Senate
28 September 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1971

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

page 867

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

– by leave - On behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Mc Mahon), 1 wish to inform the Senate that the Treasurer, Mr Snedden, led Australia on 17th September to attend a meeting of Commonwealth Finance Ministers in Nassau and also to attend the annual meeting of Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank of Reconstruction and Development in Washington. Mr Snedden is expected to return to Australia on 21st October and during his absence the Prime Minister will act as Treasurer. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr N. H. Bowen, left Australia on 21st September to attend the twenty-sixth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. He is expected to return to Australia on 1 5th October. During his absence the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs and will represent the Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) in the House of Representatives.

page 867

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Health, is further to the answer he gave to Mr Kennedy, the honourable member for Bendigo in the House of Representatives, on 16th September. Is it clear that of the 184,000 families which, as low income families, are eligible for assistance with health insurance only 13,000 have been approved by the Department of Social Ser-“ vices and that only about half of that small number have been protected fully by registering with a fund? Further is it clear that only about 25 per cent of migrants eligible for assistance have applied to a fund for registration and only about 40 per cent of unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries have so registered? In the light of of that, is it not clear that the system of national health insurance is breaking down completely or almost completely in regard to those low income persons and other persons in special categories whom it was supposed to assist? Will the Minister tell us what he proposes to do about this matter?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

In the first place, I think I should give some of the background. A question was asked of my predecessor in the other place and in the intervening period I became Minister for Health and subsequently issued the answer to the honourable member who asked the question. I regret that the answer that I gave, which is a statistical answer rather than one dealing with issues, has been either read wrongly or misinterpreted in much the same way as the Leader of the Opposition appears to have done today. [ anticipated a question on this subject and prepared a response and perhaps it would be simpler for me to give it. Subsequently, if further information is sought, I will be happy to give it. I want to make it abundantly clear that f have asked my Department to investigate further the publicity aspect of this proposal and 1 am perfectly open to hear anybody who is willing to come along and suggest other means whereby we can give wider publicity to this very commendable proposal. That invitation is extended not only to the Leader of the Opposition but to anybody in the community.

It is true that it has been alleged in the Press that, because only some 12,000 low income families had applied by 31st December 1970 for assistance under the subsidised health benefit plan, which was introduced on 1st January 1970, the plan had failed in its objectives. This is not so. 1 feel that a misunderstanding has occurred in the use of published statistics relating to the scheme. I am not suggesting anything sinister about this misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the figures. For administrative and statistical purposes beneficiaries under the plan are divided into 3 separate community groups eligible for assistance, namely, low income families, unemployed, sickness and special beneficiaries, and migrants.

In the year ended 30th June 1971, 82,000 unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries enrolled in health insurance funds, and in addition about 11,000 low income families and about 28,000 migrants became members. The total of the 3 groups approximates 121,000. It is estimated that 84,000 of these consist of families on low incomes. This means that 84,000 families received assistance at a time of need and not 12,000 as has been suggested in some comments. Of these people on low incomes who did not apply for assistance many, no doubt, did not incur medical or hospital expenses. Notwithstanding these figures my Department recognises that the procedures should be made as simple as possible for the people whom the Government is aiming to assist. Revised procedures, to operate from 1st November 1971, will reduce greatly some of the problems being experienced. The new procedures involve the introduction of a simplified application form for low income families and the adoption of one certificate for all beneficiaries, whether low income families, or unemployed, sickness or special beneficiaries. These new arrangements will simplify procedures and enable more eligible persons to avail themselves of assistance under the plan. There is a real promlem in getting people who are entitled to free or subsidised medical benefits to take advantage of the scheme and I have instructed my Department to look into this queston. As I said earlier, I am prepared to consult interested bodies to see how this situation can be improved further.

page 868

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OFFICES

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. Do the figures released yesterday showing a sharp rise in approvals for private office buildings reveal that the Government’s call for restraint in this area has been Jess than successful? Is the Government’s reluctance to house its departments in Commonwealth offices, which was revealed in his answer to my question on 8th September and which has resulted in the necessity to pay S20m per annum in rent, only encouraging private developers to continue building office blocks?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– That is an observation directed through me to the Minister for the Interior and refers to figures released, so it is said, this morning. I have not yet seen those figures. The question calls for a comment on Government policy. In both circumstances I shall have to direct the question to the responsible Minister. The only observation one could make is that from one’s own observation it has been evident that the Commonwealth has been progressivley erecting buildings to house Commonwealth officers as it has felt it both wise and sensible to do so. I am quite sure that this has been done with some regard to the effect on the total building scene and the strain on resources, both labour and materials.

page 868

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation a- question concerning the State-Commonwealth commitee set up to make various assesments about the aerodromes, at Hobart, Launceston, Devonport and Wynyard. Is he able to define further the functions of this committee and indicate what influence it will have on the upgrading to jet standard of at least one of the 2 aerodromes in need of it? Will it have any bearing at all on such a proposition?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The general purpose of the Commonwealth-State committees on airfields in the States - ‘bodies with which I am very happy to have been associated - has been to get both the Commonwealth and the people concerned in a particular State to examine the airfield requirements in the total area of that State, the effect on transport in that State and the environmental and noise problems in that State and to try to make the best possible decision on the location and upgrading of airports and any change in their characteristics. The committee to which the honourable senator referred will have particular regard, as it goes on with its work, to what will be needed in the way of an increased capacity or change in the northern part of Tasmania, in which area I am sure the honourable senator has a great interest. I could do no more than that in defining its general functions. However, I will seek to have the expressed functions of the committee made known to the honourable senator. Equally I will give further elucidation on this matter as its work develops or as I feel the necessity to do so. so. Any other honourable senator who feels that he could aid the process of good decision making in the States by people who have a joint responsibility and who are anxious to link together in that sense should regard himself as being entitled to communicate with them.

page 869

QUESTION

NATIONAL FITNESS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. How does the Minister relate the figures issued by the Department of Labour and National Service showing that 49 per cent of Australian youth do not meet Army physical standards with his claim that the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness is providing adequate physical recreation facilities and activities?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI would say at first flush in response to the honourable senator’s question that the standards set down by those who examine people called up for national service are particularly high. Those of us who went through the line in years gone by know that even under different circumstances, when there was a tremendous patriotic upsurge of people offering themselves for service, there were rejections for a variety of things extending from your toes right up to the top of your head. I do not think I need to go into the whole host of reasons for which people were rejected. But a vastly different proposition is involved here. The national fitness bodies encourage young people to attain fitness. They encourage the tutors at rational fitness camps to give guidance and instruction to the young on physical fitness. I do not reject the honourable senator’s question, but 1 think that there is a nice difference between the two.

As a small personal item, I add that 1 regard myself as being a resonably fit person, but when I first submitted myself for the Australian Imperial Force I was rejected because of some oddity 1 had. However, 1 subsequently gave 5i years service - 34 years of it in a very hard way. I have brought that out only to make the point that there is a complete distinction between the fitness required by the Services and what a national fitness camp may set out to do.

page 869

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION: ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Firstly, has the South Australian Government registered objection to the Minister to possible extensions of the Adelaide Airport at West Beach beyond its present boundaries.

Secondly, are alternative sites being investigated as a venue for a new airport for Adelaide which could cater for international traffic?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I do not have before me, nor have I seen, any objection from the South Australian Government to development plans which are being canvassed by all sorts of people for the Adelaide Airport, to which I have referred on many previous occasions here as the records will show. With the willing cooperation of the South Australian Government I have had established a South Australian airfields committee, the establishment of which was announced. I think, early last week and about which I must say I was very pleased indeed. That committee will naturally look at proposals for South Australia in the same way as other such committees would look at them and in the same spirit of trying to get the best result for the people, in this case the people of South Australia. [ shall look at this matter when I leave the Senate after question time to see whether anything has come in by telex or anything of that kind. No letter has come before me.

page 869

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation, follows upon the question asked by Senator Laucke about possible extensions to the Adelaide Airport and to the future of the West Beach recreation reserve lands. [ ask the Minister: ls it now clear that there will be no acquisition of the West Beach trust lands which are now being developed under a State Act for recreational purposes? Is it also clear that there is no proposal by the Department of Civil Aviation to extend the present runways outside the present limits of the airport area? ls it possible that, when the new committee meets, the Government or the Department of Civil Aviation intends to put these 2 propositions to it for consideration, or is the matter to be determined on the premise of my first question?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think it will be agreed that that was quite a long question. As I recall them, most of the points raised have been covered in answers to earlier questions. I have nothing to add to what I have said already this afternoon in answer to earlier questions. The honourable senator poses a series of points to me. I am anxious to establish whether or not there has been any change which is unknown to me. I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice and I shall get a detailed answer from the Department for him. As 1 understand the position there is no problem or no change, but I want to be quite sure.

page 870

QUESTION

RUSSIAN DIPLOMATS

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the British Government’s expulsion order against 105 Russian diplomats and officials who are accused of spying, does the Australian Government still agree with the Russian proposals, announced last May, for the Soviet owned Baltic Steamship Co. to open an office and the Russian Embassy to open a trade office in Sydney? If so, will the Minister indicate what restrictions, if any, the Government proposes to impose on the number of Soviet staff to be employed in these offices?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– I shall refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and advise him of the reply as early as possible.

page 870

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Civil Aviation. Prior to the Australian Government’s acceptance of demands by the United States of America trans-Pacific carriers for increases in their capacity on this air route, did the Government suggest any counter-sanctions in response to the ban on Qantas Airways Ltd jumbos flying to America? If no counter-sanctions were suggested, what advantages were there for Qantas Airways Ltd in the agreement?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– We could occupy ourselves here for probably half an hour in answering the honourable senator’s question in general, but I do not think 1 will do that. These were negotiations between the Australian Government and the Government of the United States of America. Contrary to the popular view expressed in the Press the Australian Government was eminently satisfied with the result of those negotiations. I think honourable senators will remember that Qantas Airways Ltd was represented in the negotiations by its General Manager. The company has not expressed dissatisfaction to me in any sense either personally, privately or by correspondence. The Australian Government wanted to establish a position in which the American carriers as such, that is the airlines, did not have an automatic right to put on aircraft to suit themselves willynilly without some review of capacity and the same general control being exercised by the American Government over its carriers as we in Australia have tried to exercise at our end. That situation has been satisfactorily established, and from the Australian Government’s point of view we have succeeded, after a period of hard, protracted and difficult negotiations, in doing what we set out to do some 2 years ago.

page 870

QUESTION

WHEAT SALES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– 1 direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that the Australian Wheat Board has made sales of wheat to Egypt and other Middle East countries amounting to some 2± million tons, which has more than compensated for the reduction in sales of wheat to mainland China this year? Will the current wheat sales this year equal those of the record sales of wheat in 1966-67? If so, will this mean that the anticipated carryover of Australian wheat stocks this year will be the lowest for some years?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– The

Australian Wheat Board has a number of markets in the Middle East area, but its sales for shipment to that area this year will be one million tons. This compares very favourably with about a quarter of a million tons last year. I understand that shipments to the United Arab Republic this year will exceed li million tons. If one ignored the calendar year and went back to the middle of last year and looked at shipments from that time I understand that they would be in the vicinity of 2 million tons. It is true to say that shipments of wheat to mainland China were at the rate of about 2 million tons annually. In fact, over the years about one-third of Australia’s export wheat has gone to Mainland China. The Chairman of the Australian Wheat Board stated 3 weeks ago that disposals this year were likely to be within half a million bushels of the record domestic and export sales figure of 375.4 million bushels - that is 10 million tons - achieved in 1966-67. He also said that the carry-over would be something less than 150 million bushels. Thus it could be said that stocks will be about 120 million bushels less than they were last year and the year before. They will still be very substantially higher than they have been in any other peace time year, despite the sales we have made.

page 871

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Has the Vietcong made a proposal to the Australian Government to declare a cease fire against Australian troops if the Australian Government will nominate a specific date by which all Australian forces will be withdrawn from South Vietnam? What consideration has been given to this proposal? If it has not been accepted, can the Minister indicate on what grounds the Government can justify any further Australian deaths in a cause now lost?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Ignoring the last part of the question, I think the balance should go on notice.

page 871

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Does Australia have any reciprocal agreement with the United States as regards the reimbursement of fares for the deportation of illegal immigrants to meet a situation which was exemplified by last week’s O’Lear case?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I am informed by the Minister for Immigration that Australia does not have any such agreement with the United States or with any other countries. The cost of Mr O’Lear’s deportation from Australia was met by the Department of Immigration, but the question of the cost of the repatriation of Mrs O’Lear and the 1 1 children on Friday next is still under consideration with the American authorities.

page 871

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Will the Federal Government consider taking a much firmer hand in assisting decentralisation of industry and population in Australia? Does the Government consider that it has achieved a level of success in past years in encouraging decentralisation? As a demonstration of the Government’s real interest in gaining a more acceptable location of industries and people, will it consider an offer of substantially reduced charges to decentralised industries using the services of the Postmaster-General’s Department?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The question of decentralisation is very wide and the efficacy of such a principle needs no special blessing from me or any other honourable senator. However, its application is a far more complex matter even though Australia is a relatively young country. The New South Wales Government has appointed a Minister whose main portfolio relates to decentralisation. That brings me to the point I wish to make in response to the question. Decentralisation falls more effectively within the administration of the States than that of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth deals rather with national issues which come within its powers under the Constitution. The States have more particular powers.

I am not sure whether the honourable senator suggested the straight out application of a concession by the Postal Department in the field of decentralisation. I do know that we are engaged in a Budget session in which we in the Senate will be called upon very soon to pass revenue legislation relating to the Postmaster-General’s Department. Whilst it will be a revenue Bill which will not lend itself to alteration by the Senate, if the honourable senator has a point to make about decentralisation I would have thought that the debate on that Bill would provide a convenient vehicle for him to make it.

page 871

QUESTION

HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Health whether it is true that private hospitals and nursing homes are currently experiencing quite serious financial difficulties. If so, what is the Government doing about those difficulties?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

I think I answered a question on this matter last week.

Senator Keeffe:

– We did not sit last week.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I meant the last week we were here, although 1 could add that I did answer a question on this matter last week. Currently it is under examination and I am not in a position to make any further comment at present.

page 872

QUESTION

RAAF STATION, DARWIN

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Works aware of a report that appeared several weeks ago in the ‘Northern Territory News’ to the effect that the old wooden hangar at the Royal Australian Air Force Station at Darwin would be burned to the ground? Is he aware also of a subsequent report in the same newspaper that workmen from the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station and the Darwin branch of the Department of Works were preparing the hangar for fire tests, but that the reporter concerned was told by an RAAF spokesman that the hangar would not necessarily be burned down? Can the Minister inform the Senate of what is happening to the hangar and whether there is any substance in the suggestion, which also appeared in the same newspaper, that the building is infested with white ants?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– My attention was drawn to the news paragraph that has been referred to by my colleague. The hangar is an old wartime structure which is no longer in use. It is not being burnt down, but the occasion is being taken to make fire tests on it for the purpose of considering the action of heat in such large buildings. It is anticipated that those tests will be kept under control. The fires have been carefully designed to prevent burning down the structure. But demolition of the hangar will be carried out when it is no longer required for the fire tests.

page 872

QUESTION

OFFICE OF THE ENVIRONMENT

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Is it true, as reported in the last issue of the ‘Sunday Australian’, that, despite the fact that the Commonwealth Office of the Environment was created 6 months ago, it has no staff? Is it true also that only 4 positions have been established in the Office and that they will not be filled for several weeks? If the answer to these questions is in the affirmative, are we to assume that the Government has in mind for the Office of the Environment a purely decorative rather than a practical role?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I would not accept the latter part of the question. But the details are not known to me. I ask that the honourable senator put his question on notice.

page 872

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. My question refers to the expenditure of $397,000 by the Commonwealth Government to pay management expenses’ to the hospital and medical benefits funds at the rate of 6 per cent on the money that they handled in 1970-71 in dealing with bills under the subsidised medical scheme for low income families, migrants and others. In view of the fact that the insurance funds do not use their own money to meet patients’ bills in this scheme and in view of the fact that the funds are not involved in insuring anyone enrolled in this scheme, how does the Minister justify this sheer waste of taxpayers’ money?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I do not concede that this is a sheer waste of taxpayers’ money at all. Anyone who receives a management fee receives that fee because he has provided some management service. This is not peculiar to government. It is common in every facet of business. I will get the particulars of what the management function was, how long it took, what it accomplished, and what was done, lt would not reflect very well on the Senate’s understanding of business methods if it agreed that a government or anyone else should pay any sum of money - in this case, it is $397,000 - for a management consultant’s performance unless the service for which payment was being made was rendered. Having said that, I will obtain the details of this matter and provide them to the Senate.

page 872

QUESTION

PALM ISLAND

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the

Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts. Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the movement of persons between the Palm Island Aboriginal Reserve and the mainland has been restricted because of an outbreak of hepatitis or other contagious diseases? Will the Minister undertake to have inquiries made immediately to ascertain the extent of the outbreak and to arrange a special grant from Commonwealth funds to cover cases of hardship if the outbreak is of major proportions?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unaware whether the honourable senator’s allegations are true or, if they be true, what the dimensions of the problem are. 1 will convey his question to the Minister and endeavour to obtain an answer as soon as possible.

page 873

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN VIETNAM

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Are there any Australian servicemen held as prisoners of war, or missing believed to be held as prisoners of war, in Vietnam? If so, how many are there? What action is being taken by the Australian Government to have these prisoners released and brought home to Australia at the same time as our troops are withdrawn?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– 1 shall have to refer the question to the Minister for Defence and get the honourable senator an early answer.

page 873

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR FRAIL AGED

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Health seen a comment by his colleague the Minister for Social Services relating to the possible establishment of additional assistance to institutions providing accommodation for the frail aged? Can the Minister say whether he is receiving representations on this matter? Can he say whether the Government is giving consideration to these representations? Is he in a position to say when the Government might be able to make statements regarding any possible extension of assistance to those who are in special need?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONClearly this question is one of policy which I could not answer at question time.

page 873

QUESTION

BRISBANE AIRPORT TERMINAL

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Civil Aviation yet in a position to indicate whether the Trans-Australia Airlines airport terminal at Eagle Farm, Brisbane, which was recently destroyed by fire, is to be replaced by a long overdue modern airport terminal?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– No, I am not, but I expect to be so before very long.

page 873

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Attorney-General aware of a judgment given yesterday in the Northern Territory by Mr Justice Forster relating to the constitutional powers of parliamentary committees? If so, has the Minister had a chance to study the judgment? Does he agree that this in no way relates to the constitutional power of Commonwealth parliamentary committees, as suggested in Press reports published today?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 am aware that a decision was given in the Northern Territory Supreme Court yesterday by Mr Justice Forster in regard to an action which was brought by the Attorney-General against certain members of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory who had purported by resolution to appoint persons with what might be described as ombudsman-like powers. The issue which was litigated before the Supreme Court did not relate to Commonwealth constitutional power but to the powers of the Northern Territory Legislative Council. Having said that, I have not seen and therefore have not had an opportunity to give full consideration to the judgment of His Honour. Nevertheless I have had a broad outline of the case and also I have read what has appeared in Press reports. In my understanding of the matter, based upon a rough outline of the case and the Press reports, no question arose in that case which affects the powers of Senate committees, insofar as those committees are aids to the exercise of a legislative function.

page 873

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Has the disagreement which has existed between Australia and the United States of America relative to the landing rights of Qantas Airways Ltd in the United States of America been settled? If so, will the Minister table in the Senate the documents and papers relative to the settlement of that disagreement?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have considered not tabling all the documents - that would occupy our time for too long - but making a fairly lengthy statement for the information of the Senate and at the moment I am still looking at the prospect of doing that. I would have made a statement early last week, but 1 was involved in settling the matter with the United States Government on a government to government level and therefore could not do so. However, as I have been reading and listening to certain things which have been reported in the Press and said by people in other places, it has occurred to me that in the interests of all Australian people and of the Parliament, who between them are responsible for the ownership of Qantas, something might well be said carefully and thoroughly to establish the truth of the situation. No good purpose is being served in this country by the proliferation of information and statements which are totally inconsistent with fact and which I believe do not do the Australian cause any good. The making of a statement has been looked at by me quite seriously as a general proposition. My personal view is that it would be useful to make one.

page 874

QUESTION

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Health received a communication from Mr W. A. McKenzie, Federal Secretary of the Friendly Societies Dispensaries Association of Australia, dated 21st September 1971, relative to the effect of the National Health Bill 1971 on the societies’ rebate systems for dispensing costs to its members? If so, will the Minister accede to the request of the federal executive of that Association for consultations with him before the National Health Bill passes through both Houses of the Parliament?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I think that this morning correspondence was handed to me briefly before I went to a Cabinet meeting. I gave instructions that the letter was to be pro cessed in the Department as quickly as possible to ascertain whether it contained any elements that I should have regard to in deciding whether to receive a deputation before the Bill is introduced in this place. I have the matter currently before me. In the next 24 hours I hope to make a decision about it. 1 was informed verbally that a proposition was being put that traditionally before a health Bill is introduced this organisation has access to the Minister to express its point of view. The nature of the portfolio, the tremendous demands upon me and the number of organisations involved are some of the reasons why I put it to my Department for sorting out this morning. During the course of the afternoon I will be informed about the matter and a reply will be sent to the organisation concerned saying whether and when I can see its representatives.

page 874

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. 1 refer to the extraordinary ban imposed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board on Messrs Peter Cook and Dudley Moore. Can the Minister inform the Senate why the procedure laid down in section 119 of the Broadcasting and Television Act was not followed? That section gives persons an opportunity to be heard before any order placing restrictions upon them is made. Will the Minister ask the PostmasterGeneral to make a full statement to the Parliament upon this incident which, as far as I know, is the first that has occurred, stating why the Board has, apart from the legalities, taken what appears to be extremely arbitrary action in relation to these persons and why, when there is an opportunity to deal with particular matters, there has been a blanket censorship imposed upon these persons taking part in live television shows although apparently there was only one incident when some offence was caused?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I shall convey to the Postmaster-General those parts of the honourable senator’s inquiry which relate to the procedures adopted by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. However, in view of the reference to an extraordinary ban, I must make the comment that there are 2 very relevant factors which I think have to be borne in mind in any assessment of this situation, quite apart from the legal considerations which were raised. The first is that during a live television broadcast there is no opportunity to prevent those persons who wish to take advantage of the medium, irrespective of what propriety or good taste might demand, from giving offence to persons who are viewing television. The second is that in this case, as I understand what was reported in the Press, the manager of the station made a public apology shortly after the events occurred. This would suggest that there was some basis for the action that was taken. I appreciate that that is only part of what the honourable senator has inquired about. I shall convey the balance of his question to the PostmasterGeneral.

page 875

QUESTION

ESPIONAGE

Senator KEEFFE:

– Is the AttorneyGeneral aware that a statement was made by Senator Gair that Soviet diplomats are connected with a lot of sabotage in Australia and that there is sabotage in the trade unions and the Public Service? Can the Minister say whether the honourable senator has produced to the AttorneyGeneral or his Department any evidence regarding this alleged sabotage? If the answer is in the negative, is it a fact that a citizen who has in his possession evidence of sabotage in Australia initiated by a foreign power and who does not give that evidence to the Attorney-General can be charged as an accessory to treason?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Insofar as-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have not yet called you, Senator Greenwood. I was just considering the form of the question and whether I should allow it. I have decided to allow it. I now call Senator Greenwood.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Insofar as the honourable senator’s question invites me to express a legal opinion, I decline to do so. Insofar as the question asks for comment upon statements of fact made by another honourable senator, I shall check the record as to what that honourable senator said and discuss the matter with him.

page 875

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator POKE:

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Why has he refused to order the release of conscientious objector Charles Martin following a reduction of the term of national service by 6 months? As the Government has stated that no conscripts will now be sent to Vietnam unless they wish to go, does this place Martin’s imprisonment in a completely new light and greatly strengthen the argument that he should be released immediately? As we are withdrawing from Vietnam, why should a young man be kept in gaol for the next few months until the new National Service Bill becomes law. Is the lack of clemency further evidence of the Government’s attempt to save face over the whole of the Vietnam tragedy?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator’s question, unfortunately, is based on some misapprehensions. In the first place, the Government has not reduced the term of national service; it has introduced a Bill and, when the Parliament has passed that Bill, the effect of the Act will be to reduce the term of national service from 2 years to 18 months. But, until the Parliament has approved what the Government has put forward, it cannot be said that there has been a reduction in the term of national service. The second misapprehension is that I, as AttorneyGeneral, have a power to release a person who is serving a gaol sentence imposed upon him in accordance with the law. I have not that power; nor has any other person, except the Governor-General, that power. 1 received applications from a number of people; those applications were referred to the Governor-General, and the GovernorGeneral, acting in accordance with constitutional propriety, declined to order the release of the persons concerned. That is the position as it stands at the moment. There is absolutely no question that if Mr Martin, who is currently serving a term of imprisonment, indicated that in the light of the Government’s announcement that it is withdrawing its troops from Vietnam and no further national servicemen will be going to Vietnam, he was prepared to continue his national service in Australia, immediate consideration could be given to that by virtue of the provisions of the National Service Act and the Crimes Act.

page 876

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. Does not the Governor-General, on a question of the release of a prisoner, act upon the advice of the Attorney-General? Is the AttorneyGeneral, as he indicated in the last sitting week in answer to a question of mine, still giving consideration to an application by the honourable member for Adelaide for the release from gaol of one, Charles Martin; or should the honourable member for Adelaide accept the published reply by the Prime Minister to the Premier of South Australia as the official reply of the AttorneyGeneral to his application?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am sure that the honourable senator is aware of the constitutional position in this country, namely, that the decisions made by the Governor-General are made on the advice of his Ministers. There is no reason to suppose that the position with regard to the exercise of a prerogative is any different from thai with regard to other matters. In regard to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, I do recall him asking approximately a fortnight ago when the honourable member for Adelaide would be able to obtain a reply. 1 can assure the honourable senator that that reply was sent by me last Friday. I understand, from what appears in the Press, that the honourable member received his reply and gave Press publicity to it. I suggest that the honourable senator should therefore inquire from the honourable member for Adelaide as to the nature of that reply or otherwise read the newspapers.

page 876

QUESTION

WORKS PROJECTS

Senator WEBSTER:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Works, is prompted by the receipt this day of the publication ‘Works Review’ which the Minister has sent to honourable senators. Is it a fact that from time to time the Department of Works undertakes projects which, by reason of their cost, size and other factors, are not repeated for many years, if ever? Will the Minister advise me whether steps are taken to make some form of pictorial record of these unique projects so that the problems and difficulties involved, the construction methods employed and similar information are recorded for future reference and dissemination to interested parties?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Yes. Ordinarily it would be the function of the films department to make pictorial records of Government works but these projects usually occupy a considerable period of time and therefore the Works Department’s resources are employed to create these records. We have made films relating to such matters as the beef roads programme in the Northern Territory, the development of the Port of Darwin, the construction of the airport in Sydney and the creation of the airport at Tullamarine, and at present we are in the process of recording the development of the unique construction of the television tower at Bellenden Ker and also the completion of the Tullamarine Airport.

page 876

QUESTION

HEALTH OF ABORIGINES

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Health: ls it a fact that since the Western Australian Government ceased to make a lump sum payment to the Western Australian Branch of the Australian Medical Association, which helps to provide medical treatment for Aborigines in the south west of Western Australia, these Aborigines have been left with only the subsidised medical scheme of the Commonwealth Government to help them meet the cost of medical treatment? ls it a fact that of the 6,000 or 7,000 Aborigines living in the south-west of Western Australia no more than 1,000 are covered by the subsidised medical scheme? What action is the Minister taking to improve the situation? Will he table correspondence between the Western Australian branch of the Australian Medical Association and his Department on this matter?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

As to the question of tabling the papers, I would have to look at them and see what they are about. 1 recall receiving a communication on this subject from the Western Australian Minister for Health but would need to refresh my memory. In the broad sense what the honourable senator puts forward has some relationship with subsidy. I would need to look at the file and get the facts and then respond to the question. That may be the simpler way of providing the information.

Fill AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:

– I ask the Minister for Air: What progress, if any, has been made towards a realistic evaluation of the various tests now being conducted on the FI 1 1 in order to allow the Government to determine the future of this aircraft? Have the tests now being conducted developed into tests of other defects in the aircraft? When does the Minister think it will be possible for him. or his colleague, the Minister for Defence, to give this Parliament a report on this matter?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I think 1 have explained on a number of occasions that a decision was made some time ago to take the Fill, subject to certain tests being carried out. These tests were to reach a stage which would allow the Department of Air and the Department of Defence to evaluate them so that a decision could be made by December of this year on whether the Government would take the Fill. Tests have been and are still being carried out. Some of them have slipped behind the time period we were originally given. I sent a senior officer of my Department to the United States of America to determine the stage which the tests had reached in order to see whether a decision could still be made at the end of this year. That officer has returned to Australia and reported to the Department of Air. The report has been evaluated. It has been sent to the Department of Defence. A submission is now being prepared for the Minister for Defence to take to the Cabinet. I believe that I will be able to advise the Parliament in December whether the Government will take delivery of the Fill aircraft.

page 877

QUESTION

NATIONAL FITNESS

Senator McAULIFFE:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Will the Minister request a breakdown of the figure of 49 per cent of youths rejected for Army service in order to ascertain what percentage of the total number of rejects had physical infirmities and what the prevalent ailments were?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I shall refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Labour and National Service for his early reply.

page 877

QUESTION

HEALTH

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. What promise can he give to women who need specialised treatment during their pregnancies that the normal general practitioner referral code can be either bypassed or limited in application, particularly in the case of potential mothers in their second pregnancies who feel that they need the skill of the specialist who was available during their first pregnancies?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator has asked a very medical question. I think it is only proper that I should have a medical reply prepared for him. I would ask the honourable senator to place his question on notice.

page 877

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator DEVITT:

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Are problems arising because of the present structural condition of the Bass Strait ferry the ‘Princess of Tasmania’, which was the first ship of its kind to traverse Bass Strait and which today delivered its one millionth passenger to the Devonport terminal? Will the Minister ascertain the nature, extent and seriousness of these problems? Are there any plans in contemplation for a replacement of this ship, which is believed by some authorities to be reaching the limit of its economic serviceability?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I will obtain the information sought by the honourable senator from the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 877

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator BROWN:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General, ls it a fact that, during the last 2 years, Commonwealth Police have had under regular surveillance the premises of the Students for a Democratic Society, now known as the Radical Action Movement, at Palmerston Street, Carlton, Victoria? Did the Commonwealth Police intensify this surveillance and maintain a constant watch on these premises on Saturday, 25th September, Sunday, 26th September and Monday, 27th September 1971? If so, how many Commonwealth cars were used to patrol the area and for how long? How many Commonwealth

Police were used for this purpose and for what period? Did the Commonwealth Police have warrants to search the said premises? Finally, for what reason has this organisation been subject to such attention?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– It is nol a fact that for the past 2 years Commonwealth Police have had these premises under regular surveillance. It is a fact that over the last two or three days - beginning, I think, last Saturday - there was an intensified surveillance of these premises because they were premises into which had gone persons for whom warrants for arrest had been issued by magistrates. Commonwealth curs and Commonwealth police were patrolling the area because it was believed that it might have been possible to apprehend these persons. When entry was in fact effected to these premises it was effected by the Commonwealth Police and the Victoria Police and it was effected in accordance with warrants which had been issued. The persons concerned were not there. I am informed that no damage was occasioned by the entry. It was an appropriate exercise by the police forces of the Commonwealth and of that State of a delegation charged upon them by law to arrest persons for whom warrants for arrest have been issued. If the persons in these premises wish to harbour people whom the police are seeking they cannot legitimately complain when the police seek to arrest people when they go there.

page 878

QUESTION

VAMPIRE JETS

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister for Air inform the Parliament whether 14 exRAAF Vampire jets were sold to Westair Internationa] Corporation of Denver, Colorado, for a total sum of $11,000 or an average of less than $1,000 per plane? Is the Minister also aware that these planes have been sold or are about to be resold for a sum well in excess of the purchase price? Can the Minister further inform the Parliament why obsolete ex-RAAF planes are sold at bargain prices when the firms buying such planes in job lots are able to make enormous profits at the expense of the Australian Government and the Australian people?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I would not know what the honourable senator was talking about. Any surplus requirements of the RAAF are disposed of to the

Department of Supply, which puts them up for tender and the successful tenderer takes the aircraft. Where they go from there 1 would not know. J will look at the question asked by the honourable senator and see what information I can obtain for him.

page 878

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Will the Attorney-General find out the information sought by Senator Brown as to the number of cars-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Cavanagh, you cannot ask a question on behalf of Senator Brown. That in essence is what you are attempting to do.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask: Will the Attorney-General advise the Senate as to the number of cars used, the number of police officers used, and the time spent by the police officers on the raid in Melbourne? I ask this question for the purpose of informing the Senate of the cost to the Commonwealth of following up false information.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am not able to say at the present time the number of cars which were used, but it was the number necessary to transport approximately 40 Commonwealth policemen. I am unable to say how many persons were engaged on behalf of the Victorian Police Force. However, I do wish to assert that a number of persons for whom warrants of arrest have been issued have been provocatively challenging the police forces of this country to arrest them. For the police forces of this country not to endeavour to arrest these people in accordance with law would be to ignore or to deny a function with which they are charged. I am quite confident that even though a cost is involved the police forces of this country will be responsible in carrying out the obligations which are imposed upon them.

page 878

QUESTION

VAMPIRE JETS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask the Minister for Air: While he is obtaining the information that he previously promised to obtain will he also ascertain for me whether the Vampire jets sold to the American company in question were advertised and tenders were called for purchase or whether planes, including those without engines, were sold by private treaty? Can he also inform the Parliament how many RAAF Sabre fighters which have now been phased out of use are still listed as assets on the departmental books? Is it proposed to sell these planes? If so. when will they be sold and what method of sale will be adopted?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– As the representative of the Minister for Supply in this place, I will seek the information for the honourable senator.

page 879

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. How many people defying arrest was it expected would be at the Radical Action Movement which necessitated the engagement of 40 police officers to arrest them had they been present?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Before the police entered these premises a warrant was obtained to search the premises and information on affidavit was supplied to the magistrate who issued the warrant. Three people for whom warrants of arrest had been issued had been seen to enter these premises. There were known to be in excess of 30 or 40 people present in these premises. It is also a fact that some of the people who have been seeking to evade arrest have stated publicly that students and others will protect them. In order to avoid a situation in which the purposes of the police could be negated, in the light of what is obviously a threat to resist the police, sufficient numbers of police will always be on hand to ensure that the purposes of their exercise are not nullified.

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask for leave to read question upon notice No. 1181.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

page 879

QUESTION

FINANCE COMPANIES

(Question No. 1181)

Senator BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has the Treasurer seen recent references to the growing element of control of Australian finance companies by foreign banks and corporations.
  2. Does the Treasurer consider that different guidelines should be laid down for finance corporations as to the amount of equity, capital which may be controlled outside Australia from the guidelines operating in relation to public companies generally; if so, will the Government investigate this matter, because finance companies, outside the banking system, have a tremendous impact on the ebb and flow of credit and therefore determine the economic climate of Australia.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The Government is aware of the growth of investments in Australian finance companies by overseas banks and other interests.
  2. Since the enactment of the Banking Act in 1945, successive Australian Governments have followed a policy of not authorising overseas interests to carry on banking business in Australia. However, this policy does not apply to finance companies and other companies which are not subject to the Banking Act or which are exempt from the provisions of that Act. Overseas investment in such companies is subject to the general policy on overseas investment outlined in the former Prime Minister’s statement dated 1 6th September 1969.
The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to remind honourable senators that the Senate has agreed that when proceedings are being broadcast the honourable senator in whose name a question on notice stands may read the question out and a verbal reply will then be given. It was the intention of the Senate that when proceedings were not being broadcast honourable senators should simply say: ‘I ask question No. so-and-so standing in my name’ and the Minister responsible should give the answer to the question. Notwithstanding this agreement, the habit has developed of asking leave to read out questions upon notice at all times. If this continues there will be nothing further to do but refer this matter to the Standing Orders Committee to see whether the whole question of question time can be re-examined.

page 879

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL MEETING ON WILDLIFE AND CONSERVATION

(Question No. 1236)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

When did the Minister last convene a meeting of Stale Government Ministers responsible for the conservation of wildlife?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

On 26th July 1969.

page 880

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 1253)

Senator McAULIFFE:

asked the Minis ter representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Why have subscriptions to the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade been rejected as a deduction from income for taxation purposes.
  2. What is the possibility of having the deduction restored.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) Subscriptions to the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade are not allowable deductions under the provisions of the income tax law and have never been allowable. In these circumstances, the question of restoring a deduction previously allowed does not arise.

Requests for an amendment of the existing law to allow income tax deductions for subscriptions to the Queensland Ambulance Transport Brigade were examined during the preparation of the recent Budget. In the prevailing economic conditions, and having regard to the need to increase rates of income tax generally, it was not found possible to accede to these requests.

page 880

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1258)

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

Have steps been taken to provide suitable accommodation and facilities to the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal in Melbourne, following criticism of its accommodation in the Tribunals annual report for the year 1969-70; if not, when will the matter be rectified so as to provide a standard of service of the highest order to exservicemen and ex-servicewomen.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Victorianbased tribunals are located in modern office accommodation in the T.A.A. Centre in Franklin Street, Melbourne. The annual report referred to by the honourable senator was that of No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal in which two items were referred to. These were, firstly, the accommodation made available to advocates of the Returned Services League and their Secretary and, secondly, the absence of parking space for the Chairman and members of that Tribunal.

In regard to the first item, the advocates of the RSL of their own volition decided to locate themselves, on a full-time basis, in the tribunal offices, unlike advocates from other organisations such as Legacy who normally operate from their own headquarters. 1 know of no reason why their permanent location in the tribunal area would provide a greater standard of assistance than that given by other organisations in Melbourne, or elsewhere in other capital cities throughout the Commonwealth, that work from their own offices.

The second point raised, parking space for the Chairman and members, is a problem in all cities.

In the case of the T.A.A. Centre, an allocation of 5 spaces has been made for the use of members of the medical profession who attend Assessment Appeal Tribunals for short periods, usually a half day. No allocation has been made for the full time Chairman or Members of the Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. However they of course are free to use the spaces provided for the medical members of the Assessment Appeal Tribunal should they be vacant at any time.

In conclusion I would add that I have never, nor has my department, received any complaint about the accommodation and facilities provided at the Melbourne Tribunals from any person or organisation and I am quite sure that the present arrangements in no way affect the high standard of service available to ex-servicemen.

page 880

QUESTION

WHALING

(Question No. 1313)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Who signed the agreement on catch limits of certain whale species on behalf of Australia, at the June 1971 meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in Washington.
  2. Do Australian naval vessels, or other vessels under Government control, have any part in policing the Antarctic and Indian Ocean regions to prevent breaches of the Agreement.
  3. Is there any record of breaches of the Agreement in the past 5 years by (a) member countries of the International Whaling Commission; and (b) non-member countries.
  4. Which countries, other than those listed on page 26 of the August 1971 issue of ‘Australian Fisheries’ are known to have made whaling expeditions in the Antarctic and Indian Ocean regions.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. There is no formal ‘agreement’ on catch limits for certain whale species in the sense of a document signed by member governments of the International Whaling Commission. The agreement to which the honourable senator refers is the annual determination by the Commission of an agreed total number of baleen whales permitted to be taken in the Antarctic south of Latitude 40° South.

The total agreed upon in Washington for the 1972 season will become effective providing there are no objections within 90 days of the official notification by the Commission. To date my Department has not been notified of, or expects in future, any objections to the agreed total.

  1. No.

  2. (a) When any person or vessel of a member country captures any whale which is forbidden under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946, full details must be submitted to the Commission. Accordingly member countries have a record extending over a number of years of such reported infractions under the Convention,

    1. Non-member countries provide very little information to the Commission and certainly do not report details of whales taken which would be an infraction under the Convention.
  3. The countries listed in the August 1971 issue of ‘Australian Fisheries’ were those represented at the Washington meeting of the Commission and not necessarily those which have operated in the Antarctic and Indian Ocean regions. According to the records of the International Whaling Commission, countries which are known to have been whaling in one or both of these regions are: Australia, United Kingdom, Japan, Norway, U.S.S.R., Netherlands, United States of America, South Africa, Panama, Chile and Argentina.

page 881

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 7th September 1971 Senator Wheeldon asked me the following question:

As there has been a great deal of public interest in the recent Australian Broadcasting Commission television programme ‘Monday Conference’ in which Dr Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University appeared as guest, will the Postmaster-General ask the ABC to retain the video tape of this programme in case there is future demand for a further showing of this programme?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

The television programme ‘Monday Conference’, in whichDr Paul Ehrlich appeared as guest and which was telecast on 30th August and repeated on 3rd September, is being retained by the ABC for an unspecified period.

page 881

QUESTION

DAYLIGHT SAVING

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 19th August 1971 Senator Lawrie asked the following question, without notice:

Can the Senate have an assurance that the decision of the Northern Territory Legislative Council to refuse to accept daylight saving for the Territory will not be interfered with from Canberra?

The Minister for the Interior has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

Whether or not there should be daylight saving in the Northern Territory is a matter which the Government believes should be decided by the views of the elected representatives of Territory residents in the Legislative Council.

page 881

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1334)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

Has the Government established a committee to conduct an inquiry into the Repatriation system; if so, what are the terms of reference of the committee, who are its members and when will the committee commence its inquiry?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Government has announced that an independent inquiry into the Repatriation system is to be held. The inquiry will be conducted by a judge or eminent counsel. He will be assisted on a parttime basis by other eminent people who will be available at relevant stages of the inquiry. The person who is to conduct the inquiry and those to assist him and the actual terms of reference have not yet been announced but it is expected that an announcement covering these matters will be made soon.

page 881

QUESTION

WOOL

(Question No. 1356)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

What is the total sum expended by the Australian Wool Commission since the commencement of the current series of wool sales?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

At 17th September 1971, the total sum expended by the Australian Wool Commission in connection with its reserve price operations since the commencement of wool sales on 3 1st August 1971 was $8.6m.

page 881

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1309)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. Do statistics in the 1969-70 Annual Report of the Repatriation Commission relating to artificial limbs made for non-repatriation patients, refer to their (a) complete manufacture and fitting; (b) complete manufacture only; or (c) refer to limbs for which the Department performed only part of the work necessary for their effective use by patients?
  2. Do all above-the-knee artificial limbs supplied to Repatriation patients incorporate the north-west knee locking system; if so, is this system regarded as obsolete by most other limbproducing agencies?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The statistics included in the Repatriation Department’s Annual Report relate to the actual number of artificial limbs provided for patients at Repatriation Artificial Limb and Appliance Centres (RALACs).

The production of a limb includes the manufacture or procurement of components, assembly and the appropriate fitting, adjustment, and trial walking to satisfy the medical requirements of the case. For all but the few cases referred by one other Commonwealth Department, the RALACs carry out all these processes: in those few cases that Department carries out some phases. Throughout the world the interest and awareness of the medical profession in this field, has resulted in a closer relationship between the medical limb fitting specialist and the craftsman producing the limb. The craftsman is now a recognised member of the paramedical technical team, along with the physiotherapist, the occupational therapist and others. In Australia the RALACs have had the very desirable close and continuing association of the limb fitting specialist and the craftsman, and the backing of a special research and development unit in the Repatriation Department. Procurement of high quality modern component parts and fittings from private manufacturers in Australia and overseas, has allowed the trained staff to concentrate more on the fabrication and fitting aspects. These are the aspects which require the higher elements of their skill, and where the medical limb fitting specialist has most impact

  1. The North Western University (NWU) Artificial Knee is used extensively by the Repatriation Department because it is regarded by the Department’s Central Development Unit, after appropriate study and trial, as being among the best of its type available. It certainly cannot be regarded as obsolete, although possibly some practitioners might have a personal preference for other types of knee.

The NWU knee joint was developed by the North Western University of Chicago U.S.A.. its characteristic being that it operates on the principle of adjustable intermittent friction which is a desirable feature. There are many other designs incorporating this principle, but this is one of the best yet developed.

The Central Development Unit of the Department is continually examining new techniques and components as they become available but to date have seen no reason to recommend the replacement of the NWU artificial knee joint, as a major unit used by the Repatriation Department. It may be of interest that currently the Department is evaluating three other different types of knee joints from Britain and America.

page 882

QUESTION

ARMY PUBLIC RELATIONS

(Question No. 1242)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister repersenting the Minister for the Army, upon notice:

  1. Whatis the cost of Army public relations?
  2. What is the present personnel establishment of the Army’s public relations branch?
  3. What are the names of those non-service persons who, during the last 12 months, have been accommodated by the Armyin Army establishments and on Army manoeuvres and what was the duration of these various examples of Army hospitality?
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. It is not possible to provide costs for the very wide range of activities thatmay be classified as having some public relations content or purpose. The amounts spent on salaries and allowances of full time public relations staffs, both Service and civilian, and on activities directly attributable to the functions of these staffs over the last 3 years, and estimated expenditure of 1971-72 are as follows:
  1. The establishment and strength of the Directorate of Public Relations (Army) are as follows:
  1. The Information being sought is not readily obtainable and I would be reluctant to authorise the time and expense involved in obtaining it. I should be pleased, however, to examine any particular instance if so requested.

page 882

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 1213)

Senator McCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. What is the rate payable to an exserviceman for reimbursement of travel expenses who when visiting his local medical officer uses -

    1. a 4-cylinder vehicle; and
    2. a 6-cylinder vehicle.
  2. What was the rate previously payable.
  3. When did the review of the rate take place.
  4. What is the rate payable within the Commonwealth Public Service for use of a private car on departmental business.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Repatriation has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. (a) Where public transport is available but an ex-serviceman, of his own choice, prefers to use a private vehicle, he is reimbursed at the rate of six cents a mile irrespective of the size of the motor;

    1. Where public transport is not available, or if the ex-serviceman’s incapacity will not permit the use of public transport payment is made at the following rates: 4-cylinder vehicle - 7 cents a mile 6-cylinder vehicle - 8.2 cents a mile.

  2. The rates payable previously were:

    1. where public transport was available and incapacity did not prevent its use - the cost that would have been incurred by using public transport;
    2. where public transport was not available, or if available could not be used- 4- cylinder vehicle - 9.5 cents a mile, 6- cylindei vehicle-1 1 . 4 cents a mile.
  3. The present rates became payable in May 1971.
  4. The Public Service Regulations provide for two scales of payment for use of a private car. They are:

Regulation 90 - when used for authorised official business: 4-cylinder vehicle - 9.5 cents a mile 6-cylinder vehicle - 1 1.4 cents a mile.

Regulation 90a - when used for specified purposes: 4-cylinder vehicle - 7 cents a mile 6-cylinder vehicle - 8.2 cents a mile.

page 883

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– On 26th August 1971 Senator Townley asked me the following question:

I ask the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral whether the Postmaster-General would investigate the possible adjustment of radio and television licence fees for different areas of Australia and gear, them to the number of programme sources that are available. For instance, in Tasmania most television viewers can receive only one or two programme sources and three or four radio sources. Yet they have to pay as much for their licences as people in other areas of Australia who may be able to choose from perhaps twice as many stations some of which, particularly radio stations, operate for much longer periods.

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

Radio and television licence fees go towards meeting the costs of the national broadcasting and television services. These services are provided through outlets which ensure that national programmes are equally available in all States and that they are extended as far as technically and economically possible to all country areas by means of relay facilities. The provision of these relay facilities has involved costs of a high order, especially in the case of television service which, at the conclusion of the present phase of development, will be available to approximately 98 per cent of the population.

In view of the wide diffusion of national programmes, both radio and television, whichhas been achieved at considerable public expense, it is considered that there is no justificationfor differentiation in licence fees.

page 883

QUESTION

TELEVISION

(Question No. 1274)

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Broadcasting Commission Television given great prominence to a programme entitled a ‘Festival of Westerns’ made up of a series of ten western movies commonly known in Australia as ‘Yip-Yips’; the first of which will be shown on the night of 25th August; if so. why has the Australian Broadcasting Commission chosen to import this type of film which mainly features violence.
  2. What was the cost to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for these ten films?
  3. Why have local productions been overlooked to the detriment of Australia’s struggling local film industry?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No. The A.B.C. has not given more than normal publicity to these films.
  2. All the films have been shown previously by the A.B.C. Their further use does not involve any additional payment.
  3. The A.B.C. has not overlooked local products. Approximately 51 per cent of the A.B.C.’s Television output in the last financial year was produced in Australia.

page 883

QUESTION

PENSIONS

(Question No. 1389)

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice:

  1. Are many hundreds of widows forced to apply for a pension because most of their ready cash has been absorbed by death duties; if so, should the Government allow this situation to continue.
  2. Are thousands of Australian citizens spending millions of dollars overseas every year in order to reduce their savings to a minimum and thus avoid death duty.
  3. Do persons become eligible for pensions because they reduce their savings; if so, does the Government consider this reduction of savings to be in the best interests of the Australian economy.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Claimants for widow’s pension are not required to furnish information about death duties payable upon the estate of their late husbands. Authoritative information on this question is, therefore, not readily available.
  2. The information sought is not available as a result of any legislation administered by my Department.
  3. The Social Services Act provides that a pension shall not be granted to a person if he has directly or indirectly deprived himself of property or income in order to qualify for a pension. In addition to owning a home and personal effects, including a car for private use, a married couple with no income other than income from property may own assets to the value of $9,640 without affecting their rate of age pension. The comparable figure for a single person is $5,600.

page 884

QUESTION

MARRIAGES

(Question No. 1257)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice:

Will the Attorney-General take steps to ensure that full facilities will be provided for civil marriages at reasonable hours at night and weekends at registry offices and elsewhere.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The position generally with regard to this matter was set out in an answer supplied by the then Attorney-General on 28th October 1970 in reply to question number 462 by the honourable senator (Hansard page 1556). In that answer it was indicated that all States except Queensland were then providing extended facilities for civil marriage ceremonies, at least in the capital city registry offices, on Saturdays and, in the case of one State, on occasional week-day evenings. The Queensland Government has now indicated that as from approximately 1st December 1971 facilities in that State will be made available in a number of centres on Saturdays.

page 884

QUESTION

POLLUTION

(Question No. 1266)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What is the method of sewage disposal in the East Hills Migrant Hostel.
  2. Have there been any complaints from the Bankstown Municipal Council involving the polluting of adjacent creeks and streams due to the inadequate treatment of sewage from the hostel concerned.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The sewage from the East Hills Hostel is delivered into sewage disposal mains from the Holdsworthy Army Camp which are linked to the Army sewage disposal treatment works at Hammondsville maintained by the Department of Works.
  2. My enquiries have revealed none.

page 884

QUESTION

APPRENTICES

(Question No. 1282)

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister seen the statement made on 2nd August by the Minister for Labour and National Service regarding the shortage of tradesmen and apprentices in industry.
  2. Are the following number of apprentices employed in Victoria by the Department of Works, (a) 16 apprentice carpenters; (b) 8 apprentice plumbers; (c) 1 apprentice painter and (d) 12 apprentice electricians.
  3. Did the Department of Works in Victoria take in this year four apprentice carpenters and three apprentice plumbers.
  4. Is the ratio of apprentices allowed to tradesmen still one to three.
  5. Will the Minister take immediate steps to have the Department of Works in Victoria employ large numbers of apprentices and so set an example to industry in general.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. As at 30th June 1971 the Department of Works in Victoria employed the following apprentices:
  1. The intake of new apprentices during the year 1st July 1970 to 30th June 1971 was as follows:
  1. Industrial awards and apprentice legislation still generally fix maximum ratios in the order of either one apprentice to three tradesmen or one to two tradesmen.
  2. The Department’s capacity for training apprentices is governed by the nature and range of the activities it undertakes by direct labour. In the building industry, where the majority of apprentices in the Department are engaged, the Department’s day labour work consists mainly of repairs and maintenance which does not offer the scope for the engagement of large numbers of apprentices.

page 885

QUESTION

HOSTELS

(Question No. 1288)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Are managers of hostels under the control of Commonwealth Hostels Limited supplied with a set of rules or instructions which they are required to adhere to in the management of the respective hostels.
  2. If so, will the Minister make available, for inspection, a copy of such rules or instructions.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. The Company has advised me that its manuals of instructions and procedures are used purely for the purposes of internal control and are not available for general publication. However, the Company has also informed me that it is agreeable to the honourable senator inspecting the manuals and for this purpose has requested its General Manager to take the initiative in making a mutually satisfactory arrangement.

page 885

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

(Question No. 1291)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Will many local officers in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, who have given long years of service, shortly be retiring.
  2. What provision has been made for superannuation or retirement benefits for such persons.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for External Territories has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Not more than 100 local officers of the Papua New Guinea Public Service would be eligible to retire because of age before 31st December 1971.

  2. These officers will be entitled to retirement benefits provided by either:

    1. the Retirement Benefits Ordinance1960- 1967 which provides a contributor with a benefit on retirement at 60 years of age or at 55 years of age if he was a contributor at 1st September 1964. This benefit in general is a sum equal to 3 times the aggregate of the contributions paid by the employee to the Retirement Benefits Fund plus compound interest. The benefit may be paid in one amount or a number of smaller amounts or may be commuted to a pension with a residual widow’s pension; or
    2. the Public Officers Superannuation Ordinance 1971 which was passed by the House of Assembly on 30th August 1971 and which will provide superannuation rights, including pensions on retirement, for local officers. Existing contributors under the Retirement Benefits Ordinance may elect to continue to contribute for benefits under that Ordinance.

page 885

QUESTION

PLANT WORKSHOPS, GARBUTT

(Question No. 1386)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice:

Did four mechanics, one welder, one lubrication attendant and one plant pool foreman, attached to the Plant Workshops, Plant Pool, at Garbutt, Queensland, receive notices of dismissal on 13th September 1971, as part of the Government’s economy measures; if so, will the Minister, us a matter of extreme urgency, cancel the dismissal notices so as to prevent the persons concerned from suffering severe hardship in an already seriously economically depressed area.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

No. The personnel concerned were orally informed on 13th September 1971, that due to a shortage of work in the Plant Workshop it was probable that they would have to be retrenched and the date of 1st October 1971 was mentioned. No individual retrenchment notices have as yet been issued. The Department of Works plant workshop at Townsville, has for a number of years, undertaken work for the Army which was beyond the capacity of Army Workshops. There has been a considerable reduction in the workload of the Department of Works plant workshop over the last 2 to 3 months mainly as a result of decreased requirements of the Department of the Army which are related to the withdrawal of Australian Forces from Vietnam. Work does not now exist for the number of personnel currently employed at the Plant Workshop and no alternative or additional work can be found, either from the Department of the Army or elsewhere in the Townsville area, to employ these men for any length of time. This situation has confirmed our conclusion that one months notice of termination will have to be given this week.

page 886

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF WORKS

(Question No. 1388)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Works, upon notice:

  1. Will the positions of the dismissed Commonwealth Department of Works Plant Pool Foreman at Townsville and that of another foreman on transfer be taken over by the Plant Inspector, and will the former Plant Pool Foreman’s clerical work be handled by a clerk.
  2. Has the Minister issued a general direction to the Department of Works to reduce staff numbers.
  3. Will the Minister take urgent action to prevent this breaking-down of work conditions, and restore to their former jobs those persons who have been dismissed.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. As to the first part of the question the answer is Yes. As to the second part clerical staff will not be taking over any clerical duties formerly carried out by the Plant Pool Foreman.
  2. No.
  3. See answer to Question No. 1386.

page 886

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 21st April 1971 Senator Milliner asked me the following question:

Has the Minister yet determined whether Australian universities are to be reimbursed financially for increased wages they have been called upon to meet for non-academic staff? Will the Minister expedite his reply to the urgent representations made by the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee for relief in this direction?

As announced in the Budget Speech, the Government has offered to make supplementary grants to Australian universities towards the cost of exceptional increases in non-academic wage and salary rates. These grants will be subject to matching contributions by the States. Legislation will be introduced in the current Parliamentary Session to give effect to this decision.

page 886

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 27th April Senator Hannan asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, the following question:

Is it correct that the holder of any Commonwealth Government scholarship is permitted to earn up to only $6 a wee kduring term time? If this is correct, in view of current living costs could not a more realistic amount be set? Is it a fact also that any such scholarship holder with a living allowance who wins an exhibition or other monetary prize as a reward for success in studies has that amount deducted from his allowance? Would it not be more reasonable to expect such moneys won as a reward for success at studies so that they are not deducted from the scholarship holder’s allowance?

The Minister has provided the following answer:

The answer to the first question is no. Concerning the second point, changes were made at the beginning of 1971 in the amounts Commonwealth University and Advanced Education scholarship holders are permitted to earn without living allowance entitlements being affected. Scholars other than independent scholars may now earn up to $85 in each 2 month period. Independent scholars are permitted to earn $10 per week. These changes were introduced following a review of the conditions of the scheme and have regard to increases in living costs. It should be noted that these conditions apply to earnings during term time and short vacations. Long vacation earnings have no affect on a student’s scholarship living allowance.

In answer to the third and fourth questions, it is true that monetary prizes except those awarded specifically for the purchase of text books and equipment, are treated as income. However, the value of the prize is spread over the whole year. This means that only in a few cases does income from a prize affect a scholar’s living allowance and where it does the consequent reduction is very slight.

page 886

QUESTION

HOSTELS

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I refer to the following question without notice asked by Senator Cameron on 25th August 1971:

  1. To what extent if any has approval been given to improve accommodation, meals and facilities at Commonwealth hostels, including the Hotel Kurrajong?
  2. Is it a fact that several members of Parliament have left hostels and sought alternative accommodation which offers better standards at no greater cost?
  3. Is it also a fact that tourists to Canberra are using the hostels to a lesser extent because of dissatisfaction with the standard of accommodation provided?

In reply Senator Cotton undertook to refer the question to the responsible Minister. I am now advised by the Minister for Labour and National Service as follows:

  1. Since January 1959 when Commonwealth Hostels Limited took over the operation of Commonwealth hostels in Canberra approximately $2.5m has been spent on improvements to accommodation and facilities, including $590,000 on the Hotel Kurrajong. The current year’s appropriations for capital works in all the Canberra hostels is $135,000.
  2. Three members of the House of Representatives and three senators have left the Kurrajong since the previous Parliamentary Session.
  3. No.

page 887

QUESTION

WATER POLLUTION

(Question No. 1028)

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. Is a considerable proportion ofthe 40 million milligrams of mercuric chloride used for testing milk each year in Victoria disposed of in the streams of that State.
  2. To what extent is this practice of disposing of this cumulative poison, which is dangerous to humans and fish life, also carried out in other States of Australia

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honorable senator’s question is as follows:

  1. I am informed that mercuric chloride is used as a preservative in the quality testing of milk samples in Victoria. Normally such tests are carried out at milk factories. At the completion of the tests the residues and the remainder of the samples are discarded into the laboratory waste system.
  2. In New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia, most milk factories use preservatives other than mercuric chloride. In Tasmania and Western Australia, most milk factories use mercuric chloride in milk testing.

page 887

QUESTION

TREASURY REGULATION

(Question No. 1 196)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

On how many occasions, excluding the purchase of aircraft from Jetair Australia Ltd, during each of the last 5 years, has Treasury Regulation No. 52 been exercised in regard to purchases of the value of $500 or more by government departments -

which departments were involved, and

what are the details of the transactions.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is assumed that the information being sought is the number of occasions in the last 5 years on which a certificate has been given that it is impracticable or inexpedient to call public tenders and the details of the transaction covered by each such certificate.

Eighty-eight officers of 14 departments are currently authorised to sign ‘certificates of inexpediency’; the supplies obtained under the procedure have not been limited to supplies required by those departments and the issue of a certificate of inexpediency is by no means infrequent or unusual. The main reasons for the issue of such certificates are that the number of suppliers is limited, the supplies are classified, or the requirement is so urgent that sufficient time is not available to use the public tendering system.

Because of the immense number ofpurchasing records that would need to be examined, the research necessary to extract particulars or all such transactions over the last 5 years would not be warranted.

page 887

QUESTION

MAKINE COUNCIL

(Question No. 1201)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Who are the members of the Marine Council and which organisations do they represent.
  2. When the Marine Council submits advice that a person is unsuitable for engagement as a seaman or should be suspended from the maritime industry for a certain period, what steps are taken by the Council to ensure that the person reported on is not treated unfairly if such person does not have the right of appearance before the Council.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The present members of the Marine Council are:

    1. Pearson - Nautical Adviser, Department of Shipping and Transport
    2. V. Elliott - Federal Secretary, Seamen’s Union of Australia
    3. J. Benson - General Secretary, Merchant Service Guild of Australia
    4. Reid - Federal Secretary, Institute of Marine and Power Engineers of Australia
    5. MacDonald - General Secretary, Marine Stewards and Pantrymen’s Association (also represents Cooks, Shipwrights and Radio Officers)
    6. Bayliss - Technical Manager, Australian National Line
    7. McGcachie - Manager. Marine Operations, Broken Hill Pty Ltd
    8. Jones - General Manager. West Australian State Steamships
    9. Coults - Deputy Chairman. Australian Steamship Owners.

  2. Cases of seamen who have had 3 bad reports for conduct or character within a period of 5 years are referred to the Marine Council for consideration. Before the Marine Council reviews the case, the Chairman writes to the man and gives him the opportunity to submit an explanation for the offence in the third bad report.

The Marine Council considers explanations provided before it makes a decision. The exception of this rule is where there is a case of obvious gross misconduct and an immediate decision is needed. Even in those cases, the decision is regarded as interim pending receipt of an explanation.

Members of the Marine Council are given prior notice of the cases to be considered and are able to obtain details of them. Members of the Council may adjourn consideration of a particular case until they have obtained information they require.

Further, where the Marine Council imposes a period of suspension, that suspension is expressed as for a certain period of time or until an explanation is received, so that the man is again given an opportunity to explain the situation.

These procedures and the representation on the Council ensure that the interests of any persons whose cases are considered are protected.

page 888

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

(Question No. 1212)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many Aboriginal children are eligible to attend (a) pre-schools, (b) primary schools, and (c) high schools in the Northern Territory.
  2. How many, in fact, are attending such schools.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Children may be enrolled in pre-school at 3 years of age providing they turn 4 by the 30th June in the year they are enrolled. At age 5+ children may enter primary school and at age 13+ are eligible to attend post-primary school or secondary school.

The approximate numbers of eligible children in each category at the commencement of 1971 were:

  1. 1,300
  2. 4,000

  3. 1,500

    1. The number of Aboriginal children attending such schools are:

page 888

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION

(Question No. 1261)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

When will the report on the Frequency Modulation Broadcasting Inquiry be tabled in the Parliament.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Whilst the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is making every endeavour to furnish its report to me on this matter as expeditiously as practicable,I am not yet in a position to indicate when the report will be available. As the honourable senator will no doubt appreciate the Board has, apart from its consideration of the various important policy considerations that arise, been required toexamine a great volume of material arising from the Board’s public inquiry and its other investigations in this matter.

The honourable senator may be assured that the Board is making every effort to provide the Government with its report as early as practicable.

page 888

QUESTION

TRANSPORT

(Question No. 1276)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Do some local government authorities in Queensland run their own local transport systems; if so, will the imposition of the additional 2c per gallon duty on fuel cause these local authorities serious financial embarrassment.
  2. Will the Government exempt such local authorities from payment of the additional duty.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I understand so. It is likely that the increase of 2c a gallon in the customs and excise duty on motor spirit and automotive distillate announced in the Budget will add to the expenditures of the local authorities concerned, but by how much I am obviously not in a position to say. For that and other reasons it would not be appropriate for me to comment on whether these additional expenditures will cause these local authorities ‘serious financial embarrassment’, beyond pointing out that the additional cost to local government authorities concerned due to the increase in the duty on fuel would be a very small proportion of the expenditures of their transport services and an even smaller proportion of their overall expenditures.

  1. No. The Government has restricted exemptions from these duties to petrol and diesel fuel for sale to the Commonwealth and not intended for purposes of trade, and to diesel fuel for use otherwise than in propelling vehicles on public roads. The granting of exemptions from duty for petrol and for diesel fuel used in road vehicles of local government authorities would create a precedent for further concessions, the end result of which could be a substantial loss of revenue to the Commonwealth. Quite apart from that, the Government would see no justification for allowing exemption from the duty for a particular group of uses other than those indicated above.

page 889

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 1278)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. What was the cost of building the new ring road around Capital Hill in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. What cost-benefit analyses were carried out on the project and with what results.
  3. How many vehicles are anticipated to use it daily over the next three-month period.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The estimated cost of building the ring road and associated roadworks, bridgework and work on the surrounds of Capital Hill is$2,398,000.
  2. The design adopted represents the most economical means of increasing the capacity of the main point of inter-change of road traffic linking the several major residential and employment centres of Canberra. There are a number of other roads which have a functional relationship with the ring road being Yarra Glen Arterial, extending to the Woden Valley, Canberra Avenue extending to the southern districts and Commonwealth Avenue to the north and Kings Avenue to the east.
  3. Traffic counts indicate that a total of 31,000 vehicles will use the ring road system on a typical week-day during the first three months of its life, and these volumes will increase as urban development continues.

page 889

QUESTION

LOCK-KIMBA PIPELINE

(Question No. 1281)

Senator McLAREN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

Has the South Australian Government requested financial assistance from the Commonwealth to complete the Lock-Kimba pipeline: if so, what is the result of the application.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The South Australian Government did request financial assistance from the Commonwealth to complete the Lock-Kimba pipeline. I have to advise that the Premier of South Australia has now been informed that the Commonwealth is not prepared to consider financial assistance for the Lock-Kimba scheme at this stage. Having regard to the uncertain situation in the wool industry it is deemed inappropriate to provide special assistance under the National Water Resources Development Programme to support an expansion in the industry in one area, at the same time as the Government is involved in measures to alleviate the economic problems of the industry generally.

page 889

QUESTION

POWER

(Question No. 1289)

Senator McAULIFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement by the Treasurer of Queensland (the Honourable Sir Gordon Chalk, M.L.A.) that the Queensland Government might find it difficult to provide power at a really competitive rate because of the shortage of State funds and the high interest rates to be paid to the Commonwealth.
  2. Are the rates of interest charged by the Commonwealth Government a result of discussions between the Commonwealth and theStates; if so, could the statement by Sir Gordon Chalk be regarded as a denial of a mutual agreement between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. As a result of the honourable senator’s question my attention has been drawn to a brief report to this effect which appeared in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 25th August 1971.
  2. It is not clear precisely which loans are the subject of the press report. Rates of interest paid by the States on their Loan Council borrowing programmes are determined by that body after discussion between its members. Rates of interest paid on loan assistance provided by the Commonwealth to the States for special projects, such as the Gladstone power station (which projectwas mentioned specifically in the press report), are as set out in agreements between the Commonwealth and the State concerned.

page 889

QUESTION

TIMBER

(Question No. 1303)

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. Do timber sleepers constitute about 10 per cent of Australia’s total sawn timber production.
  2. Have supplies of timber sleepers been suffering from a lack of orders over recent years.
  3. Will the slowing down of sleeper production aggravate the present economic problems of rural areas.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. New South Wales, Victoria. Queensland and Western Australia all produce considerable quantities of timber railway sleepers, whereas Tasmanian and South Australian production is relatively small.

Production in New South Wales and Queensland is continuing at a fairly consistent high level from year to year. No significant reduction in total production has occurred, though the number of sleeper cutters has dropped.

In Victoria production of timber sleepers has declined in the past 3 years from 25.2m super feet in 1968-69 to 19.23m super feet in 1970-71.

In Western Australia, production has been maintained at a satisfactory level largely to meet orders for sleepers used in the construction of new railway lines for mining projects. It is expected that the last large order on hand for timber sleepers will be completed by the end of 1971 and unless further large orders are received in the meantime, the level of production may need to be reduced.

  1. It is possible that a reduction in sleeper production may affect the economy of specific areas which are largely dependent on this industry.

page 890

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

(Question No. 1323)

Senator YOUNG:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

  1. How many people visited Canberra last
  2. How many people visited Parliament House during the same period.
  3. Is there an increasing number of people visiting Canberra and Parliament House; if so, what has been this increase.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. It is estimated that approximately 1,094,000 people visited Canberra in 1970.
  2. Approximately 199,000 visitors were conducted on tours of Parliament House in 1970. It is not known how many people visited Kings Hall only or watched proceedings from the public galleries.
  3. Approximately 520,000 people visited Canberra in 1965 compared with approximately 1,094,000 in 1970. In 1965 approximately 167,000 visitors were conducted on tours of Parliament House compared with approximately 199,000 in 1970.

page 890

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

(Question No. 1326)

Senator DEVITT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What is the background to the requirement in the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act for the provision of a return on capital for the establishment of the Australian National Line.
  2. Are there similar requirements for a return on capital expenditure in respect of Commonwealth Railways and beef roads; if not, will the

Minister examine the need to amend the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act to delete the requirement of a dividend return, so as to relieve Tasmania of a serious financial burden.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Under the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission Act and the Australian Coastal Shipping Agreement Act, the Commission is required to pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue sufficient to meet all its expenditure properly chargeable to revenue and to permit the payment to the Commonwealth of a reasonable return on the capital of the Commission.

The Australian National Line is expected to operate in direct competition with all ship operators. In a free enterprise economy, a reasonable return on capital employed is the best way of ensuring fair competition.

  1. The Commonwealth Railways are not required to pay a dividend as such on capital invested by the Commonwealth. Profits earned by their operations have been returned to the Treasury by way of reduction of Commonwealth Railways’ capital debt. The administration of the beef roads programme is the responsibility of the Minister for National Development. I understand contributions to this programme were made by way of Commonwealth grants to the respective States.

As a matter of interest, the question of a dividend return was considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade in its enquiry into freight rates on Australian National Line shipping services to and from Tasmania - reference page 66 of the Committee’s report. For the reasons slated in the report, the Committee came to the conclusion that ‘operation of the Tasmanian services of the Australian National Line on a break-even basis would not be desirable.’

page 890

QUESTION

PRESS INTERVIEWS

(Question No. 1331)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister make a short statement on the front steps of Parliament House on the morning of 8th September 1971; if so, did he, shortly afterwards, direct that all records of the interview be destroyed.
  2. Did the Prime Minister later grant a further interview to representatives of certain sections of the news media.
  3. Has the Prime Minister, or any of his senior Ministers, the right to order the destruction of records of interviews in the circumstances outlined above or in any other circumstances.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The answer to the first part of the question is: Yes. To the second part: No.
  2. To a TV journalist and a cameraman.
  3. See (1) above. The question does not arise.

page 891

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION TAX

(Question No. 1336)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities, upon notice:

Has the Premier of the State of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte, imposed a 10 per cent bed tax on motels and hotels in that State; if so, does the Minister consider that this tax will be detrimental to the Australian Tourist industry particularly if all other States impose a similar tax, as predicted by Sir Henry Bolte.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The MinisterinCharge of Tourist Activities has provided the following answer to the honourable S enator’s question:

The Premier of Victoria, announced in his Budget Speech that a Bill would be introduced providing for a 10 per cent tax on accommodation.

However, recent Press reports indicate that the legislation implementing the tax will be delayed at least until the Premier’s return from overseas, so that it can be further considered.

page 891

QUESTION

PETROL

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On the 19th August 1971 Senator Keeffe asked me a question concerning the price of petrol in the Australian Capital Territory. My colleague, the Minister for the Interior, has provided the following information:

The petrol excise duty increase announced by the Treasurer in the Budget speech of 17th August 1971 was applicable immediately. The new duty applies to all petrol cleared from bond since the announcement.

It would not be abnormal for some petrol which had incurred the additional excise duty to be available for sale within 4 days of the Budget announcement as you foreshadowed. It may also be noted that petrol was still readily available in Canberra at the pre-Budget price at least 6 days after the announcement.

There is at present no price control of petrol in the Australian Capital Territory. Non-price competition is fairly keen, and discounting of petrol is already occurring.

page 891

NATIONAL FITNESS

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

– Pursuant to section 6 of the National Fitness Act 1941, I present the annual report on national fitness activities for the year ended 31st December 1970.

page 891

PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

– Pursuant to section 22 of the Public Service Act 1922-1968, I present the annual report of the Public Service Board for the year ended 30th June 1971.

page 891

KERR COMMITTEE’S REPORT

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

– For the information of honourable senators,I present report No. 2 of the Committee of Inquiry into Services Pay (the Kerr Committee) dated July 1971, which is a supplementary report on the rates of pay for other ranks.

page 891

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on items

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I present the following reports by the Tariff Board:

Chain and parts therefor, of iron or steel

Light weight cotton sheeting

Pursuant to statute, I present also the Special Advisory Authority report on:

Woven man-made fibre products

page 891

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of Qantas Airways Ltd for the year ended 31st March 1971, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 891

COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION

The PRESIDENT:

– I lay on the table the annual reports and the financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia, together with the Auditor-General’s reports thereon for the year 1970-71,

page 892

QUESTION

BUSINESS OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Is it desired to re-arrange the business of the Senate?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

By way of explanation, may I add that I hope to be in a position, perhaps tomorrow, to have some examination made of the notices of motion which are standing on the Notice Paper.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 892

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (By Senator Murphy) - by leave - agreed to:

That Senator Fitzgerald be granted leave of absence for1 month on account of ill health.

page 892

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Prime Minister appointing Mr Bury and Mr Staley to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs in place of Mr McLeay and Mr Street.

page 892

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

-I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate appointing senators to the following Estimates Committees:

Estimates Committee A -

Senators Withers. Guilfoyle. Jessop and Prowse;

Estimates Committee B -

Senators Rae, Bonner. Davidson andLawrie:

Estimates Committee C -

Senators Sim. Carrick, Young and Davidson:

Estimates Committee D -

Senators Laucke, Durack. Jessop and Maunsell; and

Estimates Committee E

Senators Webster, Lillico, Wood and Carrick.

page 892

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

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

That Senator Donald Cameron be appointed to fill the vacancy on the Publications Committee.

page 892

REORGANISATION OF THE AUSTRALIAN POST OFFICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES

Ministerial Statement

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– by leave - Mr President, this is a ministerial statement which was made by the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) in the House of Representatives last Thursday week. As I am sure that honourable senators who are interested in this subject will have read that statement, with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate it in Hansard. The statement reads: 1 present to the Parliament a statement on a matter of great importance to the Post Office and the community it serves. Management authority is to be decentralised to a major extent from capital cities to country centres. Concurrently, in the country districts the existing divisional offices are to be regrouped into larger area offices. The objective of the re-organisation is to establish a number of fully equipped business management headquarters under the control of area managers. These will be capable of handling to finality the normal Post Office telecommunications services.

Area managers will produce their own works programmes and budgets’ and be responsible for their execution within overall guide lines and policies laid down by State and central headquarters. It is proposed for example, that the area manager have authority and delegations in the conduct of work somewhat similarto those now held by the State Directors. At the present time the State administrations, each under the control of a State Director, direct and control operations including the works programmes.

Within the States there are currently 106 engineering divisions (SO metropolitan and 56 country) and 74 telecommunications districts (26 metropolitan and 48 country) which contain the field and operating staffs and provide the contact with our customers. In these areas there are 2 separate main elements working side by side - the engineering unit being responsible for the technical aspects and the telecommunications unit for commercial aspects and customer advisory and service functions. Each of these district units has limited authority and must refer many aspects to State Director level for decision. Also responsibility for a number of activities is shared between the engineering and telecommunications groups, while certain work affecting the area is performed by specialist groups at State head office. Under these arrangements allocation of final responsibility is difficult.

An opportunity to review our organisational structure and working arrangements arose following a recent Service-wide study of the employment of engineers by the Public Service Board. The improvement will bea re-grouping of engineering functions which will promote greater efficiency and the introduction of an area manangement form of organisation. Area management will provide unified control of engineering, telecommunications and associated administrative functions at area level and a more effective and business-like basis for our telecommunications operations. State Head Office staffs will concentrate on development of State plans, and on the establishment of policies and standards within the overall parameters determined by Post Office headquarters.

Economies will result from amalgamation and integration of functions at present performed in different sections, from the simplification of procedures by the elimination of circumlocution and from minimising reference to other functional areas. The amalgamation of the related functions of engineering and telecommunications operations will provide for more efficient use of resources and facilitate the achievement of the heavy engineering annual works programme. From the viewpoint o: service to the Department’s customers the proposed arrangements are designed to place responsible management of telecommunication facilities as close us possible to the customer in the interests of improve service and efficiency.

District technician and lines staffs will be retained at existing locations. In addition the improved customer advisory service will be provided where such facilities are currently available and as the need arises these will be established at other centres. The proposal which I have described will have some effect on Post Office staff. I want to put this aspect into proper perspective. There will be transfers of certain administration functions from 25 of the existing 56 country district headquarters to the new country area headquarters. In each of these 25 districts there are between 300 and 400 staff employed comprising professional engineers, clerical and administrative officers, district telecommunication sales and service staff, technicians, lines and telephone operating staff. In each case between 25 and 35 positions only willevantually be transferred to area headquarters.

The new organisation structure for Engineers will provide opportunities for promotion which should encourage the willing movement of a large number of these officers. Avenues for promotion are similarly expected to be available for other designations as the new organisation is further developed. To the greatest extent practicable staff at existing centres will be redeployed on toother duties at the same locations to reduce the need for transfers. To minimise inconvenience to the remaining staff, implementation action will be phased over a period of several years, during which period it can be expected that promotion and normal staff wastage will make minimal the number of employees who may eventually need to be compulsorily transferred. During this transitional period some engineering divisions and telecommunications districts will function as outposted units of the area management.

The establishment of area management will provide career opportunities for locally recruited staff. A similar study of the activities associated with Post Office and mail services in the country is in hand and it is planned that these services also will be reorganised into a postal area management system. The headquarters of these postal areas will we expect be located at the same centres as the telecommunication area managers, and will share some of the common services. The changes are quite radical. The) arc designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Post Office telecommunication management. They are in harmony with modern business practice of clearly identifying management authority and responsibility.

Finally I would like to repeat that there will be no large scale relocation of staff. A small number of positions representing less than 4 per cent of total staff in country districts will be affected by the change. For many of the individual staff members affected, the change will be accompanied by immediate promotion. For all those affected the Post Office will take all possible steps to minimise personal problems. Accompanying this statement and available to members, are maps indicating area boundaries and in most cases the location of area headquarters.

page 893

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERMINATION OF COMMONWEALTH TAX) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(4.21) -I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill with 2 other Taxation Bills I shall shortly be introducing, results from the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, at the June Premiers’ Conference, for the transfer of payroll tax to the States. These Bills give effect to the transfer itself, and are being introduced now with a view to their speedy passage in order to facilitate the transfer of the payroll tax to the States. This is necessary because of the State governments’ budgetary planning. At the June meeting, the Commonwealth accepted the States’ need for some greater flexibility and freedom in revenue raising. The Commonwealth also indicated that, after careful consideration, it had confirmed its previous conviction that it would not be advisable to re-open the field of personal income tax to the States. Nevertheless, it accepted the view previously expressed by the States that they needed access to a new area of growth’ taxation to assist them in financing the services which they provided. In these circumstances, the Commonwealth offered, and the States accepted, the transfer of payroll tax as a useful addition to State resources for revenue raising purposes.

The Commonwealth made it clear that the transfer of payroll tax would have to be accompanied by an off-setting reduction in the financial assistance grants payable to the States, although the extent of the reduction will, for various reasons, be less than the addition to State revenues resulting from the imposition of payroll tax. Complementary legislation is to be introduced as soon as possible, to give effect to the reduction in the amount the States would otherwise have received in the financial assistance grants for 1971-72, and I shall explain in detail at that time the precise arrangements which we have come to with the States in that respect. I should also make it clear that, while payroll tax is being transferred to the States, the Commonwealth will continue to operate the export incentive scheme so as to give exporters the same benefits, based on the existing rate of 1 per cent, as they now enjoy. Separate legislation to provide for this will also be introduced in the near future.

I turn now to the purposes of the Payroll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Bill. Under the agreement reached with the States, the Commonwealth will cease to impose payroll tax except in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory: All States will bring down legislation under which they will impose and collect their own payroll taxes. The date the Commonwealth will vacate the payroll tax field will coincide with the date of commencement of the legislation imposing the tax in each of the States and in the Commonwealth Territories. Provided the legislation to give effect to the agreement has been enacted by the Commonwealth Parliament and by all State parliaments in time for it to be done, it is proposed that the payroll tax will be effectively transferred as from 1st September 1971, enabling the States to receive the first of their monthly payroll tax collections in October 1971.

The main purpose of this Bill is to terminate the operation of the Commonwealth payroll tax levied under the provisions of the Pay-Roll Tax Assessment Act 1941-1969 and the Pay-Roil Tax Act 1941-1966, thereby clearing the way for the introduction of separate payroll taxes for the States and the Commonwealth Territories. Following its enactment, the measure will commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation, the proclaimed date being 1st September 1971 or the first day of a subsequent month. The Bill provides that the existing Commonwealth payroll tax will cease to apply from the day immediately preceding the proclaimed commencement date.

The Bill proposes also to terminate the payroll tax export rebate scheme with effect from the close of the 1970-71 finacial year. I have already foreshadowed the later introduction of a separate Bill to provide a system of direct grants based on exports until 30th June 1973 when the present rebate scheme was due to expire. To facilitate the transfer of the tax to the States, the Bill contains provisions to authorise the Commissioner of Taxation to furnish information to the authorities who will administer the State payroll tax laws. The provisions of the Bill are explained in detail in an explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 894

PAY-ROLL TAX (T ERRITORIES) ASSESSMENT BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) Minister for Health) (4.27) - I move:

This is the second of three taxation Bills resulting from the agreement reached at the Premiers’ Conference to transfer payroll tax to the States. The Bill contains provisions for the administration, assessment and collection of payroll tax in the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, and the Northern Territory and will come into operation on the date fixed by proclamation as the commencement date of the Pay-Roll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Act 1971. The Commissioner of Taxation will be responsible for administering the payroll tax in the Commonwealth territories.

The provisions of the Bill affecting the liability of employers to tax have been modelled on the liability provisions of the existing Commonwealth payroll tax law. They are substantially uniform with the corresponding provisions of the legislation proposed to be enacted by each State Parliament and will set out the basis of liability to payroll tax in the territories while preventing double taxation of wages by the Commonwealth and the States. Broadly stated, an employer will be liable for tax under the provisions of the Bill on wages paid or payable for services rendered wholly within the Territories, and on wages paid or payable in the Territories unless those wages are for services rendered wholly within one State. Under the present Commonwealth law, an employer who is liable for payroll tax is required to lodge returns of wages paid each month and to pay the tax due on each return. A statutory exemption form tax of wages up to $20,800 per annum, equivalent to $1,733.33 per month, is allowed.

With the entry of the States into the payroll tax field, the overall exemption allowable to an employer will remain unchanged at $1,733.33 per month. An employer who is liable to lodge returns under this Bill and is also liable to tax in one or more States will be entitled to claim a proportion of the overall exemption against the wages liable to tax in the Commonwealth territories. This proportion will ordinarily be ascertained by comparing the wages payable in the Territories with the wages payable throughout Australia. To meet the case of employers whose monthly wages fluctuate above and below the exemption level, the Bill provides for an annual adjustment of the tax payable by an employer, in line with the existing Commonwealth law.

The provisions relating to the collection and recovery of tax and other machinery provisions of the Bill substantially re-enact the corresponding provisions of the Commonwealth payroll tax law. However, the objections and appeals provisions have been modified to bring them into line with the relevant provisions of the income tax law. An employer who is dissatisfied with a decision or assessment of the Commissioner will be allowed 60 days for lodgment of an objection, instead of the present 42 days, after service of notice of the decision or assessment. Similarly the period within which an employer may request that a decision by the Commissioner on an objection be referred for review by a taxation board of review will be 60 days instead of 30 days as under the present law.

The Bill contains the usual provisions imposing obligations of secrecy as to taxpayers’ payroll tax affairs on the Commissioner and his officers. At the same lime it will authorise the interchange of information with the payroll tax authorities of the States and will permit the disclosure of information to the Commonwealth Statistician for the purposes of the Census and Statistics Act. The Statistician and his officers in turn are bound by the secrecy provisions of that Act. The technical features of the Bill are dealt with in the explanatory memorandum circulated to honourable senators and I therefore do not discuss these details at this time.I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 895

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Health · New South Wales · LP

(4.32) - I move -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to impose the payroll tax payable by employers in the Australian Capital Territory, including Jervis Bay, and the Northern Territory, and to declare the rate at which the tax is to be paid. The Bill proposes that tax be payable at the rate of21/2per cent of the wages subject to tax under the provisions of the Pay-Roll Tax (Territories) Assessmen Bill 1971, after deduction of the statutory exemption allowable in accordance with that Bill. The rate is the same as that at which the existing Commonwealth payroll tax has been imposed and will apply as from the commencement date to be proclaimed for the purposes of the PayRoll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Bill 1971. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 896

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 September (vide page 835), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

Thai the Bil) be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Brown had moved by way of amendment:

At end of motion add: “. but the Senate is oF the opinion that -

the increases proposed are inadequate;

social services payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living; (.1) steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty;

a national superannuation system should be established and the means test eliminated:

pension payments should be a proportion of average weekly earnings adjusted annually; and

a Joint Select Committee should be established to inquire into and report upon the social welfare needs of the Australian community.” -

And upon which Senator Gair had moved by way of an amendment to Senator Brown’s proposed amendment:

Leave out paragraphs (4) and (6).

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Senate is debating the second reading of the Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1971. 1 do not desire to canvass the matters to which 1 referred when this matter was last before the Senate for debate. I have already reiterated the increases in benefits which this Bill provides and I have put them into a context. What is immediately before the Senate is the amendment which has been moved by Senator Brown, and the amendment thereto which has been moved by Senator Gair. The first head of Senator Brown’s amendment on behalf of the Australian Labor Party is that the increases proposed are inadequate. In all sincerity and with the utmost charity I must make the comment that there is nothing that an Opposition can say to a measure such as this, if it is prepared to oppose it, other than that it is inadequate. The real increase in the pension rate has been indicated already. All I would say - and it is by way of reiteration - is that in the 12-month period the actual pension increase has been $1.75 a week which in percentage terms is an increase of 11.3 per cent on what the pension was before the increase was granted. During the 12-month period the increase in the consumer price index has been only 5.4 per cent. There has been a real increase in the value of the pension rate. One might also couple with that fact the provision which the Bill makes for an increase in child endowment and for an increase to $4.50 a week in the payment made for children of aged, invalid and widowed pensioners.

The second head of the Labor Party’s amendment is that the increases proposed in social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living. This is a bold assertion. Senator Brown, in speaking to it, has taken an arbitrary standard of the so-called poverty line as drawn by Professor Henderson of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research of the University of Melbourne in 1966. The point is that poverty is essentially a relative expression. There is no generally accepted definition of poverty. Whereas the existence of primary poverty - the absence of sufficient basic food, clothing and shelter - will within some subjective limits be recognised in the community, the situation is less clear as far as the relative standings of persons in particular circumstances are concerned. There is no scientific criterion of relative poverty. It could be said to exist where a perron or a family is unable to maintain a standard of living which is generally accepted as adequate by the community in which he lives. Yet this standard will vary from one community to another and from one part of a community to another. The standard which a community accepts is no more than a subjective judgment of the observer as to the community standards

The test which was adopted by Professor Henderson in 1966 proceeded on what he regarded as an acceptable standard of living for a family. Having made provision for the family, he assumed that there was a standard of living for a pensioner. There is a great deal of arbitrariness in the assessments which have to be made. In the first place, the line which he drew and which in 1966 was ?33 a week, measured poverty in relation to a person’s income. Although the main factor affecting ability to maintain a minimum standard is income, which is reasonably easy to measure, it is not the only standard involved. Other factors which have to be taken into account are what may become available through the sale of assets, what may be available through gifts and other charitable gestures and what may be available through possessing a home and the financial advantage which that may give a person who owns a home as against a person who has to pay rent. In one circumstance rent may be the most important factor in determining the relevant standard which a person has to maintain. All these factors have to be given weight in what is an assessment of a very different concept - namely, relative poverty.

There are 2 further reasons why a poverty line, as drawn by Professor Henderson, is not acceptable as a true guide with respect to pensioners. For a standard family of a man, wife and 2 children, the income equivalent to the poverty line was assumed to be marginally adequate to meet a family’s expenses after payment of income tax, but the appropriate poverty line for a pensioner was calculated on the basis of a given percentage of the family poverty line. This procedure does not take account of the fact that, unlike family income, what a pensioner receives is not subject to taxation. In general the pensioner does not have to meet medical, hospital or pharmaceutical expenses, as does the family. In addition the pensioner receives other fringe benefits which a family do->- not receive. I think it is fair comment to suggest that the method used by Professor Henderson overstates the poverty line with respect to pensioners.

Senator Brown built his case , and I do not think he elaborated it in any degree , on updating the $33 poverty line which was established in 1966 to current figures. When one examines the way in which that updating has been done, one notes that it has been achieved by linking the poverty line which was fixed in 1966 to what were average weekly earnings in 1966 and regarding one as a percentage of the other. It may be quite misleading, if average weekly earnings are increased at a very fast rate, to regard the poverty line as being required to increase at the same proportionate rate because average weekly earnings are not in any way a measure of need and are not determined on the basis of need. Average weekly earnings are fixed in accordance with what the pressures of the market can give to the dominant forces at any time. Currently the dominant forces available in the labour market are such that over award payments have managed to increase the average weekly earnings at phenomenal rates in recent times. I think this fact has to be taken into account in determining whether the updating which has occurred does not also add a further overstatement of what is assumed to be the current poverty line. It is not a true indication, as I would put it, in the light of all these qualifications, to take a particular figure based upon Professor Henderson’s survey and to regard that as the poverty line.

The third point of the Labor Party’s amendment is that steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty. The same problem arises in assessing what is meant by this expression which the Labor Party has used. What is relative poverty? How can it be determined? How can one ever be satisfied that poverty has been eliminated? Once one eliminates, as I think we have done in Australia, the pockets of poverty which were typical of an Australia 30 or 40 years ago one has a new situation which can be described, particularly in an affluent community, as a poverty situation. The constant striving then is to eliminate that kind of poverty. So it is a relative situation which moves from year to year.

Having regard to the fact that it was the Labor Party which introduced Professor Henderson and his colleague Professor Downing into this debate, I think that we might look at what each said about poverty in Australia because F think that each indicates that comparatively speaking Australia has made tremendous strides. In a letter to the ‘London Times’ of 7th April this year. Professor Henderson wrote:

It is our judgment-

That is the judgment of his Institute - . . that the incidence of poverty in Australia is lower than in any country in the world with the possible exceptions of New Zealand and the Scandinavian countries, and that the distribution of wealth and income is more equitable than in any other country, with the same possible exceptions.

Professor Henderson was used as a standard of judgment. 1 would have thought that, in the relevant sense, that comment was far more pertinent la the issues with which we are concerned here than were the other comments and the other assessments which have been relied upon. Professor Downing of the same Institute said:

Australia spent in 1967, the latest year for which international comparisons are available, only 5.5 per cent of her gross national product on cash social benefits, compared with 15 per cent in the Common Market countries, 11 per cent in Scandinavia, 10 per cent in Canada, Si per cent in the United Kingdom and 6 per cent in the United States.

Yet, because the means test concentrates the spending where it is needed, that low total expenditure has reduced the incidence of poverty in Australia probably below that in any other country with the possible exception of Scandinavia and New Zealand.

That article appeared in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 22nd April this year. Lest it be inferred from my quoting Professor Downing that I am quoting him generally in support of the social services system in Australia, I hasten to indicate that he has other criticisms which he elaborated in that article. I have referred to what he said because, in terms of how Australia stands as against other countries with regard to the incidence of poverty, our position is comparably as good as that of any other country with the possible exception of the 2 or 3 countries he mentioned.

That is a record of which we ought to be proud. While we strive constantly to improve the situation, I do not believe that our current position is assisted by a sweeping denigration, as is involved in the Labor Party’s amendment, or that everything is as bad as the combination of factors in the amendment suggests. I believe that the relative standards show that Australia can be viewed in a favourable light. The fourth head of the Labor Party’s amendment is:

A national superannuation system should be established and the means test eliminated.

I do not believe that this is the occasion for an elaborate debate upon the merits of a national superannuation scheme. We are all aware of the arguments for the proposal. I think we are all aware of the reasons the Government has advanced as to why at this stage it does not favour a national superannuation scheme. With the limited resources that are available to Australia and the means that we have of concentrating resources in areas of need, the policy over recent years has been to concentrate the resources that are available in the areas of need. I believe that in the light of what Professor Downing and Professor Henderson have said we have achieved remarkable results by adopting that policy.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Does not the Minister for Social Services support a national superannuation scheme?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 have no doubt that one could find much in what Mr Wentworth has said which indicates his personal view. I do not wish to suggest otherwise. Indeed, I believe that if the means were available and we could readily say that our economy could afford it the case for a national superannuation scheme would be tremendously strong. We have to assess from time to time whether or not the economy of this country can afford such a scheme. I know that in 1969 the Australian Labor Party strongly favoured the abolition of the means test and, I suppose, flowing from that, what would amount to a national superannuation scheme.

Senator Gair:

– A few years before that it opposed the abolition of the means test because it was afraid that it would affect the pension.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I appreciate what Senator Gair has said. I suppose that the various positions of various parties have produced changes in attitudes to this problem. There is only one party that carries the responsibility of finding the money. That is the point to which I was getting. If we are to abolish the means test we have to find, in one year or over a period of time, in excess of $400m. Whilst it is easy to say that the means test should be abolished and it is a facile assumption that we would all like a superannuation scheme because it can be attained, the point is that someone carries the responsibiily of providing the means by which these things can be attained.

Senator Gair:

– There has to be a beginning.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– As I indicated, I was hopeful of avoiding any debate upon a national superannuation scheme. 1 referred to it in the manner in which I did because it was one of the points raised in the amendment. I propose to say no more about it at this stage. The fifth point made in the Labor Party’s amendment is:

Pension payments should be a proportion of average weekly earnings adjusted annually. ] pose this question: When it is suggested that pension payments should be a proportion of another sum or tied to an index in some way, why are average weekly earnings taken as the measure? I believe that a case can be demonstrated that the movement in average weekly earnings in recent times has been quite disproportionate. One might suppose that, in tying the pension to an index, a consumer price index or a minimum or average wage is a more acceptable criterion than average weekly earnings. Of course, that is on the basis that one accepts the proposition that a government can accept the obligations that such a link must produce.

Senator Murphy:

– President Nixon suggested this to Congress about 12 months ago.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 do not know whether Senator Murphy is suggesting that everything that comes out of America in this area is worthy of acceptance. I believe that each country must make its own assessment, in the light of its own circumstances, as to what it can afford and what it should do. i notice that in the 1969 election campaign the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Whitlam, suggested - 1 think Senator McAuliffe referred to this in the course of his remarks - that the pension payments should be one-quarter of average weekly earnings. If that were the case there would be an additional cost currently of $350m to $400m. If one examines the way in wich average weekly earnings have increased in recent times - in March 1970 average weekly earnings were $72.30; in December 1970 they were $86; in June 1971 they were $89; and I think the last figure I saw, although I have not a record of it here, was that they had increased to $92 or $93 - one can see what would be involved in a period- of approximately 18 months during which the average weekly earnings increased by approximately $20.

Senator McAuliffe:

– That means more taxation revenue.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The point 1 make is that in those circumstances the Government would be faced with a continually increasing obligation simply because a fixed rule had been made that the pension was to represent one-quarter of whatever happened to be average weekly earnings. The Government would have no effective power over expenditure. As I said, if one were to accept the Australian Labor Party’s approach, currently it would cost between $3 50m and $400m for the first year of operation. Also as I said earlier, if the Labor Party is prepared to assert this as the policy it would put into effect, it carries an obligation to explain whether it would raise the necessary money by increasing taxation, where it would take the money from and how it would square this obligation with the other obligations it accepts.

Senator Gair:

– The national superannuation scheme would be contributory.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– In a sense we have a contributory scheme at the moment because people contribute through their taxation payments. The problems of a contributory scheme have to be assessed in the light of whether it is something entirely separate from taxation. My recollection is that this was attempted some years ago - in the 1940s - by the then Labor Party Government, but before very long the 2 separate payments sensibly were merged into the one payment. This is part of the problem that I believe is involved in this issue.

It is not to be suggested that this method of tying the pension to an index has not been tried before. It was tried in the 1930s and it was then abandoned. In saying that, I do not suggest that the pension was tied to average weekly earnings. It was tied to the consumer price index of those days. When the government of the day abandoned that nexus - in about 1937 - that action was applauded by Mr Curtin on the basis, as he . said, that the Parliament should maintain the responsibility. When in the war years the connection was made again, only to be abandoned in 1945 or 1946, the same problem arose because there had been a downward movement in the price index which would have involved a reduction of the pension. The government of the day was not prepared to do what its own tying required it to do. This is the political problem which any government would have to face. I think we should not seek to avoid what is our responsibility by having taken out of the hands of the Parliament the responsibility to fix pensions rates at particular times.

Senator Gair:

– Irrespective of whether the Government does justice to the pensioner?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The Government will do justice to the pensioner in the light of what the country can afford. The more affluent the community, the greater will be the rates and payments allowed. In stringent times, of course, there will have to be stringency. This is part of the responsibility of government. Appreciating the general approach which Senator Gair has consistently followed, I point out that a government in power must have regard to what moneys and resources are available and how much may be allocated to the social services field. I think it is quite clear that the increase in the social service payments in this Budget is the greatest increase in social service payments which has taken place in any one year. I can only pose the question: Would members of the Labor Party and members of Senator Gair’s Party accept the proposition that if there were a drop in average weekly earnings they should be prepared also to drop the pension?

Senator Gair:

– No, not at this stage.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– One cannot have it both ways, on the assumption that there always will be an increase. There is one other aspect of this area to which I would like to refer. A number of honourable senators on the Opposition side - I distinctly remember Senator McAuliffe - pointed to the fact that in 1946 or thereabouts the pension represented approximately 25 per cent of the average weekly earning at that time. The point was made, with greater or lesser elaboration by various honourable senators, that it had dropped to, I think, 18 per cent a year or two ago and that it was now up to only 20 per cent. This point was used as some criticism of the way that the pension had deteriorated.

I think this argument is misleading and unfair and that it ignores relevant facts. It ignores the fact that in recent times there have been these rapid and unreal movements in average weekly earnings which are disproportionate to what a number of people are really receiving. Furthermore, it ignores the many fringe benefits available to pensioners, such as income tax concessions, the television concessions, the telephone concession, and medical, pharmaceutical and hospital benefit fund concessions. About 2 years ago it was estimated that these concessions were worth at least $5 a week. Having regard to increases which have occurred in recent times in contributions to hospital and medical funds, it is reasonable to suppose that these concessions now are worth more than that sum. If one were to take these factors into account and give them a money value, there would not have been, on the figures referred to by Senator McAuliffe and others, the drop in the relative position of the pension in comparison with average weekly earnings.

Senator McAuliffe:

– How do you explain that the rate represents only. 5.3 per cent of the gross national product today whereas in the period from 1960 to 1964 it was 5.9 per cent?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Part of that has been explained by what was indicated by Professor Henderson and Professor Downing. We have concentrated payments in the areas where, they are needed. I appreciate that the argument would be raised that other persons ought also to get something. This is part of the general arena of political controversy. The final point I wish to mention is the sixth point of the amendment moved by the Labor Party.

Senator Murphy:

– Do not address yourself extensively to that point.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I accept Senator Murphy’s suggestion and will not refer to it at any length. The policy of the Australian Labor Party in these areas is fixed. It is not a needs approach. The only point I make is that a committee would not make a useful contribution in this area, if it is to inquire into social welfare needs, when one of the major parties in this Parliament has a policy in this regard to which it will adhere, as I understand it, in this Senate or in that proposed committee.

Therefore it is a pointless exercise to ask the Senate to appoint a committee which simply would be a forum in which one viewpoint would be expressed. The Government naturally will oppose the amendment moved by the Labor Party. The Democratic Labor Party’s amendment to the Australian Labor Party’s proposal is simply to delete 2 sections of it and likewise the Government will oppose the Democratic Labor Party’s amendment.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I wish to intervene only briefly in the debate because I understand that according to the legislative programme this Social Services Bill (No. 2) has to be passed this evening, as has the Repatriation Bill. The Opposition’s case has been ably presented by Senator Brown and therefore I do not desire to repeat it. The amendment moved by Senator Brown sets out a number of most important propositions.It states in part that:

  1. the increases proposed are inadequate;

    1. social services payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living;
    2. steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty:
    3. pension payments should be a proportion of average weekly earnings adjusted annually; and

I think those statements represent the viewpoint of a majority in this Senate. I think they represent the viewpoint of a majority of the Australian people. Therefore I think the propositions involved should be dealt with in such a way that that viewpoint can be expressed without unnecessary conflict which would defeat the expression of opinion.

Another point set out in the amendment moved by Senator Brown is that:

  1. a national superannuation system should be established and the means test eliminated;

We of the Opposition hold the view that this is the course that the Government should take in social services. The final point proposed in Senator Brown’s amendment is that:

  1. a Joint Select Committee should be established to inquire into and report upon the social welfare needs of the Australian community. lt is so important to get an expression of opinion on the . 4 matters in that amendment about which there is concordance on the part of the majority of the Senate that it would be most unwise, whatever their merits to persist with the fourth and sixth points. The Opposition including Senator Brown, takes the view that the sensible thing to do in these circumstances is to accept the amendment moved by Senator Gair for the deletion of the fourth and sixth points. We apprehend that this will ensure the passage of those parts of the motion moved by Senator Brown relating to the inadequacy of the increases, social service payments generally, the necessity for immediate steps to eliminate poverty and for pension payments to be a proportion of the average weekly earnings adjusted annually.

That is the course that the Opposition will take. We agree to the amendment moved by Senator Gair. It is a lot better to get four-sixths of what is proposed than to get nothing. By proceeding in this manner we will obtain the authentic will of the chamber in relation to these 4 points. I apprehend that the Senate will agree to them. That is the course that we of the Opposition intend to take. In the light of the attitude I have just stated I shall not expound upon the basis for the fourth and sixth points. 1 ask the Senate to agree to the amendment of Senator Brown’s motion and then to agree to the amended motion.

Senator Gair:

– I received the announcement by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) with pleasure. To assist in the consideration of the Australian Labor Party’s amendment -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Order! I believe you have spoken previously to this amendment, Senator Gair. You will have to seek the leave of the Senate to speak again.

Senator Gair:

– I foreshadowed the amendment in my speech on the Budget. That is the only speech I have made up till now.

Senator Murphy:

– No. If Senator Gair will look at page 827 of Hansard I think he will find that he did move the amendment.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I believe you spoke on the amendment when you moved it Senator Gair. If you desire to speak now you will have to seek the leave of the Senate.

Senator Gair:

– I shall comply with your suggestion, Mr Deputy President. I seek the leave of the Senate to make a few short comments on the amendments before the chamber.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

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

– 1 thank the Senate for granting me leave to make a few short observations in connection with the amendments in particular. In my speech on the Budget I dealt with a number of the provisions in the Social Services Bill, but I dealt principally with the inadequacy of pensions, which is a matter that concerns all humanitarians. It is also a matter about which the Australian Democratic Labor Party has spoken on every occasion it has had an opportunity to do so.

To say that pensions have in recent years risen more than wages have is an argument that is not completely factual. One may arrive at that decision on figures, but one must have regard to the fact that pensions were dragging a long way behind wages for a long time. Irrespective of what government has been in power, pensioners have had a very raw deal. That is the reason why the Democratic Labor Party has advocated since its inception the establishment of an independent tribunal of competent people who would have regard to the rise in wages and prices and every other criteria associated with the question to consider the matter with a desire and a view to making a reasonable and just determination insofar as pensions are concerned. However, I do not propose to develop that argument at this stage.

Pensioners have always been the forgotten section of the community. Just as in the days of the Scullin Government and because of the economic crisis pensions were reduced, it would appear that the pensioners comprise the only section or the major section of the community which is today required to carry the inflationary trend. The salaries of public servants, judges, and parliamentarians continue to rise and the national base wage continues to go up, but the pensioner does not have increases in his pension as regularly as other people have rises in their salaries nor does he have an increase in his pension in proportion to the increase in the cost of living. Hence he carries the burden of inflation to a greater extent than any other section of the community. Other people have some redress in that they can go to a court and obtain an adjustment based on the cost of living, but a pensioner does not enjoy that right. He has to wait until the Government determines that his pension should be increased.

Senator Byrne:

– That is why this Bill has to go through tonight.

Senator GAIR:

– The honourable senator has made a very pertinent interjection. The Bill has to go through tonight to enable pensioners to receive an increase in their pension by 1st October. I repeat that pensioners do not have the right to go to a tribunal and seek an increase. A court will say to a worker that because his cost of living has gone up by so much in the last quarter he is entitled to an increase. Is it not a fact that the last 6 per cent increase that was given on an across the board basis was based mainly on the cost of living? Public servants automatically received that increase. They did not have to go to a court to obtain it. Because that increase was granted in a national wage case the wages and salaries of public servants were increased by that figure. But pensioners were not entitled to that increase. They have to depend on the Government granting them an increase.

The livelihood and sustenance of pensioners depends on how generous governments are towards them. I repeat that there has been no evidence over the years, regardless of whether a Labor government or an anti-Labor government has been in power, of a government ever being guilty of over-generosity in this connection. A lot is said about the necessity for governments and parliaments to control pension payments. They support the arbitration system but they cannot budget with any knowledge of what their wages or salaries bill will be or what effect a general wage increase will have on the economy of the country. When an increase is granted by a tribunal they have to put up with it whether they like it or not. They have to meet the expense of increased wages and costs. If it is necessary to tax people to make ends meet they do that, too, and noone can argue about it.

We had the position last year of the then Prime Minister and his Treasurer bringing down a Budget that provided for a 10 per cent reduction or rebate in taxation and, at the same time, giving pensioners an increase of a miserable 50c a week in their pensions. It has been suggested that that same Prime Minister was out to eliminate the pockets of poverty in the community. Would an extra 50c a week go far towards achieving that end? Since March of this year pensioners have received an increase of $1.75 a week in their pensions, which has been a marked improvement on the 50c a week increase they received last year. But the pensions are still inadequate.

I said in my speech on the Budget that 1 was pleased with the improvement - I think anyone would have been pleased with the improvement - but that that was not to say that I was satisfied that pensioners were getting as much as they were entitled to having regard to the cost of living. Who is doing anything about arresting the increase in the cost of living? Nobody. Every other week the price of bread, butter and other essential items goes up, but no-one seems to have regard to the fact that pensioners need food and eat the same sort of food as you and T. Perhaps their needs are not as great, but nobody can deny that even though there has been a marked improvement on the position last year the pensioners are still not receiving enough. We will have to find ways and means of giving justice to these people.

The means test has been referred to here today. I will not deal with it, any more than I will deal with national superannuation, other than to say that governments in the past have been committed in election policy speeches to the introduction of a national insurance scheme. Indeed, Robert Gordon Menzies is reported to have resigned from the Lyons Government because the Lyons Government could not see its way clear to give effect to an election promise. Then when he subsequently became the Prime Minister and occupied that high and exalted position for about 1 8 years he did not do a damn thing about it. There has to be a beginning. It has to be tackled, otherwise our social services and all the financial effects of them will break down under their own weight.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why are you opposed to clause 4 of our amendment?

Senator GAIR:

– I will tell the honourable senator in a minute. If we have a contributory superannuation or national insurance scheme with the worker contributing something, the employer contributing something and the governments contributing something, it will not be long before we build up a fund from which people will receive something for which they have contributed. I do not believe that the people of today recognise pensions as being a charity, as the older people did some years ago. They realise, as Senator Greenwood has rightly said, that they pay for these pensions during their active years in the form of taxation. However, they are often given to understand that, even though they have paid for a pension in the form of taxation, they cannot get one because they have been provident and careful in saving their money by either investing it or by paying into a Public Service superannuation fund or a private superannuation scheme. After all, these contributions relieve the Federal Government of the necessity of paying such persons a pension. But the person who has not been so provident or who has taken out the least possible number of units in a superannuation scheme can get a pension. If that is not an iniquitous set-up and an encouragement to improvidence and wastefulness, T do not know what is.

Honourable senators know as well as I that there are people who, because they have saved an amount of money which is in excess of what is allowed in order to be eligible for a pension, reluctantly and unwillingly go abroad to spend some of their savings so that they can qualify for a pension. No-one could regard such a scheme as being sound, but that is the effect of a means test. I remember when unemployment in Queensland was more rife than it is today. The government of the day introduced legislation which provided for an unemployment benefit scheme. The worker paid 6d a week, the employer paid 6d a week and the government paid 6d a week. The scheme functioned on the principle of the old mutual benefit society. Those who had continuity of employment, such as public servants, railway men and others who were in steady jobs and who were not likely to be beneficiaries under the scheme, paid for casual workers and others who were out of work but who contributed while they were in work. They had a book which was stamped to show how much had been contributed, and according to the amount paid they qualified for a period on sustenance or a benefit.

When the Federal Government came into the field of social services and that fund was wound up it had a credit of £2m. That money was in a trust fund. It was not included in the general revenue. The condition attaching to the fund was that the money had to be expended in creating work and paying wages. It would not be long before a government which had the courage to introduce a national superannuation scheme would find that the contributions of the 3 parties concerned would enable it to put this social service question on a proper and sound basis.

Senator Webster:

– How do you feel we should deal with those in the community who do not wish to work? There are many people today who have no desire to work. Should they be entitled to the same benefits as others?

Senator GAIR:

– No-one who is physically able to work and will not work is entitled to any consideration whatever, in my book.

Senator Webster:

– But there are a lot of them getting it.

Senator GAIR:

– If they are, there is something wrong with the system. There is something wrong with the fellow who does not want to work. I know that there are some people who are sick, either mentally or physically, and are not equal to work. However, I know that some of them would not work in an iron lung; an iron lung does the work of breathing, I believe. There have been a few people to whom I have given a job and whom I have tried to lift up, but work was foreign to them. Not to work is customary to such people; it is a disease.

Senator Webster:

– Do you not think those people will always be here? How will your scheme overcome this?

Senator GAIR:

– I do not know. I have a speech to make and I have limited time.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have not told me why you are opposed to clause 4 in our amendment.

Senator GAIR:

– I am coming to it now.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You are making your speech your way, are you not?

Senator GAIR:

– Too right. I always do. No outside body directs me, either.

Senator Poyser:

– You could have fooled us.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. That is why I am here. I am here because I refused to accept direction from power drunk union bosses who knew less than I do about the economy of the State or the country. As everyone knows, the amendment moved by Senator Brown is identical to the amendment moved by the Opposition in another place. It was probably formulated and agreed to in the Australian Labor Party Caucus. For that reason it reflects a House of Representatives approach without any regard to the workings of the Senate. An amendment appropriate to the House of Representatives need not necessarily be appropriate to the Senate.

Senator Brown:

– You were good enough to tell me that last Thursday week.

Senator GAIR:

– I will tell you again. There is an old rule about never being self-conscious about repeating a good thing over and over again.

Senator Marriott:

– You start to believe it yourself.

Senator GAIR:

– Yes. However, Senator Brown acknowledges that I have told him, but I will not tell him again. The Australian Democratic Labor Party believes it is necessary to move an amendment to the ALP amendment and to satisfy Senator Cavanagh I will tell him why. The first part of our amendment, if it is carried, will have the effect of deleting the reference to the national superannuation scheme. Senator Cavanagh impatiently asked two are three times: ‘Why? The DLP favours the introduction of a national insurance scheme. That is our policy and it has been our policy from the beginning. Only recently has the ALP followed the idea with any enthusiasm. If Senator Cavanagh turns to page 3440 of today’s notice paper he will find that this very subject has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, and that is why we seek to eliminate it from the Australian Labor Party’s amendment. We in the DLP believe that the Health and Welfare Committee ought to be given the courtesy of examining this reference.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It took you a long time to get around to it.

Senator GAIR:

– I will make my speech in my way. If our amendment is carried it will also have the effect of removing paragraph (6) of Senator Brown’s amendment. This paragraph deals with a joint select committee on social welfare. The Senate has already established the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. The establishment of this proposed new committee would involve duplication, and we are not in favour of it.

It is obvious that the ALP amendment was devised by honourable members in another place. However, that is the position, and Senator Murphy has recognised the reasons for it and has very graciously said: ‘We will accept the amendment of the Democratic Labor Party to eliminate paragraphs (4) and (6) from the amendment moved by Senator Brown originally.’ I will content myself with those remarks for the reason that I understand that this legislation has to be passed this evening - as well as other legislation - to enable the poor pensioners to receive their increase. Why it could not be made retrospective, as salary increases granted to public servants and judges frequently are I do not know. But of course the Government appears to think pensioners are not so urgently in need of an income increase as those high bracket public servants and judges with whom we deal from time to time, and who often deal with themselves as far as salaries are concerned! I only hope that governments in the future will be more generous than they have been to the indigent and pensioners of our community.

The PRESIDENT:

– The question before the Senate is:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Gair’s amendment to Senator Brown’s amendment) beleft out.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Brown’s amendment as amended) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 28

NOES: 24

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question as amended resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from Committee without amendment or debate: report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Greenwood) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

ThePRESIDENT- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

-I move -

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that rates of pensions should be determined by an independent tribunal or committee of experts on social services including pensioner representation.’

The purpose of the proposed amendment is for the Senate to express an opinion on what we consider to be a very important principle in assessing the rates of pensions to be paid to people in our community.

During the course of this debate the Australian Democratic Labor Party has been charged with not sincerely supporting the proposition we are now putting forward. Indeed, it has been said that it is an impracticable proposition that could not be accepted by either the Government or a responsible Opposition. We do not agree with those arguments. Whilst it has been said baldly that no government or opposition could act as we have suggested, nobody has told us why that is so except to say that the Government has to pay the pensions and it should assess the amounts of those pensions as it has to raise the necessary revenue as a budgetary measure.

Our answer to that is, quite naturally, that the Government has to pay the Public Service but it has no say in fixing the rates of remuneration that have to be paid to the Public Service, the money for which has to be raised by revenue as a budgetary measure.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What is the comparison in numbers or amounts?

Senator LITTLE:

– The wages bil! of the Public Service would exceed by an enormous amount the sum paid to pensioners. I think the honourable senator would appreciate that point. The amount fixed in one case by an independent tribunal for the Public Service would far exceed the sum ever likely to be fixed for pensioners. In fact, the principle is carried so far by the Government that it has even set up commissions to purchase wool and wheat. The Government does not know in advance what it will cost to maintain a market price. It costs millions of dollars. Nobody knew in advance what the guaranteed price for wheat would mean in terms of revenue to be raised by the Government and the commitment undertaken by the Government at that time. By that move the Government involved itself in a bill that would far exceed the total pensions bill, let alone just an increase in pensions.

Why then should pensions not be taken out of politics where everything else is? Is it a very delicate issue on which no government or opposition could possibly agree? Is it because the Government and the Opposition like pensions to be in a political arena to be used as a football, or as a bribe to -get votes at election time? This is the principle so often denounced by the DLP. In the functions of government one can find board after board and committee after committee involved in expense which has to be met by the Government. A current example is that in the wisdom of the authorities it is now thought fitting that an independent authority should conduct an inquiry into the rates of parliamentary salaries to be paid by the Government and the taxpayers. It is not suggested that somebody other than the Government will pay the parliamentary salaries, is it? We may not subscribe to that view. I personally feel that the area of parliamentary salaries is one for which the Parliament should accept responsibility, but that is merely a personal point of view. Surely it cannot properly be suggested that the practice of setting up a tribunal when public expenditure is involved comes up against any tremendous barrier when the needs of pensioners are to be examined, even though the necessary money has to be found by the Government. In the final analysis the Government has the responsibility to accept or reject the assessment of an independent tribunal and to decide whether an excessive demand would be made on the public purse in view of the state of the national economy.

Our proposition contains nothing to suggest that the Government should not retain that responsibility. Surely we are putting a rational and reasonable proposition and not, as Senator Willesee has suggested, a phoney argument. It is suggested that our proposition cannot be accepted, without any responsible, logical argument being advanced to support that suggestion. The only bar to acceptance of our proposition is the fact that the Government is still moving within the mental limitations of a practice that has developed over the years by which governments have paid members of a section of the community a rate of pension to enable those people to live reasonably according to a government’s assessment of their requirements. That assessment has been made in a most illogical, impractical, and even the Opposition would admit, inadequate manner by a Government that has all sorts of other responsibilities and apparently has not the time, if it has the desire, to make a thorough investigation required to arrive at an adequate and proper rate of pension, and the ability of the economy to sustain that rate.

The sole justification given for pension Increases today is that they are more than was paid last time. The argument behind the budgetary measures is advanced on that basis. That is all very well for the purists, although I think members of the Opposition would be fair enough to admit that if they were in government they would use the same type of argument to justify the limitations of pension increases. They also would say that the pension this year will be 50c a week more than it was last year because the cost of living has gone up. Another argument advanced by governments justifying limited pension increases goes like this: ‘Why look, over the last 20 years there has been suchandsuch an increase.’ Of what relevance is it to say that such-and-such a pension was paid 20 years ago, by which government it was paid or how the money was raised then? We live in entirely different economic circumstances today from those which operated 20 years ago.

Ridiculous arguments are sometimes put forward by governments on this subject. Sometimes the only argument advanced in justification of a pension increase is that it is such-and-such a percentage more than was paid 30 or 40 years ago. A few shots are fired off at the opposition or at the government of the day when the pension was introduced. The critics claim that the pension was paltry then, but where is the scientific background for the criticism? Where is there any investigation as to what the nation can afford? Where is there any investigation to find the requirements of the pensioners in this age, and to determine the proper standard at which they should live? This is a tremendously developed country and we should be able to compare past standards and the standard at which we can afford to enable our pensioners to live. After all, the amount which the Government produces is not even relevant, in view of the fluctuations in cost structures, to the actual living standards of pensioners.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator LITTLE:

– Before the suspension of the sitting, I was outlining the reasons why I thought that it was irresponsible of the Government and the Opposition to suggest that it was a complete impossibility for a government to accept the idea of an independent tribunal for one section of social services when this principle is accepted in respect of so many other parts of Government activity. But I think that another principle is contained in the proposition that the Australian Democratic Labor Party has put before the Senate today and on which we seek an expression of the Senate’s opinion. This is that a committee of experts on social services should have representation of pensioners themselves embodied in it.

I think that, as representatives of the people, we must all feel degraded that a pilgrimage to Canberra by pensioners from all over Australia takes place annually. Those pensioners try to exert a little public pressure to get what they consider to be their opinions, requirements and needs not only before the people of Australia but also before the Government itself. They come to Canberra by various means of transport and at great personal sacrifice and expense to themselves. Sometimes there is a public display on the steps of Parliament House of a Minister kissing a couple of elderly ladies. I would not like to suggest that such action was taken for purposes of publicity because we would hope that Ministers responsible for social services were not so inclined to seek publicity of that character. But it does happen. Surely it is degrading that pensioners should come to Canberra to plead a cause to nobody because, actually, no facilities are available for them to plead their cause or to put a proper case to anybody. They come here to try to exert pressure by means of a public display.

Would it not be far more reasonable if these people could select some responsible individual to place their point of view - and surely their point of view is one which only they alone know and understand fully - before the people who make the final decision as to what should be the pensioner’s share of the cake. We read continually that the Government says: Well, you cannot cut the cake up into more pieces than are available. You must be careful as to how you cut the cake up’, and so on. Here is an opportunity, embodied in the opinion that we are asking the Senate to express on this Bill, to suggest that one of the pensioners should be right there at the core of the body that ultimately makes its recommendation based on ail the information that it can gather from everywhere as to what are the requirements of pensioners. Such a body could not but be improved by having as one of its members a person who is personally involved with pensioners and who could give to that body the kind of advice that pensioners considered that such an expert body should hear. Is not this the principle that we have embodied in most other public functions of today, whether this takes the form of an industrial tribunal, a prices tribunal or anything else? We try to get representatives of the affected sections of the community on to those bodies.

Senator Greenwood:

– I notice that the honourable senator does not include a representative of the taxpayers. Does the honourable senator feel that the taxpayers should not be represented?

Senator LITTLE:

– I do not know that a taxpayer pays taxes for the purpose of pension payments only. Actually, what the taxpayer-

Senator Greenwood:

– But the honourable senator would exclude him?

Senator LITTLE:

– He is not excluded because the other representatives on the committee would all be taxpayers, I would hope. Surely we are all involved in this respect. Even members of Parliament have a say in pensions and we can see the matter from the point of view of the taxpayer. The Minister has forgotten for the moment that even he is a taxpayer. We all share this common responsibility to the nation. Perhaps it is not a pleasure, but it is a necessary function. Surely members of Parliament are prepared to recognise-

Senator Cavanagh:

– He may be one of the experts.

Senator LITTLE:

– The taxpayers’ representative?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

Senator LITTLE:

– Ail the experts, I suggest, would be taxpayers. I would not suggest that we have a tribunal made up of elderly gentlemen who were all retired. Probably the only member of this body who would not be a taxpayer would be the one we propose as the pensioners’ representative. At least such a tribunal could not but be improved if it had as one of its members one person who did not give a heck about how much any social services proposal would cost, because that representative would be a recipient. We need that attitude to obtain a balanced point of view. I suggest that at the moment the decision is made usually by the members of a parliamentary party, none of whom is a recipient of a pension but all of whom are salaried members of the community paid from the public purse.

Finally, we return to the hackneyed argument that we hear from the leadership of the parties comprising both the Government and the Opposition to the effect that a proposal such as this cannot be done, that it is impossible even to consider it, that it would be silly and that it is phony. I think that Senator Willesee suggested that a Party should not even put up such a logical proposition as this because such action could not be taken for pensioners. He said that we could not have an independent tribunal suggesting what were pensioners’ requirements and what ought to be paid to them because the Government has to find the money to implement such propositions. Yet, nobody knows what the other activities in which the Government indulges will cost when the Government sets out to indulge in those activities.

Only a year or so ago we were all shocked because $60m was involved in meeting the guaranteed price for wheat. Nobody ever dreamed that such a sum would be required. But that was the amount involved in the decision that was made. Now we are engaged in a price maintenance activity with respect to the wool industry in which the Government. is purchasing the wool clip of this country in competition with legitimate buyers on the market in an endeavour to maintain prices. Will a senator from the Government side or from the Opposition side put a logical argument to me to show that they know what the ultimate cost of doing this will be? This Parliament made a decision - from memory, I think that it was made unanimously - that this was one way in which we at least should try to help the wool industry. We did not run away from this question because we did not know what the proposal would cost, or because somebody else might be making decisions in the matter. Are we not affected only by whether or not such a decision will be a fair decision, a right decision or a responsible decision?

Senator Byrne:

– The Tariff Board may make the decision.

Senator LITTLE:

– Yes, the Tariff Board can make decisions. If honourable senators turn lo the ‘Commonwealth Directory’ they will find set out on page after page the names of the commissions and tribunals that are involved in the expenditure of public money. Ultimately the cost of these bodies must be met from taxpayers’ money because the Government has to foot the bill provided that the cause is in the interests of the whole of the community and provided-

Senator Byrne:

– The tribunal is responsible

Senator LITTLE:

– Yes, the tribunal is responsibly run and managed. Nobody is suggesting that there should be anything irresponsible about the fixation of pensions. We would all agree that any determination on pensions should be a responsible one made by a responsible body. All that we disagree with is the philosophy followed by the Government and the Opposition Parties. My Party has been prepared on 8 occasions now to try to put a logical argument before this Parliament on this question. It is the philosophy of the other Parties on which we disagree; that is all. I would like to think that any opposition from the Government and the Opposition to the philosophy which we expound on this question and that any decision they reached on it was based on logical grounds and not on the ground of prejudice or on the ground that it cannot be done because it has never been done before or that it cannot be done because the Government has to meet the bill and therefore must make the decision.

I turn now to the argument that Senator Willesee put up. He was not very kindly, I might say, in his remarks towards this Party. On a question of this character, I do not wish to indulge in any backbiting or in any attempt to settle old scores. Senator Willesee was not very kind to us on this question when he suggested phoniness and everything else. But why should it be phony to put up a proposition that is as logical as this one is? I appeal to members of the Senate: If you are not prepared to express the opinion that we ask that you should express before the Bill is passed, at least give us your logical arguments and not arguments that are based purely on prejudice or on the principle that what is proposed has never happened before or has never been done anywhere before.

Most good ideas must be tackled somewhere for the first time. This argument is so with respect to pensions. I do not know whether a modern economy could exist without a measure of social service payments particularly to elderly and sick people. A modern economy could not exist without such payments. When social service payments were first suggested they were said to be impossible because this had never been done before and the cost would wreck the nation. I can understand the limited view taken of this proposal by the Government. But the Opposition - a Party that is alleged to be radical - is prepared to shut its mind completely against this new idea and will reject it because, it says, what is proposed cannot be done or should not be done. Or is it that the Opposition is too frightened to face the consequences of our proposal? All we know is that the method of deciding pensions in the last 15 years has been unsatisfactory and has brought no joy to any section of the community. The pensioners finish up dissatisfied; the Government finishes up frustrated; Opposition members finish up not knowing whether they should pass a Bill to give the pensioners the little that is offered or whether they should reject the little that is offered to go for something bigger for the pensioners. It has been a political question. But then we come along with a logical proposition.

Let us take this matter out of politics into an arena where no-one from either side of the chamber can make political capital from it. Let us ensure that in future we do not have the age old argument: ‘Gee, we have done a great job for pensioners; we have given them 10c more than anyone has ever given them before.’ Especially do we not want this argument when the cost of living has been rampaging upwards, when we all know that the 50c or $1 that the pensioners have received has long gone in increased prices before they have received any of it. I suggest that the proposition advanced by the DLP is logica] and that after a logical debate on the subject the Senate should be prepared to express the opinion that we have stated.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I formally second the amendment, lt is not my intention to speak to it, although it is my entitlement at this stage to do so. I merely point out that the Democratic Labor Party has moved amendments in these terms on many other occasions. Usually it has been found necessary to embody it with other amendments or proposals relating to social welfare, some of which were not acceptable to members of the official Opposition. For that reason this proposition has fallen in defeat along with the others. Therefore we have isolated the proposition on this occasion so that it can be voted on on its individual merits in isolation. Thus, any alibis that might formally have been available when this proposition, although perhaps welcomed by the official Opposition, was defeated because it was allied with other suggestions are not available on this occasion. For those reasons we strongly commend the proposition and we strongly commend the principle which is embodied in it.

It is clear that on this occasion the proposition can be voted on in isolation. We commend it as an advance in the approach to social welfare. As Senator Little said, it is an advance which will be welcomed by all sections of the community. It will overcome those frustrations which are always experienced by Government supporters at the time of the Budget. It will tend to alleviate some of the justifiable concern sometimes felt by pensioners that their welfare is a matter of political opportunism only. Undoubtedly it will allay the continuous disappointments that are so often ventilated by the official Opposition. For those reasons we strongly commend to the Senate this proposition in isolation and in specific terms, and we trust that it will be voted on affirmatively on this occasion.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– I rise to speak for the first time in this debate, although anyone listening to the Democratic Labor Party would probably think that I have been the main speaker. I had been receiving honourable mention throughout the debate, until my old friend Senator Byrne disappointed me tremendously; he did not have a go at me. The honourable senator said that this proposition has been put up in isolation, but if my memory serves me correctly it has been put up in isolation before. 1 think 1 recall that a few years ago Senator McManus put up this proposition in isolation. Members of the Democratic Labor Party have persevered with this suggestion over the years and have used the term, which they used tonight, that the matter should be taken out of politics and placed into what I recall being referred to some years ago when we first debated this matter as a sort of arbitration court.

The Democratic Labor Party has used the analogy that the Government does not fix wages, that this matter is put out to a separate body, and that in that pattern the question of pensions should be put to a separate body which I imagine would be an arbitration court type of body. I would not like to see a situation where we had this type of body and the Government doing what it does in arbitration court hearings, that is, opposing claims for wage increases by some body, always a trade union, or opposing a claim for reduced hours. We would finish up in a rather strange sort of situation if the Government set up a body and then said: ‘Because of the situation as we see it today, we must go before this body which is deciding pensions and oppose the application for this, that and the other reason’.

The thing that mystifies me a little is that when debating the second reading of the Bill we moved that a joint select committee be established to inquire into and report upon the social welfare needs of the Australian community. The Democratic Labor Party moved an amendment, and we accepted it to try to get something through and to record some sort of expression from the Senate. But 1 should have thought that had clause 6 of our amendment been allowed to stand there would have been a better chance of the Democratic Labor Party having the type of body that it proposes at least examined. Who knows? If an inquiry were held this could be the recommendation that came back to us. Who knows what would come from an inquiry?

Recently, in a speech that honourable senators have heard about over the last few days during the debate on this Bill, I pointed out one or two things that are already on the notice paper. Already there is a suggestion, which has not been debated, that we refer to the Standing

Committee on Health and Welfare the incidence, distribution and causes of primary and secondary poverty in Australia and the adequacy of existing Commonwealth and State social welfare legislation. We want to have a general inquiry. We do not want to shut our minds, as Senator Little put it, on any question. I do not think anybody in Australia wants to do that. Although at times the Government has taken credit for what it has achieved - as Senator Little said, often this has been said with tongue in cheek - I do not think Government supporters are really proud of the amount of social welfare payments, nor do I think they are proud of the fact that we have 1 million people living in poverty. I give them that credit. But they find themselves in the position where they are unable, or think they are unable, to do much more about it at the time.

As I pointed out the other night also, already we have referred to the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare the introduction of a national superannuation scheme. My own view, and I think the view of many people, is that until we finally solve the problem and get round to having a national insurance scheme under which people will contribute to superannuation or a pension, if one likes to call it that, until the end of one’s working life, we will be bedevilled by all sorts of nuances and all sorts of things associated with social welfare. A national superannuation scheme was first suggested in 1938. It was suggested again by Sir Robert Menzies in his policy speech in 1949. It was promised again by Sir William Spooner when he was the Minister for Social Services. It was promised by Mr Wentworth, who finally has told us that he was unable to go on with it. I know that in the Australian Labor Party Mr Hayden and his committee have been working incessantly on the problem.

My own belief is that no matter what we do, until we finally come up with the answer to this problem we will have debates for as long as this Parliament is here. The DLP is putting up for the umpteenth time the question of taking this problem out of this Parliament. It is a matter that cannot be taken out of politics. Honourable senators should not fall for that suggestion. It will always be in the realm of poltics. What we have said is that until we can have a superannuation scheme with a revolving fund, if that is the correct term, where we provide social services for one’s industrial life it will be the responsibility of this and future governments to decide what social welfare should be provided. This question has not been simple.

I invite honourable senators to consider the adjuncts to the main areas of social welfare. The Government has always been very proud to point these out. Many years ago it was decided that there was a problem of accommodation. An attempt was made to overcome the accommodation problem by making special payments. 1 do not think that has worked out as satisfactorily as it might have done. Nevertheless, this is one of the things that has been done. The question of transport has been considered, and the question of medical services has been investigated. AH the decisions were made by the government of the day. That indicates that those governments were not happy with the situation in respect of social services as at the time. We put our position now, as we have always put it. If we thought that the setting up of an independent tribunal would automatically solve the problem we would vote for the amendment. We do nol believe that it would. We do not believe that it would be taking social services out of the realm of politics. Do members of the DLP think that wages and conditions are out of the realm of politics merely because a court of conciliation and arbitration was set up in the early 1900s? I do not think anybody would suggest that. The Government would not avoid or dodge its responsibilities by setting up an independent tribunal.

I cannot understand why previously the DLP did not vote for our proposed inquiry because, if our motion had been carried here and in another place, the DLP might well have got at least a step nearer to the fulfilment of the proposition that it has been putting in this place for some time. I reiterate the things that I have had to reiterate on more occasions than I care to remember and point out that I do not think that an independent tribunal is the answer to the problem. I think that under the present set up the establishment of such a tribunal would be an avoidance of responsibility by the government of the day, whatever that government may be. I believe that it would be economically impossible to divorce the determinations of the tribunal from the Government’s budgetary considerations each August.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– The Government will oppose the amendment moved by the Democratic Labor Party. We recognise the force of what has just been said by Senator Willesee - that is, that the decision as to what amount of social welfare payment should be made is a matter of government responsibility. As Senator Willesee said, it does not matter what is the colour of that government. The amounts with which we are concerned in this area are of immense magnitude and have a tremendous impact upon the national finances. I think that in the second reading debate it was indicated that if, to give just one example, the basic pension rate were one-quarter of the average weekly earnings $350m to $400m additional to what is spent at present would be required to give effect to that principle. Having read some of Senator Willesee’s previous speeches on this issue, 1 know that he is aware of the financial problems involved. An increase of $1 a week would mean an extra S60m a year, give or take a few million dollars, and this is relatively immaterial because what is involved is the association of government resources and the responsibility which the Government has to its electorate as to how it expends those resources.

Senator Byrne:

– How does that differ from the allocation of wage increases by an independent Public Service Arbitrator? Such increases would also be a charge on the revenue.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I think that is a fair comment which Senator Byrne makes. Accepting the fairness of his comment, it is not to say that a decision made as to what should be the wage paid to persons who work in the Commonwealth Public Service should be the criterion for or the method of determination of what should be the pensions paid to persons who, in varying ways, have claims upon the Government’s bounty. Undoubtedly a wage earner is entitled to a fair reward for his labour. It is difficult to subject that to what may be the vagaries of politics, in the light of what the government of the day may determine is an appropriate allocation of resources. In determining what should be the range of social services and what should be the rates of pension there may be so many differing views because the issue is not what is a fair remuneration but what is the appropriate amount which a society is able to pay those who have some claim upon the conscience of the nation. It is a different issue and, I would say, a different issue entirely.

I would urge upon the DLP, which I know has put this proposition on many occasions, that a government cannot divorce the responsibility of making these decisions from the obligation and/or ability to give effect to them. If an independent tribunal, however constituted, in its judgment quite honestly arrived at - even if it were, as Senator Willesee said, politically influenced one way or another - decided on an amount which would cost the community in any one year $300m, $400m or $500m is that to say that the Government must accept that decision without question?

Senator Byrne:

– Again how does that differ from the wage decision handed down in relation to a wage earner?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I hear what Senator Byrne says, but the wage earner is always involved in producing, either goods or services. He is adding to the wealth of the community. The pensioner - and I do not say this in any derogatory fashion - is not adding to the wealth of the community. The pensioner has a claim upon the wealth of the community, lt is always a question of what is an appropriate sum to be paid. I believe - and I sense that the Opposition recognises this - that any Government must accept the same decision. The responsibility of making the decision rests with those who have to determine how much of the national resources can be alocated in a particular area.

Senator Byrne:

– You are stating a philosophy not of right but of charity, which we dispute.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not quite know whether I am putting a philosophy of charity as against a philosophy of right. All I say is that the amount which any government can allocate to those who have some claim upon its bounty is a decision which it must make and which it cannot yield to an independent tribunal. If an independent tribunal were to say that a pensioner should receive $40 a week instead of the $17.25 a week which this Budget provides, plus the fringe benefits and supplementary allowances, would the Democratic Labor Party say that just because an independent tribunal, with pensioner representation, had so determined, that must be accepted by the Government? I am quite sure that when it reflects upon the question it could not sustain that point of view. If it could, it seems to me that the point is made even if the amount is less than the hypothesis that I have put.

I do not want to delve into this area any more than I have. It has been raised in the Senate on numerous occasions. We know what the DLP’s view is. I regret that it holds this view because in so many other areas it exercises a degree of responsibility. I do not think that in this area it is a responsible viewpoint. We know what the Opposition’s viewpoint is. Essentially on this issue it recognises the problems which the Government has to face. The Government could not yield to an independent tribunal the responsibility which it has in this area. Therefore we oppose the amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Little’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 4

NOES: 46

Majority . . . . 42

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 913

REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 14 September (vide page 683), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– For the convenience of honourable senators, I seek leave of the Senate for the subject matters of this Bill and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill (No. 2) 1971 to be debated together at the second reading stage. The questions relating to the stages of the Bill, of course, will be put separately.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– The Opposition has no objection whatever to the proposal made by the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who represents the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten). I understand that the votes on the 2 measures will be taken separately.

The PRESIDENT:

– That is part of the agreement.

Senator POYSER:

– The Bills that we are debating - the Repatriation Bill (No. 2) 1971 and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill (No. 2) 1971 - are machinery measures which will give legislative effect to the decision of the Government to increase certain pensions for persons who have served in the armed forces and at sea during wars in which this country has been involved. We on this side of the Senate will not be rejecting the legislation, although we will be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Repatriation Bill because we are very concerned about the erosion that has taken place in terms of the money value of the pensions that are now paid to exservicemen and seamen compared with that of the pensions that were paid as recently as 10 years ago.

Senator Byrne:

– How does the amendment read?

Senator POYSER:

– I will move it now. The honourable senator should have a copy of it in front of him. On behalf of the Opposition, I move the following amendment:

At end of motion add: ‘, but the Senate condemns the Government because it has failed to restore the relative values of repatriation pensions.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Are you circulating copies of that amendment, Senator Poyser?

Senator POYSER:

– Copies of the amendment have been available since 3 p.m. today. We on this side of the chamber have compared very closely the pensions that have been paid over the years with those that are being paid now. These pensions are paid by an allegedly grateful nation by way of compensation to persons who have fought in wars in the defence of this nation. As was indicated in a previous debate in this chamber, over the years money values have eroded to such an extent that there is no value left in many of the pensions that are received by exservicemen today. One can start at the top rung of the pensions that are being paid, the special rate pension which is more commonly known amongst ex-servicemen as the TPI pension. Those pensioners will get an increase of $3.50 on this occasion and this will bring the top rate of pension, the TPI pension, to $42.50 a week.

On the surface it would appear that the Government has held the situation, so far as relative values are concerned, in comparison with the pension as it existed 12 months ago. But if we look back 10 years to 1961 we find that then the pension for total and permanent incapacity was of the order of 55.7 per cent of average weekly earnings of that day. Today the situation is that this pension has decreased and represents 44.4 per cent of average weekly earnings. Every year we find, not only in the social service field but in the war service pension field, that there is a continuing erosion in the value of payments. A special rate pensioner, a totally and permanently incapacitated person, can no longer earn a living in any way whatsoever. Such people served overseas in a theatre of war and received injuries or suffered illnesses that prevent them from working at all and as a result they are entitled to the special rate or TPI pension. Australia, a grateful nation, is saying that the maximum amount that such a person may receive is $42.50 a week. This is even below the minimum weekly wage rate. The minimum weekly wage rate, State by State, as of June of this year, was as follows: New South Wales, S47.10 a week; Victoria, $46.30 a week; Queensland, $44.60 a week; South Australia, $45.90 a week; Western Australia, $46.90 a week; and Tasmania, $47 a week. Those were the minimum rates of pay received by people who work for a living.

Yet we find that this grateful Government expects a person who is totally and permanently incapacitated to live on about $6 a week less than the average weekly earnings. This Government is saying to these people, in effect, that this represents what they would have earned had they not suffered these great disabilities. Of course, each and every one of them would be earning much more than that amount if they were able to work. The very lowest paid person in that group would have been receiving the minimum weekly rate applying under the awards of this nation. These pensioners could be earning up to the current average weekly rate of something like $93.10, which is the rate applying in New South Wales.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Such a pensioner would u,e earning double what he now receives.

Senator POYSER:

– Yes, he would be earning double what he receives at the present time. But in effect this Government says to these pensioners: ‘This is all we can give you, no matter how grateful we may be. We expect you to live under the breadline on a sum which is something like 7 per cent or 9 per cent less than what you were able to live on in 1961-62.’ The Government is saying to these people today that they need less to live on than they did 10 years ago, so far as the real value of money is concerned.

But this Government has done far worse than that. Not only has it eroded the value of the pension received by TPI pensioners; it has given no consideration at all to the dependents of such people. It is so many years since this Government has looked at this matter that the situation is almost laughable. I ask honourable senators: Do you know the last occasion on which the Government was grateful enough to increase the amount paid for the dependent child of an ex-serviceman, whether in receipt of a TPI pension or a general rate pension? It was in 1952. That was the last occasion on which there was an increase in the rate of pension paid in respect of a dependent child. 1 ask honourable senators: Do you know what amount is paid at the present time in respect of the dependent child of a TPI pensioner? It is $1.38 a week. It was in 1952 that the Government decided to raise that amount from $1.15 a week. No consideration has since been given to this situation. The last increase was almost 20 years ago in 1952. The Government is so grateful that it has never given consideration to increasing the amount paid in respect of dependent children of ex-servicemen who are on the special rate or TPI rate of pension.

The Government has been a little more generous to the dependent wife of a TPI pensioner because it granted an increase in 1964. There has been no increase since then. In 1964 the Government increased that sum from $3.55 a week to $4.05 a week. It has remained at $4.05 a week for 7 years. There appears to be no indication on the part of the Government to increase the amounts paid for dependents of people who are in receipt of repatriation benefits. The situation today is that a TPI pensioner can receive $42.50 a week plus $4.05, making a total of $46.55 a week. This is the sort of gratitude that this Government is showing to those who served this country so well - served it to the extent that they are no longer able to earn any kind of living in any way.

I turn now to the general rate of pension which is paid to a person who is not permanently and totally incapacitated. I refer to those people who receive 75 per cent or more of the general rate. The situation is the same, so far as the gratitude of the Government is concerned, as that which applies to the dependents of exservicemen because there has not been a rise in the general rate of pension for the same period of time, that is, since 1964. The rate has remained static for 7 years. We have received no indication from the Government at any stage that it intends to assist persons who receive the general rate of pension or who receive less than 75 per cent of the existing general rate of pension.

There has been a complete and absolute erosion of the money values of pensions paid under the Repatriation Act. Let us examine the matter further. All honourable senators would know, from examining the files and from speaking to people who come to see them, that there are many thousands of ex-servicemen who receive nothing at all. I believe - I think all of us believe this as a result of knowing the histories of these people - that they should be receiving some type of pension for the disabilities they suffer as a result of war service. The Repatriation Act provides for the onus of proving whether a person is or is not entitled to some recompense for injury or illness suffered to be on the Repatriation Commission. But under the present situation this onus of proof provision is working in reverse. The situation today is that many people with cast iron claims, in my view, cannot get past first base when it comes to putting their cases before the tribunals. This is despite opinions expressed by many eminent lawyers - none more eminent, I suggest, than Mr Justice Spicer, who was a senator and sat in this chamber and who gave a legal opinion in relation to section 47 of the Act which specifies quite clearly and properly that the onus of proof is on the Commission when rejecting a claim made by a person. The onus of proof is not upon a soldier to establish his claim. In my view a legal opinion submitted by Mr Justice Spicer- -Senator the Honourable J. A. Spicer, Q.C.. Attorney-General, as he was then - makes it very clear that section 47 of the Act is not being administered properly at present. In clause 5 of his opinion Mr Justice Spicer said:

The effect of this-

He was referring to section 47 of the Act-

Is that it is not for the claimant to prove that he is entitled to a pension, but it is for any opposing person or authority to prove that he is not entitled. In every case the question is not: Has the claimant satisfied the tribunal that he is right? but: Has the opposing person or authority satisfied the tribunal that the claimant is wrong?

Of course, the claimant may find himself in a position in which it is greatly to his own interest to supply evidence in support of his claim. For example, the opposing person or authority may be able to supply evidence which, taken alone, might discharge the onus of proof which the opponent carries. In such a case it would be advisable for the claimant to supply evidence which would at any rate raise a doubt in his favour.

The onus remains with the opposing person or authority throughout the proceedings. The claimant need not, but he may, if he so desires, furnish proof in support of bis claim. But, whether he furnishes proof or not, the onus will, at the end of the proceedings, still be upon the opposing person or authority to satisfy the determining authority that the claimant is not entitled.

All members of this Parliament know from the case histories in their files that the onus of proof is at present fairly and squarely upon the claimant. Claimants who have to face a tribunal - some seek assistance whilst others believe they can handle their cases in their own way - find that the decision is invariably not on the basis of a doubt in the mind of the tribunal but of a doubt in the mind of the claimant. These claimants sometimes leave a tribunal knowing full well that justice has not properly been done.

I am at the moment handling a case concerning a widow who is seeking a widow’s pension for the death of her breadwinner. We have been able to obtain from one of the top specialists in Melbourne an opinion that her husband died from a war caused complaint. The specialist has not only given an opinion as the result of his own examination of the case but is able to quote directly from other medical authorities throughout the world evidence that the death of the ex-serviceman was caused by the original injuries and diseases. However, the Commission has said that this further evidence is of insufficient weight to permit the case to be reopened. That is an example of the kind of situation with which these people are faced today. Surely a woman who lived with a man from the day he came from war and who saw him deteriorate day by day, week by week and year by year until finally he died is entitled to more consideration from a Commission which is bound by an Act to interpret the onus of proof provision in favour of an applicant for a pension. If there is any semblance of doubt at all the Commission should, as indicated in the opinion of Mr Justice Spicer, act in favour of the person concerned. I believe that the Repatriation Commission is today working on a budget instead of on the basis of justice to those who submit cases.

I turn now to a field which is of even more concern in some respects than the case I have just quoted. It appears that war widows who are in great trouble as a result of health breakdowns are finding that, although they are entitled under certain circumstances to hospitalisation, once they become chronic patients the Repatriation Commission is, under the present legislation, wiping its hands of them. After 3 months it says: ‘You can no longer stay within a Repatriation hospital. However, we will pay the expense of keeping you in a nursing home for a fortnight and then you are on your own.’ I wish to quote from a letter written by Mrs Eric Mayo, the National President of the War Widows Guild of Australia on this subject. No doubt copies of this letter were sent to all members of the Parliament. I shall quote this letter in full because it outlines some of the problems facing war widows:

The War Widows Guild is, once again, asking the Government to give more consideration to Ihe conditions of the widows of men who gave their lives in the service of Australia.

I think it is correct to say at this stage that a war widow is a person who has lost her husband because of injuries directly attributable to the service he has given to this country. The letter continues: 1 write to ask you to support our requests. There are almost fifty- thousand women in Australia whose husbands were killed on active service or died as a result of their service. These widows grow old now, often prematurely aged by hardship and loneliness. Many of them are now reaching the stage of being chronically and terminally ill and their position is desperate. A war widow may not stay longer than 3 months in a Repatriation General Hospital (where she receives absolutely first class treatment) after which the Department will pay for a fortnight in a good convalescent home. When she leaves this, still needing care, there is nowhere for her except a nursing home. The good establishments are so expensive that no war widow can afford them; the (so-called) nursing homes that are possible financially are, far too often, appalling.

I hope that you will support the Guild in its endeavour to have an amendment made to the Repatriation Act to. enable the Department to assume responsibility for the chronically ill war widow. When the young men of Australia enlisted they were told that, should they die, their country would care for their widows and orphans. Their lives were war material and should be paid for as was other war material. We ask that a debt of honour should be paid.

Surely we have got to the situation in this country where some kind of compassionate payment will be made to widows who lost their husbands as a direct result of war service. The situation should not be allowed to continue where the Repatriation Commission washes its hands of war widows who have become chronically ill and forces them to find some kind of accommodation that is commensurate with the pension they receive. The Opposition has moved an amendment which seeks to convince the Government that the pension and benefits that should be given with generosity and gratitude to ex-servicemen and their dependants are being seriously eroded.

We have only to read the 55th annual report of the Returned Services League of Australia to see just how these benefits have deteriorated over the years. I quoted some figures earlier to give some indication of this erosion but I intend to quote a few more from the 1970 annual report, which is the latest available, to show how we have treated our ex-servicemen. In 1950, which is just about the time when this Government initiated its first Budget, the then basic wage - it is now the minimum wage - was $13.80 per week. As f indicated earlier, the minimum wage as at June last year was $46.40, which represents an increase of $32.60 per week or 236 per cent. The average weekly earnings per employed male in 1950 were $21 per week. At the present time it is $84.80 per week, an increase of $63.80 per week or 304 per cent.

The table then gives the weekly rate of a private soldier and of a base grade clerk in the Public Service. The soldier’s classification increased by 231 per cent over this period while the rate of a 21-year-old base grade clerk in the Commonwealth Public Service increased by 265.6 per cent. The TPI or special rate pension increased by 179 per cent, which is far behind the increases that every person in industry has been able to obtain. For those receiving the 75 per cent general rate pension the increase over that period of 20 years was 157 per cent. For those people who receive 70 per cent general pension rate or less, we find that the increase is only 71 per cent. I repeat that in that same period the basic or minimum wage has increased by 236 per cent and average weekly earnings by 304 per cent.

In rounding off I think there is only one other example that it is necessary to quote to show the erosion, that is, in relation to the funeral benefits that are available for ex-servicemen. The current rate is $50. The RSL in its submissions indicates that this benefit was increased to $50 in 1953. To reach a comparable value today the amount would need to be $200. I think that the Opposition has made out a case for the carrying of this amendment. This erosion should never have been allowed to exist, any more than the erosion should have been allowed to exist in relation to the social service payments that we were discussing earlier. If we are grateful to these people who have served overseas and who in some cases have paid the supreme sacrifice and have left widows and children to battle alone, we should be grateful to the extent of at least keeping the money value of their pensions equitable with that of 10 years ago.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The best memorial to the dead is to do something for the living.

Senator POYSER:

– That is absolutely right. If we do not believe that this country is grateful enough to meet the obligations that it accepted, no longer have we the right to sit in these chambers and make judgment as we do. I hope that the amendment will be carried and that this will be a clear indication to the Government that no longer are we prepared to sit by and allow the erosion of the social welfare benefits and the pension rates of exservicemen and seamen continue to the extent that they will be completely worthless within the next 10 or 15 years.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is there a seconder to the amendment of Senator Poyser?

Senator Gietzelt:

– 1 second the amendment.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) on the increases proposed in the Repatriation Bill (No. 2). I believe that this Government has had a very fine record since 1949 in its care of exservicemen. Ministers for Repatriation, including Sir Walter Cooper, who was the Minister for Repatriation in 1949, have done a fine job. Under each of these Ministers the system has been reviewed and continually improved. Of course, in a field such as this everyone cannot be satisfied. We have received complaints from certain people that the benefits are not sufficient. We have received complaints that some who are not eligible should be eligible for repatriation benefits. Also we have had complaints from those who are not eligible because they have not served in a theatre of war that we are a little too free and easy with the taxpayers’ money. So we cannot win all the time. But I think in the main that it will be found that the record of this Government in the field of repatriation has been a very fine one.

The Opposition, of course, tries to make political propaganda out of pensions, whether they be war service pensions, age pensions or widow pensions. The Opposition is always free to spend the taxpayers’ money and hand it around like a man with no arms.

Senator Gair:

– You are spending a bit of it on wool at the moment.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– That is something which is a national asset and which has brought untold millions of dollars into this country over the years and has contributed to its prosperity. Wool is a national asset.

Senator Poyser:

– Are ex-servicemen worth nothing?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– There are lots of ex-servicemen on this side of the chamber, and elsewhere. I believe that we have given to the ex-servicemen a fair share of the nation’s wealth. It is all very well to compare their rates of benefit with the minimum wage. No consideration is given to the extra responsibilities that apply to those who are working. They have to meet transport costs to and from work every day, to which the recipient of a full pension is not committed. In the case of a TPI pensioner, as Senator Poyser well knows, the pension is not subject to taxation. If we take the amount of the TPI pension together with all the fringe benefits and then deduct taxation, we find that rather than receiving less than the minimum wage in each of the States the recipient of the TPI pension is receiving quite en amount more.

Senator Poyser:

– That is not so.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– If you include all the associated fringe benefits you will find that that is so. A lot of recipients of repatriation benefits are entitled to other benefits such as social service benefits. This Budget has provided S380m for repatriation alone. In a nation of this size this is quite a considerable amount. As the prosperity of the nation increases, and having in mind the inroads of inflation, we must continually look at the interests of people in receipt of repatriation benefits. The Government has set up a commission which has been asked for by the Returned Services League to inquire into all aspects of the repatriation system.

Senator Poyser:

– It has not even appointed the Commission’s chairman yet. What are you talking about?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I said that the Government has agreed to set up a commission. Whether the chairman has been appointed or not does not matter. The fact is that the Government has agreed to this commission and that is the important part.

Senator Poyser:

– We have had this proposal for 2 years and the Government has not appointed a chairman.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– The fact is that the Government has agreed to look into all aspects of the repatriation system in the way requested by the Returned Servicemens League and has not accepted the suggestion by the Australian Labor Party that the matter should be investigated by either a Senate select committee or a committee of both Houses. I feel that this Government can be proud of its operations in the field of repatriation. It has nothing to be ashamed of. The Opposition has not put forward any suggestion other than that money should be spent here, there and everywhere, not only on repatriation but on everything else that it would be prepared to spend money on. There would be very little left for the taxpayer to take home and there would be very little prosperity in this nation if all the money that the Opposition suggests should be spent was spent. In the whole field of repatriation the Government has done a good job and will continue to do a good job. I reject the Opposition’s amendment. I compliment the Minister and support the Bill.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I second the amendment moved by Senator Poyser not only because it seeks to condemn the Government for its parsimonious attitude in respect of war compensation but also because it is in line with the decision made in this place today with respect to social service benefits generally. 1 recall that in the early 1950s, when 1 was campaign director for Mr Whitlam and he succeeded in gaining entry into the national Parliament, the Returned Services League submitted a 9-point pension plan to all candidates in that election seeking their support for policies for which the RSL is still pressing some 20 years later. Of course it is not just the attitude of the Opposition that we are discussing, as Senator Maunsell would have us believe: it is the attitude of the principal ex-servicemen’s organisation in Australia, the Returned Services League. We find on this side of the House complete unity of views and attitudes as we seek to condemn the Government for its inadequate repatriation benefits. Sir Arthur Lee is the National President of that organisation, which is probably the largest single organisation in Australia. I think the Senate should be aware of what he had to say on 8th April 1970 when he was referring to representations that his organisation was making 15 or 16 months ago. He said, as we have stated tonight in the debate, that in spite of increases in the past 2 Budgets there had been a general erosion of compensation payments for incapacitated servicemen for the past 20 years. I think it would be agreed that Sir Arthur Lee could not be described as a radical, but he has seen fit to refer to the fact that it is in the period of life of this Government, the last 20 years, that there has been an erosion or a devaluation of the pension entitlements of ex-servicemen and women.

I think the House should be reminded that in the flush of victory after World War I the community and the Parliament were prone to look at the question of pension entitlements in a very benevolent way. In 1920, for- instance, when the basic wage was £3 lis the war pension was £4, which of course was 9s more than the basic amount most people in that era received in return for their weekly activities. Over the years that have followed the ex-serviceman has in one way or another retained certain parity with the basic wage. But by 1956, when the basic wage was £12 6s the war pension was £9 15s. At that point in history the war pension was 51s under, the basic wage. Whilst I concede that there has been some slight improvement in general pension rates, nevertheless it would now require an increase ot something like 37.40 to bring the war pension rate up to the average basic wage. So I do not think Senator Maunsell can substantiate the optimism and enthusiasm that he has displayed in respect of the rates of pension which are applied in one way or another to those entitled to them.

It is true that the rate for the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner has been increased in this Budget by $3.50 to $42.50. I put it to the Senate- and I recall what was said in an earlier debate today - that it is very difficult to get a comparative rate. We might relate the pension to the basic wage; we might relate it to average weekly earnings. It is expected that average weekly earnings for 1971-72 will be $95.80. On a relative basis the TPI pension of $42.50 which is provided for in this Budget represents only 44.4 per cent of the rate that was paid a decade ago in 1961-62. I think it is proper to compare the rates and to show that, as Senator Poyser has said, there has been a steady erosion in the base pension rate.

We can relate the repatriation pension to the parliamentary pension. In 1950, for instance, when the parliamentary rate of pay for members of the 2 Houses was $3,000, their pension rate was $1.6 a week. I think a simple arithmetical calculation would show that the pension rate for members of Parliament has gone considerably beyond the $50 a week which it would approximate today if it had risen in proportion to rises in parliamentary salaries. So the legislation certainly has had something to say about the erosion of pension rates for parliamentarians. That cannot be said of pensions payable to exservicemen and women.

I think we must look at not only the pension rates but also the manner in which the Repatriation Commission carries out its responsibilities. It might be recalled that in 1946, following the establishment of an all-party committee by the Chifley Government, the Government agreed to amend the Repatriation Act to provide that the onus of proof shall rest with the Commission and not with the ex-serviceman or woman. Now, 25 years later, we can show that the Commission is still adopting a dog in the manger attitude in the application of the onus of proof provision. In this respect

I refer honourable senators to reports of sub-branches of the Returned Services League and articles appearing in the League’s journals. Honourable senators and members of the other place are constantly taking up cases on behalf of ex-servicemen and ex-service women to whom the Commission has refused repatriation entitlements. 1 find it difficult to understand the logic of Senator Maunsell. I draw his attention to the fifty-fifth annual report of the Executive of the RSL which states that of 81,000 applications received by the tribunals from World War 1 veterans as at 31st December 1970 only 38,000 were allowed and 43,000 were rejected. I think those figures illustrate that the Government cannot claim truly to be benevolent or to have influenced the Repatriation Commission to be more lenient, despite any impartiality it has shown in the appointment of certain representatives. It cannot properly claim that the Repatriation Commission is interpreting the onus of proof provision as was laid down by this Parliament in 1946 and as ex-servicemen believe it should operate.

Any ex-serviceman from World War I would now be about 75 years of age. One would therefore expect the Government to adopt a much more benevolent attitude to applications for pensions from World War I ex-servicemen. About 236 veterans of the Boer War who are still living have not received full repatriation entitlements for medical treatment and hospitalisation. It is clear that the Government is being parsimonious and short sighted in not agreeing to accept the modest requests of ex-service organisations which have been endorsed by members of the Opposition both here and in the other place. A vast improvement is needed in the attitude adopted to applications for repatriation entitlements lodged by the remaining few ex-servicemen and women of the Boer War and World War I.

The Budget does not provide for an increase in the 100 per cent pension, although some years ago it was increased from SI 1.50 to SI 2. During a debate in the other place on legislation to increase the prescription rate for pharmaceutical benefits from 50c to Si, the Minister concerned indicated that it was hard to argue against such an increase. The Government has not adopted the same attitude towards repatriation benefits. The Returned Services

League has requested an increase in the special compensation allowance but this has also been refused in the current Budget. The League also asked for a 50 per cent increase in the funeral grant. Can any honourable senator imagine a funeral today costing $50? The situation is comparable to child endowment paid for the first child. Child endowment for the first child and the funeral grant are about the only 2 social service benefits that have not been raised in the last 22 years. Whilst there has been a slight movement in some pension rates the Government has failed to take into consideration the full effects of inflation. Ex-servicemen of the Boer War, World War I, World War II and subsequent wars are in no way responsible for the inflationary period we arc experiencing. The present rates of pension show very clearly how ex-servicemen are at a complete disadvantage at a time of rapidly increasing inflation. I have already indicated that the pension for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen has dropped to about 44 per cent of average weekly earnings. The 100 per cent general rate pension is equal to only about 12.5 per cent of average weekly earnings, as it was 10 years ago.

When Mr Holten, the Minister for Repatriation, was addressing the RSL last year he pointed out that to meet its repatriation demands would cost the Government an extra $100m. He considered that to be an extortionate claim and beyond the financial resources of the Government. Before Mr Gorton was removed from office as Minister for Defence this year he was able to convince the Cabinet to increase defence expenditure by about $120m. It seems he was much more persuasive than the Minister for Repatriation who was able to obtain only an additional $41m to maintain something like parity between pensions and the rising cost of living brought about by the inflationary spiral. At the time when the Minister for Repatriation said that he could not justify a request to Cabinet for an extra $100m for ex-servicemen and ex-service women the income of the Government was rising. According to estimates put before us during the debate on the Budget the Government’s income this year will rise by about 9 per cent over last year’s income, but the appropriation for the Repatriation Department has been increased by only 7.2 per cent. To meet the requirements of exservicemen as estimated by the RSL would require the Government to provide an additional increase of only 0.8 per cent for repatriation purposes. I therefore do not think it can be fairly argued that the Opposition in moving its proposed amendment has not had regard to its responsibilities and the state of the economy.

In 1961 average weekly earnings were $47.60. Today they have increased by almost 100 per cent. If the TPI pension was similarly increased it would be $33 a week, whereas in this Budget it is being increased to $42.50. Clearly the Opposition is justified in expecting the support of the Senate for the amendment put forward so ably by Senator Poyser. Senator Maunsell referred to prosperity and said that the Government had been generous to exservicemen and ex-servicewomen. According to a paper on productivity delivered at a seminar in Sydney yesterday - and I have no reason to doubt its accuracy - productivity per employee in the last 20 years has increased by more than 50 per cent. In these circumstances the Opposition is entitled to take the view that pension rates should be increased commensurately and to stress how pensions are lagging behind the cost of living. That is precisely what if is doing.

This is why we ask the Senate to condemn the Government. The Government has failed to restore the relative value of repatriation pensions on every front. No matter what comparative figures can be produced - whether they be for the basic wage, the average weekly earnings or in respect of parliamentary pensions - we can see that the ex-serviceman is at a decided disadvantage. Even if the Government wished to take a strong stand as far as the majority of pensioners are concerned, I do not think it could justify its attitude to those ex-service pensioners who served in the Boer War 70 years ago and who served in the 1914-1918 War some 55 or 56 years ago. Surely the Government can look at this situation and re-examine the provisions of the Budget relating to exservice pensions. We urge the Senate to give serious consideration to adopting the same progressive attitude on the matter of repatriation benefits as it has adopted in respect of social services.

Senator GAIR:
Queensland

– I desire to commend the Government for the improvements in repatriation pensions that have been provided for in this Bill. On the other hand, I deplore the failure of the Government to maintain something like a relative value in pensions in other classes of repatriation. Particularly am I concerned with the failure of the Government to increase the allowances for children. The Government has failed to do so for a long time - I think, as Senator Poyser said, since approximately 1954.

Senator Poyser:

– 1952.

Senator GAIR:

– I cannot understand this failure. I sometimes wonder whether the Government is conscious of the necessity to provide for the children of repatriation pension recipients. Is it a part of the modern thinking that we have exceeded our population target and that we should ignore the value of our children to the community? Is it a part of modern thinking that the Government should neglect to provide for the children of . repatriation pensioners or the war widows? I would hate to think that that was the state of mind of any government. Why in the name of goodness would the Government neglect to increase the allowances for children who are the dependants of an exserviceman receiving a repatriation pension?

This problem seems to exist in many fields. After advocating action for a long time, the Australian Democratic Labor Party succeeded in getting the Government to give consideration to child endowment. 1 claim for my Party credit for having influenced the Government to alter the flat rate system of child endowment payments and for granting an increased rate of payment in respect of all children in each family after the second child in order to assist big families to get by. Honourable senators have heard me speak on this subject frequently. Today a single man, according to industrial awards, receives as much as a married man who is required to maintain a wife and family. With equal pay for the sexes - I am not growling about that at all - an unmarried woman without chick or child to maintain will receive the same income as a male, if she is doing the same work as that male; yet that male may be married and have a family to support. I think that it is a very bad thing for a country like ours to overlook the necessity for making adequate provision for the children of any family. 1 deplore the fact that many categories of repatriation pensions have not been increased to something approximating their relative value with respect to present day wages. Again I ask, as I asked with respect to the Social Services Bill: Are these people to be the only people who bear the burden of inflation? The cost of everything has gone up for them at the same rate as it has risen for you, Mr President, and for me. The prices of most items - whether they be bread, butter, eggs or any other essential item - have risen. Yet we expect these people to continue to maintain themselves at a reasonable standard of living on an inadequate allowance.

What concerns me frequently is the apparent injustice in the administration of the Repatriation Department. I am not sitting in judgment on the administration so much as I am on the tribunals that are set up to deal with specific cases. 1 recall a case that I handled a few years ago of a man who, as long as I have known him, has been most industrious and hard working. He came to see me at my home. He complained that he had been suffering for some considerable time with a severe backache. He was unable, he said, to do the work that he had been accustomed to doing. He attributed this to an accident that had taken place when he was driving a truck with military personnel aboard. In that accident the truck capsized. He hurt his back and he was out of action for some short period. He attributed his present problem to an injury he sustained during the period when he was in the Army.

He went to the Repatriation Department. The Department asked, very reasonably I would believe, for him to support his claim with some evidence from those who were at the scene of the accident at the time. At great cost to himself he discovered the addresses of those with whom he was in the Army. Some were in Western Australia, some in Victoria and others elsewhere. This took a great deal of time. Speaking from memory, I believe that he obtained about 10 letters from these men.

They provided affidavits to the effect that they were in his company at the time of the accident. They explained exactly what happened and the injury that he suffered. He went before a tribunal which rejected his claim because of insufficient evidence to support it.

The Commission, as it normally does, said: ‘If you can produce some additional evidence we will arrange for you to go before another tribunal.’ The fellow was exasperated, just as I would have been in those circumstances. For about 12 months he had been trying to gather evidence and he had submitted it to the Commission. He asked: ‘Where in the deuce am I now going to find additional evidence? I made inquiries and ascertained the name of the doctor who had treated me at the time, but he was deceased. Where can I go for additional evidence?’ His application was rejected.

I know of another case involving a fellow whom I have known almost all my life. He is a big physically well built man who has been suffering from a lung condition. His breathing was poor, and even when sitting at a table he was gasping for breath. He had been to the Repatriation Department but could not get satisfaction, so he came to me believing that I might be able to help him. He had been before a repatriation tribunal, some members of which were medical mcn who were young in years and had had no Army experience. When he told them that he had been examined and X-rayed and found to have a lung condition they said: ‘That is so much rot. They would not have had that equipment at that place at that time. We cannot accept that as evidence.’ When he came back and told me of this I said that the only thing he could do was to find out who had examined him originally.

He told me that he had been examined by a doctor who is now Sir Kenneth Fraser, who at that time had been in charge of the medical corps. I said: ‘It would not be difficult to get in touch with him as he is on Wickham Terrace. Go and see him and get a letter to say that they did have the equipment in that sector at that time.’ I then asked the name of the doctor who had attended him and he told me his name. I said: ‘You would have no difficulty in finding out where he is, if he fs still alive and still in Australia. We will find out for you’. We learnt that the doctor was practising in Melbourne. So this man wrote to the doctor who said that he remembered him clearly and gave him a certificate to that effect. But it was of no avail; his claim was still rejected because of a lack of evidence that his condition was due to war service.

Those things concern me particularly because I know retired business executives and public servants who are in a high income bracket and with whom I had played golf occasionally, and who are in good condition but who receive a TPI pension.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Can they break 90 around the course?

Senator GAIR:

– They are better than I am because they have more leisure and more opportunity to practise. What is the explanation for the discrepancy to which I have referred? There must be some explanation for it. These men are apparently in good health and good condition and are able to play rounds of golf. They have no apparent disability, although they could suffer from some condition of which I am not aware. I am not a medical man and so I do not know. They could be seriously ill in some way. The fact remains that compared with those people one sees some poor emanciated burnt out digger whose condition is obviously due in the main to war service. I am not talking of the fellow who burns himself out, as unfortunately some do. Not only ex-servicemen but also others neglect themselves and wear themselves out in other ways. I am speaking of responsible fellows who are sick and crippled but who receive little or no consideration. Compare their situation with that of some people who receive a TPI pension.

I have heard it said cynically - I do not want to be associated with it because I am not in a position to confirm the correctness of it - that most ex-servicemen who are employed in the Repatriation Department receive a TPI pension on retirement. I would hate to believe that that was true, unless there were genuine and real reasons for their receiving that pension. The fact that they are employed in the Repatriation Department is no particular reason for their having an advantage over anyone else. Is it any wonder that some people believe the contents of the doctor’s book

Be in it Mate’ and accept that it is an accurate account of a doctor’s experience with repatriation cases? I would hate to think that the account in that book is true.

I know that in every organisation or system employing humans there will be defects and there will be deficiencies, irrespective of how conscientious one might be in trying to administer the organisation, but it is very puzzling when one hears of a case where a man is obviously deserving of some aid but is not able to receive any consideration and is rejected by the tribunals, whereas other people who are able to get about and to take an active part in life and who are already in receipt of a good superannuation or retiring allowance still receive a TPI pension. Those things puzzle me, and they puzzle others also. Having had responsibility for many years I am always slow to be critical of the administration of a department because it has been my experience that the average public servant is a civil, courteous and solicitous person, particularly in departments such as the Repatriation Department and the Department of Social Services where they are required to take care of the less fortunate people in our community. Although that is my experience and my belief, somewhere in the machinery or the administration there must be some weakness if what I have said and what my observations lead me to believe is correct.

People have said to me: ‘Wouldn’t you think the Repatriation Department could help that fellow? He is obviously suffering as a result of war, if not actually from war injuries. He suffers from war experience and has a neurosis or nervous condition.’ Some people would frequently say in response to that: ‘He would be in that condition anyway. If he had not been to the war, he would have deteriorated to that extent.’ I suppose that to some extent that statement could apply to conditions such as heart conditions which are not necessarily due to war causes. A lot of people who have never been to war - people with responsible positions and people who suffer from tension - are toppling over every day from heart disease. I believe that heart disease is among the top killers in Australia.

Another condition that is hard to detect is a back complaint. I administered the portfolio which decided workers compensation claims. The most difficult claims to disprove were those of people who suffered from back complaints. It was very hard to determine whether they were genuine. 1 think I might have told this story before, but I hope that I will be forgiven for telling it again. A man working on the wharf had a slight injury to his hand. He went on workers compensation and was on it for a year or more. He had an hallucination that his hand was withering. He believed that it was. No-one else could see the difference between his hands. He claimed that there was no feeling in his hand. Doctors would stick needles of all kinds in his hand and there were no reactions. Nevertheless they were doubtful and suspicious of him. At my request, they sent htm to referees who found that there was nothing wrong with his hand. He was on workers compensation. It was decided to tail him, to use the expression. When he left the office one afternoon he walked down the street. In those days Brisbane had trams, lt was in peak hours. He jumped on a tram. He grabbed a stanchion of the tram with the hand that was supposed to be defective and had no feeling in it. He swung himself on to the tram like a 12-year old. That was the end of his compensation claim.

From experience I know that governments have to contend with these things. Nevertheless 1 feel that many deserving cases are getting a poor deal while a lot of people on TPI pensions and 100 per cent pensions are doing well in professions and in retirement. That is a phase of repatriation that worries me. I may be wrong, but I believe that there has been an apparent injustice done or that there has been a neglect to dispense justice to deserving individuals while less deserving individuals seem to get more than they should. I do not know what the remedy is. I only hope that the Government will try to adjust the pensions already granted and lift those pensions to something like past relative values. Apparently the Government is doing that in piecemeal fashion. I mention now the funeral benefit. Everybody knows how costly a funeral is today. Funeral costs are very high. That benefit could be increased. I do noi think anyone would be greatly disturbed by the amount involved. For those reasons my colleagues and I propose to support the amendment. We condemn the Government because it has failed to restore the relative values of repatriation pensions.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– in reply - I thank the Senate for the attention that it has given the Bill. I thank those honourable senators who have contributed to the debate on the Bill. The Bill proposes to provide increases in the rates of certain pensions and allowances and to make an appropriation from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of making certain payments resulting from the increases. To the motion that the Bill be now read a second time the Opposition has moved an amendment which seeks to add the following words: but the Senate condemns the Government because it has failed to restore the relative values of repatriation pensions.

In opening the debate for the Opposition, Senator Poyser said that in his opinion and in the opinion of the Opposition pension increases have lagged behind wage increases and price increases. He also said that in his view there was no value in many of the pensions paid today. I refute those suggestions made by the honourable senator and I will deal with them presently. I support my colleague, Senator Maunsell, by saying that I believe that the present provisions and allowances provided by the Repatriation Act are at least the equal of any repatriation benefits paid throughout the world. Senator Poyser shakes his head. Some countries might pay benefits that go a little further.

Senator Poyser:

– Far further.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– In some cases far further. Taking the pensions and allowances payable over the very wide field that the Act encompasses, I believe that Australia’s repatriation benefits are second to none. I think that in looking at the situation one has to remember that the resources available for war compensation purposes are directed according to the priority based on the extent of war related disablement or loss. Bearing that in mind, one has to look at the pensions and remember that they are not taxable. Together with the fringe benefits that go with the pensions, the money that the pensioner receives is a quite considerable sum.

Senator Poyser opened the debate by referring to the minimum wage in each State. He said that in New South Wales the minimum wage was $47.10 a week, in Victoria it was $46.30 a week, in Queensland it was $44.60 a week, in South Australia it was $45.90 a week, in Western Australia it was $46.40 i week and in Tasmania it was $47 a week. The Repatriation Department accepts the Western Australian rate of $46.40 a week as the average rate throughout the States. When one looks at the total and permanent incapacity and war widows pensions and allowances one finds that the movement in those pensions and allowances compares more than favourably with the movement in the minimum wage and in the consumer price index. I give the Senate some figures on this. If one goes back not 10 years, as Senator Poyser wanted, but back to 1950 and if one looks at the consumer price index and at percentage increases one finds that since June 1950 the consumer price index has risen by 138 per cent. The minimum wage has risen by 244 per cent since June 1950. Let us compare those increases with the increase in the war widow’s pension and domestic allowance, taken together, of 274 per cent since June 1950. That is a great deal higher than the 138 per cent or the 244 per cent. The increase for the widow with 2 children, who receives the pension, the domestic allowance and the children’s allowances, has been 303 per cent since June 1950. The TPI pension has been increased by 301 per cent since June 1950.

But do not let us go back only to that stage. Let us look at the percentage increases over the last 3 years. In that period the consumer price index has risen by 12 per cent whilst the minimum wage has risen by 24 per cent. For the war widow who receives her pension and the domestic allowance the increase has been 20 per cent. For the war widow with 2 children, who receives her pension, the domestic allowance and the children’s allowances, the increase has been 28 per cent. For the TPI pensioner the increase has been not 12 per cent as in the case of the consumer price index, or 24 per cent as in the case of the minimum wage, but 27 per cent.

So the figures that the honourable senator was using do not bear out the point he was making in relation to the percentage rise in the consumer price index or the minimum wage. He then shifted his argument to a comparison with the average weekly wage.

Senator Poyser:

– With average weekly earnings.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– All right, average weekly earnings; I stand corrected. He said that in 1961 the TPI rate represented 55.7 per cent of average weekly earnings and that now it represents only 44.4 per cent. He then went on to use a figure of $93.10 for average weekly earnings; but that is the highest State figure.

Senator Poyser:

– My percentages are based on the average.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No. Average weekly earnings at 30th June this year were $89.70. That is vastly different from the figure the honourable senator used.

Senator Poyser:

– My percentages are based on average weekly earnings.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The honourable senator used the New South Wales figure.

Senator Poyser:

– No, I used average weekly earnings. 1 suggest that you read the Hansard report of my speech tomorrow.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– As I heard the honourable senator, he used the New South Wales figure of $93.10, whereas the information I have is that at 30th June this year average weekly earnings were $89.70. If I am right in my calculations, that means that a single TPI pensioner receives 56.26 per cent of the average take-home pay, whilst the married man with no children receives 62.18 per cent of the average take-home pay. The Budgets for the period of 3 years from 1968-69 to 1971-72 have provided for an increase of $9 in the special rate or TPI pension.

Senator Keeffe:

– And you want a $3,000 increase in parliamentary salaries.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The honourable senator, in his interjection, is talking about something that has nothing to do with this Bill. That increase of $9 is considerable when we realise that an increase of $1 a week in the TPI pension means a total annual increase of $1,248,800. That is a considerable sum of money. The minimum wage, to which Senator Poyser referred, was increased by $4 a week in December 1970. Since then there has been an increase of $4.50 in the special rate or TPI pension. Surely that is something in the favour of the Government. The Government not only has maintained that relativity but has gone even further. The TPI pension of $42.50 is cash in the hand. To clear that amount a man would have to earn $48.30 before tax. Taking into consideration the fact that it costs the average man about $3 a week to travel to and from work, the amount becomes $51.30, which is $4.90 more than the minimum wage in Western Australia of $46.40. That is without the various fringe benefits. Although an amount in money terms cannot be put on the fringe benefits, 1 think all of us will agree that collectively they represent a considerable sum.

Senator Poyster talked about the war widow with children. The total pension and domestic allowance for the war widow without dependent children will have been increased by $4.25 in the 3-year period to which I have been referring; that is, from 1968-69 to 1971-72. For the war widow with 2 children under 16 years of age, the increase in pension domestic and children’s allowances over that same period will have been S8.60.

Senator Keeffe:

– How can you feed 2 children on that?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That is the increase. There are also other benefits that go with those pensions and allowances.

Senator Poyser:

– What about increasing the amounts for dependent wives and dependent children?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

- Senator, I did not interrupt you while you were making your speech.

Senator Keeffe:

– He made a good speech. You are making a shocking speech.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Someone has to judge that too. Limits are imposed in respect of the general rate pension according to the incapacity of the pensioner. These pensioners are able to engage in full time employment without it affecting their war pension. Senator Gair referred to some of these people when he made his remarks. Senator Poyser made a point about the adjustment in the average earnings level. I said that at June 1971 this amount was $89.71. I then pointed out to him the amount for tax and travelling costs that has to be deducted from those average weekly earnings. If one takes these things into consideration the amount that a single man would take home out of $89.70 would be in the vicinity of $67 a week. If he is married and has 2 children it would be in the vicinity of $71 a week. All these things have to be taken into consideration when somebody compares the pensions paid to these chaps with the average weekly earnings or the minimum wage and points out how far the pension is below those 2 figures.

I turn now to the onus of proof provision which was referred to also by Senator Poyser. I have heard him refer to this matter on many occasions. I recognise that he has a great interest in it and has done a lot of work in an effort to overcome the problems that he believes are related to it. 1 think it is fair to say that all determining authorities are aware of this section of the Repatriation Act and correctly apply the onus of proof provision and give the benefit of the doubt. The honourable senator said that this was not so and gave his reasons for his belief. But I would point out that 2 Attorneys-General have expressed the opinion in the past that any doubt must be in the mind of the determining authority and not that of the claimant, the appellant or any other persons, before the benefit is applied. I cannot argue about this; that is the policy adopted by the Department and it has the authority of 2 Attorneys-General for it. I have taken note of what the honourable senator said and will see that the matter is brought before the Minister of Repatriation (Mr Holten). I cannot add anything further on that aspect.

Senator Poyser, Senator Gair and, I think, Senator Gietzelt referred to the funeral benefit. The amount authorised by the legislation is not intended, and never was intended, to cover the full cost of a funeral. It is provided to assist in meeting the cost. Honourable senators know as well as I that the cost of funerals varies greatly depending upon the location and the type of funeral desired by relatives. I believe it would be impossible for the Department to fix a figure to cover every situation. Therefore the Department makes available a sum which it believes will assist relatives to meet the cost of funerals. All of us have to go the same way sometime and this is a burden we all have to bear. This is a difficulty which the Department has to face and I believe it overcomes it in the best way it can.

Senator Poyser mentioned a letter in regard to the chronically ill that he and other honourable senators had received from the War Widows Guild. I am advised that this is a general community problem. War widows do receive inpatient treatment during the acute or sub-acute stage of a chronic illness and all forms of outpatient treatment, including limited domiciliary nursing, are provided. Extension of these benefits involves a matter of priority over benefits in the form of war compensation. The Government recognises the problem brought forward by the honourable senator and he can be assured that it will be kept under review all the time. However it is a matter of priority in relation to benefits by way of war compensation.

Senator Gair mentioned difficulties that he faces in respect of certain cases brought to him. I think most honourable senators have experienced the situation about which Senator Gair spoke. It is not a common everyday occurrence. It does not arise in large numbers. It is one of the difficult cases. It was brought to his attention because it was difficult. All I can say is that I shall bring what he said to the notice of the Minister. An investigation is to be carried out into the Repatriation Act and the benefits under it and I am quite sure that this matter will be brought before those carrying out the investigation by some of the people whom it deeply concerns. No doubt some of the members of this Federal Parliament will have the opportunity of going before that investigating committee and of telling their experiences. I believe that all this will be of value to the investigation.

Senator Brown:

– Has the Government appointed the chairman and the committee?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No, we hope that an announcement will be made shortly. The Government has announced its intention to go ahead with this committee. These are the sorts of things which I believe the honourable senator should bring before that committee. He should make a point of doing so. Mr President, the Government cannot support the amendment moved by Senator Poyser. We support the motion for the second reading of this Bill.

Question put:

Thatthe words proposed to be added (Senator Poyser’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Magnus Cormack)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 927

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL (No. 2) 1971

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 14 September (vide page 683), on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the. affirmative.

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

Senate adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 September 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710928_senate_27_s49/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant