Senate
26 September 1972

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1972

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1135

QUESTION

INCORPORATION OF MATTER IN HANSARD

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to refer to the discussion last Thursday evening on the authority of the Chair to examine matter when leave is sought to incorporate it in Hansard and to order its exclusion for any one of several reasons. The well established practice is that the President has final responsibility for the material that appears in the Hansard report of the Senate proceedings and for many years has exercised this authority to direct the Principal Parliamentary Reporter to expunge from the record objectionable matter, irregular questions and offensive remarks withdrawn at the direction of the Chair; or to exclude unread matter, graphs, tables, etc.. if the Government Printer advises that the incorporation of the material will present technical problems that wm be costly or will unduly delay the publication of Hansard. The President, of course, shall inform the Senate of his decision if it is made without its knowledge.

In exercise of that authority the Presiding Officer may, if he so wishes, examine any material for which leave to incorporate is sought or has been given. Similarly, as the inclusion of unread matter requires the leave of the whole Senate or Committee, 1 would uphold the right of any honourable senator to know exactly what is being incorporated. I point out that should any honourable senator disagree with the decision of the Presiding Officer to excise matter he has his remedy through the moving of a substantive motion. [ remind honourable senators that Tuesday, 12th September, from the Chair I ordered Hansard to take no notice of interjections during a division. A few minutes later I reaffirmed this direction to expunge the interjections from the record when a senator repeated one of them. The whole position is based on commonsense and good taste.

Finally, there is the technical consideration. The reporting department and the Government Printer are geared to report and publish expeditiously the spoken word. The incorporation of voluminous matter, complex tables and diagrams involving a photographic process would defeat the primary purpose of having a daily Hansard - that is, early publication and availability to senators and other recipients. I bear these considerations in mind and J feel sure that it will be agreed that there must be proper control over the incorporation in Hansard of unread matter. At the same time, 1 recognise that it is important that such control should be exercised in a way which avoids any undue interruption of a senators speech, cither from the Chair or from the floor. 1 think it is desirable that I should ask the Standing Orders Committee to examine the matter. In the meantime I ask all honourable senators, when seeking leave to incorporate matter in Hansard, to indicate to the Senate its length and the precise nature of the contents.

page 1135

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– by leave - I wish to inform the Senate that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) left Australia on Sunday, 24th September, to lead the Australian delegation to the 27th General Assembly of the United Nations in New York. He is expected to return to Australia on 3rd October 1972. During his absence, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs.

page 1135

QUESTION

BOMB OUTRAGES

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the AttorneyGeneral inform the Senate as far as he can just what has happened in relation to the sending of explosive material through the mails and what steps are being taken by the Commonwealth in order to prevent any deaths or injuries? Of course, I do not ask for the precise technical details. But could he tell us what steps are being taken to protect the public and to put an end to this outrageous invention?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– I think that al) honourable senators will accept that if persons overseas are proposing to send these explosives into Australia in the way in which they have been sent in recent times, the activities of the Australian authorities must be directed to the detection of them in Australia. I feel that we have to face up to the fact that there are people in the world who will use this device. I know that in the light of events which had been occurring overseas the Postmaster-General took certain steps last week. Possibly, following from those steps or possibly because of the alertness of the persons concerned, bombs were detected. There has been a surveillance arranged by the PostmasterGeneral which is designed to check what is coming in with a view to ensuring that as far as humanly possible these devices can be detected. It stands out that there are certain ready means which can be used with a view to checking. I think that probably the less publicity given to them the better. I will take up the points raised in the honourable senator’s question with the Postmaster-General. At a Press conference last night he indicated what had been done and what was being proposed to be done. If he feels that there can be any elaboration of what was then said and what I have said today, I am sure that he will supply it.

page 1136

QUESTION

KOALIN INDUSTRY

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport investigate and make a statement on the claim by representatives of the new SI. 2m koalin industry at North Ballarat, Victoria, that it will cost more to tranport the clay from Ballarat to Burnie. Tasmania, than it will cost to ship it to Burnie from England and that this will prevent the Australian industry from competing effectively with British companies? Is not this a case for action to assist decentralisation?

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

– I shall be very glad to take up this matter with the responsible Minister. I think that the point Senator McManus is making it quite clear. It is of interest to both Victoria and Tasmania and appropriate, I think, to be considered by the Minister for Shipping and Transport.

page 1136

QUESTION

STEEL CONTRACT

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. I refer to a decision by the Australian Gas Light Company to accept a Japanese tender of S54m for steel pipe. Is it a fact that the General Manager of AGL has stated that Tubemakers of Australia Ltd indicated in writing that it could not manufacture steel pipes of 36-inch diameter? Does Australia seek the liberalisation of trade with Japan to gain easier access to the Japanese market for Australian agricultural and other products? If so, is not it time that Australia adopted a consistent trade policy and practised what it preaches? Is it a fact that Australian iron ore and coal would provide most of the raw material for the manufacture of the steel pipes? Finally, can the Government clearly define the term ‘suitable and equivalent’?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think it will be appreciated that a great part of this question will need to go on notice in order to get specific answers to the matters raised. It is perfectly true that there is a substantial imbalance between Japanese and Australian trade and that Australia depends greatly on exporting a wide range of commodities to Japan. Similarly Japan depends on its capacity to manufacture and sell abroad. The Department of Trade and Industry is engaged in negotiations on this matter. As soon as I have something which I can usefully report to my honourable colleagues I shall do so.

page 1136

QUESTION

NATIONAL FITNESS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Health. By way of preface I point out that Australia’s successes at the Munich Olympic Games were registered in water sports, namely swimming and yachting. Has the Minister considered the reason for Australia’s failure in the other competitions, particularly the athletic events? Will the Minister request the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness to carry out an in depth study of the performance of Australia’s Olympic Games team along lines similar to the youth fitness survey and the ‘Fitness Australia’ campaign, the cost of which was met by generous public sponsorship?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The honourable senator’s interest in national fitness is recognised. I am sure that the Commonwealth Council for National Fitness and the Acting Minister for Health, as well as the Minister for Health, will do all they can to ensure the fitness of the nation. I do not believe it is fair to say that Australia’s athletes failed at the Olympic Games. After all., the persons who represented Australia in the track and field events were the best that Australia could provide. It is to their credit that they reached the standards they did, which enabled them to go to the Olympics representing, as they did, Australia but essentially competing in their own right. The fact that comparatively they did not do as well as our swimmers possibly indicates that we are better attuned to swimming events than we are to athletic events. But insofar as the honourable senator uses this as a basis for real concern, I am sure that the Minister will give attention to the matter.

page 1137

QUESTION

EGG PULP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that employees of the South Australian Egg Board were issued with an ultimatum by the Federated Storemen and Packers Union to join that organisation or it would, virtually within the hour, ban the South Australian stores from accepting any egg pulp from the Egg Board? ls the Minister also aware that the South Australian Egg Board produces approximately 1,800 28 lb tins of egg pulp a day? As this volume of egg pulp represents a big proportion of production which, if disrupted, could adversely affect poultry producers generally in South Australia, will the Minister say what steps can be taken to protect poultry farmers in South Australia from such militant action by a trade union?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– 1 do not know how many men from the South Australian Egg Board the union seeks to involve. What concerns me is the number of times I have been questioned in this place about government action, both Federal and State, in regard to surplus eggs. For the last 12 months there have been frequent meetings between the industry and State Ministers for Agriculture and between the State Ministers and the Federal Minister for Primary Industry in an endeavour to overcome this problem. In my State of Western Australia egg production is being reduced by about 25 per cent.

I understand that at the present time Australia depends quite heavily on the British market for the export of egg pulp. When Britain enters the European Economic Community it can be expected that we will see a drop in that demand. It is my understanding that at the present time we produce about 14,000 tons of egg pulp a year for the export market and 8,000 or 9,000 tons for the local market. At the present time we have a carry-over of something like 17,000 tons of egg pulp. This sort of action by this union does not do anything to help the cause of the egg industry.

page 1137

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I ask: Was the statement by Sir Reginald Ansett last Friday correct when he claimed that a factor in the purchase of additional 700 series Boeings by both Ansett Airlines of Australia and Trans-Australia Airlines would be for their operation between Australia and Papua New Guinea? As Qantas Airways Ltd will now operate this service after independence, what impact will this additional capacity have on Australia’s internal services and will it in fact mean an over-capacity for both of the internal operators? Did the Department of Civil Aviation enter into discussions at the same level with Ansett and TAA as it did with Qantas on proposals to operate the Papua New Guinea service after independence?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked a rather long question. I will seek to remember the elements of it as I go along. The Department of Civil Aviation does not give any priority to any particular arm of the air transport service; it treats them all equally. That may be assumed to have been the case in the past and to be the case at present. I hope that it will be always the case in the future. As far as the capacity of the Australian airline industry is concerned, the 700 series was designed to take its proper share of the load in the situation that will develop in the years that lie ahead. A part of it would be flying to and from Papua New Guinea.

If the honourable senator were to read carefully the statement which was issued by the Chief Minister of Papua New Guinea and myself, and which was later amplified on in this Parliament, he would find what is proposed for Papua New Guinea is a joining together for the service of the people of Papua New Guinea of the Ansett activities, the Australian National Airlines Commission activities and the Qantas activities. Therefore, there will be no more equipment required than what already exists. I think what can be assumed in this situation is that a sensible resolution of the equipment available will be made. That is what one would expect, lt is a matter for the future to determine. I do not want to prejudge the situation. I certainly do not intend to take sides between one operator and another.

page 1138

QUESTION

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry or the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I preface my question by adverting to the growing importance of Asian trade to Australia and the consequences of the emergence of the European Economic Community lo Australian and New Zealand trade. I ask the appropriate Minister: Are any steps being taken in discussions with New Zealand to extend the present New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement to the development of a customs union, which would result in a common external tariff policy for both dominions?

Senator COTTON:
LP

- Mr President, I think it is a proper question for me to answer. I am unable to reply directly to the general basis of the honourable senator’s question. I can say in the broad that NAFTA was designed to make available to both countries the market of both countries - in effect, to join together the populations of Australia and New Zealand and make a larger market. It was designed to exploit a common opportunity as between one country and another. It has been recognised also that in some ways the 2 countries are complementary. In some ways they both do the same things; so there are certain areas where it would be difficult for there to be multilateral exchange.

Therefore I think the prospect of a customs union was thought to be unlikely in the beginning. There are certain areas where one could harm the other. One could contemplate the situation where the free access of dairy products from New Zealand to Australia would not be likely to fill the hearts of Australian dairymen with much joy. Equally there are areas in New Zealand where full access by Australian manufacturers could destroy secondary industry in New Zealand. 1 think the idea of trying to get the processs of joining together as far along the road as possible is sensible, having regard to the availability of resources in both countries, the total market we have for export and the opportunities we have for co-operation with each other without harm to each other. 1 cannot go beyond that. I will seek further information for the honourable senator.

page 1138

QUESTION

BALL BEARINGS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question also is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. I note that the Department of Trade and Industry is aware of the significant problems confronting the United Bearing Corporation of Echuca, which supplies ball bearings to the Australian market and which is one of the few companies in Australia doing so. Is the Minister aware that this major decentralised factory is facing from overseas such drastic undercutting of prices for its production that a large scale reduction of production and employees is said to be imminent? Is he aware that this company is economic and efficient in its production to such an extent that certain manufactured items are sold today at a lesser price than that obtaining when the works were taken over from the Department of Supply many years ago? Does the Government consider that such an industry is essential to Australia? Will the Minister give immediate consideration to a review of the circumstances which promote the suggested reductions?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Those who were involved in the administration of thi1! country during the early years of the war were very conscious of the problem of Hall bearing manufacture. It was a significant problem in the United Kingdom. Ball bearing manufacture was given a high priority :n the Allied situation during the war. Therefore in government circles there was a consciousness - I can remember it quite well - that this was something that needed to be thought about and to be acted upon quite seriously. I am conscious of the fact that since the war the manufacture of ball bearings has been carried on by the company to which the honourable senator referred, and carried on very well both technically end from the point of view of price That is my understanding. Therefore, if the company is in some danger from overseas competition 1 should imagine that a case for a very quick examination in relation to dumping must exist. If the honourable senator has any material that would aid the Minister for Trade and Industry. I would like to have it as soon as I can.

page 1139

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. 1 refer to a statement made by Dr G. W. Miller, of the University of London Institute of Education, that Australian universities should review the practice of failing a certain percentage of students each year and that the Australian dropout rate was 21 times higher than that in Britain. Has the Minister seen the statement? Has the Department of Education and Science had any communication with the universities on this matter? ls the comparison with the British system a valid one? How does the Australian Government’s education programme provide for maximum development at the tertiary level?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– If I were to respond to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, I am afraid that I would be heard with some impatience. I have only a general recollection of the statement that he attributes to the English authority. I remember seeing it or hearing it. I commented last week on the rate of university intake in Australia. My recollection is that the intake of graduates has multiplied by 2 or 21 times over the last 6 or 7 years. As to the explanation for the failure rate of undergraduates, I refer the honourable senator to the discussion on that matter in the report of the Australian Universities Commission. If, when 1 see the question in print, I think there is anything further that needs to be answered, I shall ask the Department of Education and Science to prepare a supplementary answer.

page 1139

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Army a question. In view of the many reports indicating that a number of attempted suicides are occurring among ne*’ national servicemen and the fears held that lads may be driven to such attempts by harsh camp and training routine, will the Minister make an immediate and thorough independent investigation into the many allegations of bad camp treatment and take remedial action where required? To prevent further attempted suicides, will the Minister defer any further intake of national servicemen until an inquiry has been held and remedial action, if it is necessary, has been taken?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– This is an extraordinary question, particularly as it comes from the honourable senator. He took the opportunity on Thursday night of speaking in the adjournment debate to make certain allegations about attempted suicides by some national servicemen.

Senator Jessop:

– They were refuted.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

- His allegations were refuted. At that time I told the honourable senator that my view was different from the one he had expressed but that I would take the matter up with the Minister for the Army and obtain further information. 1 understand that because of what Senator Cavanagh said on Thursday night the Minister is making further investigations and hopes to have information in his hands, possibly this afternoon. I should have thought that having made his remarks on Thursday night the honourable senator would have waited until the Minister had made some investigations. As to the general tenor of the honourable senator’s question, I should think that if he had visited Puckapunyal or Kapooka and had seen the way that the boys are treated he would not have made these allegations.

page 1139

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Have 200,000 aliens failed to register with the Department of Immigration as they are required to do every September under the Aliens Act? Have any prosecutions been launched arising from their failure to register?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to answer the question from my own knowledge so I suggest that it be put on the notice paper. I shall arrange for an answer to be supplied.

page 1140

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HEALTH

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– My question is to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Health. A national seminar on Aboriginal health services held in May this year made many recommendations. Four months later I ask the Minister: Which of these recommendations have been implemented. As the Minister is sure to ask for further information, will he ask the Acting Minister for Health to issue a White Paper or statement of the Government’s proposals so that those who are interested in the subject may be informed?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– T listened to the honourable senator’s question and it appears to follow on from a recent leading article in the journal of the Australian Medical Association. The seminar to which the honourable senator refers was held in May this year and the recommendations from the seminar have now been received and are at present in the course of being studied. T have been informed by the Acting Minister for Health that he fully recognises the problem of ill health and high infant mortality in the Aboriginal population and that at every level activity in tackling this problem is being stepped up. These measures include health education, immunisation and other preventive programmes, improved hospital and allied facilities, and consultation with other authorities concerned. In addition to those the report of the board of inquiry into the health services of the Northern Territory has been submitted to the Administrator of the Territory. After consideration by the Legislative Council of that Terrtiory its findings will be studied carefully by the Department of Health.

page 1140

QUESTION

RUSSIAN SECRET POLICE

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– Has the AttorneyGeneral’s attention been drawn to front page reports in the Melbourne ‘Sunday Observer’ that the KGB - the Russian secret police - is operating in Australia, possibly in terrorist activities against Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav secret police? As this report follows on last week’s ‘Daily Telegraph’ report on the activities of the Yugoslav secret police in Australia I ask the Minister whether he, without breaching security, can amplify this report.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have seen the report in the ‘Sunday Observer’ to which the honourable senator referred. I also saw an earlier report in another newspaper with regard to the alleged activities of Yugoslav secret police. I formed the conclusion, possibly rather generalised, that with regard to the recent activities there is almost a different theory with every journalist who puts pen to paper to write an article for publication.

These allegations have a most serious overtone. They are essentially assertions, as I read the material which is contained in the newspapers. Certain statements, insofar as the allegations are concerned, are alleged to have been made to me by senior officials. Those statements, I must say, do not have a basis in fact. Nevertheless, these allegations and assertions are persistent in a number of quarters. I do not believe that I should say anything more than that the allegations have been made, and that they are under examination as all allegations of this character are under examination. In those circumstances, the matter will be pursued without further elaboration by me.

page 1140

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PRESS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I refer the Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate to an answer by the Attorney-General to a question iD which he criticised the Press of prejudiced, slanted and selective reporting and of being answerable to no-one. Will he ask the Prime Minister to assure Australians that these illiberal statements do not express Government policy? Is he aware, as the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ has clearly stated, that this reassurance is needed and will be expected?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The honourable senator asks me whether I remember a question to which Senator Greenwood gave an answer last week. If I recall, Senator Greenwood answered about 70 questions in 2 days-

Senator Georges:

– I referred to the question. I told you what he said.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Let me do a bit of homework on the question and I will give the honourable senator an answer.

page 1141

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, ls the Minister aware that a significant number of employers in New South Wales have stated that they are experiencing great difficulty in recruiting labour, both male and female, skilled and unskilled, in both city and country areas? Is the Minister also aware that would-be employers in rural districts have approached persons registered for employment, only to find that the persons concerned have already secured employment? Is it possible that the figure of registered unemployed persons for August in New South Wales of 33,634, or 1.61 per cent of the work force is in fact considerably larger than the true number of persons actually unemployed?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Statements have been made commenting on the various aspects of unemployment. Mr Darling, for instance, made observations based on the experience of employers in Sydney. It is undoubtedly true that many employers are finding it difficult to obtain labour of the particular kind and in the particular area which they are seeking, despite the number of persons unemployed. Official figures of the Department of Labour and National Service indicated that at the end of August there were 28,000 unfilled vacancies. In this month vacancies were notified at a weekly rate of more than 14,000, which compares with the rate of less than 13,000 for the same time a year earlier. The trend in vacancies has been firm in recent months. I will need to check with the Department before giving a reliable answer to that aspect of the question referring to rural employment.

page 1141

QUESTION

ALIENS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA

Senator WILLESEE:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he has any knowledge of u substantia] number of aliens failing to register in Australia. Does the AttorneyGeneral not think that this is hampering the police in the investigation of the recent bomb outrage?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have no knowledge of aliens declining to register. As to whether it is a fact that a number of aliens have declined to register and whether that is impeding certain police investigations, I will have to make inquiries.

page 1141

QUESTION

WATER RESOURCES

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In view of South Australia’s great dependence on the River Murray for its water supply, can the Minister inform me whether the Australian Water Resources Council and/or the River Murray Commission are pursuing investigations into the provision in South Australia of a major storage of the Chowilla type to ensure to that State the full benefits derivable from the Dartmouth project? If such investigations are not being made currently, will the Minister ask the Minister for National Development to have an inquiry instituted immediately as a matter of urgency for South Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As I have said on many occasions, 1 understand and acknowledge the great importance of the River Murray to South Australia. Accordingly. I shall take that question cm ite seriously to the responsible Minister.

page 1141

QUESTION

EXPLOSIVES

Senator NEGUS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General because I spoke to him recently and I believe that he may be able to answer the question. Does the Minister know that quantities of gelignite, fuse and caps and probably most other types of explosives are easily obtainable without permits practically anywhere in Australia? ls he aware that identification of a purchaser is not necessary? Does he recognise, in view of the recent bomb incidents, that immediate and urgent action should be taken by the Government to correct this situation? Will the Minister advise the Senate whether the Government is taking or intends to take action to introduce rectifying laws in connection with these matters? If not, will he request the Government to do so immediately before any further bomb explosions occur? Will action be taken to require persons to declare all explosives held by them at present? Further, if this matter of control of explosives is considered to be a State matter, will the Minister recommend the immediate introduction of legislation by the State in an endeavour to reduce further bomb incidents?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– As Senator Negus indicated, he raised this matter privately with me late last week, and I am indebted to him for raising this question. As a result of discussions and investigations which I have made, I think that the position with regard to the availability of gelignite and of explosive materials generally must be looked at with greater care than generally it has been in the past. In some States these explosive materials can be purchased only with a permit, but in other places they would appear to be, if not easily obtainable, obtainable in a way that a person who wishes to purchase them can do so without any real restraint being placed upon him. 1 believe that this is an area in which useful work can be done and in which there can be greater restriction upon the availability of explosives than exists at the moment, and certainly that may have the effect of deterring people who may wish to use gelignite for criminal purposes. What I have done is to arrange, within my Department, for a complete survey of the position throughout Australia to be prepared for me, and I propose when I have that to take up the matter with my colleagues in the various States with a view to seeing whether some uniform restrictive action can be taken.

