Senate
25 September 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1968

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 921

QUESTION

MAKINE BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science the following question: Has the Minister seen a suggestion in the Melbourne Herald’ of yesterday by the Royal Society of Victoria that a marine biological research institute should be established as a memorial to the late Harold Holt at Point Nepean? If the Government decides to establish such a memorial, will the . Minister see that it is established at the only logical and sensible site, that is, on one of the islands of the Great Barrier Reef so that it can work in conjunction with the University College of Townsville, the only university which has a chair of marine biology?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– 1 have not seen the specific reference in the ‘Herald’ but I have seen other references to the same proposal. I am aware of suggestions that a marine biological research laboratory should be established in connection with the Great Barrier Reef. The association of the two ideas - a memorial to Mr Holt and a research laboratory for the Great Barrier Reef - seems to me to be inconsistent, but 1 will pass the question to the Minister for his consideration.

page 921

QUESTION

ROSE BAY FLYING BOAT BASE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation give me any information in regard to the future of the Rose Bay flying boat base and the desire of the Woollahra Council to regain the land for recreational purposes?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– 1 know that there is a flying boat service and establishment at Rose Bay in Sydney, New South Wales. I know that it caters for an airline that operates between New South Wales and Lord Howe Island. The operation is conducted by Ansett-ANA. I do not know of any proposal by the Woollahra Council to take over that Hying boat base or for Ansett-ANA to relinquish the base at the present time.

page 921

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. I refer to the reply given yesterday to a question I asked regarding Russian and Polish ships loading in Australian ports. In the course of that reply the Minister said:

During the past year six Russian vessels and six Polish vessels called at Australian ports to toad wool. Of these only one vessel reported inwards directly from Haiphong.

The Minister also advised that ‘Janmatjekjo’, a Polish ship which called at Australian ports, had earlier called at Haiphong. I note that the Minister in referring to the six Russian and six Polish vessels was careful to say that only one of them had reported inwards directly from Haiphong, yet he was able to advise that the ‘Janmatjekjo’ had at one stage called at Haiphong. I now ask the Minister: Is it a fact that of the six Polish vessels which called at Australian ports in the last year, four and possibly five of them had at one stage or another prior to their arrival in Australian ports to collect Australian exports delivered war materials to North Vietnam? If the Minister is not prepared to say what cargo those vessels delivered to North Vietnam, will he advise whether four and possibly live of them ever called at Haiphong or any other port in North Vietnam?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Yesterday 1 gave the Leader at the Australian Democratic Labor Party an answer to a question he had placed on the notice paper. I obtained that answer from the Minister for Trade and Industry. Having regard to the comprehensive nature of the supplementary question now asked by the honourable gentleman I suggest that he place it on the notice paper and 1 will attempt to get a prompt answer for him.

page 921

QUESTION

SKYHAWK AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which I address to the Minister for Supply, relates to the reported lack of spare parts and maintenance equipment for Navy Skyhawk fighter bombers. I ask: In view of the difficulties presented by American supply problems, and some unused capacity of the Australian aircraft industry, will the Minister investigate the practicability of the production of some of the required spares and equipment by the Department of.

Supply or the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 will inquire into the circumstances and see whether there is a possibility of government establishments providing some of the necessary equipment. The honourable senator will appreciate that very often in these matters the magnitude of the order and the need for tooling up are most important factors. However, I will gel a report from my Department. I hope to have an answer for the honourable senator tomorrow.

page 922

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– T refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to recent statements of the United States VicePresident who anticipates that in the early future there will be a return of some, if nol all, of the United States troops at present in Vietnam. Has the United Stales Administration, of which the Vice-President is a senior member, kept the Australian Government advised of its intentions with regard to the withdrawal of United States troops? Does the Australian Government intend to undertake a withdrawal of Australian troops from Vietnam in proportion to any reduction of the American military contribution in Vietnam?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question is hypothetical to a very significant degree. 1 feel that he has based his question on a number of reports of statements made by the Vice-President in his political campaigning and not as official statements on behalf of the United States Government. I think it is fair to say that the reports of the Vice-President’s statements reflect the interpretations by newspaper reporters of what they thought the Vice-President said. In all the circumstances 1 do not think the question requires an answer from me as the representative in the Senate of the Minister for External Affairs.

page 922

QUESTION

BALANCE OF PAYMENTS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Is it true that Australia had a trading deficit of $30m last month and had a trading deficit of $60.6m for the first 2 months of 1968-69?

If this is correct, does this deficit concern the Government? If so, what policy has the Government in mind to overcome this problem?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I have not in mind the precise figures of the monthly balance of payments position, but I remind the honourable senator that in some months of the financial year traditionally there is a depression in our overseas balances and in other months a significant rise. I think it is very dangerous to draw conclusions from looking at a couple of months in isolation, without looking at the corresponding months in preceding years to see what the trend was for those months.

Talking in generalities. I mention that towards the end of the year we usually get a situation in which our overseas balances increase dramatically, whereas at other times of the year, when seasonal factors are not operating favourably, we often find a decline in them. At that time of the year it would be possible for one to come to l he conclusion that the honourable senator obviously has reached. J suggest that he might like to reshape his question on some subsequent occasion when he has looked at the matter in a broader aspect.

page 922

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. 1 ask: How many children are attending primary school in Weipa, north Queensland? ls it a fact that there is one school for Aboriginals and one for Europeans?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The matter of the primary school at Weipa, north Queensland, is in my view a matter for the Queensland State Education Department. However, 1 shall endeavour to get the information for the honourable senator. As to the other part of the question, I have no knowledge of the situation but will provide information at the earliest opportunity.

page 922

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Reference was made in the annual report of the Department of Civil Aviation to two meetings of the Rationalisation Committee relating to fare concessions, ft was stated also that the Committee said that it was difficult to reach a decision. I ask the Minister: ls it a fact that Trans-Australia Airlines proposes to offer concession fares to off peak passengers in an effort to raise the load factor on flights which al present are lightly patronised and that Ansett-ANA is opposing that proposal? Does not Ansett-ANA offer concession fares, known as economy class fares, on all its flights? Does the Rationalisation Committee have the right to restrict legitimate competition and the fullest use of available seating by either of the airlines? In view of the larger aircraft carrying capacity now available and expected to be available in proposed new aircraft purchases, is it not reasonable to expect that this should result in lower fares to the travelling public?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– -The Rationalisation Committee meets frequently in relation to the problems that have been raised by the honourable senator. In Australia we have a two airline policy which has been one of the most successful policies operated by any country. We are very proud to continue this policy. The honourable senator has asked a number of questions in relation to this problem which I have answered in replies to questions on notice. I now ask him whether he would be good enough to put this question on the notice paper, in which event I shall get a detailed answer for him. But before I obtain the information, 1 presume that it will be in the same terms as the answer I gave a week or two ago.

page 923

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– Can the Minister for Repatriation advise me whether female exprisoners of war lose their entitlement to a war pension for injuries received while prisoners of war if they marry? If so, why are they differentiated against in this way?

Senator McKELLAR:
NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

-KELLAR - There are quite a number of people in this category and conditions vary with each case. I should think it would bc better if the honourable senator put his question on the notice paper so that I can get an answer for him. If the general answer which I provide is not satisfactory to him he can then give me details of individual cases and I shall obtain for him the answers related to the individual cases.

page 923

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator WHEELDON:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, refers to the restrictions recently placed by the United States of America on the export of Australian meat to that country. In view of the importance that the Government places upon the American alliance, of which it has given evidence, for example, by the sending of troops to Vietnam, did the Government, in making representations concerning this prohibition of an important Australian export to the United States, draw the attention of that country to that alliance and the contributions that Australia has made to it and suggest to the United States that it might show some reciprocity?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I really believe that this question should be directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, who dealt with questions on this problem yesterday. I also believe that to link this matter to our overall policy of being friendly with other nations, particularly the United States of America, is to draw a rather long bow. Nevertheless, I suggest that the honourable senator put the question on the notice paper and direct it to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 923

QUESTION

LISTENING DEVICES

Senator MULVIHILL:

– ls the Minister for Customs and Excise satisfied that he has sufficient authority to ban the importation of certain bugging devices which were referred to yesterday in the New South Wales Parliament and which include a Peeping Tom listening device and a spy pen? Does he intend to implement such a ban on these items?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– As Minister for Customs and Excise I have quite a lot of powers to stop goods that are prohibited goods coming into this country. Bugging devices may or may not be in that category. We will have to look at the matter. If the honourable senator will be good enough to put his question on the notice paper 1 will obtain an answer for him and give it to him tomorrow.

page 924

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 476)

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What is being done to Implement the recommendation of the 1968 United Nations Mission to New Guinea that every effort should be made to provide the staff necessary to give basic education to detainees in corrective institutions?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

- Mr Barnes has now supplied the following answer:

For some years a scheme of vocational training aimed at teaching detainees trade skills has been in operation and trades instructors are employed at major institutions for this purpose. Ways and means are now being examined to ascertain the best methods of giving effect lo the Mission’s recommendation for the provision of general basic education.

page 924

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 478)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

What is being done to implement the recommendation of the 1968 United Nations Mission to New Guinea that the facilities of the Port Moresby museum should be improved and a branch museum established at a suitable point on the New Guinea coast?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

- Mr Barnes has now supplied the following answer:

A national museum was established in Port Moresby in 1961 and contains collections of the arts and cultures of peoples from all parts of the Territory. A branch of the museum has already been established at Goroka.

This year’s budget provides for a $30,000 subsidy to the museum, an increase of $8,000 over last year’s allocation. Extension of the national museum and establishment of other branches wilt be carried out as resources permit.

page 924

QUESTION

SCIENTOLOGY

(Question No. 543)

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

My question is directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. Have officers of his Department in Adelaide recently seized a number of copies of a document entitled ‘Kangaroo Court’ published by the Hubbard College of Scientology and purporting to be an investigation into the conduct of a board of inquiry into Scientology in Melbourne in 19657 If so, why were these documents seized? Ls further action contemplated?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

I have looked into this matter and fmd that, in accordance with normal practice, a number oi copies of the publication entitled ‘Kangaroo Court’ recently were detained in Adelaide for examination. All copies detained have subsequently been released. No further action is contemplated.

page 924

SUPERANNUATION AND SOCIAL SERVICE PAYMENTS

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 20th August 1968 Senator Milliner asked me whether it is a fact that both superannuation and social service payments may, on request, be paid into bank accounts in the Australian Capital Territory but not in some States and whether the Minister could inform the Senate of the reason for this. The Treasurer has provided the following answer:

Superannuation and defence forces retirement benefits pensioners resident in the Australian Capital Territory have recently been given the option of having their fortnightly pensions paid direct to a bank current account. This follows the transfer of the pensions payment system operated by the Sub-Treasury, Canberra lo computer processing. It is intended progressively to introduce the facility for superannuation and defence forces retirement benefits pensions paid in the various States as computer facilities become available, but firm dates for offering the option have not yet been established.

page 924

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Gair) - by leave - agreed to:

That Senator McManus be granted leave of absence for 2 months on account of absence overseas.

page 924

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 September (vide page 869), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– On behalf of the Australian Labor Party in the Senate I move:

At end of motion, add ‘but the Senate regrets that the Government has failed to:

  1. increase pension rates sufficiently to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living;
  2. adjust all social service benefits in each year’s Budget to meet the increased cost of living;
  3. implement its policy of abolishing the means test as promised as long ago as 1949, and
  4. make benefits retrospective from 1st July 1968.*

Our amendment is self-explanatory. We do not want to delay the passage of the Bill and thus penalise pensioners who may benefit, meagre as the increase may be. The Labor Party protests against the Government’s action in not providing increases sufficient to enable pensioners to enjoy an adequate standard of living. 1 refer to the material which has been published by their own organisation’s journal, Pensioners Voice’, ‘A Charter of Pensioners’ Claims’ and to the human appeal: ‘We want to live’. This is the appeal today from pensioners throughout Australia.

In the latest addition of ‘Pensioners Voice’, issued this month, is a headline: Second Phase of New South Wales “Action Year” Plan Almost Certain’. There is another headline: ‘Gorton Government Budget Flop Arouses Nation-wide Disapproval’. The article underneath mentions in detail the objections to this Budget and to the Social Services Bill which is now before the Parliament. Reference is made to the ‘Dollar Bill’ nickname for Ministers. A personal letter was written to convey wholesale condemnation of the inadequate pension increase and the health care benefit of the Government’s 1968-69 Budget presented on 13th August by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). I will not go into the details of the letter sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) by the Federation Secretary, Mrs Ellis, but I should like to mention several points she made. She writes:

Where is the compassion for the dependent wife? The pittance of $1 for -which she has waited for 5 years since the last increase in 1963 makes a mockery of her cares and hardships. Where is the compassion for the future citizens of our country, the dependent children of the civilian pensioner? For their pittance of $1 a week they have waited 7 years.

The editorial likewise refers to the $1 increase to unmarried pensioners and the 75c each for married couples as totally inadequate and unrealistic when related to price levels in 1949 and the price Levels of 1968. I recognise that in this debate a great deal of play will be made in comparing what took place in 1949 and what is taking place in 1968. As was stated in the other chamber, it would do no harm to consider also what look place 27 years earlier. As we say, the treatment of pensioners is a disgrace, and we move accordingly.

Following the letter from the Federation Secretary, Mrs Ellis, the Honorary President made several comments. He stated:

Obviously the appellation ‘Dollar Bill’ can be applied wilh equal stress to both William McMahon and William Wentworth and the airy fairy concern expressed by the Prime Minister when he assumed office is mere political mockery. We must not forget this.

This is the situation about which pensioners are concerned at present. In relation to paragraph 2 of the amendment we ask that pensions be adjusted yearly, and not only in an election year as was the case in 1961, 1963, 1966, and now in 1968, which is assumed by all throughout the nation to be another election year although the Parliament has another 12 months to run.

Paragraph 3 seeks implementation of a policy which the Government has talked about glibly for so long, that is, the abolition of the means test. Two years ago we had articles appearing in the Sydney ‘Sun* entitled ‘The three steps to end the means test’ by W. C. Wentworth, the present Minister for Social Services. This is a case of the lion turning into a lamb. We have seen that happen, of course, in numerous instances in the Senate, but it has happened also in the other pl’ace. We in this Parliament, and 1 think the nation, expected that when the honourable member for Mackellar became Minister for Social Services he would do something in this field. We of tha Australian Labor Party make our stand on this matter quite definite. We say that the Liberal Party now disowns its promise to abolish the means test, claiming that it would cost some $340m. lt would not be ruinous, however, to take deliberate steps to abolish the means test. It would cost $65m to pay a full pension to alt persons of 75 years of age and over irrespective of their means; it would cost another $12m to pay it to all persons of 74. These are practical steps which a Commonwealth Government could take to bring Australia progressively into line with other Engish speaking countries. Those are our proposals on this matter.

Our fourth complaint is that the Government has failed to make benefits retrospective to 1st July 1968. Retrospectivity is no problem so far as Public Service and parliamentary salaries are concerned. On numerous occasions increases are made retrospective. The same thing applies to salaries of judges. Immediately following presentation of the Budget pensioners were required to pay increased prices for bread, eggs and so on. The Budget to be introduced tonight in the New South Wales Parliament will bring about increases in fares and rents. The pensioners have had to meet increased costs for the past 2 months without any commensurate increase in pension. They will have to continue to meet these increased costs until some time next month because the higher pensions will not be paid until then.

It is true that certain pensions have been increased. The age and invalid pensions paid lo single persons have been increased by $1 to $14 a week. If they are eligible for the supplementary rent allowance, they will receive an additional $2. However, age and invalid pensions paid to married couples have been increased by $1.50 - an increase of 75c each. In both instances this is the first increase for 2 years. Why has the Government discriminated against pensioner couples? Married pensioners now receive $3 a week less than they would receive if they were paid as single pensioners, or $7 a week less than single pensioners receive if they are eligible for the supplementary rent allowance.

Some years ago Mr Allan Fraser, the then member for Eden-Monaro, directed attention to the fact that this discrimination was leading to a breakup of pensioner couples because they could obtain more if they were living apart. At that time the suggestion was laughed to scorn, but if the Government continues to follow its present policy of discrimination there is no doubt that pensioner couples will either live apart or carry on some degree of deception. We realise what the Government is up to. Recently in the other place the Minister was asked what saving was effected by the discrimination. He replied that $20m was saved last year on pension payments. That is a shocking revelation. It is a pinch-penny method of doing things. It is pinching pennies from the pensioners, lt is shocking that the pensioners are being deprived of $20m a year by the Government’s policy of discrimination between married and single pensioners.

The wife’s allowance has been increased by $1 to $7 a week, the first increase since 1963. We believe that that is a disgraceful allowance and that the wife should be paid a full pension. It is completely wrong that a wife who has to look after an aged or infirm husband and who has no other income should bc paid only $7 a week. The rehabilitaton allowance rate is to be increased by $1 for a single person. This is the first increase since 1955. The living away from home allowance for a married person is to be increased by $2. Again there appears to be a savage onslaught on married pensioners.

There have been some adjustments. The special payment, following the death of a partner, of six fortnightly married pension rates, is commendable. This is a humane proposal. The removal of the residential qualification governing widows pensions when the couple are residing permanently in Australia at the time of the husband’s death is also commendable. The proposal to substitute standard for married rate of pension where the spouse of a pensioner is receiving unemployment or sickness benefit is another innovation as is the introduction of a vocational training scheme for widow pensioners. Much has been made of these proposals, but in fact they will cost the Government very little. The substitution of the standard rate for the married rate of pension will cost the Government nothing, and 1 am led to believe that the vocational training scheme for widow pensioners will cost no more than $12,000 a year. 1 repeat that in these days of so-called affluence, in these days of the discovery in Australia of great mineral deposits and of great oil and natural gas resources, the Labor Party is concerned that there are so many people in want in Australia. A survey conducted in New South Wales alone shows that in that State there are 200,000 people living in substandard conditions. A great deal more is needed to be done. Actions, not platitudes are required by these people.

When speaking to the Budget I pointed out that this Government had granted no increase in the maternity allowance in its 1.9 years of office. There has been no increase in this since 1948 in the amount of child endowment paid for the second child, and we have had 17 years without an increase in the endowment paid for the first child. In this young country, which is in need of population, a country which is spending over $55m this year on immigration, a reasonable person is entitled to expect that the encouragement of families would be given No. 1 priority, that inducements in the way of increased maternity allowances, child endowment and taxation concessions would be offered, but we see not one word of this either in the Budget or in the proposals that are before us today.

Again, there have been no increases in the unemployment or sickness benefit since 1962 although I did read in the Press that there is some talk that these will be adjusted in the very near future. 1 repeat, too, (hat as long as 40 years ago a pensioner was allowed to earn an amount equal to his pension. Today a single pensioner is penalised if he earns more than 68% of his pension and a married pensioner is penalised if he earns more than 65% of the combined pension. And this in a period when we are giving away our very birthright to overseas interests!

When discussing pensions one must have some cognisance of living costs. The minimum wage today which must be paid to workers in industry according to law is $37.55 for a male worker. That is the rate that must be paid under a decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1967. At the present time the Australian Council of Trade Unions has an application before the Commission for an increase of $11 a week in that rate. Government representatives are opposing this application, but not seeking its complete rejection. They are suggesting thai the increase should be something less than $11. By this action they indicate an acceptance of the fact that an increase has taken place in the cost of living since 1967. I repeat that the rate I have mentioned is the base rate. Nothing lower than that is permitted under the law to be paid. Tradesmen and other skilled workers gel more than that. We all know, too, that many workers seek to obtain overtime. Others take on a second job. In still other cases both husband and wife are working. This is because they cannot carry on under present conditions. Families in particular cannot exist on the present wage rate. Ways must be found of supplementing the income in these cases. But when we discuss wages in this place and refer to a basic wage members of the Government rise to their full height and say that there is no such thing as a basic wage. The Government talks about the average wage. In these circumstances it talks of the average wage being S61.50 per week. But it never speaks along these lines at any time when it is discussing the miserable pittance paid to pensioners. The pension rate unfortunately is static. Pensioners are not able to go out and earn anything in addition to that payment. The high cost of living as a result of inflation has public servants, politicians anc! all other sections of the community asking for increased remuneration today. I repeat: The rales paid to pensioners are a disgrace not only to this Government but in turn to all the Australian people.

The Australian Labor Party affirms that in any decent society the people in need must be the first consideration. The ALP. which came into being following the maritime strike of 1890, always has had in the forefront of its programme a social services policy. In fact. 1 am certain that there would be very little, if anything, in the way of social services today if it were not for the Australian Labor Party. Might 1 mention to you, Mr Deputy President, in referring to the social services which are provided today that it was the referendum on social services taken on 28th September 1946 by the Chifley Government which gave this Parliament the right to introduce the major benefits. At that referendum, the voting for the proposal was 2,297,934 while voting against the proposal was 1,927,148.

I have been challenged by the Government in this place on a number of occasions when I have said that the Government parties, which were in opposition in 1.946, opposed those referendum proposals. Indeed, the plight of pensioners would be much less difficult today if the referendum on rents and prices, again proposed by the Chifley Government, had been carried. Unfortunately, that referendum was defeated. The present Government cannot say that it did not come out strongly in opposition to this proposal because the votes in favour of it. numbered 1,793,712 while the votes against were 2,618,183. I should mention that we in the Australian Labor Party have pioneered social service benefits throughout the Commonwealth.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Labor Party did noi pioneer them all.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– I will tell the honourable senator what the Government has given and what it has not given in social services. The fact is that the Australian Labor Party has been the Party responsible for practically every piece of social service legislation introduced in both State and Federal Parliament.

Senator Greenwood:

– The Labor Party never introduced age and invalid pensions.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Listen to me. 1 will tell the honourable senator. Legislation proposing age pensions was first introduced in 1901 in the New South Wales Parliament in which the Australian Labor Party held the balance of power. Legislation proposing age pensions was introduced in 1909 in the Commonwealth Parliament, again when Labor held the balance of power. As a former secretary of the Parliamentary Labor Party, I have read the letters which were forwarded in the year 1909 by Alfred Deakin, the then Prime Minister, to the Labor leader, Mr J. C. Watson, pledging support for the Labor Party’s policy concerning the introduction of age pensions on condition Labor supported the party which he led. At that time, Labor held the balance of power in the Commonwealth and New South Wales Parliaments. The same situation applied in 1901 in New South Wales when the John See Government was in office. ft. was the Fisher Labor Government which introduced invalid pensions. In 1927, the Lang Labor Government in New South Wales introduced child endowment for each child at the rate of 5s per week. Child endowment, together with every other social service benefit in Australia, was pioneered by the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– Not child endowment for the first child.

Senator FITZGERALD:

– Yes, child endowment tor the first child was introduced in 1927. I repeat that the New South Wales Labor Government introduced legislation providing child endowment for the first time anywhere in Australia. In Ilansard of 8th February 1927 of the New South Wales Parliament, Sir Thomas Bavin, Leader of the Nationalist Party at that time - the equi valent of today’s Liberal Party - is reported to have said:

Ever since this Labor Government has been in office it has been placing burdens on our industry which have rendered them incapable of competing with other States. This extra burden of child endowment, as far as many of our industries are concerned, will be the last straw. If child endowment is a charitable gift out of the public Treasury this is going to be an intolerable burden on the people of this State. 1 am not prepared to support it.

The situation described in 1927 in the words 1 have quoted is not unlike the situation in 1968. But for the fact that an election is pending, no regard would have been paid to social services in this year’s Budget.

Senator Little:

– What did the Labor Government do in Queensland?

Senator FITZGERALD:

– I take credit for the Labor Party because of the achievements of the Labor Government in Queensland. It did a very good job. In 1941 the Menzies Government introduced child endowment of 5s a week for the second child in a family. In the period 1945-1948 the Curtin and Chifley Labor governments increased that payment to 10s a week. In 1950 the Menzies Government introduced child endowment of 5s a week for the first child. In 1912 the Fisher Labor Government introduced payment of the maternity allowance. That allowance was increased by the Curtin Government in 1943 and has not been altered since.

Unemployment and sickness benefits were introduced by the Curtin Government in 1945 and certain amendments have been made to it by successive governments. Payment of widows’ pensions was introduced in 1927 by the Lang Government of New South Wales. In 1942 the Curtin Labor Government introduced widows’ pensions in the Commonwealth sphere. In 1941 the Curtin Government introduced the funeral benefit, which has remained at the same level for over 20 years. The Aged Persons Homes Act is one piece of social service legislation for which the Liberal and Country Parties Coalition Government can take credit. Rehabilitation services were, in effect, introduced by the Curtin Government in 1941. When honourable senators opposite speak in this debate I would like them to tell us of any original legislation in the field of social services introduced by a

Liberal-CountryParty coalition government. If they can do so, I will never rise to speak on social services again in this Parliament.

For the benefit of honourable senators opposite I repeat that a Labor Government pioneered every major piece of social service legislation in both the Commonwealth and Stale spheres. We of the Labor Party are thrilled to be associatedwith such accomplishments. We are on the side of the people who are in need. The Labor Party is pledged on obtaining office to implement the policy which I will now detail. The platform of the Australian Labor Party states these aims:

  1. The payment of social service benefits at the highest possible rate warranted by the respective services.
  2. The payment of social service benefits to assist the needy sections of the community and thus remove gross inequalities in living standards.
  3. The progressive casing of the means test with a viewto its ultimate abolition.
  4. No Australian citizen shall he disqualified from receiving a social service pension on account of the period of residence in Australia.
  5. Australiancitizens shall not cease to receive pensions because of residence abroad.
  6. A full pensionforthe wife of an age or invalid pensioner who does not qualify in her own right.
  7. The appointment of a parliamentary committee to keep social services under constant review.

Those are the proposals of the Australian Labor Party. We would not do these things only on the eve of an election campaign; these matters would be kept under constant review and adjusted in accordance with increases in the cost of living. I ask for the support of all honourable senators for our proposal.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ridley) -Is the amendment seconded?

Senator O’Byrne:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD (Victoria) [3.51] - I support the Bill and oppose the amendment. The payment from the National Welfare Fund this year will be $l,161m, which is an increase of approximately $85m over the preceding year. The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in this chamber, explained in detail the philosophy of the Government in relation to social welfare and the policies adopted since 1949 to improve the conditions of the aged, the sick, the widowed and their dependants. Despite the tirade we have just heard from Senator Fitzgerald, ] should like to refer the Senate to a publication Development in Social Services, 1949-68’ which lists fourteen pages of social welfare benefits that have been provided over those years. If we look at the 1967-68 report of the Director-General of Social Services we find there records of the areas in which assistance has been given and the extent to which it has been applied.

The amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald shows an absence of objectivity so far as social welfare is concerned. I felt rather sorry for him when he had to dredge up statements made in 1927 to support a quite erroneous impression that members of the Labor Party were the only ones who had the welfare of the needy at heart. My impression as Senator Fitzgerald was speaking was that over the years the Labor Party has had the mortifying experience of silting on the Opposition benches seeing measures, which it would very much like to claim as its own, become part of the record ofthe Liberal and Country Party Government. And so today it is forced backto the defensive. It adopts the attitude of a destructive critic, always pulling down, never building up, and giving scant credit for any social improvement whatsoever.

I should like to deal first with (he amendment that has just been moved. It states first that the pension rate should be increased sufficiently to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living. 1. take it that this presupposes that what the Labor Party wants is an increase of pension rates right across the board. 1 have very definite opinions on this and ] should like to state them to the Senate veryshortly. The second clause in the amendment refers to the Government’s failure to adjust all social service benefits in each year’s Budget to meet the increased cost of living. If proper research had been done on the record of the present Government it would have been found that in every year since 1950 we have provided some additional social service benefit. Another very interesting remark by the honourable senator was that the Government now disowns the means test. This is quite wrong. In 1951, 1953, 1954, 1958, 1960 and 1961 liberalisations of the means test were effected by the Government; in other words, on six separate occasions there have been liberalisations of the means test. Senator Fitzgerald said that the Labor Party would gradually eliminate the means test. I suggest to him that the Government’s record has been better than a gradual elimination, lt has been a very remarkable record.

A few moments ago I said that I had opinions on an increase in the basic rate of pensions. 1 believe that an increase in rates right across the board will never solve the problems of ali of the socially depressed and needy people in the community. As many people know, pensioners today are divided into two groups. One group consists of pensioners who have other income, own their own homes, possess motor cars and are entitled to many fringe benefits to which the Minister adverted. Those fringe benefits include free hospital, medical and pharmaceutical services, reduced telephone rentals and radio and television licence fees, concession fares, buying facilities and the deferment of rates. Such people could be better off financially than many a young man who is trying to rear and educate a family on a low income. They certainly could be much more free from worry than many persons who are excluded from receiving a pension through the provisions of the means test.

Then there is the other group - a group that many of us know so well. It consists of the hard core of pensioners who exist solely on the pension and many of whom live alone in rented rooms and often in very sub-standard dwellings. For the most part they are frail, sick or lonely, and very often all three. Additional money benefits give a little added comfort to the first group, but oft-times they can do little or nothing for the second group. Many dollars would be required to provide the supporting care and services that people in the second group require. I see that Senator Dittmer is in agreement with me.

Senator Dittmer:

– I am not agreeing with the honourable senator.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:

– To my mind, people in this group are drastically in need of selective assistance in the form of domiciliary services of all kinds, nursing, home help, meals, laundry - in fact, all the services that are necessary to keep sick pensioners in their own homes and able to carry on alone.

Before I deal with the Bill I wish to refer to the differential between the rate of pension for a single age or invalid pensioner and that for a married pensioner couple, and also to the anomalies to which the Minister referred. I know that many arguments have been advanced in favour of a differential rate. While I do not use any extravagant language with regard to this matter, I am of the opinion that an oversimplification of the position has been made in accepting the proposition that two can always live more cheaply than one. Sometimes they may, it is true. But in many cases that assumption is quite wrong. In fact, sickness, for any duration, of both partners may well compound their problems.

The Government has gone part of the way towards recognising this in the proposal to pay the surviving partner of a married pensioner couple the equivalent of a combined pension for 12 weeks. The Minister explained that this measure is being introduced because of the difficulty experienced by a surviving spouse, particularly one advanced in years, in reducing household commitments and making the necessary adjustments following the loss of what could be nearly half the income previously coming into the home. In the differential in respect of married couples there is a very remarkable anomaly. Brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, de factos and in fact any other combination of two persons pooling their resources and living together in the one home can obtain a combined income of $3 a week more than the combined income of a married couple. I believe that, despite everything that has been said in favour of the differential, when it operates in this way it is most inequitable.

The Government’s record in the field of social services is a very fine one. In 1950, 413,792 pensions were paid to age and invalid pensioners. That number includes allowances to wives and children. The cost was $89,114,322. In 1968 the number of pensions and allowances had risen to 797,010 and the expenditure to $513,984,417. The interest that the Government has taken in children, I think, is shown by a dissection of the allowances for wives and children of age and invalid pensioners. In 1959, 19,766 allowances were paid and the expenditure was $1,837,888. In 1968, 32,774 allowances were paid and the expenditure was $6,738,094. The proposals before the Senate will result in a substantial increase in both the number of pensions being paid and the amounts being paid to pensioners. These proposals will increase the amounts of pensions payable per week, the number of persons eligible for pensions and the total Government expenditure on social services. The standard rate pension for a single age or invalid pensioner will be increased by $1 a week to bring it to $14 a week exclusive of supplementary assistance. There will be an increase of $1.50 a week in the combined pension of a married couple to bring it. to $25 a week. For many years the pensions of widows were totally inadequate. This is a field in which the Government, I believe, has been anxious lo remove the deficiences and has gone a long way towards doing so. In 1950 widows pensions were paid in respect of 42.908 persons at a cost of $8,841,132. In 1968 widows pensions were paid in respect of 75,069 persons at a cost of $61,629,901. That is an enormous increase. In other words the expenditure on pensions paid to widows has risen from $8. 8m in 1950 to $6 1.6m in 1968. The Bill provides for a $1 a week increase in the pension of a class A widow and a 75c a week increase in the pension of a class B widow.

Also $1 a week will De added to the payments made for each child of age, invalid and widow pensioners. The effect will be to increase payments to children from $1.50 a week to $2.50 a week, which is an increase of 663% over the previous payment. As the Minister pointed out in her second reading speech, this is the largest percentage increase contained in the Bill, lt is anticipated that over 107.000 children of 51,000 families will benefit from the $1 a week increase. The proposal to treat all children alike for pension purposes by abolishing the allowance for the first child and substituting instead an additional pension for that child, as is done for children other than the first, removes a long-standing anomaly. It will have the effect of extending pension benefits to some persons with children who are now ineligible for children’s allowances. Widows will be helped further by the removal of the present residential requirement before a widow’s pension is payable. In future, if a woman and her husband are residing permanently in Australia, the widow immediately will become residentially qualified for a pension if her husband dies or if, as the Minister said - and I think this is a very wise provision - an event occurs that would bring her within the definition of a widow under the Social Services Act. As honourable senators are aware, the definition includes a woman who becomes a widow by reason of desertion, divorce, admission of her husband to a mental hospital or the imprisonment of her husband.

One of the best decisions of the Government, to my mind, is the one to introduce a vocational training scheme for widow pensioners. The scheme will be of inestimable value to widows and to the community. On previous occasions 1 have adverted to the entry and re-entry of women into the work force and to the need for proper training opportunities in industry, commerce and the professions. In recent years the tendency has been towards early marriage. This results in girls leaving work or universities before they have acquired skills or proficiencies to carry over into widowhood. Alternatively, a long period away from work or a profession reduces the confidence to keep up with modern techniques and requirements. These factors, plus a community attitude of relegating widows to some kind of shadowy existence after they lose their husbands, has militated against widows being able to obtain satisfying independence. I believe that the scheme will provide an exciting challenge to many women to improve their positions. Full or part time training will be available to them. The training may take the form of a refresher course or it may involve training in a new skill or a different occupation. It is expected that the period of training ordinarily would not exceed 12 months, but in special circumstances longer courses could be granted. These may be approved for the maximum period allowed under the Commonwealth rehabilitation service which, as honourable senators know, is 3 years. A widow undergoing training would receive her pension and a training allowance of $4 a week and, where appropriate, a living away from home allowance. Her tuition fees and fares to and from the place of training will be paid. Books and equipment will be provided and, in addition, a $400 allowance for equipment for home employment will be available.

Despite what Senator Fitzgerald said, this Bill contains a number of other benefits all of which will be most helpful to many people. Because the Minister stressed a development which is receiving new emphasis under the policy of this Government and referred to subsidies paid to charitable bodies as a supplement to their own funds to enable them to expand their activities even more widely, I am induced today to speak very briefly about a particular service. The Minister referred to nursing associations and to the extra subsidy included in the Budget, but 1 would like to remind him that the extent to which these nursing services will benefit depends upon the States making matching assistance available. Therefore, it is not quite as simple as it seems.

I am sure 1 speak for the Royal District Nursing Service, Melbourne, with which I have had a long association, when 1 say thai it and all other services are very grateful for the additional subsidy provided in the Budget. But I am certain that these services can never hope to give the type of assistance they desire without some dramatic assistance from the Commonwealth to help them cope with the increasing number of pensioner patients who depend upon them for nursing care. Last year nurses of the Royal District Nursing Service made 361,617 visits to patients of which 249,482 were visits to pensioners. The total number of patients attended was 15,236 of whom 7,330 were pensioners. An analysis of these figures will show that the average number of visits per year to a pensioner patient by this service was approximately 34, against an average of 14 for nonpensioner patients. I give these figures because I think this is an area of social welfare which badly requires further assistance.

The housekeeper service is another very valuable one. The Commonwealth made a grant in 1949 with the idea of assisting organisations conducting emergency housekeeper services. As far as 1 know, these grants are made to four State Governments, and in the case of Queensland directly to certain organisations operating housekeeper services. As I understood the position when the grant was originally made, the intention behind it was to develop housekeeper services. But there has been very little movement at Commonwealth level as far as this project is concerned. I again urge the Government to see if the grant can be extended because it is widely recognised that the greatest demand for home nursing and home help today is coming from pensioners. They are the people who are making the greatest demands on all of these extra services.

I believe that the people of Australia know that social welfare progress goes hand in hand with national progress. That is the reason why over the years they have recognised what the Liberal-Country Party Government has done for the sick and needy and what it will continue to do. In my opinion there are areas into which the Commonwealth can move and if it does so it will give a new dimension to its social welfare policies through the provision of subsidy and assistance to those services which are best able to supply the human needs of the aged, the sick and the socially depressed. I believe that those needs cannot always be met simply with money. Therefore. I support the Bill and oppose the amendment.

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

14.18] - I rise to support the Bill for what it contains and to condemn the Bill for its unreal and inadequate increases in those social service benefits which the Government has selected for an increase; 1 also condemn the Bm for what it does not contain. This is a very important Bill dealing with social service matters and providing for certain increases in social service benefits. The subject has had the attention of the Senate in the Budget debate when 1 availed myself of an opportunity to discuss it, and when I criticised the Government for ils failure to appreciate the necessity for greater increases in age, invalid and widows’ pensions. I also criticised the Government for its failure to provide greater assistance for the family man on whom this young nation depends so greatly. The failure to do anything about child endowment in this Budget is a very serious omission and one which merits condemnation. During the Budget debate my colleague, Senator Byrne, made an excellent speech on the problems confronting the family man and the Government’s failure to do something in that connection. We cannot overemphasise the necessity for something to be done.

Senator Fitzgerald referred to child endowment. In referring to his proposed amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill’ he said he was not aware of any social service benefit that had been initiated or introduced by any anti-Labor Government. At least that is what 1 understood him to say. Let me, in fairness, inform him that child endowment in the Commonwealth sphere was introduced by a Liberal Government back in 1941 with the late Harold Holt as Minister in charge of the Bill. However, the rates of child endowment determined at the time of its introduction remained unaltered for 9 years or more notwithstanding the great increase that had taken place in wages and salaries and the more than corresponding increase that had taken place in the cost of living.

The next increase in child endowment followed the 1949 election when the Menzies Government gave effect to an election promise and granted 5s endowment for the first- child. Until then the first child in a family attracted no child endowment. That was the first alteration to child endowment since its introduction. From 1949 until, 1 think, last year little or nothing was done in this field. When the Government altered the rates of child endowment last year I was pleased that in doing so it adopted a DLP proposal that we had been advancing for years, namely, to get away from the Hat per capita rate and pay a higher allowance for the third or fourth child in a family.

It is the families with more than four children which are in greatest need. Indeed, they are the families that we require for Australia, are they not? Are they not the families we are trying to encourage? One does not need very much imagination to know something of the difficulties of a married man on $60 a week and less with 5 or 6 children or more. Out of his wage he is required to pay rent or an instalment on his home; to maintain, feed, clothe and provide shoes for his children; to meet their educational expenses and transport charges and provide the ordinary amenities and a little entertainment. In many cases he pur chases a bomb of a car because lie finds that that is the most economical means of taking his children on a holiday or for an outing from time to time.

Most of us arc married men. We know the position in the household. We know what it costs to maintain ourselves, our wives and those dependent upon us. We should have more than an ordinary understanding of the difficulties of family men who are trying to make ends meet on an income much less than we receive. The breadwinners who have 5 or 6 children cannot possibly make ends meet and they go through life, like a dog chasing its tail, trying to catch up with the bills that they owe the doctor, the chemist, the traders or someone else. AH of this takes a terrible toll of the health and mentality of the wife, and the husband, too, if he is responsible enough to share the burden with his wife. Those are the conditions and circumstances at the bottom of a lot of the ill-health of many of our wives and mothers today, lt is the tension and the worry of trying to balance a budget that is not possible of balance because of the great burden of costs unless, of course, the breadwinner is fortunate enough to occupy a position which returns an income much in excess of the average of $60 a week or thereabouts.

If we want to populate this country and if we are desirous of encouraging people to have families, rear them and bring them up as decent citizens of Australia, we must give them some incentive. I am not foolish enough to believe that all small families are limited because of economic reasons; not at all. I am not so foolish either as to believe that all married people will increase their families if additional endowment is paid; not at all. But I do know that a big percentage of our married people would increase their families if they could be satisfied that their economic position would not be worsened greatly and that they would merit an increase in child endowment to meet any additional costs associated with the birth of another child. They would hail the birth of another child in such circumstances, but they fear an increase in their families because of the additional financial burden placed upon them for their contribution towards solving Australia’s population problem without any accompanying financial allowance.

This matter should be examined more carefully than apparently has been the case, particularly in recent years. We go to great expense - ‘rightly so - to bring people from other countries. We encourage them and assist them to assimilate our way of life. We are so lacking in population that we must explore every possibility, every channel, every opportunity, to build up our population but we do not do so very much about it, No-one could be very happy with the present natural birth rate. I know that there are many contributing factors to lbc present low natura] birth rate. We have got to try to encourage the people who are prepared to accept their responsibilities in this connection. The noble and unselfish section of our people who are not always thinking of themselves, who do not mind a little inconvenience, who do not mind the difficulties associated with rearing a family, must be encouraged in every possible way. But up to now we have not shown any great evidence that we are intent on doing that.

Much has been said In the last week or so about pensioners. There are several categories of pensioners. Some are not nearly as badly off as others, due to the providence of the pensioners themselves in some cases and also because some receive aid in some way from their sons and daughters. Others, however, do not enjoy thai supplementary aid. The average pensioner couple lives in a home that they have acquired over the years and for which they have worked; but even though they have ceased making payments for it, they still have to pay rates. In many municipalities they enjoy some rebate of rates. In many cases, too, pensioners have to pay someone to come in to tidy up the yard and cut the lawn because they are too old to do it themselves. Because they are desirous of living in decent surroundings, they get that work done. And they have to meet all the other expenses associated with the daily life of people in general. Some enjoy such fringe benefits as tram and bus fare concessions. They might receive an occasional free journey in a train. They are entitled to these things, and no-one objects to their having them.

But the life of the pensioner is not a rosy one, with present day costs. I notice that there has been a 10% reduction in the price of beef in Queensland. That will be welcomed by housewives generally, but the price of beef today is too high for the pensioners to meet. All they can afford is a pound of gravy beef from which they make soup, or a few chops with which to make a stew or something else which might do them for a few days.

Then there are the married pensioners who do nol own their own homes. In many cases these husbands and wives are paying rentals much in excess of what they should be, and this cost of rent takes all the good out of any pension increase that might be granted to this category of pensioner. It was reported to me that the Treasurer had no sooner announced an increase of SI in the pension than rentals were increased in many cases, and there is no authority, either State or Federal, that can say nay to that. There is no authority that can say to a landlord: “Von cannot do that’. As soon as the pensioner gets a $1 increase in his pension many landlords put out their hand for some of it.

Then there arc the single pensioners, both male and female. What they pay for a bare room with a little gas ring on which they can boil the billy and perhaps make a piece of toast is shocking in many cases. Does the Department ever make a survey of this phase of the pensioners’ lives? I think this is one phase of life that merits some investigation. Does the Department ever think of sending its officers round and just having a look for itself at how these people live? If the Department did display greater personal interest in this field we might bc able to overcome this pocket of poverty which indisputably exists. The Government might even bc influenced by the results of such a survey to extend a greater measure of generosity towards these people than it has demonstrated in the Budget. 1 am not so politically narrow that 1 am not prepared to concede that the Government has increased social service benefits in many ways throughout Australia. For example, I will concede that the fringe benefits have been greatly increased. I refer in particular to pharmaceutical and medical benefits, lt is probable (hal but for the improvement that has been effected in this direction, many of these people would have ceased to be alive. They could never have continued to live without the medical and pharmaceutical assistance they get as pensioners, for they could not otherwise afford to send for a doctor every time they got sick. Under the present system they have the right to seek medical aid, and they get it.

There is a lot that one can say, and I suppose I have no monopoly on sympathy and solicitude for pensioners and others in receipt of social service benefits. Indeed, I do not claim to have a monopoly. But I fear sometimes that people in government arc inclined to look upon these people as just a number of units - they could be units of anything - to which they grant an allowance or a pension. These people have to be treated differently from that, to my way of thinking. They are human beings. They arc people who have taken part for long in the community life of this country, and most of them have contributed, according to their capacity, both physical and mental, to the building up of this young nation. Many of them have never had the opportunity to. nor have they ever been in a position to. acquire wealth or to build up any reserves, because they have brought into this world big families for whom they had a constant desire to do their utmost, and to whom they had a constant desire to give the best: education. Their burning desire at all times was to turn out their sons and daughters as good law abiding citizens of this country. They have succeeded in that - and what has been their harvest? When they reach the age of 65 years their active service is terminated by their employer, whether it be government or private enterprise. They are just turned out. If they ever had anything to invest, they put it into superannuation or something of the kind not realising that they were merely assisting the Commonwealth Government and not themselves because when they made their application for a pension they found that because of their investment in a superannuation scheme and because of the income that they received from such a scheme they were not entitled lo the pension. This is the iniquitous-

Senator Little:

– Nor are they entitled to the fringe benefits.

Senator GAIR:

– That matter is very important indeed to aged people. This treatment is their reward for being provident, for being responsible and for trying to care for their own needs in their days of retirement. Yet we have a government which perpetuates that injustice.

I have told this story before in the Senate. It bears retelling. During the period I was Premier of Queensland, I was asked one day by the Under Secretary of the Lands Department whether 1 would make a presentation to two men. Those men had been State public servants in the Queensland Lands Department. Both had completed 50 years service and were retiring on the same day. They had joined the State service on the same day and had advanced in the Service. Mr A had a wife and four children. He had educated the four of them nicely, one boy in medicine and one girl in pharmacy. He had acquired a cottage in addition to the home in which he lived and had taken out as much superannuation as he could afford.

Mr B had a wife but no family. The home in which he lived was mortgaged lo the Public Curator. He had no family responsibilities. He was retiring on the same day as Mr A. But Mr B had taken one unit of superannuation. This was the compulsory unit. That is all that he contributed to. The clay the two men retired, Mr B was able to go down to the pensions office, make application for a pension and get one. The other man received nothing by way of age pension because he had his superannuation income as well as some rent from his cottage. Was this just? Could honourable senators get a better picture than this of the iniquity and the injustice of me means test?

During the course of his speech. Senator Fitzgerald moved an amendment. Part of that amendment reads:

  1. Implement its policy of abolishing the means test as promised as long ago as 1949. …

He is referring to the Government. I was surprised to see that passage in the amendment because I have recollections that at a recent Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party a resolution providing for the abolition of the means test was defeated.

Senator Georges:

– No, not quite.

Senator GAIR:

– Not quite? How far out am I?

Senator Dittmer:

– lt was for the gradual abolition of the means test.

Senator O’Byrne:

– In the life of two parliaments.

Senator Little:

– 1 know what they said about Bill Bourke when he put it up in a Federal election campaign.

Senator Dittmer:

– He condemned the abolition of the means test. That is why Dr Evatt was. defeated in 1954.

Senator GAIR:

– He said that Dr Evatt could not do it. Dr Evatt promised to do it in 12 months. However, do not let us get sidetracked.I am gratified to know that my understanding of this mailer was not entirely correct and that the Australian Labor Party does believe in the abolition of the means test over a period.

The Australian Democratic Labor Party has advocated this and has put up practical propositions for the phasing out of the means test. The sooner this policy is adopted, the better, because there is a growing number of people who have been provident, who have contributed to superannuation funds and who today are suffering the injustice of the means test because of the failure of the Government to do something about it.

I do not propose to say much more. AlreadyI have expressed myself very strongly as to the failure of the Government to do a lot of things under the heading of social services. The Party that I have the pleasure and privilege to lead in the Senate moved an amendment to the motion introducing the Budget, asking for its withdrawal. We sought the redrafting of the Budget to provide for many things - principally improved pensions and the liberalisation of the means test. But the Opposition saw fit to votefor the Budget. It voted against the amendment that theDLP submitted. Imagine my surprise when Senator Fitzgerald, on behalf of the Opposition produced an amendment to the motion that this Bill be now read a second time when it had the opportunity of supporting the amendment moved by the DLP which, if carried, would have given the Government an opportunity to re-examine the position and redraft the Budget to provide for what we asked.

The amendment moved by the Opposition is a pious amendment. It expresses regret. Of course, we all regret - all of us who have opposed the Budget have regretted - that the Government has not maintained pensions at a reasonable standard and that the social service benefit provided in each year’s budget to meet increased costs of living has not been adjusted accordingly. At this stage of our deliberations the amendment is not worth the paper on which it is printed. It is just platitudinous politics - words, words, words, without any real desire-

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is all the honourable senator is saying too.

Senator GAIR:

-I repeat: It is just platitudinous politics without any real desire to correct or remove the things about which the Opposition has been talking. The Opposition voted for the Budget and against our amendment after the excellent address delivered by Senator Byrne who had taken great pains to deal with the pockets of poverty in our community and proved-

Senator O’Byrne:

– I think that the honourable senator liked that speech. He has been talking about it a lot.

Senator GAIR:

– The honourable senator should read it and read it and read it-

Senator O’Byrne:

– I heard it.

Senator GAIR:

– . . . and he will benefit and benefit and benefit.

Senator Willesee:

– Why, why, why?

Senator GAIR:

– Because the honourable senator will learn something there at least.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I heard it.

Senator GAIR:

– Whether the honourable senator has the capacity to understand it is another thing. That is something that I fear the honourable senator does not possess. Senator Byrne - and I want to emphasise this; it was Senator Byrne not Senator O’Byrne who was responsible for the excellent speech - went to great pains to show the Senate just where these pockets of poverty were, the need for doing something and the ways and means by which (hose things could be done. This was very refreshing. We hear a lot of criticism from time to time, but not very much constructive criticism. But it can be said of the speeches made from this section of the Senate that we always try to be constructive and assist in overcoming the difficulties that appear from time to time.

Are we going to perpetuate these pockets of poverty? Are we just going along year in and year out saying: ‘Well, there is no more that can be done for this section of the people than we are doing’ or: ‘Is it not a pity that these people are in such dire circumstances?’ Some people will even go so far as to say: ‘Is it not a pity that these people did not save their money when they had it and when they were working?’ As 1 said previously, in most cases they lived from hand to mouth because of family commitments and the inadequacy of salaries and wages. In their day there was no margin to enable them to gain a higher standard of living. It was not until after World War II that the standard of living of Australian workers showed any marked improvement. I think that is undeniable.

Senator Marriott:

– We came into office in 1949, did we not?

Senator GAIR:

– I am mindful of that. I think many people are mindful of it, because they have expressed regret that the inept Opposition has not succeeded in displacing you. 1 hope Senator Marriott docs not believe that the present Government has been in office all these years because of its merits. It is true that there have been a few photo finishes in elections. The present Government has remained in office because the Australian public lost confidence in what was once a great political party. But: I do not want to talk about party politics other than to say that this debate today has illustrated the complaints of the Democratic Labor Party in the field of social services. Senator Fitzgerald charged the Government with failure to do this and failure to do that for recipients of social services. On the other hand Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood recited a good deal from Mansard as to the contents of the Bill, what is being done in the matter of increased social service benefits and what LiberalCountry Party governments have done in the field of social services since 1949. This is an example of what the DLP has been complaining about for years. The subject of social services is nothing more than a political football. For that reason we have repeatedly moved here-

Senator Young:

– The honourable senator is not doing a bad job.

Senator GAIR:

– I do a good job at anything 1 undertake. And I can do a good job in dealing with interjections, particularly if they arc inane. I will content myself with that. We have been advocating the establishment of an independent tribunal comprised of people who arc competent and qualified to determine just pensions and allowances having regard to the movement of prices and costs and wage increases, which can bc reviewed periodically, in the hope thai it might dispense justice to social service recipients. Do not subject social service recipients to extreme humiliation by bargaining for their support. Candidates on the hustings in election campaigns say: ‘If we are elected we will give pensioners another $1. a week’. On the next street corner another candidate is saying: ‘If we are elected, we will give pensioners another SI. 50 a week’. Can honourable senators imagine the humiliation of pensioners?

Social services is not a subject for bargaining on street corners. Social service benefits are not a charity to bc given to the people. They are pensions or allowances for which people have contributed in the form of income tax and social service contributions - which were once separate from income tax-during the years of their active life. They do not need to thank anybody in particular for what they are getting. They are entitled to it; they are entitled to a great deal more than they are getting at present. 1 hope that Government supporters will undergo an increase in heart dimensions and an increase in generosity towards social service recipients. Social service benefits can be increased, and where there’s a will there’s a way.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I listened, as always, with a lot of interest to Senator Gair. I would not be human if I did not remind him that in returning this Government to office at many elections the people of the Commonwealth have continued to express their regret for nearly 20 years, but in reverse. I was interested in Senator Gair’s comments about child endowment. I do not in any way attempt to refute the justifications he gave in respect of child endowment. A. powerful ease can be built up to show that an adequate increase in all social service benefits should be forthcoming. The honourable senator mentioned the necessity to build up the regrettably low natural increase in this country’s population. I agree that it is a most desirable aim. To achieve it the honourable senator advocated a substantial increase in child endowment. Probably that is justified, having regard to the exigencies of the economic position of many people with large families. I would not deny the justification for that move. But I am a pessimist. I believe that if child endowment were doubled, trebled or even quadrupled, the effect on the natural increase in our population would be small indeed. 1 believe that the reasons why families are limited in size lie very much deeper than that. There are psychological reasons, something inherent in the people. Experience has been worldwide that inducements toward larger families held out in various countries have not yielded the desired result.

While I have been a senator a good many budgets have come and gone. We can be certain of one thing about social services. Nothing is more certain than that the Opposition, and in this case the Democratic Labor Party too, and I have no doubt the majority of social service recipients, will say: ‘lt is not enough’. 1 call to mind that 2 or 3 years ago the Labour Premier of Tasmania, a former Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, said the same thing, strangely enough. He went on to say that until we get down to a different system, to some kind of national insurance, until we get away from the idea of paying for all social services out of graduated income taxation, there always would be dissatisfaction. I believe that is correct. I noted many interesting statements by the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) when she introduced this measure. I would not doubt for one moment the correctness of her assertion that in spite of the strictures that are levelled at the Government in regard to the inadequacy of its social service payments, in actual purchasing power the present amount designated is probably of greater value than the amount prescribed during the last term of office of the Labor government. The Minister said: using the consumer price index as a yardstick, senators will be interested to know that the proposed rates of pension, wife’s allowance and additional pension for children are all substantially higher than the rates in 1949 when the Liberal-Country Party Government came into office. To illustrate this increase, the weekly maximum amount payable to a single age or invalid pensioner in receipt of supplementary assistance will be $6.40 a week more than it would have been if the pension payable in 1949 had been adjusted solely in accordance with the index.

When one goes on to consider the side benefits that have been added in the last 18 or 19 years one sees that the increases so payable bear favourable comparison with the social service payments of any previous government. But what some people do not appreciate is that wedded as we arc to this system under which social services are paid from moneys received as income tax, there is a limit beyond which a government cannot go. The Government must always be conscious that it must hold the balance fairly between the welfare of the recipients and the cost of the benefits involved.

The amendment which has been moved by Senator Fitzgerald suggests that pension rates be increased sufficiently to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living. That is a desirable object; I do not quarrel with that. But then he goes on.

Senator Fitzgerald:

– Is the honourable senator supporting the amendment?

Senator LILLICO:

– No. The honourable senator went on to suggest in his amendment that the Government should implement its policy to abolish the means test, as promised as long ago as 1949. I remind him that the Minister said:

National Welfare Fund expenditure on items under the Social Services Act rose from SI 49m in 1948-49 to almost $793m in 1967-68. The estimate for 1968-69 is $856m. Total expenditure from the Fund was $162m in 1948-49 and SI. 075 m in 1967-68, and is expected to be $l,l6lm during the present financial year.

Then she went on to list a number of social service benefits that were not included in the amount I have stated - items such as State grants for deserted wives, sheltered employment, the Aged Persons Homes Act contributions and many others. The point I am trying to make is that if we were to put into operation the provisions contained in the amendment, the Australian Labor Party’s proposal so far as health is concerned and all the other things about which the Labor Party advocates an ever increasing expenditure, within 2 or 3 years this country would enter into a period of economic stagnation. Surely anyone must see that. Under the present system which is used to finance social services, there is a limit beyond which a government cannot go, desirable as increases may be. In my view it is true that the people of this Commonwealth over the past couple of decades have not been easily induced to ‘believe that all these good things will flow from a government without somebody having to foot the bill. During a number of election campaigns the Opposition has gone to the hustings with elaborate schemes involving expenditure on social services, and from the most unexpected sources one would hear the query raised: Who is going to pay for them? In spite of the inducements which have been held out to them in that regard, the people of Australia have been wise enough to return the present Government which has gone on over the years increasing social services as the opportunity has offered.

There is a limit to the expenditure which can be incurred in this direction and while the people of the Commonwealth have wisely held the view that I have mentioned, the same cannot be said of the people of a sister dominion. I call to mind that only 4, 5 or 6 years ago the Opposition in New Zealand came to light during an election campaign with a proposal to increase social services by many millions of pounds. At the same time it proposed to decrease taxation and, even further than that, it offered a bonus of £100 to each taxpayer in the event of its being elected to office. The people fell foi that inducement. I doubt whether they have to this day forgotten the first Budget that was introduced by that government. I am one of those people who believe that one of the economic troubles of New Zealand today and one of the reasons for it being in such straits as prevail there today is the tremendous amount that has been expended on these allegedly free things which actually are uncommonly expensive. The last figures that I saw indicated that approximately 57% of New Zealand’s revenue was being spent in that direction. 1 remember that years ago a panel of economists - who are not always the fount of all wisdom in these matters, I will admit - was set up to investigate the social services system and policy in New Zealand. 1 have never forgotten one of the conclusions at which those economists arrived. It was that only in a time of great economic buoyancy could such a burden be borne with comfort. As far as New Zealand and the primary producers of Australia are concerned, that economic buoyancy is a thing of the past. New Zealand is feeling the strictures of the burdens that have been imposed by successive governments.

I come back to the idea that sooner or later a halt must be called to financing our social services on the present basis if we continue along the path that we are following, as many people envisage we will. I believe that it is a fact that more than 20 years ago a national insurance scheme was approved by both Houses of this Parliament but it has never been put into operation. Maybe that is a matter for regret. As time goes on nothing is more certain than that consideration will have to be given to a different system of financing social services. It is all very well to say - we have heard this said so often - that the system adopted in this country is the fairest system of all because the person who can afford to pay is the one who has to pay, with the system based as it is on the graduated scale of income taxation. But the fact that many people dismiss so lightly and. do not accept is that there is a limit to the path that we can tread in that direction.

Not long ago I read a statement by another economist. Speaking about the position that pertained in the United Kingdom, he said that that country had reached the situation where the higher it raised its rate of income taxation the less revenue it received. I suppose that that could be because the rises set up a taxation resistance, crippled incentive just that little more and encouraged greater evasion. How correct the proposition that he advanced is I do not know. But that is the position that can be reached.

I believe that, in all the circumstances and having regard to the amount that must be spent on defence, the amount that must be spent on making provision for the many migrants who come to this country and the fact that the Government must always be conscious of expenditure that is necessary in many directions, this measure is a good one. It covers a wide ambit of social service activities. I am glad to see that it includes a provision under which a person is qualified to receive a pension if, in the opinion of the Director-General of Social Services, she and her husband, or, in the case of a widow being a dependent female, she and the man in respect of whom she was a dependent female, were residing permanently in Australia on the occurrence of the event by reason of which she became a widow or a deserted wife. That seems to me to be a big step forward. If the person concerned has been in Australia for only a week or a month, provided that in the opinion of the Director-General she is a permanent resident or intends to be a permanent resident, she shall be entitled to receive a widow’s pension. lt has been suggested - 1 have heard this suggested at naturalisation ceremonies and 1 think it was suggested in another place - that, as reported by the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council, the sources from which most of Australia’s migrants have come in the past are drying up. For instance, West Germany, which used to be an exporter of workers, is now in importer of workers. The Immigration Advisory Council referred to all of the countries from which we have been accustomed to drawing our migrants. The countries of western Europe in particular have achieved greater production and have found the ability to market that production. That is the crux of the increase in prosperity that has occurred in. those countries. It is a lesson that we in Australia can learn from them. Because of the booming conditions in those countries it will be more and more difficult for us to secure the right type of migrant, as we have done in the past.

In view of what I have just said, it becomes all the more necessary that the migrants who come here should stay here, should make good here and should be useful and valuable citizens of the Commonwealth. It has been a matter of some concern that so many of them return to whence they came. I have seen it publicised and heard it staled at meetings that one of the reasons is the inadequacy of social services in Australia. The Immigration Advisory Council investigated the matter and reported, among other things, that in most cases there was no single cause but a series of causes which led to the decision to return. Reasons were grouped in terms of major problem areas and secondary aspects. The report listed all the causes. That seems to me to indicate that the social services factor was of concern only to migrants of advancing age, as one would expect. Concern regarding social services is apparent among people of advancing age all over the world.

I suppose that because of the restrictions that previously obtained - and in some cases still obtain - in respect of social services for immigrants, some of them as their age advanced thought they would be more secure if they returned, particularly to the United Kingdom and to other countries where without question they would be eligible for social service benefits. The Bill is a step towards opening the door and making these benefits more liberally available to immigrants. I repeat that the problem is not as grave as a lot of people would have us believe. 1 base my opinion on the report to which I have referred. Nevertheless I believe that it is desirable that social service payments to immigrants should be as easily accessible as the circumstances warrant. Therefore this one provision at least is a long step towards liberalisation in what is certainly a most deserving case. 1 refer to the case of the woman who has resided in Australia for only a short time but who intends to become a permanent resident of the country and who is left in destitute circumstances because of the loss of her breadwinner for one of the many reasons whereby people lose their means of support.

I support the Bill and oppose the amendment. The strictures of the Opposition and, I regret to say, of the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator Gair) leave me as cold as a stone. I have listened to them for years. I quote again an authority to whom the Opposition should be extremely partial. It is none other than the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Reece, who said that while this system of finance obtains there will be dissatisfaction. How right he was. That was said by a rabid Labor man.

Senator Gair:

– You are a rabid Tory.

Senator LILLICO:

– I am not. I take sides with him at once. He said that there will always be dissatisfaction. In my experience, there always has been and there always will be. It may well be that if the increase had been 3, 4, or 5 times as much little or no credit would have been given to the Commonwealth Government. I repeat that if the whole of social service proposals of the Labor Party, including health and all the other avenues of expenditure in which it so strenuously advocates increases, were put into operation the burden that the taxpayers would have to bear would be intolerable.

Senator Gair:

– The responsibility belongs to Menzies who walked out of the Lyons Cabinet because of national insurance.

Senator LILLICO:

– That was before my time in the Parliament and I accept no responsibility for it. It is so easy and popular with a lot of people to advocate these increases. They think they have a real winner. Nevertheless if they had to accept the responsibility of government the boot would be on the other foot.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– The phrase used by Senator Lillico that our amendment leaves him as cold as a stone reflects the frigidity on the part of the Government towards the needs of the less fortunate people in the community. Perhaps Senator Lillico’s speech was made in justification of the effort that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in another place has produced as his first major Bill since becoming a Minister after so many years on the back benches during which time he was classified as a rebel. He continuously took as his theme the needs of the underprivileged people in the community. He assumed a posture of indignation at the inequities, injustices and inequalities of social services. After a long period of gestation he has produced the mouse which we are debating. Senator Lillico touched on a most important matter with which I would like to deal1 straight away. He spoke of the report of the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council. I think we should have some sense in our approach to social services. We hear the same old outdated thinking by Government speakers. The speech made by the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) was devoid of any stimulating approach to the matter. I believe that the taxpayers and the electors of Australia have shown,, by various gallup polls and other tests, that they are prepared to accept the responsibilities that are rightly those of the Commonwealth Government in ensuring that pensioners and the underprivileged in the community are given a reasonable standard of living. Yet hardly one new idea has come forward as to how the Government will tackle the problem.

The Government’s approach is like putting sticking plaster on a sore when the remedy lies in treating the cause of the sore. In our community today we have all the symptoms and ali the signs of a disease that needs curing. The Bill certainly does nothing but attempt to cover up the sore and keep it out of sight. The Government finds itself caught up with many factors. Its own failure to meet the challenge of rising prices and inflation is an ever present problem. Community pressure or perhaps a forthcoming election makes it shell out periodically $1, 75c or 50c for the people caught up by the continuous inflationary process.

My view and, I believe, the view of the people of Australia who are being told constantly that they live in an affluent society, is that when we have just started to tap our vast mineral resources, when the technique of mass extraction from ore bodies is developing apace, the underprivileged, aged and infirm in the community ought to be able to expect to share in that affluence. The Government makes a cheeseparing and parsimonious gesture, granting only enough to match the growing inflation and the rising cost of living. At the very time when this legislation is being introduced we have also coming into operation budgetary proposals for increased sates tax. As we all know, when a 21% increase in sales tax passes from the producer to the wholesaler and the retailer, the ultimate additional cost to the consumer is many times the 2i% increase imposed. It is an established fact that many pf the commodities affected are used by the people who receive social service benefits.

I want to say a few words about Senator Lillico’s point that it is more difficult to obtain the right people as migrants. He referred to a report of the Immigration Planning Council. In discussing the importance of social services as a factor in attracting migrants the Council reported that it accepted that:

  1. although they would not deliberately weigh them, many potential migrants would take social services into account in assessing whether they would, in total, gain materially by coming to Australia.

May 1 interpolate that the proportion of gross national product devoted to social services in the countries of Europe from which we expect our flow of migrants to come compares more than favourably with the proportion in Australia. The Council also found:

  1. the level and comprehensiveness of social services in some European countries, especially Britain and other advanced industrial countries, was a potent factor against leaving those countries;
  2. the level of benefits in Australia, especially the existence of the means test in relation to some benefits, could give an impression that the Australian system compared unfavourably wilh those to which the potential migrants were accustomed;
  3. Australian pensions were not payable outside Australia;
  4. questions that probably entered into migrants’ minds would include the gap in cover between the time of departure from home countries and eligibility under Australian schemes; and the residential requirement before full benefits could apply (e.g., widows’ pensions) which have much greater impact on migrants than upon Australians generally;
  5. migrants immediately after arrival frequently suffered from inability to join an appropriate benefit organisation either because of lack of knowledge of how to proceed or through lack of cash to afford the payments involved.

To elaborate on what I have said, I cite an extract from a publication of the International Labour Organisation called ‘The Cost of Social Security’, which compares sixteen countries. The last available figures are for 1963. Australia conies a bad last.

If our social service benefits are all that Senator Lillico claims them to be, if they arc as good as was proclaimed by the Minister for Housing and by the Minister for Social Services in another place, how is it that these other countries are able to pay such high proportions, and why would it be so calamitous as Senator Lillico would have us believe if we were to at least equal these other countries? These figures relate to all social service benefits paid. The figure of 8% for Australia includes payments by States and charitable organisations. The actual proportion of gross national product being paid by the Commonwealth is about 3.3%. which is a reflection on this Government.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– Are these benefits based on the same services in every country?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, they vary. As the report of the Immigration Planning Council indicates, some countries take better care of widows, others give better child endowment, others give higher unemployment or sickness benefit and others give greater fringe benefits. The whole point is that our social service benefits are less attractive to many of the people who are invited to come here.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– Are social services uniform in every country?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– No, but a comparison may be made of the proportion of gross national product allocated to social services of all kinds. The emphasis may be different in various countries, lt is quite obvious that in some parts of Europe there were huge losses of people in the 1930s and in the war between 1939 and 1945. The loss of children as a result of the bombing of cities would reduce an age group. The number of invalid people whose disabilities were caused by shell shock or other incidents of war would be much greater in some countries than in such places as Switzerland, Norway and Ireland, where the stresses and strains of war were not so great. It is difficult to say whether the emphasis is equal in various countries.

Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood:

– lt depends on the definition of social services.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– That is the whole point. I do not think the Government appreciates the purpose of social services. I believe that its attitude is to pay sufficient to keep beneficiaries quiet so that they do not exert pressure on the Government, and thus it is allowed to get on with ils job, which might be the building up of defences; it might be the subsidising of some private organisations; it might be the implementation of long range plans.

Welfare can be defined as the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life, exemption, from calamity, and prosperity and happiness. No-one can- say that the Government’s policy is directed towards prosperity and happiness for aged people for the simple reason that the amount being paid to them is only a subsistence allowance. The existence of pockets of poverty - that famous phrase which has impressed Senator Gair so much - has been shown on so many occasions but the Government appears to be closing its eyes to the situation.

For the edification of Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood 1 refreshed my mind on Senator Byrne’s famous speech. I* think it is worth repeating here. On 12th September when referring to a survey made by Professor Henderson of the Economic Research Bureau of the University of Melbourne, Senator Byrne said:

I will read from two schedules prepared by this research institute. The survey showed that the incidence of poverty is particularly severe among large families. I am not referring necessarily to families where the breadwinner is dead or has deserted, t am referring to what are called ‘complete’ or ‘intact’ families. Five per cent of families with 3 children were found to be living in poverty, as were 8% of families with 4 or more children. The survey showed that about 16,300 families with 4 or more children were living in poverty, as were about 10,000 families willi 3 children.

Senator Marriott:

– On what income level did he place his line of demarcation?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Senator Prowse asked the same question when he interjected: ‘What was the criterion of poverty?’ Senator Byrne replied: lt was a needs criterion - people living above or below reasonable needs established according to an economic formula.

The point I am making is that the Government will noi come down to tin tacks on what (he community should be doing for the people who need assistance. Senator Byrne continued his reference to the results of the survey in these terms:

That is a scandalous situation in our society and nothing is done to alleviate it.

The whole theme of the Opposition’s criticism of this legislation is that it is only a makeshift, it is only biding time until pressures build up again when the next Budget is due for presentation. Irrespective of whether the next Budget will be an election Budget or whether the one that has just been presented is an election Budget, the fact remains that the increase granted in social service benefits is enough to still the voices temporarily until the next wave of inflation catches up. That is inevitable in our society. Senator Byrne then said:

The survey divided families into categories, lt showed that 5% of the families were very poor, 4% poor and 16% marginal. Surely that is a tragic situation but there is no reference to it in financial terms in the expression of solicitude in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer, lt was found that 6% of children in Melbourne were living in poverty; about 16,000 families wilh 3 children were living in poverty and about 10,000 families wilh 4 children. About 17% of all family units were found to be living on or just above the breadline. In families where there was only one parent because of death or desertion, 51% with 4 or more children were living in poverty, 41% of families with 3 children were living in poverty.

As Senator Byrne well remarked, that was the result disclosed in our affluent Australian society, lt is my contention that the Budget is doing absolutely nothing in the way of tackling the basic problems and the circumstances which were brought to light in that survey by the Economic Research Bureau.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– When the sitting was suspended we were debating the Social Services Bill, to the motion for the second reading of which the Opposition has moved an amendment as follows: but the Senate regrets that the Government has failed to:

  1. Increase pension rates sufficient to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living;
  2. adjust all social service benefits in each year’s Budget lo meet the increased cost of living;
  3. implement its policy of abolishing the means test, as promised as long ago as 1949, and
  4. make benefits retrospective from 1st July 1968.

I drew the Government’s attention lo a finding by the Economic Research Bureau that real poverty exists in our community. I pointed out that the Bureau’s report contained facts and figures of the degrading situation in which so many Australian families are placed. Indeed, the figures revealed by the survey are staggering. I am certain that most honourable senators and others who are interested in these matters would be surprised to learn that in Victoria alone there are over 26.000 families with 3, 4 or more children living in poverty. I submit that cases such as those revealed by the survey should be given No. I priority of consideration in any community that claims affluence or any sense of humanitarianism.

In the few minutes remaining lo me I should like to say something about that portion of our amendment which relates to the abolition of the means test. The abolition of the means lest was a part of a Liberal Parly policy speech as far back as 1949, yet over the intervening period of years till now we have continued to encounter anomalies in that many people who have been thrifty have accumulated just enough money to exclude them from entitlement to the social service benefits for which they contributed throughout their working lives. In her second reading speech the Minister said:

Many suggestions and proposals have been examined by the Government with the object of assisting those people in most need, whilst not discouraging thrift, self help and independence.

This is the very section of the community about which I wish to speak. These are mainly people who have had to pay twice during their lifetime, firstly in the form of taxation; then, as the inflationary spiral has continued to mount, and as their salary range has lifted, the salary increase granted to them has lifted them into a higher taxation field. Therefore, they have paid their full share into the National Welfare Fund. As the proportion of taxation revenue paid into the National Welfare Fund has never been disclosed since the Fund ceased to be a separate entity we cannot check the economics of the virtual double payment. However, the people to whom I refer can generally be classed as the thrifty, the ones to whom the Minister made special reference in her second reading speech. The double payment is made by superannuitants. The means test must be a most frustrating and annoying factor to the many people who have paid into superannuation funds only to find that they have placed themselves on a certain level of poverty in that their thrift has been just enough to put them above the subsistence level and, because of this, they are excluded from receiving social service pensions for which they have contributed throughout their working life.

The amelioration or abolition of the means test would not be an impossible problem for the Government. This is proved by the fact that in New Zealand all people over the agc of 65 years, irrespective of their income or assets, receive age pensions. In Canada there is no means test for people over the age of 70 years. In the United Kingdom there is no means test for men over the age of 70 or women over the age of 65.

I think most members of Parliament have been approached by people on the eve of their retirement or who have retired and have found that the economic shoe pinches. After they have explained their economic situation, the best advice one can offer is that they should refurnish their homes, have a trip or in some way dissipate the results of their thrift so that they may qualify for a social service pension. The only way that one can do something to assist these people is to advise them of the legal methods by which they can become eligible for social service benefits. The Government should not tolerate such a state of affairs. After all, the people have to make these decisions for themselves and I look upon my fellow men as being fundamentally honest people who wish to obey the law. Yet in those borderline cases to which T have referred, people are placed in the position where, acting within the law, they are compelled to ?pend money on personal property such as a home or furniture or clothing, or go for a trip in order to qualify for a pension. Such people should be able to retain the nest egg which has been the result of their providence during their working life.

We believe that this is a very real problem, and it is part of the policy of the Australian Labor Party to embark upon a vigorous programme, within the life of two parliaments - which would be a maximum of 6 years - to abolish the means test progressively. The old cry that the country cannot afford it can always be refuted because of the increased revenue that comes to the Government through no effort whatever on its part. The inflow of capital into the country, the inflationary processes which result in people being lifted to higher taxation brackets and the additional revenue that comes to the Government through many avenues without any extra effort on its part would go a long way towards financing the abolition of the means test. To put it in even cruder form, I say that when the cry goes up as it has gone up over the last 20 years when we have put forward a proposition along these lines, government members practically unanimously have asked: Where will you get the money from to finance it?’

It is surprising how easy a contract can be signed for the purchase of Fill aircraft involving hundreds of millions of dollars. From such contracts we do not seem to be able to get any lasting benefit. The same argument applies to finding money for commitments in overseas countries, the wisdom of such involvements being very doubtful. Yet it is no trouble at all to the Treasurer and Cabinet to find sufficient funds to li nance such ventures. Therefore, it is the firm belief of the Opposition that the Government has not only a responsibility but also a duty to this very big section of the community about whom the Minister said in her second reading speech that it was the desire of the Government to assist and not discourage thrift, self help and independence. These are the people who are being penalised because of the way in which the means test is set at present.

As 1 see that my allotted time has almost expired, let me conclude by saying that I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Fitzgerald on behalf of the Opposition. We do not wish lo delay the passage of this legislation. We know that the increased benefits will be paid on the first pay day after this Bill receives the royal assent. I. had hoped that it would be paid by 1st October but, evidently, it will have to be paid some time after that date, probably about 10th October. 1 know that many people will be looking forward to the little morsel that will be coming to them. It will help to catch up, perhaps a little, with the loss of purchasing power that has been suffered by these people since the last time pensions were increased. Therefore, it is not our wish to hold up the passage of this legislation. We want to see it receive the royal assent so that the Government can get on with the job of giving to these people in our community the amount of extra social service payments that they so richly deserve.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– Mr Acting Deputy President, in rising to speak on this Bill to amend the Social Services Act 1947-1967, I want to say straight out and with all sincerity that I support the measure fully. I give great credit to the Government for introducing in this Budget session these increases and extra benefits that will flow, when this legislation becomes law, to the people who receive social service benefits. In speaking in this vein, I wish to quote from the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who represents in the Senate the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). The Minister said:

Mr President, over a million pensioners and children will benefit from the increases in the rates of pension, wife’s allowance and additional pension for children.

The fact is that if we walk down any street in any city we can say that on the average I in 12 people whom we see passing are gaining a benefit from the common purse as the direct result of the legislation now before the Senate. I do not propose at this stage to deal with the amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald on behalf of the Opposition, lt is innocuous and 1 think that Senator O’Byrne gave a straight forward and reasoned explanation of why the amendment is worded in the way in which it is.

In saying that 1 fully support the Bill - as I do - 1 want to admit from the outset that anomalies in social service benefits do exist in Australia today. I freely admit that there are cases of need and that deficiencies do exist. These flow from deficiencies in some aspects of our welfare legislation. However, T say just as assuredly with the same kind of confidence that many, many individuals and families are well cared for and well catered for to a reasonable standard of living because they are beneficiaries under this and similar legislation. I want to remind the Senate that when we talk of increases in social service benefits we talk of money. That money has to be provided by the Government out of ils budgetary measures. 1 believe that when we realise the amount of money that is involved we can say that the Treasurer (Mr Mc Mahon) and the Government have done a good job for the financial year .1968-69.

The proposed increases in social service benefits amount to approximately $64m this financial year. All benefits to be paid this year from the social welfare account total $856m. Administration and other social service benefits taken from other funds total $29m. This means that total expenditure on this section of social services is $885m. But we have a similar and necessary type of benefit which must come from the common purse. I refer to repatriation benefits about which we spoke last week. The amount provided this year for these benefits is $300m. So, a total of $1,1 85m is being provided in this Budget for social and repatriation benefits. In that amount I do not take into account money that flows to the people through hospital, medical and pharmaceutical benefits. But 1 remind the Senate that the amount that is provided for social service and repatriation payments is greater than the total figure for defence which, I understand 1 am correct in quoting, is $l,069m. That is the amount to be spent on defence in the current financial year.

The question of the means test has arisen in every Budget debate in which 1 have taken part. 1 want to make my attitude on this matter plain and unequivocal. I do not support the immediate or quick abolition of the means test. I will support the gradual alleviation of the means test. 1 believe that this is what our country can stand. I believe that this is what will be fair to all of the people. 1 go along with Senator O’Byrne. I freely admit it. I think it was the late Dr Evatt who coined the phrase that superannuitants are the new poor in Australia. They are on the fringe of the means test. These people in “the fixed income group are the ones most hurt by the means test. They are the ones who suffer most because of it.

I am prepared to say that as the ambit of the means test is gradually broadened so too will we come lo the fringe section of the community that will feel hurt and hard done by. This section will have problems. Why 1 am against the immediate total lifting of the means test is that according to the best and most reliable figures that I can find on the subject this move would cost the Commonwealth Government an extra $370m per annum. Thai money would come from taxation or loan funds. I believe that it would be absurd and wrong for any government to raise loans to pay for social welfare benefits. Therefore, this money would have lo come from taxation. If 1 may digress briefly, one minor increase in taxation which has been included Iri this Budget - I refer to the sales tax increases - have already been hotly criticised by Senator O’Byrne. I understand that it is necessary to emphasise whether one is referring to Senator Byrne or Senator O’Byrne. Senator O’Byrne is critical of the Government because of a small but annoying increase in sales tax. In order to find the sum of S370m required in the event of the abolition of the means lest it would be necessary to increase income tax and indirect taxes, a move which would hurt the family man and young people buying their homes and furniture and beginning to raise a family.

If the Government announced tomorrow that the means test was to be abolished it would be necessary to raise another $370m from our population of 12 million people. They are the only people available to pay that extra revenue. The young people in the community would be in fear and dread of how to meet commitments entered into. It is all very well to say that an increase of child endowment would bring about an increase of population. We have to be careful that we do not tax the young family man too heavily. Throughout the country young people are courting each other and thinking of getting married. They are making plans and talking over finances. IF the means test were to be abolished it would be necessary for the Government to tell those young people: ‘Taxation is to be raised by such and such an amount. You young wage earners will be the principal payers of the increase. We have to find $370m’. I believe it would be wrong. As I have for many years, I support only the gradual lifting of the means lest. The abolition of the means test would mean the shifting of many hundreds of thousands of dollars from the public purse into the bank accounts of people who would not need it.

Senator Gair was chided by Senator 0 Byrne for referring twice to pockets of poverty. I do not always agree with Senator Gair but I believe he hit the nail on the head in referring to the problems associated with social service benefits in Australia today. We want to eradicate these pockets of poverty, but we do not want to pay into the bank accounts of wealthy people money raised by taxation from people in lower income groups. The efforts of the Government, the Opposition and social welfare groups arc beamed on the use of legislation to rid the community of pockets of poverty. I. repeat what I said several years ago; that it cannot fairly be denied that in a community as vast as Australia’s there will always be, unfortunately, self inflicted pockets of poverty which no amount of legislation or pension payments will eradicate. But there are many more pockets of poverty caused by ill health, tragedy, misfortune, age and other reasons. The causes of poverty in this affluent society must be sought out if we are to eliminate them. 1 am taking no notice of the interjections which are coming from honourable senators opposite. I am not going to go back to 1949 or to any other period. Like the Government. I am looking to the future. We can do nothing to help the people who suffered in years gone by. It is our bounden duty to keep politics out of pensions. I agree with such a policy. We must strive for a united approach and to adopt constructive criticism and ideas in formulating a welfare policy that is fair to the economy and will rid us of pockets of poverty. I do not feel any shame in repeating that expression, because I think it suits the situation.

Senator Gair referred to the establishment of a tribunal to inquire into social service problems. That has been a prominent policy of the Democratic Labor Party. I cannot agree with it. It would be a tribunal removed from politics and it would be able to assess what it thought to be necessary in all forms of social welfare benefits to get rid of pockets of poverty, but it would have no responsibility for the raising of the necessary funds to make those payments. I believe that the Government, which has to raise the funds, should make decisions on how much will be paid out, to whom and in what circumstances. I do not agree that a tribunal should be set up to furnish and report to the Government. If the Government did not agree with the recommendations of the tribunal in their entirety, the report would just be another stick with which to belt the Government.

I am keeping my eyes to the future. We have a Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and a Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) backed by Cabinet who are really intent on bringing a new philosophy to bear on the problems of social services. I do not believe that the statements on social services by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services are just empty words. I do not for a moment believe that they are preelection bait, because this Government has been in power too long-

Senator Gair:

– Yes.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– I was about to say that this Government has been in power too long to fail to realise that the votes of the Australian people cannot be purchased. But 1 think that votes can be lost by a government which hits the purse or the hip pocket nerve too freely. I do not believe that a political party will win an election on extravagant social service promises. Surely the aims of social welfare in Australia are three-fold. They are to ensure that housing is adequate for the people who come within the ambit of social service legislation; that food and clothing to keep them happy and well are available at a price within their pensions; and that in sickness and health they are cared for. Surely those are the three fundamental aims of social service legislation. In achieving them there are two essentials. The first is money and the second is aid in kind.

The source of money open to the Commonwealth Government is the taxpaying public of Australia. For the supply of aid in kind there are several sources. Firstly, fringe benefits are made available by the Commonwealth Government, lt is true to say that on the average, after this Bill is passed, the fringe benefits available to age and invalid pensioners will average out at about: $2 a household a week. In Tasmania benefits are also available from the State Social Welfare Department. Local government bodies provide help through transport concession and remission of rates to some pensioners in some shires and municipalities. The fourth source of aid in kind is the community itself. I do not think we should ever stop the flow of that assistance, lt is good for the national character and for every aspect of our national life that aid for people in need should be given freely through community channels by people who are better off than those they are helping. Further, I do not think we should discourage the responsibility of relatives to their kith and kin; the help given by sons and daughters to their parents, by brothers to brothers and sisters to sisters. I believe that in time of need people should be aided by their relatives, but there should nol he an absolute obligation on anyone to provide aid. If it is wanted it should be given and we as a Parliament should do nothing to dissuade that course.

So far as the national Parliament is concerned, I believe that there are too many roads leading to the goal of economic security for the aged, the sick and the widowed. My experience over the last 15 years as a member of the Government Members Social Services Committee, recently as a member of the Health Committee and as a member of the Government Members Ex-serviceman’s Committee and in debating legislation on many kindred subjects, has led me to believe that there are many sections and departments of government that overlap and that do not really work in unison towards the goal. There are too many roads leading to the goal of social security. The requirements of social services legislation and benefits cannot be divided into compartments or departments such as housing, food and clothing and health. The care of sick persons involves the Department of Housing, homes for the aged, food and clothing. The costs arc governed by the economy of the country and by taxation and other fiscal measures of the Government. Therefore, Treasury is deeply involved. Health and sickness, medical benefits, and pharmaceutical and hospital services for pensioners come under the Hearth Department. But in all of them Treasury must take a deep interest and play an important part. All are interrelated. Ail have some connection.

To continue with the use of my phraseology about the number of roads leading towards the goal of social security, I say that at the moment we have a five or six lane highway leading to this goal. Let us consider housing and rents. Can the cost of these items be blamed on the landlord who finds that people are receiving increased wages and increased pensions because of increased costs? Can he be blamed for wanting an increased rent to give him an income ‘from the capital he has invested in building houses? Where would Australia be today if there were not wealthy people and organisations which built homes and let them out for a rental? People always criticise the landlord because he charges a little more for rent. Then we have the housing agreement between the Commonwealth and the States. That agreement, which still has 3i years to run, is an excellent one which has brought much good to many people. But we have the extraordinary anomaly that State governments fix an economic rental on a home and arc then allowed to decrease that rental in cases of need which is assessed by a means test based on income. It is on that basis that rents for homes for pensioners are decided, lt is understandable and I think regrettable that if the income rises, under the agreement so too does the house rental rise. That is a problem which 1 believe needs looking into. 1 have often praised, and 1 still praise, many aspects of the medical, hospital and pharmaceutical scheme run by our Comwealth Department of Health, but the scheme does have its deficiencies. I. believe that the Health Insurance Committee of Inquiry, under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Nimmo, is looking into this aspect of government. I hope that in so doing it is looking into the requirements of those who are in receipt of social welfare benefits. However, we must remember that, always, in the forefront and in the background remains the Treasury which has to provide the money that is raised by increasing taxation. I reiterate that there are many roads leading to the goal. I was heartened that before I thought this out the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and his Cabinet set up the Cabinet sub-committee which is looking into the whole spectrum of this very big social problem in Australia. I believe that we should take heart from the fact that action is already under way, not as a pre-election bait but because the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have decided to have a real, new, thorough look at the subject and bring together the various aspects of government that are responsible to try to find a solution which will be fair to the taxpayer and which will get rid of the poverty which we know unfortunately exists today.

Only a few minutes of my time remains and I always believe in putting forward suggestions as to how an approach should be made. 1 have a suggestion to make to achieve what I would refer to as the instant amelioration of some of the problems confronting the poor and needy in our nation today. I believe that the Commonwealth should make a special grant of money - for the moment I shall call it $xm - available to the States to be divided between the States on a per capita basis. Let. us consider my own State of Tasmania. Through the records of the Social Services Department the Government of that State would know how many people in Tasmania were receiving social service benefits. It would receive its share of this grant according to that number. The same would apply to each of the States and the Territories. I would like to see this sum of money put under the direct authority of the State directors of the Commonwealth Departments of Health and Social Services for disbursement to needy cases and in the pockets of poverty which they, more than anyone else, would know about. They have a very good system already on which they could fashion a method of disbursement.

I refer as an example to the Canteens Services Trust Fund which has disbursed many hundreds of thousands of dollars to needy ex-service men and women and their dependants. There has been no outcry at the way funds have been distributed; there has been no suggestion of unfairness or that anything is wrong; but that fund has brought great help to those in need. Another example is Legacy which pays out many hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly to ex-servicemen’s widows, children and other dependants. Legacy also has a system. There is no trouble about the way it distributes funds. 1 have been in Legacy for 21 years and I know that we are able to make decisions on who is in need, how much they need, and when and where help is needed. 1 imagine that male and female social welfare workers attached to the Department would know many of the needy people by name. They are trained people. They could go to Louise or Peter, whatever the name may be, and say: ‘You have a problem. We have a fund at our disposal and to help you out of this difficulty we will arrange for you to receive so many dollars.’ This could be only a temporary measure to take effect until we bad a final decision from the Government on the future form of all aspects of social service legislation.

I repeat my suggestion: I believe that a lump sum should be made available to each Slate and amounts made available where required in a pocket of poverty to try to bring some benefit to those who are in need. A ceiling could be put on the total amount available to any one family during a year, as is done by the Canteens Services Trust Fund. My time has almost run out. 1 refer only briefly to the amendment. I oppose it, although I do not really criticise the Australian Labor Party Opposition for moving it. No-one would argue that we would not like to see increases in pensions or would not like to see adjustments made to meet the needs as they arise. So, I support the legislation, and because I find the amend ment unnecessary and innocuous 1 will vote against it.

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– I rise in my place to support the amendment that was moved so ably by Senator Fitzgerald on behalf of the Opposition. When the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) was elected in January of this year, in the triumph of the moment he did a song and dance act. He spoke freely and fairly of what would happen as regards social services and the development of this country. This year’s Budget has not shown his particular interest in social welfare, and I do not know that it has shown that he has very much interest in the development of this country. Apparently the Government can find money to pay for aircraft when we do not even know that they can fly or when they are not particularly efficient in their flying capabilities.

What 1 thought would come about was an efficient economic inquiry into the poverty of large numbers of people in Australia. We have to make a scientific approach to these matters. Apparently the Government has not any idea of planning efficiently in relation to any government activity.

I listened with some interest to Senator Marriott. 1 consider that he made a well considered speech; that is, well considered in the light of his limited political vision. He freely admitted that many families and individuals are in need. An efficient inquiry into the pockets of poverty in this country would reveal the numbers of people in poverty and the circles in society in which poverty occurs. In Melbourne some investigation work has been done, lt has revealed that approximately 6% of people are in dire need and that they are more particularly pensioners and the members of families in which the husband is on comparatively low wages.

Senator Marriott said that when we talk of social services we talk of money. That is a particularly profound statement. He said that it is necessary for pensioners to have housing, food, clothing and health care. When we think of the large numbers of people who are looking for accommodation, the tremendous numbers of people who are without their own homes and the few places with economic rentals that are available to pensioners, we realise how the Government has failed in the field of housing over the years. I do not propose to talk about how it has failed in the urban areas of our rural and capital cities.

When we think of the pensioners’ need for food and clothing, as Senator Marriott mentioned, and of how pensioners have to wear suits that they have had for 8 years and how many of them have to wear clothes that have been handed on to them because they cannot afford to buy new clothes, we realise the deprivation that is their lot under the present Government and was their lot under its immediate predecessors. When we think 01 the pensioners’ need for health cure, again as Senator Marriott mentioned, and of how neither the present Government not its predecessors have ever been prepared to provide specialist services for pensioners at the home, let alone in general, we realise how miserably skinflint they have been.

This whole Budget is a skinflint Budget. The total expenditure from the National Welfare Fund on health, housing and social services is $1.1 00m, or something more than 4% but less than 5% of the gross national product. That percentage is much less than many other countries are prepared to pay in order to meet the social needs of their aged and Incapacitated people. The Government talks continually of Australia as an affluent society. Australia is among the twelve greatest trading nations in the world. Its gross national product is increasing each year by a certain percentage (hal the Treasurer nominates each year.

Let us cast our minds back to about 30 years ago. At that time a man who subsequently became a Liberal Prime Minister of this country, Sir Robert Menzies, in his arrogant independence resigned from the Cabinet led by Joseph Lyons over a national insurance Bill. That measure would have provided a scientific basis and at least a start for the payment of retiring allowances for the aged, the unemployed and the sick and the provision of health services. Then in 1949 he promised that he would abolish Iiic means test and also put value back into the £1. He did not do either of those things in all the years that he was in office. Neither has any succeeding government led by Harold Holt or the present Prime Minister attempted to abolish the means lest. We will admit that there has been some amelioration of it; but a comparatively paltry approach has been made. No really scientific approach has been made to the economic needs of aged and incapacitated people.

Senator Marriott claimed that the cost of abolishing the means lest would be $370m. The latest figure that I have seen is $340m. But what is $30m? Let us forget it. When the Government disburses money it does not disburse it entirely without strings. Much of the money flows back almost immediately. Within 12 months a very large percentage of it comes back to the Government by means of customs and exise duties, increased tax on wages and increased sales tax. In the process of time much of it comes back by means of increased income tax. So. if the Government disbursed §340ni a large percentage of it would come back to the Government.

For years the present Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) struggled in the other place for the abolition of the means test. He even told governments how they could do that, according to his limited light. But now that he is the Minister for Social Services there is nol one move in the Budget to ameliorate the means test. People who have saved and have been thrifty in some measure have lo pay the penalty for their thrift today. I heard Dr Evatt’s name mentioned today. In 1954 he said that he would abolish the means test. The only mistake that he made was to say that he would abolish it within 3 years. The time factor beat. him. Despite sabotage, he went within a thousand voles of becoming Prime Minister of Australia on the basis of his promise to abolish the means lest.

The Government has to face up to the question of abolishing the means test, it has to realise that if it abolishes the means lost a certain amount of money will return lo it. Lt has been suggested that $60m lo $70m is all that would be involved in abolishing the means test in respect of people of 75 years of age and over. Each year there could be a decrease in the age al which people would be entitled to pensions without the operation of the means test. Other countries have been able lo pay an age allowance without the operation of a means test. It is claimed that Australia is a country of affluence. Surely we can do something better than we are doing in paying only something more than 4% of our gross national product for the provision of social services.

Let us consider the pensions that are paid today. We admit that there has been an increase of $1 a week in the pension paid to single pensioners. Since 1963 the present Government and its predecessors have put a premium on adultery and paid a monetary reward for fornication in that they have differentiated between married pensioners and unmarried pensioners, lt pays to a de facto married couple two single pensions. Because people are joined in holy wedlock instead of in an unholy de facto relationship they receive less. The Government pays more to the people who have a de facto arrangement than it does to those who are married.

The Government should hold an inquiry to determine the pensions that should be paid in the year .1968, what pensioners nee. by way of shelter and the cost of such shelter. It has not conducted an inquiry to discover what people need in the way of food and clothing and to provide other essentials. These matters would be revealed if such an inquiry were held. Surely $14 per week would not provide those things. The Government says that two can live more cheaply than one, but that is not so. Married pensioners have responsibilities. The Government says that they may have their own homes. Admittedly they may, but they have rales to pay and repairs to carry out. They have to paint their homes when the necessity arises. Many other costs are borne by a married couple which a single pensioner does not have to face. The Government must realise that a single pensioner has to pay board. It has provided a supplementary allowance which has not been altered for a number of years. The first grant was $1 per week. That was subsequently increased to $2 per week but has not been increased since. The social service benefits paid must provide the pensioners with sufficient money to pay for essentials.

The history of child endowment is interesting. In 1941 for the second and subsequent children a payment of 5s per week was made. This benefit was introduced, admittedly by a nationalist Government, under the threat of action by the Arbitration Court, lt was introduced to avoid a rise in the basic wage. In 1946 it was increased to 7s 6d per week. In 1948 it was increased to IDs per week, in 1950 there was intro duced the payment of 5s a week for tha first child. This was introduced by a government led by Mr Menzies, as he then was. This rate has not been increased since. In terms of money values, that 5s would be the equivalent of $1.40 today. The present rate is still 50c. The 10s in 1948 would be the equivalent of $2.40 today. Yet the rate is still $1 a week. The rate for the third and subsequent children was increased to 15s and this has not been altered for years.

When we consider how much we pay to bring migrants here, the trouble we go to to accommodate them and the assistance they are given to obtain employment, wo must realise that children born in Australia represent something of real value to the nation. Children born in the 1940s, whose mother received child endowment, today are adults or are in their late teens and are a substantial contributing factor to the work force of the country. Consequently the nation has a responsibility to ensure that mothers have sufficient to provide for the needs of their children. Other benefits have not been increased. Recently I saw in a newspaper an article which stated that in Melbourne the Minister for Social Service* had said he would increase the unemployment allowance. There is no suggestion of it now. Possibly it will be provided for in the next Budget. Facetiously, he tried to get a computer to pay a cheque for Sim to the Treasurer (Mr McMahon). Of course it was not paid. The Treasurer would not have needed the money if it had been paid by the computer because he can draw hundreds of millions-

Senator Willesee:

– He lives on the child endowment.

Senator DITTMER:

– He will, when it is increased.

Senator Little:

– He would like to know where he can get more.

Senator DITTMER:

– He can get it from the wealthy corporations by means of increased company tax. He does not have to get it, as Senator Marriott said, from the young married people. There are millions to be taken from the wealthy corporations.

Senator Willesee:

– He could get it from the DLP Treasurer.

Senator DITTMER:

– I do not know whether the DLP Treasurer would have sufficient for that. The point is that the Treasurer can obtain the money, lt is there to be taken. A capital gains tax would bring in hundreds of millions, as everyone knows and as is shown by increasing share values, property values and so on. The Government has nol thought of ways to obtain revenue to provide for worthwhile services. We suggest that in an affluent society one group of people in urgent need should not be denied their rights. Honourable senators have said that the Government has introduced certain benefits. In some years it has introduced none at all, but the point is that it has never approached social services in a scientific way and tried to assess the needs of the people who should be helped in a society such as ours. I am not saying what the basis of its approach should be, but it is accepted that assistance should be provided for people in need today. That is humanitarian and humane. We seem to lack something in our makeup. We keep people struggling to keep their heads just below water. If they can get their heads above waler on occasions, they are happy. The Government does not seem to be particularly interested in what it should do to provide for those in need.

Sickness and unemployment benefits have not been altered for some time, but there have been changes in the cost of living. There have been increased needs of mothers, fathers and children, but no provision has been made to meet the increased needs. The Minister for Social Services was so interested in this subject when he was a backbencher but he now seems to be lethargic in his approach lo the welfare of pensioners, lt is almost appalling. We on this side of the chamber had hoped (hat the dynamism which appeared to characterise his efforts when he was a backbencher would have led to some revolutionary changes, but there have been none. Whether the Liberal-Country Party philosophy or the influence of members of the Cabinet have had anything to do with this, 1 do not know. Some depressing factor seems to have influenced him. This must be having its effect on him because from his new approach to social services nothing vitally different has resulted.

I say to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, and to all honourable senators, that the Government, should pay something more than 4% of ils gross national product to meet the rightful needs of the pensioners. We have failed them in regard to their financial requirements. Why do pensioners so repeatedly make representations to the Government, to their members and their senators? Why do they so repeatedly visit the city of Canberra to put their case for an increase? They put their case because they have an urgent need for something more substantial than the Government has been prepared to grant them. The Government must face up to the issue and must accept responsibility. It must do this if it is to honour the promise made by the Prime Minister in the moment of triumph immediately after his election as Leader of the Liberal Party, when he stated that he would provide for the welfare of pensioners and for the development of the country.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– During the course of this long debate many figures have been cited. I do not intend to list in detail the benefits to be conferred under the proposed legislation. Suffice to say that I applaud and support the increases in the various ways in which they are provided and I oppose the amendment for reasons which I shall elaborate. Before doing so, I wish to refute some of the statements which were made earlier in this debate. Senator Fitzgerald reminded us that it is Labor policy to ease the means test gradually until it is abolished. My colleague, Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood, has already commented that the Liberal-Country Party’s easing of the means test has been much better than a gradual easing. In fact, it has been a very substantial easing. There have been ten substantial amendments provided during the past 18 years towards easing the means test. Senator Fitzgerald issued a challenge to name any social service matters innovated by a Liberal Government. He went back, one might think, almost to the days of the Ark to dredge up any steps which had been taken by the Labor Party. Without going into detail I simply went back a few months to find two very worthwhile steps which have been innovated by the present Government. One of them was an entirely new

Innovation in relation to sheltered workshops for persons who suffer from handicaps preventing them from working in normal circumstances, an innovation to give them opportunity to play a useful part in life - an opportunity which has previously pot been given to them in the way in which it is now being provided.

Senator Dittmer:

– How much does that involve?

Senator RAE:

– It involved $ 1.725m last year and no doubt the amount will be increasing. Assistance to deserted wives is (he next matter that is worthy of attention. In the past 18 months there has been a step towards ameliorating the situation in which these people find themselves which has existed for a very long time and with which, unfortunately, the States have not been able to cope, and the Commonwealth Government has come to the rescue to help in that situation. Commonwealth rehabilitation services have been developed in recent times. This is something else to which this Government can lay claim, and I did not have to go back to the Ark to find it. In relation to child endowment, Senator Gair said there had been no increase in this field from 1949 to 1967. 1. am sure that it was through inadvertence that he did not refer to the 1 964 amendment, when what I believe were very important alterations were made to provide an extra 50c a week in respect of third and subsequent children. This was important, for it showed the Government’s desire to help those who were contributing to the development of the nation by enlarging its population by natura] means.

Senator Gair:

– When it adopted our plan lo get away from the flat rate.

Senator RAE:

– The matter to which the honourable senator referred was the 1967 alteration. There were other alterations in 1964, extending cover to student children up to the age of 21 years, but that also is history. Senator Fitzgerald, too, had comments to make about child endowment and his and the Labor Party’s attitude towards it. It may be interesting if I do as he did and go back into history. Let us have a look at some of the comments that have been made in relation to this. Back in 1950 during a debate on this same topic the Minister for External Affairs, Mr Spender as he then was - a Liberal Minister - referring to the Liberal Government’s intro duction of endowment of 5s for the first child, said:

What has been the attitude of the Labor Party to that proposal? ‘Any political joss to beat* is good enough for them. The Chifley Government strongly resisted-

I underline those words: a proposal that was made by members of the Liberal Party and of the Australian Country Party, when they were in Opposition, for the payment of endowment for the first child of a family under the age of 16 years.

Labor strongly opposed it. Mr Spender continued:

When we made that promise during the last general election campaign, members of the Labor Party opposed it on the hustings. The Government introduced the Social Services Consolidation Bill 1950 for the purpose of honouring its pre-election promise to grant endowment to the first child and the Labor Party immediately agreed with the principle, but advocated the payment of, not 5s, but 10s a week for the first child. Obviously, Opposition members were playing party politics, and were not in the least concerned with the merits of the proposal.

I wonder whether we may not find that the tactics then adopted and explained by Mr Spender are not the tactics that are being adopted today in this debate.

The next matter to which I wish to refer is social services as a percentage of gross national product. Reference was made to this by Senator O’Byrne, who said that Australia compared unfavourably with soma other countries in the percentage of gross national product directed to social services. This sort of comparison is meaningless unless we have the basis for comparison and the basis for the compilation of the figures relating to social services. Unless wa have these bases we cannot make any comparison which has any meaning whatsoever.

I use as an example that if country A includes its education expenditure in social services and country B does not, there is a tremendous difference. If we look at our own Budget this year we can see what sort of difference would obtain. In this Budget an amount of $1,1 60m is provided in respect of social services and an amount of $210m in respect of education. If we compile our social services figures with the inclusion of expenditure on education, the increase in social services expenditure will be almost 20%. In other words, by adding expenditure on education to expenditure on social services, the total amount expended is $ 1,370m instead of $l,160m. This shows how meaningless is a comparison unless we have similar standards for compilation of figures. 1 suggest (hat Senator O’Byrne was being far less than fair in attempting a comparison without making clear the basis for his terms of reference.

Senator Dittmer:

– Why do you not make yourself clear and state what countries include education in social services?

Senator RAE:

– I shall come to that, perhaps. Let us look at the sort of thing that is done. Since Senator O’Byrne made this unfortunate comparison I have not been able to obtain the figures that I would have liked to obtain to answer the question that has just been raised, but I shall use education as an example. In comparisons which arc frequently made by honourable senators opposite we hear reference to expenditure on education as a percentage of the gross national product of this nation and of other nations. If we take Russia as an example, we find that ils expenditure on scientific research is included in its education expenditure, which of course is not done here. If we wished to send a man to the moon and included expenditure on research for that purpose as part of our education expenditure the percentage of gross national product devoted to education would be far higher than it is now. This sort of comparison is unfortunate and unfair. Let us look at it in another way. The proposed increase in expenditure on social services is $85m, on top of an expenditure of $ 1. 075m. making a total of $1,1 60m. That is an increase of 8% when the growth in our gross national product is about 6% depending upon the number of years - 5, 6 or more - over which it is averaged. If we relate the increase in social service benefits this year to the increase in the gross national product we will find that the benefits proposed by this legislation represent a higher percentage of expenditure on social services than the percentage increase in the gross national product.

Senator Dittmer:

– The figures given to me by the Minister were $64m and the total $856m, nol Si, 1 00m.

Senator RAE:

– 1 am sorry that the figures relating to this particular item of expenditure which are printed in the voluminous documents which have been prepared for us apparently escaped your notice. Let me deal now with the proposed amendment. The logic behind the argument that increases in pensions should be made retrospective is, to say the least, elusive. One might ask: ‘Why not date it back to 1st May, 1st August or any other date?’ The argument behind the request to date it back to 1st July has not been made clear. Although I am sympathetic to any proposal for an increase in pensions 1 would approach the matter by looking to the future rather than to the past. I will develop that aspect in my concluding remarks.

Let me proceed to make one or two comments about the positive side of the Government’s proposal. Perhaps honourable senators opposite will approve them. 1 endors:: the remarks made by Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood in relation to the vocational training scheme for widows. The importance of giving widows an opportunity to work, an opportunity to keep themselves, an opportunity to bring themselves back into the kind of community life that they left many years before, is a worthwhile objective. I applaud the introduction of the scheme.

Most of the other proposals contained in the legislation have been commented upon at some considerable length but one which I do not think has been mentioned is the Ministers proposal to have the Act reprinted. This I applaud. 1 applaud any opportunity which is taken to make available to the general public and to those concerned with any legislation an easier and better understanding of it. I suggest that as soon as possible the pamphlets which are distributed to people showing their entitlement under this legislation also should bc reprinted.

In addition, I endorse the suggestion made in another place during an earlier debate that it would be an excellent idea if people who were entitled to a pension under this legislation had delivered to them at the time the pension was granted in the first instance and at the time of any amendment a statement showing in simple form how the pension was calculated, what they could earn and what assets they could have without any alteration to their entitlement. That certainly would help some members of Parliament who find difficulty in working out the entitlement of their constituents. From some of the remarks that have been made in this place, I can well understand (hat certain honourable senators would have that difficulty.

Lcl us look at the value of the pension. One aspect which has been overlooked to an extent is that it is very easy to take a base pension entitlement and say: ‘That is it’. But there are other advantages which the Commonwealth is providing out of the public purse although they may not be available to every pensioner. I understand that these advantages, which may be termed collectively ‘fringe benefits’., are valued at an average of about $2 a week.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What are they?

Senator RAE:

– They have been set out. I should like now to turn to some of the benefits which are not provided by the Commonwealth but which are available to pensioners. One is legal aid. I trust that before long legal aid will be provided by the Commonwealth. I take this opportunity to make another plea for Commonwealth participation in this field for the benefit not only of pensioners but also of other people who cannot afford that community right.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What are the other Commonwealth fringe benefits?

Senator RAE:

– There are many medical services, travel concessions and things like free firewood. Because they come out of the public purse, they all must be taken into account when one is considering the percentage of the gross national product that the Government is devoting to this end. I am not saying that I would like to see the present pension as the final amount. I trust that as we develop this nation we will be able to continue the vast increases in pensions that we have been able to provide since this Government came to power.

Now let us see whether the public approves the Government’s actions or whether the kind of remarks which have been coming from the opposite side of the chamber tonight are typical of the remarks one might expect from the community generally. I think it is significant that the Prime Minister’s promises and attitudes in relation to this matter were subjected to the public gaze when the Budget was introduced. Shortly thereafter a public opinion poll showed that only 15% of the population did not approve the way in which he was carrying out his job. That was hardly an indication of widespread dissatisfaction with either the Budget or the philosophy behind it, a philosophy which bears the mark of the Prime Minister’s stated approach to this matter. This is what he said:

Our aim is a social welfare structure which identifies the most needy and sees that those who have no other means are provided with enough to live on in a modest, self respecting way without requiring any other assistance from outside the pension. Our aim is to encourage all to work and to save so that they can live at a standard above that minimum. What we want to see is that the aged needy, the ill needy, those really suffering from some unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own, are adequately provided for by the nation, but that this should be done without destroying the incentive to save and without destroying the incentive to self reliance. These goals are nol easy lo achieve, but wc have sei our hands to the plough and we will not turn back. Step by step we will achieve them.

I believe that this Budget proposal, as exemplified in the Bill before us, is a step in that direction. 1 support the Bill for the benefits that it confers. In its way it achieves one of the goals stated by the Prime Minister. I oppose the amendment as being a mere political posturing typical of that engaged in by the Opposition through the years as exemplified in the instance to which I referred earlier. 1 trust that the Senate will get on with the job and look forward to greater development in our gross national product and in our nation so that we will be able to provide more increases in social service benefits.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– 1 rise to support the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition by my colleague Senator Fitzgerald. To refresh the memory of honourable senators on the Government side I shall repeat the wording the amendment. It states:

At end of motion, add: “but the Senate regrets that the Government has failed to:

increase pension rates sufficiently lo enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living;

adjust all social service benefits in each year’s Budget to meet the increased cost of living;

implement its policy of abolishing the means lest as promised as long ago as 1949, and

make benefits retrospective from 1st July 1968’.

Before proceeding with my contribution to the debate I want to rebut some of the things said by Senator Marriott in particular and by our new amateur senator, Senator Rae.

Senator Marriott:

– Are you a professional?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I think I can class myself as being a bit in front of you. Senator Marriott mentioned the astronomical figure of $370m as the cost of abolishing the means test. I would say that this figure is not backed by any records. It is just a figure that Senator Marriott dreamed up during the last recess. He then proceeded in a sad monotone to read the burial service over the bodies of those pensioners who have starved to death as a result of this Government’s policy. I have referred on a previous occasion to his very sad tone of voice. He adopted the same tone tonight. I shall not repeat what I said on an earlier occasion, because I do not think it would do his political health a great deal of good.

In answer to interjections by my colleagues Senator Marriott said: ‘I am not taking any notice of interjections’. No doubt he was incapable of providing a satisfactory answer to the interjections that were being made and he avoided doing so because of the embarrassing situation in which he could have found himself because of this inability to answer.

Senator Cavanagh:

– So did Senator Rae.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I have not started on Senator Rae yet. Senator Marriott referred to the very humane outlook of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). He said how sincere they were and then finished up by saying that the Government has been in power too long. We agree with him entirely on that point. Let me emphasise that the promises made by the Prime Minister immediately after his election to his present, exalted office have not been put into effect. The Minister for Social Services has also made some profound statements not only in relation to social services but also those covered by the other office which he holds, and on every occasion both the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Services have had to back pedal; they have had to climb down; they have had to withdraw. On some occasions they have had to apologise because they have made statements which they were not able to back up.

Senator Marriott:

– Like you.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I apologise for nothing, and I withdraw nothing. I come now to one or two points made by Senator Rae. I realise that he is a new member of the chamber. As time goes on no doubt he will get his facts in better perspective and will get correct information before making public statements. It will be recalled that Senator Rae referred to the fact that there is to be an increase of $85m in social services expenditure this year. But he was very careful not to mention that the provision for defence is to be increased by $11 lm.

Senator Greenwood:

– Do you object to that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes, I object to that portion which the Government is spending overseas killing people in a war in which we should not be involved. The increased amount involved in that war this year is $31m. When one of my colleagues interjected: ‘What fringe benefits?’ Senator Rae ran for cover. He either was not game to name them or he did not know them. He told us of the fantastic medical benefits scheme which the Government has provided for pensioners. He did not give us any details of it, because the scheme does not stand up to the light of day. In fact, apart from providing the services of doctors and a pharmaceutical service, the scheme provides nothing of any value for pensioners. We ought to be factual about these things.

Let me quote now from the first two paragraphs of the second reading speech of the. Minister representing the Minister for Social Services (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin). Amongst other things the Minister said:

Since March this year a standing committee of Cabinet has been reviewing the whole field of social welfare in- Australia. Many suggestions recommending amendments and additions lo present legislation have been received and considered by the committee.

Mr President, I respectfully suggest that standstill’ would be a better description, because that is all the committee has done. The Minister went on:

This process of examining and evaluating all proposals is continuing as the Government is aware that social welfare is an area which should never remain static. Also some of the problems are so complex and immense that prudence demands further study.

The Government has had almost 20 years to study the social problems confronting the underprivileged people of this country, but it is getting further and further behind.

The Minister’s statement continues:

Tangible evidence of the Government’s policy of increasing social service benefits is the introduction of the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act earlier this year, whereby the Commonwealth is now subsidising the States to assist mothers of children who are not eligible for benefit under the Social Services Act.

I propose to blow that up later in my speech. We have often heard heated criticism of Labor’s policy from the Government side. At least the Labor Party has a positive policy. I shall quote several points from it in order thatthey may be recorded in Hansard. The Labor Party’s policy reads:

  1. The payment of social service benefits at the highest possible rate warranted by the respective services.
Senator Greenwood:

– What do you say that is?

Senator KEEFFE:

– It is much higher than you arc giving.

Senator Greenwood:

– Put a figure on it. You criticise our figure. You put a figure on it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– A Labor government will put a figure on it next year. Our policy continues:

  1. The payment of social service benefits to assist the needy sections of the community and thus remove gross inequalities in living standards.
  2. The progressive easing of the means test with a view to its ultimate abolition.

We have expanded that even further. The policy continues:

  1. No Australian citizen shall be disqualified from receiving a social service pension on account of the period of residence in Australia.
  2. Australian citizens shall not cease to receive pensions because of residence abroad.
  3. A full pension for the wife of an age or invalid pensioner who does not qualify in her own right.
  4. The appointment of a parliamentary committee to keep social services under constant review.

And it will not be the standstill committee that the Government now has in operation.

Senator Marriott:

– Was that Mr Calwell or Mr Whitlam you were quoting?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I do not know whether you are speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, or Mr Hasluck, who is trying to get him out of office. You can take it from there. I refer now to article 3 and article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for I think they outline what ought to motivate the Government in its assessment of the requirements of the needy section of our community who are unable to carry on unaided. Article 3 states:

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 25 reads:

  1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
  2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special careand assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Let us look now briefly at what has happened in connection with increases in the consumer price index. I submit that reference to the consumer price index is relevant because it is obvious that the Government has failed to keep pension rates abreast of the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar and the great jump that has taken place in the consumer price index.

Let us take1953 as the base year. In 1967, the increase in South Australia was 38.9%. In Victoria it was 49.9% while in New South Wales it was 37.8% and in Queensland, 45.5%. Queensland and Western Australia have very much in common concerning this problem. Many of the pensioners in Queensland live in the remote areas of the State. But pensioners residing in Camooweal in Queensland will be expected to live on $14 per week which is exactly the same amount as people in metropolitan areas will be expected to live on. This is something that the standstill committee of the Government could spend some time investigating.

A great disparity exists between the cost of living in various centres. Does the Government propose to herd the pensioners of north Queensland into a cattle truck and put them into the saleyards or burial yards in Brisbane? The same set of circumstances as I have described is to be found in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The problem is highlighted by a comparison between living costs in Derby in the north west of Western Australia and Perth the capital city. 1 suggest with great respect that the consideration of this problem be incorporated in any terms of reference that this standing committee or slow committee that the Government operates has so that the matter will be investigated.

Senator Rae said: ‘Well, we are doing a fantastic job. We are going to train the widows. We are going to provide money to retrain widows so that they can earn their own livelihood’. But 82% of the pensioners in this country have no form of income apart from the lousy $14 that the Government will be giving them, when it has time to see that the proposals in this Bill arc implemented. 1 think that this sort of thing falls far short of the justice that we require for the normal person who has to live in this community. In the amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald, the Opposition expresses its regret that the new weekly rate of $14 per week will not be made retrospective to 1st July 1968.

Senator Greenwood:

– ls the honourable senator afraid to put a price or a limit on it? What does he say it should be?

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr President, would you ask Senator Greenwood to speak clearly. I cannot understand what he is mumbling about.

Senator Greenwood:

– 1 am asking you: What do you say the pension should be? You are criticising it but you have nol. pui a figure on it yourself.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Mr President, I suggest that Senator Greenwood, because of his inability to make himself understood, should write his interjection on a piece of paper and send it to me. Then 1 will answer it. Might I make this point: 1 asked a question some few days ago of the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who represents in the Senate the Minister for Social Services. I received a very smart political reply which said that this in fact was high Government policy and could not be explained at that point. I would say that, far from being that, it is another example of statements made by the Minister for Social Services from time to time which have had to be withdrawn on more than one occasion and that again he has spoken before he consulted with his colleagues or those who control him in the Cabinet.

I wish to refer to a survey entitled ‘Proposal for a Wages Policy’, which was carried out recently. A couple of the statements made in this booklet are worth repeating, I believe. 1 refer to page 18 of the document. The title of this section is: How much should a living wage be?’ The document reads:

In a paper prepared for the Australian Resources and Living Standards Convention in April, 1967, Mr R. G. Harper, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Melbourne, dealt wilh a survey completed in April, 1966, of 3,866 private households in the metropolitan area of Melbourne.

The survey was the largest of its kind ever undertaken in Australia, and its objective was the measurement of the extent and the nature and causes of poverty’. In the course of the survey a poverty line was set at $33-

This was 18 months ago. Yet today the Government expects a married pensioner couple to live at approximately the S28 per week mark. This report continues:

  1. . on the basis of the needs of two adults and two children having a family income of the then basic wage plus child endowment.

A message has come lo me from Senator Greenwood. I will deal with it in a moment. This document continues:

Another survey on family income and expenditure was carried out in Sydney in the period 1963- 1965 under the control of Professor H. R. Edwards, Macquarie University, and Professor R. C. Gates, University of Queensland.

Both professors are highly qualified in their respective academic fields. I continue the quotation:

This showed that a family of four people with an income of less than $64 per week at that time-

This survey was conducted for the period 1963-1965 so, really, it is much further back than the time at which this booklet was prepared which is 18 months ago. The quotation continues: . . would not accumulate any assets but would simply have sufficient to meet the reasonable needs and requirements essential to such a family.

But if they suffered an illness or a ‘bud patch’, such as temporary unemployment or reduction in earnings over a short period, they could then be in serious difficulty, and the most seriously affected group would be that of the larger families.

I venture to ask that, if this situation applies to people in regular work, how much worse must it be for those on fixed incomes whose average weekly or fortnightly handouts are not keeping up with the cost of living?

I have a question addressed by Senator Greenwood to me in these terms:

Please, what do you say the amount, of the present pension should be?

Well, I would suggest that if it came near what one of the honourable senator’s colleagues said at a Slate conference in Townsville the other day it would be somewhere near justice. The colleague of the honourable senator, when he made this statement, was breaking Government policy, but he hoped that the Government would not hear about it. He said: ‘I believe that it ought to be half the basic wage.’

Senator Greenwood:

– Is that what you say too?

Senator KEEFFE:

– We will produce our policy in exact figures properly researched at the appropriate time and it will leave the figures of the Government for dead.

I turn now to the tragedy of the deserted wife. We heard Senator Rae say that the proposal to provide money for the retraining of widows was a fantastic handout by the Government. But I wish to quote in this respect from an article by Harold Throssell who is the Lecturer in Social Work at the University of Queensland. I will quote what he has had to say in a recent survey which was made comparatively recently on the subject of deserted wives in Queensland. His remarks are worth quoting too, particularly if there is any softness anywhere in the hearts of some of the Government supporters who have spoken on this Bill. ] know that there is softness in their heads, nevertheless that softness may extend to their hearts. Mr Throssell sard:

Even if this should ultimately be a Commonwealth responsibility, it is important to note that the mother’s allowance has not changed since 1952. and the children’s allowance since 1955, while the male basic wage rate fto which the allowances are said to be linked) has risen by 6u% since 1952. This means, in effect, thai families arc getting less support now than in 1962.

I should point out that the figures that I am about to quote apply to my home State of Queensland which has a population of fewer than 2 million. The statement continues:

On 30th June 1966, 900 mothers and 2,1)00 children were receiving Family Assistance - no doubt in some cases in addition to other income - because of desertion by the father. In the year 1965-66 over 1.000 children were admitted lo Stale care because of father’s desertion. Many other children received these services in other categories. What is clearly needed is an inquiry in depth on the total social costs involved her;:.

Maybe the standstill committee thai the Government operates should have a good look at this matter. 1 repeat that 1,000 children in 1 year were committed to State institutions or to foster homes because of the problem of desertion by fathers.

Senator Rae:

– What has that to do with retraining widows?

Senator KEEFFE:

– This ought to be on the conscience of every member of the Australian community. No little child is responsible for what its parents may or may not do on its behalf. We. as members of the Australian community, all have a responsibility to the children of this country.

One of the other statements made by the Minister for Social Services recently was a forecast of increased unemployment and sickness benefits. I know that the Minister who represents the Minister tor Social Services in this chamber said that this was high Government policy and that she could not tell me-

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– lt is not high.

Senator KEEFFE:

– All right, the Minister said that it was Government policy but added that she could not possibly tell me about this matter under any circumstances. Yet, here I am indicating Australian Labor Party policy because we are not afraid of what it may be.

Senator Rae:

– Tell us again by how much you would increase the pension? Tell us your policy on that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I think the honourable senator’s main interest is what the size of his parliamentary pension will be, and he may be collecting it sooner than he thinks. I return to the statement made by the Minister for Social Services and a study of the history of unemployment and sickness benefits. No increase has been granted for over 6 years. I invite honourable senators to recall the dark days of the depression. At one time it seemed that this Government was slowly driving us towards a repetition of that era. Now it seems that we are being driven there faster on a toboggan.

Senator Greenwood:

– You have been saying that for 15 years.

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Government has a sorry record over the past 20 years. It should have been able to do a lot better than it has done. In 1930 full time relief work was introduced in lieu of rations, financed from relief tax collections. The weekly rates were £3 for married men - or $6 in. today’s currency - regardless of the size of a family, and £2 10s for single men. Later, allowances were made for children. In December 1930 reductions were made to 12 weeks rotational work, subsequently reduced to 8 weeks and then to 3 weeks. Single men were allowed 6 weeks work as from November 1933. From 23rd September 1935 the periods were increased to 12 weeks for married men and 8 weeks for single men.

So it went on over that sad period in which the numbers unemployed rose to about 30% of the population, and even higher in some parts of the country. Many people lived in extreme poverty on the verge of degradation. As a result of those living conditions many people did not live out their expected span. I hope that unemployment and sickness benefits are not to be allowed to remain at their current level. I hope that the Government will have the humanity to examine the payments currently being made. The lousy few dollars paid out in benefits in this category will not keep body and soul together. It is alt right for honourable senators opposite to say that the employment rates are high, but the best result achieved by this Government is to have about 60,000 people registered for employment. On one occasion the number rose to over 100,000. Those people had to subsist week by week on the unemployment benefit.

Senator Rae:

– Have you ever achieved a better figure?

Senator KEEFFE:

– At the time unemployment and sickness benefits were introduced by a Labor government, in terms of purchasing power they were worth twice as much as this Government is paying. I hope that that answer satisfies the honourable senator. When I was rebutting statements made by earlier speakers in the debate I referred to the increase in social services expenditure in this year’s Budget. The increases in expenditure on social services, repatriation, health and housing total about $111m. As I pointed out earlier, the increase in defence expenditure is about $l02m. A short while ago an honourable senator opposite interjected to ask whether I wanted to cut down defence expenditure. It is clear that the Government will have to cut down its defence expenditure, particularly in respect of money spent outside this country. The minimum still owed on the purchase of Fill aircraft is $160m. The Fill is a plane which flies occasionally but mostly crashes. It is not clear how much more will have to be paid for them. You have paid $139m and you do not know where it will stop. All you can find for extra social service, repatriation, health and housing expenditure is about $1llm. but you are putting enormous sums of money into machines that will not fly.

Senator Greenwood:

– Your Party has no defence policy at all.

Senator KEEFFE:

– We would at least spend the money wisely on defence measures. We would not spend it on pie in the sky, on planes that may never have any practical defence value for this country. You know that is true, so do not start apologising. In our affluent society, for every 100 people there are about 35 motor cars and about 20 television sets. Yet we are afraid to pay an extra cent or two in taxation. The Government has not raised the subject of increased taxation. It frightens the wits out of pensioners by saying: ‘If you are going to have increased pensions there will have to be increases in taxation’.

I turn now to a speech made by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) at a Queensland pensioner’s conference. He said: ‘I advocate that pensions should be 50% of the male basic wage’. It was a good fighting speech.

Senator McClelland:

– Who said that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The honourable member for Herbert, a member of the Liberal Party. He has been elected for his first and last term of office. He said that pensions should be tied to cost of living adjustments and that there should be reviews of pensions parallel with reviews of wages. Is this the policy of the Government? I think not. It was a piece of grandstanding on a platform, a one-man show in the hope that the Liberal Party would not find out what was said. The honourable member said: ‘I have had personal conversations with the Prime Minister. He will help me to establish an old people’s home in this area, in collaboration with the Service Clubs. Bui there is an awful lot of work to do and it could take another 2 years’. By that lime he will not be a member of this Parliament. What happens then?

I turn now to a document entitled Developments in Social Services 1949- 1968’, circulated by the Department of Social Services, lt sets out the proud record of the Government. In 1950, the year after this Government took office, it gave age and invalid pensioners an extra 75c a week. In 1951 it gave them an increase of $1; there was an election in that year and it had no option but to increase pensions. In 1.952 it increased pensions by 75c a week. Around (hal time it was in trouble again because of a double dissolution. In 1953 it made a really fantastic effort, lt increased pensions by 25c a week. Then it forgot about pensioners until 1955, when it gave them an extra $1 a week. In 1957 it increased pensions by 75c a week and again by 75c a week in 1959. Calculated on a yearly basis the increases do not even keep pace with cost of living adjustments. In some years the increase was $1 a week. In I960 the increase was 50c a week, just before the credit squeeze. In 1961 the Government again increased pensions by 50c a week. It nearly lost the election at that time, because even the pensioners did not believe it on that occasion. Over the period from 1950 to 1.96.1 pensions were increased by a total of S6.25 a week. This year the Government is again being absolutely fantastic. It has opened its heart to give pensioners another measly addition to their weekly payments. Here and there there is an increase of a couple of cents in fringe benefits.

The pensioners of. this country have been badly treated, but the Government will be in a lucky situation next year in that because of its treatment of pensioners, many pensioners now living will not be alive. Each pensioner who dies means one less liability, for the Government, but those deaths are on the conscience of every supporter of this Government. I support the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– Senator Keeffe has neither surprised nor disappointed us this evening with his tirade of condemnation in his usual style. I wonder what the honourable senator would do if he were to be placed in a position of authority in government. Of a total Budget of about $6,000m, social welfare in all its facets has been allotted this year $1,446,000. In other words, just over onefifth of the total Budget is to be devoted to social welfare. It is so easy to condemn when in Opposition and not holding a responsible position. What would the honourable senator use for money to do the things he implies would be done if he were placed in a position of authority to determine exactly what moneys should be allocated for this and for that?

Senator Rae:

– He would increase taxation, of course.

Senator LAUCKE:

– And in the process he would destroy the economy, the very source from which we are enabled year by year-

Senator Keeffe:

– You could always cut profits back as a means of paying for some social service benefits.

Senator LAUCKE:

– 1 believe that in a keenly competitive business economy, profits are in themselves pruned and taxation is a source of funds.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator would not really mind if some of his dividends went towards the pensioners, would he?

Senator LAUCKE:

– Everybody is happy to see the allocation of the country’s wealth in an equitable manner.

Senator Keeffe:

– The honourable senator had better be careful.

Senator LAUCKE:

– It is probably more equitably distributed in this country than in any other. When I hear the honourable senator speaking I wonder whether he really thinks we are living in a country which is to be condemned so roundly as he apparently feels that it must be condemned. We never hear words of commendation for that which is being achieved in Australia. Senator Keeffe has referred to the children of deserted wives. I am very happy to see that the Government is now assisting the Suites with moneys.

Senator Keeffe:

– Twenty years too late and not enough.

Senator LAUCKE:

– No, but it has moved into a new area. That is humane and very desirable. Thus far the Government has made an outlay in this new field of some $200,000. I have very much pleasure in supporting this Social Services Bill which gives effect, so far as the Social Services Act is concerned, to the proposals announced by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) in his Budget Speech. The measures embodied in the Bill will benefit more than 1 million pensioners from increases in the rates of pension, wives’ allowances and additional pensions for children. I recall that when opening the Parliament on 12th March His Excellency the GovernorGeneral stated:

My Government will review (he field of social welfare wilh the object of assisting those in most need while al the same time not discouraging thrift, self-help and self-reliance.

The intention expressed in this statement has been pursued, and the result is that we now have before us a Bill containing wellconsidered measures which will be of real benefit to those whose lot we seek to improve. The setting up by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) of a standing committee of Cabinet composed of Ministers whose portfolios are directly concerned with social welfare generally and who are empowered to review the whole field of social welfare was a very constructive and welcome move. Contrary to Senator Keeffe’s suggestion that the Committee was doing nothing, it is a very worthwhile committee from which results have flowed. The permanence of approach inherent in this system of review bids well for future improvements in social services generally.

No nation can be great and no nation can be justly proud of its economic achievements if, in the process of its growth, the general welfare and happiness of all its people are not constantly sought to be promoted and every effort made to ensure a continuing programme of betterment, especially for those in most need. I believe that within the financial means available to us a general endeavour has been made to increase, wherever possible, the amounts payable to those in most need. The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in this chamber, said when introducing the Bill that the Government is aware that social welfare is an area which should never remain static and that some of the problems of social welfare are so complex and immense that prudence demands further study. Prudence in every activity of government is an essential, in my opinion. Our economy is so finely balanced that unless there is a really responsible approach to the affairs of government, ever with caution and with prudence, we cannot expect to have this continuing situation of improvement of the lot of all people in the community.

For this year, 1968-69, the increases, improvements and new measures provided for in this Bill will add $38m to our social services expenditure. The cost of the proposals over a full year is estimated at $50m. 1 believe that note must be taken, as we consider social service payments, that through the whole field of National Welfare Fund interest, which includes the main health services, no less than $1,1 60m will be paid out this year. This is an increase of $85m on last year - 8% more. This somewhat exceeds the average rate of growth of our gross national product over the last 5 years and underlines the fact that the Government is maintaining its policy of devoting a fair share of growth in productivity to welfare services. I am very mindful of the heavy responsibility devolving upon the Government in apportioning to ils various departments the moneys which are available to it. Its allocation to social welfare constitutes the greatest single outlay each year and so, whilst we would all like to do more than is being done now in many areas of desirable assistance, there are practical limits to the nation’s finances beyond which it would be irresponsible to proceed. Taken all in ail, and bearing in mind taxing capabilities within the economy, I believe that we are doing all that is within reasonable expectation at the present time.

At this stage of the debate the scope of the Bill has been covered quite comprehensively. However, I wish to refer to two aspects of the Bill which have not received the weight of reference given to other portions. I propose to refer to rehabilitation allowance rates which will increase and become effective from the same dates as the increase in pension rates. It is proposed to increase the training allowance by $1 to $4 a week and the living away from home allowance for an unmarried trainee to $5 a week during the whole period of training. The living away from home allowance for a married trainee will be increased to $8 a week. These increases are excellent, in my opinion. At the present time the allowance for an unmarried trainee is $3.50 and it is paid for the first 8 weeks only of training. Under the new rates covered by this Bill a married trainee living away from home could receive $33 a week, or $35 if supplementary assistance is payable. That is made up of $21 rehabilitation allowance, including a wife’s allowance; $4 training allowance; $8 living away from home allowance; and $2 supplementary assistance. A single trainee would receive $23 a week. These are very constructive provisions enabling a return to normal work in a way not hitherto possible.

Another very important addition to the rehabilitation programme is contained in the new provision of a vocational training scheme for widows. Without the assistance forthcoming from this scheme, many widows desirous of resuming work in some sphere or other would be reluctant to seek this new life because of lack of skills or qualifications. For a period of up to 12 months, and more in some circumstances, the widow will continue to receive her pension. A training allowance of $4 a week and, where necessary, a living away from home allowance will be paid, as well as tuition fees and fares lo and from the place of training.

The Minister says that the training may be either full time or part time and at business or technical colleges or by correspondence. lt may mean returning to requalify for a job that has changed through the passage of time or lo qualify for a quite different vocation from that previously engaged in. The Minister further says that books and equipment required will be provided and that loans of up to $400 for home employment will be available in the same way as they are available for rehabilitees. This scheme is lo begin to operate, as soon as royal assent, is given to the Bill. 1 warmly applaud these measures as a really practical approach to a major problem for widows desiring to return to employment and to a fuller life. These measures are in the general laudable spirit of conscientious endeavour to do everything possible, within the bounds of financial ability, to assist people to attain a happier way of life.

However, within our community there is a category which thus far has completely escaped the notice of those who strive for the welfare of all sections of our community. This category of people is not very vocal. It is rather self-effacing. They are rather decorous people. I refer to the middle-aged, unmarried ladies - the majority of them are ladies in the finest sense of the word - who are referred to, in an impersonal way, as spinsters. Many of the people in this section of our society find that they are members of a forgotten legion. The fact that they have nol married is often due to their admirable devotion to parents needing the special care and attention of a daughter, to their loyalty to the love they bore for men who were to have been their husbands but who died in war service or accidents, or to their loyalty in service to the community in public and charitable organisations.

I am pleased to see that special benefits are available to daughters of pensioners who care exclusively for their parents. But these unmarried ladies should be given the same consideration as is given to widows. Such ladies in special circumstances and with given backgrounds should receive these benefits at a lower age than now applies to women in qualifying for an age pension. I oppose the amendment. But I say that with the ever rising demands for social services the time surely must come when we will have a great contributory scheme that will assist the government of the day in financing what otherwise will be a burden greater than the nation can rightly afford to bear in the interests of the people. I support the Bill.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– 1 rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald. I will speak briefly because I believe that the subject has been canvassed quite well. We have heard of spinsters or unmarried ladies, infants in arms and age pensioners. For Senator Byrne’s benefit, I think it would be fair to say something about bachelors.

Tonight we heard Senator Rae applaud the Government for allocating so much money for sheltered workshops. I believe that it is necessary and incumbent on me to state that in Brisbane there is an organisation styled Self Industries Ltd which at the present time is gathering $275,000 for the purpose of establishing a sheltered workshop. So, if the Government docs anything in this direction it is not acting like Robinson Crusoe because people in the community are doing a magnificent job in this direction. Should that organisation be successful in establishing a sheltered workshop, obviously it will assist the Government by reducing the pensions that will be paid to the people who will be employed in it. I hasten to say that honourable senators will look at this matter not from the standpoint of the expenditure on pensions that may be saved but from the standpoint that some unfortunate people in the community will have a greater object in life. lt was good that Senator Fitzgerald should trace some of the history of social services in Australia. That history shows that at all times supporters of the Australian Labor Party have endeavoured to advance the interests of people who have not been able to make their voices heard in this chamber. I believe that it is completely unnecessary for honourable senators who support the Government to question the sincerity of statements that we members of the Australian Labor Party make when we criticise the Government. That is our role. We are speaking for a section of the community which has not access to the Government and cannot express its point of view. When we express a critical point of view we are accused of playing party politics. But when representatives of these organisations make the same criticisms, do supporters of the Government turn to them and say: ‘You are playing party polities?’ Of course they do not. They hang their heads in shame, as they should. They know the reaction of the pensioner leagues to the pittance that has been handed out on this occasion.

Let me read from a copy of a letter that Mrs Ellis, the Secretary of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners Federation, sent to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) on 19th August, lt reads:

The Federation asks you. Sir. ‘Where is the compassion in the pittance of 75c or $1 a week for the weakest and most defenceless in the community - the aged, sick and the widowed subsisting on $13 a week or St 1 .75 a week for the past 2 years? Can the .pittance now allotted to them be considered as giving “ very special attention to their immediate needs “?’

Honourable senators will recall that the Government said that this year’s Budget would be a Budget of compassion. Here we have representatives of the pensioners criticising the Government and asking: Where is the compassion in the money that has been allotted to pensioners on this occasion?’ Of course, there is no compassion. This year’s Budget is a Budget without purpose, in my opinion, as I have said before. The Government has allotted a certain amount for social services. Tonight honourable senators opposite have said that the sum allotted is a magnificent one. I am not in the slightest degree concerned with the sums that are advanced. I could increase my savings in the bank 100% overnight. I could have $2 in the bank tomorrow because I have only $1 today. The amount allocated is not important. The touchstone is whether the amount allotted is sufficient to keep the recipients of the pension in conditions in which Australian should exist today. If my political opponents on the other side of the chamber answer that question in the affirmative I will ask them to try it some time and see how they manage.

I suggest that the Government has attacked the problem in the wrong way. To ils way of thinking the pension is not the sole means of support of its recipients, I hear no comment from my political opponents, so it appears to me that they agree with their late Prime Minister that the pension was never to be regarded as an amount to keep the pensioner alive.

Senator Webster:

– What amount do you believe it should be?

Senator MILLINER:

– -I will come to that in a moment. At present I am dealing with a statement made by the late Prime Minister. According to the Queensland Press he said that the pension was never intended as an amount to keep the recipient of the pension in good health; that amount was to be supplemented by the relations of the recipient. If that is the Government’s attitude then obviously it would regard the present handout as magnificent. The Opposition says that the pension should be a living wage. Consequently we approach the question from a different angle from that of the Government. Until such time as governments regard the recipient of a pension as a human being entitled to a wage which will allow him to live and not just exist, the Australian social services programme will not succeed. Several times tonight the interjection has been made: ‘What wouk the Australian Labor Party give as a pension?’ I will not try to forecast that amount, but I will express my own honest opinion and say that the law of the land supports what L say. The law of the land, through the arbitration system, says that nobody should work for less than the minimum wage. In my opinion the basis for each pension paid should be the minimum wage of the average worker.

Senator Webster:

– How much is that today - §36 a week?

Senator MILLINER:

– There is now no federal basic wage throughout Australia. That has been abolished. The arbitration system requires the provision of a wage which will keep a worker, his wife and family at a reasonable standard of living. I suggest that that wage should be paid to a pensioner and that it should fluctuate on each occasion that the representatives of the workers make application to the arbitration or industrial courts. In that way the pensioner has a chance of living. At present it must be almost impossible for him to do so. Notwithstanding the fact that an increase of $1 a week has been granted on this occasion, already it has been indicated that the rents and travelling expenses of pensioners will increase and it is anticipated that the cost of living will increase also. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has approached the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a new standard wage throughout Australia. In the interests of the workers I hope that the wage is increased. If it is and if present standards in industry are observed costs will increase, and so the purchasing power of the dollar will be reduced again.

I have referred to the fact that the Budget made no provision for the unemployed worker. Belatedly the Minister has stated that the Government will consider that matter. On behalf of the unemployed - and there are many - I ask the Minister to make a speedy review of the situation. I can assure honourable senators that nobody could possibly live on the unemployment benefit paid today. A worker could be in receipt of S60 a week today, finish work next week and be reduced to the unemployment benefit of about $40 a week. None of us would like that to happen to us. In the main it is not his fault that he is retrenched. Consequently he and his wife and family should nol have to try to live on this mere pittance.

I believe that the Government has failed the families of the nation in the field of child endowment. 1 am quite concerned at times, and I believe others are also, at the system whereby two lots of wages come into a home. The need for the wages of the wife and the husband to come into the home appears to be a standard thing. I believe that the situation is a dangerous one. Countries overseas have got into difficulties as a result of this situation. The young people of today cannot be blamed because they need the double wage in order to prepare for the future. I believe that the Government has failed the young people of today by not assisting with a social services programme of child endowment that would allow them to settle down to happy marriage and the raising of children. By providing assistance by way of child endowment we could induce Australian couples to raise families. In that way we could increase our population in the best possible manner.

Honourable senators opposite say that the pockets of poverty which exist throughout Australia will always exist. That may be ‘.he view of some honourable senators opposite, but it certainly is not the view of honourable senators on this side of the Senate. We shall press strongly to eradicate pockets of poverty. Up to date the surveys made have been on a voluntary basis. With respect I suggest that they should not be made on a voluntary basis. The problem throughout Australia should be tackled on an official basis. AH the information should be gathered so that we might be able to see the difficulties experienced by some Australians today. One every occasion that the matter is raised members of the Government say: We would like to do this, but where will we obtain the money?’ I say that the money is available. We will not obtain the money by allowing Japanese interests to exploit our coal resources and by charging them a royalty of 5c a ton. We will not obtain the money by allowing people to take our bauxite out of the country and by charging a royalty of 5c a ton on bauxite produced for local use and 10c a ton on bauxite produced for export. This is a wealthy country but it will not be wealthy for long if we allow it be be exploited by people in other parts of the world.

A speaker from the Government side tonight chided us and said that we would have to increase taxation to provide a better standard of social services. 1 stand here tonight and say that 1 believe the people of Australia would agree to pay additional taxation providing they knew that it was going to be channelled in the direction of a better social services programme. I believe I hey would do that quite willingly, lt has been my experience on more than one occasion that if you tell people what you want the extra money for then they will respond accordingly. 1 believe the average Australian would welcome the opportunity to provide a decent livelihood for aged people and people who are sick, and for a better child endowment programme.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– I will not detain the Senate for any length of time, but there are one or two matters I would like to discuss. Before doing so, I pay tribute to the Department of Social Services in Adelaide. All South Australian members from both sides of the Parliament have received every courtesy and assistance possible from the Department in carrying out their work. This is a good opportunity for me to thank the people in the Department for the assistance they provide. I should like to pay tribute to another organisation, namely, Meals on Wheels. This is a band of voluntary helpers who do a remarkable job for aged and invalid pensioners. Anybody who knows the time and effort that these voluntary workers devote to looking after pensioners 5 days a week realises that they are doing a wonderful job.

This is a very important Bill affecting aged, afflicted and sick persons, as well as families. The scope of the Bill indicates just how important it really is. Many people benefit from increases (hat are given at Budget time. Although 1 feel that these increases are not nearly large enough - in fact they are very small - at least people can be thankful for very small mercies. I should like the Minister to have given some thought to increases in maternity allowances. Because of the high cost of hospitalisation and medical attention it is very expensive for a young couple to have a family. Although maternity allowances range from $30 to $35. (his is nowhere nearly enough to meet hospital and medical expenses incurred at this very important time. Although many of these people may contribute to medical benefit funds, (he benefits do not cover the cost of hospitalisation whilst a woman is having a child.

I should like to refer to documents entitled Facts and Figures’ and ‘Developments in Social Services’ which have been circulated to every senator. I pay tribute to the Minister for having circulated these documents because they arc very helpful to every member of the Parliament in informing people, of their entitlements. Many persons do not know what these entitlements are. We have met persons who should have received pensions years earlier but had not because they had been wrongly informed of their entitlements. They did not lodge applications until such time as they became desperate and sought the help of a member of Parliament.

Maternity allowances range from $30 for a woman who has no other children under 16 years of age, to $32 for a woman with 1 or 2 other children under 16 years of age, and $35 for a woman wilh 3 or more children under 16 years of age. There is a pre-natal component of the allowances amounting to $20, payable some weeks before the birth of the child. Maternity allowances are paid (o provide financial assistance in meeting expenses associated with the birth of children and are additional to benefits under the national health scheme. They arc not subject to a means test. I feel that the Minister should at this point of time have given some thought to an increase in maternity allowances.

Senator Milliner referred to unemployment benefits, which have not been increased since 1962. An amount of $15.75 is not a sum to enable a married man with a wife and child to enjoy a high standard of living. He is allowed to have an additional income of ?4. bringing the total to $19.75 a week. I am sure that in this day and age a man would be straining to keep a family on a decent standard of living on this income.

We believe the child endowment should have been increased. History shows that child endowment was introduced as a supplementary payment lo a married man with a family because in those days a single man received the same basic wage as a married man. Child endowment was introduced to supplement a married man’s income and perhaps encourage him to have a larger family. With the increase in the cost of living over the years and the inflation that has taken place throughout the nation, the value of child endowment has been whittled away until it is only about onethird of the original value. In my speech on the Budget I referred to the decrease in the child endowment received by a family with six children. When the first child, while remaining a student, reaches the age of 16 years, the child endowment received by the family is reduced from $9 to $8.25 a week. As each subsequent child, while remaining a student, reaches the age of 16, the allowance drops further. So honourable senators can sec that larger families are really losing by a decrease in child endowment while they still have six dependent children.

Let me touch briefly on the subject of age pensioners. It is true that they will receive an increase of $1 a week, but this will be eroded, as other honourable senators have mentioned, by higher rents and increased sales tax on everyday commodities. When Senator Rae criticised the Australian Labor Party for its amendment, seeking that increases be made retrospective to 1st July 1968, he did not comment on the increase in sales tax which applied from 14th August. The Budget was presented on the evening of 13th August and the increases in sales tax applied from 1 4th August. If sales tax can be made retrospective surely increased benefits for old age pensioners can be made retrospective to 1st July. The pensioners will not receive any increase until this Bill has received the royal assent. In the meantime they are paying more for their commodities because of the increase in sales tax.

According to the Treasurer sates tax has been increased by only 2i%. Let me read to the Senate an article appearing in the Taxpayers’ Bulletin’ of 10th September 1968 under the heading ‘Hidden Cost of Sales Tax’. It is in these terms:

The sales tax rise will cost people about $1On in addition to the $44m announced in the Commonwealth Budget, according to a Press statement issued by the Secretary of the Victorian Taxpayers’ Association, Mr Eric Risstrom.

Mr Risstrom said the extra $10m would come from profit many retailers would make in applying the increase of 21%.

If a business worked on a 20% margin, the retail price because of the additional sales tax will rise about 3%. If a profit margin was as high as 50%, the retail price increase would be nearer 4%. Just how much extra charges will cost the man in the street depends on the profit margin used by businesses’.

As pointed out in the ‘Taxpayers’ Bulletin’, the $1 increase in pension has been whittled down in many cases by increased rents and further whittled down by increased sales tax. The Government gives it to the pensioners with one hand, as 1 pointed out in my speech on the Budget, and takes it away with the other.

As Senator Gair mentioned this afternoon, sonic steps should be taken to help married couples who own their own home and, in many instances, have to pay very high rates and taxes and high maintenance costs but receive no supplementary rent allowance. Although it is said that those people have an asset in their home and two of them are living together and therefore they should not be entitled to any rent assistance, I believe that something should be done to help them because the expenses associated with a home are almost as high as the rent paid by some single pensioners who become eligible for the supplementary rent allowance. I believe the Government in the Budget should have taken cognisance of those aspects.

People on superannuation are another section of the community to which I have directed attention previously. I believe that they arc entitled to consideration. I suppose every member of Parliament has received from the Public Service Association of South Australia a document headed ‘Means Test Abolition’. In the first paragraph of the document the Association has this to say: 1,1 is an established economic fact that there exists in this country a creeping inflation in the vicinity of 3% and that this situation has extremely detrimental effects on people who are on fixed incomes, particularly those on superannuation pensions. It is also realised that this problem has been one of deep concern to all parliamentary parties.

Yet the Government seems to ignore those people because nothing is done for them in the Budget. The Association goes on to mention the four ways in which it suggests people on superannuation can be assisted:

  1. The payment of State superanuation relieves the Federal social services of a considerable amount of expenditure which is not recouped to the respective States.
  2. Slate governments cannot provide funds for national systems of superannuation which take account of changed national economic trends.
  3. The increasing age of superannuees lays them open to increased incidence of sickness, both occasional and chronic, and the present high cost of medical treatment and hospitalisation becomes quite intolerable.
  4. Fringe benefits extended to social service pensioners such as medical, hospital, medicines and concessions on TV, radio, etc., are probably worth much more than the comparatively minor (inferences between entitlement and nonentitlement as defined by the means test.

There appears to be no alternative but the abolition of the means test as no case can be made out for differentiation between those people who would prefer to enjoy full value of their money while they are earning and those who quite rightly consider they should reserve some of their purchasing power for their declining years.

The document continues in that strain. As Senator Laucke pointed out tonight - he was supported in this by Senator Milliner - it is time that we gave some thought to the introduction of a contributory national superannuation scheme. By that means I believe that the people who have been harshly treated by the incidence of the means test would receive a fair recompense for their thrift over the years.

The Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations Federal Executive is another organisation which probably has circulated a document to all members of Parliament headed ‘Pre-Budget Period 1968’ which contains submissions to the Federal Treasurer. The contents of the document are along the same lines as those in the letter from the Public Service Association of South Australia. In Appendix B the Federal Executive has this to say:

One of the main classes of retired persons who are unjustly victimised by the means test are the superannuitants. The present limit of the means test barrier is such that it automatically excludes superannuitants from receiving an age pension.

The Government should have given some consideration to those people, if only to the extent of allowing them some of the fringe benefits that are enjoyed by other members of the community, as was mentioned in the document from the Public Service Association of South Australia. A person can have assets worth a considerable amount and still obtain a pension. A married couple have assets totalling $22,400 and receive a part pension. It would be only 35c but it would entitle them to fringe benefits that a pension attracts. We have no quarrel about people being allowed to have assets to that value. We believe it is a good thing. Great strides have been made in relation to the means test but the Government should consider the people who have been thrifty all their lives, the people who, during their working Jives, deprived themselves and their families of many things to save for their old age but are now being penalised for their thrift. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

[10.39] - in reply - First of all 1 thank honourable senators who have participated in the debate. I appreciate that in their comments they have shown a very real concern for people who are receiving social service benefits and for people who need such assistance. The Opposition has moved an amendment which, of course, we will not accept. Let me speak to some of the points which have been raised. The first point is that pension rates should be increased sufficiently to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living. The second is that all social service benefits should be adjusted in each year’s budget to meet the increased cost of living. The third is that the Government should implement its policy of abolishing the means test. I think all these points have been answered in the second reading speech of my colleague the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) and by those honourable senators on this side who have spoken during the debate. I should like to refer the Senate to this interesting point contained in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services:

In December 1949, the consumer price index stood at 64 as compared wilh 144.6.

That is based upon the latest figures available, which are for June 1968. Then follows a long list of rates. I should like to quote two sections, because they convey some rather important information. For instance, the money rate at December 1949 for the married pensioner couple was $8.50. The value of the December 1949 rate at June 1968 prices is $19.20. The present Budget proposals provide for a payment of $25. The improvement between 1949 and 1968, based on current prices, is $5.80. Similarly, the money rate as at December 1949 for the widow with supplementary assistance with one dependent child was $4.75. The value of that based on June J968 prices is $10.73. The present Budget proposal is for a payment of $22.50 and the improvement between 1949 and 1968, calculated at current prices is $11.77. Other figures are set out, but I think those which I have quoted answer most of the points raised in this connection. lt has been suggested that social service benefits should be adjusted to meet increases in the cost of living. There were two previous occasions when pensions were automatically adjusted in accordance with variations in the cost of living. These were from 1932 to 1937 and from 1940 to 1944. But the system was never satisfactory and was eventually abandoned by the Labor Government. It should be realised that if the rate of pensions had in fact been adjusted in accordance with variations in the cost of living since this Government took office in 1949, the rate payable would now bc $9.60 which is $2.90 a week less - and I emphasise this - than the rate proposed under the Bill for a married pensioner and $4.40 less than the rate proposed for a single pensioner. These points should be well noted.

The rates of pensions, and indeed social services generally, are reviewed as a continuing process by the Government, and all relevant factors, including variations in the cost of living index, are taken into account in deciding what increases, if any, should be granted and over what section of our system they should be applied.

The means test has been mentioned. I would remind the Senate that it has been well pointed out by honourable senators on this side of the chamber that the basic policy of the present Government has always been the liberalisation of the means test wherever possible, and this policy has been followed. I remind the Senate also that the policy was reinforced in substantial form by the enactment of legislation for the introduction of the merged means test, which has meant a great deal to all those concerned. The policy of caring for those who are in need and helping those most in need is continuing, and the Government has promised a continuing review of the means test with a view to its liberalisation. In fact, all these matters are the subject of continual study by the special committee for social welfare which has been set up. lt is doing very real work towards assisting those most in need. 1 should like now to deal with some other points raised by honourable senators. Senator Marriott spoke of housing. I should like to suggest to him, if 1 may, that he misunderstood the position. He referred to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. I should like to tell him that in the present Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement there is no obligation relating to rental charges. The honourable senator was probably thinking of the 1945 Agreement in which there was an obligation of the type mentioned by him. Under the present Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement the Commonwealth makes money available to the States at concessional rates so that they may assist the lower income groups by providing houses for rental or sale on easy terms, but the rental charged by the State authorities is a matter for their own decision. I repeat that in the present Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement there is no obligation relating to rental charges. 1 think we are indebted to Senator Marriott for his obvious concern and the suggestion he made with relation to the provision of special funds to assist needy people. 1 shall be pleased to put this matter before my colleague the Minister for Social Services. He also stressed a point which I made in my second reading speech and which 1 think is important. It is that over I million pensioners and children will benefit from the increases in rates of pensions, widows’ allowances and pensions for children. This represents a lot of people. It is of the utmost importance that when considering this legislation we remember that over 1 million pensioners and children will benefit from it.

I have also noted the points raised by Senator Gair concerning pockets of poverty. Here again the special welfare committee is conducting a continuing study of these areas and is doing very important work in this field. I shall bring this point, too, before my colleague the Minister for Social Services.

Senator Laucke made some interesting comments concerning rehabilitation and what it has done to enable widows to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. I shall see that the suggestions that he made are brought to the notice of the Minister. Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood raised some excellent points relating to assistance to widows who will now be able to go out into the world properly trained under this system.

The debate has been very interesting not only to those of us who are members of this chamber but also to my colleague the Minister for Social Services. I thank the Senate for the interest it has taken in this very worthwhile legislation. I thank honourable senators for the speedy passage which they are giving the measure. I believe that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber will be pleased to see it come into operation in order that assistance shall be given to those people to whom the improved benefits are to be made available.

Question put:

That the amendment (SenatorFitzgerald’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir A lister McMullin)

AYES: 23

NOES: 27

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Mr Chairman, 1 wish to raise one matter which will take only a few moments. As a vehicle for raising it, J refer to clause 9 of the Bill which amends section 50 of the principal Act. Under this clause I wish to raise the difficulty of interpreting the present Act. Today I went to get a copy of the Act to see what this Bill was all about. 1 found thatfive amendments had already been made to the principal Act and that this Bill represents the sixth amendment to it. The parent Act and amending Acts need to be consolidated. This work must be done before we can understand what the Act is that we are amending. It is impossible to do so now. As a result, in Committee we will be voting while not knowing what we are voting for or what we are amending.

Senator Wright:

– Speak for yourself.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Well, I will vole for the Bill not knowing what we are amending. I would seek the benefit of Senator Wright’s superior knowledge to assist me to understand a clause to which I refer. Clause 9 amends section 50 of the principal Act. The clause sets out certain matters and then introduces a new paragraph (aa), which reads: (aa) in the case of a male pensioner who is a married person and the maximum rate of whose pension is increased by reason of the operation of sub-section (1B.) or sub-section (1F.) of section twenty-eight of this Act - there shall, so long as he remains an inmate of the benevolent home, he paid to his wife so much of his pension as does not exceed the amount per annum by which the amount per annum of his pension is greater than the amount that, but for the operation of those sub-sections, would be the amount per annum of his pension; and’.

Now, how many honourable senators have the IQ of Senator Wright to enable them to understand what that paragraph means? The whole basis of it is that if there is a child’s allowance in the component of the pension, it is paid to the wife. . 1 would have thought that it would be easier to say: ‘If there is a child’s allowance, it is paid to the wife’. Senator Wright is the only senator whose knowledge is of a high enough standard to enable him to understand what the paragraph means.I would ask not only that the parent Act and amending Acts be consolidated but also that we try to simplify the wording of the Act so that it will be readily understood.

The other point that I raise concerns clause 10 of the Bill which amends section 60 of the principal Act. Clause 10 states:

Section 60 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words shall be qualified to receive a pension.’ and inserting in their stead the following words and paragraphs: is qualified” to receive a pension–

That is a widow’s pension: if she is residing in Australia on the date on which she lodges her claim for the pension and -

  1. in the opinion of the DirectorGeneral

Let me pause there. 1 am strongly opposed on all occasions when 1 find provisions which leave a discretion to some individual to say whether a person qualifies or does not qualify.

Senator Laught:

– Hear, hear!

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I am glad that Senator Laught agrees with me. I think that we should stipulate the qualifications and not give an individual a discretion to say that one person comes within the Act and another person is outside the Act.

Let me quote paragraph (d) of clause 10 in full. It reads:

  1. in the opinion of the Director-General, she and her husband, or, in the case of a widow being a dependent female, she and the man in respect of whom she was a dependent female, were residing permanently in Australia on the occurrence of the event by reason of which she became a widow; or

What I am seeking to find out is the meaning of this expressing ‘residing permanently in Australia’?

Senator McClelland:

– Read on.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I think that it is a repetition of what is at present in the Act. But paragraph (d) in the Act says that a widow is qualified to receive a pension if in the opinion of the Director-General she and her husband at the time of the occurrence that led to her becoming a widow had permanently resided in Australia for a period of 1 year. The paragraph, continuing, states that if they had been in Australia for a year they would be accepted as permanent residents. But the qualification of 1 year which appears in the principal Act has been deleted from this Bill. Does this mean that a shorter period of residence will qualify as permanent residence? Would the fact that they were residing in Australia establish permanent residence, or does this amendment extend or make less generous the provisions of the Act in this respect so that the Director-General now many insist that a longer period of residence is required? I do not know. The point of the question that I raise is that a discretion is given to the Director-General to make it more difficult for a widow to obtain a pension under that clause. Senator McClelland has asked me to continue my quotation of clause 10. Clause 10 continues: - or

  1. she has been continuously resident in Australia for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceeding the date on which she lodges her claim for the pension.’

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN:

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

That the Chairman do now leave the chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative. (The Chairman having reported accordingly)

page 971

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, 1 formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.1 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 September 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19680925_senate_26_s38/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant