen. The treasury-bills could quite easily have waited for a while. There must be money to burn when treasury-bills are retired, and I am sure that the Minister for Repatriation would have asked for greater benefits for exservicemen than those indicated in this measure. I therefore move -
That all words after “That” he left out with a. view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “having regard to the sustained and continuous decline in the value of Australian money, the bill be redrafted to provide_ substantially greater benefits for exservice personnel and their dependants with effect a9 from 1st July, 1055.”.
Senator MARRIOTT (Tasmania) [5.3~. - In rising to support this measure which is to give effect to the Government’s policy on repatriation benefits, I desire briefly to refer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna). He set out on a most curious course. Not long after he commenced his speech he brought home to us the terrific cost of war, including the cost of preparing for war and the cost of war’s aftermath. He seemed to draw the conclusion from that that we should reduce our expenditure. I was under the impression that he was still advocating the policy of the Labour party that has been in force since 1946, and which involves not giving the diggers a good spin and cutting down on defence expenditure.
I am not so concerned about the monetary cost of war, but I am concerned about the cost of war in terms of the health and happiness of those who suffered in the war, and their dependants. That, I trust, is the attitude of this Government in its consideration of benefits, pensions, and other matters affecting ex-servicemen. The Leader of the Opposition, filling in time I thought, because he did not appear to have a very good case to present, spoke about tying war pensions to the basic wage. I believe that every leading official of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, if he were speaking on behalf of ex-servicemen, would say to the Government, “Do not base our pensions on the basic wage “.
– Why not?
– Because a war pension is not a payment, as is the basic wage. What ex-servicemen want is a fair sum of money and other benefits to enable them to live as they were promised they could live when they went away from Australia. The basic wage rises and falls. If we were to tie pensions to the basic wage, we should not be giving exservicemen the fair deal that they were promised.
Senator McKenna, in his concluding remarks’ about the onus of proof, amazed me by citing percentage figures with the object of implying that the tribunals were not giving fair decisions. For a legal man to use figures in a report to support such a contention seemed to me extraordinary and quite out of place. In another part of his speech, the honorable senator criticized the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) for comparing present pension rates with those in force in 1949. I do not propose to go into the details of this matter, but it is well to remember that in 1949, which was the last year of office of the previous Labour Government, £19,000,000 was provided for war pensions, whereas this year at least £47,500,000 will be provided.
The bill before us should be considered in three ways : We should consider, first, the actual clauses, secondly, their effect on other benefits for ex-servicemen, and thirdly, the problems of the future. This is the great opportunity, which we have once a year, for the Government to initiate debate on the most important subject of pensions and repatriation matters generally. I congratulate the Minister for Repatriation, not only on achieving a record term of office, but also on the results of his work, and that of the Repatriation Department, during the year. I am confident that this bill does not contain all the benefits that the Minister would like to provide for exservicemen, but, of course, the Cabinet deals with these matters on an Australia-wide basis, in relation to all aspects of the Australian economy, and in relation to income and expenditure.
This Government has introduced several provisions with a view to helping ex-servicemen. I am glad that each year the department studies repatriation legislation, tidies it up and improves it where it can do so. It is interesting to note that the first great strides made in shaping repatriation pensions were taken by a Tasmanian in the Senate, in 1920. I refer to Senator Millen. I remember that a certain Labour Minister of the Government in Tasmania walked into his office-
– I rise to order. Senator Marriott has referred to a certain Labour Minister in Tasmania. As I understand the matter, the Standing Orders provide that no honorable senator may criticize, in the Senate, a member of a State parliament.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood). - Standing Order 418 provides that -
No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal, and all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on members shall be -considered highly disorderly.
Provided that Senator Marriott does not cast reflections upon the Minister concerned, be will be quite in order.
– I should not like to offend Senator Ashley. After all, when you are on top of the list yon want to stay there in peace. In deference to the honorable senator, I shall not develop that line.
I come now to the actual pensions and the types of pensions. The Senate should discuss them candidly and with an open and fair mind. I do not like the names of’ the pensions. I do not propose to bore the Senate by saying what I consider to be correct names, but in my opinion the names of the pensions, particularly the special rate and the service pension, are most unsuitable. I hope that the department and returned servicemen’s organizations will be able to get together and improve the names.
This Government is passing through an era through which we in Australia have not really passed before. It has encountered the problem of having to tie pensions to the needs of three varieties of ex-servicemen. I refer to the elderly incapacitated ex-servicemen, the young incapacitated ex-servicemen, and the middle-aged, who are always with us. This is a time when we should take an interest in ex-servicemen’s organizations and their worries. We must appreciate that the elderly ex-serviceman is finding it very hard to exist comfortably. To a certain degree, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition concerning the difficulties of elderly ex-servicemen who are totally and permanently incapacitated. I am of the opinion that, in such cases, the Government should continue to pay the wife’s pension, after her death, to the nominee of the incapacitated exserviceman. After all, he still has to live and be looked after. His costs continue, and although the increased attendant’s allowance will help, he is placed at a serious disadvantage. I do not know whether the department could work out a fair scale of pension for such people.
The lifting of the ceiling limit will assist those over 60 years of age, but there are many men in the 55-60 age group who would be helped immeasurably were they able to share in this service pension. Of course, they do not become eligible for it until they are 60, and because of that fact their troubles are many. I do not know what happens in the other States, but I do know that in Tasmania we have an amazingly good hostel at which some totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen are looked after. That hostel in Hobart is a haven for them. Another suggestion I make to the Government is that it should extend its excellent social service legislation under which homes for the aged are subsidized to include a £ 1-for-f 1 subsidy to provide homes for totally and permanently incapacitated or blinded ex-servicemen. These ex-servicemen are claiming two and a half times the general rate of pension, but that would involve the Government in heavy expenditure and I do not know whether the nation could provide it. The general rate is now £4 15s., and the special rate has been raised to £9 15s. In 1949, it was £5 6s.
The case for increased pensions for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen is far stronger than the case for continual increases in the general rate pensions of those who have some percentage of disability. The Government should consider whether the pensions of these totally disabled men could not be increased. They are not in such a fortunate position as partially disabled exservicemen who are able to supplement their pensions with earnings. In many cases the cost of living of the totally incapacitated pensioners is much greater. They cannot cut wood or mow lawns or attend to their gardens, and have to pay for this work to be done. Their need, in this particular period is far greater than that of any other class of pensioner who receives repatriation benefits.
I should like the Minister to explain the attitude of the Government to the request of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners who want medical benefits for their wives. This Government, in common with previous governments, ha3 not seen fit to grant that request. Consequently, the pensioner or his wife has to join a medical benefits fund, and if they have a child younger r.han sixteen years of age they have to pay the full family premium in order to qualify for medical benefits. On the other hand, the ex-serviceman is entitled to medical and hospital benefits free under the Government scheme. The medical and hospital benefits funds should provide a special premium for the totally incapacitated man who seeks medical and hospital benefits for his wife and family.
I find it hard not to wish that the Government had been more generous in this feature of the budget, but I congratulate the Government on what it has done in the past few years, and particularly during the past twelve months, to assist pensioners. Parliament would not be doing any good for the ex-servicemen or carrying out their wishes if it were to agree to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. The pensioners are asking Parliament to deal with their case and enact the necessary legislation speedily so that they may have the .benefit of increased pensions. I support the bill.
– When the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) was introducing this measure he said its purpose was to give effect to increases in pensions proposed in this year’s budget. He added that he felt that all senators would be in entire agreement with the proposal to grant these increases. I agree with the Minister that increases should be given, but I do not agree that they are sufficient. Senator Marriott has said that he was concerned with the health, happiness and welfare of the men who have suffered in the war, and also of their dependants, but he found he had to criticize the Government because of the amount of increase proposed, although he found it hard to do so. I know that the honorable senator finds it hard to criticize the Government or members of his party because he is a very loyal Government supporter. His remark, consequently, is a stern rebuke to the Government. Senator Marriott measures his words carefully and has had a long experience of ex-servicemen’s problems. His father was a totally and permanently incapacitated veteran of World War I. I seldom agree with Senator Marriott, but I do on this particular point. He also drew attention to the fact that the problem is increasing with the passage of the years. “ Diggers “ of World War I. are now at middle age or beyond it. Various physical complaints develop with increasing age and who can say, in the case of these exservicemen, that their complaints are not accentuated by the hardships of war service? This problem must be faced by the Government. Each year fresh groups of ex-service personnel become eligible for consideration.
Earlier in the debate reference was made to the expenditure in 1949 of £19,000,000 on repatriation pensions, but since that time additional numbers of men have become eligible for benefits under the provisions of the Repatriation Act. Men who served in the Korean War and their dependants have also since become entitled to benefits. Every year, when a debate on repatriation matters takes place, the Government defends itself by saying that its repatriation benefits are better than were those provided by a Labour administration. But that is not the principle involved. The increased expenditure does not mean an increase in war pensions or benefits under the Repatriation Act. The increase that will be provided is a much overdue contribution towards an adjustment in the purchasing power of pensions that has been lost to the pensioners over the past six years with the decline in the value of money. It is no longer being party political to face up to the fact that the value of money has declined. The proof is that each year adjustments in repatriation benefits have to be made. We desire the present levels to be maintained and, if possible, improved in view of the rapid decline in the value of money over the past few years. The Minister, in his secondreading speech, said that each year the budget had provided for some increases in the various pensions payable under the
Repatriation Act. That is typical of the “dog chasing its tail” policy of this Government; but it does not get us anywhere. It is just as specious as the old argument of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Each year the argument is put forward that increases are being made in the pensions, but within a short period of time, pensions again come before the Parliament because a further increase is necessary. That has been going on now for some years.
The ratio ofpensions to actual purchasing power to-day, in practically every field, is less than it was in 1949, taking into consideration the goods and services and the few paltry luxuries that could be purchased in that year, or for that matter in 1939 before World War II. As I have said the attitude of the Government in refusing to accept the argument put forward by honorable senators on both sides of the chamber on many occasions, is deplorable. I have heard during these debates very trenchant criticism of repatriation benefits made by Government supporters. The argument that this Government is giving. more than was given in the past does not get down to the deep principle of facing up to our moral responsibility to the people of Australia. After all, the Government should interpret the wishes of the people. I feel quite certain that if justice were to be done and the cost of doing it was put to the people as their lawful debt, they would be quite willing to pay it.
I shall quote the words of a Mr. Court which were published recently in the journal of an ex-servicemen’s organization, and which are apt to the matter we are considering. He said - .
Show me the way in which a country honours its defenders and cares for its war victims and I will measure for you with exactitude the degree of its culture and moral development.
It is on that level that the whole matter of entitlements under the Repatriation Act should be considered. A debate such as this gives to honorable senators an opportunity to tell the Senate, and sometimes the general public, who, after all, should be informed of these matters, of injustices and anomalies in the treatment of ex-servicemen and their dependants. It also gives to us an opportunity to try to induce the Government to render justice where justice is due.
At question time to-day, a very important matter was raised by an honorable senator opposite. I have before me a copy of to-day’s Sydney newspaper, the Daily Mirror, which records the story of the Avar widow concerned and her struggle to rear her two children. Mrs. Norma Latter, the young widow of a Royal Australian Air Force flying officer, has spent two years in want going without food and clothing for her two young children because the Repatriation Department has refused to grant her a pension. If the Daily Mirror could be induced to publish the reply that was given to the question that was posed by Senator Anderson to-day, they would not be amused and it would not be impressed. The procedure of going from one tribunal to another, from one authority to another, from one professor to another, while all the time the basic human claims of this woman are ignored-
– The honorable senator proposes that she go to still another one, to the court.
– I certainly think that she should go to court, in order to obtain compensation for the suffering she has had to put up with unjustifiably.
– It is a pity the honorable senator did not think of this seven years ago.
– That is the old argument. I want to forget about seven years ago; we are living in the present. Thousands of people have received pensions since 1949, or whatever year the Minister refers to. Let us deal with the present and the future. The money that was voted in 1949 has been spent; it has gone around in circles and is finished with. So, let us talk about 1955 and 1956. That is the level on which I should like to keep this debate. A most important point to be remembered when dealing with repatriation matters is that it is the spirit, of the Repatriation Act that counts - interpretation of the letter of the act opens the door to human error.
As all honorable senators know, there are borderline cases. It will often be found that a person is obviously exaggerating a story. Nevertheless in Australia to-day many people are suffering as the result of loyal war service. They may be able to get by at present, but as they advance in age their disabilities come against them. I know of numerous cases of men who served in the gas area in France and developed some pulmonary complaint. Yet, unless they were able to produce evidence that they were admitted to hospital or some such thing, they found extreme difficulty in proving that the pulmonary complaint, whether it be asthma or bronchial trouble, was a war disability, or that the gas had affected their bronchial tubes. Who are we to say that it did not affect them? That is where it is - so important for us to give consideration to reframing the act. That is why the Leader of the Opposition moved to the effect that the bill be redrafted in order to provide substantially greater benefits as from the 1st July, 1955. Senator Marriott said that we should get on with the business and get it over and done with.
We believe that now is the time for justice to be done. There will be no fear of the payments being delayed, because the payments would start from the 1st July, 1955. There are many exservicemen in the community to-day, who served in either World War I. or World War II. or the Korean war, who have disabilities, the full impact of which they have not yet felt, and who have not yet approached the Repatriation Commission for assistance. In these days a man should not have to walk about with only one leg or one arm, or with a big bandage around his head, in order to prove that he was wounded in the war. The experiences of modern total warfare often make deep and lasting impressions on the minds of ex-servicemen. Ex-servicemen are admitted to mental asylums for treatment, simply because there is no other place in which to treat them, but if the people of Australia knew the facts of these cases they would cheerfully pay their lawful debt to these unfortunate persons and enable them to be treated in repatriation hospitals, where they would have the companionship of their old digger cobbers. In that way they would achieve any peace of mind that it is possible for them t,o get, and the possibility of their returning to normal mental health would be increased. It is very difficult for many ex-servicemen to prove that their mental health has been affected by war service, when they are not carrying the outward and visible signs of war wounds.
The Minister mentioned that the pensions of war widows will be increased by 10s. a week, and that there will be improvements in other benefits, such as domestic allowances payable to a war widow who has a child under the age of sixteen years, or a child over the age of sixteen years who is being educated, or to a war widow who is over 50 years of age but is permanently unemployable. I shall read to the Senate a letter which I have received from Mrs. Vasey, the president of the War Widows Guild (Australia). This letter was written in April last, but its message must be impressed on the minds of members of the Government. The letter reads -
There is no group in the community forced to suffer so unnecessarily as the war widow and her children on the present rate of compensation given by Repatriation. You are fully aware what it costs to keep a family to-day; I think you must all be equally aware that you cannot go on for ever stretching a woman’s powers of endurance beyond the breaking point without such stretching having a most vicious result upon her own health, mental and physical, and upon that of her children. The families of dead servicemen do not merit punishment but punishment is what they are receiving. May we once more draw your attention to the fact that the families of ex-enemy aliens in Australia are protected to the extent of the basic wage but not the families of the dead heroes of Australia.
The newspaper cutting we append to this letter results from a careful and independent investigation. So far as we know there is only one mistake in it; the reporter concerned added years to the ages of the women concerned and, when asked why, said that he thought we looked so much older than the ages quoted that he felt he was being kind. Perhaps this general run-down look is the reason so few war widows re-marry!
Please read too the letter which accompanies the cutting. This widow’s story could be duplicated by the thousand. Surely some time something will be done to save these children and their mothers from the scrap heap.
I do not think that the proposed increase of 10s. a week is the answer to that letter. Mrs. Vasey enclosed with her letter a copy of a letter from a war widow in Queenscliff, Victoria. That letter refers to an article entitled “ Budgets of Despair “, which appeared in the Melbourne Argus. I have a copy of that article, which was written by Michael Fitzgerald, and which describes the difficulties of many war widows. The article reads, in part -
In drab, shabby rooms or little suburban homes, many of them wilting from forced neglect, 6,000 Victorian war widows each week sit down to work out their budgets of despair.
But they are fighting a losing battle against debt, a savage war of accountancy where the bills they tot up don’t tally with their paltry pensions - a weeping war where all that is left are bitter memories, shattered pride, and gnawing hunger.
The war widow from Queenscliff wrote as follows : -
Having read “ Budgets of Despair “ in the Argus and the case of Mrs. “ A “, who said her young son was near to a nervous collapse owing to the loss of his father, I thought it might be another arrow in your quiver, which might help some time when you wish to make a point, to hear of my case.
My son when aged 1!) - he is now 22 - had a complete nervous breakdown - loss of memory and all the terrible symptoms. He had to have shock treatment and was most seriously ill for two years. Owing to this he lost his job and I had to support him and pay all the terrific expenses of his illness - doctors, hospitals, chemist, special treatments, ambulances, &c., &c. In all it cost me £350, which I had to take out of savings. The Nerve Specialist to whom I took him, after subjecting him to special treatment to find the cause of the breakdown, told me it had been caused entirely by his father’s death . .. .
I don’t think he will ever be really robust now. As for me the anxiety and worry put years on to my age - I had nobody to lean on and to go to for comfort and consolation, and I shall never as long as I live forget the pathetic and harrowing scenes - it was the most heartbreaking thing I ever thought I’d be called on to endure.
Cases such as those mentioned by Mrs. Vasey call out for justice. When our servicemen went overseas, the least they could expect was that, if they did not come back, their wives and dependants would receive the same treatment as they would have received had their husbands and fathers lived. These men went away in perfect health to fight for their country. Many of them came back broken in mind and body, and have found themselves at a tremendous disadvantage. In some instances, their brains are still in excellent condition, and they can earn some money. But others have lost many of the things that they had when they went away, and they are still receiving the same payment as the unskilled worker on the lowest scale of wages.
– When the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) introduced the Repatriation Bill 1955, which is now before the Senate, he spoke of the new rates of pension provided as “ increases “. I should prefer to describe the additional amounts provided under the measure as belated attempts to give ex-servicemen something to which they have long been entitled. Ex-servicemen are entitled at least to the standard of living that they would have been able to provide for themselves and their dependants had they not given their services to Australia, and suffered disabilities as a consequence. Those disabilities have deprived many disabled ex-servicemen of the status in life that they would have been able to maintain but for their war service.
I have reminded honorable senators of the cases of widows who are trying to keep up with the rising cost of living. The pension rates that are provided for them, even with the proposed rise of 10s. a week, are not sufficient to meet basic requirements. I have in my hand a typical household budget that was prepared by a war widow with two children, aged 13 years and 11 years respectively. The budget provides for simple necessaries of life such as milk, bread vegetables, groceries, rent, firewood, gas and electricity. The total cost is £10 a week, and the budget does not includethe cost of clothing, school fees, entertainment and other normal expenses. The existing provision for meeting the debt that the Australian people owe to those who suffered in the wars in which this nation has been engaged is inadequate. I am speaking not only of ex-service men and women who made a direct contribution to the defence of Australia, but also of those who have been left behind by those who served the nation. If the case for higher pensions for ex-servicemen and women were put fairly and squarely to the people of Australia, I am sure that the people would be prepared to foot the bill and give justice where it is due. The debt has been incurred by the nation, and it was well worth incurring, because Australia was saved from dire consequences by the sacrifices of its servicemen.
– How much more pension does the honorable senator advocate ?
– I have already stated - and the point has also been made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) - that war pensions should bear a proper relation to the amount needed to keep those concerned in a modicum of comfort.
– Name a figure.
– We are living in abnormal times, and the pensioners should get at least the basic wage. After all, the basic wage provides no more than a skinflint existence for a man, his wife and child. A small family can only just battle along on that income, and we should give the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen and the war widows at least the same standard of living as the basic wage-earners.
Senator Anderson has referred to the onus of proof in determining applications for repatriation benefits. I have in my hand an interesting article on this subject reprinted from Reveille, the official voice of ex-service men and women in New South Wales. The article was written by Mr. Vincent J. Brady, who has investigated this matter of onus of proof, and has directed attention to an angle from which the Minister for Repatriation might well examine this important subject. Mr. Brady stated -
The question of the onus of proof and its application to the claims of ex-servicemen has for some time been the subject of discussion. The question at issue appears to be not so much the Act itself, but the spirit in which it is administered.
That is the point I wish to stress. Senator McKenna has referred to the cost of war and preparations for war. He also spoke of the stupidity and futility of war, and I agree fully with his statements in that connexion. It appears that the human race will never learn that nothing is gained from war, but the problems that arise from war are with us and are ever pressing. The provision made for those who have served their country in time of need is the humane side of war, and it must be interpreted, not according to the letter of the law, but according to its spirit. Mr. Brady made a close examination of the problem of onus of proof, and penetrated the iron curtain of the repatriation tribunals. He was in a position to examine the manner in which the provisions regarding onus of proof and the benefit of the doubt have been applied, and he wrote in Reveille -
As a result of my examination of the position,I am of the opinion that the Act should be amended to provide -
for the right of appeal on a matter of Law to a Judge of the High Court or some other judicial authority. This would necessitate the Tribunal and the Commission giving some written statement in judgment as to the reason for rejection of the claim where evidence appeared to warrant the application of the Onus of Proof and Benefit of Clause Sections.
Giving to the Appellant the right to appear at all sittings when the Tribunal is considering any evidence respecting the claim..
The right to question those who have submitted medical evidence or opinions on the claim.
Those are very important observations, and they should be incorporated in the Repatriation Act. During question time to-day, reference was made to the disease that is broadly known as cancer. I do not know the technical details of this subject, but there is nothing to show that a man who has endured the unusual living conditions of active service in time of war did not contract cancer, if he becomes a sufferer, as a result of his war service. Reference has been made to such a case in which a man died of cancer at the age of 36 years. If a man contracts cancer after war service, the onus of proof should be on the Repatriation Commission to prove that the disease was not contracted because of war service.
– There is no proof one way or the other.
– The benefit of the doubt should go to the ex-serviceman concerned. The people of Australia, through the Repatriation Commission, are paying money to ex-servicemen, but the pensioners are paying with their health. Whatever the cost, the people of Australia would not quibble if they were told the facts.
I conclude by saying that the so-called increases are not sufficient to give basic justice to the people concerned - the ex-servicemen, those who aretotally and permanently incapacitated, and widows.
In my opinion, there should be a complete review of the act, and, therefore, I agree with the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. When we reflect - on the decline in the value of Australian money, we must come to the conclusion that the bill should be redrafted to provide substantially greater benefits, and that the increased payments should date from the 1st July, 1955. By making the payment retrospective to that date, we should answer the charge that delay would operate to the detriment of those entitled to benefits. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, so that basic justice may be meted out to those members of the community who silently suffer the penalties of their war service. I am convinced that the community generally would willingly share the extra cost, if the people were given the information that so far has not been forthcoming from the Government benches.
– I cordially and warmly support the. measure before the Senate. It is a bill which seeks to amend the Repatriation Act 1920-1954 in order to give effect to the proposals contained in the budget speech of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden). Ex-servicemen and their dependants who are eligible for pensions under the Repatriation Act will benefit in two ways - first, by direct increases in the rates of pensions, and, secondly, by the removal of certain ceiling limits.
As I listened to the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) and Senator O’Byrne, I wondered whether it would ever be possible to introduce into this chamber a measure that would meet with the approval of the Opposition, because this is a measure which should have their entire approval. Senator O’Byrne spoke of basic justice to war pensioners, and referred to their “skinflint existence”. The honorable senator would do well to compare the record of the previous Labour Government in connexion with war pensions with that of the present Government. I have before me figures which show that, in 1939, the amount paid in war pensions was £7,750,000. The amount is now £47,500,000 per annum. At the end of 1949, when the Labour Government went out of office, the annual payment was £19,000,000. Since then it has increased by £28,500,000 a year.
The Leader of the Opposition has moved an amendment to provide that the bill shall be recast in order that allowances may be increased in certain directions. Honorable senators may be interested to know what happened during the. term of office of a Labour government. From 1946 to 1949 pensions increased by only 10s. a week. That was when a Labour government was in office. During the last four years, under the Menzies Government, pensions have increased by £4 a week. I have here a comparative table showing the pensions paid at different times, and under different governments. The general rate of pension, which was £2 10s. a week in. 1946, rose by 5s. a week to £2 15s. a week in 1949, under a Labour government. In the same period the special rate increased from £4 16s. to £5 6s. a week, an increase of 10s. a week. The payment to wives increased by 2s. a week, making the payment £1 4s., instead of £1 2s. a week. During those four years the 9s. a week paid in respect of children remained stationary. The amount paid to widows rose from £2 10s. to £3 a week, an increase of 10s. a week, and the domestic allowance, which was not in existence in 1946, stood at 7s. 6d. a week in 1949.
A comparison of those figures with the present Government’s record is illuminating. The general rate which, as I have said, was £2 15s. a week in 1949, is now £4 10s. a week, an increase of £1 15s. and will be £4 15s. a week when this bill becomes law. The special rate will rise from £5 6s. in 1949 to £9 15s. a week. That is an increase of £4 9s. a week. Widows will receive £4 10s. a week when this legislation is in operation, an increase of £1 10s. a week above the amount paid in 1949. The domestic allowance, instead of being at the rate of 7s. 6d. a week, is now £1 7s. a week. In addition to the figure I have given, widows on re-marriage receive a gratuity of £234. That is generous treatment.
– It is a nice wedding dowry.
– Service pensions, which were paid at the rate of £2 2s. 6d. a week in 1949, will be increased by £1 17s. 6d. to £4 a week, whilst the amount of pension to persons totally and permanently incapacitated will rise from £3 12s. 6d. in 1949 to £7 10s. A member and his wife who, in 1949, were entitled to £7 5s. a week, will now be entitled to £15 a week. That, again, is a generous increase. It is something that honorable senators opposite should think about.
– Pensioners do not regard it as generous.
– Including extras, it is possible for the amount to be as much as £20, or £25, a week. In addition, medical benefits are provided. I agree with the Opposition that we cannot do too much for war pensioners.
– The Government is certainly not doing too much.
– The Government is endeavouring to carry out the promises made at the election of 1949. In addition to the above increases, all war pensions, including widows’ pensions, will be favorably affected by the repeal of Section 91a of the Repatriation Act, which relates to ceiling limits. Those limits were instituted by a Labour government in 1948, and have been a source of trouble to members of the Returned Sailors Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia and war pensioners generally ever since. Now, the present Government proposes to remove those limits for all time. I believe that the Government’s decision will have the approbation of every war pensioner in the Commonwealth. When the Labour Government left office in 1949 the special rate of pension payable to persons who were totally and permanently incapacitated was £5 10s. 6d. a week, which was only 10s. a week more than it was in 1943. The new rate will be £9 15s. a week, which represents an increase of £4 9s. a week since this Government assumed office in 1949. Senator O’Byrne laid much stress on the argument that pensions were not being increased at the same rate as the cost of living, but if he compares the increase with the increase shown in the C series index during the same period, he will find that the pension rate has increased by 84 per cent, since 1949, whilst the cost of living has risen since the September quarter of 1949, by only 67 per cent. Therefore, the pensioners have received increases of pension which amount to a good deal more than the increase of the cost of living.
The new pension for the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman will be £9 15s. if the man is unmarried, and £11 10s. 6d. for a man and his wife. For a family unit consisting of an exserviceman, his wife and two children aged twelve and fourteen, the family income from the war pension, the educational allowance and child endowment will be £34 19s. 6d. a week. The proposed new general rate pension will be £4 15s., which is £2 a week more than the 1949 rate. Since 1949, the general rate pensioner has received an increase of 73 per cent, in his pension as against an increase in the C series index figure of 67 per cent. Therefore, honorable senators will perceive that the general rate pension has increased in greater proportion than the cost of living.
Now let us consider war widows. The pensions for war widows certainly needed revision, and that revision has been carried out in the present measure. Indeed, they have been treated very generously. The proposed rate of £4 10s. a week represents an increase of £1 10s. a week on the amount payable in 1949, which is an increase of 50 per cent, of that rate. However, that increase does not present the correct picture, because the domestic allowance must be taken into account. A domestic allowance as well as a pension is paid to war widows who have one or more children under the age cf sixteen years, and that class of pensioner draws pension up to £9 15s. a week. The total increase of the widows’ pension, plus the domestic allowance since 1949, and including the 10s. proposed in the bill, will amount to £2 17s. a week, which represents an increase of 84 per cent, over that period. The new rate of pension and domestic allowance will be £6 4s. 6d. a week. At the 30th June, 1955, there were 28.292 war widows receiving pensions, and of those 25,950, or 92 per cent., received domestic allowances as well as pensions. Consequently. 92 per cent, of the war widows will receive the 84 per cent, increase that I have mentioned. A war widow with two children aged thirteen and eleven respectively will receive £9 16s. from her pension, educational allowance and child endowment, and as each child attains the age of fourteen, a higher educational allowance becomes payable.
– Does the honorable senator think that those widows are well provided for?
– They are treated more generously by this Government than they were by the last Labour Government.
– That is not so.
– The last Labour Government had ample opportunity to do more for the war widows than it did.
– Two wrongs do not make a right, and this Government has not treated them as generously as it should.
– ^Section 91a of the Repatriation Act is to be repealed, and that will bring a widespread benefit to war pensioners, particularly those who are getting on in life and who have no sources of income other than their pensions. This matter has been dealt with by other speakers, and I do not intend to weary honorable senators by going over it again. The main point is that the Government has decided that the ceiling limit operates unfairly against the war pensioner, and it is proposed to repeal section 91a. The removal of the ceiling limit will benefit materially not only the old diggers of World War I., whose average is now 64 years, but also all seriously disabled ex-servicemen. In applying the means test, the pension, the educational allowance and child endowment will not be taken into account as at present.
I now desire to pay a tribute to the work of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper). I have been asked to convey this tribute to him by the war pensioners of Tasmania, particularly the totally and permanently incapacitated men who met and considered this matter last week-end. They greatly appreciate the work that the Minister has done for them during his term of office, and they wish me to inform him that he was brought much happiness to them and to the widows and families of ex-servicemen. It is doubtful whether any previous Minister for Repatriation has been held in such genuine esteem, I might even say affection, not only by incapacitated soldiers, but also by ex-servicemen as a body. As an ex-serviceman himself with a splendid record of service, and as one who was himself severely wounded, the Minister is typical of the Australian soldier who has done a grand job of work and says very little about it.
The second-reading speech of the Minister on the Repatriation Bill must have given him keen personal pleasure, knowing, as he did, that the legislation would bring further relief and comfort to a body of men and women whose interests must be a primary consideration of us all. I do not believe that there is one honorable senator who will not gladly give his support to this humane legislation. We have an everlasting obligation to those men and women referred to in the amendments, and in this legislation the Minister, on behalf of the Parliament and on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth, has sought to honour that obligation.
– One would have thought that a measure of this description, which is intended to benefit ex-servicemen who served their country, would have been above party politics. I believe that such a matter transcends all party politics, and I have therefore been amazed at the strange virus which has spread around this chamber and which seems to be more contagious than influenza - the virus that might be called the 1949 virus. The year 1949 is mentioned on the first three pages of the Minister’s second-reading speech no fewer than ten times.
The Minister said that, since 1949, this Government had kept repatriation pensions under constant review and that the total amount of pensions paid each year had increased considerably since 1949, when the previous government left office. Everybody knows that Labour left office in 1949. Why was it necessary to make that reference in his speech, unless he did so for political propaganda purposes? I suggest that the Minister was getting on the back of the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman to make a political point. He also referred to the fact that the pensions had increased by £4 9s. a week since the Government assumed office, and he went on to say that the pensions had increased by only 5s. a week between 1943 and 1949. A little later, he again referred to the fact that the Government came to office in 1949, and still later, he said that war widows’ pensions, plus domestic allowances, also had increased since 1949. I could go on for some time giving these instances of the Minister’s references to “ 1949 “. In my view, they indicate that this measure, which is intended to be of benefit to exservicemen, has been used for political propaganda purposes. The Minister should be ashamed of himself.
This afternoon, I heard Senator Marriott claim that the Labour Government paid out only £19,000,000 in war pensions in 1949, whereas to-day the total is £47,500,000. The honorable senator was not honest when he said that, because inflation has increased so much since the Menzies Government has been in office, £2, or even more, would be needed to-day to buy the same quantity of goods which could be purchased for £1 in 1949. Having regard to the increase in the cost of living because of inflation, and even on the basis of the C series index, it would take at least £38,000,000 to equal the £19,000,000 of 1949, and that takes no account whatever of the additional amount required to make provision for ex-servicemen of the Korean war. When the £19,000,000 is doubled, making £38,000,000, it leaves only £9,000,000 to cater for the ex-servicemen of the Korean war.
The purpose of this bill is to amend the Repatriation Act and to give effect to the increases of pensions which are provided for in this year’s budget. Incidentally, it has also given the Minister an opportunity to put over some propaganda, as he has done on other occasions. We heard h im to-day, in answer to a “ Dorothy Dix “ question, taking up the time of the Senate for a considerable period with what was virtually propaganda.
In 1949, the rate of pension for a totally and permanently incapacitated exserviceman was £5 6s. a week. The Government claims that it is doing something wonderful by proposing to increase the pension to £9 15s. a week. On the basis of the C series index, which has at least doubled since 1949, the pension to-day should be at least £10 12s. a week, and we of the Australian Labour party contend that a reasonable amount would be £12 10s. a week. The Minister, and also other honorable senators opposite, have failed to tell the Senate that, despite wage-pegging and the postponement of margins, inflation has reached an all-time record. No one doubts .that that is so. Instead of receiving double the 1949 pension of £5 6s. a week, which would bring it to £10 12s. a week, the incapacitated ex-serviceman is expected to be jubilant because the Government proposes to give his £9 15s. a week. If the Minister wishes to make comparisons for the purpose of gaining a political advantage, he should place the full facts before the Senate. He should know only too well that incapacitated ex-servicemen experience great hardship and difficulty in making ends meet, especially in households where the wife, or the person looking after the exserviceman, has to cook two lots of meals. Almost invariably, these men are on special diets and must have certain kinds of foods. Therefore, the household budgeting is much more difficult than it is in ordinary households. As my colleague, Senator O’Byrne, said this afternoon, the country would willingly pay these inca pacitated ex-servicemen the sum to which they are entitled.
Having regard to the C series index, and to the fact that the basic wage has increased by 100 per cent, since 1949, I think that totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen should be paid not less than £12 10s. a week. I ask the Minister to consider especially the needs of families where special provision has to be made for meals for the incapacitated person. No one should be more aware of the needs of these people than the Minister himself, because, as he said to-day, he has had six years’ experience of this portfolio. Nevertheless, complaints are constantly being reported in the press. Only to-day we heard in the
Senate about the case of the late Flying Officer Latter. The Minister gave a lengthy reply to a question asked about that matter. It appears that Flying Officer Latter left a wife and two children, a boy aged nine, and a little girl of two. He died in 1953 from a cancer that was the result of dysentery from which he suffered as a prisoner of war. His wife has spent two years struggling to support herself and her two children. She is now in employment, but has to leave her children in the care “of relatives while she is at work. Despite the fact that two doctors and a specialist certified that the disease from which her husband died was attributable to war service, the Repatriation Department, and the tribunals which the Minister referred to to-day, have refused to grant a pension. I do not wish to make a charge against the officials of the Repatriation Department. I know they are bound by rules, but I cannot understand why the provision regarding onus of proof does not compel the department to inform the appellant - the ex-serviceman or his relative - why the pension is refused. Since the Repatriation Act first came into operation in 1920, many cases have been referred to the various Ministers of Repatriation - including the present Minister - and dealt with by them, and often the decision of the Repatriation Department has been overridden. To-day, Senator Anderson asked a question about this case, and the Minister’s reply will be of no comfort to the widow. She has the responsibility of providing for two children of one of Australia’s war heroes. I ask the Minister to give this case his personal attention.’ I know that he is humane, and that he wishes to give the best possible service. Surely the Government, with the resources at its disposal, and in view of the prosperity that Australia is enjoying, should pay its dues to the servicemen who fought for and defended this country.
During the budget debate, I mentioned the case of Dr. Glissan, who served as a medical officer in Gallipoli and France during “World War I., and for many years practised privately in New South Wales. He served in many hospitals, including the Concord Repatriation Hospital, but to-day, as a result of decisions of the Repatriation Department, he is an inmate of the State hospital at Liverpool. That is an indictment against the Government and against Australia. Surely he deserves better treatment as a reward for his service to the country and the people. Frequently, cases of glaring injustice are brought to my notice. Recently, I received letters in connexion with a case, which was dealt with in the press, of an ex-serviceman who was discharged from the Repatriation Hospital at Concord, who was taken home, and who died a few days later. When I wrote to the Minister about the matter, he said that this patient’s wife had sought permission for him to leave the hospital and go home. The wife publicly denied that in the press. There is a conflict between the statement of the Minister and that of the wife. Another similar instance occurred soon afterwards. Surely the public mind must be disturbed over happenings of this kind, and the Minister should set up a committee of inquiry to investigate these cases and clear the name of the Repatriation Department, as well as expose any maladministration. Such a committee could include members of this chamber or of another place, or both. The returned soldiers who served Australia so well should not have to be demanding justice ; they should be receiving it freely from the Government. Cases such as I have mentioned are not being brought to light as a result of the good management of either the Repatriation Department or the Minister, and it is time that the whole matter was cleared up. In any case, ex-servicemen who defended this country in time of danger are entitled to just and humane treatment.
.- The Repatriation Bill now before the Senate has been well canvassed from this side of the House. I was not impressed with the second-reading speech of the Minister (Senator Cooper). It contained too many comparisons, and too many percentages were quoted. The Minister devoted considerable time to making comparisons with former administrations. That is a wrong attitude to adopt when dealing with repatriation benefits to returned soldiers. The Minister should not look at it from a party political angle. In his speech he compared what had been given before with what is being given to-day. It is quite proper, of course, to make comparisons but that is not the way to approach a subject such as the repatriation of returned soldiers. I think the same thing should be done in this instance as should be done in respect of the whole matter of social services. We pride ourselves on our welfare state, but when we compare our conditions with those in countries, such as England or Holland, we find that we are very sadly lacking.
Something should be done to improve repatriation benefits. Like social services and pensions, repatriation is becoming merely a party political football. One side says, “ We give more than you do “, and vice versa. A legal, fact-finding commission should be set up to ascertain the wants of the various types of returned soldiers, and of their widows and children, including education. Evidence relating to all those factors could be put before a fact-finding commission which could then determine a reasonable standard of living for these people. By doing that we would prevent the Repatriation Act from remaining a party political football.
The increases now proposed to be given are reasonably substantial but they do not fulfil what is needed. That is the main consideration. The pension for the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman is reasonable to a certain extent but there is the anomaly that the wife of such a pensioner is not entitled to medical benefits. A pension of £9 15s. plus the wife’s allowance is not sufficient to maintain a couple on a very grand scale. The wife should be given the ordinary social services benefits which her husband receives. As was mentioned here to-day the pension that the wife gets is her own and for that pension she has to put up with a great deal more than the ordinary housewife in caring for her husband.
The general rate of pension has been increased by five shillings but I do not think we need to be greatly concerned about that because most ex-servicemen receiving that pension have other jobs. Much heart-burning is caused among certain people when they find out that a person earning several thousand pounds a year is entitled to, and receives, a certain percentage of the pension. I do not agree with that outlook at all. I still say that any person who risked his all to fight for his country should be given every consideration.
The matter of onus of proof has proved a bugbear as far as the Repatriation Department is concerned. There are always those few cases that give a great deal of trouble. I have canvassed this matter before, but I think that any person who has seen active service should be given a small pension on his return as compensation for the effects of his war service that may become apparent in years to come.
– Is the honorable senator suggesting that every one should get this pension ?
– Every person who served in the forces should be provided with a very small pension, and then the matter of onus of proof would not need to be considered at all. Many men leave the army 100 per cent, physically fit, according to their doctors, but to a degree their physical constitution or their nervous system, is undermined. Such effects may not become apparent for years, but finally they show up and then a doctor can quite easily attribute them to causes other than war service. The onus of proof provision is very difficult to implement. This fact was emphasized in respect of a case of cancer which was raised earlier to-day. Previously, this difficulty was most commonly experienced in cases of tuberculosis, but now that disease is generally accepted as being dueto war service. It is very, very difficult, however to get the Repatriation Department to accept the fact that cases of cancer are due to war causes. Certain people are prone to cancer and their experiences in the army and their war service generally accelerate the onset of the disease. If there is any reasonabledoubt at all, I do not see why such casesshould not be accepted by the department.. I have a case awaiting consideration by the Minister at the present time. It isthat of a returned soldier who wa* accepted by the department at the beginning and was admitted into a repatriation hospital. He went to the hospital twice and had two operations and when he was discharged the doctors said that the trouble had been removed. Later, he was found to have a cancer, but the department refused to recognize it as being caused by war service. That man has had fifteen operations which have cost him approximately £500. If the department allowed that man to enter the repatriation hospital in the first place, and to undergo an operation there, it must have had some idea that his disability was caused through war service. That being so, he should have been entitled to undergo further operations in the repatriation hospital. At present he is waiting to undergo another operation, and the cost of his treatment represents a severe financial burden.
– That case seems impossible. If he was once admitted to a repatriation hospital, he would never be forced to go outside for treatment.
– I am afraid that that is what has happened. He had two operations in the repatriation hospital.
– Has the honorable senator given his name to the Minister?
– The case has been before the tribunal, and it was held that the disability was not due to war service. The department, therefore, has no further interest in that man. I presume that his original admission to the hospital was a concession, but now the department has refused to accept responsibility, and he must pay for his own treatment. He has had fifteen operations, and he is not likely to live more than another couple -nf years.
There is one other group of persons who need a great deal of help. I refer to the war widows, who are not receiving adequate pensions. The Minister took as an example the case of a war widow with ;two children. She receives £9 16s. a week, with a few medical benefits thrown in. !How -can a widow with two children exist on £9 16s. a week? Such a family could :no:t exist even in frugal comfort on a pen.sion as low as that. If a married man <with two children is called on to risk his We for his country, and he knows that that is all his family will receive if he is killed, he will consider very carefully before answering the call. If he answers it, we who are left should be prepared to make our sacrifice, if necessary by increasing the rate of taxation, so that his wife and children may be kept in reasonable comfort.
– What does the honorable senator mean by reasonable comfort ?
– The same kind of comfort that the honorable senator would expect. I do not mean luxury.
– I cannot afford reasonable comfort.
– But the honorable senator still wants reasonable comfort. If my suggestion for the appointment of a fact-finding commission were adopted, that commission would decide what was a reasonable standard of comfort. I support the amendment proposed by Senator McKenna, although, in my opinion, it does not go far enough. The amendment proposes the insertion of the following words : - . . having regard to the sustained and continuous decline in the value of Australian money, the bill be redrafted to provide substantially greater benefits for ex-service personnel. . . .
I support that amendment, because I believe that the present benefits are far too small. But I would like to see a factfinding commission appointed, so that a standard could be laid down for the granting benefits to ex-servicemen or their widows. The matter would then be removed from the realm of party politics. The members of the commission would make certain that the people who have made sacrifices, such as the widow who lost her husband, would receive justice from a thankful community. I know that the Minister is trying to assist these deserving people, but he is restricted by the Government’s financial policy. i know that he is doing all that he can, and I should like to congratulate him on the introduction of the rehabilitation scheme. There are other things for which he and his department can be praised, but his hands are tied to a large extent, and this Parliament should take steps to improve the conditions of deserving exservicemen and their dependants. It should not be a case of increasing pensions for the political benefit of one or other party. A definite standard of benefits should be determined, so that in the future the welfare of the ex-serviceman and his dependants will be safeguarded. Therefore, I support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate.
.- I support the bill. I shall speak briefly on this matter, because this is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation, designed to give effect to the propositions contained in the budget. The bill proposes to do five major things. It proposes to increase by 10s. a week the pension granted to a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman. It proposes to increase by 5s. a. week the general rate pension. It also proposes to increase by 20s. a week the attendants’ allowance for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, and it proposes to increase pensions for war widows by 10s. a week. The bill also seeks to increase the pension which we often refer to as the “burnt-out” pension, for which most ex-servicemen qualify at the age of 60. The only other major proposal in the legislation is the removal of the. ceiling limits, by the repeal of section !)1a.
So far in this debate, members of the Opposition have suggested that the proposals for increases are inadequate, and in fact the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator McKenna) has circulated an amendment. Without in any way prejudicing the inherent right of ex-servicemen to pensions, I suggest that pensions as a whole have to be considered in relation to the economy of the nation. It is easy for honorable senators in Opposition to suggest that the Government should increase pensions, but all honorable’ senators realize in their heart or hearts that the whole pattern of pension increases has to be considered in relation, to the economy.
Senator Cole has suggested that we should arbitrarily assess the rate of pension. If we did that, and the national economy could not stand that arbitrary assessment, we could reach a position where the rate would be so high that the pensions themselves would be prejudiced. The national budget is a precision instrument. The needs of all sections of the community have to be weighed in the balance. Ultimately, the Treasurer has to declare what he can do financially for various sections of the community. The position of ex-servicemen and their dependants has been improved progressively during the life of this Government. At all times, the Government and the Treasurer have had to look at the problem in relation to the national economy. It would be futile to hand out pensions that the economy could not stand because, as I have said, ultimately the pensions themselves would be prejudiced.
The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who represents- the alternative government of this country, described the provisions of this bill as “inadequate, unimaginative and lacking in generosity The Opposition has circulated an amendment to the effect that the legislation should be re-drafted to provide for substantially larger benefits. It is easy for the Opposition to submit such proposals when it has no responsibility in the matter. Despite the statements that were made by Senator Ashley, we must consider the Opposition’s background in relation to pensions, and the positive steps it took in that connexion when it had the responsibility of government. We can measure the sincerity of the Opposition only by what it did when it was in office.
I remind honorable senators that the ceiling rates that are to be removed by the bill now before the Senate were imposed by the Labour Government in 1948. During that Government’s term of office, an ex-serviceman receiving a 40 per cent, pension, who became unemployed or unable to work because of sickness, was not qualified to receive unemployment benefits. Probably his unemployment or sickness was caused by war disabilities, but that did not affect the attitude of the Labour Government. During its regime, war . widows were not eligible for war service homes. This Government, to its credit, has corrected those anomalies.
Senator Ashley was very upset by frequent references in the Minister’s second-reading speech to 1949, and he referred to the C series index. I am glad he did so, because I can quote the 0 series index with a clear conscience, knowing that he accepts it as a measure of the cost of living. The Opposition has complained that the increases of pensions are not consistent with the rise in the cost of living. I remind honorable senators that in 1949, during the life of the Labour Government of which Senator Ashley was a member, the cost of living rose by 9 per cent. Senator Ashley, as a member of the cabinet of that day, must accept responsibility for the fact that in that year, no increase of ex-servicemen’s pensions was granted. When an amendment is circulated proposing that substantially greater rates of pension should be paid to ex-servicemen, honorable senators are entitled to examine the record of the political party that has submitted the proposed amendments, and what it did in similar circumstances when it had administrative powers.
The bill before the Senate is fairly straightforward and simple. It provides, among other things, for an increase in the rate of pension for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. In 1949, the rate pension for totally and permanently incapacitated persons was £5 6s. Under the provisions of the bill before the Senate, that pension rate is to be increased to £9 15s. That represents an increase of 84 per cent, and in the same period, the C series index shows that the cost of living has risen by 67 per cent. That is the answer to the statements that have been made by honorable senators on the Opposition side. A totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner with a wife and two children under sixteen years may receive a weekly amount of £14 19s. 6d., including education and other allowances.
We have come a long way in trying to meet our responsibilities to exservicemen. No sane person would suggest that w.e are giving ex-servicemen and their dependants all that we would like to give them, or all that they are entitled to receive, but having regard to the national economy and the responsibilities of the Government, the rates proposed represent a substantial improvement on the pensions they have been receiving. In 1949, the general rate pension was £2 15s. This year, it will be raised to £4 15s. That represents an increase of 73 per cent, whereas,, according to the C series index, the cost of living has risen by only 67 per cent. The rate of pension for war widows in 1949 was £3, and it is to be increased to £4 10s., an increase of 50 per cent. The domestic allowance is to be £1 14s. 6d. compared with 7s. 6d. in 1949. Therefore, a war widow will receive an increase of 84 per cent, on the allowances paid in 1949. During the same period, the cost of living has risen by 67 per cent. In September, 1950, this Government provided a 10 horse-power Hillman motor car for double amputees and ex-servicemen who were paralyzed. In addition - I do not suggest that it is the best we can hope to give them, but it is evidence of our acceptance of our responsibility to them - they get £120 per annum for running expenses. I remind the Senate that in 1948 the previous Government refused this request when a deputation submitted it. The present Government can at least claim that, as far as has been humanly possible, it has endeavoured to face the problem of the nation’s responsibility to ex-service personnel. In 1950, it provided for a special transport allowance for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. Previously, that allowance was payable only to men who were completely immobilized and had to use wheel chairs. I repeat that these allowances are not the optimum that we hope for, but they are evidence of an attempt to do something to ameliorate the condition of these people.
The greatest achievement which this bill will accomplish will, however, be the removal of the ceiling limit. In my speech on the budget last year I attacked the ceiling limit, and gave some examples to show how unjustly it operated in the case of ex-servicemen. It is therefore heartening to me, and I believe to other honorable senators also, to know that the ground for that criticism is now to be entirely removed. The ceiling was raised last year from £5 to £5 12s. 6d. a week, but- its removal is something that give me much satisfaction. While the ceiling limit remained, an ex-serviceman who elected, at the age of 60 years, to take the burnt-out pension, and was in fact a 100 per cent, pensioner, found that the two amounts were aggregated, and that he could draw a. total of only £5 12s. 6d. a week. Now, the only limit will be the normal limit that applies to all civilians. It will be possible for an exserviceman to draw not only his disability pension, but also the equivalent of the invalid or old age pension, and he can draw it at the age of 60 years. That is an achievement that all honorable senators are delighted to see, and I should be remiss in my duty if I did not express my appreciation of the work of the present Minister for Repatriation in this connexion. Since he has held, his present office he has consistently come before us with proposals to improve the conditions of ex-servicemen. As I have said, no one will suggest that the provisions of this legislation are the complete answer to all the just claims of ex-servicemen, but we do say that, having regard to the overall economy of Australia and the responsibilities of the Government in all spheres of activity, the pensions are fair and reasonable, and show that Ave have come a long way along the road and that the pensions now meet the reasonable requirements of ex-servicemen. For those reasons, I am happy to support the bill before the Senate.
– In addressing myself to this bill, I, in common with all honorable senators on this side of the chamber, have no desire to hold up unduly the payment of the increased pensions to be paid to ex-service personnel. “We believe in the old adage, “ Every little helps “, and, although we consider that the increases are insufficient, we at least agree that some increase is proposed. Unfortunately, Senator Anderson could not resist the temptation to join the “ forty-niners “. Every speaker from the Government benches has gone back to 1949. In so doing, they have acted in a dishonest and misleading way, because they know well that the £1 of to-day is not worth what it was worth in 1949.
This measure, and repatriation legislation generally, is a grave and great responsibility of every political party in this country. In going back to 1949, Senator Anderson said that the pension payments were not then as great, in terms of money, as they are to-day. That is perfectly true. But the honorable senator did not say that the £1 of to-day is immeasurably less valuable than it was in 1949. He said that an additional 10s. a week would be paid to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, that the payment to attendants of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen would be raised, that the payment to widows would be increased, as would also be the amounts paid by way of service pensions. We approve the proposal to remove the ceiling limit now provided for in section 91 (a) of the act. If it was wrong in 1949, there is no justification for the perpetuation of an anomaly or injustice. Repatriation is a subject which should be kept free from party politics. We should not make a political football of repatriation because it is the responsibility of all political .parties.
I, too, .propose to join the “ fortyniners “. I shall go back to 1949 and show honorable senators opposite what their own leader, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), said then. In his policy speech of 1949, under the heading “ Repatriation “, the right honorable gentleman said -
Repatriation remains a great and proud responsibility. The Opposition parties-
They were the parties he was leading. contain a majority of members and an overwhelming majority of new candidates who are ex-servicemen.
That is not the close preserve of the Government parties, because there are just as many ex-servicemen on this side of the chamber as on the Government benches. On that occasion, Mr. Menzies continued -
We shall see to it that there is speed, financial and human justice and understanding in our administration of soldier problems.
Current legislation will be promptly overhauled and anomalies adjusted.
We will sympathetically review financial allowances, particularly those related to disability or war widow-hood, in the light of all the circumstances, including the fall in th, value of money.
For advice in relation to them and other repatriation matters, we shall establish exservicemen’s committees of Cabinet and of Parliament, to confer with representatives of ex-service organizations.
That is quite a laudable objective, but I am not aware that those committees have been set up, and certainly there has been no appointment of a parliamentary committee representing all political parties. Therefore, another promise that was made in 1949 by the Government parties has not been honoured.
Senator Wardlaw said that about £47,000,000 a year is now being paid for our repatriation services, and that only £19,000,000 was paid in 1949. I suggest that that statement is misleading and dishonest, because not only was the £19,000,000 paid in 1949 worth considerably more than the £47,000,000 at present being paid, but there are now more pensioners in this country, including those who served in the Korean war. Senator Wardlaw mentioned the G series index, and said that in 1949 the totally and permanently incapacitated exserviceman’s pension was £5 6s. a week, whereas to-day it is £9 14s. a week. In order to get a true idea of the value of the pension we must consider the basic wage in 1949, which was £6 5s. a week, and the present basic wage which is more than £12 a week. The latter figure does not take into account the fact that costofliving adjustments have been discontinued for some time. I suggest that if they were added the present basic wage would be about £15 a week. In comparison with the basic wage of 1949 and the basic wage of 1955, the totally and permanently incapacitated exserviceman’s pension of to-day is much less than it was in 1949.
Senator Marriott also made comparisons with the pensions of 1949, but I have answered his arguments in answering Senator Wardlaw. To-day, I was particularly interested to hear the reply of the Minister to a question asked by Senator Anderson. I do not intend to deal at great length with the increases of the pension rates. I want to deal with repatriation services, and I assure the Senate that I will not criticize repatriation officials, who can do only what the Repatriation Act enables them to do. I have had nothing but courtesy and careful attention whenever I have come into contact with officials of the Repatriation Department. I shall not attack the Minister for Repatriation because he also has limited power, although he could exercise his discretion a good deal more than he does. However, I direct attention to the fact that repatriation facilities are not extended as widely as they should be. Many cases of ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen seeking medical and hospital attention come to my notice, and the fact that they are refused in many instances is pathetic.
Quite recently, I was approached in connexion with an ex-serviceman who gave me a hand to win World War I. He had served with me in the same unit. That man, like thousands of other ex-servicemen, only wanted to get out of the Army as soon as he landed back in Australia after the war ended. He was discharged, and did not bother about repatriation benefits, and his was a case that could probably be multiplied, thousands of times. He left the Army, went out into the country, and for many years was in quite affluent circumstances. Even when he became ill in later years he did not bother the Repatriation Department. However, he then became seriously ill and was taken to Alfred Hospital. His illness was of a type that did not enable a public hospital to keep him longer than a certain period. I approached the repatriation officials, and then the Minister for Repatriation, to try to get him into Heidelberg military hospital. There were plenty of beds available in the hospital, but because he had not bothered the Repatriation Department, and did not have a repatriation entitlement, he was not allowed into that hospital.
While I was making final, desperate representations to the Minister, the man died. Since then his widow, after much effort, has been granted a war widow’s pension. That very fact clearly indicates that the man should have been treated at a repatriation general hospital. It might be said that there have been similar cases all through the years, during the rule of Labour governments as well as of nonLabour governments. That may be true, but that is no justification for continuing a wrong procedure. It is time that the Repatriation Act, the repatriation services and repatriation treatments generally, were thoroughly overhauled.
To-day, in answer to a question asked in this chamber, the Senate was told that in Victoria 1,730 appeals were heard last year by the war pensions entitlements appeal tribunals, but only 290 were allowed. That indicates quite clearly that the onus of proof is not, in practice, being accepted by the Repatriation Department. It may be said that I am making an attack on the personnel of the tribunals, but I do not mean my remarks to be taken in that way. Obviously, the personnel of the tribunals, perhaps unconsciously, eventually come to adopt the attitude that they must save public money. Despite the fact that the onus of proof, to which reference has been made by other honorable senators on this side of the chamber, should rest in practice on the department, in fact it does not do so.
If honorable senators opposite were to see some of the men who call on me - and I am not suggesting that I am the only one whom they go to see - I feel sure they would agree that it is disgraceful that the war pensions appeals tribunals have the audacity to reject so many claims, and to do so in such an inhuman and unsympathetic manner. For a man in bad health to go before an appeal tribunal is an ordeal, and after he has gone through that ordeal, he gets no sympathy, and no indication of what is wrong and of the reason for his application being rejected. All he gets is a stereotyped reply which states, “ Your appeal to the War Pensions Appeal Tribunal has been rejected after full consideration of all the facts “. There is not one word of explanation of the reasons for the decision.
The Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) clearly demonstrated this afternoon that, if there is the slightest doubt, the benefit of that doubt should be given to the appellant. Otherwise the claim that the onus of proof rests on the department means nothing. I suggest that, in almost all cases, a certain degree of doubt exists, because there is very often violent disagreement between medical men, not only in Australia, but also in other countries of the world. In the case to which reference was made this afternoon, I thought that the man concerned had died of cancer, but the Minister for Repatriation said that he had died of a tumour. There is serious disagreement amongst the most eminent medical men of the world concerning the causes of cancer. As a matter of fact, the causes of cancer are not known by even the best medical men. If an ex-serviceman dies of a tumour, how can medical opinion say definitely and irrevocably that his condition was not caused, or at least aggravated by, war service? The same can be said of cancer. It is impossible to get proof in such cases.
With monotonous regularity, applicants to the War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal, whose claims have been rejected, receive the reply, “ This case cannot be re-opened unless some fresh evidence, bearing on the complaint, is given “. How, in the name of goodness, are exservicemen, particularly ex-servicemen of World War I., to get fresh evidence after the lapse of so many years? The people who might be able to supply that evidence may be in other parts of the country, and their whereabouts may not be known to the appellant, or they may be dead. Where is the onus of proof to stop?
Whose doubt is it, the benefit of which is supposed to be given to the appellant? That is a question that must be asked by those handling these cases. Is it doubt in the minds of the personnel of the tribunal, or is it doubt among the medical men? I am certain that there is conflicting medical evidence in a large percentage of the cases heard by the tribunals, and therefore there must be doubt. As honorable senators are aware, very often direct medical conflict is evident. For instance, at the present time the medical profession is in violent disagreement on the question of whether smoking causes lung cancer. Some medical men say that smoking is responsible for lung cancer, and others say that it is not. Where such direct disagreement occurs between medical men, I think the benefit of the doubt should be given to the appellant. Yet, the tribunals have made many adverse decisions, although such conflict of opinion existed.
As I stated earlier, a person who is ill from any cause at all, and who has to appear before a war pensions entitlement tribunal must, of necessity, be somewhat, awe-struck. It is almost comparable to having to face a court of law. These ex-servicemen go before the tribunals inexperienced in advocacy, and I suggest that the members of the tribunal get so used to their duties that they become professionals, as it were, in the art of defeating the applicant. I do not wish to impute improper motives to thorn, but I suggest that, through having dealt with appeals for so long, they become imbued with the idea that almost every appeal should be rejected.
I invite the attention of honorable senators to a case which was recently referred to me. Although I am at liberty to use the name of the person concerned, I prefer not to do so at the preesnt time. This person, who lives at Point Lonsdale, Victoria, is in a very bad state of health, and representations have ‘been made to me by his State member of parliament. The ex-serviceman is said to have complained bitterly about the manner in which his appeal was heard. I am willing to admit that, perhaps, all that he says may not be entirely correct, because he may he guided by his memory; nevertheless, it is apparent that he was very much upset by his experience. Of course, this is not the only case of this kind which has come to my notice. The ex-serviceman says -
I have been on a small pension since 1919 for coronary sclerosis and anxiety state. Since 1949, I have found myself unable to carry out my normal duties, and my pension was raised to 80%, 70% due to the 1914-18 war and 10% due to the 1939-45 war. Last year, finding that my condition had worsened, and being unable to earn anything, I decided, onthe advice of my local medical officer-
And he gives the name of the doctor, who practices at Queenscliff - and suggested by my chemist, to apply for the T.P.I. pension. I was also advised to get in touch with the local member-
And he gives the name of the local member of parliament - who would try to expedite the matter, which, he did through Senator Sandford.
I am not sufficiently bashful to keep my own name out of it. He goes on -
The application was disallowed but the pension rate was raised to 100 per cent. I appealed, informing the local member that I had done so. The appeal took place on 10.3.55 and this, too, was disallowed.
Naturally I was very disappointed with the verdict and I wish to enter an emphatic protest as to the manner in which this tribunal was conducted.
He then gave an example of what happened when he appeared before the tribunal -
As soon as I was seated and answered identification questions the following took place: -
Chairman. - You wrote to Senator Sandford in order to expedite your case? Answer. - Yes.
Chairman. - Have you read the Repat riation Act?
What a question to ask a person appearing before the tribunal?
Answer. - No.
His letter continues -
He then proceeded to dress me down in no uncertain tones, and told me, among other things, that not even the Prime Minister could do anything to expedite the tribunal’s business. As I have several letters from the Repatriation Commission that Senator Sandford forwarded to me, I did not think that I was doing anything irregular, and even if I had, I do not think that that was the time or place to correct me. I am not a fit man, and after travelling to Melbourne and being subject to the strain of waiting, I was naturally a bit nervy, and I thought, and still think that this treatment a deliberate attempt to upset and humiliate me, which it certainly did.
Knowing my nervousness, I had prepared a statement of my condition, to which I attached further medical evidence from my local medical officer and Dr. Russell Buchanan of 12 Collins Street, Melbourne.
The Chairman refused to accept these until after questioning although I twice attempted to render them.
I also took exception to the tone of some of the questions asked me, such as: -
Question. - Have you a lawn?
If he had asked me that I should have answered “no, I have an asphalt yard all painted green “. The letter proceeds -
Answer. - Yes.
Question. - Who mows it?
Answer. - My wife.
Question. - Is she about your age? which I felt were designed to ‘humiliate me.
I feel strongly that returned men should not be subjected to treatment like this. This came as a greater shock to me, as previously I had always been treated with the greatest kindness and consideration in any dealings with the Repatriation Department.
That is only one of many cases, and I quote that letter in all seriousness and with feeling because this is a most important matter. If these statements are true, and appeals are conducted along the lines described, it is obvious that 99 per cent, of the appellants who appear before these tribunals would be overawed. It means that appellants are subject to almost a third degree interrogation, and it is time that something was done about it. I could bring hundreds more such cases to the attention of the Senate. I have been distressed to be interviewed by some of these men, and probably other honorable senators have had similar experiences. They are men who have appealed unsuccessfully to the tribunals for their just dues.
An honorable senator on the Government side - one of the “ forty-niners “ - said to-night that war pensions had to be considered in relation to the nation’s economy. No benefit to ex-servicemen, whether by way of pension,- hospital treatment or repatriation facilities should depend upon economic considerations. The Australian Government promised the servicemen in both world wars that they would be given the best that the country could provide for them. It has been said that they were told that nothing would be too good for them when they returned, and they are now receiving just that - nothing.
I am pleased that the budget provides for an increase of war pensions, but it is not enough. It is futile for the Government to compare the proposed pensions with those paid in 1949. It was pathetic to hear honorable senators on the opposite side of the chamber doing this in an attempt to justify the meagre rise provided in the budget. I was distressed at the manner in which the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) introduced this measure. He adopted an apologetic air throughout. Apart from the actual increases in pension rates, I direct the attention of the Minister to anomalies and injustices in repatriation benefits and services. I ask the honorable gentleman to exercise his authority to have them remedied. It is no good arguing that these things have been going on for years, even when governments of a different political complexion were in office. That is no justification for the perpetuation of the anomalies. Two wrongs do not make a right.
An outstanding need is to expedite the hearing of appeals. The Minister, with some pride, pointed out to-day that “War Pensions Appeals Tribunals have overcome some of the lag in hearings, but there are still many appeals outstanding. Not long ago, in South Australia, he claimed great credit for this fact but even then there were more than 2,000 appeals in that State waiting to be heard. That is not much consolation to the appellants who are on the waiting list. Unless the Minister can devise some means of speeding up the hearings, and of making absolutely certain that the onus of proof is accepted in practice and in fact by the department, there will not be much improvement in the position. He should take heed of what the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) said to-day about the operation of the act in’ Great Britain under which the appellant has the right of appeal to a judicial authority. If legal points are raised some tribunals are not qualified to decide them.
I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition. If it will benefit ex-servicemen in any way, Government supporters should support it also. They profess to be greatly concerned with the welfare of ex-servicemen, and it is time that they faced the issues in a practical manner. The opportunity is here and it will he presented to honorable senators at the committee stage to show their concern for the ex-servicemen by supporting the amendment that has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition. In addition, I appeal to the Minister to give consideration to what I have said concerning the anomalies and injustices contained in the act.
.- I have listened to this debate with great interest, particularly to the speeches made from the Opposition side. Being unable to fault the bill honorable senators opposite have resorted to the practice of citing individual cases which have been rejected by competent tribunals and submitting them to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) in this debate. Knowing the Minister as we do, if those individual cases are taken to him in the proper way and in the proper place he will always give them the greatest sympathetic treatment that is possible.
It is no argument against the act to cite individual cases in the Parliament; rather, we should deal with broad principles. I commend the Minister for the continual improvement that he has made in the Repatriation Act since he has been administering it.
An amendment has been moved but we know full well that the Opposition does this sort of thing regularly in respect of social services measures. That has become a habit with honorable senators opposite. It is the only thing they can do. They propose amendments of this kind without any responsibility, knowing full well that they cannot get them accepted. It is easy for honorable senators opposite, who have no responsibility, to bring along nicely worded amendments, knowing that they are not acceptable to the Government. That practice enables them to go back to their electors and say, “ We tried to alter that. We moved an amendment to alter it, but the Government would not accept it “. The amendment before the Chair is rather interesting when we cast our minds back to 1949, the year that the Opposition hates to hear mentioned. I notice that Senator Ashley and Senator Sandford are immediately getting hot under the collar when I mention 1949, because during the six years from 1943 to 1949 when the Opposition was in government and in a position to do something, all it did was to give a 10s. increase during the whole of that six-year period.
– They lost their repatriation Ministers.
– Labour governments consistently lost their repatriation Ministers. The public dealt with them one by one and put Liberal and Australian Country party Ministers in their places. That is a very good habit which I recommend the electors to adhere to. During the period from 1943 to 1949 the Opposition, when in government, advanced the pension by only 10s. a week. Senator Sandford said that we are not in fact doing anything by further increasing the pension because the value of money has fallen. It is very interesting to note that since 1949 the pension rate has been increased by 84 per cent, whereas the cost of living based on the
C series index, has risen by only 67 per cent, during that period. That fact shows that on a cost of living basis the pensioner, under the administration of the present Minister for Repatriation, is slightly better off to-day than he was in 1949. Every honorable senator no doubt would like to give to these pensioners greater increases.
Senator Anderson gave a very reasoned and good address on this aspect of the matter, just as he did last year. He gave a very good address on the lifting of the ceiling limits. He dealt with the matter adequately when he reminded us that all social services are elements in the budget and can only be taken into account in relation to other revenue commitments when the Government is determining what it can afford to allot for its various services. That is a wise and proper approach to the subject. It is interesting to remember that whereas in 1939 the pension was £4 16s. a. week and when the previous government left office it was £5 6s. a week, to-day it is £9 15s. a week.
– It will be.
– If honorable senators opposite would not talk so much these proposed increases could be passed in time to be paid on the 20th October. I commend the Minister particularly for the fact that in this measure he is rectifying the last of a long list of anomalies that have been pointed out by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. He has the record of being Minister for Repatriation for a longer period than any of his predecessors. During his term of office he has consistently dealt with all these anomalies, and it must give him great pleasure to-night to know that by cancelling the ceiling limits he will have removed the last anomaly on the list. In that respect a great deal of commendation is due to the Minister and also to the Government, because, after all, the Minister must first persuade the Cabinet to accept his proposals.
I was interested to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) suggest that we should ally these pensions to the basic wage. I have heard him at times argue in exactly the opposite strain.
Previously, he has said that to ally any pension to the basic wage, or to a part of the basic wage, would involve great pitfalls, because if the basic wage decreased it would mean that the pensions would have to be reduced to a corresponding degree; and no government would like to face such a situation. I have heard him argue from that point of view, just as he argued from the opposite point of view to-night. I agree that it would be a most difficult thing to ally pensions to the basic wage with the risk of its falling over the years. I do not think that that is a sound proposition. I agree with previous arguments of the Leader of the Opposition, but now that he is on the opposite tack I disagree with him.
He further said that we should make the standard the basic wage for the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners. I do not think that a married man on a totally and permanently incapacitated pension would agree with that, because that would mean that his pension would have to be decreased and that would not suit him at all. The £9 15s. which the totally and permanently incapacitated man will get under this bill, whilst it is not as much as we would like to give him, does bring him when his other benefits are considered, very close to the basic wage. He receives free hospital, medical and dental attention, and he deserves to do so. I do not for a moment suggest that he does not deserve such additional benefits. He gets this attention for all of his complaints whether or not they are due to war causes. Once he is on a totally and permanently incapacitated pension he receives free medical, dental, and hospital benefits. On the other hand, the man on the basic wage has to pay for such benefits. I point out that fact as a comparison, because these comparisons have been made. He gets certain other benefits, including benefits from the States. Some States grant free tram passes to totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen, whereas basic wage earners do not get that concession. With the benefits that he receives in that way, even a single totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman would be nearly in the same financial position as is a basic wage earner. With the ‘married man, it is an entirely different matter. He receives £9 15s. a week, and £1 15s. 6d. a week is granted for his wife. That makes a total of £11 10s. 6d. With the provision for the repeal of the ceiling limit, the man and his wife are allowed to receive another £3 9s. 6d. in service pensions. That brings the total to £15 a week. I do not thing the married man would care to have his payment reduced from £15 to the basic wage. In addition to that amount, he receives certain concessions from the State government. In many cities in Australia he is exempt from the payment of rates on his property. The city in which I live extends that concession to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, and also to their widows. Those are things for which the basic wage earner must pay. By and large, I do not think that the married ex-serviceman receiving the totally and permanently incapacitated pension would agree with the argument of the Leader of the Opposition and ask to be reduced to the basic wage, and, in addition, pay out of the basic wage for the things which are granted free to him at present.
I now wish to refer to something which was said by Senator Sandford. I agree that these men who are ill and are required to appear before a tribunal would find it a pretty tough proposition. They naturally are nervous, and their appearance before the tribunal is an ordeal. I have always felt that the Returned Servicemen’s League and the Legion of Exservicemen have done a magnificent job in providing pensions officers to accompany them when they appear before tribunals. Those organizations realize that it is an ordeal for these ex-servicemen to face a tribunal. I think that Senator Sandford overlooked the great work being done by these organizations in providing trained advocates to accompany these men when they have to appear before the tribunals.
– They also help to prepare the relevant papers.
– The pensions officers help to prepare the necessary papers, and in this regard the secretaries of branches of the Returned Servicemen’s League throughout Australia have done a magnificent job. That is one point that Senator Sandford overlooked in the diatribe of destruction and criticism which he poured on the Government. That is a pretty significant point.
I shall now consider the very special benefits that this bill seeks to grant to ex-servicemen, and I mention them in the spirit in which they should be considered by all honorable senators. We do not think that these benefits are not deserved. They should be granted as soon as possible. The special rate pension in the second schedule has been increased by 10s. a week, and I point out that it took Labour six years, from 1943 to 1949, to grant increases amounting to 10s. a week, while this Government has granted an increase of that amount in one year. The general rate pension will be increased by 5s. The attendant’s allowance, which I consider an excellent provision, has been, increased by £1 a week from £1 15s. to £2 15s., and it can be as much as £4 10s. according to the disability from which the ex-serviceman is suffering. There is an increase of 1.0s. a week in the war widows’ pension, and service pensioners will receive an increase of 10s., which is equivalent to that granted to the age and invalid pensioners.
– How would the honorable senator like to live on it?
– Some of us live fairly well on what we get. From the appearance of the honorable senator who has interjected, I should say that he is not doing too badly.
– But the war widow does not receive what Senator Henty and I get. We get a lot more.
– And L think that she deserves more than we do.
– Then, the honorable senator should support the amendment.
– There are one or two other points to which I wish to refer, f do not want to devote too much time to them, because I think that we should dispose of this bill so that the increases may be paid on the 20th October. The sooner we stop talking the sooner the ex-servicemen will be paid these increases, f refer particularly to one significant portion of the bill which has not been referred to previously. The bill seeks to amend the provisions of the act relating to the eligibility for pension of dependants of female members of the forces who served in World War LT., the Korean war or- in operations in Malaya, and it proposes to remove two restrictions which now apply. The present act provides that the mother must be receiving a pension of at least 50 per cent, of the general rate before the child may receive a pension. That provision is sought to be repealed, as is the provision which limited eligibility to a child born of a marriage that took place before or during the mother’s service in the forces. Under the provisions of this bill, where the mother is the breadwinner of the family, a pension may be paid to a child irrespective of the pension payable to its mother or the date of the marriage of which the child is the issue. That is an additional improvement in the bill which has not yet been mentioned by honorable senators opposite.
I now refer to the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition. It is rather nauseating to hear such amendments moved, knowing the procedure as we do. An accusation of this kind of practice can be made not only against members of the present Opposition. If honorable senators look through the records, they will find that when supporters of the present Government were in opposition they did the same sort of thing. However, it does not improve the standard of parliamentary debate or conduct to move an amendment of this nature simply because one’s party is in opposition. The honorable senator who moved the amendment knows full well that it will not be agreed to. I do not think that the public gives us any marks for such tactics. The only purpose of it is to enable members of the Opposition to go to their electorates and say, “We tried to get you another £1 a week, but, of course, the Government would not accept our amendment “. That kind of practice should not be indulged in. If the Opposition thinks that it is hoodwinking the. electors of Australia in this way, it is not giving the electors credit for the intelligence that they possess, because’ the electors know full well what is behind such a procedure.
In conclusion, I should like again to commend the Minister for his sterling work during the six years he has administered the Repatriation Act. No one can say that the continual improvement that he has made in the act, year after year, has not been of great value to ex-servicemen. If one attends any of the congresses of ex-servicemen’s associations and sees the magnificent reception that our ex-digger Minister gets at such gatherings, one realizes that it is a tribute to the magnificent work that he has done during the last six years.
– I rise to order. Senator Henty, who has just resumed his seat, misunderstood me or misquoted my statements in a material part of my speech on this measure. He claimed that I had advocated the tying of the pension to the basic wage.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Pearson). - Order! Is the Leader of the Opposition making a personal explanation?
– No. I am exercising a right arising from Standing Order 410, which states -
A Senator who has spoken to a Question may again be heard, to explain himself in regard to some material part of his speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce any new matter, . . .
I wish to direct the attention of the Senate to the fact that Senator Henty stated I had suggested that war pensions should be tied to the basic wage. I referred to the basic wage during my speech in two contexts. In the first place, I referred to it only because the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) adopted comparisons between costofliving adjustments in 1949 and at the present time. The Minister did so in introducing the bill. I said that the basic wage was a fairer basis then, but that no such comparison should be made at all. In the second place, when I dealt with totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, I stated that the amount paid to them should be not less than the basic wage. Honorable senators may recall that I pointed out that the Labour party had advocated the payment of a pension of £12 10s., which was greater than the basic wage. Accordingly, the statement that T suggested that the pension rate should be tied to the basic wage was completely wrong.
Senator Henty also stated that I had changed my mind on the question of tying pensions to the basic wage, and he said that I was inconsistent. I affirm what I have always said - that they should not be so tied. There is no inconsistency in that. I hope that the Senate will recognize that, in the circumstances, Senator Henty was in error in claiming that I suggested that war pensions, or any class of pensions, should be tied to the basic wage.
– By way of personal explanation, I wish to say that I did misunderstand the references by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) to the basic wage. I understood that he meant to tie the basic wage to the pension. If I misunderstood him, I should like to withdraw that part of my speech in which I made the statement to which he has objected.
– The speeches on this bill from both sides of the chamber have been mere repetitions of speeches that have been made during past years on this subject. Pensions of all kinds have been a political football for all parties for a number of years. I do not propose to repeat the figures that have been cited during this debate, or to compare the rates of pension that were provided by the previous Labour Government with those proposed by this Government in the legislation that is before the Senate. I have been interested in ex-servicemen’s pensions since the early 1920’s. In my home town of Fremantle, I sat for many nights at committee meetings discussing pensions for ex-servicemen, and particularly those for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen who, in my opinion, merit the most sympathetic consideration. Those men have returned to Australiatotal wrecks physically.
In the early days of repatriation benefits, it was very difficult to get a tribunal to agree to grant a totally and permanently incapacitated pension to an exserviceman. It was also difficult for an exserviceman to obtain a 100 per cent, rate of pension. Every Australian govern ment since 1920 lias neglected its responsibilities to ex-servicemen. None of the Commonwealth governments in office in Australia during that period have fulfilled the promises that they gave to the men who enlisted. The cream of Australian manhood left these shores in World War I. for the graveyard of Gallipoli, and a large proportion of them remained there, unfortunately. Men with large families joined the Army in those days - the six bob a day army, as it was called. They did not get £12 or £13 a week as they do now, and there were more war widows from World War I. than from World War II. in proportion to the forces engaged. Many men returned to Australia total physical wrecks, and only the ex-servicemen’s organizations fought the Minister for Repatriation in every succeeding government to obtain justice for them.
The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) stated in his second-reading speech on this measure that an unmarried pensioner would get £9 15s. a week, a pensioner with a wife would get £11 10s. 6d. and a pensioner with a wife and two children would receive £14 19s. 6d., but he included child endowment in those payments to married men. What has child endowment to do with repatriation pensions? Child endowment is not subject to a means test. It is paid to every mother who has children under sixteen years of age and to others who are entitled to child endowment. It should never be related to the issue that is before the Senate now. Not one government, irrespective of its political colour, has fulfilled its obligations to the exservicemen of World War I. I remember the promises that were made to the men who enlisted before both world wars. In October, 1941, when the country was at war, a Labour government had to step in and assume office because of the collapse of the government then in office. The Labour Prime Minister, Mr. Curtin, conscripted every able-bodied man and placed him in a. machine shop or a munitions factory, or in the ranks of the armed forces. He had to do that because of the serious situation then confronting the country. But in doing so he made promises which, had be lived, I am sure he would have carried out, which is more than the present Government has done with promises it made.
Mr. Curtin said that men who had been conscripted to service in the Army, and whose future was thereby interfered with, would be rehabilitated and in some way compensated for what they gave up. He said that it was the duty of the nation to see that, on their return, opportunities were provided for those men to learn trades, or be fitted for professions, and that they should be trained to carry on from where they left off in order to serve their country. I am sure that no honorable senator will disagree with me when I say that one of the Ministers of the Curtin Government, Mr. Dedman, made a great contribution to the rehabilitation of ex-service men and women. At the conclusion of the war, about 1,000,000 men and women in the forces had to be fitted in to the life of the nation. Everything possible was done to give them training in technical schools, and universities to fit them to take their place in the community, and thousands of men and women availed themselves of the opportunity to do so. To-day, large numbers of them are filling positions of responsibility as tradesmen in shops and factories, or as businessmen, or in thE professions. All those things were done for men who returned to Australia physically fit, and free from war wounds and disabilities. Millions of pounds were spent on their rehabilitation. But what has been done for the men who returned home physical wrecks, and unable to accept employment in any occupation? My plea is for those who have come back totally incapacitated, because they are the ones who have not received the consideration to which their war service entitled them.
I believe that the Minister for Repatriation is sincere in his desire to improve their condition. So many cases have come to his notice that lie must know the disabilities from which they suffer. Yet at no time have they received as much as the basic wage. Nevertheless, the Minister, in his second-reading speech, compared conditions in 1949 with those prevailing to-day. He told us that whereas war pensions cost the country £19,000,000 in 1949, they had increased to £47,500,000 this year. “We know that that is true, and we also know the reason for the increase. Honorable senators opposite do not need to be told that, compared with the value of the £1 in 1949, “Fadden’s flimsies” are worth only about 5s. 6d. to-day. “When the present Government took office in 1949 the basic wage in Western Australia was £6 7s. Id. a week. The Government had not been in office for more than eighteen months when the basic wage rose by £1 19s. a week. In 1953, it was a little over £12 a week in “Western Australia. Then, in November, 1953, the Commonwealth Arbitration Court froze the basic wage.
– It put in the boot.
– That is so. Only recently the “Western Australian Arbitration Court found that the cost of living in that State had risen by 5s. lid. a week. In the light of that finding, it could not refuse to accept the representations made by the trade union movement. But the legal basic wage in “Western Australia is not the true basic wage. The real basic wage is £13 6s. 3d. a week. In the light of those facts, how can a man who is totally and permanently incapacitated live on a little over £9 a week? I should like to see supporters of the Government try to do so.
Throughout the country many wives of nien who are unable to work have had to work at the wash-tub for three days a week in order to supplement the family income. They have found it impossible to live on the amount received from the Government. The promises made to the men who enlisted have not been honoured by the present Government. Complaints are continually coming to hand of men who should be receiving a 100 per cent, pension getting only about 25 per cent, of the amount they should receive. Honorable senators on this side of the chamber know of these things, because the people concerned come to us for help. “We know that ex-servicemen generally are not happy about the proposed increase of 10s. a week in war pensions. The President of the New South Wales branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia says that members of his association throughout Australia will be bitterly disappointed at this paltry concession. That is the same complaint as has been voiced in previous years. Year in and year out the representatives of the men who fought have come to Canberra at the time of the preparation of the Government’s Estimates to ask that the men who served their country in time of war should receive increased pensions. But in most years they have had to be satisfied with a miserable increase of 2s. or 3s. a week. In some years the pensioners have missed out altogether, as they did last year.
I suggest that the Government should give serious consideration to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, who put up a splendid case on behalf of ex-servicemen pensioners. Indeed, he spoke so logically that it is hard to add anything to his arguments. I am sure that all ex-servicemen who heard his broadcast speech were perfectly satisfied with the case that he submitted to the Senate on their behalf. Senator McKenna proposed that the measure should be re-drafted, and that greater benefits should be granted to exservicemen and their dependants.
If the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) genuinely wished to help ex-servicemen and other pensioners, he could have granted an increase of £1 a week to all pensioners last financial year because, although he budgeted for a surplus of £15,000,000, his actual surplus was £70,000,000. If he had increased all pensions by £1 a week, he would still have completed the financial year with a surplus of about £25,000,000. I sincerely hope that ex-servicemen on the Government side will ensure that the Government shall give ex-servicemen the benefits that they have a right to expect. Many of them have illnesses or injuries attributable to war service either in “World “War I. or “World “War II., and they are continually in financial difficulties. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to accept the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition.
– I have much pleasure in supporting the measure before the Senate, and, and in doing so I direct the attention of honorable senators to the fact that since 1949 this Government has not repealed any legislation passed before 1949 which was designed to bring benefits to ex-servicemen. I strongly oppose the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna), an amendment that constitutes the severest indictment of Labour policy that I have ever heard. From 1941 to 1949, the Labour party had complete power in the Parliament, and could have done anything that it wished to do on behalf of ex-servicemen. During that time, it did not do as much as this Government has done since 1949, and the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition amounts to an admission that Labour, when in office, could have done much more for the ex-servicemen.
Senator Ashley has shown that he is very fond of permutations and combinations, but all that he makes out of his combinations are bloomers. The figures that he put before the Senate to-night are completely misleading. For example, he said that the Government was spending an additional £9,500,000 on benefits for those who served in the Korean “War. During World War I., more than 300,000 men left Australia, and in World War II. about the same number went overseas. But only one battalion of Australian troops fought in Korea, so it should be apparent that a very small proportion of the money spent on repatriation is spent in respect of Korean exservicemen.
The matter of the onus of proof in respect of repatriation benefits has been brought into the debate on this measure, and that is one of the most controversial subjects with which honorable senators have had to deal. I remember when we agreed upon the insertion of the present onus-of-proof provisions into the Repatriation Act. At that time, we considered that it was a very necessary reform. I had hoped that Senator McKenna would have explained his idea of the onus of proof, but, unfortunately, he did not. I was of the opinion that where competent medical authorities differed as to the cause of an ex-serviceman’s illness, the benefit of the doubt was given to the applies) nt. I was under the impression that the applicant did not have to convince the tribunal, but now it seems to me that on occasions he does have to convince the tribunal.
– That was in 1949, was it not ?
– I am glad that the honorable senator has interjected. Unless my memory deceives me, it was in 194/5 that we amended the act and inserted the onus-of-proof provision.
Honorable senators should appreciate that all the appeals that are disallowed are not necessarily rejections in the sense that the ex-servicemen concerned do not receive pensions. Many exservicemen, who are in receipt of war pensions, during the years ask for further consideration of their cases, and whilst some of those appeals are dismissed, of course, that does not mean that the ex-servicemen lose their pensions in every case .
This bill proposes to increase most war pensions by 10s. a week. The special rate pension is to be increased from £9 5s. to £9 15s. a week. I have said before - and I have been hotly criticized for saying it - that ex-servicemen who are in receipt of a pension are in a relatively good position compared with many ex-servicemen of World War I. who have not been able to prove that their disabilities are due to war service. It peeves me sometimes when I hear the totally and permanently incapacitated man say, “ I only get £9 5s. a week “. He forgets that his wife gets an additional £1 15s. a week. When this bill is passed by the Parliament, a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman and his wife may receive £15 a week, without any means test being applied.
– Including child endowment ?
– No, that does not include child endowment. Provided that the wife of a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman is 60 years of age, between them they may receive £15 a week, consisting of war pension and social services benefits. Any such exserviceman who is not eligible for a service, age or invalid pension, and his wife, may receive a war pension of 11 10s. 6d. a week, and if they have a child aged twelve, war pension of13s. 9d. a week is payable, plus education allowance of11. 6d. a week and child endowment of10s. a week. If they have a child of fourteen years of age, the war pension is13s. 9d. a week, education allowance15s. a week, and child endowment 5s. a week, making a total of £14 19s. 6d. for the family.
Let us come to the ex-servicemen of World War I., the majority of whom are between 60 and 64 years of age. If eligible for a service, age or invalid pension, a man and his wife are entitled to war pension of £11 10s. 6d. a week, and by way of service, age or invalid pension, £3 9s. 6d. a week, making a total of £15 a week. If they have a child of twelve years of age and another of fourteen, their total family income is £19 3s. a week. If one of their children goes to a secondary school and then to a university, they are paid £212s. 6d. a week, or more than £130 a year, plus the cost of fees, books, instruments, and even sports fees. I know of no other scholarship in Australia that is so valuable for a boy or girl.
– How long have they been getting that?
– This Government has given it to them during its term of office. That is the answer to the contention that the Government does nothing for the children of ex-servicemen.
I agree with some other honorable senators who have spoken that, perhaps, war widows have not been treated as generously as we could wish, but under this Government, they have received increases of their pensions, and I hope that, now that other pensioners have been dealt with satisfactorily, the position of the war widows will be improved in the future. If a war widow is not eligible for an age pension and she has two children, she receives £9 16s. a week, made up of war pension of £4 10s. a week, domestic allowance of £1 14s. 6d., and allowances for her children. If the children are aged twelve and fourteen years, her income is £1011s. a week. The children, of course, are eligible to undertake a university course. If she has three children, one of whom is at the university, her weekly income is £13 7s., plus the cost of fees, instruments and books.
Whichever way this matter is looked at, it is obvious that the Government has endeavoured to do what it can to better the lot of pensioners, particularly war pensioners. I, too, wish to pay a tribute to the Minister forRepatriation (Senator Cooper), who has administered his portfolio with a great deal of ability, certainly with much courtesy, and also with profound understanding. I am sure that all ex-servicemen, particularly totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, will welcome with open arms this latest move of the Minister. I support the bill.
Debate interrupted.
page 326
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. A. M. McMullin). - 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.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 September 1955, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1955/19550928_senate_21_s6/>.