page 1142

QUESTION

YUGOSLAVIA

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question, which is directed to the AttorneyGeneral, by pointing out that the Victorian Soccer Federation, in a conciliatory gesture, has negotiated for a soccer team known as Croatia to change its name to Batman in an effort to reduce tensions arising out of ethnic differences between former European migrants. I ask the Attorney-General: Is it an offence under the Commonwealth Crimes Act to urge or encourage the violent overthrow of a sovereign state such as Yugoslavia? If so, is it not a fact that a number of documents, including the newspaper ‘Spremnost’, circulated within the Croatian community in Australia have done this? Is any action under the Crimes Act contemplated by the Attorney-General in this matter?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am unable to connect the statements made by the honourable senator with what the Victor ian Soccer Federation has done or what it is alleged to have done with regard to the Croatia Soccer Club. As to whether or not it is an offence under the Crimes Act to advocate and encourage the overthrow of a civilised government of a foreign country by force and violence, yes, there is such an offence. There are also provisions under the Crimes Act which make it an offence to advocate the use of force and violence with regard to the overthrow of the Government of this country. I have received newspapers and a number of allegations from persons whom I saw last Friday, and I have of course seen the substance of these allegations in times past - that is, that these newspapers do in fact so advocate and encourage. I am unable to say at present whether the material which is alleged so to advocate and encourage does constitute an offence in regard to which any prosecutions should be taken; that is a matter which is under consideration at present. But I must say that there have been many publications, and not publications from migrant communities, but publications put out by organisations in this country, which have in their advocacy used language far stronger than anything which is alleged to me to be in these migrant papers. There have been far more inflammatory statements made by a number of organisations in this country in respect of which it is possible that proceedings under the Crimes Act could have been taken. In short, there have been many instances in which people have talked big and threateningly, and very fortunately what they have said they would do or what would happen has not occurred. I believe the Crimes Act is an Act which exists for the security of this nation, and one must have a situation which people generally regard as threatening the security of this nation before one seeks to invoke those provisions. This is a viewpoint which has, I believe, commended itself to the Opposition in times past. However, all these matters are receiving examination, as they must.

page 1142

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE

Senator JESSOP:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Firstly, is it a fact that the Minister is considering a restructuring of the Commonwealth Police and an alteration in training techniques to enable greater expertise in dealing with the increasing responsibilities of the force? Secondly, in the restructuring of the Commonwealth Police will the Minister give urgent consideration to the establishment of a special squad whose main function would be to co-ordinate national investigations of Commonwealth significance and to deal with matters such as the planning of ways and means to stamp out terrorist activities in Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I am indebted to the honourable senator for his question and for the further suggestion which he makes. I think it is known that I have had from my Department a report on the role and functions of the Commonwealth Police with a view to ascertaining whether there ought to be changes in that role and function and indeed what improvements should be made in the Commonwealth Police Force to enable that role, and what one might visualise as an expanded role, better to be coped with. That investigation is continuing. 1 must say that any changes are not a matter upon which I would take a decision but would bc a matter for the Government. As to whether there ought to be the co-ordinating body to which the honourable senator referred, I think this is a matter which should be looked at very carefully. I do feel, however, that we must recognise that criminal activities in this country are essentially matters which the State police forces investigate. Under the Constitution the States have that responsibility and I believe that people naturally turn to their State police force when they have any problem or apprehension. In those circumstances the role of the Commonwealth Police must be complementary, ft must be related to Commonwealth offences, and insofar as there is an expanded role - a greater role than they have at present - for the Commonwealth Police then 1 am concerned to see that that expanded and better role is able to be fulfilled more adequately than 1 think it has been as it has been growing up in the past.

page 1143

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs not acknowledge that the establishment of diplomatic relations between

Japan and the People’s Republic of China provides further evidence of the failure of this Government’s policy towards the People’s Republic of China? In view of this new development, does the Government intend to do anything to lessen its isolation from its neighbours which results from its refusal to recognise the existence of the People’s Republic of China?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is unfortunate, I think, that the honourable senator should use such flippant terms about a matter of such importance. The Japanese Government has kept the Australian Government fully informed of the development of its policy towards the People’s Republic of China. We hope that the Japanese Prime Minister’s visit to Peking will contribute to the peace and security of the Asian and Pacific region. Our position, as asked for by the honourable senator, was stated by the Minister for Foreign Affairs as recently as 9th May. I will remind the Senate of the terms in which our position is restated today. The Minister said: . . we will continue our present policy of seeking the progressive normalisation of bilateral relations with the People’s Republic of China, moving at all times with prudent caution and being guided by a careful assessment of Australia’s national interests, including the need to bear in mind the interests and concerns of our friends and neighbours.

If this brings that ludicrous smile to Senator Wheeldon’s face it indicates the depth of his understanding.

page 1143

QUESTION

CROATIA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Attorney-General. In evaluating and responding to the present turmoil amongst the minority of the Croatian community is the Minister motivated in the first instance by the attitude of the Department of Foreign Affairs that the fragmentation of Yugoslavia can only further the foreign policy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or, conversely, does he lean to the other view expressed in a statement at the week-end by some honourable senators, that the creation of an independent state of Croatia would be a good thing?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I do not subscribe to either view. It may be a liberty which the honourable senator feels he is entitled to have that he can subscribe to either view. My role, as I have been at pains to emphasise over the past week, is that in this area I can only express a judgment on the basis of such evidence as is put to me. On that basis I have no sides in this issue. I am concerned to ascertain where the truth lies in this welter of allegation and counter-allegation. I believe that in those circumstances one must rely upon the evidence and if there is no evidence to support a particular person’s viewpoint then one must say so. Whilst that may be unpalatable to some people, I think it is the only proper course to adopt.

page 1144

DROUGHT

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDIs the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that practically the whole of the north west, the west and the south west of New South Wales is very heavily hit by the worst drought experienced by the State since at least 1946 and that local government organisations, farmers, businessmen and workers in rural districts and country towns are becoming very concerned indeed about the fear of even higher unemployment in these areas? In view of the seriousness of the situation will he request the Government closely to consider making available to New South Wales additional money for drought relief purposes and also to increase the amount of money made available for unemployment relief in these hard pressed local government areas?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I am aware of the problem. 1 have spent over half my life in the far west of New South Wales. I keep in touch with it closely. I know it, the people and the problem. What the honourable senator says is correct. They are in a very bad drought situation. 1 am not sure whether it is as bad as that prevailing in 1946. I think that it can be recalled by honourable senators that in 1946 during the national drought Australia lost approximately 30 per cent of its sheep population. So it can be seen that these are problems of some magnitude. Normally, as the first step in the process whereby the Commonwealth helps in this matter, the local government people and the pasture protection boards have their areas declared as drought areas. Depending upon the level of seriousness of the situation, they approach the State Government to approach the Commonwealth Government. In every case in which this has happened the Commonwealth has come to the assistance of the State Government and, through it, to the aid of local government. When the situation reaches the appropriate point I am quite sure that the Commonwealth will be prepared to listen sympathetically and helpfully as it has in the past.

page 1144

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN-INDONESIAN SEA BOUNDARY

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Parliament of the number of conferences held between the Australian and Indonesian Governments to decide the sea boundary between the 2 countries? Is it a fact that all conferences to date have failed because of the uncompromising attitudes adopted by the Australian Government? Will another conference be held early in October? Who will Australia’s representative be and what proposals will they place before the representatives of the Indonesian Government?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It is well known that within the last 12 months there have been 2 conferences between Australian and Indonesian representatives on the question of defining the boundaries of the continental shelf between the shores of Indonesia and Western Australia. These conferences have been conducted in a most cooperative and cordial fashion. The fact that agreement has not yet been reached indicates no unfriendliness on either side, ft is undoubted that a further conference will be held after consideration has been given to the matter and after the Australian and Indonesian representatives have consulted their Governments for further instructions. Until the Government has given those instructions and made them available for public information it would be presumptuous on my part to anticipate what they might be.

page 1144

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator JESSOP:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, is supplementary to the question asked by Senator Carrick. Has the Minister seen Press statements indicating that a clothing factory at Dee Why in New South Wales will be forced to close due to inability to obtain personnel? Is he aware that this reported statement indicated that attempts over the last 2 or 3 years have failed to obtain 400 women machinists and that there are only 200 working there at the present time? Is it a fact that frequently employers who advertise that work is available find that certain positions are hard to fill due to the job selectivity of those applying for employment?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In regard to the Sydney area the information generally is that there are a great number of unfilled vacancies for employment. The difficulty in obtaining a quota of personnel is experienced in many categories of employment. I do not have any information about the particular factory to which the honourable senator has referred. Unfortunately I have not seen the article to which he referred. If the honourable senator will supply it to me I shall take it into consideration and, if necessary, add to the information now given.

page 1145

QUESTION

ARMY RECRUIT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, does not refer to the matter which I brought up on Thursday night although it has been mentioned in the last day or so. I ask: Was a national serviceman with a past record of multiple suicide attempts accepted for service in the Army? If so, why?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Obviously that question needs detailed research. I ask the honourable senator to put it on notice.

page 1145

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator HANNAN:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact that last week the Government of Mainland China placed an order in the United States for $28m worth of wheat. Is it a fact that the Government of the United States has repeatedly refused to grant diplomatic recognition to the Government of Mainland China? Does this order placed by China in the United States rebut the furphy spread by the Australian Labor Party that Red China is refusing lo buy our wheat only because the Australian Government has so far declined to grant China diplomatic recognition?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– Both facts to which the honourable senator refers are confirmed. As to whether the conclusion he draws should be supported responsibly in the Senate, I prefer that it be the subject of very careful examination because the reasons motivating the trade policies of the People’s Republic of China are apt to be very complex.

page 1145

QUESTION

SPORT

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. On 14th September 1971 I drew the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the urgent need for the appointment of a Commonwealth Minister for Sport. Subsequently the Prime Minister rejected the proposal. I now ask the Minister: In view of a similar request made yesterday by Mr Judy Patching, manager of the Australian Olympic team, will he request the Prime Minister to reconsider his previous rejection of this very important request?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I remember that another honourable senator made the same request during his maiden speech some years ago. As the honourable senator has said the Prime Minister has refused this request. If the Olympic authorities believe they have a case they should put it to the Prime Minister for his consideration. I do not think I can go to the Prime Minister and say that Senator McLaren has made a suggestion, backed by someone else, and the Prime Minister should accept it without a detailed examination of the whole case.

page 1145

QUESTION

PAINTERS AND DOCKERS UNION

Senator CARRICK:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the ‘National Times’ of Sunday, 25th September, which itemises a series of incidents of murder, attempted murder and serious violence on the Melbourne waterfront allegedly involving members of the Painters and Dockers Union. Is the Minister able to say whether the article is a reasonably factual representation of the situation? Are any of these matters within Commonwealth jurisdiction arising out of the Commonwealth’s arbitration or other powers?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have seen the article to which the honourable senator refers. As far as I am aware it is a reasonably factual account. I think most of the matters which have been related are common knowledge. As to whether this matter is within Commonwealth jurisdiction because the organisation is registered under the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act, I think it is fair to say that certain powers may be exercised with regard to registered organisations. But without further investigation I cannot say whether any function could be exercised with regard to this organisation in the light of the material contained in that article. This is another example of violence which, for the greater part, goes undetected, notwithstanding the fact that every effort is being made by the police to get information, which, unfortunately, is not available, that would enable prosecutions to be launched. That, of course, is not the only area in which the police are faced with this problem.

Unquestionably what would be useful would be, for example, an indication by those who have power and influence within the Australian trade union movement that membership of the Australian Council of Trade Unions is dependent upon the executives of unions ensuring that conduct of this sort that can be shown to have a real union basis, as the article suggests, will not be tolerated and that if it does continue the organisation concerned will not continue to be a member of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I think that would be a salutary step in the right direction.

page 1146

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN PASSPORTS: USE IN GREECE

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minster for Immigration. Has the Minister noted the public complaint voiced by Mr Mat has. an Australian citizen of Greek origin, in regard to his conflict with the Greek Government concerning military obligations in that country? Does that incident warrant changed endorsements on Australian passports, as has been suggested by Mr Mathas?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

- Mr Mathas problem, as I have seen it reported, arises from the fact that apparently some form of dual nationality occurs when a Creek citizen becomes an Australian citizen. He experienced a particular difficulty - 1 think it was with regard to national service obligations - when he was in Greece. Whether that means that there should be a change in the endorsement is, of course, a matter for the Department of Immigration. It appears to me that the particular problem which he experienced is one which would not be overcome by a change in the method of endorsement.

page 1146

QUESTION

CANBERRA AIRPORT

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Does the Department of Civil Aviation stipulate which publications can be sold at the bookstall at the Canberra Airport terminal?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– No.

page 1146

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories. I ask: ls it a fact that a dispute exists between Australia and Papua New Guinea over the fixing of a border between the 2 countries? Is it also a fact that the dispute has been intensified by the influence on the Australian Government of foreign-owned oil interests which are anxious to obtain rights over areas of the seabed which will give those interests access to areas where hydrocarbons are most likely to be found and where the lowest taxation rates will apply? What action has the Australian Government taken to date to settle the dispute?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It would be entirely wrong to give the impression that disputes have occurred between the governments of the 2 countries. There have been consultations with regard to the delineation of the boundaries between Australia and Papua New Guinea, especially having regard to the rather extraordinary boundary that was marked out in former days. It is true that changes in the boundaries may affect oil interests. I am not fully informed on the present stage of consultations. I shall get the necessary information and supply it to the honourable senator by way of a supplementary answer.

page 1147

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: TELEPHONE TAPPING

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to either the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories or the Attorney-General, whoever is the more appropriate, or to both of them in their respective capacities, lt concerns the public outcry in Papua New Guinea about telephone tapping and eavesdropping by public officials in connection with the administration of justice and the reports that even the conversations of lawyers with their clients have been telephone tapped, to use the ordinary expression, and that there seems to be no law to prevent this or, if there is, that it is not being enforced. Could either or both of the Ministers inform the Senate of the practice in Papua New Guinea with regard to eavesdropping by public officials or the interception of telephone conversations? Has there been such eavesdropping with regard to conversations between lawyers and their clients or in other respects? If so, what procedures are used to supervise this eavesdropping?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I have some information on and some knowledge of the matters to which Senator Murphy has referred; but I feel that I cannot take the matter as far as he has asked me to take it and therefore that, to obtain such further information as he wants, the question should go on the notice paper so that a considered answer can be supplied. I understand that currently a prosecution is pending in respect of which much of the evidence to be given depends upon information that was received as a result of tapping a telephone conversation in some way. As I understand it, that is the allegation that has been made. Whether or not such tapping is consistent with the law of the Territory of Papua New Guinea I am unable to say. All I can say is that the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act which we have in force in Australia does not apply in the Territory of Papua New Guinea. I have read Press reports that action is being contemplated urgently by the Chief Minister of the Territory. I have had referred to me matters relating to the prosecution to which Senator Murphy has referred, and I have taken them up with the Minister for External Territories. But at this point of time I am unable to say how far those inquiries have advanced. I suggest that if Senator Murphy wants further information he can obtain it appropriately by a question directed to the Minister for External Territories.

page 1147

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– Because I recollect certain honourable senators being prevented from reading extracts from newspapers, I ask you, Mr President, whether Senator Murphy was in order in reading extracts from newspapers in connection with the telephone tapping or eavesdropping that is taking place. All I want to know is: What is the rule in connection with this? I do not like seeing some people being treated differently from others.

The PRESIDENT:

– I heard quite clearly and distinctly what Senator Murphy was saying. He had newspaper clippings on his desk, as he still has; but I did not detect his reading from the newspaper clippings.

page 1147

QUESTION

YUGOSLAVIA

Senator McMANUS:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In the course of the preparation of his reply to certain complaints from the Ambassador te? Yugoslavia, will the Minister for Foreign Affairs bear in mind that official biographies indicate that in the late 1930s Marshal Tito was the head of the Yugoslav section of the Communist International located in Moscow and that his duties consisted of organising his fellow nationals for the violent overthrow of the then government of Yugoslavia?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– As usual, Senator McManus is a valuable source of historical background. I am sure that his information, conveyed in the form of a question, will receive proper consideration.

page 1147

QUESTION

ARMED SERVICES: RECRUITMENT

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct another question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Army. Have a number of psychiatrically disturbed personnel been accepted into the Armed Services? Is there danger in training psychiatrically disturbed personnel in the use of firearms and explosives?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I cannot say categorically yes or no in answer to the first question. I would think not, but I will ask the Minister for the Army to do some detailed research into the records, and if any relevant information is available we will make it available to the honourable senator.

page 1148

QUESTION

ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

Senator McLAREN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. Why are importers of electronic equipment not required by law to submit this equipment for test and approval before its use in Australia? Will the Minister take action to ensure that all imported electrical equipment meets the required Australian standards?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– 1 shall take up this matter with the Minister for Trade and Industry, although 1 wonder whether it does not more appropriately belong in the province of the various State governments which have certain powers of inspection. I shall make inquiries and find out what the truthful position is.

page 1148

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I ask for leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator MURPHY:

– A few moments ago Senator Gair raised the question of whether I had infringed the rulings which you had given, Mr President, and, inferentially, whether you acted partially in permitting me to read from a newspaper although on other occasions you have prevented honourable senators from doing so. Senator Gairs assumption might have been reasonable because while 1 was talking I had in my hand some newspapers and a letter referring to the matter. However, I did not read from the newspapers or the letter because I did not need to do so. I had other information, apart from the newspapers and the letter, about the general subject matter and I read nothing from the newspapers in asking my question.

page 1148

HANSARD

The PRESIDENT:

– Last Thursday, Senator Mulvihill asked the Acting Deputy President (Senator Wood), without notice, whether arrangements could be made for copies of the Hansard report of the proceedings of the last day of a sitting week to be forwarded to the parliamentary offices in each capital city for the immediate use of senators before their return to Canberra. The Acting Deputy President replied that the request would be conveyed to me. I now inform honourable senators that I have acceded to this request and that the new arrangements will operate this week.

page 1148

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR BOARD

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

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Apple and Pear Organisation Act 1938-1971, I present the twenty-sixth annual report of the Australian Apple and Pear Board for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 1148

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE OF AUSTRALIA

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

– Pursuant to section 147 of the Defence Act 1903- 1970, I present the annual report on the Royal Military College of Australia for the period 1st February 1971 to 31st January 1972.

page 1148

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956-1971, I present the sixteenth annual report of the Corporation for the year ended 30th June 1972, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 1148

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Police for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 1149

CITIZENSHIP ACT

Senator GREENWOOD (Victoria-

Attorney-General) - Pursuant to section 42 of the Citizenship Act 1948-69, I present the annual return of persons granted certificates of Australian citizenship for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 1149

REPORTS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEES

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-72, I present the reports relating to the following proposed works:

Primary and pre-school at Tennant Creek, Northern Territory.

Power station at Tennant Creek, Northern Territory.

page 1149

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

– In the normal course of business the Senate will shortly proceed to consideration of the Social Services Bill No. 4 and the 4 Repatriation Bills. Following the passage of this legislation and any other matters that the Senate may be able to deal with, at 5.45 p.m. today I will move for the suspension of the sitting of the Senate to enable Estimates Committees B and D to meet from 8 p.m. until 10 p.m. The sitting of the Senate will be resumed at approximately 10.15 p.m., and after the introduction of Bills which have been passed by the House of Representatives I will move for the ajournment of the Senate.

page 1149

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 4) 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21st September (vide page 1124), on motion by Senator Greenwood:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of the Opposition 1 move:

At the end of motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that the only satisfactory way to provide social services benefits is through a comprehensive national system of social security where benefits are above the poverty level and tied to an index adjusted at least annually.

The Opposition moves this amendment not in any formal fashion but because we believe that while the Senate will undoubtedly give its assent to this Bill there is a need for the Senate to express both in debate and in amendment form its attitude to the whole problem of social services in Australia. We commend the legislation because it is part of a move forward in respect to social services benefits for large numbers of the Australian people. It is, however, only one step in a mile which needs to be covered by the Parliament in order to have a share of the benefits of the prosperity and growth which have been part of Australia’s development in post war years, made available to every citizen of this country. This is not the first occasion on which the Parliament has been presented with proposals for improvements in social service benefits. Improvements are invariably part of the Budget proposals, although analysis will show that on many occasions this Government has not made any substantial increase in social services payments. However, in respect of the general problems of social service benefits, this Government and its predecessors - under whatever names they have traded in the past years - sought on 4 separate occasions to improve considerably the lot of pensioners of all categories, and both Houses of Parliament have seen fit to pass legislation to that end.

It was the conservative government led in 1913 by Prime Minister Cook which made the first endeavour to put social services on a much better basis than existed at that time. That attempt did not proceed because of the advent of World War I. The Earle Page administration made a further endeavour in 1927-28 to accept its public responsibility to put social services on a firm foundation. However Australia had to wait until 1938, in the time of the Lyons administration, for legislation actually to pass through both the House of Representatives and the Sentate. The National Insurance Bill was passed in that period.

It is interesting to recall the political crisis that took place in that period. The Government, having had that legislation passed through the Parliament, failed to proclaim it and this brought about the resignation of the Attorney-General of that day. I am not suggesting thai the present Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) would take such precipitate action if the Senate were to amend the legislation on this occassion. The then Attorney-General, Mr Menzies, was quite concerned at the failure of the Government of that day to implement the National Insurance Act. That was 34 years ago and the National Insurance Act has never been proclaimed and its benefits have not been passed on to the Australian people. The Chifley administration of 1948-49 certainly intended to place social service benefits on a firm foundation when it introduced the National Welfare Bill but again events intervened to prevent the enactment of legislation to give substantial benefits to the Australian people.

The 1949 election was fought on a number of issues. The leader of the newly formed Liberal Party that was successful in that election, Mr Menzies, obviously still had a social conscience because he promised on that occasion that his Government would abolish the means test. 1 refer the Senate to his policy speech of 23 years ago in which he said:

Australia still needs a contributory system of national insurance against sickness, widowhood, unemployment, and old age. It is only under such a system that we can make all benefits a matter of right, and so gel completely rid of the means test.

As that was part of the social services policy of the Government elected at that election one would have thought that there would have been considerable movement towards abolition of the means test or towards establishing a national superannuation .scheme by the enactment of a national insurance bill as a matter of conscience. In recent years a matter of conscience has been the subject of considerable debate in the Parliament. The Attorney-Gener.il of 1938. who was later to become Prime Minister, saw fit to resign the important position of Attorney-General in the Lyons Government. However, I want to go back, as 1 did recently when discussing the Income Tax Assessment Bill, and refer to the policy espoused by the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) because being a good Party man he was, in fact, putting forward the policy of his Party. I wish to refer to the documents of the Liberal platform of 1946 which were similar to the corresponding documents of the Liberal Party of Australia in 1948. 1 want to draw to the attention of the Senate the terminology used by the Liberal Party and show its likeness to the amendment that I have moved. This is what it says:

Generous provision by means of an effective social insurance scheme for superannuation, incapacity, sick pay, medical and the like expenses, unemployment, widowhood and family endowment. All children to be provided for by child endowment. No means test. The means test is the inevitable consequence of non-contributory social services and is a deterrent to thrift. Adequate and permanent social services will necessarily require contributions by all persons in receipt of income supplemented by grants from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The encouragement of supplementary voluntary schemes in addition to Government schemes.

It is rather interesting to refer to the current criticisms that have been made by Government spokesmen against the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Oxley, Mr Hayden, who is the Labor Party spokesman on these mailers when he has indicated his proposition, which has been endorsed by the Labor Party and which will be part of its policy and to see the similarity with the thinking in the early years of the Liberal Party. We see that breath of spring that Menzies was to speak about in the formative years of the Liberal Party incorporated in this and many other of its earlier policy statements which have been bypassed in time. If we go back to 1960 and to 1971 we see that all references to the abolition of the means test have been removed from the policy of the Liberal Parly. Somewhere in the effluxion of time the message was passed down the line. Sir Robert lost his conscientious attitude to social services. The members of the Liberal Party came to favour not the abolition of the means test, but its progressive liberalisation both in regard to property and income.

Of course, we are aware that subsequent elections were fought on the issue of the abolition of the means test. Dr Evatt almost became the Prime Minister of this country on the basis of his proposals in 1954 to the electorate of Australia for the abolition of the means test within 3 >ears. Then the apostles of doom came on the scene and have been on the scene at every election subsequently when the Labor Party has endeavoured to do what the Liberal Party said it would do when it stated its platform in 1946, 1947, 1948 and those early years. We hear such statements as: Where is the money to come from? The country cannot afford it. This will mean increased taxation. We heard the same calamity howling in recent times. Mr Malcolm Fraser and the Prime Minister have both seen fit to criticise the Labor Party in some of its election policy matters which it is already prepared to place before the electorate within the next month or two. Of course one can analyse what Dr Evatt was seeking to do and refer to attempts by succeeding Labor leaders over the years right up until 1969 when Mr Whitlam presented his policy speech. He sought to place social service benefits in such a position that they would give the maximum benefit to those in need wherever they may be throughout Australia. Again we were informed that Australia did not have the resources, that the Australian Labor Party was immature and that it was unable to say where the money was coming from. Then of the eve of an election when, it must surely be admitted by Government spokesmen and defenders of Government policy, the tide is running very heavily against the Government - if we are to take cognisance of public opinion polls - a rabbit is pulled out of the hat. It is not a Petrov Commission; this time it is the abolition of the means test within 3 years. So after 23 years and after the Liberal Party has taken the policy out of its platform, we find that the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has been able to prevail upon his colleagues in respect of the need to abolish the means test The Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood), who in this chamber represents the Minister for Social Services, went to great lengths in his second reading speech on Thursday to draw attention to the effect of the means test. He stated:

The present proposal will, of course, lose a great deal of its significance within the next 3 years, when the abolition of the means test for persons over 65 years of age become effective.

The Attorney-General went on to state that this was essential because of the effect of inflation. I am sure that the AttorneyGeneral cannot disagree with me when 1 say that in 1969 Australia was suffering just as much from inflation, as now. Yet he and his colleagues, encouraged to some extent by the mass circulation newspapers, endeavoured to make the Australian people believe that Australia could not afford to abolish the means test. We live in an entirely new era. We are one of the wealthiest countries of the world. In the post-war years we have had a tremendous increase in wealth and technology has moved very fast, particularly over the last decade or so. There is no question but that the country has the capacity to pay increased benefits to those who are needy. Our standard of living should be constantly rising if every person who contributes to this wealth is to enjoy the benefits of his labour or of increased technology. Therefore one finds it very difficult to accept the premise of the Government that these latest increases represent any substantial improvement in the standard of living. The Minister for Social Services in presenting this Bill in the other place went to great lengths to produce graphs and figures the like of which I have not seen before in Hansard - but then I am relatively new. i suppose they have appeared before. The Prime Minister went on record only a few weeks earlier to talk about the need for an inquiry into poverty. Such is the state of the nation that there is a need for the Government to inquire into the areas of poverty which exist in our community. Clearly the Minister had this in mind when he convinced his colleagues in the Party room of the need to increase pensions.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was commenting on the policy speech of Mr Menzies, as he then was, when he was contesting the general election of 1949. 1 want to go on and quote several more sentences from that speech because I think they are relative to the amendment on which the Opposition is seeking the support of the Senate. Speaking of the means lest, Mr Menzies said:

There are also grave anomalies associated with the position of persons who have contributed for their own superannuation benefits. lt is true that in this piece of legislation there has been some recognition of that view, which I repeat was expressed in 1949, but, coming 23 years later, I think it could be said that it is belated recognition. Mr Menzies went on to say, referring to the means test:

This great human problem will have our urgent attention as matter of priority.

I think the record speaks for itself. It has not been until the Government has been hard pressed in respect to contesting the 1972 general election that it has seen fit to take any meaningful steps towards recognising the unfairness of the means test to aged and invalid persons. How many millions of people have failed to benefit from the act of conscience of Mr Menzies in 1938 and his policy speech of 1949? Many people have died without being able to avail themselves of these very important benefits. At the moment 971,511 persons in Australia are in receipt of age and invalid pensions and 92,784 are in receipt of the widow’s pension. So, in excess of a million people are entitled to benefits under the social service legislation. Undoubtedly most of them will continue to benefit from this piece of legislation.

It is interesting to note that the Commonwealth has taken the step in the Budget documents of increasing the total amount for social service payments provided through the National Welfare Fund by $325m, which represents an increase of in excess of 18 per cent on the amount for the previous year. I want to draw the attention of honourable senators to the relativity involved in this matter of social service payments. I shall be relying upon documents supplied to me by the Statistical Service of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library to support my argument. In 1949-50 social service payments amounted to 17.2 per cent of the national expenditure. Let us compare that figure with the propositions which were incorporated in the Budget and which are the substance of the Bill that is before this Senate. It is interesting to note that the comparative figure has fallen to 14.49 per cent. It is also interesting to note that there have been lower figures than that in some of the intervening 23 years. The worst figure was in 1970-71, when social service payments amounted to 12.77 per cent of the national expenditure.

It is true that honourable senators have argued and will continue to argue that figures can tell all sorts of stories and that all sorts of results can be read into statistics. However, I do want to draw the attention of the Senate to another group of statistics which were supplied by a similar source. In 1947, just 2 years after the ces sation of hostilities, when the average weekly earnings were $15.60 the Labor Government, which was in office was able to contribute $3.75 a week in pensions, which represented 24 per cent of the average weekly earnings. As can be seen, I have moved from a comparison between social service payments and the national expenditure to a comparison between social service payments and average weekly earnings. The percentage was to drop somewhat in 1949. When the average weekly earnings were $19.40, the pension was $4.25, which represented only 21.9 per cent of the average weekly earnings. Let us compare those figures with the figures as expressed in the Budget and in the Bill which is before the Senate. In doing so I am anticipating that the Government’s estimation is correct in respect to average weekly earnings, that is, that they will continue to rise at 9 per cent per annum. I am guided in this respect by the Government’s own assessments. The increased rate of pension of $20 a week represents only 19.7 per cent of the average weekly earnings. So, whilst superficially the Government is able to point to a rise in pension rates, when related either to national expenditure or average weekly earnings the pension rate fails to meet the bill.

Senator Greenwood:

– But one should make some weighing for the fringe benefits, such as the rent allowance.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Let us examine some of the black pages in the average weekly earnings, Senator Greenwood. In 1955, when the average weekly earnings were $36.70, the pension rate was $8, which represented 21.8 per cent of the average weekly earnings. I am prepared to accept that as being comparative to the figure in 1949 when the Menzies administration came to office. In the following year the average weekly earnings increased but the pension rate remained the same. The average weekly earnings increased to $38.40 but the pension rate remained the same, which meant a percentage drop. I am now relying on some figures that were supplied to me by the Treasury. The supplying of these figures is an example of the open form of government which we can anticipate coming into effect in the future. In the same period - 1955, 1956 and 1957 - the Commonwealth in its Budget assessments and estimates put the sum of S373m aside in the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Fund. But the Government did not have regard for either the average weekly earnings or the comparisons in respect to Government expenditure at that time. It allowed the pension rate to slip behind. The same sort of story can be told about the period between 1961 and 1963. I am relying again on the same documents. The pension remained static at SI 0.50 for a period of 2 years, despite the fact that average weekly earnings increased by $3.90 in that period. As a consequence, pensioners were denied a very substantial increase to which they were entitled. In the same period the Commonwealth put $ 126.9m into the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve.

To make matters worse, an analysis has been made of the increased taxation revenue that the Commonwealth has collected over the 20-year period from 1952 to 1972. I referred to this matter in my speech on the Income Tax Bill last week. During that period $7, 685m has been collected. But in many of the years in that period the pension rate remained static and no regard was had to the increase in average weekly earnings - in other words, to increased income through improved productivity or technology, or the effects of inflation which were beginning to express themselves. In 1955 the Commonwealth collected SI 37m in additional taxation revenue. During the period to which I referred earlier - from 1961 to 1963 - about $223m was collected in additional taxation revenue. So surely we are entitled to say that, whilst a little has been given, it has not caught up in any way with the requirements and has not had regard for the needs of the people who are entitled to receive reasonable pensions.

It is true, as the Minister has said, that a great number of people will benefit from the increases embodied in the Bill. But I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that a number of benefits are not readily available and no increases have been granted in a number of areas of social services. For instance, in this Budget there is no increase in the unemployment benefit, despite the fact that at this time about 120,000 are unemployed. In the field of child endowment, no increases have been granted in the social services section of the Budget. From 1949, the last year in which the Labor Party was in government, right down to the present day there has been no increase in the Si a week paid in respect of the second child. Certainly, the Menzies Administration, shortly after it came to office, in its 1950 Budget provided for a new payment of 50c a week for the first child. But can any honourable senator tell me of any item, any expenditure anywhere in Australia that has not risen in that period of 23 years? Since 1949 the child endowment payments for the first and second children have remained static. That is not to the credit of the country or of the Government. It took the Government from 1949 until the 1964 Budget to increase the payment for the third child to $1.50 a week and until the 1971 Budget - 7 budgets later - to increase it to $2 a week. The maternity allowance has remained static. It was $30 in 1947, and in 1972 - 25 years later- it is still $30. The Government has retained the funeral benefit at $20 in certain circumstances, although in 1965 it increased it to $40 in other circumstances.

Therefore, I believe that we are entitled to expect honourable senators to debate our proposition seriously. Whilst we will not delay the passage of this Bill, I believe that we are entitled to say that too little has been given and it has been too late. I believe that we are entitled to relate the $1.75 a week increase, which represents the substantial proportion of the increases provided for in this Bill, to the tax concessions which are also provided in this Budget. We as a Parliament have not had regard to equity in these matters. I find it difficult to understand the Government’s justification for increasing pensions by $1.75 a week whereas in order to maintain the 1949 ratio the increase should be $4.50 a week. Also, the $1.75 a week increase is rather difficult to accept as any sort of a tangible benefit when in the same Budget the Government has taken steps to provide for the wealthier groups in the community very substantial decreases in their weekly taxation bill. For instance, people with an income of $10,000 will receive a taxation saving of $5 a week; people with an income of $15,000 will receive a taxation saving of $8.50; and people with an income of $20,000 will receive a taxation saving of $14 a week.

Surely it cannot be argued that such people are entitled to that sort of benefit while the really needy people - those who are subjected to a rigorous means test and those who receive the full pension but none of the benefits of the easing of the means test that has occurred in recent years - are entitled to an increase of only $1.75 a week. If the Government really wanted to get the economy moving the reverse should have happened. The money given in the form of taxation savings should have been made available to the pensioners; it should not have been put in the hands of those whose incomes are sufficient to meet all their needs. It is a matter of the rich looking after the rich and of the poor not being looked after. I include the pensioners in the latter category. I wonder how many times members of the Government parties talk to pensioners, particularly those who live in rented premises, about their difficulties of living, and their inability to do more than live from one pension cheque to the next.

We commend the initiative that has been taken to abolish the means test, but we do not think it comes near to solving the problem. Therefore, we propose that there should be an examination of the very principles and policies that the Liberal Party put forward in its documents in the mid- 1940s. Contributions should be levied on all taxable income in order to finance a total scheme. The idea of Mr Menzies, as he was in those days, was that sickness, widowhood, unemployment, age and invalid pensions and all the other areas of social services would come within one scheme. The Labor Party’s proposition is that persons earning less than $1,890 a year and every person in the pensioner category will be covered automatically and will receive the benefits of the superannuation scheme that Labor proposes to introduce. In other words, members of the community will be asked to accept their full responsibility and to bear the full financial cost. This is not a revolutionary scheme. Numbers of countries which are recognised on the world scene as being in the forefront in the provision of welfare benefits have already adopted schemes similar to that to which the Labor Party is committed. Those schemes have as their objective the establishment of a ratio related to average weekly earnings. I think we are entitled to say that pensions should be tied in an automatic way to average weekly earnings which should reflect the prosperity and growth of a nation.

In the event of there being a Labor government and the Senate agreeing to take the first steps in this direction, at the outset our scheme would result in an increase of more than $5 a week in the age and invalid pensions. We believe also that the means test should be abolished. We have been assailed by Government spokesmen because we suggest that the means test should be abolished over a period of 6 years. 1 remind the Senate that if only a handful more people had voted for Labor in 1961 the means test already would have been well on the way towards being abolished and we would have been able to beat the timetable which the Government has set for itself. If it is re-elected it proposes to abolish the means test by 1975.

The Labor Party has been criticised many times in this place on policy considerations. It should be stated that difficulties accrue to all political parties if they do not carry out the policies which they espouse and on which they are elected and they will face crises of the kind which have plagued many political movements in Australia and currently are plaguing the Liberal Party. It is no wonder that Mr Gorton, Mr MoMahon, Mr Steele Hall and other leading figures in the Liberal Party organisation have been talking about a crisis in philosophy and a crisis in the policy considerations of this Government. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister at various gatherings has been talking about the need to re-think and re-shape policies having regard to the great changes that have come over Australia and the world in recent years. We suggest that the Government is now reaping the whirlwind from its own inactivity on these matters. No longer can we fight political campaigns on the basis that there is never enough money to carry out the programmes on which political parties seek election.

As I have mentioned previously, close to $4,000m has been milked out of the national revenue since the establishment of the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Fund in 1955. That amount of money could have paid for all the social service benefits which the Government now claims need to be met from the current Budget. Child endowment could have been raised, the States could have been adequately protected from economic difficulties, there would have been no crisis in urban affairs and there would have been no need now for governments to talk about setting up committees of inquiry. Currently we have in progress 7 or 8 committees of inquiry into matters such as poverty, repatriation, urban affairs and other areas of Government policy, if governments had reflected the real needs of the people, as is their responsibility, we would not have these crises within the political Liberal movement and the people of Australia would have been enjoying a very much higher standard of living than they have at present. We commend the amendment to the Senate, lt is a genuine attempt by the Opposition to draw to the attention of the Government the need to establish a national superannuation scheme to bring Australia into line with the advanced countries of the world in this field of national welfare which is the responsibility of government in this area. We suggest that the time has arrived for the Senate to express that. view.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) foreshadowed very substantial changes in social service benefits that are to be paid to the less fortunate people in the community. I suggest that all Australians will take great pride in the fact that the level of contribution to the less fortunate people has been lifted to the standard that it has reached today. Senator Gietzelt, in what I imagine to be typical Opposition form, criticised the amounts that are paid and said that a Labor government, if it were elected, would certainly contribute more to those in the community who were in need. One would have to agree that no matter what is done within the community, those in more affluent circumstances can never do enough to assist those persons of the community who through no fault of their own are placed in indigent circumstances.

The appropriations under the Budget provide for an increase in pensions. I believe that all Australian citizens should be particularly proud of this action which has been taken by the Government on their behalf. Let us consider the facts. There has been an improvement in the main area of contribution to those in receipt of the age, invalid, widows and Service pensions. The consumer price index has increased by approximately 8 per cent over a period, during which the amounts paid in pension, if we include the rise which has taken place within the last 6 months, have increased by 29 per cent. They are the 2 most important figures to compare because usually the suggestion is that prices have escalated beyond the point at which a person has the ability to live reasonably. The Treasurer announced this enormous increase in his Budget Speech and suggested that at no time during the past 20 years or more had the increase been so great. The Attorney-General (Senator Greenwood) said in his second reading speech on this Bill:

The increases now proposed represent the fourth separate occasion on which the rales of pension have been raised by the McMahon Government in the past 18 months.

A little later he said:

In no other period in Australias history have increases in pension rates been on a scale remotely approaching these amounts.

I have some pleasure in feeling that the less fortunate people in the community will now receive this benefit. The Opposition has moved an amendment to the motion that the Bill be now read a second time. The amendment states: but the Senate is of the opinion that the only satisfactory way to provide social service benefits Ls through a comprehensive national system of social security where benefits are above the poverty level and lied to an index adjusted at least annually. lt would be interesting to hear a member of the Opposition tell us what that wording means. Certainly Senator Gietzelt was unable to do so, or perhaps it was just that he did not direct his remarks to that aspect. Probably the main point to be taken is the suggestion that social service benefits should be tied to an index which is adjusted at least annually. Some argument has arisen in relation to the circumstances which have pervaded the Australian economy in the past years. The cost of living has been increasing. The value of the Australian dollar has continued to depreciate. This has been tied to a diminished ability to buy goods on our markets with that dollar. I think that a need exists for social service benefits to be reviewed annually. I suggest that this worthy idea should be implemented. I would be confident that the Department of Social Services would put forward to the appropriate Minister responsible for this area of government the reasons why such adjustment should be made at each Budget period which, as we all know, is an annual event in Australian financial affairs.

I think that we could take the argument advanced by the Opposition a little further and ask whether it represents the type of philosophy which it would adopt if a situation arose in which the value of the Australian dollar and inflation were steadied and the cost of goods did not continue to rise. If the ever increasing cost and inflation spiral lessened, would the Opposition suggest that an adjustment should be made at least annually to depreciate the pension that was paid? I am sure that the wording of the argument put forward by the Opposition renders that argument stupid with respect to its basic aim for the future. Whilst this proposition may be argued at the present time, it is not a basis on which planning for future years should be formulated.

Senator Milliner:

– Is that why the Government gave 50c a week to pensioners the year before last?

Senator WEBSTER:

– There was some wisdom in what was done. I do not doubt that the honourable senator would want more no matter what the Government’s contribution was. If ever his Party happened to gain the treasury bench I wonder whether the honourable senator would say truthfully that what that Government was capable of offering was sufficient. The honourable senator would be proud of such a government if it performed as well as this Government has done - I know that he would agree with me - in that whereas the increase in the cost of goods has been 8 per cent, this Government has been able to increase pensions by 29 per cent. The honourable senator should be one to stand up and to say as an Australian citizen that he was proud of a government that had been able to handle the country’s finances so well.

Senator Jessop:

– Did not the Labor Party once reduce pensions?

Senator WEBSTER:

– A most important comment has been made by my South Australian friend on the Government side. He indicated that there was a stage when the Opposition Party was in government and found it necessary to reduce the level of pensions. Perhaps the wording used by the Opposition in this revised amendment may convey that thought to the community. I reiterate those words:

  1. . that the only satisfactory way to provide social service benefits is through a comprehensive national system of social security where benefits are above the poverty level and tied to an index adjusted at least annually.

I hope that it is not the wish of any honourable senator, any member of Parliament or any person in the community to see or to countenance a situation in which a government would consider reducing pensions. A reduction in pensions has certainly not been laid down in the programme of this Federal Government. I doubt that the Labor Opposition ever intended to introduce such a suggestion into its amendment. Some enormously important changes were envisaged in the Budget Speech which was presented on 15th August this year, and also in the Bill which the Senate is debating at the present time. I have mentioned the proposed variation in the pension rate. I cannot help but think that the variation in pension rates will mean an enormous change in the lives of some of those people who are in difficult circumstances. There are people who are without any other means of income whatsoever and are entirely dependent upon the pension. It will be most difficult for those people to live even a reasonable life at this level of pension. I believe consideration should be given to something which was said by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in the Budget Speech of last year. He said:

It has been my wish that nobody in the Australian community since the last war should be considering that they hope to aim for a situation in life where they are going to be completely reliant for their maintenance on a pension.

That is, a pension provided by the Federal Government.

In our kind of society every reasonable young person should have an opportunity to save money and to provide himself with a home and with some of the things which are necessities in our type of economy but which in many countries of the world are considered to be luxuries. There are people who, through no fault of their own, are forced to live on the Budget commitment to social services. It is difficult to imagine the circumstances in which the average person should not find the Budget contribution very acceptable. In Victoria I know pensioners who drive their own vehicle to collect their pension fortnightly, lt is a fact that it is possible for an Australian citizen to have in excess of $100,000 in assets and still be entitled to receive a pension payment. That is a pretty wonderful thing. It means that an Australian citizen is entitled to have his own home, no matter what the value of it is, to furnish it in whatever fashion he desires and to have a means of transport which, in many instances, as honourable senators know, can be luxurious.

I often recall the instance of a foreign friend of mine who had recently completed a block of flats in an area in which I was involved. Some 10 or 12 years ago, this gentleman was making an attempt to let these flats and he wanted the local estate agent to get a $50 bond from the people who were likely to be moving into the flats. The agent at that time said that it was impossible and that all he was able to get from the individuals going into the flats was the rental per week let alone a bond of $50. The $50 bond would have been a guarantee against damage to the property by people renting the flats. The flats were finally let and the $50 bond obtained from each tenant. The owner was satisfied with the use to which he put the money. The owner certainly had a respectable type of client in his property. He said to me: ‘Mr Webster, I am a new citizen in this country and if there is any citizen in this country who has been here for over 3 months and is unable to raise a $50 bond, I do not want him in my home’. I thought perhaps it was a hard comment but it expressed generally the view of at least one individual who came to this country that any person who comes to Australia and works reasonably hard, will find prospects for doing particularly well. I need only refer to comments made in the. second reading speech where it was suggested that what the Government was attempting to do, even now, was to create a situation in which there would be some basis for thrift and self-reliance by individuals in their working lives. 1 applaud the rise in the rental allowance from $2 to S4. The payment of rent must be a great hardship for pensioners. They will now find some relief in this concession. We find in the Bill with which we are dealing an indication that a change is likely to take place in the ensuing years relating to the progressive elimination of the means test. An easing of the means test is proposed under the legislation which we have before us. Over many years, you, Mr Acting Deputy President, as well as I have paid attention to the arguments for and against a complete elimination of the means test.

To me it would be most appealing if all people who contribute to the welfare of this country by paying taxes could look forward to some return from the country when they became aged. The argument has been well put that there should be no means test associated with the granting of a pension. I am afraid that I, to some extent, hold to the old view that those who are not in indigent circumstances should not necessarily receive a pension. But 1 think that that argument may be adjusted by the general proposition that in the future pensions may become taxable, to some extent; that is, when people who receive high incomes accept a pension they will find that they have to repay it all again to the community by way of taxation.

No matter which parly were in office, there would not be the same volume of cash available for distribution to those less fortunate in the community if we were to provide a pension to people who really did not need it. The opinion polls indicate that the proposals contained in the legislation before us apparently are entirely acceptable to the people in the community. As I have already said, we now have this enormously imporant proposition that by 1975 the means test will be eliminated altogether. I think that in general the proposals contained in the legislation before us ought to be applauded. I think that every Australian citizen should laud the fact that we in this country have reached the stage where we are able to provide a pension as high as that proposed in this legislation. I, in common with other honourable senators, hope that this Bill will be given the most hurried passage that is likely to be given to any Bill that comes before us in this session.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– At this point of the debate 1 want to restrict my remarks to speaking against the amendment that is presently before the chamber. The Social Services Bill which we are discussing flows from the promises that were made in the Budget. A great deal of what is contained in the Bill has been accepted and indeed praised by the community. We, like everybody else, wish to see the good sections of this legislation implemented as soon as possible. The amendment which has been proposed by the Australian Labor Party is merely an expression of opinion and, from our point of view, not a very satisfactory expression of opinion as to what the future social services system should be. It leaves the question as to who is to pay for the proposed system completely in obscurity and tends to suggest that everything will fall as pie from the sky, and that all we need do is to say some pious words and everything will be very lovely.

We believe in restricting our criticism of the Bill and the advice which we offer to the Government and to people who will be concerned with the social services scheme in the future to the practical area of what we believe to be possible, what can be financed and how it should be financed. We believe that it should be financed in a manner which will make it a contributory part of the whole financial structure of the nation so that the things that we want to See achieved can be properly achieved. At a later stage in the debate, if the amendment before the Chamber is defeated, I will move on behalf of my Party a further amendment which / shall foreshadow at the conclusion of my speech. The amendment which the Labor Party has moved is in these terms:

  1. . the Senate is of opinion that the only satisfactory way to provide social services benefits is through a comprehensive national system of social security . . .

How is it to be financed? What does it comprise? The amendment continues: . . where benefits are above the poverty level and tied to an index adjusted at least annually.

The first decision to be made is the type of index in order to make it a very practical proposition and then, in order to ensure that the benefits are above the poverty level, the next decision to be made is what actually is a poverty level. As Senator Webster has already indicated, today there are people - and I am in no way critical of them - who go in a motor car to pick up their social service benefits. It might not be the latest model motor car; it might be a vintage motor car. We all know that it costs a considerable amount of money to run a motor car. But would it bc suggested that because people own a motor car they are living above the poverty level? Sometimes people acquire, in a lifetime, habits which may not be in their best interests and which very often lead them Co the situation where they have to live below the poverty level.

Senator Webster:

– Horses are a problem there.

Senator LITTLE:

– 1 understand it is not the horses; it is the people who gamble on the horses. Horses themselves really cost people little, if anything at all, unless they develop the habit of considering the possibility of getting rich by being able to select which horse can gallop the fastest at a particular point of time. But I do not believe that we should deny completely to persons receiving social services the opportunity to engage in that form of entertainment. They have reached a phase in life where social service payments are their right because of the taxation that they have paid throughout a lifetime. In a democracy, how those people decide to get their amusement compared with other people is their own business. I do not believe that when you speak in terms of benefits being above the poverty level you have to establish exactly what is the poverty level. So we do not agree with the amendment that is before the Senate: we believe that what is contained in it may be tremendously improved.

Of course, the whole question of social services has been exercising the minds of people in the community for a long time. It is nearly 15 years since the

Australian Democratic Labor Party campaigned strongly for the abolition of the means test, and we have persisted in that campaign election after election. We find from the debate on social services today that the question of the abolition of the means test has become very popular with all political parties, and we are glad that that is so. We believe that it is a facing of the facts of modern life that this should be so. There should not be a penalty for thrift. People who have adequately superannuated themselves are cut off from the benefits which their own taxation has helped to provide. Thriftiness and in many instances compulsory systems of superannuation have prevented people, particularly those in the service of governments, who are forced during their lifetime, if they wish to remain in such service, to contribute to systems of superannuation, from receiving the benefits which their own taxation has helped to provide. They find that their retirement benefits derived from their contributions to superannuation schemes which are deducted from their wages cost them out of the benefits that are available to their next door neighbours who have not so provided for their future.

As inflation gathered pace and costs and prices rose, many people who thought that they had provided adequately for their future through superannuation schemes found that the drawings from the superannuation schemes were completely inadequate to provide the standard of living which they had expected they would be able to enjoy when they made their contributions to the superannuation schemes. At the same time they found that the benefits which they had built up for themselves out of their incomes over the years acted, if not completely to prevent them from receiving social service benefits, to reduce whatever they may have received, by comparison with other people, to the point of it being of no practical help whatsoever. Yet at the same time many people were excluded from the fringe benefits that were available to others who had not worked in the same type of industry or who had not voluntarily contributed towards their retirement. I do not believe that the great majority of Australians want to be dependent upon the State. 1 think people take a pride in being able to pro vide for their retirement and that they will continue to do so. But that is not a valid reason for arguing that at the closing stages of their lives they should be denied privileges that are available to the community and should be available to all who contribute towards them and to all who pay the adequate rates of taxation which have been devised by governments over the years according to the incomes which they have earned. The Democratic Labor Party does not believe in the application of the means test whether it be applied in the area of social services or of education or of scholarships or anything else. We believe that the young people of this community are equal to one another, that all are born equal and should have equal opportunities and that if they are able, by their own ability, to win scholarships that are made available by the community, then this is not specifically in the interests of the individuals themselves but in the interests of this nation so that we shall have a better educated, a better producing, a more highly skilled and a more proficient nation. Yet we tell the child whose parents may happen to earn a higher income, ‘You are excluded from specific benefits because your parents earn a particular income’. Yet those parents may not have the same interests as parents on a lower income and may not be prepared to make available to their child the benefits of their higher income. They may be more interested, as Senator Webster suggested - and I remind Senator Webster that not only the poor go to the races - in backing winners on a Saturday than providing a highly intelligent young person who may be studying medicine at a university until he is 24 or 25 years of age with means which will enable him to live as a young person of that age ought to be able to live, at a reasonable standard in the community. One finds children of even well to do families dropping out from the higher level of education and giving up scholarships, because despite their parents’ income, of which they are not necessarily beneficiaries, they arc denied the necessary living allowances that are made available to other members of the community. Of course, should these young people make the grade and attain higher skills through education and so earn higher incomes, they will pay the higher taxes under our system which we believe is fair and just.

But why should they who were capable in their younger years of winning a specific scholarship be denied all the benefits of that scholarship, simply because their parents may at that point of time have enjoyed an income which, as I have pointed out, they may not necessarily be sharing with their children who are trying to work their way through university? We believe that these things should be the right of every individual.

This leads me to make another criticism which the DLP has made many times before and which the Leader of the DLP, Senator Gair, in his speech on the Budget made once again, that the Government has seen fit to increase the gap that exists between those who happen to be married and are drawing a pension and those who may not be married at a particular time or who have been married and have lost their partner. It has been said in justification that 2 can live more cheaply than one; yet we find that every time pension increases are granted, more is granted to the single pensioner than to 2 persons who happen to be married. Only a few weeks ago I received a strange item of correspondence. Why it should have been addressed to me in particular, I do not know, and I wonder whether other senators and honourable members received similar letters. It was from 2 people who are particularly interested in the problem of homosexuality; whether they themselves were so afflicted. I do not know. They wanted equal rights for homosexuals in marriage and everything else. I did not think that this letter required a reply, but had I replied 1 would have been forced to warn them in their own interest that they should not seek the rights and benefits of marriage status in our community, as they put it, because if they were still interested in homosexuality at the stage when they became entitled to pensions, they would find that they might have the same rights as married people but would not get the same benefits as 2 single persons. They would be better off to be treated as they are today, in the state of single blessedness because under the Government’s proposal in the present Budget, as 2 separate individuals they would be $5.50 a week better off than they would be if they were regarded as and received the benefits of a married couple from the social services legislation of this Government. The DLP cannot see the justification for this; we have pointed out this problem time and again and we will continue to do so.

I believe that as modern thinking catches up both with the Government and the Opposition the DLP will be joined in this attitude as we have in many other fields; that is, that the Government and the Opposition will turn the clock the other way. I appreciate that it would be very difficult to bridge in one fell swoop the gap that has been created between those who are married and are sharing their old age and those who are single; but at least the tendency surely should be to begin to operate the other way, to close the gap. This must happen if one pauses to think of the circumstances and the responsibilities of the 2 sections of the Australian people, on the one hand the person who perhaps has never married or who has married but has lost his or her partner, and on the other hand those who are fortunate enough to be sharing together their old age and retirement. When 2 people are together they have a responsibility to each other which a single person never had. That responsibility does not disappear with old age but becomes accentuated because it is the elderly person who receives a very limited social services income. When 2 people are together, both can become ill, not just one. When one moves among people who are living in these circumstances, one finds time and again that not in their own interests, if they really understood the problem, and certainly not in the interests of the nation, they are skimping and saving and endeavouring to put aside a little from their social services payment in case one or the other becomes ill, because they realise that after a certain point enormous expenses are rapidly incurred as a result of illness.

I know all about the arguments in relation to free medicine and benefits to pensioners, and I know also when a person suffers an illness, particularly the long illness that often comes with the passage of years, just how impoverished people can be. lt is this responsibility to each other which causes the people of the group that I am discussing very often to become overcautious and not to spend even the small income they receive. As a result of this responsibility that they feel for each other they believe that some money should be put aside as a precaution, that this is necessary in accordance with the responsibilities which they have accepted through marriage.

How does this sum of §5.50 per week per couple affect people who are widowed? Any medical man will tell you that today one of the greatest medical problems of people in this group is loneliness. They have nobody to share things with. I refer particularly to those people who have had a very satisfactory lifetime of sharing and all the wonderful benefits that it can bring. We form elderly citizens clubs and pensioners clubs to bring these people together and lonely people become interested in one another. Yet there is this barrier against such people sharing their lives again. There are people who have reared families and refuse to accept the modern idea of a companionship that is not recognised by the rest of the community. They refuse to live together without marriage but if they get married their combined income is reduced immediately.

Why should this be so? Are we still looking at pensions on the basis of a subsistence philosophy? Will we stop pensioners from starving to death and then draw the line and say that we should not go beyond that point? Surely we should think of the quality of life in this area of the community. One of my greatest disputes with many people in society today is that they want licence and permissiveness to the detriment of the quality of life that we want to try to preserve. Surely the elderly people who helped to construct the economy and society that we have inherited today should be provided with social services. We should be thinking in terms of the quality of their lives, not the level at which they can subsist. We should not be thinking that if they happen to get married they will not use as much electric light in order to sit up at night. Indeed, probably they would use more. If they had companionship they would not crawl off to bed at 6 o’clock at night because they had nothing else to do. They could sit up and enjoy television or radio in one another’s company. This would increase their expense budget. It would be the result of their enjoying the companionship that surely we want them to have. Of course, when one produces that argument everybody says that they want these people to have these things; but they are denied money from our social service provisions to achieve them.

Senator Hannan:

– That is an argument for frequency modulation, is it not?

Senator LITTLE:

– I do not think we need to get as technical as frequency modulation is. This is a simple argument to me. I believe in quality of life. I believe that young people should have it and 1 believe that they also need help by means of the experience that people gain with the years. Young people need protection against things which, because of their inexperience, they do not realise are a danger to the quality of life. I refer to pornography, dope and all the other things that can destroy the quality of life. I believe that at the other end of the life cycle we should hold to the philosophy that it is the quality of life that counts. I defy anybody to suggest that a life alone has any comparison with a life that is shared. Any doctor or psychologist will tell us how much mental illness in older people is brought about by sheer loneliness. We all know that because of the generation gap it is very difficult to provide the companionship that is appreciated. We should encourage elderly widows and widowers to remarry and enjoy life again but instead we impose a financial penalty on them in the form of the social service structure.

We of the Democratic Labor Party were pleased with some of the things contained in this Budget but we could not help but be bitterly disappointed that the Government again has not given the attention that it should have given to child endowment and maternity allowance. These are 2 areas in our social services that have dropped far behind because of inflation. They have not received the attention that they ought to have received from political parties. It seems strange today that people are advocating things which were argued against 30 or 40 years ago. In the 1930s we seemed to realise that a community which was decreasing in numbers could not be a forward looking and prosperous community. Indeed, some nations adopted all sorts of techniques to increase the number of members in families. Today there is a switch in the opposite direction in many countries, lt could be argued that from a social and economic point of view it is sound for those countries to take that course. However lt certainly is not wise in this country because Australia still is vastly underpopulated. In spite of what we are told today, our immigration programme and our natural increase will never, on present tendencies, ensure that we will have a rate of growth sufficient to develop this country and to maintain th: standards that exist today. Those standards cannot be maintained with a static or receding population.

Today a person who has coped with a large family or, indeed, is happy with a large family, is treated almost like an unwanted citizen. However those people are makin;; the greatest contribution that can be made to the future wellbeing of this nation. I am appalled that the Government considers that child endowment is no longer an important area of political activity. It is important in the eyes of the Democratic Labor Party. We do not run around and suggest that everybody should have 5, 6 or 7 children because that is a matter for the individual. However such people certainly should not be economically squeezed as a result of having families of that size.

Recently i was talking to the daughter of a personal friend of mine, a man of great character who once graced another House of this Parliament. This woman is a nurse and is the mother of 6 children. She is in her early 30s and she has lost a child. We were at a social function. She is a most vivacious person and I think she was one of the best looking young ladies there. She does nursing for 2 afternoon shifts a week in order to help supplement the family budget. Her home is spotless and you never see her without a smile on her face. She is successfully rearing 6 children, the eldest of which is about 10 years of age. Her family is her life and when you talk to her about the permissive society today she laughs and asks: ‘What have I got to be sad about: this is the most wonderful thing that can happen to anybody’. We have people like that in our community who have to care for 6 children. There are others who are not emotionally equipped to do the same thing or who may not have had the advantage of the training that this young woman has had to fit her for a wonderfully useful life not only for herself but to her husband and 6 young dependent Australians.

Why should such a woman be looked upon as a misfit in our community, as she is by many people today? I believe that people of this sort should receive from our social services the necessary assistance at least to meet the extra sales tax that they have to pay on behalf of 6 children. When those children attend school that mother will have to buy six 15c ball point pens. People with smaller families have to buy only one or two pens at the beginning of the school year but the mother of those 6 children will be paying 5c tax on every one of those 15c pens. At least, if child endowment is not keeping pace with the inflated prices it ought to be keeping p.ice with the inflated taxes that are imposed through sales tax measures upon people with larger families.

We of the Australian Democratic Labor Party believe that the provision for the wives of aged pensioners to be brought within the scope of social services is only sensible. For years now, there has been a large discrepancy in regard to payments to husband and wife. Perhaps a husband has leached retirement age and the wife, who has done nothing else but housework, may be in her early fifties. No proper provision has been made for her to enjoy social services. Within this category, there is a large group of people who still have dependant children living at home. All sorts of devices have been used to have the wife declared to be in charge of an ailing husband if the husband has any sickness at all. I pay full credit to officers of the Department of Social Services who have often assisted in these sorts of cases. Indeed, very often I have known of cases in which, as a temporary measure, such people have beer able to register as unemployed so that they can receive at least for a limited period the unemployment benefits which are available in the community.

Having criticised the Government in regard to child endowment and maternity allowances I state that I believe that very worthwhile steps have been taken in this

Budget. We propose to move a further amendment which I now foreshadow and read to the Senate. If the amendment is defeated we will accept the opportunity to speak on the measure. We will move to add the following words at the end of the motion:

But the Senate is of the opinion that a just, adequate and comprehensive social service system can be achieved only by the creation of a contributory national superannuation scheme and that pending the establishment of such a scheme pension rates should be determined by an independent tribunal of experts including pensioner representation. And the Senate is also of the opinion that this Bill should have provided for increases in child endowment rates and maternity allowances which are long overdue for adjustment.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I am delighted with the provisions of this legislation which show a very high degree of humanity. Never before has such a comprehensive range of improvements in the pensioner situation been presented in one budget. If one looks at the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in respect to the Social Service Bill we see that in the category of standard rates of pension alone the provision for single people and widows with children is to be increased by §1.75 a week to S20 a week. This increase will apply to no less than 671,000 people. This figure is made up of approximately 519,000 age pensioners, 112,000 invalid pensioners, 50,000 widow pensioners. Turning to the category in which the married beneficiaries are referred to, again we see that a total of no less than 394,000 people will benefit from these increases in the standard rates alone.

Looking at the provisions of the Bill, it is very obvious that there will be a wide dispersal of benefits to many people. I think that the Government can be very proud of the coverage of this Bill. When it is considered that the increases proposed in the legislation represent the fourth separate occasion on which the rates of pension have been increaed by the McMahon Government in the last 18 months, it will be appreciated that the increases we are now considering are even more meritorious and pleasing than they may appear at first sight. The best way in which any country can be judged as to whether it has the best interests of all its people at heart is by its attitude to ils elderly citizens and its atti tude to the youngest in the community. On both counts this Government stands preeminently as a very understanding and humane one. Provisions for education have been vastly increased in recent years. So we are giving the younger generation a better opportunity to fend for itself in the life which lies ahead. At the other end of the scale, our elderly and invalid are now receiving sympathetic national recognition of their rightful place in the sun. The Minister for Social Services and the Government should be highly commended for their close attention to the betterment of these people throughout the whole range of social services.

A very important aspect of the pension increases is their effectiveness. This is demonstrated by the real gains of pensioners in the purchasing power of the pensions they are to receive. Measured by the consumer price index, prices have risen by 8 per cent since the March 1971 quarter whilst the pension for single pensioners including the proposals now before us, will have risen during the same period by 29 per cent and by 25 per cent for married couples. I regard it as a very important observation that the pension increases have kept ahead of increased prices. In other words, the pensions have been improved as effective income to those who receive them. I was pleased to note in the Minister’s second reading speech that special attention will continue to be given to detecting and further eliminating areas of need. Much has been dene but much still remains to be done. We have this statement of acceptance of the situation that there are areas of need still to be looked at and that it is a continuing matter to ensure that we provide for those Who are in need the best assistance in order to make their lives happier to the extent that our national income can reasonably afford.

The Minister has drawn attention to the Government’s concern in regard to some couples who between them receive only one pension or a pension plus a wife’s allowance. In this context 1 welcome the decision to extend eligibility for pensions at the married rate to pensioners’ wives who are ineligible for a pension in their own right by virtue of their age. This new pension which replaces the wife’s allowance and which is called the ‘wife’s pension’ is to be paid to the wives of all aged and invalid pensioners who do not qualify for the pension in their own right. Therefore husbands who now receive age or invalid pensions at the standard rate and their non-pensioner wives will receive pensions at the proposed married rate of $17.25 a week. A total of 31,500 wives will benefit from this provision. The excellent move in this direction will provide greater security in this area and eliminate the concern over insufficient money coming into the homes of married couples as has occurred in the past purely because of the age qualification.

When one sees that expenditure on social services from the national welfare fund for 1972-73, other than that which is included in this legislation, is estimated to reach $l,327m, an increase of $119m over last year, combined with these proposals which will cost $179m in a full year, it can be seen that the Government is certainly taking a very big portion from the total Budget to devote to this highly necessary and desirable area of national need. 1 feel that the increase in the amount devoted to social services has been one of the most pleasing aspects of parliamentary provision in recent times. 1 am very pleased to note that the means test is to be abolished within the next 3 years. There has been a quite definite move towards the liquidation of the means test through the merged means test and the tapered means test as we know. Now we have this assurance of abolition within 3 years. A committee will be set up to inquire fully into how this will be achieved. I regard this as a real step forward.

This is in complete accord with the principle that benefits should not be denied any person who, through his or her endeavours, has sought to provide a nest egg for the later years of life or to meet difficulties which could arise with the passing of time. To see everybody being eligible, with those who can afford to do without the pension being taxed on ils receipt, does no harm at all in that area. This does close a lot of holes in the system whereby those who were on superannuation or those who through attention to personal provision for a better financial background had been denied the benefits of the pensions system. I regard this as first class legislation. It is enlightened, understanding and humanitarian. I have very much pleasure in supporting its passage through this chamber.

Senator GREENWOOD:
VictoriaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply - I appreciate the speed with which the Senate has approved this Social Services Bill (No. 4). I recognise that the Australian Labor Party has moved an amendment which I think does not challenge the essential outlines of what is proposed by this measure, but which reflects the obligation of the Opposition not to allow too much Government legislation to pass through this chamber without some comment. As Senator Laucke has said, this is excellent legislation, lt is significant in what it proposes. It is remarkable in the change which it is bringing to the lot of those who depend upon the pension. The Government’s Budget proposals insofar as they relate to social services strike new ground in a number of ways. In the first place the basic pension rates have been increased in a manner never before paralleled in the history of the pension in this country. Secondly, we are taking steps to provide for those whom the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) has so aptly described as the ailing aged. Benefits are being provided by way of extra domiciliary care, provision for units or hostels in connection with the aged persons homes scheme and very significant increases are provided in the benefits for those who are required to be lodged in nursing homes. In addition to those specified proposals the Government has undertaken that within a 3 year period it will arrange for the abolition of the means test. Those are the 3 significant features of the Government’s Budget proposals in relation to social services.

This legislation will increase the basic rates of pensions. I repeat that the standard rate of pension is increased by $1.75 a week to S20 a week. The rate for a married couple has been increased by $2.50 a week so that it will now provide them with $34.50 a week. In addition there is a new provision under which the wives of pensioners, whether they are age or invalid pensioners, will be entitled to a pension at the married rate. As I have stressed, these are significant changes. The benefits which they produce will be felt by those who receive them. I thought it was somewhat carping of Senator Gietzelt when he addressed himself to these proposals to suggest that it was difficult to accept that these figures represent an improvement in our standard of living.

As Senator Laucke has said the increases which have been made, when coupled with the increases which have taken place 4 times in the last 18 months, represent a very significant change in the lot of those who have nothing but their pension on which to depend. It is not only the money sum which is available, nor is it the increase in the money sum which has been achieved over that period but also it is the qualitative purchasing power of that money sum. I suggest that if one looks at the increase in the consumer price index over the last 12 months and at the increase in the pension rate over that period one can see that, in accordance with Government policy, followed over a period, there has been an increase in real purchasing power. In the last 12 months the cost of living as measured by the consumer price index has risen by 6.14 per cent. But in the 12 months between the 1971 Budget and this, the 1972 Budget, the standard rate pension has gone up not by 6.14 per cent but by 15.94 per cent. The increase in the married rate of pension has been 13.1 1 per cent. The supplementary assistance rate for those who have rented premises and who are required to pay rent has gone up from $2 to $4 a week, an increase of 100 per cent.

The Opposition has not made any mention of this, but I can recall barely 2 years ago, I think in the last Budget which the Government brought down during the Prime Ministership of Mr Gorton, it was suggested that the Government, by allowing only 50c a week increase in the pension, was not allowing the pension to keep pace with what was required in the way of purchasing power. The illustration which was then used constantly was to refer to the consumer price index. I know that at that time the consumer price index showed roughly the same percentage increase as did the pension. But it was said that unfortunately this indicated that by the time the year was out the pension increase would bc quite inadequate. I think it is fair enough in this year 1972 to look again at the increase in the consumer price index and to contrast that percentage increase with the increase in the pension. The increase in the pension rate is more than double the increase in the consumer price index. I think that sort of thing is an indication of the real measure of assistance which this Budget is providing for those who depend upon the pension. It is a significant Budget. The increases which we are now considering are remarkable for their size.

The amendment which has been moved by Senator Gietzelt on behalf of the Australian Labor Party is, I respectfully submit to the Senate, an amendment which is rather meaningless in what it conveys. It suggests that to the motion: ‘That this Bill be now read a second time* a rider should bc tacked on in the following terms: but the Senate is of the opinion that the only satisfactory way to provide social service benefits is through a comprehensive national system of social security where benefits are above the poverty level and tied to an index adjusted at least annually.

There are 3 things which I think should be said by way of opposition to that amendment, apart from the general criticism that to add words of that character really does not advance the cause at all. In the first place, undoubtedly it is a satisfactory way to provide social services to have a comprehensive national system of social security. The realy important thing, however, is what is comprehended within the system of social security. I believe that we have a very satisfactory national system of social security at the present time. We have evolved a standard which does provide security for persons who, by their thrift and energy, are prepared to look after themselves and for those who reach an age at which they arc entitled to look to the society of which they are a part and to the wealth of which they have contributed to provide for them in their old agc something to which they can look forward with a high degree of anticipation and satisfaction. I think it is known that the main thrust of the Government’s social services legislation over the past 20 years has been directed towards providing for those in need. We have reached the stage where, having achieved something which 1 think would be the envy of the world, we can now move to ensure that thrift is not penalised and that the means test which has been a simple part of our social services system up till now is abrogated.

I have often referred to a statement by Professor Ronald Henderson, who, of course, was the author of a study which has been published as ‘People in Poverty - a Melbourne Survey’, and who is well recognised for the examination and attention which he has given to the problem of poverty in Australia. It has often been said that his surveys have illustrated that Australian pension rates are not as high as they could or should be. But that is only one side of the picture which Professor Henderson has presented. When put in context, I think that he has demonstrated that the level of poverty in Australia has been reduced - if not eliminated - to a degree almost unparalled through the world. J refer lo a letter which he wrote, defending the Australian position, to the London ‘Times’ on 17th April 1971. He said: lt. is our judgment-

That is, the judgment of his Applied Economic and Social Research 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.

That is the judgment of a well recognised institute in this country upon which we would do well to ponder and in which we can also take some pride.

Senator Webster:

– Has the AttorneyGeneral noted that in that survey Professor Henderson used a line to the effect that he found no poverty in any Melbourne family which was in receipt of an income?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I have not read that in the survey. 1 was merely quoting from a letter which Professor Henderson wrote to the London ‘Times’. The purpose of the survey he undertook was to ascertain the incidence and nature of poverty in Australia and what he reported was of tremendous interests He is now to head the Government’s own inquiry into poverty. On an Australia-wide basis, I think that will provide a basis for instruction on future action. I have mentioned those things because I feel, looking at the suggestion by the Opposition that there is a need for a comprehensive system of national social security, that we do have a system of social advancement and social security in this country which has achieved a tremendous amount for those who have a legitimate welfare claim upon the society of which they are a part.

The second part of the Opposition’s amendment suggests that the social security scheme should be one in which benefits are above the poverty level. For anyone to suggest, as Senator Gietzelt did, that an equating of the actual money sum of the pension today to average weekly earnings in this country will show that the position is slightly less or about the same as it was some 23 or 25 years ago is to ignore the changes which have taken place over that period. These changes make unreal a simple comparison of money figures because today there is a supplementary allowance for rent, which, by the passage of this legislation, is to be increased to $4 a week. That allowance did not exist in 1947 or 1949. So, strictly speaking, one should add that amount to the existing pension rate in the case of a single pensioner who is required to rent premises or, as a result of the passage of this legislation, in respect of married rate pensioners where a married couple have to rent premises. That would increase the standard rate pension from $20 to $24 a week and the married rate from $34 to $38 a week.

One has also to take into account all of the benefits which are described as fringe benefits that have grown up over the years. I refer, for instance, to the national health scheme and the advantages which that provides such as free treatment in public hospitals for pensioners. Then there is the telephone concession and the transport concessions provided by the States. Benefits are also provided with regard to licences for radio and television sets. In terms of money, those benefits build up to a very substantial sum. I do not believe that anyone who looks at the position of pensioners objectively can have any other view than that the affluent Australian community is certainly sharing its wealth with those who have some demand upon the conscience of society. Therefore, I do not believe that the proposition contained in the Opposition’s amendment that benefits should be above the poverty level represents a legitimate criticism of the present position.

The third proposition which is contained in the Opposition’s amendment is that social service benefits should be tied to an index adjusted at least annually. I notice that the Labor Party has indicated a caution which reveals its uncertainty in this area.

Senator Gair:

– Which Labor Party?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The Australian Labor Party. I apologise to Senator Gair. We are accustomed to regarding Senator Gairs Party as the Democratic Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party’s policy, as 1 recall it, is that the pension should represent 23 per cent of the average weekly earnings. It is a little curious that the Labor Party has not made that point in the amendment which it has moved. But if one looks at the present average weekly earnings and adds to the standard rate pension of $20 a week the $4 a week supplementary allowance one finds that the position is as the Labor Party says it ought to be. It may be that that is one reason why the Labor Party’s amendment does not seek the tying of the pension to the average weekly earnings index.

The generalised description in the amendment that social service benefits should be tied to an index adjusted at least annually suggests that all forms of benefits should be lied in some way to an index. I think there is an essential flaw in that approach which experience has indicated. We know that in the late 1930s the United Australia Party Government introduced and then abandoned a system under which the pension was tied to the consumer price index because there were occasions when, as a result of a drop in the index, it would have been necessary to reduce the pension, and no government would be prepared to do that.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– Has there ever been a drop in the index?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Not in recent times, but in 1940-41 a Labor Government did precisely what the Labor Party’s amendment today suggests should be done, that is, tied the pension to the consumer price index, but when a movement in the consumer price index in 1944-45 would have involved a drop in the pension the nexus was immediately broken. That could happen in the future. On the other hand, we might find that in a particular period the movement in the index has been so fast that it represents an inflationary situation which would have alarming national consequences if the pension were moved in the same way and exactly proportionately. The Government would have an obligation to determine whether that should be done. I believe that, difficult though the problem is from time to time and embarrassing though it may become, the Government must accept as one of its responisibilities that it fixes the actual rate of pension. I believe that a system under which the rale of pension is tied to an index is unsatisfactory. Therefore, the Government will oppose the Australian Labor Party’s amendment. 1 notice that the Democratic Labor Party has foreshadowed an amendment. Let me indicate at the outset that the Government will not support that amendment cither. I do not believe that it introduces into this debate a proposition that is novel. We have heard from members of the Democratic Labor Party in the past - I think it is their traditional policy - the argument that pension rates should be fixed by an independent tribunal. For my part: - this is a view that the Government also has expressed in the past - the fixing of pension rates by an independent tribunal would be a divestiture by the Government of a responsibility that it must accept.

Senator Gair:

– Then why does not the Government determine wages?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– The difference that is to be drawn may not be as significant as members of the Democratic Labor Party would make it. The difference between a tribunal that fixes pensions and a tribunal that fixes wages is that a tribunal that fixes wages, such as the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, is a body which undertakes a judgment that will have ramifications across the whole range of industry and a body which, in the public interest, has been established to resolve disputing claims between employer and employee. In that sense it represents the community interest in resolving what otherwise might be resolved only with great strife and hardship to the community; whereas a tribunal that fixed pensions would be determining, in effect, what the community can allow or what the Government can allow, having regard to all its other items of expenditure, by way of remuneration to pensioners. I believe that this is an area in which the Government must make a judgment that the amount it spends on social services is to be measured against how much is to be spent on education, how much is to be spent on defence-

Senator Byrne:

– That would applyalso to the imposition of taxation, if that principle were correct.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– If I understand Senator Byrne’s interjection correctly, let me say that taxation must necessarily be dependent upon the amount of revenue that the Government requires for particular objectives. If the Government, for example, were to eliminate altogether the payment on social services and the payment on defence, one would suppose that the rate of taxation would be reduced very significantly. On the other hand, if the Government were to accept the obligation to increase expenditure as a tribunal that fixed social service pensions decreed, that may in its turn have some impact upon the level of taxation.

I appreciate that this is a matter that the Democratic Labor Party has raised before, and I sense that what I have said by way of answer to it also is not new. The other aspects of that Party’s foreshadowed amendment also are matters upon which its members have indicated concern in the past and in respect of which there is nothing new. The Government, of course, provided for increases in the child endowment rates for the third and successive children in the 1971 Budget. Having regard to the substantial benefits that have been provided in other areas on this occasion. I think I can meet the Democratic Labor Party’s objection to the present Budget by saying that not every matter that has been raised could be dealt with in this Budget, but the social services proposals that the Government has introduced stand on their own because of the intrinsic merit they possess. The Government will oppose both amendments; but otherwise it draws encouragement from the fact that only one member of the Opposition has spoken against these proposals and that opposition was expressed only in terms of an amendment.

Question put:

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

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

AYES: 22

NOES: 25

Majority .. .. 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

-I. move:

At end of motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that a just, adequate and comprehensive social welfare system can be achieved only by the creation of a contributory national superannuation scheme and that pending the establishment of such a scheme, pension rates should be determined by an independent tribunal of experts including pensioner representation, and the Senate is also of the opinion that this Bill should have provided for increases in child endowment rates and maternity allowances which are long overdue for adjustment.

I shall speak to the proposition very briefly because the subject has been well canvassed. I believe that everybody would be in favour of the proposal in the amendment relating to a contributory national superannuation scheme, although there would be some contest of ideas on the establishment of an independent tribunal of experts to determine pension rates. It has been said that it would not be practicable to have such a tribunal. We have heard most of these arguments before, but the question remains whether the arguments have been valid. Decisions affecting much activity in our economy is entrusted to expert tribunals. In the case even of some industrial crises which have taken place, particularly in the primary industries, the Government often has been guided by expert tribunals which have suggested what is required to save an industry from oblivion. The Government’s main function in these instances has been to give the suggestion legislative enactment and to provide the money to implement the scheme.

The proposition contained in my amendment is not a suggestion to establish some irresponsible body that will not consider a!l aspects. The great wage tribunals of this country when allowed to operate untrammelled take into consideration all factors that are necessary for the well-being of the whole community and when they come to fix wages they do not decide that someone should have a certain increase simply because he needs it or for some similar reason; they decide whether industry can afford to pay and whether the economy can stand the increase which is proposed. The tribunal that I have suggested would take living standards of pensioners out of the political arena. No government, whatever its political complexion, can deny thai pensions become a political football. I do not wish to raise a controversy in any shape or form, but one could easily suggest that it was because of its receding popularity that the Government suddenly found that the needs of pensioners were such as to warrant their receiving an increase in the current Budget. Even if that were not true, the Government must admit that at least prima facie it appears to be true.

Although the Government has been able to afford this increase, only 6 months earlier it decided that it was not possible to grant an increase. Anybody who argues that this area of social services does not become a political football is not facing the political facts of our time. It is a political football which is used by political parties when they are in office and when they are in opposition. When a political party is in opposition it often has no idea whether what it is advocating on behalf of pensioners is possible, but it will use this means to gain favour. We believe that an independent tribunal would be a sensible approach to this problem in a modern community. On many occasions we have made suggestions which at the time have appeared to b£ radical if not impossible of application, but the Government eventually has come round to our way of thinking. We hope that the Government will accept this suggestion. There is no reason why there should not be pensioner representation on the tribunal to tell the Government of the pensioner’s needs. Someone should present the picture from their side. What happens at the moment? The Government makes its own assessment. Members of the Government are not pensioners. The Government has its experts who are highly paid public servants, but they have little or no appreciation of the circumstances of pensioners. I believe that with these salient points we can leave the matter to the good sense of honourable senators.

Surely no-one would suggest that the one increase in child endowment over 12 months ago or the increased maternity allowances are adequate or thai the increases have been sufficient to cope with the inflation that has taken place. In present circumstances a family can be regarded as a burden, but that burden should be removed from this category by lifting the rates to a more realistic level when compared with costs and charges in the community. We feel that maternity allowances have not been anything like adequate for a considerable period, despite the hospital benefits that are payable to those people who can afford to belong to hospital benefit funds. What is to happen to those people who cannot afford to belong to the funds? We believe that the proposition contained in the amendment is sensible and we commend it to the Senate.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I second the amendment moved by Senator Little. I propose to direct a few brief remarks to the first proposition contained in the amendment, as Senator Little addressed his remarks primarily to the second and third propositions. The amendment begins: but the Senate is of the opinion that a just, adequate and comprehensive social welfare system can be achieved only by the creation of a contributory national superannuation scheme. . . .

The whole history of pensions in Australia has been one of chronic dissatisfaction, of periodic adjustments and always frustration, disappointment and protest. This position is inevitably going to arise, despite the second proposition that we enunciate for the fixation of pensions by a tribunal, which is at least one step along the path of progress, until we have a comprehensive national superannuation scheme. We have been proposing this in the Democratic Labor Party for some years and we feel that we are now reaching the point of a possible realisation of this scheme. There have been reports in newspapers attributed - either directly, indirectly or by inference - to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) which show that he has in mind and in planning the introduction of a national insurance and national superannuation scheme. We urge upon the Government the desirability of adopting our proposition. It is the only way in which the position can finally be remedied. It is the only way in which we can eliminate these constantly recurring social traumas in the community. As Senator Little has said, the Democratic Labor Party often has projected forward looking social and other policies. We feel that this is one of them. National attention to a national superannuation scheme now has a very long and receding history in this country. To my knowledge it was proposed originally by Lord Casey when he was Treasurer, The suggestion went a certain distance but was then abandoned, and it was not resurrected until the Democratic Labor Party did so.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

– No, it was passed in both Houses.

Senator BYRNE:

– It was never implemented and was not resurrected until the Democratic Labor Party, finding a parliamentary presence in this place, produced the proposition. Since then it has been constantly in amendments that we have projected. Constantly it has appeared in our policy speeches and it appears again in this amendment today. We do urge upon the Government that it give earnest consideration to the project which obviously now has been studied in depth and has been the subject, as we understand it, of a recommendation from the Minister for Social Services. We can see no good reason why we should not accept such a scheme and adopt it quickly and comprehensively for the elimination of all these problems that cause perhaps more friction in this place than most other issues. I do not know why the Government would hesitate for one moment to support such a scheme and to implement it in the fullest sense of the term.

It is not my intention to prolong the attention of the Senate to this matter. It has been discussed in consideration of the Bill and by Senator Little in propounding this amendment. We commend its 3 elements to the Senate. We trust that the amendment will have the support of honourable senators from both sides, including our good friends, the Independents.

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: 9

NOES: 38

Majority 29

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1171

REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1972

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 21 September (vide page 1 1 30), on motion by Senator Drake.Brockman

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! ls it the wish of the Senate to have a cognate debate on these Bills but to vote separately on them?

Senator Keeffe:

– That course is acceptable to the Opposition.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

- Mr President, as we have just agreed, the 4 Bills will be debated together. Two are major Bills and 2 are merely interpretative Bills. Perhaps for the record I might sort them out. The Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Bill and the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Bill are designed to provide payments for children between the ages of 16 and 21 years where they qualify as students. But the first Bill, the Repatriation Bill (No. 2), and the last Bill, the Seaman’s War Pensions and Allowances Bill (No. 2), make minor amendments to pension payments. The Opposition is not opposing the Bills, but we are taking this opportunity to offer some criticisms in several areas.

Each year the Government introduces a number of amendments in the Bills which flow from the Budget. In the main the amendments are of a minor nature. We do not oppose the Bills because we do not want to hold up unnecessarily the payment of the increased pension rates. On this occasion the Government has cast in the direction of repatriation pensioners a few crumbs which are very slightly bigger than last year because this happens to be an election year. As 1 say we do not want to hold up these payments, consequently, we are giving these Bills a fairly speedy passage not only through this chamber but also through the other place.

We note from the second reading speech of the Minister for Air (Senator DrakeBrockman) that the general rate pension, that is, the 100 per cent rate pension, will be increased from $12 to $14 a week, in the immediate post war years the general rate pension, which is largely looked upon as being compensation for illness or injuries suffered in combat, comprised a fairly hig!, percentage of the average weekly wage, though at that time it was fixed on a set percentage of the basic wage. But with increasing inflation the erosion in the purchasing power of the $1 has become considerable over the years. In the field 01 the general rate pension a special sompensa - lion allowance, as it is now called, of $6 a week is paid to those who receive a pension in excess of the 75 per cent rate. So pensioners who are paid the full general rate pension plus the special compensation allowance will receive the magnificent to ta of $20 a week.

Most persons who participated in World War II now have reached early to late middle age, and an increasing number of them, particularly those engaged in manual occupations, are not able, because of their physical or general health disabilities, to work a full week. I know that many people who come to my office miss many weeks work each year. Apart from what they may be able to obtain by way of sickness benefit, the miserly total amount of $20 a week is all the additional payment which they receive. As a result of the various wars in which Australia has been involved there are some 192,000 - in fact, I believe that the figure is greater than that - general rate pensioners. The overall general rate pension has not been increased for many years. I am a little confused about the wording of a paragraph in the Minister’s second reading speech and I propose to ask him precisely what it means. Since the Budget was presented in this chamber 2 interpretations have been placed on the wording in this paragraph. A Minister recently stated publicly that there was to bc no pro-rata increase in the general rate pension below the 75 per cent rate. But in his second reading speech the Minister statel:

The Government considers that the principle of equal compensation for equal capacity justifies abolishing these different levels and replacing them with a standard general rate pension of $14 a week at the 100 per cent level. At least 95 per cent of the 192,000 general rate pensioners will, according to the assessed degree of their incapacity, receive the benefit of the $2 increase at the 100 per cent rate. The remaining number will also receive increases in their pensions, but the amount of the increases will reflect this change of policy. 1 ask the Minister whether, when he replies to the debate, he can enlighten me on that and clear up the confusion as to whether persons not in receipt of a pension of more than 75 per cent of the general rate also will receive a percentage of the increase of $2 a week.

I turn to the increase in the totally and permanently incapacitated rate. On this occasion the rate has been increased by S3. 50 to $48 a week. Some years ago this could have been looked upon as a proper rate of pension to pay to those who because of injuries or disease suffered in the service of this country were entitled to a TPI pension. But if we examine the figures today, for the same reasons as I stated a moment ago, the present rate of the TPI pension is more than $40 below the average weekly earnings in this country; in other words, it is a fraction over one-half of that figure. Again the Government has been careful to say that the tremendous increase of $12 a week has been granted in the TPI rate over the last 3 years. But that has not kept up with the rise in the cost of living.

If I were representing the Government I would not, from a sense of shame, highlight the fact that the TPI rate has been increased by $12 a week over the last 3 years. If the pension were to keep up with rising costs, in view of the way in which the currency has been eroded by inflation, it ought to be at least twice that amount. In the previous debate in this chamber reference was made to this point when dealing with social service payments. The average person receiving a TPI pension, who is unable to earn any other income at all, has not been properly compensated by this country. If the average soldier who has been disabled by war had not suffered those injuries probably he would have been earning a salary, if not equal to the average weekly earnings, at least somewhere not far below them. So I am unimpressed by the Minister’s argument about the generosity that has been extended by increasing repatriation pensions.

The attendants’ allowances, which are payable in addition to war pensions, now have reached the princely sum of $17 a week. That allowance is payable to an exserviceman who is blind and who is afflicted with total loss of speech or total deafness and to an ex-serviceman who has had both arms amputated will be increased to $17.50 a week. If a full-time nurse is required, I do not know of any nursing award which would allow a nurse to work for that sum. So the payment is unrealistic. But in respect of those ex-servicemen who have suffered less severe disabilities, particularly if they are blind or paralysed - that is looked upon as being less severe - or if they have suffered certain severe amputations - and I am using the Minister’s own words - or who are otherwise so disabled as to need an attendant, the allowance is to be increased by $1 to $10.50 a week. The same remarks as I applied a few moments ago to the allowance of $17.50 a week apply to this new allowance of $10.50 a week, but with greater emphasis. We have never been looked upon, and particularly in the last 15 to 20 years, as a nation which is over-generous to war widows. In this country some 50,000 women have lost their husbands as a result of death in combat or as a result of disabilities after their discharge from the Army or the Air Force or the Navy. The Government at this time has been ultra-generous, in its own view, by increasing a war widow’s pension from $18.25 to $20 a week and by giving an increase of 50c in the domestic allowance which brings it to $8.50. Then by manipulation or juggling of figures the Government through its Minister points out that this section of the community is an affluent section. Many women who were widowed in World War I or World War II, others who were widowed as a result of the Korean and Malaysian conflicts and still others who were widowed as a result of that illegal war in Vietnam, none of whom has remarried and may never remarry, are totally dependent on the ungenerous allowance that is paid by the Government by way of the war widow’s pension and whatever fringe benefits such as children’s allowances which may be paid. In the field of chilren’s allowances also the Government says that it has been very generous, in that it has been able to pay to war orphans, the children who have lost their fathers as a result of war and whose mothers had previously or subsequently died, $14.70 per week. They are a particularly unfortunate group of children because had their parents not been involved in a war, at least one parent probably would still be living. But once again through the sanctimonious attitude which the Government adopts, the Government believes it has been overgenerous and is giving away too much money, money.

In the view of the Opposition the field of repatriation has been treated consistently by the Government over a long period of years as a field in which the Government has no responsibilities or in which it has responsibilities which it has consistently avoided. In the field of educational allowances we see precisely the same thing. Secondary school students aged 12 to 14 years who live at home receive the princely allowance of $2.60 a week, and for those in the 16 to 18 years range who live away from home the Government believes that $13.30 a week is sufficient. In the Service pension bracket I have a further query which I wish to place before the Minister (Senator Drake-Brockman) because the wording of his speech would indicate that the means test has been abolished so far as Service pensions are concerned. I ask the Minister to clarify this question when he replies in the debate. The Minister said in his speech:

The BUI amends the Repatriation Act to extend improved benefits to them.

That is to service pensioners. His speech goes on:

The means test and maximum rates for Service pensions are the same as those for age pensions. Proposed increases in maximum pension rates and supplementary assistance, and the easing of the means test, including the conversion of superannuation pensions, will benefit service pensioners substantially and permit many more people to qualify for them. Unlike most previous years, no reductions will be necessary this year in Service pensions by reason of increases in war pensions. On the contrary, increases in each pension will give many people substantial increases in their combined pension income.

There is a long standing principle that a general rate war pension is not subject to taxation, nor is it normally subject to the means test in the every-day commercial field. But when one brings it back to the person who is forced by reason of advancing age to apply for the burnt out digger’s pension at the age of 60 one finds that if he receives a fairly substantial general pension the means test is applied rigidly to him. I ask the Minister, in view of the manner in which he has worded his speech: If the means test has been abolished say so in clear and unequivocal terms. If it has not been abolished in relation to Service pensions then I ask the Minister to bring out an explanatory memorandum stating the facts.

When speaking about war widows the Minister referred to a whole series of socalled fringe benefits. In fact, war widows do not get many fringe benefits at all. The Minister said also that of the 50,000-odd war widows in this country 20,000 are entitled to social services pensions. When one analyses the figures and takes into consideration all payments to which a war widow is entitled, one sees that she lives at the rate of about half what she would normally expect to receive as a co-partner in a marriage in which the husband was not disabled as the result of war service. Thus, first the Government takes away her husband as a result of war, then it throws her on the physical scrap heap because it is not prepared to pay to her the type of compensation which will enable her to live in dignity and without financial worries and to bring up her children in the manner available to a normal married couple. It is true that a war widow does not suffer the same restrictions as are placed on a civilian widow if she wants to take outside employment. But the Government must remember that many World War II widows, and almost all widows who lost their husbands as a result of war in the intervening years, still have school age children. The girls who were widowed as a result of the Vietnam war still have preschool age children and are not able to battle it out in the community to earn a decent supplementary wage. If a woman becomes entitled to a Service pension or part of it, plus all the so-called fringe benefits which the Government talks about, she will receive a maximum of S44.25 a week. In addition the Government talks about free medical attention, of course. But a war widow living in a distant country area has her own and Buckley’s chance of having a major operation carried out at a principal repatriation hospital. The Government has again carried on figure juggling in the last part of the Minister’s speech on the first Bill which is before the House today. I think that this ought to be written into the record for, as I said recently, the Government has been successful in fooling some of the people some of the time. This is what the Minister said:

The increased payments to which this Bill will give effect repesent a culmination of the Government’s efforts during this Parliament to enhance the benefits available to incpacitated ex-sevicemen and to dependants of those whose deaths were related to their war service.

All I can say at this juncture is: Thank God that this is an election year, because there is no way in the world that this Government would have paid any of these benefits in some oases, and there is no way in the world that it would have paid more than 25 per cent in those fields where it could not dodge responsibility. In each of the 3 Budgets and on 2 other occasions during the life of this Parliament the Government has introduced legislation to increase and extend benefits. When one looks at those 2 other occasions one sees that as a result of public opinion polls which showed that the popularity of the Government was seriously declining the Government decided to roll some crumbs off the table. The Minister went on in his speech to say:

Our prime concern has been the most seriously incapacitated and the dependants of those whose deaths were attributable to war. In less than 3 years the special (T & PI) rate will have been increased from $36 to $48 a week, an increase of 33.3 per cent. The war widows’ pension will have been increased by the same percentage. The pensions of children–

This is where the real figure juggling takes place - of deceased ex-servicemen whose deaths were related to war service will have been increased even more substantially, by 36.1 per cent in the case of a first child, and 72.9 per cent in the case of second and subsequent children, . . .

This is not a case in which the Government ought to be commended because it found it necessary to increase the pensions by 72.9 per cent in the case of second and subsequent children. This means that it had those kids on starvation rates for so many years previously. In other words the Government has eased its conscience by increasing the rate by a higher percentage. The Minister went on to say:

  1. . while the pensions of children who have lost the support of both parents will have been increased by 44.8 per cent.

As I said a moment ago, they now receive the princely sum of about $14 - and these children have no parents. The Minister continued:

Over the same period, the various economic indices have shown movements at lower rates: . . .

He went on to refer to the consumer price index which increased by 15.4 per cent, the minimum wage which increased by 31.4 per cent, and average weekly earnings which increased by 29.9 per cent. What the Minister failed to say is that whilst the Government brought in certain increases in a limited time it did not take into account all those years when it let the rates slip so far behind. The Labor Party spokesmen have said consistently that in all fields of repatriation the Government has a record only of neglect.

On at least 2 occasions in this chamber in the few short years that I have been here we have carried resolutions calling on the Government to give free medical treatment to all diggers of World War 1 and the Boer War. The Government failed to do so on each occasion. We have carried resolutions calling for the establishment of a Senate select committee to go into repatriation problems and year after year the Government has refused. Then, when the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare had repatriation referred to it for investigation - I might say that it is not doing a bad job - the Government decided that it would appoint Mr Justice Toose to carry out an independent investigation. I know many people who want their cases investigated but they are not going to go along to a one-man tribunal and jay. ‘Investigate this because I think it is wrong’. The only chance they will get will be the investigation being carried out by *he Senate Committee.

Might I make this brief reference also while I am talking about investigations.

Statements have been made by some witnesses and by some independent people who have communicated with the Press, as well as by people who have published books and pamphlets, suggesting that some ex-servicemen - according to some of the writers, many ex-servicemen - bludge on the community. This is not true. It may be true to say that there is a very tiny minority who try to get something to which they are not entitled. However, that applies right across the board to all sections of the community. There is always someone who tries to get something to which he is not entitled. Ex-servicemen as a body are basically an honest group of people. They have learnt to be honest through their comradeship over the years. They learnt it by suffering together and by making sacrifices on behalf of all their fellow men. If some people try to catch the Repatriation Department they represent a very tiny minority.

I know from the evidence I see from day to day that many ex-servicemen receive less than justice from this Government because it is prepared to be less than generous in interpreting the Repatriation Act. The Government puts the onus of proof not where it ought to be but fairly and squarely on the ex-servicemen. That was never the spirit of the Act. I recall a particular case involving a man who was completely wrecked; a man who suffered war injuries and who today gets about a 20 per cent general pension in addition to what he can get from the burnt out diggers’ pension. Because that man is too ill to travel to tribunals and because the Repatriation Department is not prepared to extend its services to places away from the metropolitan areas, he probably never will have the opportunity to bc properly assessed. We had a similar case a couple of years ago. That man was unfit to travel to appear at a tribunal. Previous tribunals said that his disability was rated at so and so and that he would get no more. While we were in the process of fighting the decision of his last tribunal he died as a result of war caused injuries. Because of the shock that must have been felt by those concerned at the time there was no hesitation in granting his widow a war widow’s pension. The Government has this tendency to treat exservicemen as second class citizens in the same way as it treats pensioners, many of the migrants and the Australian Aborigines as second class citizens.

The attitude of the Government, Mr President, can be properly described as a psychological one. Unless the Government is prepared to remember that the community is made up of people and to do something to uplift their general standards of living, it is hopeless for us to ask it to take the case of ex-servicemen in isolation and treat them as human beings. I have asked in this chamber for a repatriation officer to be stationed in an office at Townsville, a city 1,000 miles north of Brisbane and with a population in excess of 75,000. Year after year my request has been refused but I make the plea again. My request does not apply to that city only because it happens to be in my State. The same thing should be done in other States as well. But in Townsville there is an added incentive; it is rapidly becoming a major Services centre. Years ago land was set aside for the building of an Army hospital but it has never been erected. The proposal has not even got to Cabinet for consideration or approval. Outmoded buildings and outmoded facilities are still being used. The old camp hospital is in an area that will have to be vacated shortly to make way for the marine biology institute - that is, of course, if the institute is ever set up. Certainly no moves will be made by this Government to set it up. I am not critical of the people who staff the camp hospital. The doctors, nurses and others associated with it have adequate and proper training. However, there is no reason why the Government cannot build a major Army hospital and set aside a wing in it for repatriation pensioners. Why should a man from north Queensland have to leave his home for many days, many weeks and sometimes many months in order to receive attention in a repatriation hospital in Brisbane? That is unrealistic, yet the Government is not prepared to examine the possibility of doing something about it.

In the world of figure juggling which 1 referred to in my recital a few minutes ago, the Government has excelled itself by quoting the total cost this year of running the Repatriation Department. 1 do not know why the Minister for Repatriation referred to these figures but I suppose it was reasonable enough because he was able to prove that in 1969-70 actual total expenditure was S3 1 7m and this year it will increase by $102m. The Minister jumped from 1969-70 to the projected figure of $41 9m for this year. In other words, by figure juggling the Minister was able to prove that this year the Department will expend $102m more than it did 4 years ago. Let us look at the figures for the years in between. The figure for 1970-71 was $340m, an increase of some $23m.

For the financial year 1971-72 the figure is $378m, an increase of approximately $38m. But for the current financial year, 1972-73, the figure will be $4l9m. In fact, if honourable senators make a comparison they will see that the overall yearly increase is less between those years. The Government has deliberately chosen to compare, the expenditure for the year 1969-70 with the projected expenditure for the current financial year, to hoax the people, particularly ex-servicemen with its alleged generosity. But the position does not work out that way.

I could cite many other figures from the report of the Department of Repatriation. But 1 do not propose to do so because, as I said earlier, we are anxious to give this Bill a fairly speedy passage for the purpose stated. Bat I want to question the Minister on a few other matters. If wc are to look at the overall requirements of repatriation, we have to remember those who have been maimed in Vietnam and those who are dependants of those killed in Vietnam. Once an allowance was paid to the widowed mother of a man killed in action. 1 do not know what has happened to many of the other repatriation benefits paid by the Labor Government in the immediate post-war years. Either they have been dropped or neglected. The Government cannot avoid its responsibility for almost 500 people, many of whom were national servicemen - forced soldiers - killed in Vietnam. Nor can it neglect almost 2,000 people who have been maimed or disabled as a result of war accidents or war sustained injuries. Many of these people do not receive repatriation benefits. Most of them are not entitled to war service homes or to any of the so-called fringe benefits that the Government so often gloats about paying. But the position extends further than this.

In a national service ballot drawn recently, the birth dates of 53,000 men were placed in the barrel, and 4,200 were drawn. If one looks at the new release issued by the Department of Labour and National Service, one can only feel ashamed at one’s own fellow Australians. It included the Minister, Mr E. M. C. Fox, C.B.E., M.P., who presided at the ballot, and Mr Ian Johnson, M.B.E., Secretary of the Melbourne Cricket Club and former Australian test cricket captain. I say this because at the conclusion of the news release Mr Ian Johnson’s signature appears as guest drawer of the lottery of death and then appears the signature of Mr Max Fox as the chairman of this social occasion. The lives of 4200 men - if the Government desires to become involved in a war again - may well be placed in jeopardy in a few weeks lime. I have complained before when these ballots have taken place about the tea parties and the grog parties that are held at the drawings. The Government turns them into gala occasions. The person who drew those marbles, the chairman who presided and all of the socially elite who hung around knew that as each marble came out, some of the kids with those birth dates would be going to their death.

The Government has now told us often that it has got rid of the Communist problem in South Vietnam. It has cost almost 500 lives. It has cost many kids in this country their fathers and many wives their husbands. The Government now chooses to neglect them. Even a former Prime Minister of the present Government, only a few days ago, said that the Repatriation Act ought to be amended to see that such people receive some sort of justice. Those are not his exact words but that was the sentiment behind the words. I suppose that one can hardly take much notice of his words anyway because when he was Prime Minister he gloried, as do Government supporters now, in increasing the number of people who went to Vietnam. Today, the Government still has 150 people there. As evidence from Opposition senators and Opposition honourable members in another place has indicated during this session of the Parliament, the Government is training school age Cambodian kids for front line warfare. That is not the role of a true Australian. But I suppose that if some Australian instructor decided to buck it, he would be given a bowler hat from the Army and perhaps his career would be ruined. As members of a so-called responsible Government, Ministers opposite must take full responsibility for any of these things that go wrong.

I was upset this morning when the Minister for Air replied in rather scathing terms to a question asked by my colleague, Senator Cavanagh. It was in relation to a number of things that happened at Puckapunyal. Do not think that these things are confined to Puckapunyal. They are not. If the Government conducted an investigation it would find that there are other Army establishments in Australia where just as many happenings of a similar nature are taking place, particularly amongst the young people who are forced to serve in the Army and who do not want to go to Vietnam. Travel anywhere outside this country and you will find hundreds of young Australians who have left this country in order to avoid being called up for national service. Many young Australians who should have been able to complete an apprenticeship or matriculation studies - most of them have - and continue to university did not believe in fighting in Vietnam. So without breaking the law they left Australia. They are working at odd jobs in many countries. Some of them have not gone very far away from Australia. But probably they have lost an opportunity in life. Probably, as a result of their conscience in relation to the National Service Act they have lost an opportunity to become professional people. Some of them have lost the opportunity to take up late apprenticeships and to train in other fields such as banking and insurance. Eventually they could become a drug on the market in the unskilled trades because of the legislation placed on the statute book by this Government. I make this final plea for those who have suffered as a result of service in Vietnam: The Government should apply right across the board the whole of the provisions of the Repatriation Act. If the Government has not the courage to do this, the Labor Government will after November this year.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– Sometimes one does not realise how good certain legislation is until one considers the weakness and the futility of the Opposition attack upon it. I think that the honourable senator who just resumed his seat has proved this truism. Apart from a little carping criticism he has simply read the provisions of the Bill and added some miserable assertions at the conclusion of his remarks. I want to refer merely to 2 of them. I rebut his statement that the onus of proof in the case of repatriation applications is on the ex-serviceman. The most cursory examination of existing legislation will show that in case of doubt the soldier applicant must be given the benefit. That is written into the legislation. As far as his drivelling nonsense in respect of the lottery of death is concerned, his remarks are hardly worth traversing. The function at the time of drawing the marbles is to ensure absolute honesty and integrity in the supply of the marbles so that those whose birth dates are called out may be absolutely certain that the matter has been done honestly and accurately. When he engages in this emotional clap-trap about kids going to their deaths after the ballot, we have to remember that approximately one-ninth only of those whose birth dates are called out will ever see service in the Army. That one-ninth, even when our commitment in Vietnam was at its highest, in fact seemed in many instances safer than on the roads of this country.

The honourable senator suggested that hundreds of these people left the country in order to avoid the call-up. I would very much like to see statistics in relation to this claim. I cannot share his synthetic tears and indignation for those who refused to honour their obligation to this nation. I am sick of the talk of conscience when it is used as a blanket or as an excuse for cowardice or for refusal to accept one’s obligation to the nation. If one has a conscience - it is possible that conscience may prevent certain people from serving in the forces - there are adequate provisions in the national service legislation to enable those who have a genuine conscientious objection to have their case heard. The Opposition should remember that every member of the Australian Labor Party voted in support of the national service legislation. 1 support the 4 Bills which are before the Senate but I propose to devote most time to Repatriation Bill (No. 2). The principle of repatriation is generally accepted by governments of all complexions in our community. In this case the Government is not only coping with inflationary pressures - it would be idle to deny they exist - but also it is changing certain principls of compensation. For example, the invidious practice whereby injury to a private soldier was regarded as less worthy of compensation than injury to an officer is being abolished. Mr President, I know that you as an ardent and erudite student of the classics are far more conversant with these matters than I am but it is my belief that Western society in relation to repatriation owes a great deal to ancient Rome - far more than we are prepared to concede or acknowledge. Tn about the time of Marius the Roman general - about 105 B.C. - the loyalty of soldiers was being transferred from an infant state to the commanding general. The soldier swore allegiance lo the general. The general gave him his daily pay of about lie. It is true that the general covered some of his superannuation and pension liability and his repatriation liability by permitting looting and plunder of enemy cities. Of course we strictly forbid this. lt was the general who appeared before the Roman Senate and argued the case for the legionary’s repatriation benefits. Unlike this Government the Roman Senate was a bit grudging in the benefits which it was prepared to concede although usually in the end lt gave in. Most frequently the provision was a plot of land. For those whose service was outstanding the land might well contain a villa. Mr President, you will recall that one of the reasons why the legions of Julius Caesar so enthusiastically avenged his murder at the battle of Philippi was the extremely generous repatriation provisions which Caesar made for his legionaries. Many years later, about 130 A.D., the Emperor Hadrian reformed the law and administration of the Roman Empire, including that in regard to the repatriation of legionaries. Of course in Roman times the armies were generally victorious. In those times a victorious army took very few fatal casualties but it did take very many wound casualties - roughly about 10 times as great. Hence the need for repatriation services was borne in upon Hadrian.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to order. 1 suggest that Senator Hannan is way out from the 4 Bills because Australia had no soldiers in the Roman wars. We are trying to apply the events which happened in the various wars in which this country has been involved since the turn of this century. I respectfully suggest that the honourable senator is several hundred years away.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Hannan is merely illustrating to the Senate how the system of repatriating exservicemen commenced. I have listened to him with a great deal of interest.

Senator HANNAN:

– Thank you. Mr President. As I was saying, the Emperor Hadrian, because of the great number of wounds compared with fatal casualties, realised the need to set up some form of repatriation benefits. One of the most interesting things to emerge from our comparison with the provisions of the Emperor Hadrian is that the same time was required by the Emperor’s legionaries as is now prescribed by British repatriation legislation, namely 20 years. If a legionary had served for 20 years he was permitted to retire and his upkeep became the responsibility of the general and the state. He was usually given a free plot of land and allowed to work it. Sometimes, as I said, he was given a villa.

Senator McManus:

– That was soldier settlement as we understand it today.

Senator HANNAN:

– Yes. 1 think that could well have been the model for some of our present State legislation. If wounded - as 1 said, Roman wound casualties were heavy - the soldier was allowed to retire and given the same benefits. It seems reasonable to surmise that if the same repatriation provisions had been kept in force it is probable that Roman morale would not have disintegrated and that the Barbarians would have been unable to overcome Rome in the fifth century. Mr President, as you will recall, during Charlemagne’s time and later through the Crusades the whole idea of repatriation seems to have been in abeyance, lt was not until somewhat more modern times that what was originally practised centuries ago began to emerge in the legislation and practice of Western countries. For example, in the United States the history of military compensation and pensions goes back to the colonial period. The Pilgrims of Plymouth colony in 1636 enacted a law providing that if any person shall be sent forth as a soldier and shall return maimed he shall be maintained competently by the colony during his life. That was the first of the American repatriation provisions. Later other American colonies made similar provisions although presumably the Treasury then as now was as smart in dealing with other departments. There was no actual appropriation by the colony treasuries to meet provisions which were made. The Continental Congress which sat during and after the American War of Independence developed the idea of a repatriation pension for ex-sevicemen and funds were then properly appropriated. Of course, since then there has been current and recurring legislation by American Congresses to bring the matter up to date because they accept responsibility for their wounded and maimed and their dependants exactly as we do here.

In Great Britain the philosophy of repatriation began in a rather slipshod fashion where much of the payments were made to ex-servicemen who had been impressed, legally or illegally. The pension and repatriation payment depended largely on the whim of a personal commander. Of course, Cromwell was not averse to rewarding members of his model army for service during the campaign against the king. Now in Britain as here the government of the day fully recognises the serious responsibility it has to those who have risked their lives in defence of the nation.

Senator McManus:

– What did Cromwell do in Tipperary?

Senator HANNAN:

– Senator McManus, I shall take that matter up on another occasion. It is interesting to note - I cannot help but be struck by this coincidence^ - that for serving officers to qualify in Britain for pensions on retirement they must have served for the same period as that prescribed centuries earlier by the

Emperor Hadrian, namely, 20 years. I am one of those who believe servicemen deserve the very best from our community.

To come now to the situation in Australia, I think I can say without contradiction, despite the carping criticism of Senator Keeffe, that this Bill is well worthy of support. A total of 300,000 Australians are going to benefit from this legislation. When one looks at the pension rates one must recognise, as Senator Keeffe rather grudgingly admitted, that because pension payments are free of income tax they therefore mean a greater sum in the hands of the recipients than they may bear on their face value. The general rate of pension is to be increased from $12 to $14 a week for those on the 100 per cent pension rate. I again express my pleasure that the invidious discrimination between officers and men has been eliminated. About 95 per cent of the 192,000 people in receipt of the general rate of pension will benefit from this legislation. The TPI rate is to be increased by $3.50 to $48 a week. The intermediate rate is to be increased by $2.75 to $34 a week. The maximum rate for an attendant is to be $1 7.50 a week.

I realise that nothing we can do can repair the shattered limbs of the recipients of these pensions and put them back into the position in which they were. I realise also that nothing we can do in the way of money can restore a loved husband, brother or father. But I think it is commendable, at least having regard to the state of our society, that a reasonable attempt is being made to upgrade these pension payments. If I did have any criticism - I do not propose to develop this just at the moment - it is that the war widow’s pension could have gone up a little more than the increase to $20 a week that she is to receive, although I am pleased to note that the domestic allowance has gone up to $8.50 a week and the pension for children of ex-servicemen is to be $7.35 a week. This legislation covers the whole general field of repatriation and it increases allowances in every field it touches. I cannot understand the Opposition’s complaint about the position in 1969-70, although it is clear that the 1977.- 73 appropriation provides for an increased expenditure of about 33i per cent over the expenditure in that year. I suppose it is the vast increase in the percentage which has caused the Opposition its concern.

In closing, 1 want to express the strongest condemnation of those experts, those academics, those newspapers, those magazines, those politicians - largely Labor Party politicians and their left wing friends - and all others who have continually denigrated the profession of arms. They have, by direct statement, by inference and by criticism, alleged that the profession of the soldier was that of a murderer. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am thankful that, especially in peacetime - of course, we take it for granted in wartime - there are honourable men and women who are prepared to devote their lives and their energies to the service of the nation in our defence forces. The risks they take, even in peacetime, are very real. One has only to consider for a moment the unfortunate ‘Voyager’ disaster to realise that in peacetime the men of the Navy are dicing with their lives for the benefit of the nation’s security. I think the nation owes them all an incalculable debt. 1 point blank refuse to regard the serviceman who risks his life for our defence as being in any way inferior to a boilermaker, a metal trades worker or even a waterside worker. The serviceman must be given fair and just treatment when he is no longer serving. 1 believe that this legislation, together with the .projected defence forces retirement benefits legislation, will give the serviceman and his dependants at least that degree of frugal comfort and security to which his endeavours on behalf of the nation have justly entitled him. I support the 4 Bills.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– f seek leave to ask a question, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Withers) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– My question is: Why is the last amount shown in column 3 of the First Schedule S40. 10 when the other amounts shown are $40.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - Would you like the Minister for Air to make some reference to that in his reply, if he can?

Senator Donald Cameron:

– Yes, I would.

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

– in reply - I thank the Senate for its support of these Bills. Senator Keeffe, in opening the debate for the Opposition, said that it supported this legislation and wanted it to be passed by the Senate as quickly as possible. Senator Keeffe went on to make some comments that were based on his own experiences. I am very pleased to say that I do not think that those are the general experiences of most other honourable senators. I believe that the repatriation benefits paid in this country are very good. I believe that they are equal to those paid in any other country in the world. However, from time to time pressure is brought to bear for improvements to certain benefits. The Government has given consideration to all of the representations that have been made to it over the years and has acted on those with which it agrees. I would point out that the Returned Services League and the other ex-service organisations provide strong support to ex-servicemen and women in this regard. The RSL in particular meets representatives of the Government each year and puts a submission to them on repatriation benefits. The RSL is listened to very carefully by ex-servicemen who have had long experience in dealing with repatriation matters.

The increased payments provided for in this legislation are a culmination of the Government’s efforts over the period of this Parliament. In the last 3 Budgets there have been increases in benefits paid to repatriation recipients and on 2 other occasions during the lifetime of this Parliament there have been further increases. The Government’s prime concern has been with the most seriously incapacitated and the dependants of those whose death is attributed to war. Senator Keeffe said that increases in pension rates had not kept up with increases in the minimum wage or increases in costs. If 1 may take up some of the time of the Senate, I would like to demonstrate how the rates paid to TPI pensioners and war widows compare more than favourably with the movements in the consumer price index and the minimum wage. Since June 1950 the consumer price index has increased by 152.3 per cent. In the last 3 years it has increased by 16 per cent. Since June 1950 the minimum wage has increased by 278.5 per cent. In the last 3 years it has increased by 20.5 per cent. Since June 1950 the TPI pension has increased by 352.8 per cent. In the last 3 years it has increased by 33.3 per cent. Reference has been made to the fact that the special rate-

Senator Keeffe:

– I wish I had a chance to speak again; I would really blow that up.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Honourable senators on this side of the House could have blown up Senator Keeffe’s argument, but it was not worth our while to chase all the hares that he put before the chamber. If we look at the Labor Party’s proposals, as presented to the RSL by Mr Barnard, we find that it has suggested that the special rate pension should be increased to not less than the minimum wage. The increase proposed in this Bill takes that pension to $48 a week, which will exceed the minimum wage less income tax deductions for both single and married men. I understand that the Labor Party is taking the minimum wage as $51.80 a week whereas ;he true minimum wage is §51.10 a week. I draw the attention of Senator Keeffe to the fact that a man on a wage of $51.10 does not take that home; he takes home that amount less income tax and other deductions which bring it down well below the $48 provided for in this Bill.

Senator Keeffe talked about widows. I agree with much of what he said about the hard life a widow has to face when she has lost her husband as a result of him defending his country, and particularly when sh. has to bring up a young family. Labor’ i proposal would increase the widow’s pension to 50 per cent of the minimum wage; that is 50 per cent of $51.10. Under this Bill the war widow’s rate of $20 a week plus the domestic allowance of $8.50 a week is well above 50 per cent of the minimum wage.

Senator Keeffe:

– We did not ever say that we would take away the domestic allowance.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No, but Labor has said that the war widow’s rate should be 50 per cent of the minimum wage. I am demonstrating that under this Bill it will be more than 50 per cent of the minimum wage-

Senator Keeffe:

– War widows will be $5 or S6 a week better off under us than they are under you.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That is what the honourable senator says, but I am quoting the proposals put forward by Mr Barnard. 1 cannot do any better than that. I take it that Mr Barnard had the permission of Caucus to put forward these proposals.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are distorting Mr Barnard’s figures.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No, I am not. Anyhow, let me go on and say that I include the domestic allowance because 97 per cent of war widows receive it. So, I do not think the argument Senator Keeffe advances is valid. He talked about the way ex-servicemen are treated. I point out to him that an ex-serviceman has to apply to a repatriation board; then he can apply to the Repatriation Commission; and finally he can go to a tribunal should he desire to do so. At the present time every one of those bodies is manned by ex-servicemen. Surely Senator Keeffe is not saying that those men, who are men of great experience and who belong to ex-servicemen’s organisations in this country, will let the ex-servicemen down.

Senator Keeffe:

– Those are your words, not mine.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That is what I believe Senator Keeffe was trying to imply. He asked me a number of questions. Firstly, with reference to the general rate he asked me whether those on 70 per cent-

Senator Keeffe:

– I referred to those below 75 per cent.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes, so I am taking 70 per cent. He asked whether those on 70 per cent and less would receive increases. The answer is yes. It was stated in the second reading speech that the great majority of general rate pensioners - that is, at least 95 per cent of the 192,000- would receive the full benefit of the $2 increase at the 100 per cent rate. The rest also will receive increases, but such increases will be a little less because the higher rates for higher ranks will be abolished. An example is that a flight lieutenant now receives $12.23 a week at the 100 per cent rate and lower ranks receive $12 a week; in future all ranks will be paid $14 a week at the 100 per cent rate.

Senator Keeffe:

asked whether the means test is abolished in treating war pension as income for service pension purposes. The answer is that the means test has been eased considerably, although not abolished, on this occasion and war pensions are still treated as income. Of course, when the means test is finally abolished - the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) has said that he hopes this will be within 3 years - they will no longer be treated as income. Senator Donald Cameron asked me to refer to the last amount in column 3 of the First Schedule. The second reading speech, which is reported at page 1128 of Hansard, refers to the fact that all levels of war widow’s pension other than the highest will be increased on this occasion with a view to eventually abolishing all distinctions because of rank.

Senator Keeffe:

– That means that anybody with a rank higher than colonel will still receive 10c a week more.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I understand that all ranks above captain in the Navy, colonel in the Army and group captain in the Air Force do not receive an increase.

Senator Keeffe:

– What is the 10c for?It is only 10c, but it does not look good.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-] am told that that is the rate in the Schedule at the present time.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is abolished now.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It will be abolished the next time there is an increase. I will arrange for the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) to look at what Senator Keeffe and Senator Donald Cameron have said and, if I can provide any information other than what I have given, I will be happy to do so. Senator Hannan made a speech in defence of these Bills. I was very happy to hear what he said. He went back a little before my time. Apart from the comments to which I have referred, in general the Senate has supported the Bills; so I suggest that the motion for the second reading now be put.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1182

REPATRIATION (SPECIAL OVERSEAS SERVICE) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 September (vide page 1130), 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.

page 1182

REPATRIATION (FAR EAST STRATEGIC RESERVE) BILL 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 September (vide page 1130), 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.

page 1182

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL (No. 2) 1972

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 21 September (vide page 1131), 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.

page 1182

TAXATION

Senator COTTON (New South Wales-

Minister for Civil Aviation) - I present the following papers:

Taxation– Taxation Statistics 1970-71, Supplement to the 50th Report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 1st September 1972; and the 51st Report of the Commissioner of Taxation dated 1st September 1972.

page 1182

QUESTION

ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

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

– I move:

The purpose of this motion is to enable Estimates Committees B and D to meet. Estimates Committee B will meet in room L17 and Estimates Committee D will meet in the Senate chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 5.38 to 10.15 p.m.

page 1183

QUESTION

MINISTERIAL HOUSING POLICY

Ministerial Statement

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– by leave - Honourable senators will recall that in answer to questions in the House last year the Prime Minister (Mr McMahon) indicated that existing Government policy in relation to the provision of housing in Canberra for Ministers would be revised. The Government has now completed that review. The Government believes that it is right that Ministers should continue to have access to accommodation in Canberra that accords with the responsibilities they have to carry out. Ministers have to spend a considerable time in Canberra whether Parliament is sitting or not and it is in the interests of the Government, of the administration, and of the country that they should be encouraged to live in Canberra and be assisted by having suitable accommodation available to them, lt is also reasonable in these circumstances that Ministers should be able to bring their families to Canberra and establish their homes here, at least temporarily, if they wish to do so.

The Government has concluded that furnished or unfurnished flat or house accommodation should be made available to Ministers who wish to live in Canberra. But there are 2 new elements. Houses will bc occupied by Ministers only while they remain in the Ministry and there will be no right of purchase. Ministers who occupy houses made available by the Government will be required to vacate within a reasonable time after they leave the Ministry, although if they wish they will be given priority in renting a Government flat. Finally, 1 would add that it may be appropriate that the whole matter of housing for Ministers should be placed on a statutory basis; the Government will be giving further attention to this aspect. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1183

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (SALES OF MARKETABLE SECURITIES) BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

This is the first of 3 Bills needed to implement the Budget proposal to increase the rate of stamp duty payable on the sale and purchase of marketable securities. Stamp duty was introduced into the Australian Capital Territory on 1st July 1969 both to stop the Territory from being used as a haven from State duties and to ensure that Territory residents bore certain charges comparable with those borne by residents of the States.

On transactions in marketable securities - that is, in company shares or debentures or in rights to take up shares or debentures - Australian Capital Territory duty is at present levied at the rate in force in the States when the Australian Capital Territory duty was introduced. The States increased their rates by one-half from last January. This Bill, with the 2 associated Bills I shall introduce shortly, will bring the Australian Capital Territory rates up to the new State rates.

Where securities listed on a stock exchange are sold for full value through a stockbroker, duty - either Australian Capital Territory or State - is collected from seller and buyer under the ‘broker return’ system. Where the order to sell the securities is placed with a broker in the Territory, Australian Capital Territory duty payable by the selling broker is now imposed at the rate of 20c for each Si 00 or pari thereof, if the sale price is $100 or more. For transactions of less than $100 in value the rate of duty is 5c for each $25 or part thereof. For sales of securities made on or after 1st November 1972 it is proposed by this Bill to raise the rate to 30c per $100 or part thereof, where the sale price is$1 00 or more. For smaller transactions the proposed rate is 7c for each $25 or part thereof.

An explanatory memorandum relating to this and the associated measures is being circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1184

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY TAX (PURCHASES OF MARKETABLE SECURITIES) BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

This Bill is associated with the Australian Capital Territory Tax (Sales of Marketable Securities) Bill 1972 that has just been introduced. It proposes an increase - of the same order as proposed in the earlier Bill - in the rates at which stamp duty is imposed under the ‘broker return’ system on the purchase side of transactions in marketable securities. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1184

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY STAMP DUTY BILL (No. 2) 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

This Bill is the third of the stamp duty measures necessary to bring the rate of Australian Capital Territory stamp duty on transactions in marketable securities into line with the rates in force in the States. Under A.C.T. legislation, duty on transfers in unlisted shares, and on other transfers outside the ‘broker return’ system, is payable by the person to whom the securities are transferred. The present rate of duty is 5c for each $12.50 or part thereof of the value of the securities transferred. This Bill proposes to increase the rate of 15c for each $25 or fractional part of $25 of the value of the securities. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1184

ESTATE DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

This Bill will give effect to the estate duty proposals announced in the Budget Speech. At present an estate is exempt from duty if its value is $20,000 or less and it passes to the spouse, children or grandchildren of the deceased. The corresponding amount where no part passes to these close relatives is $10,000. For primary producer estates the outright exemption is $24,000 for estates passing to close relatives and $12,000 where no part so passes. In broad terms, a primary producer estate is one which consists principally of farm assets, including land, and which results from the death of a person domiciled in Australia whose income was, in the 5 years before death, principally derived from a business of primary production.

This Bill proposes to double the exemption limits. The general exemptions will thus become $40,000 for an estate passing wholly to close relatives and $20,000 for an estate passing wholly to other persons. The exemptions for primary producer estates will become$48,000 and $24,000. The exemptions will continue to diminish at the existing rate of $2 for every $8 by which the value, of an estate exceeds the outright exemption level. This means they will cut out for estates generally at $200,000, where the whole of the estate passes to close relatives, and at $100,000 where no part so passes. For primary producer estates the cut-out points will be $240,000 and $120,000 respectively.

As a result of the proposals in this Bill, about one-half of the estates that would have become liable for duty under the present law will be wholly exempt. Most estates that remain dutiable will benefit from some reduction in the amount of duty payable. The new exemptions will apply to estates of persons who died or die after 15th August 1972. A memorandum explaining the provisions of the Bill is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1185

GIFT DUTY BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

This Bill will give effect to the Budget proposal to raise the gift duty exemption from $4,000 to $10,000. The present exemption limit of $4,000 was fixed in 1947 and applies to the value of all gifts made by the same donor within a period of 3 years. Where the aggregate value of all gifts made in a 3-year period commencing 18 months before and ending 18 months after the date of a particular gift is within the exemption limit, the gift is exempt from duty.

Under the proposals in the Bill, gift duty will not be payable on a gift made on or after 16th August 1972 unless its value is greater than $10,000 or its value, together with the value of all other gifts made in the aggregation period, is greater than that amount. The Bill also contains shading-in provisions - along the lines of those in the present law - to ensure that full duty is not payable where the value of gifts made by a person within the aggregation period is only marginally above the exemption level. A memorandum explaining the provisions of the Bill is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1185

GIFT DUTY ASSESSMENT BILL 1972

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales Minister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill is complementary to the Gift Duty Bill that has just been introduced. At present no gift duty return needs to be furnished unless gifts amounting to $3,000 - three-fourths of the existing exemption of $4,000 - are made in a relevant period. This Bill will raise the amount of gifts requiring a return to $7,500, that is, threefourths of the new exemption of $10,000. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1185

ADJOURNMENT

Jetair Pry Ltd

Motion (by Senator Drake-Brockinan) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– In spite of the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) gave a clear undertaking in a Press statement he issued on 22nd September 1972 that all the papers relating to the Jetair purchase would be produced in the Senate today, this has not happened. I am concerned at this failure. The statement said:

The Government was ready to table all the papers relating to the purchase of the aircraft and it would do so when Parliament met next Tuesday.

The statement continued:

Mr Bowen said that be had not had an opportunity himself to study the file in detail but that he had a firm assurance from his Department and the Department of Supply that the papers did not include a letter from Mr Fraser . . .

My first question is: Why have not the papers been tabled today, as was undertaken clearly by the Minister for Foreign Affairs? Can we be assured that further disagreement has not arisen as to the need to table these papers? Can we be assured further that, in spite of what the Minister has said, the letter from Mr Malcolm Fraser, in his capacity as Acting Minister for Supply, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be part of the papers which are tabled?

Despite the Minister’s denial that such a letter exists, reports have appeared in the Press to the effect that it does exist. The Melbourne ‘Sun’ on Saturday, 23rd September 1972, reported:

A senior official told the ‘Sun’ last night Mr Fraser had sent a minute to the Foreign Affairs Department pointing out that the purchase offer made to Jetair was irregular.

The official said Mr Fraser had insisted that the purchase could not go through until the Supply Department investigated to make sure better planes were not available at a lower price.

It was also learned last night that at one stage the then Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, called for the file.

This information adds further to the irregularities pointed out by the Opposition and the independent senator, Senator Turnbull. But the papers have not been tabled today, contrary to the firm promise by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is there a further disagreement? Is there now an attempt to table only some of the papers or at least to exclude that letter which is important to the whole of the papers? Is there now an attempt to cover up the disagreement which existed at the time between the Department of Supply and the Department of Foreign Affairs? I think it is only right that we should have some explanation why the papers have not been tabled. I seek that explanation from Senator Wright who represents here the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– After the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr N. H. Bowen) made the statement referred to by the honourable senator, it was necessary for him to proceed on the same day or the following day to the United States. America to attend to United Nations business there. His colleague, Mr Sinclair, assumed the duties of Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. He made a special trip to Canberra on Sunday to co-ordinate the papers with his officers. The Acting Minister returned to his electorate on Monday. On Tuesday, today, he and I have co-operated without much intermission with officers to assemble the papers. Having regard to the interest of Senator Turnbull in this matter, I mentioned to him late this afternoon that I expected that the assembly of papers would not be completed in time for tabling today. He expressed his satisfaction with that statement. My Leader, Senator Drake-Brockman communicated with Senator Murphy within the last hour or so and indicated that the assembling of papers had reached this stage. Senator Murphy indicated his satisfaction with the proposal that the tabling should take place tomorrow. The papers will be tabled tomorrow. They will be tabled fully. I resent any attempt to gain cheap publicity. I resent any suggestion that there will be any attempt to cover up.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– 1 did not intend to enter into this debate, but I want to make a minute’s contribution in order to ask the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) whether the letter that is alleged to have been sent from Mr Malcolm Fraser will also be tabled with the documents that the Minister will table tomorrow.

Senator WRIGHT (Tasmania - Minister for Works) - by leave - It has already been stated that no letter was written by Mr Malcolm Fraser to the Department of Foreign Affairs or to the department for which he was then the Acting Minister.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Was there a minute?

Senator WRIGHT:

– Just pardon me. But on the departmental papers he made an entry of 2 queries, and after the exchange of departmental correspondence on those queries - the queries being on a submission dated 3rd February - the Minister obtained further information by correspondence and he minuted his agreement to the submission on 9th February. AH of this will appear in the papers tomorrow.

Senate adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

page 1187

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

page 1187

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES

(Question No. 1992)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many applicants were unable to gain admission, at each of the universities in Australia this year, to the Faculties of (a) Medicine, (b) Dentistry and (c) Law.
  2. How many graduated in 1971 in the Faculties of (a) Medicine, (b) Dentistry and (c) Law.
  3. Of those who graduated, how many were non-Europeans who, after the completion of their course of studies are expected to return to their home countries.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

  1. 1 refer the honourable senator to the answer appearing in part (3) of his Question No. 1991.
  2. Graduates from Australian universities in the faculties of medicine, dentistry and law in 1971 were as follows:
  1. The information requested is not recorded by universities and is therefore not available.

page 1187

POSTM ASTER-G ENERA L’S DEPARTMENT

(Question No. 2317)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister rep resenting the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

  1. How many women hold senior positions in the Central Administration, Engineering Planning and Research Division, Engineering Works Division, Telecommunications Division, Postal Services Division and Management Services Division of the Postmaster-General’s Department.
  2. Has the Postmaster-General made any endeavours to ensure that women are given equal opportunity to serve in the higher levels of the Postmaster-General’s Department.

Senator GREENWOOD - The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Three- all in Management Services Division.
  2. All senior positions in the Commonwealth Service are open equally to males and females. There is no restriction on the promotion of women to senior positions on the basis of their sex.

Under the provisions of the Public Service Act, the promotion of officers to departmental positions under the Permanent Head is the responsibility of the Permanent Head and the Public Service Board, rather than the Minister. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to intervene in departmental staffing matters or attempt to influence particular promotion decisions.

page 1187

CHURCHILL TRUST FUND

(Question No. 2371)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

  1. What donations have been made to the Churchill Trust Fund since its formation by (a) the State Governmenls and (b) the Commonwealth Government.
  2. What is the present composition of the committee administering the fund and were any of the members nominated by the Commonwealth.

Senator WRIGHT - The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) The Winston Churchill Memorial Trust is a completely autonomous institution having no formal ties with the Commonwealth Government or State Governments. However the information sought is readily accessible from the the various annual reports of the Trust and 1 am informed that these reports may be obtained from the Chief Executive Officer of the Trust at its National Headquarters located at ‘Churchill House’ in Canberra.

The Commonwealth donated $220,000 to the nationwide appeal in 1965 and also contributed $10,000 towards collection and administrative expenses. Donations to the Trust fund are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.

page 1187

NATIONAL PARK IN NORTHERN TERRITORY

(Question No. 2421)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, upon notice:

Were discussions held between officers of the Department of the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of National Development on the establishment of a Top End National Park in the Northern Territory; if so, when and where were the discussions held and what decisions resulted.

Senator GREENWOOD- The Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As the Prime Minister has said in reply to similar questions, it is not the policy of the Government to provide information on these matters which concern advice to Ministers and arrangements between Ministers and their advisers.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-BROCKMAN - On 20th April 1972 Senator Townley asked me a question without notice concerning the damaging effect which the import of blue peas from New Zealand was having on the Tasmanian blue pea industry. I gave an undertaking to obtain further information on this industry.

The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided me with the following information:

Information supplied by the industry indicates that local demand for blue peas is about 2,500 tons per annum. Above average crops in 1969-70, and 1970-71, particularly 1970-71 when 4,533 tons were produced, created a situation of oversupply on the domestic market. This situation was aggravated by the loss of export markets of more than 400 tons during 1971-72. Consequently merchants had above average stocks at the beginning of 1972. Processors also had higher than normal stocks due to increased purchasing during 1971.

It is clear from investigations carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry that New Zealand import competition in the form of prices offered by New Zealand exporters as well as actual imports landed played some part in the fall in blue pea prices on the domestic market. I have therefore asked the Department of Trade and Industry to write as soon as possible to the New Zealand Government officials informing them that it is intended to raise blue peas at the Joint Australia/New Zealand Pea and Bean Industry panel meeting on 19th October 1972 with a view to arranging a solution to the problem which is satisfactory to both countries.

page 1188

BLUE PEAS

page 1188

AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES*

(Question No. 1991)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. How many students were admitted this year at each of the universities in Australia to the Faculties of (a) Medicine, (b) Dentistry, (c) Veterinary Science, and (d) Law.
  2. Of those students admitted in each of the faculties referred to how many were (a) Commonwealthassisted Asian students, and (b) private Asian students.
  3. How many applicants were unable to gain admission to the Faculties of (a) Medicine, (b) Dentistry, (c) Veterinary Science, and (d) Law.

*See also page 127

  1. Of those who were unable to gain admission, how many were (a) Australian students, (b) Commonwealth-assisted Asian students, and (c) private Asian students.

Senator WRIGHT- The Minister for Education and Science has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The information required to answer the honourable senator’s question has been supplied by the universities.

The number of students enrolled in the first year of the faculties of Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Science and Law in Australian universities in 1972 were -

  1. First year Asian student enrolments into each of the four faculties referred to were as follows:
  1. For a number of reasons it is not possible to provide reliable figures for the number of qualified applicants who were unable to gain admission to each of the 4 faculties in question. Universities in the metropolitan areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide have in recent years established common admission centres in their respective areas and prospective students make a single application listing orders of preference for various faculties within each of the universities in the city concerned. Thus, a student whose first preference was medicine at one university and second preference was medicine at another university may have been accepted by the latter university. The statistics of the admission centre would show him as not having been accepted for the faculty of his first choice whereas in fact he would have gained admission to the discipline of his first choice at the university of his second choice. The problem is further complicated by the fact that some students also make applications to universities in other States. Thus a student who was recorded by one State as not having been accepted by any university within that State for the discipline of his first choice may have been accepted for that discipline by a university in another State. It follows that any figure that might be given will unavoidably include duplications.

There are other reasons why figures purporting to indicate numbers of applicants who were unable to gain admission into specific faculties can be misleading. After the submission of applications for admission to universities there are always some applicants who decide to enrol in colleges of advanced education or other postsecondary institutions, some who decide to return to school in the hope of gaining a scholarship in the following year and others who, for one reason or another, decide not to proceed with university education. Indeed, a significant proportion of applicants who are actually offered places do not in fact take up those offers. This year the proportions in Sydney and Melbourne were 30 per cent and 23 per cent, respectively. The proportion would almost certainly have been greater had the numbers offered places been higher.

Subject to the above qualifications and reservations,I would advise the honourable senator that the aggregate of the numbers of qualified applicants who nominated any one of the 4 faculties in question as their first preference and who were recorded by the admissions centre us not having been offered a place in response to their application of first preference at a particular university were as follows -

However, it is likely that many of these applicants would have been admitted to the discipline of their first choice by a university other than the university of their first choice or, failing that, have been admitted into another faculty of a university in their own city. Finally, I should again emphasise that inferences cannot validly be drawn about shortages of places in the 4 faculties from the magnitude of the above figures.

  1. The information required to answer this part of the honourable senator’s question is not separately recorded and is therefore not available.

page 1189

ROLLING STOCK

(Question No. 2240)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and (Industry, upon notice:

Were proposals for the stabilising of the rolling stock manufacturing industry presented to the Minister by a metal trade’s union delegation some six weeks ago; if so, in the light of the impending dismissals at Tulloch Ltd, when will the Minister respond to the proposals.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

In March 1972 I met with a deputation of union representatives concerned with the current position in the railway rolling stock manufacturing industry in New South Wales.

The position outlined by the union representatives was subsequently considered sympathetically. The action proposed by the deputation, which relates to an area which is essentially a responsibility of the State Government and has implications for Commonwealth/ State financial relations, together with the problems which prompted these representations is receiving the Government’s attention and I will advise the Senator when a decision has been taken in this regard.

I am informed that the outlook for the railway rolling stock industry in New South Wales has shown improvement in recent months following the letting of an important new contract for suburban carriages. Also it has been reported that Tulloch Ltd recently entered into arrangements which are expected to improve the availability of funds for the company and allow the company’s product range to be extended where practicable.

page 1189

ABORIGINES

(Question No. 2261)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice:

Did Tercon Pty Ltd, the contractors who were awarded a $300,000 contract to widen the Bagot Road (Northern Territory Newsletter, May 1972), give any assurance that provision would be made for Aborigines to be employed on the project.

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

Civil works contracts in the Northern Territory do not contain specific provisions relating to the employment of Aborigines. There are at present only a small number of Aborigines with suitable work skills available for employment. The Northern Territory Administration and the Department of Labour and National Service co-operate closely in placing Aborigines in employment appropriate to their skills and experience. These authorities bring to the attention of contractors and other employers the availability of Aborigines for employment and employers generally have co-operated in employing Aborigines.

page 1190

BIRD SMUGGLING

(Question No. 2266)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. What were the names and addresses of people prosecuted for bird smuggling in and out of Australia, and what were the amounts of the fines imposed for this offence during the years 1970, 1971 and the first half of 1972.
  2. Have all the fines been collected; if not, what action has been taken against the defaulters.
  3. Has any action been taken in conjunction with Interpol to prosecute the overseas agents associated with the smugglers referred to in (1).

Senator COTTON- The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Release under Section 19b Crimes Act. $100 good behaviour bond.
  1. No. In 2 cases action for recovery of the outstanding debts is proceeding. In a third case the current whereabouts of the person concerned are unknown and efforts are being made to locate him.
  2. No. The practical difficulty in this area is that concerted action by overseas Governments and police is possible only if the country concerned has legislation prohibiting the import of Australian fauna or the export of indigenous species.

page 1190

URANIUM

(Question No. 2309)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

  1. Did Australian and French officials meet in Paris over the period 15th-17th February 1972 to plan a joint feasibility study of the technical and economic possibilities of constructing a uranium enrichment plant in Australia.
  2. Will the Minister (a) inform the Parliament where the proposed plant will be built and, (b) who were Australia’s representatives at the conference.

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

  1. Yes.

  2. (a) No decision has as yet been made on whether or not a uranium enrichment plant will be constructed in Australia. The work at present being carried out merely comprises the first stage of a feasibility study on whether it would be technically or economically feasible to construct such a plant. The study among other things has entailed collection of preliminary data on a number of possible sites.

    1. The Australian representatives at the conference were officers from the Australian Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of National Development and the Paris based offices of the Departments of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry.

page 1191

EMPLOYMENT FOR WOMEN

(Question No. 2316)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:

  1. How many women are employed in senior positions in the Imports/Exports Division, Inland and Special Services Division, Tariff Division and Management Services Branch of the Department of Customs and Excise.
  2. What are the reasons for the extreme under-representalions of women inthese posts and, what endeavours, if any, has the Minister made to ensure equal opportunity for women to serve in senior positions in the Divisions and Branch listed in (1).

Senator COTTON- The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. No woman is employed in a senior position in the Divisions and Branch of the Department of Customs and Excise listed in part (1) of the question. However, 2 women are employed in senior positions in the Laboratory organisation.
  2. All senior positions in the Commonwealth Service are open equally to males and females. There is no restriction on the promotion of women to senior positions on the basis of their sex. Under the provisions of the Public Service Act, the promotion of officers to departmental positions under the Permanent Head is the responsibility of the Permanent Head and the Public Service Board, rather than the Minister. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to intervene in departmental staffing matters or attempt to influence particular promotion decisions.

page 1191

EMPLOYMENT FOR WOMEN

(Question No. 2328)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many women hold positions on the Australian Council for the Arts, and on the Interim Council for a National Film and Television Training School.
  2. What endeavours, if any, has the Prime Minister taken to ensure that women are given equal opportunity to serve in the higher levels of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and in the various bodies within the Prime Minister’s area of responsibility.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN- The

Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 am informed that 2 women hold positions on the Australian Council for the Arts, one of whom is also a member of the Interim Council for a National Film and Television Training School.
  2. Under the provisions of the Public Service Act the promotion of officers to departmental positions under the Permanent Head is not a Ministerial responsibility but one for the Permanent Head and, in certain circumstances, the Public Service Board. Senior positions in the Commonwealth Service are open to males and females equally. There is no restriction on the promotion of women to senior positions on the basis of their sex.

page 1191

EMPLOYMENT FOR WOMEN

(Question No. 2330)

Senator MURPHY:

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

  1. How many women and how many men are serving on the Commonwealth Immigration Advisory Council and the Commonwealth Publicity Council.
  2. Has the Minister made any endeavours to ensure that women are given equal opportunity to serve on these bodies.

Senator GREENWOOD- The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Members of the Immigration Advisory Council are, in the main, representatives of community organisations and the 5 women members presently serving on the Council represent a large crosssection of the Australian community - including 3 major women’s associations with a combined membership of more than 940,000.

The representatives on the Council are nominated by their organisations and appointed by the Minister. It is open for those organisations which have mixed membership to nominate either men or women to represent them.

A similar situation exists with the Immigration Publicity Council which currently has no female members.

page 1191

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 2339)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Government received a request from the British Government asking that Australia accept, as migrants, some of the Asian persons whom the Government of Uganda proposes to expel.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN - The

Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

An informal request was received on 18th August.

page 1192

ELECTORAL

(Question No. 2350)

Senator MULVIHILL:

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

Can voting facilities be provided for the recording of absentee votes in any polling booth throughout Australia at the next Commonwealth election without the necessity of amending the Commonwealth Electoral Act.

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

It would be necessary to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act before an elector could record an absent vote at any polling booth outside the State for which he is enrolled.

The Commonwealth Electoral Bill which the Minister for the Interior introduced on 31st March 1971 contains provisions which would enable electors to record absent votes at polling booths throughout Australia.

page 1192

COMMONWEALTH PRISONS

(Question No. 2354)

Senator McLAREN:

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

Why is it that, with the great surplus of eggs and butter that exists in Australia, that these commodities are not made available to prison caterers for inclusion in the daily diet of prisoners in Commonwealth prisons.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for the Interior hag provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The only Commonwealth prisons are in the Northern Territory where the scale of rations for prisoners is prescribed by regulation. The ration scale is at present being reviewed and the addition of eggs and butter to prisoners’ diet is one of the proposals for the new scale.

page 1192

MEDICAL BENEFITS

(Question No. 2360)

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

Are Australian citizens resident in the Territory of Papua New Guinea, who are members of recognised medical and hospital funds, precluded from receiving Commonwealth benefits on claims made on the funds; if so, will the Acting Minister take whatever action is necessary to ensure that this anomalous situation is rectified.

Senator GREENWOOD- The Acting Minister for Health has provided the fol lowing answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Under the National Health Act, Commonwealth benefits are payable for medical and hospital expenses incurred during the temporary absence in Papua New Guinea of an Australian resident who is a member of a registered medical or hospital benefits organisation.

The question whether a person who is overseas can be regarded as a resident of Australia is determined having regard to the circumstances of each case. However, a temporary absence is generally considered to be not more than 2 years.

It is not proposed to change the present provisions of the legislation regarding the payment of Commonwealth benefits in these cases.

page 1192

TRESPASSING ON COMMONWEALTH LAND

(Question No. 2367)

Senator GIETZELT:

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

  1. Are large numbers of private motor vehicles being parked on nature strips and open space areas surrounding Parliament House; if so, is this practice a breach of section 3, paragraph 3, of the Australian Capital Territory Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance 1972.
  2. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, why have the Australian Capital Territory Police not acted with the same alacrity against these offenders as they did against those persons who were associated with the Aboriginal Embassy.

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

  1. The only area in the vicinity of Parliament House on which parking is made an offence under the provisions of section 3, sub-section. (3.) of the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance is that area notified in Gazette No. 64 of 1972.
  2. The area notified in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3.) of section 3 of the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance has not been used for parking.

page 1192

ELECTORAL

(Question No. 2377)

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

Will the Government introduce a Bill to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act, so as to obviate the necessity for candidates at Federal elections making a statutory declaration of moneys expended by them, or on their behalf, which sum, if it exceeds the maximum prescribed in the Act, could result in a perjury charge being laid against them.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for the interior has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Commonwealth Electoral Bill which the Minister for the Interior presented to Parliament on 31st March 1971 contains provisions for the repeal of those Sections requiring the submission of returns of electoral expenses.

page 1193

DARWIN GAOL

(Question No. 2386)

Senator McLAREN:

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

  1. How often has a visiting Justice attended the Darwin Gaol in the past 12 months.
  2. Is there a regular time-table set down for a Justice to visit the Gaol and, if there is no regular time-table, what is the reason for the situation.

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

  1. In the 12 months ended 31st August 1972 a visiting Justice attended on 10 occasions.
  2. A Justice should visit the Gaol at least once a month. Temporary absences of the Justices from Darwin have prevented compliance with this requirement. The appointment of additional Justices to the panel is being considered.

page 1193

TRADE BETWEEN ALGERIA AND AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 2399)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice:

What was the value of trade between Algeria and Australia for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72.

Senator COTTON- The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Statistics issued by the Commonwealth Statistician show that the value of trade between Algeria and Australia for the last 3 years was as follows:

page 1193

IMMIGRATION

(Question No. 2415)

Senator WILLESEE:

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

Have certain applicants for migration to Australia been rejected and in some cases has a significant factor in rejection been the religious or quasi-religious views of the applicant.

Senator GREENWOOD- The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Not all applicants for migration are approved for entry to Australia.

Applicants for migration to Australia are not required to state their religion and no provision is made in application forms for religious adherence to be recorded. Approved applicants for assisted passages from Britain and some other countries are given the opportunity to indicate their religion when movement arrangements are being made. It is made clear to them that they are not obliged to do so and that the information is required only to assist religious organisations in Australia to offer help to them after their arrivel. The information is not recorded statistically and no other use is made of it.

Unassisted migrants are not asked any questions about their religion. ft follows that the religious views of applicants for migration are not a factor in determining their eligibility.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On 29th August Senator O’Byrne asked me as Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry the following question without notice:

Can the Minister inform the Senate what steps, if any, have been taken to establish a World Trade Centre in Australia, in Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne.

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

The establishment of a World Trade Centre in Sydney was raised with the Commonwealth Government by the Government of New South Wales. The proposal has been discussed by the Minister for Trade and Industry with the New South Wales Government and Executives of the Sydney Committee for the Centre. In addition, the proposal has been closely examined by the Commonwealth Departments involved and considered by Senior Ministers.

It has been decided, after the most careful consideration, that except possibly for the inclusion of someliaison and information services, the Commonwealth does not wish to be committed to participate in the establishment of the Sydney Centre.

I havereceived no representations concerning proposals for such a Centre elsewhere.

page 1193

WORLD TRADE CENTRE

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 September 1972, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1972/19720926_senate_27_s54/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant