House of Representatives
25 September 1952

20th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 20th Parliament
  3. 1952

Mr. Speaker (Hon. Archie Cameron) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2104

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– I feel that I should inform the House that on Tuesday last the Auditor-General took certain action within this building which, from my point of view, is a most serious assault upon the privileges of the Parliament. The circumstances have been reported to- the Prime Minister jointly by the President of the Senate and myself, and we also reported them to the Joint House Committee at its meeting on Tuesday last. The committee is to meet again next Tuesday in order to consider the matter, and, at the moment, I prefer not to say anything further about it.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I wish to address a question to you, Mr. Speaker. Under what standing order have yon power to adjourn the House immediately a quorum is found to be not present during some debates and not during others ?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Obviously when a quorum is not present, no question can be put to a. House that is not in being.

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– “Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether members of the Government’s Food and Agricultural Committee, which functions under the chairmanship of the honorable member for Macarthur, receive any fees or allowances, ‘ travelling facilities, payment of travelling expenses, - stamp or stationery allowances for use in connexion with their work? If so, will the Prime . Minister furnish details of the assistance that is given?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I shall find out whether there is any substance in th» suggestion.

page 2104

PRIVILEGE

COMMONWEALTH LITERARY FUND.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Yesterday, the honorable member for Hindmarsh asked me whether it is possible for a member of the House to waive parliamentary privilege. I have given some consideration to the matter and I now reply as follows: Each member enjoys an individual privilege which guarantees him certain powers and immunities needful to perform his functions as one of that collective body which is this House. But the privilege becomes a collective privilege in relation to anything said or done in this House in the discharge of his duties and functions. One of the oldest privileges of Parliament and the one most obvious to us all is the privilege of free speech within the chamber. Once something has been said in this House it becomes the collective property of the House, although the responsibility for saying it rests on the member. A member is always at liberty to retract or qualify something said here, but he cannot divest his statement, once having uttered it, of the privileges of the House. Nor can he, by a subsequent statement made under that same privilege, waive, cancel, impair, or destroy the privilege protecting his original statement.

Mr Wentworth:

– I desire to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Does the honorable member claim that he has been misrepresented ?

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Yes. The offer that I made to waive my parliamentary privilege was genuine. I should like to read a letter that I have written to the solicitors for Miss Kylie Tennant.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable gentleman said that he desired to make a personal explanation on a matter in respect of which he claimed that he has been misrepresented.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– My position will become clear if I am permitted to read this short letter. On the 28th August, I wrote to the solicitors for Miss Kylie Tennant the following letter : -

Dear Sirs,

On the 28th August I made certain statements in the House in regard to your client, Kylie Tennant. These statements were based on my belief in her continuing connexions with communism.

That belief T. now find mistaken, and as I indicated yesterday in the House, my statements were withdrawn with apologies.

I indicated also that I did not intend to claim privilege for these statements. I am not clear as to the legal formalities which this involves but whatever they are I will use my best endeavour to meet them.

For your information shortly after making my original statement in the House, I repeated it. in substance to several people outside the House, and I should be willing to provide you with an admission to this effect in statutory form.

This would enable your client to found any action with which she may desire to proceed.

I should be glad to meet you at your convenience to arrange such legal formalities as you may require.

I have read that letter in order to correct statements that have been made to the effect that my bona fides in this matter were not above reproach. I made a genuine mistake. Although I have privilege, I do not intend to claim the benefit of privilege, and I have taken this step to divest myself of it.

page 2105

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH OIL REFINERIES LIMITED

Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether Cabinet decided yesterday to sell the Commonwealth’s interest in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited ? Secondly, will he now make available to the House the legal opinions that he referred to and relied upon in this connexion during the debate about this matter last week, and also a statement of the factual position upon which those opinions were given? Thirdly, will he give the House an opportunity of expressing its opinion of the proposed transaction before it is completed ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The right honorable member has asked me whether Cabinet yesterday decided-

Dr Evatt:

– It has been reported in to-day’s press that Cabinet yesterday decided to sell the Commonwealth’s interest in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited.

Mr MENZIES:

– The press is wrong. The matter was not referred to at all at yesterday’s Cabinet meeting. I recently indicated that when there was something to be said about this matter I would take the opportunity of saying it to the House. That answer stands.

page 2106

IMMIGRATION

Air. HAWORTH. - My question is directed to the Minister acting for the Minister for Immigration. Is it correct, as has been reported, that the Government will not intervene to obtain employment for the nineteen British immigrants who were brought to this country by the New South Wales Government and who have been told that there are now no jobs available for them?

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– No, it is not true.. The Australian Government has already intervened in that matter. As I said yesterday, immediately this incident was reported I communicated with the appropriate State Minister in New South Wales, and discussed the matter with him. I expressed the anxiety of the Government about the matter and received assurances from him that his government would do what it could. I do not think that the distance to which the Commonwealth has gone, and will continue to go, in the matter of placing immigrants in employment, has been recognized. As one illustration, it can be pointed out that every one of the British immigrants brought to this country under Commonwealth nomination - and many thousands have entered this country under those conditions - has been placed in employment by this Government.

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA

– Can the Minister acting for the Minister for Immigration inform me whether it is a fact that the British Government intends to reduce its contribution towards the cost of the Commonwealth scheme for assisted British immigrants ? If it is a fact, what will be the increased amount that will have to be provided by the Australian Government if the present flow of British immigrants is to be maintained?

Mr BEALE:

– Discussions about the amount of the British contribution are proceeding at the present time. At the moment I am not able to give the honorable gentleman the figures for which he has asked, but I shall have the matter investigated and furnish him with a reply, if I can.

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister representing the. Minister for Immigration seen a most remarkable statement made by a senior detective of the police consorting squad at police head-quarters in Russell-street, Melbourne, to the Police Classifications Board yesterday? The statement, which has been given wide publicity, was that new Australians have caused clubs to spring up in Melbourne and that young new Australians in particular have no respect for law and order?

Mr BEALE:

– Yes, I have seen that statement and I consider it to be unfair. This matter has been raised in the House again and again. A report by the Immigration Advisory Council, which went into the matter with great care, was tabled recently.- It revealed that the incidence of .law-breaking and crime among new Australians was no greater, and indeed was somewhat less, than among native Australians. I gather that the detective officer concerned was making an application for an increase of his salary and was therefore interested in indicating the pressure of work that he has to do. That fact might very well have influenced the evidence that he gave.

page 2106

QUESTION

ANZUS COUNCIL

Mr WARD:

– Will the Prime Minister inform honorable members whether a communication or a request was received by the Anzus organization from Great Britain seeking either admission to membership or the right to have observers at the conferences which have been or are to be. held by that body? If so,’ did the Australian Government support such an application? If it opposed the request of the British Government will the right honorable gentleman state his Government’s reason for so doing? Further, did the Australian Government discuss this matter with the British Government prior to the decision of the Anzus conference, and, if not, would not such failure to consult constitute a breach of the established practice of the nations within the British Commonwealth of Nations to consult upon all matters of common interest ?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I rather welcome the question as an indication, for the first time, that the honorable member for East Sydney has some anxiety about Great Britain. We have no ambiguity in our minds on that matter. The Minister for External Affairs has been asked questions several times about this matter, and he has given honorable members such opinion as it is possible to give the House in relation to a matter which is not debated on the house-tops but is discussed through the ordinary channels of communication.

page 2107

QUESTION

HOUSING

Mr CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Social Services state whether there is any immediate hope of a restoration of firm price contracting in the building of war service homes?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Social Services · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– The answer is, “ Yes “. During the past few months there has been a progressive improvement in the supply of building materials and a greater stability in the building industry. The War Service Homes Division has been gradually reverting to the pre-war practice of requiring fixed lump sum contracts for the building of homes for ex-servicemen. The Government agrees with this policy because it believes that any benefits which are derived from it should be passed on to ex-servicemen building homes. In fact the Government would welcome a return to firm price contracting not only in relation to war service homes but throughout the entire building industry,. It lias advised all Commonwealth departments, therefore, that whereever possible contracts for the building of homes should bo on a fixed lump sum basis and should not contain a rise and fall provision.

Mr McLEAY:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Will the Minister for Social Services inform the House whether a rise and fall clause is used to protect the builder of war service homes against a rise in costs? If so, should it not bs retained to protect the ex-serviceman against any fall of prices that must ensue as a result of the Government’s policy to check inflation ?

Mr TOWNLEY:

– The honorable gentleman has asked me to express an opinion. It is not easy to do so on the spur of the moment. Basically, our policy is to pass on to ex-servicemen all benefits that are available.

Mr McLEAY:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP; LCL from 1951; LP from 1954

– That cannot be done under firm price contracts.

Mr TOWNLEY:

– That is a matter of opinion. In practice, we are encounter ing no difficulty in obtaining firm price contracts. We hope that we shall be able to continue to get them, and, in conformity with Government policy, to pass on the advantages to ex-servicemen.

Mr WIGHT:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Prime Minister say whether a report has been made by the Commonwealth officers who investigated an allegation about the operation of the project of the Queensland Housing Commission at Zillmere in that State? If the report, when made, corroborates my allegation about moneys made available by the Commonwealth to the Queensland Government under the terms of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the States Grants (Imported Houses) Act 1950, and is of such a nature, as to suggest that it would be desirable to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the way in which those moneys have been used, has the Commonwealth power to appoint such a commission?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– This morning 1 have seen and read hastily a report on this matter from one of my ministerial colleagues. There is no doubt that, on the face of the report, the statements made by the honorable member for Lilley are well justified ‘by the facts that have come to our notice. A very serious state of affairs has been disclosed. I should be glad if the honorable gentleman would ask the question again to-morrow morning. By that time, I shall be in a position to give him a detailed reply to it.

page 2107

QUESTION

ELECTRIC POWER

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that 200 men employed on the construction of the Wangi Wangi power house, which is being erected by the State government

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is asking the Prime Minister a question on a matter which, on the honorable gentleman’s own showing, is not under the control of the Prime Minister. Therefore, the question is out of order.

Mr JAMES:

– He is the head of this Government.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The power house is not under the control of the

Prime Minister, and he is not responsible for employment on the project.

Mr JAMES:

– I wish to ask the responsible Minister-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Prime Minister is not the responsible Minister.

Mr JAMES:

– Well, I ask the Minister concerned-

Mr Menzies:

– That is the Premier of New South Wales.

Mr JAMES:

– This is not the New South Wales Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member must resume his seat unless he. asks a question that concerns the administration of this Government.

Mr JAMES:

– I ask the Minister for Supply whether it is a fact that, as a result of restrictions imposed by the Government, work on the Wangi Wangi power house cannot proceed ? This power house will supply much-needed electricity not only to the northern districts of New South Wales, but also to Sydney, with which it will be linked.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr BEALE:
LP

– The matter raised by the honorable member is not within my jurisdiction. I know nothing about it.

page 2108

QUESTION

ARMED FORCES

Mr FITZGERALD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– ‘Can the Minister for the Army tell the House why the Army is rigidly enforcing the provision of the Defence Act that relates to the dismissal from the Permanent Military Forces of men 55 years of age and over in this period of great unemployment? As the provision has remained dormant for many years, can this action be taken as an indication that the danger of war has ended, or does the Minister regard all persons aged 55 years and over as being unfit to carry out their norma] duties? If not, will he reconsider the order for the dismissal of the 200 exservicemen affected and defer it for at least twelve months, or honour the obligation of the Army to men who have an agreement that provides for their employment for a specified term? The agreement stipulates that the term of employment shall not expire before the men concerned reach the age of 60 years.

Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army · MORETON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The honorable member bas chosen to interpret certain facts as an indication that the Government believes that the emergency with which the country has been faced for a long time has ended. That interpretation has no foundation in fact. I can merely repeat now the answer that I gave to the honorable gentleman yesterday in reply to another question. Any “ other rank “ employed by the Army is due for retirement when he reaches the age of 55 years. I have to carry out the law.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– Will the Minister for the Army inform the House of the level of rank at which arbitrary retirement at 55 yea-rs of age operates in the Army? Does retirement at the age of 55 years apply to captains, majors, colonels) brigadiers, and generals, or does it apply only to ranks below those levels?

Mr FRANCIS:

– At all times in the Army since the Defence Act 1903-1949 came into operation, various officers and non-commissioned officers have retired at different ages according to rank.

page 2108

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for Air inform me whether it is a fact that country flights in the Citizen Air Force are to be closed? Are. city flights still in operation? If his answer to my question is in the affirmative, will he reconsider this decision, and if any retrenchment is necessary, will the reductions be made evenly between country and city flights?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Air · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have tried to make it clear that, due to the overseas commitments of the Royal Australian Air Force, we have been compelled to reduce some of the training of the Citizen Air Force. We have tried, to the best of our ability, to make the reductions where we are least able efficiently to train Citizen Air Force personnel. It is not correct to say that we have discriminated against country flights in favour of city flights, but I shall give this problem careful consideration, and ask tie Air Force authorities to re-examine the matter..

page 2108

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr DAVIES:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yesterday, I asked the Minister acting for the PostmasterGeneral a question about the dismissal of one-third of the employees of the Austral Standard ‘Cables Proprietary Limited at Port Kembla on account of lack of orders. I now ask him whether he will consider the advisability of placing additional orders for copper cable, which is required by the Postmaster-General’s Department, with that company in order that the dismissed men may be placed back in employment?

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I stated yesterday that orders for the whole of the requirements of the Postmaster-General’s Department this year have already been placed with the Austral Standard Cables Proprietary Limited. The department has also given an order for 750 tons of steel to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited at Port Kembla in order to increase the amount of work available at that centre.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I ask the Minister for Social Services whether the report issued by the Department of Labour and National Service on the 17 th September concerning the number of people in receipt of the unemployment benefits was a correct report, or whether the number shown in the Minister’s letter to me on the 28th August was the correct number. On the 25th August, the Department of Labour and National Service stated that for the week ended the 16th August, the number of persons in receipt of the unemployment benefit was 25,906, whereas the Minister’s letter to me stated that lie number for that same week was 20,446. Will the Minister also give to the House, if he can, the number of persons in receipt of the unemployment benefit in the week that ended last Saturday?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– The figures that were supplied to the honorable member by the Department of Labour and National Service are no concern of mine. I have no hesitation in saying that the figures supplied to him by my department are correct. I cannot remember precisely the number of persons stated in that letter to be in receipt of the unemployment benefit, but it was somewhere about 25,000. In the last six weeks there has been a considerable falling off in the number of people who have applied for unemployment relief. -Six weeks ago a noticeable drop occurred when the number of applications fell by 603 in comparison with the previous week. The following week the number of applications fell by 604. That was followed in the succeeding week by an increase of the number of applications by 480, chiefly due to the fact that 460 applications arrived unexpectedly from New South Wales. In the subsequent week applications dropped by 880. I am pleased to say that last week the downward trend continued, and there was a further drop of 117 compared with the previous week.

page 2109

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Mr KEON:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that, according to the Victorian Minister for Education, only 987 of the 3,000 university scholarships provided by the Government for students in that State this year have been availed of?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The subject of scholarships awarded by the Victorian Government is outside the scope of the authority of this Parliament.

Mr KEON:

– The scholarships are awarded by the Commonwealth, and are allocated to the States.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member may proceed.

Mr KEON:

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the lack of eligible applicants for those scholarships is caused by the fact that there is not a corresponding number of secondary school scholarships to fill the gap between the primary schools and entrance to the university? If he is not aware of that position, will he investigate the matter and give urgent consideration, to the provision of an adequate number of secondary school scholarships so as to ensure that a sufficient number of eligible applicants will be available, for the university scholarships awarded by the Commonwealth each year?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– Naturally, I am not aware of the details to which the honorable member for Yarra has referred. The Commonwealth scholarship system, as it is called, is one of enormous scope and unparalleled generosity. The honorable member is apparently suggesting that the scope of the scheme should be extended. That, of course, would give rise to other problems which would require examination. I shall consider the position in the light of the honorable member’s suggestion.

page 2110

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr WILSON:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Prime Minister indicate when the power to impose income tax will be returned to the States ? Can the Prime Minister indicate the present state, of the negotiations with the State Premiers and Treasurers?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– There has been at least one conference on the official level. I am not familiar with the sequel because it is within the scope of the Department of the Treasury, but at least one substantial conference on the official level has been held. That will need to be followed in due course by a conference on the political level. Another meeting of officials is due to occur, so the matter proceeding and I hope that it will continue to proceed with proper speed.

page 2110

QUESTION

COAL

Mr JAMES:

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that this country wanted coal at one time? Is it a fact now that there are millions of tons of coal at grass and that mines are closing down for want of consumers of coal ? Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that markets for coal will be found somehow, somewhere, at some, time, so that miners can be kept at work?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The production of coal in Australia in the last year or two has been very satisfactory and it is growing. The Government welcomes that fact. It is quite true that for a variety of reasons there is some coal at grass. Some of that comes about for reasons that aro not unconnected with the New South Wales transport system. The question of markets for Australian coal overseas has not been absent from the minds of my colleagues, and a3 the honorable member may know, there have already been discussions with relation to the possibility of an export market for coal to at least on fs overseas country. We do not entertain any fear that there will be a lack of sale for the coal. We very much prefer to extract some satisfaction from the fact that one of the key shortages in the Australian production machine has in the last two years become resolved very satisfactorily.

page 2110

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr EDMONDS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Services. I have received from the secretary of the Pensioners Association of Townsville a communication in which 1 have been asked to find out the position that has arisen as a result of the recent appointment of the Registrar of Social Services in that city to the office of special magistrate. The association wishes to know-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman himself must wish to know in this House.

Mr EDMONDS:

– If the Minister can give me the information that I want, I shall pass it on to the association. To what degree will that appointment preclude the registrar from continuing to discharge his functions as registrar? What are the duties of a special magistrate? Has this officer been promoted, and will he receive an increased salary? If so, what will that salary be ?

Mr TOWNLEY:
LP

– The duties of a special magistrate, in the Department of Social Services are often misunderstood. I can understand why the honorable member for Herbert, when he read the words “ special magistrate “, thought immediately of a magistrate who acts in another capacity. Special magistrates in the Department of Social .Services are highly skilled and experienced officers who are chosen to investigate the personal assets of applicants for pensions and to determine whether such persons are eligible to receive pensions. The information that they receive is treated as strictly confidential. I have no intimate knowledge about the appointment in Townsville, but I shall be pleased to inquire into it and to furnish the honorable member with a reply to his question as soon as possible.

page 2110

QUESTION

ROAD SAFETY

Mr KEON:

– Has the Minister for Health seen the latest statistics on the terrific toll of life and limb caused by motor cycle accidents in Australia, and about the number of hospital beds that are occupied by persons injured in such accidents? If the right honorable gentleman has not seen those, statistics, will he examine them and, in view of the failure of the State governments to cope with this problem, will he make representations to the Minister for Trade and Customs with a view to ensuring that no motor cycles shall be imported into this country unless they are fitted with a governor or some other device that will prevent them from travelling faster than 30 miles an hour or some other speed that is considered to be reasonable.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
CP

– I consider that to be undoubtedly a question that relates to policy. It is not the custom to answer such questions in the House.

page 2111

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given to the honorable member for Lilley by. the Prime Minister that if he presents his question to-morrow he will receive an answer to it, whether your mind to-morrow will be exercised to know whether the question, if asked again, is a question without notice or a question on notice and with a promise.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The manner in which questions are directed to Ministers should receive the very serious attention of the House. I know, as well as other honorable members, what is happening. The Standing Orders say one thing and the practice is something entirely different. If the House wishes me to reconcile the practice with the Standing Orders, I shall do so.

page 2111

PEKING PEACE CONFERENCE

Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · Parramatta · LP

– hy leave - On the 10th September, the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) announced that the Government had decided to deny Australian passport facilities to persons who intended to go as delegates to the so-called peace conference at Peking. This decision was approved by all parties of this House. I wish to tell the House of the results of the Government’s action.

The names of the would-be delegates were known to us, and action on their passports was promptly taken. Most of them accepted the Government’s decision, but several made up their minds to get to’ Peking without passports. Their first move was to try for passages by air, but the regular airline and shipping companies have for a long time had a rule against carrying passengers without passports, for the good and sufficient reason that such passengers might not be allowed to land en route or at their destination, and would thus be left on the hands of the companies carrying them. Eight of the party then went to Brisbane. If they hoped to obtain berths on Changte, then on her way to China, they were disappointed because this ship had left some time before. If their idea was to get seats on an Air France plane, about to leave for Saigon and points north, this also failed, because the owners of the aircraft would not carry passengers without valid travel documents. Six of them then joined an Ansett aircraft for Townsville via Hayman Island. It is probable that they hoped to be able somehow to get themselves aboard Changte, which had put into Townsville shortly before, but Changte left the port before they were able to reach it. There was also the possibility that they might have tried to join an aircraft thought to be coming into Townsville from China and returning, but that aeroplane never arrived. In the meantime, another group had gone to Cairns, probably thinking that they might be able to pick up Changte there. Although originally scheduled to call, Changte did not put in to Cairns, as there was no berth for it. The party came to a standstill, some at Townsville and some at Cairns.

These people seem to have had plenty of money, and no doubt the Communist party organization was concerning itself with them. Having regard to this, it was possible that some foreign aircraft might try to enter Australian territory illegally to take the party out. Instructions were, therefore, given to watch for any such illegal arrivals and departures. I now tell the House that none of the party whose movements I have described has left Australia. All of them have, T believe, now returned to Sydney. The Government’s action, undoubtedly, had the overwhelming support of the Australian people. We hope that it will demonstrate one thing at least, which is, that while the husbands, brothers and sons of Australian citizens are fighting and dying in Korea in a war against Communist aggression, we are not prepared to assist misguided citizens to go to phony peace conferences behind the enemy lines, where their presence would certainly be used by the Communists in their cold war propaganda against us and our allies.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– by leave - I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. Certain aspects of the statement that the Minister for Supply (Mr. Beale) has just made will require consideration by the Government and the House. As I understand the matter, the only basis upon which the Government has acted in dealing with this conference - it is my view, too - is that the security of this country is prejudiced to some degree because the meeting place of the conference is Peking, which is the base from which operations in Korea have been conducted against Australian troops. If that is the Government’s view, my consistent view has been that the liberty of a person to go to this conference should not depend upon the accident of whether he holds one passport or another if, in truth, he is an Australian. I am not suggesting that that can be debated now, but I put that to the House for its consideration. I understand that simply because of that accidental fact some persons are going to Peking without any attempt by the Government to stop them.

The last and most important point that I make in this matter is that there seems to be something undignified, incorrect, and, indeed, wrong in the method that the Government has adopted of bringing influence to bear upon shipping companies and others who might be able to provide transport for persons to a conference which ex hypothesi, in the opinion of the defence authorities, involves some risk to the security of the nation. I refer to the Government’s action in following the proposed expeditionists to Townsville and other places in order to see that they do not get a passage. If the action of these persons is contrary to defence security, action should be taken against them by law and not by surveillance or by putting pressure upon private interests, or by intimidation, attack or slander. It was said in the course of a debate in this chamber some time ago that the Government does not possess the requisite legal power in this matter, but I do not think that that view would commend itself to any responsible lawyer.

page 2112

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I lay upon the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects : -

Hay. digging and stable forksand potato hooks,

Flat-bed knitting machines.

Gauges,

Apparatus for controlling the speed of sewing machines,

Rubber chemicals, and

Woodworking machines classifiable under Tariff Item 176 (m).

Copies of the report on woodworking machines classifiable under Tariff Item 176 (m) are not yet available for circulation to honorable members.

page 2112

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Sir Arthur Fadden) - by leave - agreed to -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public AccountsCommittee Act 1951, the following members be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts: - Mr. Davis, Mr. Gordon Anderson, Mr. Crean, Mr. Leslie, Mr. Hulme, Mr. Thompson, and Mr. Bland.

page 2112

RE-ESTABLISHMENT AND EMPLOYMENT BILL 1952

Motion (by Mr. Menzies) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Re-establishment and Employment Act 1945-1951.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading;

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP

– by leave - I move -

That- the bill be now read a second time.

THe first and main purpose of this bill is to continue for another three years the rights to preference in employment which the servicemen of the 1939-45 war, and others,, have enjoyed under the Reestablishment and Employment Act 1945. As honorable members are aware, preference in employment was originally given: foi- a; period of seven years after thecessation, of hostilities’ in World War II. This period ended on the 2nd September, 1952. In accordance, however, with the promise made earlier by the Government, this bill is made retrospective to the first moment of’ the Srd September, 1952, so that continuity will have been maintained and there will have been no gap in the serviceman’s rights.

The Government’s decision to maintain preference for a further- three years was made in the light of representations by ex-servicemen’s organizations and of the experience of those Commonwealth departments which have been concerned with the preference provisions. Therepresentations that flowed in towards the end of the preference period prescribed! by the act’ showed how highly the ex-servicemen themselves have valued, this particular right. I am sure that’ all honorable’ members will endorse the Government’s decision to keep- in force for another three years, in the light of existing’ conditions, the preference provisions of the act. Honorable members will recall1 that under the 1945 act, preference has been enjoyed not only by discharged servicemen but also by those who, in recognition of special services during- the war; for example with the Red Cross, were admitted:tb a register by one of the preference boards- constituted under the act. This great privilege has been sparingly granted. Those who have been so registered will continue, like the ex-servicemen, to enjoy their rights for another three years. As might be’ expected^ however; the flow of applications for registration under these special’ provisions” has virtually ceased. The” work’ of the preference boards- is thus very- nearly complete. At the end of une seven year-‘ period’ there were still a handful of applications pending before the Central Preference Board, so it has not seemed’ quite fair to abolish the boards at this stage. It is therefore provided, that, after the 2nd September, 195’2, no -application for registration under these special provisions may be received. In effect, the boards will remain in existence only for the purpose of clearing up the balance of existing applications. But I repeat that the rights of registered persons will be continued.

Honorable members will recall- that in 1951 a new Part XI. was inserted in the Re-establishment and Employment Act to extend certain of its benefits to members of the special overseas forces in Korea, and Malaya. Opportunity has been taken in this bill to remove some imperfections in the provisions relating to re-establishment loans for, and the reinstatement’ in civil employment of* the. members of these forces. The amendmentsproposed’ are rather technical) and if a detailed explanation of them, is required it can. best be given in committee. Broadly, the object is to ensure, that reinstatement facilities shall be available for all discharged members of lie Malayan and. Korean forces- and the requirements- for making, applications under the Act are adjusted to present conditions of service. The question of continuing the ex-servicemen’s preference in employment is intimately connected with.- the question of continuing the tradesmen’s rights as adjusted in the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act. As has been announced, a bill to extend these provisions for another three years will be introduced during the present sittings. In the Government’s view is that one measure complements the other, and present circumstances justify both. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr Evatt:

– Before I move that the debate be adjourned, I ask the Prime Minister to make- available the detailed, explanation about the amendments he mentioned! In order to facilitate consideration of the measure, will the Prime Minister d’o that before the debate on the second reading” of this measure is resumed1?’’

Mr Menzies:

– Does the right honorable gentleman mean a general statement ?

Dr Evatt:

– No, merely a statement covering the matters referred to by the Prime Minister when he said that an explanation could be best made in committee. A statement such as I have asked for will facilitate the consideration of the bill.

Mr Menzies:

– I shall have that done.

Debate (on motion by Dr. Evatt) adjourned.

page 2114

LAND TAX ABOLITION BILL 1952

Motion (by Sir , ARTHUR Fadden) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a- bill for an act to abolish land tax.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:
Treasurer · Macpherson · CP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

I stated in my budget speech that the Government had decided to vacate the land tax field. This bill is designed to give effect to that decision. It will relieve land-owners, as from the 1st July, 1952, of their statutory liabilities to lodge returns and to pay land tax in respect of the current financial year and subsequent years. In the last year of its imposition, land tax was imposed on land which ‘had an unimproved value exceeding £S,750 in the case of residents, and on land of any unimproved value in the case of absentees. The rate of tax for residents commences at Id. in the £1 of unimproved value in excess of £8,750 and, by a steady progression, reaches the maximum of 9d. in the £1 at £75,000. In the case of absentees, the rate of tax is Id. in the £1 for unimproved values from £l up to £S,750. At £S,751, the rate is a fraction over 2d. and progresses to the maximum of lOd. at a value of £S3,750. The tax was first imposed in 1910 and its avowed objective then >vas to force the subdivision of large rural properties and thus cause a wider distribution of the ownership of rural lands.

It is a generally accepted fact to-day that, whatever might be the position as to the past, the tax is not achieving the object for which it was first enacted. Indeed, due to the very much greater relative values of city holdings as compared with rural -holdings, the greater proportion of the tax is attributable to city lands, where further subdivision in many cases is impossible and in many ether cases undesirable. The Twentyfourth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Taxation shows that over 75 per cent, of the total tax assessed for the financial year 1941-42 was attributable to city lands. When the figures become available for the financial year 1951-52, it is probable they will show that the proportion mentioned is even greater.

It cannot be denied that the tax is a tax upon a capital asset. In the case of primary producers, the tax is upon their main income producing asset. As between producers using land and producers using other types of assets, because of its particularity, a most inequitable discrimination is set up against landowners. While other capital assets, such as plant and machinery, are not regarded as proper subjects for the imposition of a tax, the Government is unable to agree that land should be singled out for a special imposition. When first levied, this tax was of considerable significance in the general financial structure. Since the introduction of income tax and the general development of the national economy, the revenue brought in by this tax has become of much less importance in Government finance. Abolition of the tax will result in a reduction of administrative costs, an objective which has always been the ‘aim of this Government. It is the intention of the Government, in the next sessional period, to repeal the Land Tax Assessment Act and the act imposing rates of tax, thus completely removing the land tax legislation from the statute-book.

Mr Calwell:

– And we shall put it back again.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– I would like the statement that was made by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) who is Deputy Leader of the Opposition, noted. The honorable member said that if the Opposition is returned to power it will re-impose the land tax.

Mr Calwell:

– My word, we shall.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– The country should note that statement made by the honorable member for Melbourne, that the Opposition, if it gets an opportunity, will re-impose the land tax.

Mr Calwell:

– Yes, and soon.

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– It is a very good thing that we do not tax decency because otherwise we should have to make a lot of refunds. However, when removing the Land Tax Assessment Act from the statute-book it will be necessary to provide in other measures for the constitution of the general taxation administration which now has its origin in the Land Tax Assessment Act. In fact, the appointment of a commissioner and a general system of taxation administration was effected by the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910. That act and the Land Tax Act 1910 were the first tax measures enacted by this Parliament. It will be necessary to examine the provisions of various measures before the necessary adjustments can be made, and time does not permit of that being done during the current sessional period. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Calwell:

– Will the Treasurer have the figures for the financial year 1951-52, which he mentioned, made available to honorable members before the debate is resumed?

Sir ARTHUR FADDEN:

– I do not think that it will be possible to do so. However, I shall make inquiries and ascertain what can be done.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Calwell) adjourned.

page 2115

TRADESMEN’S RIGHTS REGULATION BILL 1952

Motion (by Mr. McBride) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act 1946-1947.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · Wakefield · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill for an act to amend the Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act 1946- 1947. That act arose out of the National Security (Dilution) Regulations, which gave effect to the dilution agreements negotiated in 1940 by the then Government with the major employers of the eastern States and the metal trades unions. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holt) and I were concerned with these negotiations. The original and subsequent dilution agreements enabled the employment and training in war industries and the shipyards of large numbers of workers on work which was formerly the preserve of tradesmen. Without them, the munitions programme could not have been accomplished.

Towards the end of the war, discussions took place with employers’ organizations and unions regarding the manner in which the promises implicit in the dilution arrangements should be fulfilled. Another question considered was the claims of ex-service personnel for entry to the dilution trades. General arrangements for the training of ex-servicemen were covered by the Commonwealth reconstruction training scheme. I must say that we on this side of the House, then in opposition, thought that the provision made for ex-servicemen in the dilution trades was too limited. It applied only to those who had had experience in the armed forces in the trades concerned. The Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act was passed in order to facilitate the entry of these ex-servicemen into the dilution trades and to continue in effect the principle of preference for tradesmen underlying the dilution agreements. The central and local committee system was maintained. The act continued the preference in employment to recognized tradesmen in accordance with the spirit of the dilution agreements in order to preserve their traditional position as against the dilutees. An employer was prohibited from engaging a person other than a recognized tradesman for a tradesman’s job if a recognized tradesman was available. An employer was also prohibited from dismissing a recognized tradesman, without the consent of a trades committee, if he had in his employ a person other than a recognized tradesman employed on tradesman’s work.

The Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Actexpired on the 2ndSeptember, 1952. The Minister for labour and National Service sometime agobrought together inconference theorganizations of employersand employees immediately concernedin ordertodiscuss the future ofthe act, andsincethen departmental officers have conferred with these organizations onthe details. I must say here that the metal trades employer organizations do notlikethe bill. This attitude is not shared, atleast,by onesection ofthe electrical trades employers. Those employers who dislike thebill say that they will honour whatever obligations are left to be observed from the old dilution agreements.But they donotlike a measure which, they say, interferes with their managementright toengageor retain the employee theythink bestfitted for the workto be done. At the same time, they acknowledgethat themachineryset up under theacthasworked well. It certainly has enabled a troublesome legacy of the war years tobehandled smoothly and without industrialdisturbance. They realize, too, that somethingneeds to be done for the ex-servicemenfrom Korea and Malayaandalso tofacilitate the easy absorptionof tradesmen from overseas. They think that these problems can be handled by somemeans other than extensionofthe act.

Theunionsthink otherwise. They point to thevalue of the machineryunder theact in avoiding industrial disturbances. They say,” Letthemachinery thathandled the ex-servicemenfrom World War II. also handle theKorea and Malaya veterans “. They also say, “ The machinery ofthe act has proved useful for considering the qualifications of immigranttradesmen ; let it go on doing so “. I am, of course, summarizing, and perhaps over-simplifying, the respective viewpoints. TheGovernment dislikes anything that smacks of restraint on normal employer-employee relations.But, with somemodifications, which, the Governmentthinks, will go far towards meetingthe employers’ viewpoint, the Government believes thatthe actshould be extended for three more years. It is always thepractice ofthe Minister andthe departmentto consultwith bothsides on matters of industrial significance. On this occasion, the content ofthe bill hasbeen discussed in detail with those concerned. I believe I can at least say that the unions immediately concerned and someof the employers have accepted the provisions of the bill.

The bill’s provisionsare quite simple. But forconsequentialdraftingpoints, it would beeven shorter than itis.First, it gives tradesmen’s statustodilutees who have been employed on tradesmen’s work for seven years andare stillemployedassuch. In the case of the electrical trades, an examinatoin test is providedfor becausesafety and danger factors have tobetaken intoaccount in their cases. This is a most useful forward step.Secondly, it sets a seal on the arrangementsthat have been operating, underwhich the trades committeeshave been considering the qualificationsof immigranttradesmen. The committees have done, and under the act will continue to perform, a most useful job inexamining these qualifications, and in satisfying themselves that Australian trades standards are being maintained. Thirdly, it makes provision for the entryto the trades of Korea and Malaya veterans, without the restrictive conditions thatoperatedin relation to the WorldWar II. veterans.

Fourthly, it continues to give effect to the tenor of the dilution agreements. Whilst there maybe something in the contention of those who do not like the bill because, in their opinion, it goes beyond the point necessary to preserve the strict letter of the rights givento tradesmen under the dilution agreements, I donot believe that such documents should be construed as the lawyers would construeanactof parliament. Iconsider we have to look at the surrounding circumstances.When the dilution agreements were being negotiated, no one was able toforesee what hashappened in the post-war period.Normal conditions in the metal trades did not return after the war ended. Many dilutees did not leave industry.They were wanted. Indeed, there is still a goodly demand for skilled metal and electrical trades workers. The unions concerned know that if this demand were satisfied, it would provide employment opportunities for other persons.

The Government, naturally, has weighed the views of both sides on the contentious issue of continued preference for tradesmen. The provisions of the bill make some concession to the view of the employers, whilst preserving the spirit of the dilution agreements. The bill throws on to the employer the onus of observing the preference provisions. That is the line taken in the preference provisions of the Re-establishment and Employment Act. But if the employer wishes to cover himself, he can go to the trades committee, whose decision will protect him against any charge of having infringed the preference provisions. The Government has indicated that the act should continue for only a further three years. Therefore, the bill provides for the final effluxion of the act on the 2nd September, 1955. We believe that by that time all promises implicit in the dilution agreements will have been discharged. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Clarey) adjourned.

page 2117

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP BILL 1952

Motion (by Mr. Beale) agreed to -

That leave bo given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948-1950.

page 2117

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Mar. Eric J. Harrison) proposed -

That order of the day No. 1, Government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

– I assume that the purpose of this motion is to prevent private members from utilizing “ Grievance Day “, which is their main opportunity to discuss various matters affecting the interests of their electors. We have not had an opportunity to do so for several months, because precedence has invariably been given to government business. I contend that rank and file members should be given the opportunity afforded by “ Grievance Day “ to raise important matters, because they are pre vented from doing so on the motion for the adjournment of the House each day by the application of the closure.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– Since early in 1950, the House has had an opportunity to discuss grievances under Standing Order . 291 for only one and a quarter hours. I hope that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) will see his way clear three weeks hence to provide an opportunity for honorable members to direct attention to those particular matters that they probably cannot raise on any other occasion.

Mr KEON:
Yarra

.- “ Grievance Day “, and the motion for theadjournment of the House each day, provide the only opportunities, apart from the budget debate and the Estimates, that are available to private members to discuss matters on behalf of their constituents and to voice general grievances about the administration of the country. They would ventilate such matters on the motion for the adjournment each day, but the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) becomes increasingly irascible as the evening passes, and, on many occasions, before any honorable gentleman has an opportunity to raisean important matter, he moves the closure. I suggest to the right honorable gentleman that if our only opportunities to discuss grievances in this House are to fee dependent upon thestate of his liver in the late hoursof the night, he should save himself the stress occasioned by a debate on the motion for the adjournment by allowing us to ventilate various matters on “Grievance Day” in accordance with Standing Order 291. If “ Grievance Day “ were available to private members there would not be the same necessity for them to endeavour to raise matters on behalf of their constituents on the motion for the adjournment. Therefore, in the interests of his own sunny nature and good temper, the Vice-President of the Executive Council should give to us an opportunity to air our grievances on “Grievance Day”. In those circumstances, we shall not annoy him so much with speeches on the motion for the adjournment late in the evening.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- As an honorable member who sat in Opposition when the Labour Government was in office, I am amused by the complaint of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan), the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) and the honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon), because honorable members are not to be allowed to air their grievances this morning in conformity with Standing Order 291. When the Labour Government was in office, I protested strongly against its refusal to provide “Grievance Day” on many occasions. Now the tables are turned, and members of the Labour party urge the Government to provide “ Grievance Day “. I remind Opposition members that they have had an opportunity to air their grievances in the budget debate, on the Estimates, and on the bills arising out of the budget.

Mr WARD:

– The Estimates were “ guillotined/’.

Mr TURNBULL:

– Mr. Speaker will inform the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), if he is not acquainted with the Standing Orders, that honorable members may discuss any subjects under the sun in the budget debate. They had other opportunities, when the Estimates were under consideration, to raise various matters to which they wished to direct attention, and further opportunities to do so arose when various bills arising out of the budget were under consideration. Indeed, so many opportunities have been provided to honorable members to discuss all kinds of subjects that it is hardly necessary for us to have a “ Grievance Day “ now. Some Opposition members have voiced many grievances, most of them highly imaginary, during this sessional period. The honorable member for Reid, who has protested against the postponement of “ Grievance Day “, has been a memer of the House for a number of years, and supported the preceding Labour government when it denied “ Grievance Day “ to honorable members. The honorable member for Yarra, who is a comparatively new member, may not be aware that the Labour government seldom provided “ Grievance Day “. I notice that none of the older members of the Opposition have protested against the motion. They have the decency to recognize that the Labour government refused to provide “ Grievance Day “ on many occasions. So let us be reasonable in this matter. When honorable members have had opportunities recently to discuss every subject under the sun, they should not wish to rehash those matters again, because Mr. Speaker might call them to order for indulging in tedious repetition.

Mr PETERS:
Burke

.- The honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) said that when he was a member of the Opposition, he was in favour of “ Grievance Day “, but now that he is a supporter of the Government, he is opposed to it. Frankly, I cannot understand such an attitude. I maintain exactly the same attitude whether I sit in Opposition or occupy a bench on the Government side of the chamber. The important consideration is the principle at stake. On this occasion, the principle is that Standing Order 291 provides an opportunity for private members to voice grievances, and to make representations on behalf of their constituents. The motion for the adjournment each day is supposed to furnish us with an opportunity to raise such matters. I have risen infrequently for that purpose, but on two occasions the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has promptly applied the gag. On one occasion he had made arrangements with an honorable gentleman who sits on a back bench on the Government side to discuss a matter on the motion for the adjournment. That honorable member did not get the call, and when I rose, the Vice-President of the Executive Council immediately moved that the question be put. Had the honorable member for Macarthur received the call, the gag would not have been applied.

Honorable members interjecting,

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable member for Burke alone has the floor.

Mr PETERS:

– Yes, and I believe that I can deal with the matter alone. The Vice-President of the Executive Council went out of his way deliberately to stultify discussion by honorable members on this side of the House, and he goes out of his way also to provide opportunities for honorable members on the Government side. That may be politics as the matter is understood by the right honorable gentleman and by many other honorable members who support the Government, but it is not what I consider to be the function of a Minister in a parliament that is supposed to be democratic. I believe that honorable members should have every opportunity that is ‘provided by “ Grievance Day “ to express the views of their electors. Even on “ Grievance Day the opportunities are few enough in the larger Parliament.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I join with honorable members on this side of the House in protesting against the proposal of the Government to deprive honorable members of an opportunity to discuss grievances at a proper hour of the day. Honorable members are forced to wait until nearly midnight before they can direct attention to matters that are of great public interest and are of importance to their electors. Even then, after waiting for many hours to pass in order to have an opportunity to speak, honorable members are gagged. The latest ruse of the Government is to arrange for a quorum to be lacking. An honorable member on a back bench on the Government side, usually the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate), directs attention to the state of the House and you, Mr. Speaker, thereupon adjourn the House in accordance with your understanding of the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may not comment on any action of mine except by way of a substantive motion.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I realize that, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not continue in that vein. I shall now direct my attention to statements that were made by the honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull). He suggested that because a budget debate was held about two weeks ago, honorable members had ample opportunity then to deal with matters of urgency and importance. The honorable member overlooked two important points. Every honorable member was not permitted time to speak in the budget debate. The Government adopted the “ guillotine “ procedure and the Opposition was not able to arrange time for half the honorable members who wanted to speak on the budget. “ Grieva nce Day “ gives to honorable members an opportunity to discuss complaints that might arise over-night. Only since the 17th September last have I obtained knowledge of a serious complaint with which I wish to deal, but I have been denied an opportunity to do so; it has regard to serious discrepancies between the figures on unemployment that have been issued by two government departments.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may not discuss the nature of his complaints except on a substantive motion.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I was merely making a passing reference to the kind of complaints with which honorable members would like to deal during “ Grievance Day “. If the VicePresident .of the Executive Council wishes honorable members to refrain from talking on the adjournment in the late hours of the night, he should maintain the right of honorable members to have a “ Grievance Day “ so that they may discuss matters at a respectable hour.

Mr WARD:
East Sydney

.- I wish to join with my colleagues in protesting against the Government’s tendency to destroy free speech in this Parliament. The Standing Orders were framed many years ago to guide the conduct of the Parliament. Those who were responsible for framing the Standing Orders decided in their wisdom that certain times should be set aside to give rank-and-file members of the Parliament, particularly honorable members on the Opposition side, an opportunity to raise certain matters in which they were directly interested. I direct the attention of honorable members to recent events in this House in order to indicate how Government supporters, and particularly the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison), have shown themselves to be haters of free speech. Their weapons are the “ guillotine “ and the closure. The closure has been applied time after time on the motion for the adjournment of the House, which accords honorable members to the only regular opportunity to raise matters that are of interest to their electors. “ GrievanceDay “ was last allotted to honorable members on the 1st June, 1950, and the discussion then was limited to one and a quarter hours.

I have details of the Government’s record in stifling free speech. In the Sixteenth Parliament, from 1940 to 1943, the “guillotine” was not used and the closure was applied on only one occasion. In the Seventeenth Parliament, from 1943 to 1946, the “ guillotine “ was applied four times and the closure 23 times. In the Eighteenth Parliament, from 1946 to 1949, the “guillotine “ was applied twelve times and the closure 72 times. In the Nineteenth Parliament, from 1950 to 1951, the present Government applied the “ guillotine “ four times and the closure40 times. In the Twentieth Parliament, from 1951 up to and including the 23rd September last, the “ guillotine “ has been applied by this Government three times and the closure 130 times.

Mr Daly:

– It is an all-time record.

Mr WARD:

– That is so. It is a record. The Government is trampling on the rights of the Opposition. Honorable members on this side of the House, as well as those on the Government side, are being denied their rights as elected members of the Parliament. The Vice-President of the Executive Council appears to take a particular delight in applying the closure. I know that he wishes to stifle free speech because of his earlier association with a movement that sought to destroy responsible government in this country.

Mr Curtin:

– What was the name of that movement?

Mr WARD:

– It was an organization known as the New Guard.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! That is completely outside the scope of the discussion and the honorable member knows it.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The honorable member also knows it to be untrue.

Mr WARD:

– The Labour party believes in democratic government, in the right of free speech, and in. the right of every representative of the people to have ample opportunity to ventilate matters of importance. It should take cognizance of the Government’s tactics. It should grasp every opportunity to protest when the rights of honoroble members are being trampled upon by the Government and by the Vice-President of the Executive Council in particular.

Mr DRAKEFORD:
Maribyrnong

– We have further proof of the intention of the Government to curtail the rights of members of this House. You have shown quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, that you believe that the rights of honorable members should be safeguarded, and I shall support your endeavours to do so. Although I do not always exercise my right to speak in this chamber, owing to limitation of time and other reasons, I am often deprived of an opportunity to speak on matters that are of great importance to my electorate. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) applies the gag constantly. It may be that he is only the instrument that this reactionary, conservative Government uses to give effect to its intention to prevent the adequate discussion of matters of public interest. I am not certain whether the right honorable gentleman applies the gag quite unconsciously. Honorable members are given but few opportunities to voice the grievances of their constituents, although there are over 40,000 voters in some electorates.

I object strongly to the action of the Government, allegedly on the ground of urgency, in depriving us of an opportunity to voice our grievances to-day. What urgent business has the Government? As far as I can see, it is only strolling along, applying the gag whenever it feels inclined to do so, and introducing legislation in its own good time. Certainly it does not appear to be conducting the business of the Parliament on the basis that measures must be passed as quickly as possible. I am astonished that honorable members opposite who, like myself, believe in the parliamentary institution, are willing to surrender their rights without protest. The honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) has said that the Labour party did this and that. The figures cited by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) show clearly that this Government is attempting to take away our rights.

Mr Turnbull:

– What is the authority for those figures?

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– I am certain that the honorable member for East Sydney would not cite figures that he had not checked. The honorable member for Mallee should be as eager to defend the rights of members of this House as I am.

Mr Turnbull:

– As the honorable member was when the Labour party was in power? .

Mr DRAKEFORD:

– The honorable member does not know the attitude that I adopted to the gag then. On a number of occasions, I protested against the use of the gag, but I accepted the decision of the majority. Doubtless that is what we shall have to do to-day. I say that the Government, by proposing that “Grievance Day” be postponed, is infringing the rights of honorable members on both sides of the House. Even members of the insignificant Australian Country party have their rights, but, in a supine way, they are willing to permit the Government to ride roughshod over them. I am not willing to do so. I protest strongly against this interference with the freedom and rights of honorable members. The parliamentary institution, for which we all are supposed to stand, is being belittled in the eyes of the public, not by faults of the Opposition but by the determination of the Government, to deprive honorable members of whatever rights they have, and to prevent 1 nen] from offering fair criticism of the failure of the Government parties to honour their promises.

Mr GRAHAM:
St. George

– So far, only members of the Opposition have seen fit to say anything about this matter. The honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) has said that honorable members on this side of the chamber are not prepared, either as members of the Government parties or as a group of individuals, to champion the rights of private members. The honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has cited figures about the use of the “guillotine” and the gag. . I see no reason to challenge those figures, and I accept them. As the propaganda war developed, an attack wasmade, to some degree, on the good reputation of the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison). Let me say that, having regard to the source of that attack, no one will take it seriously. In view of those facts, I believe that something ought to be said on this matter from this side of the House.

The honorable member for East Sydney has suggested that the figures he has cited show that the Government is bearing down on free speech and is trampling upon .the rights of honorable members. It would be interesting to learn how long each debate had proceeded before the closure was applied. Many honorable gentleman on this .side of the House and a great number of people outside the Parliament are of the opinion that sometimes there is too much talk in this chamber about certain topics. Let me remind the House that 112 honorable members spoke on the 1951-52 budget. Between the beginning of the first speech and the end of the last one, there must have been a stage when everything that could possibly be said about that budget had been said. From that point onward, all that occurred was repetition. Your ears, Mr. Speaker, suffered accordingly. The application of the closure means only that, in the view of the Government, enough has been .said on a certain topic. It may be true that in this Parliament the closure has been applied on 130 occasions, but I believe it to be fair to say that, in the majority of instances, the ‘Government, by applying the closure, made no attack on free speech, because every relevant argument had been presented. .As I have already said, very often there is excess verbiage in relation to some matters.

I agree with the honorable member for. Maribyrnong that “ Grievance Day “ is of some importance, and that it has a traditional part to play in the procedure of the Parliament. But I think the honorable gentleman is aware that, as a result of the procedure allowed by various governments, including the Chifley Government, of which he was a member, there is a tendency to regard “ Grievance Day “ as something that can be nut aside easily. I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council, through you, Mr. Speaker, to say on how many occasions since June, 1950, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), in his capacity as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has approached him and said, “ The members of my party want a ‘ Grievance Day ‘ particularly, because they wish to raise a certain matter. Here is our request in writing for it. We have let ‘ Grievance Day ‘ go by several times, but we want it now for a special reason.” That information would enable us to judge how much importance honorable gentlemen opposite attach to “ Grievance Day “. It would be interesting to discover the action of a positive nature that they have taken to protect it.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

.- I protest against the failure of the Government to give to honorable members on both sides of the chamber an opportunity to voice the grievances of their constituents. The figures cited by the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) are enlightening, but, judging from recent newspaper reports, they are very conservative. One Melbourne newspaper has reported that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has applied the gag on approximately 159 occasions. The honorable member for St. George (Mr. Graham 1 has stated that the closure is applied only when enough has been said on a certain subject. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has applied the gag on several occasions in order to prevent members of his own party from voting against the Government on issues in respect of which it had been soundly condemned by members of the Opposition. On many occasions, the gag has been applied ruthlessly to prevent honorable members on this side of the House from revealing the shortcomings of the Government.

The honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull) has said that he does not mind the loss of “ Grievance Day “.

When he was in Opposition, he did not require a special day to voice grievances, because for him every day was such a day. Then, he had many complaints to make, but now that he has been brought under the iron heel and the rigid control of the Government parties he i= afraid to speak on matters that arc of great importance to his constituents. In my electorate, there are thousands of unemployed people, and this Government has refused to do anything to provide them with jobs. I should like to raise that matter on “ Grievance Day “. J should like to elaborate on “ Grievance Day “ on matters of vital importance in my constituency, opportunities to ‘do so during the debate on the motion for the adjournment being denied me in most cases. As the honorable member for East Sydney has said, the fact that there has been no “ Grievance Day “ since last June shows clearly that the Government treats the rights and privileges of private members with contempt. I record my protest against the Government’s attitude. If members of the Government parties are prepared to sit idly by and see their rights taken away from them that is no reason why we on this side of the House should also do so. If the members of the Australian Country party and the Liberal party are not prepared to stand up openly in this Parliament and ventilate matters that are important to their constituencies, that is not the attitude of members of the Labour party here. That is why we register our emphatic protest against the curtailment of free speech and the arrogant misuse of power by the Vice-President of the Executive Council

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman must moderate his language.

Mr DALY:

– I refer to the gagging of debates, the curtailment of free speech, and the absolute refusal on the part of the Government to allow honorable members to bring before the Parliament on “ Grievance Day “ matters of vital importance. I again register my protest, and I hope that on some future occasion I shall be given an opportunity to speak on behalf of the thousands of people in my constituency who are unemployed.

Mr Turnbull:

– I desire to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented by the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly), who used the following words : -

The honorable member for Mallee has said that he docs not mind the loss of “ Grievance Bay “.

I give a direct denial to that statement. I am in favour of the holding of “ Grievance Day “. My statement was that, in view of the fact that the previous Labour Government had not allowed “Grievance Day” I considered it to be sheer hypocrisy for members of the Opposition, who were in office in that Government, or supported it, to clamour now for “ Grievance Day “.

Mr GULLETT:
Henty

.- It is apparent that honorable members opposite have no real enthusiasm for or interest in “ Grievance Day “ but have suddenly seized upon this debate as an opportunity for the dissemination of a little propaganda and to belabour the Government. Since this Government has been in office, and in particular during this session, there has been an almost unlimited opportunity for honorable members opposite to talk about any subject under the sun. The debate on the budget lasted for more than three weeks, and I notice that many honorable members opposite who now claim that they have had no opportunity to bring important matters before the Parliament, did not even bother to attend the committee stage, and allowed one important matter after another to pass without participating in the debate.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman may not discuss proceedings in committee, which have nothing to do with me.

Mr GULLETT:

– I accept that, of course, Mr. Speaker. I merely say that there is ample opportunity for any one who has a sincere desire to bring any matter before this House to do so. Honorable members opposite have time and again moved the adjournment of the House about the most trivial matters.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman must not reflect on the proceedings of the House.

Mr GULLETT:

– It is quite absurd for the honorable member for Grayndler (Mr. Daly) to tell us that there are a number of serious matters in connexion with his electorate and other matters which he wishes to, but has been unable to, bring before the House. If he has not brought them before the House already he certainly has had plenty of opportunity to do so. The programme of legislation makes it clear that any important matter is most likely to come up for discussion in the course of the current sessional period and that members opposite will have plenty of opportunity to talk about anything they want to talk about. The truth of the matter is that whilst plenty of time has been allowed for debate we must judge the Government by its achievements. You have only to look at the notice-paper, Mr. Speaker, and recall all the benefits that have been given to the country, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) pointed out on a recent occasion-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman must keep to the point at issue.

Mr GULLETT:

– All I can say is that there is plenty of opportunity for honorable members to talk about any matter if they have anything serious to say. When, however, on those occasions on which members may talk about any subject they choose, we are forced to listen to the complaints of people who cannot obtain enough “ Minties “ to chew in aeroplanes, and stories about fictitious characters who are supposed to have served in the armed forces, but did not do so, then I say that we have more than time enough for discussion.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I have not yet experienced a “ Grievance Day “ in this House, because I have been a member of the Parliament only since April of last year. I believe that the rights of honorable members to bring matters of importance before the House should not be limited. There are many matters that I could bring to the attention of the House on an occasion such as “ Grievance Day “.

Mr Gullett:

– Then why does the honorable member not do so?

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I hope that the privilege will be restored »» that I may do so. There are certainly many matters that affect my constituents and those who reside in my constituency that I should like to bring before the House, including the need for attention to the road that leads from Canberra to Tharwa and the property of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Gullett).

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman may not discuss now any subject that he chooses.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I just wanted to make a passing reference to those matters.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I am becoming a little tired of passing references.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I believe that there are many matters which should be brought to the attention of the House, and I hope that the right of honorable members to “ Grievance Day “ will be restored.

Mr TRELOAR:
Gwydir

.- It must be quite obvious to anybody who has listened to the debate that there is an organized attempt on the part of the Opposition to waste the time of the House. I sincerely-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable, gentleman shall not reflect upon the proceedings or motives of the House.

Mr TRELOAR:

– It appears to me that time is being wasted, and I hope that’ the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr.. Eric. j. Harrison) will move the closure immediately.

Mr CURTIN:
Watson

.- I resent the reflection that has been cast on the Chair by the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Treloar).

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! I am quite able to look after myself.

Mr CURTIN:

– I also register my protest against the gagging of honorable members who wish to discuss grievances. I have many grievances to dis. cuss - for instance, the Maroubra post office-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman may not discuss any of his grievances now: He may not even name them.

Mr CURTIN:

– Well, there is any amount of unemployment in the country.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable gentleman may not refer to any subject that he chooses. He must direct his. remarks to the motion before the Chair.

Mr CURTIN:

– When we raise matters tha t should be brought before this House, we are gagged. Day after day and night after night we find ourselves gagged when we wish to raise important matters such as the necessity to have a post office built. Our constituents want to know when we are going to be allowed to discuss matters that relate to their affairs, which we were elected to thi3 House to raise. I consider that after the great fuss that was made about the presentation to the nation of a copy of .Magna Carta-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr CURTIN:

– The very principles cf Magna Carta are breached here by some people who extol the virtues of r.hat document.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !

Mr CURTIN:

– Having uttered my protest, I think that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric j. Harrison), a gentleman who, of course, has always .been opposed to free, speech and who-, as the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) has- said, was always prepared1 to set up an organization’ to overthrow constitutional government

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! That statement has nothing to do with the question before- the House.

Mr CURTIN:

– Everybody knows that the Vice-President of the Executive Council-

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I rise to order. I take exception to the remarks– made by the honorable’ member for Watson-, and I ask that they be withdrawn. This ma tter has been mentioned on a. number of occasions and the charge has been proved to be entirely false. The honorable member’s remarks are offensive to mo, and I ask for a withdrawal of them.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order !’ The VicePresident of the Executive Council has asked that the remarks made by the honorable member for Watson, be withdrawn.. That- honorable member, will therefore withdraw, them.

Mr CURTIN:

– Which one? I find that, in the early ‘thirties the VicePresident of the Executive Council– -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order, !

Mc CURTIN.- Well, I wish to prove my point, and should not have to withdraw, statements] that are true.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I have asked the- honorable gentleman to with. draw his charge against the Vice-Presi-dent of the Executive Council, and he must do so.

Mr CURTIN:

– In deference to the Chair, I withdraw it.

Mr OSBORNE:
Evans

– I wish, to make’ a passing reference to two points. Members of’ the Opposition, particularly the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward), the honorable member for Hindmarsh (Mr. Clyde Cameron) and the honorable member for Watson (Mr. Curtin), have complained that they are not given adequate opportunity to ventilate grievances in this House. My impression of proceedings in this chamber during the last- six weeks is that we have heard a continuous spate of grievances from those three honorable gentlemen. It is complete and utter- nonsense for them to say that they have not been given an opportunity to ventilate grievances as they have done nothing else for weeks past. The other matter that I wish to point out is that the time allowed under the Standing’ Orders for- ‘’ Grievance Day “ will expire in less than 30 minutes from now. Honorable members opposite have been expressing their grievances since question time. So, I trust- that, when the honorable member for. East Sydney tots up the time that the- present Government has allocated for that purpose, ha will include the time that has been allowed for this debate to-day

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence. Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

.–in reply-I rise to. reply to this debate with a certain amount of interest, because when honorable members on this side of the. chamber were in Opposition they invariably displayed a real fighting- spirit in. protesting against the action of’ the government of that day- in- depriving; private members of “ Grievance Day”. Honorable members opposite have shown a spark of the same spirit; in. the course of* this debate,, but it is about the first: time that they- have done, so since they, were relegated to the Opposition benches.

The honorable- member for- Melbourne (Me. Calwell), the hononable member for, Yarra (Mr. Keon) and the honorable, member for- Reid (Mi Morgan) said that the only opportunities, that were afforded to. private members to direct the. attention of the. Government to. matters that affected’, their constituents were on the Estimates and on adjournment motions’. On two occasions recently, you, M;ri Speaker,, were obliged to close the proceedings by leaving the chain because honorable members were not sufficiently, interested to maintain a quorum. On the. first occasion, the honorable member forEast Sydney (Mr. Ward) deliberately brought the. day’s, proceedings- to a close, by calling- for a quorum; and on the. second occasion the honorable member for Macarthur (Mr. Jeff Bate) directed attention to the State of the House. If honorable members desire to speak on the motion for the adjournment, but are not prepared to remain in the chamber in sufficient numbers to maintain a quorum, thus obliging Mr. Speaker- to bring the. proceedings to a close by leaving the chair., they must- blame themselves if they are deprived of opportunities to ventilate matters that affect their constituents. After ii, record number of honorable members had spoken on the budget, the Go,vernment allotted fourteen days for the consideration of the Estimates. When honorable members opposite were in office and “ guillotined “ the Estimates, Minister after Minister’ exercised his- prior right to speak and, with the connivance of the Chairman - who, on those occasions, leered, at honorable members on, this side who were then in Opposition - precluded us from s,pea,king on the Estimates.

Mr CALWELL:

– I rise to order. I object to the reflection that the VicePresident of the Executive- Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has made upon the honorable member for Dalley (Mr, Rosevear), who was your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I did not cast any reflection upon the honorable member for Dalley, because he did not occupy the chair in committee when Labour was in office.

Mr Calwell:

– I rise to order. The Vice-President of the Executive Council reflected upon the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) and the honorable member for Darling (Mr. Clark), each of whom was Chairman of Committees for a part of that period, as well as upon the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) and the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Tom Burke), who were Temporary Chairmen of Committees at that time. I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council to withdraw the reflection that he has made upon those honorable members.

Mr Osborne:

– I rise to order. On a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, you ruled that a request for the withdrawal of a remark considered to be objectionable must be made by the honorable member to whom the remark is applied. As none of the honorable members whom the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) has mentioned has taken exception to the remark by the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) I submit that the honorable member for Melbourne is not in order in taking exception to it.

Mr Tom Burke:

– I rise to order. I take exception to the remark that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has made. I had the honour to be a Temporary Chairman of Committees during the period to which the Minister has referred. The government of that day did not express any desire that the Chair should connive at any conduct on the part of a Minister. There was no such connivance on the part of the Chair ; and there was no need for it because members of the present Opposition, when they were in office, always had a case to present and always put it fairly.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman is asking for the withdrawal of a certain remark.

Mr Tom Burke:

– Honorable members opposite) when they were in Opposition, never had any case to present in this chamber.

Mr Osborne:

– I rise to order. I submit that the honorable member for Perth (Mr. Tom Burke) cannot properly ask for a withdrawal of the remark that the Vice-President of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison) has made unless he is prepared to admit that he was the occupant of the chair who leered at members of the Opposition when Labour was in office.

Mr SPEAKER:

– During the period to which the Vice-President of the Executive Council has referred the honorable member for Perth was a Temporary Chairman of Committees. He has taken exception to the Minister’s remark, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

Mi1. Eric J. Harrison. - I withdraw the observation in relation to the honorable member for Perth.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order. I am concerned about the point of order that the honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) raised in the first instance and which you, Mr. Speaker, have not yet answered. He submitted that only the honorable member to whom a remark that is considered to be objectionable is applied may ask that it be withdrawn and that no other honorable member can properly make such a request. You have given a ruling to that effect. However, recently, you compelled a member of the Opposition to withdraw a remark that he had made about the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bernard Corser), although the request that the remark be withdrawn was made by another honorable member. Is it the ruling of the Chair that only the honorable member to whom a remark, that is considered to be objectionable, is applied, may ask for a withdrawal of it?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The position is perfectly clear. An honorable member who considers that another honorable member has made a reflection upon him, is always entitled to ask that it be withdrawn, and in almost every instance of that kind the occupant of the chair will enforce a withdrawal. In another instance! a remark may be made which, although the honorable member to whom it is applied may not consider it to be objectionable, I may consider to be not in keeping with the procedure and dignity of the House. In such instances, without any request being made by any honorable member, I shall always exercise my authority and insist that the remark be withdrawn. A remark that I may consider to be offensive may not be considered to be offensive by the honorable member to whom it is applied, but I shall insist that such a remark shall be withdrawn. On the other hand, if a remark that I may not consider to be offensive is considered to be offensive by the honorable member to whom it i3 applied, and he asks that it be withdrawn, I shall insist upon its being withdrawn.

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I rise to order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have not answered my question whether it is the ruling of the Chair that only the honorable member to whom an offensive remark is applied may ask that it be withdrawn. I have already cited the occasion on which you failed to observe that ruling by calling upon a member of the Opposition to withdraw a remark that he had made about the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Bernard Corser), although the request for withdrawal was made, not by the honorable member for Wide Bay, but by another honorable member.

Mr Bernard Corser:

– I did not ask that the remark be withdrawn because I have no respect for the opinion of the honorable member who made it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Chair must have regard to circumstances. I am not prepared to give a ruling on a hypothetical case. In all circumstances, I shall take such action as I believe to be right and proper having regard to the Standing Orders and the forms, procedure and usages of this House. I can do no more, and I shall not do less.

Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I withdraw the remark that I have been asked to withdraw. It is the practice of the Chair to give the call alternately to honorable members on either side of the chamber. Yet, when Labour was in office, the records will show that when the Estimates were being considered, the call was given to Minister after Minister and private members were thus precluded from speaking. The honorable member for Melbourne, the honorable member for Maribyrnong (Mr. Drakeford) and the honorable member for East Sydney, who have joined issue with us on this matter to-day, were Ministers at the time to which I refer. On those occasions, members of the then Opposition had no opportunity even to open their mouths because, when the Estimates were being “ guillotined “, Ministers spoke at length unnecessarily. Apparently, the honorable members whom I have mentioned have very short memories. I repeat that after a record number of honorable members had spoken on the budget, the Government allotted fourteen days - a record - for the consideration of the Estimates and Ministers, in ‘order to give to private members every opportunity to speak, deliberately refrained from taking up unnecessarily the time of the committee. To members of the present Opposition are given far greater opportunities to direct attention to matters that affect their constituents than they gave to honorable members on this side of the chamber when we were in Opposition.

With respect to the application of the closure, honorable members know that I, as Leader of the House, have the responsibility of ensuring that its business shall be transacted with reasonable expedition and that I consult with the honorable member for Melbourne who, as Deputy Leader of the Opposition, acts on behalf of the Opposition in such matters. Honorable members are also aware that, ordinarily, the Minister in charge of a bill has the right to reply to the debate on the second reading. However, time after time, when I have asked the Opposition to afford that right to the Minister concerned, honorable members opposite have retorted that they will continue to speak until they force the Government to gag the debate. That attitude on the part of the Opposition reveals the sordidness of the exhibition that they have staged on this occasion. Repeatedly, honorable members opposite have forced me, in the way that I have indicated, to move the closure. Of course, honorable members opposite are not re sponsible for the completionofthe business of theHouse.On manyoccasions, I have had no alternativebut to move the closure. The honorable member for Melbourne is wellawareof that fact.I have discussed the matter with him and both of us realize that honorable members opposite,by refusing to giveto the Minister incharge ofa bill theopportunity to reply tothe second-reading debate, have rendered it practically impossible to get some business through. Therefore, I have no alternativebut to apply the closure.For as long as those tactics are adoptedwill Icontinue to apply the closure. It should be perfectlyclear to honorable members andtothosewho arelistening in, that as far asIam concerned honorable members have beengiven the opportunity to air theirgrievancesduring ithe debates on motionsforadjournment. Somehonorablemembers have walked out of the House after the adjournmenthas been moved, and, indeed, on some occasions Mr.Speaker has hadto leave the chair because aquorum has notbeen formed. During the consideration ofthe Estimates, honorablemembers have been allowed more time to debate their grievances than was allowed to honorable members on theGovernment side when they were in Opposition. I should say that almost a record has been established in the time that has been allowed to honorable membersof the Opposition to speak about their grievances. The Opposition has forcedmeto adopt my present procedure inthe matter ofthe closure, and if the Opposition wishes to have it in that way I shall give it to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2128

REPATRIATION BILL 1952

Second Reading

Debate resumed fromthe15th September (vide page 1755), on motion by Mr.Francis-

That the bill be now readasecond time.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The bill that we are now dealing with-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! I must ask the House tocome toorder. Conversation has been carried on almost constantly since the House met to-day, and ifit doesnotceasenow I shall have to name certain honorable members.

Mr HAYLEN:

-The Repatriation Bill 1952, with which we are nowdealing,provides forincreasesof certain repatriation pensions. That is the usual courseina measuresuchas this,and whilst Iapproveof the manner in which increases have beengranted, the attitude of the Government in this matter has been oneof too little toolate,and too small too niggardly. I suggestthat all honarable members must beveryworried because this repatriation measure makes noprovision forwarwidows. TheOpposition will later moveanamendment designed to deal with that omission. We also intend that the amendment shall deal with other injustices that need the attention of the Government. However, thefirstmatterthat becomesapparent from a perusal ofthis bill is that war widows have been completely neglected. I haveno doubt that the Government will later make itsusualspecious excuses about its attitude towards the war widows, but surely it istime that we considered the interests ofwarwidows more than we consider the interestsof our financial system. Although the last war is now receding into the past, the saddest people to emerge from the war, because their misery is so enduring, are the war widows. A man may die in thedefence of his country, and for him the whole matter is closed. A man may be wounded, and compensated as far as he can be compensated for his incapacity. But the. terrific blow to family life that is caused by the loss of the breadwinner, in many cases has serious effects on the widow during her whole life, and perhaps on the children during their whole lives.

Manycommittees of the Parliament have considered this matter, but we still lack a broader concept of whatshould bedone for war widows. In a debate suchas thisone must be careful if one is not to be charged with speaking with some political bias, but I think that honorable members will agree that I at least am sincere in my representations on behalf of the war widows. I suggest that we have not searched deeply enough to find ways in which we can make full reparation, through our great financial resources, to the war widows for their grievous loss. It is easy to tait about a widow, who, being young, will perhaps marry again, and it is easy to talk about the ‘education funds that have been provided for the welfare of the children. It ds time that we ceased talking .about those matters and .considered the very, paltry pension that is awarded to war widows. At present it amounts to about £3 IDs. a week, and although educational facilities .and other benefits are given at the expense of .the community, the waa- widow’s income is not even comparable with the basic wage. Those circumstances applied long before this Government assumed office, so we have to go hack to first causes in order to find out what would be a fair payment to be made to wai1 widows. We have not even done that. We all admit some culpability in not having arrived at what is a fair pension for wax widows whose future has been clouded not only by sorrow, but also by anxiety, not only by hunger, but also by fear for the future of their children. If we have not done ali that could have been done in the past, there is no reason why the Government should say at present that no increase will be granted to war widows under this legislation. I am sure that this is merely an omission, because .otherwise it certainly could not be justified. The amendment that I shall later move will direct the attention of honorable members to thi” anomaly, and the Opposition will try to have some alteration made either in another place or in this chamber. Let us consider again the plight of the war widows, which has been made very plain by many people, including Mrs. Vasey, who is herself a. widow of an officer holding the rank of General who was killed in am air accident during the war. Mrs. Vasey has been most courageous and unyielding in her fight for the widows, whether it hurt one side of politics or the other. She cares nothing for politics, and has been most courageous in her advocacy of the payment of a reasonable pension to war widows. Before Mrs. Vasey came on the scene, these unfortunate widows had no champion. If it had not been for Legacy and other organizations that helped the -war widows, they would have been en tirely neglected except for the meagre provision of repatriation pensions. Mrs. Vasey can be quoted with authority .because she has no axe to grind; she is concerned wholly with the amelioration of the conditions of war widows. ;She is always prepared to do her gallant best for those who desire her aid.

Let us now analyse the position of war widows. It was said recently - and it made horrible reading - that the economic plight of the war widow was so bad that it compared unfavorably with the living conditions of a ‘German immigrant and his wife and child. The horrible contrast was that this German had probably been a German serviceman and had arrived in this country by virtue pf the Government’s immigration policy, or by arrangement with some factory. That man is earning at least the basic wage, and has the benefit, together with his wife and child, of all the social services that are offered to people in this country. Compare the position of that man with the position of the widow of a soldier who fought and died during World War I. or World War II. Surely such a comparison is horrifying, but it happens to give a true picture of the circumstances of war widows. The general run of people are inclined to think that compensating a war widow is merely a matter of paying a pension and letting it go at that. No one seems to care about the young war widow, who has a disability in relation to future marriage because she has young children to be looked after, and because, as medical practitioners have pointed out, the health of war widows as a general rule is considerably below the standard good health of the average Australian woman. I suggest that only one thing has brought about the war widow’s ill health, and that is worry. A panel of Melbourne doctors recently reported that the war widow is the sick person in the community. I suggest that she is sick because of money worries. Surely it is time that the Government did something to help these widows, if they are being worried by money troubles. Surely no further argument should be needed about the matter. (Consider mow a young childless war widow. She suffered a great shock when she lost her loved one early in life, and is a sick woman. The elderly war widow is another problem. Her children have grown up and left home. They may even have gone abroad. As she grows older so grows the measure of her neglect by the Repatriation Department and the community as a whole. So she fades away slowly in the back streets of the cities of the nation, a rebuke to us for not measuring up to our responsibilities. If an elderly widow, with no children living with her, is subsisting on £3 10s. a week, then the Opposition considers that her pension should be increased to at least the base rate pension. Unless there are financial or treasury reasons, surely the Government will concede that! If there are financial or treasury reasons for not increasing the pension, I would thrust them aside. The increases that will be granted to blinded ex-servicemen, totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen and incapacitated persons in other categories is less than £1,000,000, yet, by abolishing the land tax, the Government is remitting £6,000,000 in taxation to the profiteers and the land-grabbers. If anything is fair in the redistribution of money in our community, that £6,000,000 that is being returned to the people who do not need it should have gone to increase the pensions; that is, if this Government isscraping the barrel for money. The honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) said to-day that when the Opposition becomes a government again, it will repeal the land tax abolition legislation. If we were to repeal it and use the money that we receive from the land tax to increase our repatriation benefits, then its repeal would be a good thing. The recruiting for our defence services has been hindered by the miserly way in which repatriation has been approached in this country. It has also been hindered by the way in which the Repatriation Act 1920-1951 has been drawn up, irrespective of the devoted work that has gone into it.

Sitting suspended from 124-5 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The plight of the war widows is serious. No provision has been made for them in this measure although they aTe the most vulnerable of our repatriation pensioners. War widows of World War I. have increasing difficulty as the years advance in maintaining themselves on a pension of £3 10s. a week. The younger women with families, who receive educational and other benefits for their children, are not in the comfortable circumstances that the Minister for the Army would have us believe. It is well known that a means test applies to payments that are made in respect of the children of a war widow. I have been reliably informed that children of such women, who wish to supplement the family income by working during Christmas holidays and on other occasions, are not permitted by the Repatriation Department to earn more than about 10s. or 12s. a week without causing a reduction of the benefits paid to the mother. No sum has been specified, but I understand that the means test applies if the earnings of the children exceed more than a few shillings a week. Members of the Government talk glibly about the situation of the war widow without, knowing very much about her circumstances. They talk about grants for education and training, but what woman who has to support a family on a pension can afford to send her children to a university and take advantage of the education benefits? Those benefits are good, in the main, but I am confident that very few

Avar widows are able to take advantage of them. The average war widow has a very low rate of income and therefore is forced to exist on a low standard of living. These injustices should be removed.

Something should be done about the general health of war widows. Why is the standard of health of these women lower than that of other widows? It appears that the circumstances of widowhood and the difficulties of rearing children with only a small pension income have a serious effect on the health of these women. The Minister should consider this factor, and I hope that he will accept the amendment that I shall move in due course and provide an increase of at least 10s. a week for these pensioners. Anything less would represent a dereliction of duty on the part of the Government. I have spoken of the work that has been done by Mrs. Vasey. Until she took up the cudgels on behalf of war widows, these unfortunate women had nobody to champion their cause. They belonged to a forgotten section of the community although, in reality, we owe them a great debt. I ask the Minister when he makes his speech in reply not to brush my suggestions aside and merely read a Treasury statement that purports to vindicate everything that has been said by the Minister for Repatriation. Human values are involved, and the demands of these people must not be ignored. Surely the war widows should receive first consideration in any study of the relative needs of various categories of pensioners. The base rate pensioner, of course, needs the increase that the Government proposes to grant to him. But the same consideration should have been extended to the widows. As I have pointed out, if revenue difficulties are involved,- the Government could solve the problem by retaining the land tax instead of abolishing it. That tax would provide sufficient money to enable the Government to grant an additional 10s. a week to war widows. Every man and woman in the community would rather tax the pastoralists and the wealthy companies that own broad acres than deprive the survivors of men who fought and died to protect that property of a reasonable standard of comfort. The case on behalf of the war widows is incontrovertible. The Government should agree to award them at least 10s. a week more than they receive at present.

I refer now to the situation of other repatriation pensioners. The opening remarks of the Minister for the Army in his second-reading speech were very disappointing. He said that a subcommittee of Ministers who were exservicemen had met representatives of exservicemen’s organizations and that they had investigated repatriation benefits thoroughly and decided that the increases for which the bill provides were the best that could be awarded. If that is the best that ex-servicemen working for exservicemen can do, we had better turn the job over to some fair-minded civilians. I am sure that we can do better than the Government has decided to do. It is of no use for the Minister to piously polish his ex-serviceman’s badge and say, “ This is what ex-servicemen have decided that other ex-servicemen should receive “. That is the wrong way to approach the problem. The needs of men who fought for our liberties and suffered in the process should be considered on the basis of humanity, not on the basis of Treasury commitments. The excuse offered by the Minister that the proposed rates were decided upon by ex-servicemen fails iD the light of the fact that floods of protests against those rates have come from exservicemen’s organizations throughout the land. We completely reject as absurd and undemocratic the plea that the rates are adequate because ex-servicemen in the Government have decided that they will be good enough for ex-servicemen outside the Government. The poor, miserable contributions to pensioners for which the bill provides should be considered, according to the Minister, in conjunction with the provisions of the budget for 1951-52. What utter nonsense ! We are considering the circumstances of repatriation pensioners in 1952-53, and to ask us to relate them to the concessions that were made in 1951-52 is as stupid as it would be to ask us to relate them to the concessions that were made in 1950-51 or 1948-49. This bill must stand alone, and any talk about concessions that were made last year to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen is merely an attempt to camouflage the miserable provisions of this bill.

Mr Francis:

– The Labour Administration did not increase repatriation pensions for five years.

Mr HAYLEN:

– That is not true. Furthermore, when we increased the benefits, we adopted a principle that this Government has wrongly abandoned.

The present Government pleads financial stringency as an excuse for its failure to provide adequate pension increases for ex-servicemen. Why financial difficulties should be allowed to interfere with repatriation benefits I fail to understand. At least the Government should give the same increase to every repatriation pensioner, instead of paying a little extra here and a little extra there, granting slight relief first to onevulnerable group and then to another for the sake of prestige but, in the final analysis, doing nothing ofreal value. That sort of thing is worse than useless. Australians expect tobe given a fair go, and each one wants to get a little for his corner whenever some concession is made. The Government has asked us to remember the benefits that have been awarded to exservicemen in the past . It wants us to forget th e needs of the present and to cast our minds back into antiquity. It would have usbelieve that everything it does is perfect andthat everything that was done by theLabour party was an abomination.For the Government to ask us to relate its plans for this year to its acts of previous years is stupid and absurd. The increases that were granted in1951-52 applied only to certain groups of ex-servicemen, and the Opposition complained at the time that other sections had been neglected. Base rate pensioners were not affected by last year’s legislation. Now the Government has limped along and decided to give them an additional amount of 10s. a week. I ask the Minister and his colleagues to remember how the basic wage has soared since October, 1951, andto decide whether, in the light ofthatgreat increase, the proposed pension increase of 10s. a week is equitable. The excuses that the Government has offered indicate thatit is not happy about its decisions, particularly in regard to those repatriation pensioners who have been neglected altogether in this bill.

In order to make the attitude of the Opposition on this matter clear to the House, I move -

That all words after “ That “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ the Bill, be withdrawn and redrafted to provide -

pension increases to be retrospective to1stJuly last;

an increase in was widows’ pensions;

3) an increase in the pensions of totally and permanently incapacitated exservice personnel ;

increases, other than those included in the base rate pension, in the pensions of the partially blinded and limbless ex-servicemen; and

a review of the base rate increase of ton shillings in the light of increased living costs “.

I have dealt with the unfortunate situation of war widows. Now I come to the subject of partially blinded ex-serv icemen. These men have sent deputation after deputation to Canberra in their efforts to make the Governmentrealize that, although they are not totally blinded, their disability has a greatbearing upon, their capacity to earn. A survey of the jobs that these men hold would show that generally they are in the lowestrange of employment, for which very poor wages are paid. They receive only the base rate of pension and they have every reason to claim an increase.Limbless exservicemen also have been pleading for special consideration of their needs. Their claims appear to be reasonable in view of the injuries that they sustained in the service of their country, but they have been left entirely out of the picture. They have made many requests to the Government by deputation and by letter, and they have written to private members as well as to Ministers. We all know that they have presented a case that is worthy of sympathetic consideration. The war widows are to be by-passed and left to sweat it out, and no reasonable excuse has been offered for the Government’s decision.

Mr.Francis. - The honorable member has not studied the bill.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The simple fact is that the Government does not propose to increase the war widows’ pension. It. is trying to butter up war widows and exservicemen, but its arguments are not valid.

The third proposal in the amendment that I have submitted is that increases be granted to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. Such men are disappearing daily from the scene. Their casualty rate is extremely high.Not many of them are left and, surely, the expense of granting an increase to them would be very slight. They were awarded anincreasein 1951-52,but the allowances made to dependent wives and children were not varied. On this occasion, the Government has completely ignored them. These men are sick and unable to work. They are prematurely approaching the end of their lives because of their war injuries. In many instances, their- condition, makes their need considerably greater, than that of the average retired, man,, who is usually in good health.. Their pension, should be increased as the cost of living, increases,, and. I ask. the Minister to give consideration to their circumstances whenever the basic wage rises. The Treasures pro-poses to> throw a miserly 10s. over his. shoulder to base rate repairriation pensioners, who- should have been granted an increase of £1 a- week last. year. Their organizations- now ask. that the base rate of pension- be increased by £1 10s.. a week in order to keep the- value of the pension properly in line with rising costs. I agree- that we cannot measure all these pensions in terms of the basic- wage> but we must have some kind of measuring; stick. The pension should be a certain per centage of the basic wage. The point I made in. a. similar debate- last year is the point that the Opposition makes to-day; which is that a percentage should be determined below which the relation of the pension to the basie, wage, or the cost of living, must not recede. The- submission on this matter- by the Partially Blinded Soldiers Association of Australia is germane to. this- point. It- is as follows :: -

Thu Government hud a case an answer in view of the fact that from 1920 to I942. viz., 22 years, tile average, basic wage was £4. Ils.. the basie rate pension over this period was £2 2s..- say 50 per cent, of the average basic wage. Therefore at the time of the preparation of the 1953 budget the basic wage was fit 3s.” with the basic rate pension £3 10s. Therefore the budget, should show the 100 per cent, basic rate pension as £5 lis. 6d.: - and the proposed new increase with the present basic wage at £11 Ins. should show the basic rate pension at £7 10s. and not £4 as indicated in the Treasurer’s budget speech.

war pension, is for the specific injury of illness received and it was never intended that it should be tied to the cost of living, but wo have to promote the same comparable basis foi: the value of the pension £1 and there is no- other machinery available for comparison than that ot the cost of living index, figures.

The Government should consider that matter. Deputations, from ex-servicemen’s organizations which have waited on. the Government,, have made the- point, that because of the lack of a yardstick, the pension, must be measured against the basic, wage in order to show that much of the purchasing, power of the. pension has been lost. What answer has the Minister given, to the- claim of those organizations that the base pension should be £5 17s.. a week? Cannot the. Government pay. that amount, or does it not want to pay it? Would it be too extraordinary to increase the pension to that amount in one stroke, in fairness to these men, or is it becoming fashionable to keep them on a standard of living just a little better than the dole? Lf those questions, are answered’, by the. Minister, I shall be more than surprised..

This bill seeks to increase certain rates of pension, but it is worse- even than a similar bill last year. The Government takes a problem that is fairly screaming- for solution as. a w-hol’e> and deals with it piece-meal. The Government has taken the easy way out, by proposing to increase the base rate pension by 10s. a week, and disregarding the other rates. The groups that are infinitely more vulnerable than the men in receipt of a 100 per cent, pension or less are to be neglected. We are pleased that recipients of the base rate- pension are to. receive an increase, but after all, those persons are getting compensation for injuries which they received in wars, and they deserve the natural increase. But war- widows, on- the grounds of humanity alone, even if we do not express any gratitude to their deceased husband’s for- their services, are entitled to more consideration than the Government has given to them. Indeed, war widows have been entirely neglected. I invite the Minister to defend the policy of the Government on this matter. I realize that this bill has already been passed by the Senate, but I point out that it is not yet too late for the Government to accept the amendment that I have moved. The purpose of the amendment is to adjust a position that is, intolerable, inhuman and dishonorable.

Mr Francis:

– The preceding Labour Government did not increase- the war widow’s, pension for several years.

Mr HAYLEN:

– It is useless for the Minister to babble about what happened’ in 1905 or 1945-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! This dialogue must cease.. I ask the honorable member to- address the Chair.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The Minister provoked me, as usual.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honor- h bie gentleman should rise above temptation.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I shall endeavour to do so. The second charge that I make against the Government is that other groups, which have the first call on any increase of pensions, have been neglected. Obviously, the Government has taken the easy way out. But it cannot escape from its obligations, with a shower of apologies, by saying, in effect, “ This is a group of ex-servicemen in a sort of closed corporation discussing their difficulties with each other “. The fact is that the great body of ex-servicemen are mad at the meagre amount of pension which is to be made available under this legislation. It is also useless for the Minister to discuss all the concessions that have been granted under the Repatriation Act for a number of years, and to seek to give the kudos for them to the Liberal party.

I am deeply concerned about the miserable pittance that is to be given to the base rate pensioners, and I am greatly perturbed because nothing is to be given to other classes, particularly war widows. The whole position should be clarified. We must rise above the pinch-penny attitude of the Treasury. If ex-servicemen and their dependants are to receive compensation, a proper basis must be determined, in place of the present crazy piece of outworn machinery. It is futile for the Minister to claim that this is a perfect bill. In truth, it is not. It will not function smoothly because something will frustrate its operation. If I may be permitted to say so, I believe that, sometimes, it is the bureaucracy, the Department of Repatriation, and at other times it is the Government itself that is responsible for that frustration. However, I shall keep the debate on as high a level as possible. Sooner or later, a decision must be made on percentages as a medium for determining the value of the pension £1. There is a new phrase in the economy of ex-servicemen, which asks, “ How much will your pension £1 buy? “. The answer is, “Much the same as the Menzies £1 will buy, and that is very little “. The Government’s conscience should impel it to do better than throw a mere additional 10s. a week, in passing, over its shoulder to the pensioners. Unfortunately, the Government appears to have convinced itself that such an increase is reasonable. The Minister has said to pensioners, in effect, “ If you read the provisions of this bill in conjunction with the last budget and two preceding budgets, you will see that you are not in such a bad position. According to the statistics, you are better off than ever before”. That is complete nonsense. I urge the Government to take the amendment seriously. No doubt with the effluxion of time, this position will be repaired by other governments and other persons, but, at present, the Government has a case of humanity to answer. Those who have tears, should prepare to shed them now for the war widow who is not getting justice. If the Minister feels impelled to destroy the amendment, I ask him to preserve that part of it which proposes that war widows shall receive an additional 10s. a week. That increase should be made in justice to the nation, in justice to the deceased servicemen, and, above all, in justice to their dependants.

Mr McLEAY:
Boothby · LP

.- I am gratified to have this opportunity to speak on this bill, and I compliment ex-servicemen’s organizations, the Legacy clubs in the various States of Australia, and Mrs. Vasey, the president of the War Widows Guild, for the great part that they have played in assisting exservicemen and their dependants in the lives they have to lead and in the sacrifices they have made. I hope that the discussion on war widows will be kept completely on a non-political plane, because no section of the community is more deserving than they are of the united support of this House. I shall refer to some of the achievements of this Government in order to remind the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) that it- has shown great interest in the general welfare of ex-servicemen and their dependants. This Government was responsible for making an additional grant to war widows when they attained the age of 50 years, and that provision is still in operation. This Government is also responsible for making an additional grant in order to assist the children of ex-service personnel, and that provision continues to operate. This Government was responsible for granting to war widows a privilege that the Labour Government gave to the civilian widows which was that they should have the right to have their pension cheque posted to them every fortnight in order to save them a laborious walk to n post office for the purpose of collecting it. In all the circumstances, we can say that this Government genuinely has the interest of the war widows at heart. Those women will be extremely grateful for the increase of pension.

Wai* widows have problems other than the pension. One of their greatest difficulties arises from the fact that successive Australian governments since World War L have overlooked the responsibility to provide adequate housing for such widows and their children. When T discuss this matter, I am referring specifically to conditions in South Australia, because I am more familiar with the position in that State than with the position in other States. We owe a great deal to the South Australian Government, and particularly to the Premier, Mr. Playford, for the enormous assistance that they have given to Legacy, the War Widows Guild, and exservicemen’s organization*; in connexion with solving the problem of housing war widows. My own view is. that the Commonwealth has always escaped its obligations in this respect, and left them completely to the States. I hope that this Government will not be handcuffed to the past, and will not refrain from recognizing its obligations to the dependants of servicemen who have given their liver- in defence of their country.

It is -interesting to examine some of the housing schemes in order to ascertain whether war widows are placed on an equal footing with persons in other sections of the community. An employee of the Commonwealth Bank is entitled to obtain a loan at an interest rate of 2-i per cent. I do not object to that arrangement, but I mention it because it is relevant to the subject I am discussing. The Commonwealth and State

Housing Agreement provides that the interest rate on a loan shall be 3 per cent. Persons who obtain finance under those two schemes are at a great advantage compared with war widows. I have read in the press that members of the forces are required to pay 15 per cent, of their pay as rent for the accommodation provided for them. If the Government were to adopt a similar basis in respect of war widows they would be on a much better footing than they are at the present time. I have directed the attention of the Government to this matter, and a Minister assured me thathe would inquire into the needs of war widows.

What is the attitude of the Government to war widows to-day? They mayacquire a war service home provided they can pay a deposit of £50. I am gratified that the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Townley), who is in charge of war service homes, has made it possible for war widows to comply with the conditions. In the past, the women were not considered to be credit worthy, and many of their applications were rejected by the War Service Homes Division on that ground. I pay a tribute to the Minister for his policy in this matter, and express the opinion that he has brought a freshness to this House, and, above all, to Cabinet, that augers well for the future.

I shall now describe briefly my own view on pensions. When a serviceman gives his life in the defence of his country, we should determine the amount that his dependants are entitled to receive, and relate it to the basic wage. If that basis were adopted, the subject of pensions would not arise in the House year after year, and become a political football for all parties to kick round the chamber. We should also have in mind the general welfare of the courageous nurses who served overseas with the Australian Imperial Force. No section of the services is held in higher esteem than the women who nursed the wounded and sick. They are loved not only by ex-servicemen but also by the people of Australia. I have personal knowledge of the circumstances of nurses who are now advanced in age and, after devoting most of their lives to the medical profession, have fallen on evil ‘days because of .sickness or other reasons. They are dependent upon a meagre pension for the remainder of their lives. Any nurse who has served with the armed forces should be entitled to free hospitalization in any repatriation hospital. I am sure that such a provision would have the support of the citizens of Australia as well as that -of ex-servicemen.

From personal experience, I know that war widows are upset because their pensions have not been keeping pace with the cost of living. But they are even more distressed over the right of the Repatriation Department to challenge their pensions in relation to their personal conduct. War widows are required to live a life of morality under the surveillance of the Repatriation Department. That provision reflects on their integrity and it is grossly unfair. We are prepared to give a de facto wife an allowance and provide for her illegitimate children, but we say to a war widow, in effect, “ If you do not behave, we will stop your pension.” The majority of war widows rightly resent such intrusion into their private lives. If the Government could remove that supervision, a slur on the character of war widows would be removed and they would regain the respect for their integrity which means a great deal to them. In my experience, war widows hate charity above all things. They are proud that they have played some part in the defence of the country, even though it has meant the loss of a husband and the father of their children. War widows are grateful to any organizations that advise them. No country in the world can equal the record of our voluntary organizations in their efforts on behalf of ex-service men and women and war widows. We should recognize their work. I hope that honorable members will study this measure from a nonparty point of view and will consider the merits of the case. If we can say that war widows will be placed in the position where their security will be guarded, where their needs in relation to housing are cared for and not left to the State governments, and where their character and reputation will not be challenged or subjected to scrutiny, we will give pleasure and confidence to those women.

The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) forgot to refer to the fact that the Government was responsible for introducing -the measure under which a war widow who decides to remarry is given an advance equivalent to one year’s pension or about £175. That was a genuine endeavour to place a war widow who decided to remarry in a position to provide herself with clothes and other necessities and to be worthy of the husband whom she had chosen. Generally the officers of the Repatriation Department, particularly those who are associated with the administration and the decisions of the Parliament, have shown themselves to be sympathetic and humane. They have done great work for war widows and, in particular, for their children. I have had experience of their work in providing employment, vocational guidance and education facilities, and I have nothing but admiration for the great contribution that has been made by the officers of the Repatriation Department to the welfare of those who come within their ambit. As well as working in office hours, they have devoted long hours in support of organizations that - are interested in their wards. I believe that housing for war widows should be a responsibility of the Minister for Repatriation and not of the War Service Home3 Division. I believe that the approach of the Repatriation Department is likely to be more sympathetic and that through it, the country’s obligations to war widows should be recognized. Promises were made to the men who enlisted for war service and we are the guardians of the welfare of their dependants. Ex-servicemen will not forget their obligations to those who have fallen. The experience of ex-servicemen and their knowledge of the sacrifices that were made, awakened in them a keen interest in the welfare of the families of those who fell. They recognize a responsibility to ensure the security and welfare of the wives and children of those men. I support the measure.

Mr GRIFFITHS:
Shortland

– The bill that is before the House is to provide additional benefits to pensioners and their relatives, for whom the Government failed to provide in the .1951 budget

The second-reading speech of the Minister for the Army (Mr. Francis) indicated that he recognized that the Government had failed to provide- for some sections of the pensioners’ in that period. The honorable member for- Boothby (Mr. McLeay) said that he desired to keep this discussion generally above a party political level, but I believe that the honorable member himself kept it on that level. Ever since this Government has been in office, it has? played politics with repatriation benefits and with many other pieces of legislation. In his second-reading speech the Minister said-

Early this year, the Government appointed a cabinet sub-committee which consisted of ex-service members of the Cabinet, to consider various increases pf the pensions and allowances payable under the provisions of the Repatriation Act. I had the honour, with other Cabinet Ministers, to be a member of that sub-committee. It met at various times the> federal executives of a number of exservicemen’s organizations, which, submitted their, views and those of their organizations, respecting matters that affected ex-service men and women.

The Minister has not told the House whether the Government has adopted the advice of the ex-servicemen’s associations. I believe that the Minister and the Cabinet subcommittee have not done so. If they have done so, the officers of those organizations in my electorate must be sadly astray. The Minister also- said -

The main purpose of the bill is to reflect in the act the increases of war pension and service pension decided upon by the Government in connexion with the present budget. I shall, explain these, but they should be viewed, in relation to the increases granted last year.

The Minister then briefly gave details, and continued -

Having regard to the character of last year’s budget, the Government decided that the appropriate step would be to increase the pensions and- allowances of. those pensioners who are dependent mainly upon pensions or allowances, that is, members who are blind, totally and permanently incapacitated, or suffering from amputation of two limbs; certain classes of members suffering from tuberculosis ; widows with children ; and widows over 50 years of age or permanently unemployable.

It is true that the Government increased those rates of pensions in 1951, and credit can be given to it for the increases, of the pensions for totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, in However, when the Labour party was in office the basic wage was more stable than it is to-day. The basic wage then was about £6 8s. To-day, in New South “Wales’, it is £11 15s., but the Government has conveniently forgotten the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners. The Government has given an increase of 5s.’ in the allowance for the wife of a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner, but the general relative position of pensioners in that class is much worse than it was last year. The Government is making no provision for the possible increases of the basic wage before the next budget is presented. The position of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners is becoming progressively worse. They cannot keep pace with higher living costs. The Minister also stated in his second-reading speech -

In the present budget, increases of pensions and allowances have been made to apply to other classes of war pensions. The rate for a general rate pensioner whose incapacity is assessed at 100 per cent., was increased from £3 10s. to £4 - the rate for his wife from £1’ 10s. 6d. to £1 15s. Gd., and that for each child from Ils. 6d. to 13s. !)d.

What is the position of the pensioner who is unable to have his disability assessed at a figure anywhere near 100 per cent.? That pensioner is unable to obtain anything other than the percentage increase that is proposed in the bill. If the intention of the Government in presenting this bill is. to remove anomalies to which the repatriation legislation gives rise, it will fail miserably to do so, because, with the exception of the provision for certain increases of the general rate pension, there is nothing in the measure that will remove those anomalies or ensure that the commission will accept, as war-caused, certain diseases and medical conditions which it. does not now so accept. The legislation, as amended, will not secure the recognition as war widows of hundreds of women who, due to the deaths of their ex-servicemen husband’s^ have to- support themselves. The lives of thousands of young war widows have been ruined by the; death of their husbands; but no provision is- to be made for an increase of the pensions- that they receive.

I am reluctant to criticize those who administer the repatriation legislation, but I say that, if the legislation is not being interpreted in the way in which I believe the Labour Government which framed it intended it to be interpreted, it must be further amended to ensure that justice will be done. Section 47 of the. act deals with the determination of claims. It reads as follows. - (1.) The Commission, a Board, an Appeal Tribunal and an Assessment Appeal Tribunal, in hearing., determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case, shall not bc bound by technicalities or legal forms or rules of evidence and shall give to the claimant, applicant or appellant the benefit of any doubt -

  1. as to the existence nf any fact, matter, cause or circumstance which would be favourable to the claimant, applicant or appellant; or (i>) as to any question whatsoever (including the question whether the incapacity from which the member of the Forces is suffering or from which he has died was contributed to in any material degree or was aggravated, by the conditions of his war service) which arises for decision under his claim, application or appeal. (2.) It shall not be necessary for the claimant, applicant or appellant to furnish proof to support his claim, application or appeal butthe Commission, Board, Appeal Tribunal or Assessment Appeal Tribunal determining or deciding the claim, application or appeal shall be entitled to draw, and shall draw, from the circumstances of the case, from the evidence furnished and from medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant, applicant or appellant, and in all cases whatsoever the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the claim, application, or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed.
Mr Francis:

– Those provisions were inserted in the legislation by the present Government parties.

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– They were inserted by a Labour government.

Mr Francis:

– Nonsense!

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– I say that the commission has failed repeatedly to give effect to those provisions. If the commission is not prepared to accept many of the claims that are being rejected, provision must be made to force it to give applicants the benefit of every doubt that exists.

Mr Haylen:

– That provision has never been accepted.

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– That is so. Those who administer the legislation are failing in their duty to many women whose husbands laid down their lives for this country. They reject the claims of the widows of many ex-servicemen, and refuse to accept the deaths of their husbands as being due to war-caused injuries. Let me cite the case of an ex-member of the forces. It is recognized that he received shrapnel wounds in the chest, hand and back. He died in 1949 from a disease of the heart. He did not apply for a war pension until he felt that he was being smothered, and could not breathe properly. When a post-mortem examination was conducted at .the Newcastle’ Hospital, it was ascertained that he had died from aortic stenosis of undetermined aetiology. That diagnosis shows that the doctors who conducted the post-mortem examination were unable to determine the exact cause of the man’s death, or of the disease from which he died.

Mr Haylen:

– Was he refused a pension ?

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– He had been refused a pension. The Department of Social Services granted him a pension a few days before he died, but, after his death, requested his relatives to repay the money that he had received from the department. The report of the postmortem examination contains the following passage: -

Heart. Considerably enlarged, firm in consistence. On section, the enlargement was seen to be mainly due to great concentric hypertrophy of the left ventricle. The musculature presented a normal appearance apart from the hypertrophy. The right auricle was dilated and contained white and red blood clot.

The report goes on to describe the condition of the heart generally. The Repatriation Commission refused to accept that this man died as the result of a warcaused injury, and has refused to grant a war widow’s pension to his widow.

Mr Hamilton:

– When did this happen ?

Mr GRIFFITHS:

– In 1949. Thu honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton) may examine the file if he so desires. I want to thank the honorable member for St. George (Mr. Graham), who has interested himself in a number of cases of this kind that have come to my notice recently.

It is the duty of the Government to ensure that anomalies affecting war widows shall be removed. The honorable member for Boothby has said that war widows should be entitled to war service homes, provided they can raise the £50 deposit that the War Service Homes Division requires. I say that they should be entitled to war service homes even if they cannot raise a deposit, and that the repayments that they make should be sufficient only to pay the interest on the money lent to them. After all, their breadwinners have been taken from them. If we want ‘the young men of this nation to enlist in the forces, we must show them that, even if they were maimed or killed in conflict, they need have no anxiety about the welfare of their wives. But, under present conditions, our young men do not recei ve any encouragement to enlist, because ex-servicemen of the last war and their wives or widows are not being looked after properly.

Let me cite another case to the House. [ have been told by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) that everything possible is being done for the ex-serviceman concerned. He is an exmember of the Royal Australian Air Force, and he served in two world wars. While serving in the forces, he was stricken with appendicitis. From then onwards, his physical condition deteriorated, and eventually he contracted Parkinson’s disease. In 1951, I made representations to the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation in an endeavour to obtain travelling warrants for his wife so that she could visit him whilst he was in the’ Repatriation General Hospital at Concord, an allowance for the education of his children, and an allowance for his wife when he was not in hospital. The latter allowance was granted after some delay. The man’s condition has become progressively worse, and at the present time he cannot attend even to his own personal requirements. He was an inmate of the Repatriation General Hospital from January to July of this year. Then it was decided that nothing further could be done for him. When his wife visited the hospital, one of the doctors said that, if the man could be looked after in his home, that would be better for him, because his mental and physical faculties were failing. The wife was promised that a nurse would be sent to attend him for one hour each day. The man was taken from the hospital to his home, and a nurse visited the home to attend to him. After her fifth visit, she was told by the local repatriation officer in Newcastle that he had received instructions from the central office that a nursing service was no longer to be provided for the nian. His wife communicated with me. Then I telephoned to Mr. Carswell in Sydney, spoke to him about the case, and explained to him the condition of the man. Mr. Carswell asked rae whether I would send him a telegram, and in the name of the ex-serviceman, an application for the nursing service to be continued. I did so almost immediately. Then J received a letter from Mr. Carswell. It is dated the 12th August, and reads as follows : -

With reference to your telegram of 11.8.1952. this soldier is not eligible to receive nursing attention, as he is in receipt of an attendant allowance to cover additional benefits such as nursing. However, the member’s local medical officer is being requested to visit him to ascertain whether he is in need of hospitalization at the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord.

I had already told Mr. Carswell that the wife was receiving an attendant allowance. I had told him also that she was looking after her husband for 24 hours every day, that she had to lift him in and out of bed, and that she had to take him to the toilet and attend to his personal requirements because he could not move even his hands. Pamphlets issued by the repatriation authorities state that exservicemen are entitled to a special allowance, if their medical condition is bad enough to warrant it. Can it be said that a man who has only a few months to live, who cannot use his hands, and who cannot feed himself is not entitled to a special allowance? But this man was refused the allowance that he sought. No officer of the Repatriation Department has yet told his wife, who has been attending to her husband for months, that she is entitled to a recreation allowance to enable her to take him for car drives. If the departmental officerswere doingtheir job, they would ensure that a soldier who was so badly afflicted that he could not fend for himself andcould not read or understand the repatriation legislation, would receive all the benefits to which he was entitled.Ihave been engaged upon this case for months. I do not blame the Minister forwhat has happened, because I have the highest regard for him. I blame those who have the duty to administer the legislation. On the 13th September, the Minister wrote the following letter to me: -

Ifind th atthis ex-serviceman was an inpatient of the Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, during the period the 30th January, 1952 to 5th July, 1952, and, at the time of dischargeit was arrangedthat a visitingnurse would attend to him three times weekly.

Actually the man’s wife was promised that a nurse would attendto him for an hour each day. The letter proceeded -

On 9th July, 1952, his Local Medical Officer reported thatdailynursing attention was necessary, and approval was givenby the Deputy Commission of Repatriation, Sydney, forthis treatment, over a period of one month.

When the file was reviewed, it was found thatan Attendant’s Allowance had been approved in this case, and,as this Allowance, inaddition to Domiciliary Nursing Attention, is only granted inspecial cases, the approval given for nursing attention was cancelledas from 8th August, 1952.

Cancelled, at a moment’s notice, without explanation! The woman said that she was willing to forgo the allowance if only nursingattentioncould be provided. Incidentally, the nursing sister, who was a widow, regarded this case as being so bad that she attendedto the patient for almost a month without pay until he was returned to the Repatriation General Hospital,Concord. The letter continues -

Re-admission of (the man concerened) to RepatriationGeneral Hospital, Concord, was not desired by his wife, andbothshe and her husbandsuggested that the Attendant’s Allowance be cancelled, and further approval be given for Domiciliary Nursing Treatment, as it was considered that this type of Assistance would be of greater benefit, and at this stage, the Local Medical Officer considered hospitalisationunnecessary ; however, the Repatriation Board was not prepared to cancel the Attendant’s Allowance on the evidencebeforeit.

So, although the wife herself wanted cancellation of the attendant’s allowance so that she would be ableto have the assistance ofa nursing sister, thelocal repatriation authorities did notagree. The patient’s local medical adviser considered that the wife was in such a poor physical state as a result of the worry and work occasioned byher husband’scondition that she was incapable of looking after him. Yet the department refused to cancel the allowance. The letter continues -

Following your representations, theRepatriation Commission carefully considered all the evidence, and agreed thatNursing Attention, in addition to an Attendant’s Allowance, was advisable in thiscase, and advised the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation, Sydney, accordingly.

Unfortunately, the condition of this patient has deteriorated, and hisLocal Medical Officer considers that (the -wife) is physically incapableof looking after herhusband, and therefore, his re-admission to RepatriationGeneral Hospital, Concord, has been arranged.

In view of theabove, I thinkyou will agree that sympathetic consideration has been given to (the man concerned)by my Department.

Officials of the department have not even realized thatthe man is entitled to a recreation allowance. They have not even recognizedthat he is entitled to the special allowance that is paid to ex-servicemen inhiscategory.Some limbless soldiersare provided with motor cars that are sofitted that theycandrive them, but in this instance a man, who cannot even look after himself, and who wouldgain a great deal of pleasure from beingable to drive around and admire the scenery of the country, is abandoned altogether by the department. Yet people say thatthe Repatriation Department doesagood job. I say that, although in manyinstances itmight doa good job, thereare more instances in which itdoes not do a good job.

I turn now to the case of an exserviceman who is in receipt of a partpension, and has been unable to obtain a full pension. It is in relation to such cases as I cite that I condemn the Repatriation Department. I have known cases of men who worked in the Public Service up to the day of their retirement at the age of 60, and were permitted to retain their Public Service pensions, although they were also receiving pensions as totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen. Yet, other people who are unable to work, and who receive no superannuation, cannot receive a pension for total and permanent incapacity. Ihave in my hand the file concerning a case about which a specialist in Newcastle spoke to me during the last fortnight. It concerns a man who has had seventeen jobs since his return from service in the last war. He suffers from blackouts and topples over suddenly. The specialist said to me that if ever a man deserved a pension for total and permanent incapacity that man does. He told me that he knew the case, and that the man’s wife hadto gowith him everywhere. On the 15th August last Mr. Carswell wrote to the man in relation to his case. The letter reads as follows : -

With referenceto yourapplication for increase inthe rate of your war pension, I have to inform you that the Repatriation Board has decidedto continue yourpension at30 per cent.(£2 2s. perfortnight), which is considered commensuratewith thedegreeof your incapacity due to war service.

Should you be dissatisfied with the Board’s decision youmay, within threemonths after this date,15th August, 1952,appeal to an Assessment Appeal Tribunal …

It sometimes takes months for such appeals tobe determined, and many of themare stood over for further long periods. Private medical practitioners have told many of those men that they are unfit toContinue to work and should receivehigher rates of pension. I want toknow just how the Repatriation Department is run. I believe that if we cannot obtain acorrect interpretation of section 47 of theact it is up to us to appoint a legal authority, or a board comprised of legal men, prepared to give to applicants for increasedpensions or special allowance every consideration that is possibleUnder the section. Another case concerns a soldierwho had developed spondylitis and a number of other complaints. Theboard refused to increase his pension. Still another case, about which I spoke to the honorable member for Gwydir (Mr. Treloar) last night, concerns a manwho is 68years of age and receives a 75 per cent. pension. He told me that in 1931 while crossing Peel-street, Tamworth, he had a bad coughing turn, due to bronchitis, which he claimed wasdue to war service.

The coughing fit brought on hernia. He told me that he went into the shop of the honorable member for Gwydir, and that either the honorable member or his brother inspected him and sent him to a doctor. Yet this man receives only a 75 per cent. rate of pension. Another instance is ofa man who formerly received the full rate of pension for totaland permanent incapacity. He thought that he was able to do a little work for himself and started a mixed business. He asked for his pension to be reduced because he had gone into business for himself. Later, after he had failed in business, due to the deterioration of his health, the department refused to reinstitute his pension to the former rate of 100 per cent. Another instance concerns an ex-serviceman-

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. McLeay

-Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.

Motion (by Mr. Haylen)put -

That the honorablemember forShortland (Mr. Griffiths) be granted an extension of time.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archiecameron.)

AYES: 40

NOES: 51

Majority . . . . . 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- The honorable member for Boothby (Mr. McLeay) in an eloquent speech, paid tribute to the wonderful work that is being performed on behalf of exservicemen and war widows by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, Legacy and the War Widows Guild. I fully endorse his remarks in that connexion. As it is impossible by monetary methods alone to make full provision for the needs of exservicemen and war widows, the personal help that those organizations are able to render is most valuable, particularly in the lives of incapacitated ex-servicemen and war widows. Listening to the remarks of honorable members opposite, one would imagine that the pensions payable to these persons are not being increased under this measure. In fact, the bill makes provision for substantial and valuable increases of such benefits. For instance, the general rate of war pension is being increased from ?3 10s. to ?4 a week. I recall that about this time last year deputations of representatives of the branches of the Returned Sailors. Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia in many parts of Australia requested the Government to increase the general rate of war pension. It was then pointed out that at a time when the Government was about to introduce an austerity budget, under which all sections of the community would be asked to make sacrifices, it was difficult for the Government to increase the general rate of pension, particularly as the recipients of that pension were able to work and were in receipt of the increases of the cost of living that had occurred during the preceding twelve months. However, at that time, a promise was given to the representatives of the organization that as soon as conditions had improved the Government would consider the request for an increase of the general rate. In accordance with that promise, the Government has made provision under its present budget for a substantial increase of that rate. This budget differs entirely from the budget that was introduced last year. At present, the Government is enabled to say that it has gone through difficult times and has overcome its difficulties and is now able to relieve the burden of taxation and, at the same time, increase pensions. I am grateful that the Government has honoured its promise in this respect, as it has honoured all its promises, and has increased the general rate of war pension.

I welcome the proposed increase of the pension’ payable to the wives of incapacitated ex-servicemen from ?1 10s. to ?1 15s. 6d. a week, and also the proposed increase of the allowance payable in respect of the children of incapacitated ex-servicemen from 6s. 6d. to 13s. 9d. a week. I regret that certain members of the Australian Labour party have endeavoured to introduce party politics into this debate. If ever any bill should be considered entirely above party politics, it is a bill that deals with repatriation benefits. The Repatriation Act was drafted on the basis of recommendations that were made by an all-party parliamentary committee which entirely tabooed party politics. Therefore, when we are considering proposed amendments of that act in order to increase rates of benefits, all honorable members should rise above party politics and concentrate upon doing justice to the recipients of benefits, having regard to the capacity of the country to finance such benefits. I am also pleased that the Government proposes to increase the allowances payable in respect of children of deceased ex-servicemen from £1 2s. to £1 6s. 6d, a week for the first child and from. 15s. 6d. to 18s. 6d. a week for other children and from £2 to £2 8s. a week for orphans. Much misleading propaganda has appeared in the press and has been disseminated in other spheres during the last few weeks with respect to these proposals. Reading press reports on this matter, one would imagine that no additional benefit is being provided for war widows under this measure. The fact is that under this bill a war widow will receive an additional allowance of 4s. 6d. a week for the first child and an additional 3s.. a week for each of her other children.

I do not agree with the contention that the rate of the war widows’ pension should be related to the basic wage. Our greatest obligation to war widows is to ensure that they shall be treated fairly. It is deplorable that certain people imagine that if the war widows are placed upon the same level as the basic wage earner, the Government will have met its responsibility to them. The basic wage is the minimum income that is permitted to be paid to an employee in industry. It is fixed at an amount that is considered to be a reasonable income for a family unit. The family unit is not calculated statistically, but is assumed to consist of a man, his wife and two children. That was the basis upon which the basic wage was calculated originally. Subsequently the Arbitration Court fixed the wage having regard primarily to the capacity of industry to pay, and later the court calculated it at an amount that it considered to be a reasonable minimum income for a family unit. The suggestion that the widows of men who gave their lives in defence of their country should be treated on that minimum basis does not appeal to me. I have already said that we should consider this matter entirely above party politics. Therefore, we require to get our facts correct.

A few days ago, a statement was published in the press to the effect that under repatriation legislation a war widow was worse off financially than a German immigrant with two children. If that statement were correct, it would reflect a deplorable position. But it is not correct, although war widows will always find me a fighter for the best possible pensions that can be paid to them, at the same time, I insist upon getting my facts correct. Honorable members should view a matter of this kind in its proper perspective, entirely apart from emotional considerations which, very often, lead one to make extravagant claims. A war widow with two children receives the following benefits: - A pension of £3 10s. in respect of herself, a domestic allowance of £1 12s. a week, an allowance of £1 6s. 6d a week in respect of the first child and an allowance of 18s. 6d. a week in respect of the second child, an educational allowance of £1 6s. 6d. a week for her two children and child endowment in respect of the two children amounting to 15s. a week. This makes a. total income of £9 8s. 6d. a week for a family unit of three persons. That represents approximately an income of £3 3s. a week for each member of that unit. A German immigrant with a wife and two children receives the basic wage of £11 15s. a week and child endowment amounting to 15s. a week, which makes a total income of £12 10s. a week upon which income tax amounts to 7s. 7d. a week, and leaves a net income of £12 2s. 5d. a week, or an average income of £3 ls. a week in respect of each person in his family unit of four persons. [Quorum formed.] Therefore, from a monetary point of view the German immigrant would not bet better off. In addition to her pension and allowances the war widow receives very substantial benefits in other respects. For example, she is entitled to free medical attention for herself and children under the age of sixteen. She is also entitled, in certain circumstances, to* be admitted and treated free by the repatriation hospitals. It may be said that, the German immigrant can work overtime. So- he can - if it is available for him - but,, to be. fair; we must also point out that absolutely no means test is applied to war widows - and heaven forbid that there should ever be- one. Therefore not only can she supplement her income-, but in many cases she does so. Organizations, such as the War “Widows Guild and Legacy, assist war widows to supplement their incomes to a degree that is consistent with their family responsibilities. Therefore, if we are to consider this rather distressing compart son of the war widow with that of the basic wage earner we must not say that the basic wage earner is better off than the widow. Nor should he be.

We need an entirely new approach to the treatment of war widows. We should not approach the matter from the point of view of discovering the minimum amount upon which war widows can live. We must ascertain what is fair and reasonable after taking- into consideration that, their husbands have1 given everything that they could give in’ the service of their country. So I ask the Minister to give1 consideration to forming .a committee, consisting of representatives of the Government, the Opposition, Legacy, the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s’ Imperial League of Australia and the War Widows Guild, to discuss what is’ a fair and proper amount to be paid to- war widows1,, taking- everything- into consideration-. Under no> circumstances should that calculation be based on the- minimum, amount that a- person, can. live on1. I have- taken as active a. part in looking after the war widows^ as any honorable member of this Mouse. As- ai member of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League- of Australia and of Legacy, and as a1, member of the widows and orphans panel of the Services- Canteens: Trust Fund, I’ have tried almost every day of every week tot meet the’ cases of distress that arise among war’ widows and exservicemen’s1 widows-. I do not know howthese widows would continue! to exist if it were not for organizations such as Legacy and the Canteens Services Trust;

Fund that investigate- and help those> in, the greatest distress* However, their interest cannot discharge any government from its obligation to provide a pension. The function of- mon-governmental organizations is to fill the gaps- and meet cases of hardship which arise after the widows have received their pensions. However, I believe that such organizations are particularly well equipped to be able to assist and advise the Government upon the proper pensions to be- paid to war widows. When that matter is being con-‘ sidered, the cases of widows of exservicemen who are not in receipt of repatriation pensions will also have to be considered. If it found that the lot of the war widow is bad, then the l’ot of the widow of an ex-serviceman, who is not in receipt of repatriation benefit’s, is infinitely worse. I know that that is so because of the thousands of cases that I have had to deal with through my participation in Legacy and the Services Canteens Trust Fund.

I ask honorable members not to approach this matter of the pensions’ of war widows- from- the point of view of how much political capital they can make out of it. For instance, it would be easy for me to point out what a deplorable time a war widow had when Labour was in power, and it would be no doubt just as easy for honorable members opposite to give instances of how bad a time the war widows have had since this Government has been in power. Extravagant and false cases can be made out by any one, but the facts involved in this- matter must be examined by those who are experienced in handling such problems, with the utmost consideration and sympathy and with a determination to see at all times that the war widow is fairly and justly treated. She is not so treated if her conditions are no better than the conditions; of a worker on the basic wage. The basic wage is not intended to be an average wage. It is intended’ to be the absolute minimum upon which a worker can live. A1H honorable members’, when they attend the meeting of “ their exservicemen’s’ organizations, should express- their1 determination to look after the’ widows of those’ who made the supreme sacrifice. If we do n’ot have in- mind all that the1 war’ widows need, the whole approach to repatriation will be a hollow mockery. We should give as much as possible to these wonderful women, who, after the loss of ther husbands, have struggled to bring up their children to be good’ citizens and citizens of whom their fathers would have been justly proud. If our approach is to be towards ascertaining the minimum upon which they can live, then it will be a sad commentary on the patriotism of the country.

I shall not criticize the Repatriation Department, and I regret that the honorable member for Shortland (Mr-.. Griffiths) criticized the officers who are trying to do their best’ to give sympathetic consideration to the matters within their control. It should not be thought for one moment that our repatriation system has failed. Five children of war widows have become Rhodes scholars, and have therefore attained to the greatest scholastic honours within . the reach of any person. Wherever we look throughout this country we find children of war widows’ in’ places of responsibility, and where good is being done. They have risen to the top and have become outstanding citizens of whom this country is proud and of whom their fathers would have been proud. I suggest that honorable members should not make wild, and extravagant statements, but should get together and try to do better than has been done in the past by any government. It is not a matter of money. It is a. matter of what should be done. If the fair treatment of war widows necessitates additional taxation, that should be; imposed. If an independent and impartial committee should’ decide that it is right and proper that war widows and widows of ex-servicemen should be given further advantages, then honorable members should make sure that they get them. We are not going to do anything, for the widows if we make their plight a matter of party political propaganda. If Ave do that we shall not improve the conditions of the widows at all. A’n independent committee drew up the provisions of the first repatriation legislation, so why should we not continue the work that’ it started and set up another, independent committee to consider the legislation as. a whole, as it- particularly relates! to war’ widows. At all times my interest will be with the war widows. A problem exists and we should set about solving it.

Mr MULCAHY:
Lang

.- 1 listened, attentively to the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson). His main suggestion was that a committee of this House should be appointed to investigate whether war- widows’ pensions should be increased. T think that the. honorable member is’ evading, the issue. He knows that the pension of about £3 10s. a week is entirely inadequate to keep any person, and if i. we want to do justice to the ex-servicemen’ and their dependants we shall’ not’ do it through a. committee. When I first entered this Parliament in 1934 exservicemen predominated among its members. There are very few honorable members- in- this House to-day who were members of it at that time. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Francis), the- VicePresident of the Executive Council (Mr. Eric J. Harrison), and, I think, the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser.), are the only ones here to-day who were then members of the Parliament; In those days we had much to say about ex-servicemen, and in my electorate, where there were a large number of ex-servicemen, I found that they were .being evicted daily from their war service homes. Mainly because honorable members on this side of the House protested, vigorously against that practice, the Lyons- Government was forced to give- war widows the right to live in their war service homes for the rest of their lives. I suggest that that was a very big concession to obtain for war widows; The present pension for war widows, like many other repatriation benefits, is entirely inadequate.

The Deputy Commissioner, of Repatriation in Sydney has invariably- extended the utmost courtesy to me whenever I have referred repatriation matters to him. His- attitude- towards applications for benefits is always sympathetic. However, I- am sorry, to say that we have not received the same measure of consideration from- the- Minister, for Repatriation (Senator Cooper). I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2146

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1952

Customs TARIFF Amendment (No. 6) ; Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 4). {:#subdebate-25-0} #### In Committee of Ways and Means: {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
Vice-President of the Executive Council and Minister for Defence Production · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 6).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1950 be amended as hereinafter set out, and that, on and after the twenty-sixth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and fifty -two, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1950 as so amended. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1.) of these Proposals, the Governor-General may, from time to time by Proclamation declare that, from a time and date specified in the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of any British or foreign country specified in the Proclamation. 1. That on and after the time and date specified in a Proclamation issued in accordance with the last preceding paragraph, the Intermediate Tariff shall apply to such goods specified in the Proclamation as are the produce or manufacture of a British or foreign country specified in that Proclamation. 2. That any Proclamation issued in accordance with paragraph (2.) of these Proposals may, from time to time, be revoked or varied by a further Proclamation, and upon the revocation or variation of the Proclamation, the Intermediate Tariff shall cease to apply to the goods specified in the Proclamation so revoked, or, as the case may be, the application of the Intermediate Tariff to the goods specified in the Proclamation so varied, shall be varied accordingly. 3. That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - " Proclamation " mean a Proclamation by the Governor-General, or the person for the time being administering the government of the Commonwealth, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, and published in the *Commonwealth of Australia Gazette ;* " the Intermediate Tariff " mean the rates of duty set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, in the column beaded " Intermediate Tariff ", in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used. {:#subdebate-25-1} #### Mr ifr. *Eric J. Harrison.* [Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 4).] That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1950 be amended as hereinafter set out, and that, on and after the twenty-sixth day of September, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-two, at five o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Excise be collected in pursuance of the Excise Tariff 1921-1950 as so amended. The customs tariff proposals which I have just introduced are a consolidation and re-introduction of the five customs tariff proposals which have been introduced at different timesduring the present parliamentary session. This consolidation will facilitate discussion by honorable members when the proposals are being debated during the present parliamentary sittings. In addition, these tariff proposals contain new amendments covering flat-bed knitting machines; transmitters for controlling the speed of industrial type sewing machines; woodworking machinery; hay, digging, and stable forks ; potato hooks ; gauges (being hand tools); certain chemicals for use mainly in the rubber industry; and maps of Australia, or any part thereof. These amendments are consequent upon inquiries recently conducted by the Tariff Board, and the relevant report's have already been tabled. The new duties will operate as on and from 9 a.m. on the 26th September, 1952. Attached to the proposals is a summary of alterations, which sets out in convenient form a comparison between the proposed duties and those provided for in the Customs Tariff 1933-1950. The principal amendments introduced for the first time relate to woodworking machinery. Certain machines, mainly in the highly priced field, are now provided for under proposed item 176 (M) (5) at rates of duty of free British preferential tariff, 12½ per cent. intermediate tariff and general tariff. These rates of duty are in accordance with the findings of the Tariff Board, which assisted at its inquiry by a panelcomprising local manufacturers and importers of woodworking machinery. The excise tariff proposals are a consolidation of the three proposals introduced atvarious times during the present session. No new amendments are included. An opportunity to debate these proposals will be given to honorable members during the course of the present parliamentary sittings. {: #subdebate-25-1-s0 .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- As I have already said, honorable members will be given an opportunity to debate these tariff proposals. That opportunity will not occur during the present week. I cannot say at whatlater date the proposals will be brought forward for discussion. These proposals represent a form of tariff consolidation. Therefore, they will achieve the result that the honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** apparentlyhas in view. It is possible that further Tariff Board reports will be tabled at a later stage. I have no information on the subject at present, but Tariff' Board inquiries are proceeding and the reports of the board will be tabled as the opportunity to do soarises. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Will the committee be able to debate all of them together? {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Mr ERIC J HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- I hope so, but I am unable to give an assurance as I am not the Minister for Trade and Customs. However, the committee will be given an opportunity to debate all new schedules. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2166 {:#debate-26} ### REPATRIATION BILL 1952 {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 2145). {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-JVJ} ##### Mr MULCAHY:
Lang .- Before my speech was interrupted in order to allow the tarin' schedules to be tabled, I had referred to the number of exservicemen who were members of the Parliament. As I look round the chamber and see so many honorable members who have served in World War I. and World War II., I am appalled to think that we should be discussing a suggestion that the rate of war widow's pension be referred to a parliamentary committee of inquiry in order to determine whether or not it is adequate. This subject deserves our closest attention, but surely an inquiry by a committee is not required to establish the fact that the pension is miserably inadequate for the purpose of enabling the recipients to maintain a decent standard of living. 1 regret that officers of the Repatriation Department, who have done great service for Australia, have been brought directly under the control of the Public Service Board. I have learned that officers who have served for many years with the department and who also have creditable war records have been unjustly treated by the board. Under the former arrangement, they served the people of Australia generally and ex-servicemen and their dependants particularly with efficiency and sympathy., Many men who are suffering from disabilities that had their origin during their service with the armed forces in World War I. are now experiencing difficulty in substantiating claims for benefits to which they are entitled. Many such men, upon their return to Australia after World War I., did not apply to the Repatriation Department for medical attention but relied upon patent medicines and the advice of chemists. Now they have great difficulty in proving that their disabilities are due to war service. In the interests of justice, their cases should be treated sympathetically. Every ex-serviceman who has served overseas and who now suffers from a disability of any sort should be entitled to receive treatment in a repatriation hospital. I know of a man who was admitted to the repatriation hospital at Concord suffering from an undetermined complaint. Eventually, the doctors diagnosed cancer. The unfortunate fellow was told, " You will have to go to a public hospital in order to have an operation ". Everybody must be aware that all public and private hospitals in Sydney are over-crowded and that beds cannot be made available for many sick persons. Why on earth that man should have been turned out of the Concord hospital when he needed a major operation and when the hospital had all the necessary facilities and the services of highly qualified doctors at its disposal, I fail to understand. That is not the way to treat an ex-serviceman. The relatives of that man are incensed because he was removed from the repatriation hospital when he was dangerously ill although he could have been treated there. If some totally and permanently incapacitated men, and limbless exservicemen were given an empire, they would not be adequately compensated for the enormous sacrifices that they have made in the defence of their country. It is paltry to place limbless men in the various categories specified in the Fifth Schedule, such as a man who has suffered an amputation below the knee, a man who has suffered an amputation above the knee, a man who has suffered an amputation below the elbow, and so on. The full pension should be payable in respect of each of those classes. Would any honorable member who suffered the loss of a limb be satisfied with the paltry pension that is offered by this Government? {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- The preceding Labour Government was in office for eight years, yet it did nothing to help ex-servicemen in those categories. {: .speaker-JVJ} ##### Mr MULCAHY: -- Members of tha Labour party have been more attentive to the needs of ex-servicemen than have honorable members opposite. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP -- The honorable member is pulling his own leg. {: .speaker-JVJ} ##### Mr MULCAHY: -- Forty-seven honorable members opposite claim to be exservicemen, and wear the ex-servicemen's badge in their lapels. I wonder whether they are aware that a Liberal Government evicted ex-servicemen from their homes in 1934-35. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- That is not so. {: .speaker-JVJ} ##### Mr MULCAHY: -- Reference to *Hansard* will show what happened in those days. One Sunday I met an exserviceman. On the following day, he was dead. On the Tuesday, the war service homes authorities approached the widow, who hud four little children, and said, " Your circumstances have now changed. You had better find another house." I raised the matter in this chamber with the then Minister in charge of War Service Homes, **Mr. Thorby.** Within a fortnight the widow had been served with an eviction order. I ashed my solicitor to defend her. As a result of the pressure that was brought upon the government of the day, that woman is now living in a house for the rest of her life and pays in rent ls. a year. That is what can be done when we try. Let us increase the repatriation benefits now. I am confident that the people of Australia would approve such a decision. The next matter to which I shall refer relates to nurses who served in World War I. M'any of those women are now in indigent circumstances. Unfortunately, the Department of Repatriation does not recognize their plight, because they are not suffering from war-caused disabilities. Approximately 60 of these women throughout the Commonwealth are in need of government assistance. I have endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to obtain for them the rate of pension payable to a " burnt-out " ex-serviceman. The act does not enable that to be done These women, who are now in their 60's or 70's, are entitled to assistance from this Government for the rest of their lives. They should be granted free hospitalization, should they require it. I appeal to the Government to do something for them. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- If the women are over 60 years of age, they are eligible for the special service pension. {: .speaker-JVJ} ##### Mr MULCAHY: -- I do not think (hat they are. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- Yes, every one who went to the war is entitled to that pension. {: .speaker-JVJ} ##### Mr MULCAHY: -- Well, representations have been made to me on their behalf. I am aware that they are entitled to receive the age pension. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- They are entitled to receive the service pension. {: .speaker-JVJ} ##### Mr MULCAHY: -- They are not entitled to free hospitalization. I urge the Minister to examine this position. The statement has been made in this debate that a war widow may purchase a war service home provided she can pay the required deposit of £50. From my knowledge of the matter, a person who has applied for a war service home during the last two years has had a sorry experience. A widow, if she wishes to obtain a war service home, may have to wait for two years before a cottage is completed for her. The erection of a -war service home for one ex-naval nian took two and a quarter years, principally because the contractor had too much work. He was doing a little on one house, and a little on another house, in order to keep the War Service Homes Division satisfied. I submitted the matter to that authority, and I hope that an improvement will be made in that respect. I consider that every ex-serviceman should be entitled to hospitalization, even if his disability is not due to war service. The mere fact that a man enlisted, went overseas and risked his life, qualifies him for this consideration. Unfortunately, many men who fought in both world wars are now unemployed, and have registered for sustenance. Of course, they are not the only persons in that plight. The medical attention given to patients at the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord and the Prince of Wales Hospital at Randwick requires investigation. An ex-serviceman was brought, to my office a few weeks ago, because, honestly, he could not come there without assistance. He had been a patient in the Prince of Wales Hospital, from which he had been discharged on the day he visitedme. He had to report to the Department of Repatriation at Grace Building, and he could not possibly, have gone there without assistance. I obtained a taxi for him, and took him to Grace Building. I telephoned the doctor at the hospital and asked, " Why did you turn this man out of hospital in his condition ? " The doctor replied, " Oh, well, we are short of beds, you know, **Mr. Mulcahy.** Hospitalization is very difficult ". I protested, and said, " But this man is not fit to be out of bed. He should be in hospital receiving special treatment ". The repatriation authorities just looked at the man, and said, " You are all right ". He went to his home, and later saw the local repatriation doctor, who is personally knownto me. The doctor commented, " Yon should never have left the hospital ". That is the difference between the attitude of this particular repatriation doctor, and that of doctors in a repatriation hospital. I do not think that enough sympathetic care and attention is given to the very serious cases that come before repatriation doctors generally. I emphasize that if there is anything to be done for ex-servicemen and war widows, the necessary action should be taken in this Parliament. The Government should not try to " pass the buck ". I am in favour of the amendment, which proposes - >That the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide - > >pension increases to be retrospective to 1st July last; That request is reasonable - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. an increase in War Widows' pensions; I doubt whether any honorable member considers that war widows' pensions should not be increased - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. an increase in the pensions of totally and permanently incapacitated exservice personnel ; I said earlier that if some of those men were given an empire, they would not be adequately compensated for the enormous sacrifices they have made in the defence of their country - {: type="1" start="4"} 0. increases, other than those included in the base rate pension, in the pensions of the partially blinded and limbless ex-servicemen ; and 1. a review of the base rate increase of ten shillings in the light of increased living costs. The last two requests are reasonable. Many Government supporters claim to be particularly interested in the welfare of ex-servicemen and war widows. Let them now justify that claim by supporting the amendment, the purpose of which is to give to ex-servicemen and war widows some measureof justice. {: #subdebate-26-0-s2 .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON:
Canning .- Every Opposition member who has spoken in this debate has either said, or implied, that he hoped the debate would be kept on a non-political plane. Yet each speech, as it progressed, developed the old, old slant of party politics, and accusations were levelled against the Department of Repatriation, the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis),** who is in charge of the bill, and the Government, for its alleged insincerity. Some honorable members even used such adjectives as " dishonorable " in reference to the Government. The amendment, and the speech of the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen),** who submitted it, bear the mark of insincerity. The honorable gentleman, in one breath, asked the Government to increase pension rates, yet in the next breath he asked the Government to withdraw the bill in order that pension rates might be reviewed. He knew that if the bill were withdrawn, a review of the rates of pension payable to totally and permanently incapacitated men, partially blinded and limbless ex-servicemen, war widows, and so on, would occupy a considerable time. That would involve a waste of time and, if it were agreed to, the recipients would not obtain any benefit for months. The honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Mulcahy)** criticized the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper).** That is most unjust. The present Minister is one of the best Ministers for Repatriation in the history of the Commonwealth. In World War I. he lost a leg, but he continued his service in that war in spite of his disability. He may be seen every day walking to and from Hotel Kurrajong and Parliament House. He takes advantage of the transport that is provided for him only when the weather makes, it necessary for kim to do so. He is always doing his- best for the exservicemen, and it is not true to say that no courtesy can. be obtained from him. The honorable- member- for Lang criticized the Repatriation Department, although he admitted that he had received courteous treatment from, the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation in Sydney. I have had considerable dealings with the Repatriation Department since World War I. Generally, the officers of that- department are among the most efficient in the Public Service. They help exservicemen and their dependants to the utmost of their ability. I. have> heard with dismay details of the cases to which honorable members- on the Opposition side have referred,, and have wondered whether the failure to get a clear decision has been due to the way in. which the cases were presented. I have had only one case refused by the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal. Tribunal, and that was. recently. Honorable members on the Opposition side have, criticized the repatriation benefits that have been provided by this Government. They should remember that payments to ex-servicemen and their dependants in repatriation benefits have been increased by this Government by £16,000,000.. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is not comparable with the increased cost of living. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- I shall deal with that matter later. The fact is that benefit payments have been increased by £16,000,000. The honorable member for Lang referred to the general rate. From 1947-48 the general rate was increased by 5?. No increase was granted in 1949 when a Labour government was in power. The general rate is a disability rate and in a majority of cases the man who is receiving that pension is able to engage in other employment. Those men received an increase of 10 per cent., but others on the special rate who are totally and permanently incapacitated received an increase of only 5 per cent. From 1947 to 1948, the rate for totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners was increased by 5s. No further increase of either the general rate or the special rate was granted until this Government granted an increase in October, 1950. The honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths),** in dealing with this matter; particularly with regard to pensioners and war widows, mentioned the increased cost of living. There is reference to it also in the amendment that has been moved by the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen).** They are not prepared to concede that this Government is taking, other action with regard to the. cost of living which affects every member of the community. The Sydney *Daily Telegraph* to-day contains an article under the heading, " Price Falls beating Inflation ". Every honorable member on the Opposition side who has spoken on this bill represents an electorate in New South Wales. This is- what is happening to prices in Sydney, according to the *Daily Telegraph -* >In. King's Cross, where prices sometimes are higher than in other suburbs, a butcher yesterday sold blade steak for 2s. 9d. a lb. The fixed price is 3s. 3d. a lb; {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- I do not believe it. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** believes only what he reads in the *Tribune.* The newspaper article continues - >The butcher displayed shoulders of lamb for 3s. lid. *A* year ago, when the basic wage was more than £1 a week lower; the same sized shoulders cost 6s. 6d. or more. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Where is that, shop? {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- The article states also - >Quite a few Sydney grocers are selling tea for 3s. Sid. a lb. although the fixed price is 4s. a. lb. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- The honorable member should state the name and address of the trader. {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr HAMILTON: -- The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** can obtain this information from the *Daily Telegraph.* It also states- >In Oxford St., a shop sold single bed sheets marked down from 15s. lid. to 10s. 1-d. each. Even at 15s. lid., these sheets were about 10s. cheaper than two years ago. Sheets *and* pillowslips are in the " '" Series index; . . ., Many shops, offered men's shirts from fi although you can, if you. like, pay £5 10s.. for a nylon shirt in Pitt-street. A city tailor yesterday advertised suits- for £12 19s. 9d. and £14 . . . This is a reduction, of about £6 in the price of this quality tailored suit. > >Women's dresses this year are the most attractive - and the cheapest - for years. For the average buyer, this year's summer frocks are pounds lower than they were two years ago. So, apart from increases of pension that are directly provided by this legislation, the policy of this Government is having its effect in other directions. Pensioners who will receive the increased payments will also have the advantage of the cheaper prices and better materials that are advertised in the newspapers. This Government has increased the general rate of repatriation benefits by 10s. this year, bringing the total to 80s. Admittedly, there has been no increase of the special rate for an unmarried person but an increase has been granted for the wives and children of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners. A man on that rate with a wife and two children can receive £13 19s. 6d. a week under this legislation. He should be able to live on that sum. This Government is mindful of its responsibilities to ex-servicemen. Honorable members opposite have spoken of anomalies. For eight years their party was in office. Even excluding the war years, a Labour Government was in power from 1945 until 1949. In those four years they knew of these anomalies. What did they do for the war widows and seriously disabled ex-servicemen? They talked of giving motor cars to disabled exservicemen, but when it came to a showdown they ran away from the proposal. Honorable members on this side of the House who were in the Opposition in 1948 repeatedly asked for increased benefits for war widows in that year. I remember waiting upon the late **Mr. Chifley,** when he was Prime Minister, with the present High Commissioner for Australia in London, and asking for more money for war widows' children so that they could be given a decent education. **Mr. Chifley** waved his hands and said, "What am I to do about the rest of the widows in this country ? " We continued to press the matter, and finally we were able to get something from the Minister for Repatriation of that day, **Mr. Barnard.** We had to agitate continuously, as members of the Opposition, to get any benefits for ex-servicemen and their dependants. I remember supporters of the Government of that day, who now occupy the Opposition side, saying how sympathetic they were towards the poor ex-servicemen who had a means test applied to their pensions when they sought sickness or unemployment benefit. When they were put to the test on that matter, they voted- directly contrary to their stated intentions. Ex-servicemen had to wait until this Government was returned to office for transport allowances and the removal of anomalies that were suffered by the widows of ex-servicemen from the first world war who re-married. In the legislation that is before the House, the Government has endeavoured to honour the promise that was given by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** in his policy speech of 1949 when he said - >Repatriation is a great and proud responsibility. . . We shall see to it that there is speed, financial and human justice and understanding in our administration of soldier problems. The wives of men on both the special and the general rate of pension will receive an extra 5s. a week, and their children will receive an extra 2s. 3d. a week. I admit that the increases are small, but they are as large as is possible, having regard to all the other increases of payments to deserving sections of the community for which the Government has made provision. The attendant's allowance for a temporarily or permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman will be increased by 5s. a. week in some cases, and by 10s. a week in other eases. The allowance paid in respect of the first child of a deceased ex-serviceman will be increased by 4s. 6d. a week, in respect of other children by 3s. a week, and in respect of orphans by 8s. a week. Service pensions, generally speaking, have been increased to the same degree as have age and invalid pensions. A. service pensioner will receive an extra. 7s. 6d. a week, and his wife os. a week. Honorable gentlemen opposite have talked a lot about what should be done for war widows. That aspect of the matter has been dealt with very satisfactorily by the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. McLeay)** and the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson).** I believe that this Government has done all that it possibly can do for this unfortunate section of the community. The honorable member for Parkes adopted rather a peculiar atitude. He said that the Government should concede that the rate of pension paid to war widows should be equal to the base rate, unless financial considerations prevent that from being done. Then, waving his arms, he went on to say that he would brush aside any financial considerations in that connexion. Let me remind the House of what the honorable gentleman said when he was discussing the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Bill in 1948. On every occasion when he referred to increases or movements of any pensions paid under the repatriation legislation, he qualified his statement by saying that 'increases depended upon the financial commitments and resources of the Government. In *Hansard* of the 15th October, 1948, vol. 199, at page 1738, he is reported to have said - >The pensions provided in the bill do not mean that any great amount of money is being given to the ex-servicemen, but I believe that what they are to receive is fair, and at a just level in the financial circumstances. Later in that speech, he said - >While not satisfied that we are giving ex-servicemen all that they deserve, I consider that, within the capacity of the budget, the Government had tried to be as fair as possible to them and extend privileges over the greatest area, so that a " blanket " increase can apply. Now that the Labour party is not in power, he says that if he were Minister for Repatriation he would brush aside any financial obstacles in the way of increases of repatriation pensions. That statement does not accord with the statement that he made in 1948. The honorable member for Boothby was unable to recollect the sum that is paid to war widows who re-marry. It is approximately £200, and is designed to assist the widow to buy her trousseau and other tilings that she requires for her second marriage. The Government has done all that it possibly can do to help war widows in relation to war service homes and other matters. It is regrettable that more has not been done for them, but I believe that what has been done will help them to get more out of life than they have been able to get in the past. The allowance for the education of their children has been increased, and that will be of some assistance to them. It is regrettable that the Government has not been able to make a straight-out increase of the war widows' pension. In two and a half years, the Government has done a good job in connexionwith repatriation. It has removed anomalies and has made a great deal more money available to the Repatriation Department than was made available under previous administrations. {: #subdebate-26-0-s3 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- Government members are adopting a peculiar role in this debate. Almost every honorable gentleman opposite who has spoken so far has admitted that the repatriation legislation does give rise to anomalies, but has not explained why the Government has not taken action to remove them. Honorable members opposite have said, in effect, that because the Labour party did not do anything to remove those anomalies during its eight years of office, this Government should not be asked to do so now. I was a member of Labour administrations from 1941 until the Chifley Government was defeated in 1949. I accept a part of the responsibility for the fact that, when the Labour party was defeated, anomalies still existed under the repatriation legislation. The question is, not what the Labour party did while it was in office, but what this Government has done since it assumed office in 1949 - a government that prides itself on the fact that a large percentage of its supporters in this chamber have served in some branch or other of the services. It is of no assistance to ex-servicemen, war widows and others who receive benefits under the Repatriation Act for honorable members opposite to say that the predecessors of this Government had an opportunity to do certain things but failed to do so. What the people want to know, and what exservicemen in particular want to know, is what this Government, which has claimed that it is so representative of ex-servicemen, is going to do now to remove anomalies. In any event, every Government member must know that there are political parties in this Parliament, and that political parties form governments. Individual members, unless they .are able to convince the majority of the members of their party that a certain .course of action should be taken, can do -very little to influence the course of 'action that a government takes. If -we can believe what honorable gentlemen opposite have said in speeches delivered in this Parliament, the majority of them are in favour of removing anomalies under the Repatriation Act, and early action ought to be taken to remove them. Let me tell the House of the views that I personally hold about repatriation. A great many of the cases of injustice and hardship cited by honorable members have arisen because the*re.patriation authorities have contested an exserviceman's claim -that his disability is due to his war service. I believe that we should remove many adminstrative difficulties and avoid much friction and irritation if we were to say, as we could ,do, that if a mau nad served in the front line, if he had been a fighting soldier, sailor or airman, and if after his discharge from the "Forces he suffered from any disability, responsibility for that disability would be accepted by the Commonwealth. A claim by an ex-serviceman that his disability is due to war service should not be 'the subject df disputation, argument and proof. As many honorable gentlemen 'know, it is not easy for an exserviceman to prove that a disability from which be is suffering is due to his war service. I "know that many men suffered .an injury while they were on war service, but, because they -were good soldiers and did not want to stay out of the line for any longer than was necessary, they returned to their units as soon as they could possibly do so. In some instances, they regarded their injury as being of a trivial nature, and did not "report it. **"Mr.** HAYLEN. - In those circumstances, there would be no record of .the injury. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- That is so. After the w.ar, the injury proved to ;be much .more serious than the man believed it ito be at the time, and he was compelled to -ask for assistance under the Repatriation Act. Unfortunately, in many instances, it -was impossible for him -to establish his claim., -because there was no record that he had suffered an injury. In some cases, the (record had been lost, and in other cases, the officers in "charge of 'a unit, who would have 'been able to speak for him, had died. The evidence with which the man could establish his claim had disappeared, and he was penalized. Ex-servicemen responded to a patriotic appeal to join the services to defend their country in a time of crisis. If, in later ° years, they suffer from a disability which they claim is due to their war service, there should be no quibbling about the matter, and the Government should accept their claim. *[Quorum formed.]* I regret the lack of interest displayed by Government members in an important measure that affects ex-servicemen. .A few years ago, we were told that the Repatriation Act had been amended in such .a way that the onus of proving that n disability was due to war service had been thrown upon the Repatriation Department, but we have found that, in practice, the legislation is being administered in the way in -which it was administered formerly, and that ex-servicemen are still (confronted with all the difficulties in the 'world in proving that their disabilities are due to their war service. I think every honorable member will admit that, if fighting service or front line -service were accepted as being sufficient evidence to -establish .an exserviceman's claim for repatriation benefits, a great deal of the vexatious treatment that ex-servicemen receive at the hands of repatriation authorities would be avoided. I do not blame the officials of the department or the doctors in charge of repatriation hospitals. The system under which they operate is determined by this Parliament. Therefore, not the departmental officers but the members of the Parliament are responsible for what occurs. There is some discrimination shown in the treatment -of ex-servicemen. Let us consider the burnt-out ex-servicemen - the men who have become prematurely told because -of their -war .service and the privations that they have endured. Those unfortunate men, because -they have been unable to ,establish that their -condition as due (to their war service, rare paid ?a pension that ^enables them to maintain only an existence. (Hinder present conditions, most -of these 'unfortunate men are unable to supplement their incomes "with earnings from casual employment. Some of them .become derelicts in the cities of the Commonwealth, depending upon friends and relatives to help them. "I consider it to ;be a disgrace to any country that its ex-servicemen have practically to .beg in order to supplement their pensions in order to he able to 'live. Service pensions should be raised to .a reasonable 'level, so that those men will not .have to do the things that I complain of. I .pas3 now to the statements of the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Mulcahy)** regarding hospital treatment of ex-servicemen. It is strange that exservicemen can be accepted into a repatriation hospital for the treatment of certain disabilities that are deemed to be attributable to war service but if while in such a hospital they are found to be suffering from some other ailment which has not been accepted as attributable to war service, they are immediately removed to a public hospital for treatment in respect of that ailment. That has occurred in numerous instances although the men concerned were in a serious state of health. I have had brought to my notice the case of an unfortunate man who was a /patient in the (Repatriation General Hospital, 'Concord. He was in a .-serious state of health :and was not expected to live.. for more 'than a few days. ,An operation w.as urgently necessary. The doctors at the hospital were willing and ready 'to undertake the operation 'but, because of .the stupid provision in the legislation, they were mot .permitted >to perform it, on the ground that the ailment from which the patient <was suffering was -not .deemed to the <a -disability due to war .service. That unfortunate man was taken by ambulance from "Concord to St. Vincent's Hospital in -Darlinghurst, Sydney, where the operation -was "performed. He died within a few -days. It is (possible that his life was sacrificed 'because of the fact that he was transported for a long distance from one hospital 'to -another for the operation. Most »ex-servicemen like to -enter repatriation 'hospitals rather than public .hos- pitals for treatment, because they meet there other ex-servicemen who 'have the same interests as they have 'and -because the officials -at repatriation hospitals understand, and have -had great experience of the kinds -of ailments from which many -ex-servicemen suffer. 'I believe it to (be absolutely ridiculous 'that repatriation '-hospitals, -which were established to treat ex-servicemen, should adopt the .attitude that certain ex-servicemen must go to public hospitals whilst others may remain in repatriation -hospitals. If the Government were prepared to adopt the suggestion that .1 .have made, and remove entirely .the onus of proof in relation to the disabilities of men who have had active service in the frontline, there would be no need for such useless and cruel discrimination. Men who 'enlist in the 'forces are subjected to a rigorous medical examination on enlistment. I realize 'that doctors may -make mistakes, but it should be accepted that a man -who has 'been admitted as a member of the fighting 'forces, after a medical examination, was 10G .per cent, fit at the time of 'his enlistment. The 'Government ought to .accept responsibility in respect of any future condition from which he may suffer. The fact of 'enlistment should itself be sufficient and satisfactory evidence that at the time of -enlistment the person concerned was 100 per cent. -fit. I turn now to anot'her matter, my views on which -will no doubt be opposed to those held .by some -other honorable members. I cannot -for the life of me understand why there should be any discrimination, based on rank, in connexion with the scale of pensions that may be paid to the dependants of ex-servicemen. All ex-servicemen .offered dor service, and all served in the capacity for -which they were best fitted. All risked their lives equally, .all -undertook the same risks. I believe, therefore, that the discrimination which exists in regard .to the .pay -of various .ranks while the men are in .the services - which is ,a system that I do not intend to question at the moment - should not be extended to apply to_the -pensions that -are payable to the dependants of exservicemen. Whether a woman be the widow *of 'a "high-ranking .officer or the widow of .a private in the .forces, she should receive a reasonable allowance on which to live. The honorable member for Canning **(Mr. Davidson)** made some reference to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. He said that under the present provisions an ex-serviceman with a wife and two dependent children would receive a total payment of £13 19s. 6d. a week. That is not a tremendous sum. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- He should be able to live on it. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- One of the colleagues of the honorable member for Canning claims that an ex-serviceman should bc able to live on that amount. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- So he can. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- I take it, from that interjection, that the assumption is that such a pensioner is being liberally treated by the Government. The honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Bowden),** who has interjected, should know better. He surely must recognize that before a man is entitled to a pension in respect of total and permanent incapacity, he has to be in a very bad state indeed. He has to be, in fact, a man who is undergoing and has undergone great suffering. Figures that have been supplied to me by officers of the Repatriation Department show that a disabled ex-serviceman who receives a pension in respect of total and permanent incapacity, plus allowances for his wife would have a total income of £20 16s. a fortnight. That is £10 8s. a week. That amount is less than the basic wage in New South Wales. Such a pensioner, I regret to say, is actually, in the present circumstances, much worse off than a man who made the supreme sacrifice in the war, because he is left to suffer, probably for many years, although, according to the honorable member for Gippsland, he should be very pleased with what the Government is doing to assist him. I do not share the view of the honorable member for Gippsland. It seems strange that a government which has so many ex-servicemen among its supporters shows less sympathetic consideration for ex-servicemen and their dependants than is shown by the Labour party, many members of which are not ex-servicemen. We have exservicemen on this side of the House who are sympathetically disposed to exservicemen, but the honorable member for Gippsland evidently believes that these people are getting more than they are entitled to, if one can judge from the interjections that he has made. There is no doubt that not enough is known about the operations of the repatriation legislation and the great number of cases of hardship among exservicemen and their dependants which continue to exist, and about which the Government does nothing. In my opinion the existence of cases of injustice involving exservicemen is a factor that affects the level of recruiting. How can the sons or other relatives of ex-servicemen who are receiving parsimonious treatment from the Government be expected to respond enthusiastically to appeals for recruits. Advertisements in the press which say " A career for your boy " may be all right, but that kind of propaganda does not have much effect on a mother married to an ex-serviceman who has suffered great' privations as the result of disabilities suffered in the war and is receiving poor treatment at the hands of the Government. I turn now to the employment of exservicemen. I know that this matter is not covered specifically under this legislation, but as we are now dealing with the problems of exservicemen I wish to make a passing reference to it. We have heard honorable members opposite talk about the principle of preference to ex-servicemen. Thousands of ex-servicemen are at present unemployed, and many of them are not in receipt of a pension or any other form of assistance. They are registered at various employment offices, but the Governmet fails to find them employment. As a matter of fact, when the Government was disposing last year of the services of 10,000 public servants in one of its economy drives certain Ministers were sacking ex-servicemen employed in government departments, and when they were asked why exservicemen who, in many cases, had far greater length of service than men who were being retained, were being dismissed, they stated openly that the order of dismissal was determined according to the efficiency of the officer concerned and on no other consideration. I have received correspondence from Ministers in which they have indicated that that is the position, and I can produce it here. The Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis)** should ascertain the exact position before he attempts to rebut any statements that I make in the Parliament. I turn now to the provision of war service homes for the widows and families of ex-servicemen, including disabled ex-servicemen. No doubt honorable gentlemen opposite who follow me in this debate will cite, as evidence of the Government's efforts in this direction, the increased sums that are being expended on this activity. That kind of argument will not influence me to any great degree, nor will it do anything to assist the great body of ex-servicemen and their dependants who lack houses. In this connexion the Government cannot shift the responsibility on to the States and claim that it has nothing to do with the matter, because the Government has power to construct homes for ex-servicemen or their dependants if it so desires. It therefore has no excuse for passing the buck to the States. If the Government had built sufficient war service homes to provide for the accommodation of ex-servicemen who require them it would have assisted in improving considerably the general housing situation in the States. I conclude and sum up by asking the Government to reach an early decision on the suggestion I have made. It is of no use to ask why the Labour Government did not do as I have suggested in its eight years of office. As I have already said, I shall accept my share of the responsibility for the fact that certain provisions remain in this leglislation and require to be remedied. The Government has the deal and it is its turn to play. I sa.y to every honorable member, that the time has arrived when the Government of this Commonwealth ought to ensure that there will be no more argument or quibbling about whether the disabilities of former front-line soldiers are attributable to war service or not. The Government and the Parliament should accept the responsibility in this matter and should remove the obnoxious features that accompany the present methods of administration of the legislation to which I have referred. If the Government will adopt that course in relation to this one act it will be doing more for exservicemen than has probably ever been done in the past. The honorable member for Canning talked about how many millions of pounds the Government has provided for ex-servicemen. That may be a good argument for the purposes of debate, but it has no effect on the present situation of ex-servicemen and their dependants. In order to support his case the honorable member for Canning quoted a special article that appeared in the Sydney *Daily Telegraph,* which said that it was now possible to purchase certain goods at lower prices than before. When I asked the honorable gentleman for the name and location of the storekeeper from whom these goods were supposed to have been purchased he was unable to provide it. The fact is that such special articles, written for anti-Labour newspapers, are deliberately designed to give the impression that inflation has been arrested and that therefore the pensions received by ex-servicemen to-day will purchase more than they could have purchased six months ago. There is no need for me to answer that kind of propaganda at any great length, because the housewife who has to make purchases of essential goods knows from practical experience that despite special articles in the *Daily Telegraph or* any other newspaper, the cost of living is still rising. As a matter of fact the annual report of the Commonwealth Bank admits that the cost of living is still rising. So when honorable members opposite claim that the Government has increased expenditure on war and service pensions, that means very little to the pensioners who are so seriously affected by the increase of the cost of living. The only way in which to gain a proper appreciation of the value of war pensions is to compare their present value, in terms of the goods they will purchase, with their value, in terms of goods purchasable, when the rates were fixed. If the value of money is deteriorating at a greater rate than that at which pensions are increasing, the result is that, any increases of the pension granted are not. so large as- they appear to be, and are not increases in fact. The Government should examine the points that I have- raised and do something practical to assist ex-servicemen to overcome their present difficulties. {: #subdebate-26-0-s4 .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER:
Franklin -- It is clear that the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** although he laid much emphasis on the matter, has not studied the onus' of proof provisions in relation to appellants to repatriation tribunals. The original provision was introduced as from the 1st June, 1929, when the Bruce-Page Government was in office, and, except for two minor amendments, that provision remained in force until 1943, when it was amended to provide that once an appellant had. established a prima facie case the onus of. disproving his case passed to the commission. In. 1935, when the Lyons Government was in office, the provision, was further amended to provide that the commission should give to an appellant the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The amendment that was made in 1943, when the Labour Government in which the honorable member for East Sydney was a. Minister, was in office, combined the two earlier amendments that I have mentioned, and the section, has not been further amended. That is the actual, position, in relation to onus of proof. The suggestion of the honorable member" for East Sydney- that the onus of proof rests upon the appellant to a repatriation tribunal is not correct. {: #subdebate-26-0-s5 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- But. how does that provision; work, out in practice ? {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER: -- It can be fairly said that the department is at least generous- in dealing with appeals. In certain instances, the loss of records has caused1 difficulties. I, and, I am sure, other honorable members who have appeared before repatriation tribunals, have received sympathetic consideration. It will be generally agreed that the commission; as far- as it possibly can, gives the benefit of any doubt to an appellant. I thoroughly agree with the remarks that were made by the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. MoLeay)** in his excellent' speech when he referred- to the existing power whereby departmental officers may investigate the affairs of war widows. The existence of such a- power is- a grave- reflection, which is not to be lightly dismissed, upon war widows as- a whole. Doubtless', as happens in respect *A* any other category of human beings-, there are exceptional cases of war widows whose moral character is- open to question. However, that fact could not, in any circumstances, justify the existing provision that empowers departmental officers to investigate the private life of a war widow. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Would the honorable member, remove that provision,, or would he prefer that it be retained provided that it be administered intelligently? {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER: -- I should remove it completely. Under our social services legislation, as the honorable member for Boothby pointed out, we recognize *de facto* wives and the children of such women. Those persons are not subject to an investigation of any kind in relation to their eligibility to receive social services benefits. I urge the' Government to consider the abolition of the provision to which I have referred. Tasmania is the only State in which there is not a repatriation hospital that is able to provide medical treatment for females, such as war widows, who are eligible under the repatriation legislation to obtain treatment in such institutions. I realize that this problem, is not simple. The accommodation at the repatriation- hospital in Hobart is severely restricted; and I do not think that it would be possible to extend the building on its present site. I have been given to understand by the Minister for- Repatriation **(Senator Cooper),** with whom I raised; this matter some time ago, that the Government intends- to do something about! this matter. I urge it to do so as soon as possible. As repatriation matters generally have been fully debated, I do not propose to traverse ground that has already been covered. However, I deplore the fact that some honorable members have introduced party politics' into this debate. I admit' that that' charge can be levelled against certain honorable members' on this side- as well as- on the other side of the chamber. Repatriation matters should not be made a party political football. Having regard to our grave responsibility in this matter, it is contemptible for any honorable member to approach this problem from a party political point of view. I support the bill. {: #subdebate-26-0-s6 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- One of the most important considerations in respect of repatriation arises from the fact that the cost of living has increased to such a great degree since the Government assumed office three years ago that the rates of pensions, after allowing for the increases proposed to be made under this measure, are completely out of line with those that have been provided in the past. I remind Government supporters that for twenty years the base rate pension was always fixed at approximately 50 per cent, of the ruling basic wage. Under this measure, however, the Government is offering to ex-servicemen a miserable pension at the rate of £4 a week, which is equivalent to only 37 per cent, of the current basic wage. The purchasing power of money has depreciated to such a degree that that rate represents a decrease of 13 per cent, in relation to the basic wage compared with the base rate pension that was paid for nearly twenty years. Yet, this Government was elected on its solemn pledge to give to ex-servicemen repatriation benefits commensurate with the service that those men gave to this country. {: .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr Costa: -- All that they desire is a fair and just reward. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is so; and, surely, they are not asking for too much. These men were prepared to lay down their lives for their country and in defence of our democratic institutions, including this Parliament in which we are now considering legislation that will give to them a pension that, is 13 per cent, less in relation to the basic wage compared with the pension that had been payable without a break for a period of nearly twenty years. These men offered to lay down their lives to protect every member of the Parliament and his family as well as every citizen of this country. Under this bill, the Government is treating those grand men in a miserable fashion. The Government should make available to them a pension at the rate of at least £5 lis. a week. Instead, it intends, apparently, gradually to whittle down the amount of the pension in relation to the basic wage until finally it will scarcely be worth collecting. The Government should provide a pension at a rate that is at least equivalent to 50 per cent, .of the basic wage as was done previously. {: #subdebate-26-0-s7 .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr BOWDEN: -- That has never been done. » {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I challenge the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Bowden)** to produce figures that will refute my statement. I have examined the relevant figures and have had them checked by representatives of ex-servicemen's organizations. I have been assured by reliable authorities that the rate of pension previously amounted to approximately '50 per cent, of the basic wage. If the Government fixed the rate on that basis, it would now be providing a pension at the rate of £5 lis. a week instead of at the miserable rate of £4 a week. Surely, the primary factor to be considered in the fixation of a pension, as it is in the fixation of a wage, is the purchasing power of the amount that is to be provided. Wages and pensions should not be measured in terms of money alone. The present Government parties gave a solemn undertaking to the people that they would provide pensions on the basis of the principle that I have stated. This Government is morally bound to give to ex-servicemen repatriation benefits that will be equivalent to the rates that were previously made available. Instead, it proposes to reduce the rate of the base pension from 50 percent, to 37 per cent, of the basic wage. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies),** in the joint policy speech of the present Government parties during the general election campaign in 1949 - a document that was published by the authority of **Mr. D.** M. Cleland, who is now Administrator of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, but who was, at that time, secretary of the Liberal party in New South Wales, said - >Repatriation remains a great and proud responsibility. > >The Opposition parties contain a majority of members and an overwhelming majority of new candidates who are ex-servicemen. We shall see to it that there is speed, financial and human justice and understanding in our administration of soldier .problems. > >Current legislation will be promptly overhauled and anomalies adjusted. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- That has been done. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I invite the honorable member for Gippsland to repeat that interjection after I have read the next paragraph. The Prime Minister continued - >We will sympathetically review financial allowances, particularly those related to disability or war widow-hood, in the light of all the circumstances, including the fall in the value of money. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- Will the honorable member read that paragraph again? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- As it is important to the case that I am putting to the House, I shall do so. The Prime Minister said - >We will sympathetically review financial allowances, particularly those related to disability or war widow-hood, in the light of all the circumstances, including the fall in the value of money. That statement was made by the Prime Minister when he was trying to defeat the Chifley Government, which was the greatest Government that Australia has ever had. The poor unfortunate people believed that the Liberal party would keep its promises, only to find that that party cannot be relied upon to do so and that its promises are always made glibly, without responsibility and merely for the purpose of deceiving the electors. The Liberal party never has the slightest intention of carrying out its promises. Its only intention is to obtain votes at all costs. The Prime Minister also stated in his 1949 policy speech - >For advice in relation to them and other repatriation matters we shall establish exservicemen's committees of Cabinet and of Parliament, to confer with representatives of ex-service organizations. > >We will encourage and will speed up soldier, land settlement, assist single-farm as well as group settlement, and aim always at proper security of tenure, without which there is insufficient inducement to effective farming. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- I rise to a point of order. I suggest that closer settlement has nothing whatsoever to do with the measure being discussed. {: #subdebate-26-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** is straying somewhat from the issue, but other honorable members have mentioned similar matters. I have allowed considerable latitude in this debate. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I have heard several other honorable members mention the matter of the land settlement of ex-servicemen, and I say that the Government has done absolutely nothing at all to honour its solemn promise to ex-servicemen that it would speed up war service land settlement. There is no constitutional barrier to this Government implementing a scheme to settle exservicemen on the land. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member should not proceed any further with the matter of war service land settlement. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- -I was merely referring to that matter in passing. Now I shall deal with the Government's housing policy. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- I rise to a point of order. I suggest that the honorable member for Hindmarsh is using this bill merely as an excuse to discuss matters that are in no way before the House. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The scope of the measure is very wide, and I believe that the honorable member for Hindmarsh should be able to keep within it. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I desire to refer to this matter because the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** and the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** have already referred to it in this debate. It is tragic that a Government, elected upon its solemn undertaking to do something of a substantial nature for the people who served their country, has done absolutely nothing* to provide houses for them. This Government has not built one house, and it is trying to avoid its responsibilities by maintaining that there are constitutional difficulties in the way of its doing something to house ex-servicemen. I hope that the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis)** will pay special attention to what I have to say because it merits more consideration than it has received from him in the past. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- I fully intend to reply to. some of the statements of the honorable member for Hindmarsh. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I hope that the Minister's reply will provide honorable members with the information that they desire. I shall now refer to the Government's treatment of a man who was a member of the Royal Australian Navy. He suffered an injury which left him permanently incapacitated. He was granted a pension of £2 5s. a week by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board, and was advised by the Repatriation Commission that he was not entitled to any repatriation benefits because his service with the Navy from the 14th September, 1948, to the 15th June, 1951, was not classified as war service under the Repatriation Act. This man signed on with the Royal Australian Navy for twelve years, and it seems quite wrong that he should be refused repatriation benefits. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- He received retirement benefits under a bill introduced by a Labour government. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- This man has a damaged hip, and has been advised to have it treated by means of a surgical operation. His pension income being only £2 5s. a week, it is impossible for him to afford such treatment. The Repatriation Act precludes him from having his injury treated in a repatriation hospital, and if he has any treatment at all he must pay for it out of his own pocket. How can the Government justify its refusal to recognize the right of this man to repatriation benefits? He signed up to serve his country in the Navy for twelve years, yet when he suffered an injury while on service on board a vessel of war- {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- As an accident. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister says it was only an accident,- {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- The Minister said " as an accident ". {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister said " only an accident ". I do not care whether it was an accident or not. If a person suffers permanent incapacity he should be entitled to repatriation benefits. This cavalier manner in which the Government treats people should be altered. I was naive enough to think that the Minister might do something about this matter. Although I realized that he could not do anything while the Repatriation Act remained in its present form, I also realized that the Government had been in office for two years and had not altered the provisions of the act, but that it might be persuaded to do something when the matter next came before the Parliament. I wrote a letter to the Minister explaining this case, and received a reply from him in the following terms : - >The principle which Commonwealth Governments, in common with other countries, have followed is that legislation providing benefits such as this under the Repatriation Act, and the Re-establishment and Employment Act, is for the purpose of covering members (and dependants of members) who enlist definitely for service in a particular war (or war-like operations such as the operations in Korea and Malaya) or having enlisted for other service, are eventually engaged on war service or war-like operations. In respect of the 1939-45 war the Acts referred to relate to members who enlisted before 1st July, 1947. If it he right to treat a person who enlisted on the 30th June, 1947, as a person entitled to repatriation benefits, why is it not right so to treat a person who enlisted on the following day? The 1939-45 war was over by the 1st July, 1947, so how can the Government justify its action and go further and repeat its mistake in this measure by maintaining that the 1st July, 1947, is some magic date after which nobody is entitled to repatriation benefits? The Minister's letter continued - >For members and dependants of members not within these categories there has always been legislation for compensation for incapacity or death attributable to the member's employment with the Forces. In 1948 the whole position was reviewed, and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act was passed providing pensions or gratuities on retirement, plus compensation under the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act where retirement or death is occasioned by injury attributable to the member's employment with the Forces. That is the accepted basis for members of the Defence Force, and I cannot see that there should be any alteration to provide benefits similar to those under the war-time legislation for members who were not engaged on war service. I therefore do not consider that the Repatriation Act should be amended to provide as suggested in y.our letter. A man is not entitled to any repatriation benefits if he enlisted after the 1st July, 1947, but if be entered one of the services before the 1st July, 1947, he is entitled to such benefits. I shall cite another example of the maladministration of the Minister for the Army. A mother who had lost her son in the last war had been paid his allotment for three years follow-^ ing " his death. Then the Government learned that a ship in which he was travelling as a prisoner of the Japanese had been torpedoed by an American warship. The Government wrote a letter to the mother and told her that she would have to refund to the Army the total of the allotments that she had received for the three years after her son died. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr Gullett: -- When was this ? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister for the Army knows all about iti The worst part of this story is yet to come. I know that honorable members oh the Government side do not like this story, but I intend to continue. When the mother made application for the son's war gratuity, she was advised that she was not entitled to it because the Government had decided to deduct the allotments that she had received during the three years after her son had been killed from the gratuity to which she was entitled. Yet it must be remembered that throughout the time during which the allotments Were being paid to the mother, the Army was presuming that the son was still alive and was a prisoner of war. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- Will the honorable member give the name to me privately ? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister already has the name, but I shall be happy to give it to him again. I have kept all the correspondence on this subject as a prize example of ministerial bungling. I wrote to the honorable gentleman to ask him to forgo the claim to the allotment money and to pay the amount of the, gratuity in full and, when I received no reply, I wrote to him again. Bte replied to the second letter to say that the matter was being reviewed and that I should receive a letter in due course. I waited for some time but received no further letter. Then I wrote to the woman to inform her that I had written again to the Minister^ so that her mind would be set at rest, and told her that I should advise her as soon as I received further information. ,She then wrote to me to say that she had received the gratuity about a week previously. That meant that the money had been paid to her when the Minister wrote to tell me that the matter was still under review. Weeks later I received a letter in which he was pleased to advise me that the department had decided to pay the gratuity to the woman. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's remarks are wide of the Repatriation Bill. War gratuity is dealt with in separate legislation. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I have mentioned the matter in order to show how badly some of the acts in relation to ex-servicemen are administered. I make a final plea for more sympathetic administration of matters that affect those unfortunate people who have served their country well and ask the Government to review its legislation with a view to restoring the pension rate to the level of 50 per cent, of the basic wage instead of 37 per cent, so that, instead of receiving a miserable benefit of £4 a week, they would receive £5 lis. a week, which would be their due. {: #subdebate-26-0-s9 .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr GULLETT:
Henty .- I shall not detain the House long because everything that ought to be said on this bill has been said already. We have listened to all sorts of vague, wild, and unsubstantiated charges concerning this Government's record over the whole field of repatriation. I think that all honorable members should fix the facts clearly in their minds. No government since federation has granted such substantial increases of benefits for ex-servicemen, both financial and other, as this Government has granted during the last two years. Some governments which were in office for eight or nine years, or even longer, did not achieve so much as this Government has achieved for persons who are affected by the Repatriation Act. When I hear such foolish and incorrect criticisms as honorable members opposite have uttered in this debate, I wonder seriously in what spirit they approach this important subject. The honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** made it perfectly obvious that he came here, not with any knowledge or understanding of the subject of repatriation, but merely to use this as an occasion to belabour the Government regardless of the influence that his statements might have upon the welfare of war widows, disabled ex-servicemen, and others who will be affected by the bill. That was ill done, and he rendered no service to the cause with which we are supposed to be dealing. I am bound to say that the honorable gentleman's speech was full of inaccuracies concerning the relationship between the basic wage and the base rate of pension. I shall not bore the House by referring to reams of figures, because the facts are readily available to any honorable member who wishes to study them. If the honorable member for Hindmarsh cannot enter this chamber better prepared to discuss a subject than he was to-day, he would do much better to remain silent. I must deal with one. or two matters that the honorable gentleman discussed without having any close acquaintance with the facts. He spoke of a sailor who, he said, was injured while on board ship, but who does not receive repatriation benefits. It is a pity that the honorable gentleman did not pause to ask himself why that man is not eligible for benefits. Prior to the advent of the Chifley Government, that sailor would have received repatriation benefits. The Chifley Government introduced the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act, which placed, servicemen under exactly the same conditions in relation to hospital benefits and compensation as other Commonwealth employees, except while serving abroad in time of war. Therefore, if any injustice has been done to this man, the former Labour Government is responsible for it, and, if the honorable member wants to amend the law, let him move accordingly and condemn the government that was responsible for the anomaly. Let us hear no more of these half-baked speeches, in which only one-quarter of the facts are told for the sake of pinning on the present Government liability for an error that a Labour government committed. The provision that debars the sailor whom the honorable member mentioned from obtaining benefits may he faulty, but, at any rate, it was introduced by his colleagues. As for the honorable gentleman's story that the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis)** harshly insisted that a mother whose soldier son was killed in the war should refund moneys that had been paid to her, I simply do not believe it. If the honorable member can convince me of the truth of his statements, I shall most cheerfully apologize to him. But, if he cannot do so, I hope that he will rise and apologize for having misled the House. On that basis, I shall dismiss the; story. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I shall accept the challenge. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- I have some knowledge of the Repatriation Department and the way in which it functions. To be sure, it makes mistakes, but, by and large, I do not think that there is another department in Australia that is more devoted to its public duty. No other department is more on the side of the people whom it is supposed to serve than is this department. Of course, officers of the department make mistakes, but to imagine they go out of their way to extract money from unfortunate individuals in the manner suggested by the honorable member for Hindmarsh is absurd. I repeat that, unless the honorable member can produce proof to the contrary, I simply shall not believe his tale. He described this as a grand story - a beautiful piece of propaganda. " Let me return to my grand story ". he said. Never mind the truth ! That is the spirit in which the honorable member has approached the matter, and it is disgraceful. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- I asked the honorable member to give to me the name of the woman concerned, but he could not recall it. {: .speaker-KFQ} ##### Mr GULLETT: -- Yes. I do not enter a debate in the pious manner of those who deplore the making of unnecessary political attacks, though I do not use such weapons myself. I shall not accuse any honorable member of approaching the subject of repatriation with dishonorable motives, but I say that we do the cause of exservicemen and war widows a disservice if any of us try to make political capital of their disabilities. I believe that the proper way to deal with this subject has been pointed out by the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson),** the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. McLeay)** and, I am bound to say, the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** who proposed that repatriation payments be related to the basic wage, so that we should not be faced year after year with this problem of adjusting the benefits. On the one hand, pressure is applied, quite justifiably, by organizations of ex-servicemen which champion the cause of their members and try to obtain as much as possible for them. On the other hand, the Government bears in mind its various commitments and, although I shall not say that it tries to give to the ex-servicemen as little as possible, the whole issue tends to develop into a political wrangle. The result is that, as the struggle takes place year after year, ex-servicemen do not always obtain as much as they are entitled to obtain. Even though ex-servicemen's organizations have rejected the idea of tying pensions to the basic wage, I suggest that we appoint an all-party committee, as was done when **Mr. Curtin** was Prime Minister, in order to draft a formula to establish pension rates and to provide for their automatic alteration in accordance with fluctuations of the basic wage. I believe that, by this means, we could perform a real and lasting service to exservicemen and war widows. I have taken the trouble to study old *Hansard* reports of debates on this subject that have taken place during the five years of my membership of this House. After studying those discussions, I do not say* that this Government has done everything that it should have done for exservicemen, but it has made a genuine attempt to solve their problems. One feature of the discussions impressed me particularly, and I shall illustrate my point by referring to a conversation that I had this afternoon with the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Mulcahy).** The honorable gentleman told me that he proposed to speak during this debate, and, in a jocular way, he said, "I wonder what I shall say ". I said to him, " Just look at some of the things that others were saying on this subject about four years ago and you will see the sort of things you will probably say this afternoon". That is the truth of the matter. Repatriation lias become a political issue, and we are not really advancing the cause of exservicemen by allowing it to remain on that basis. I hope that the Government will agree to appoint an all-party committee for the purpose of drafting a formula by which repatriation benefits may be adjusted automatically according to variations of the basic wage. This has been done in connexion with other nonparty matters, and we shall do the whole cause of repatriation a real and lasting service if we adopt the suggestion. *Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 9 p.m.* {: #subdebate-26-0-s10 .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA:
Ballarat .- I have observed that a number of honorable members on the other side of the House have commenced their speeches on this bill by saying that they wished to pay a tribute to the members of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, other ex-servicemen's organizations and the War Widows Guild. That' wordy buttering-up of a highly respected section of the community is completely unworthy of the occasion, because members of those organizations set out to do something, and did not merely talk about it. Any tribute to them, should be paid in deeds and. actions, and not merely in words. Honorable members opposite might also have included in their remarks a tribute to the 3,104 permanent and temporary employees of the Repatriation Commission, and to the 6,270 members of the Auxiliary Services that support it. Those persons are truly the salt of the earth. As ' the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** has told us, they carry out their important duties with great sympathy and understanding. Almost to a man, they are ex-service personnel. That is why they understand their business. They undertake a tremendous variety of work, and the report of the Repatriation Commission for 1951, which was recently laid on the table of the House, gives to us an idea of the wide scope of their activities. They conduct the great repatriation hospitals and the. accompanying medical services. They attend to re-establishment training. They look after blinded ex-servicemen. They manufacture artificial limbs for ex-servicemen who have no limbs. They undertake educational therapy. In many ways, they make the life of ex-servicemen much happier than would otherwise be the case. I believe that a sincere tribute should be paid to those persons. As every one believes that the reward for work well done is the opportunity to do further work, every honorable member should ensure that those persons shall get the opportunity to do so. That will be possible if honorable members opposite vote for the amendment submitted on behalf of the Opposition which, if carried, will provide greater opportunities in the repatriation field. I cannot allow this occasion to pass without mentioning that there are 2,779 repatriation medical officers who have dealt with nearly 400,000 attendances in twelve months. There are also 732 repatriation local committees, all of which do most important work. They will be benefitted, too, by concrete action that will be possible if this amendment be accepted by the House. Surely their work deserves all our encouragement and assistance ! Mention should be made of the serious matters raised by the honorable member for Shortland "(Mr. Griffiths). They were well documented and. supported, and all the particulars were known. They indicated that certain ex-servicemen did not appear to have been treated well. I hope that the Minister will examine those matters. There is reason to scrutinize them closely, especially when we read in the report of the Repatriation Commission that only 16.2 per cent. of the 7,020 appeals heard in 1951 were allowed. That percentage seems extraordinarily low. Therefore, I urge the Minister to investigate that matter with a view to ascertaining whether a mistake has been made. Far be it for me to suggest that the tribunals which hear the appeals would make a mistake consciously. If they have not received proper instructions, or if there is any thing wrong with their work, possibly a conference on the matter would greatly improve the situation. I now propose to examine in detail the amendment that has been submitted on behalf of the Opposition. It proposes that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted in order to provide - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) pension increases to be retrospective to 1st July last; That request is reasonable - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. an increase in War Widows' pensions: I am glad that that proposal is placed prominently on the list. 1. an increase in War Widows' pensions; 2. increases, other than those included in the base rate pension, in the pensions of the partially blinded and limbless ex-servicemen; and 3. a review of the base rate increase of ten shillings in the light of increased living costs. There are a number of approaches to the subject of repatriation. Some persons adopt what I describe as the " budget " approach. This is based on the idea that, because social services benefits have been increased, repatriation benefits should be increased; or that it may be necessary to increase repatriation benefits now because increases were not granted earlier. That is the narrowest of all approaches to the subject. Honorable members should be assured that, on this occasion, the Government has not made merely a " budget " approach to the subject of repatriation benefits. Such an approach could lead only to cheese-paring, and to over-emphasis of allocations of revenue, and to fixed amounts, rather than taking into account the real week-to-week plight of a serviceman and his dependants. The Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis),** who is in charge of the bill, stated in his second-reading speech that the Government had appointed a committee to examine repatriation benefits. I point out, however, that it is merely a Cabinet sub-committee consisting of Ministers. I consider that the scope of the committee might, with advantage, have been extended in order to include some honorable members on the Government side of the House, who are very interested in this subject; and it might even have been broadened and improved by the inclusion of some members of the Opposition. An all-party committee was appointed by the Curtin Labour Government in 1943, and did valuable work. I do not think that any honorable member opposite will contest the accuracy of that statement. The restriction of the personnel of the committee to Cabinet members suggests that the Government has made the narrower " budget " approach to this matter. I regret that it did not obtain the views of a broader cross section of the House. As the Minister has said, ex-servicemen's organizations and the War Widows Guild were consulted, but that was only common courtesy and was normal procedure. It does not alter the fact that the Government adopted only a budgetary approach to the subject. The amount that is provided in the budget for repatriation benefits, totalling £111,500,000, is considerable. It exceeds last year's allocation by £5,500,000 and of that amount less than £2,500,000 will cover the increases of pensions that are provided for in this bill. That is a very small amount. Possibly the Government will not to have expend the extra £5,500,000. Last year, the estimate exceeded the amount that had been allocated by £1,500,000 which was drawn back into Consolidated Revenue. It should be remembered also that certain repatriation benefits favorably affect expenditure on social services benefits in an indirect way. Some of the money that is allotted for repatriation benefits would be expended in any case. More than 500,000 persons are benefiting from repatriation payments and it is reasonable to assume that if there were no repatriation benefits a considerable sum would have to be expended on social services for them. The whole cost of the Labour party's proposals that are contained in the amendment would be less than £5,000,000. That is not a large sum. It is, in fact, a small amount when honorable members consider that the Government has been able to allow tax remissions exceeding £6,000,000 to other sections of the community. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- To wealthy sections, too. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -As I have said, the budgetary approach is the narrowest of all. The other is the comparative approach. The underlying idea of this approach is that if the pensions were sufficient some time ago, the values to-day should coincide with those of the earlier period. {: #subdebate-26-0-s11 .speaker-KWJ} ##### Mr TRELOAR: -- How long ago? {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- About five years ago. That approach has its weak points because it does not take into consideration whether the repatriation benefits of the earlier period were ever sufficient. I would not say that repatriation benefits have been all that could be desired. Some honorable members have devoted much time to explaining the benefits that ex-servicemen already receive and those that were granted earlier. In doing that, they were approaching the matter from the comparative angle. A few observations might be made on that subject. The Repatriation Commission's report of 1952 shows that when the basic wage was £5 12s. at the end of World War II. in 1945, pensions averaged £1 15s. 7d. a week, or 38 per cent, of the basic wage. To-day, the basic wage is £11 15s. and war pensions, after allowing for the rise of 10s. that is proposed in this bill, will be equal to 34 per cent, of the basic wage. Actually the percentage probably will not be so large as that because the basic wage will soon be increased again. The record of the Go"vernment over the last two years seems to suggest that a number of repatriation benefits will be reviewed only over the whole year, so if ex-servicemen are to receive a benefit of 10s. a week under this bill, that is the last that they will get for several years. In that time the purchasing power of the 10s. will have been reduced even further. The pension may then be back to 30 per cent, of the basic wage as it was in 1932 when the basic wage was £3 5s. and the war pension rate was 19s. 6d. It is interesting to note from the 1951 report of the Repatriation Commission that the number of veterans from the 1914-1918 war in receipt of war pensions reached the highest total in 1931, thirteen years after the war. In that year there were 280,000 applicants. The cost of war pensions then was about £7,750,000. The number dropped to 148,516 in 1951 and one might have expected that the total cost would have been considerably below £7,750,000. But that was not the position. The cost had almost doubled to £13,250,000, not because there had been any real increase of benefits but because the cost of living had increased. The average war pension had increased from 21s. Id. in 1931 to £3 Ss. 9d. There is much to be said for the suggestion of the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett)** that war pensions and other repatriation benefits should be arranged in such a way that they will be in accord with the cost of living. Then, we should not have to bother about the comparative approach because the pensions would always have a certain purchasing power. I agree with the honorable member for Henty . that that would be a good thing. Why should we have to deliberate on a repatriation bill each year ? A measure of this nature should not be a hardy annual. It should work and keep on working. A measure of the nature of this one comes before this House only for review and, I hope, for the purpose of increasing the benefits until they become all that could possibly be desired. This annual repetitive discussion- should not be necessary. It is a reflection on the Government that it has not produced a bill that will stand the test of time. On the basis of events after World War I., we must expect that the number of applications for repatriation benefits made by exservicemen of World War II. will continue to increase, and that the peak will be reached in about six years. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** was right when he said that human problems should be approached from a humanitarian stand-point, but many people approach such problems from the stand-point of finance. Probably most honorable members have had considerable experience of church committees. When the members of church committees meet to consider whether they can pay their vicar more money, frequently some members say, " We have not enough money to pay the vicar a larger stipend, so he must do without it ". There the matter remains until some bright person says, "It is only decent that the vicar should be paid more money, and we must find the extra money that we require to pay him ". I am certain that the honorable member for Lyne **(Mr. Lucock)** will agree that that is a proper approach to the matter.- The only satisfactory way in which to approach repatriation problems is from the humanitarian stand-point. I remarked in a previous debate that we should not be content to give to ex-servicemen and their dependants only enough money to enable them to exist. That remark applies to war widows, especially those who have two or more children. Those valiant souls, who have made a tremendous sacrifice, live very lonely lives, and they deserve the greatest possible consideration from this Parliament. It is regrettable that in this bill the Government has made no provision for an increase of war widows' pensions. War widows have a special right to protection, and to as much comfort as they would have enjoyed if their husbands had not died. The loss of a husband cannot be assessed in terms of cash, and I do not suggest that we should attempt to make such an assessment. All that we can do is to try to assess the rate of pension that will provide a comfortable living for war widows and their children. We must make sure that the pension will be sufficient, and more than sufficient, to meet their needs. A sum should be added to ensure their comfort. There must be no doubt that a war widow will be able to manage on the pension. I have no reliable guide to how much the sum should be, but I think that, .if we really wish to make a humanitarian approach to the problem, we should increase the war widows' pension by not less than £2 a week. Probably the war widows themselves could give much better information about the amount than I can, but I have not been fully advised by them. I suppose that is because they despair of any one listening to them. Even if an increase of much more than £2 a week were to be made, the annual cost to the Treasury would not be very great. On the 30th June, 1951, there was the comparatively small number of 24,509 war widows in Australia. The cost to the Treasury of an increase of their pension by £2 a week - an increase that would afford a great deal of relief - would be about £2,500,000 a year. That would be a very small sum to pay for the happiness of war widows and for the achievement of a humanitarian approach to this problem better than any that we have made before. I believe every one will agree that the worst feature of the bill is that it does not make provision for any increase of the war widows' pension. That is a gross omission. I strongly support the amendment of the honorable member for Parkes that that pension be increased. From figures published in the *World Almanac* for 1952, I observe that Australia is far behind the United States of America in this matter. A war widow in America receives, in Australian currency, a pension of £13 6s. a week for ten years, and of £6 13s. a week thereafter. Those facts are very interesting. The American system should be studied by this Government, because it appears to be based upon the idea that if a reasonable pension be paid to a war widow for the first ten years of her widowhood, she will be able to establish herself in the community, and that after ten years her responsibilities will not be so great as they were previously. The cost of living is higher in the United States of America than in this country, but even when that fact has been taken into account it is apparent that the purchasing power of the pension paid to Australian war widows is far below that of the pension paid to American war widows. I believe this to be an opportune time to increase the war widows' pension. I appeal to honorable gentlemen opposite to vote ' for the amendment, which affords them an opportunity to show whether they really believe that there should be a non-party approach to repatriation problems. In 1951, the national income of this country reached a record level, but we were told that we were burdened with prosperity and that it was necessary to present an austerity budget. It was explained that that was the reason why the war widows' pension could not be increased in a year of buoyant income. "We have been told that, this year, things are not so good as they were last year, and that, therefore, the Government cannot grant an increase this year. We could go on in that way year after year. Let us try to reach some finality on the matter now. Man has an inexplicable optimism. When he goes to wai-, he always believes that he will come back from the war, probably covered with glory. But, unfortunately, many men do not come back, and some of those who do return have been broken in body and in mind. I believe that the Government should have a proper scale of repatriation benefits, about which there could be no doubt. If the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis)** were to make arrangements for all prospective recruits to the armed forces to be informed of the repatriation benefits to which they would be entitled if they returned from a war, or to which their dependants would be entitled if they did not return, many of them would be disappointed, and would support many of the views that I have expressed to-night. {: #subdebate-26-0-s12 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- One of the outstanding features of this debate is that it has differed from debates on other repatriation bills in the past insofar as no attack of any substance has been made on the bill itself. All honorable members seem to agree that the bill represents a reasonable contribution towards meeting the problem of repatriation, which is, of course, an annual problem. Implementation of the provisions of T join willingly with the honorable memthe bill is expected to involve an expenditure of about £111,500,000. Little has been said during this debate about the actual rates of the various kinds of pension provided for in the measure, and I do not intend to make many detailed references to them. However, some aspects of repatriation and repatriation legislation have been fairly extensively canvassed during the debate, and it is to them that I shall refer. I wish first to mention a fact to which reference has previously been made, which is that the similar bill last year made no provision for an increase of the base rate of repatriation pension, because of the then existing economic circumstances. Special rate pensions such as those in respect of total and permanent incapacity, however, were increased under last year's legislation. This year, in a different sei of economic circumstances, the Government has most wisely decided to increase the base rate of pension. I wish now to direct my remarks to certain honorable members, particularly the honorable member for Henty **(Mr. Gullett),** for whom I have great respect and whose views command great respect in this House. He suggested that repatriation benefits should be related to the basic wage or some other scale such as the C series index. I do not know whether the honorable member would actually propose to relate them directly to the C series index, but the gravamen of his remarks, and those of some other honorable members was that it would be of advantage to relate the rates of repatriation pensions to an index, and thereby obviate this annual debate about their adequacy or otherwise. I wish to dissociate myself entirely from that point of view. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- It has been the traditional policy of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, and still is unless an alteration has been made in recent times, that that should not he the case. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- That is still the policy of that organization. {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- For some time I had the honour to be an official of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. During my association with that organization, I never found evidence of any real body of opinion in favour of relating repatriation pensions to some scale by which they would be fixed automatically to meet changing economic conditions. The reason for the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia's policy on that matter is that it believes that repatriation pensions, whether they be base rate or special rate pensions, are different in essence from other kinds of pensions, such as age and invalid pensions, and, in fact, approximate to compensation payments for dis abilities that the recipients suffered as a result of fighting for their country, or for the disabilities that the dependants of deceased ex-servicemen suffer. We all agree that, as various honorable members on both sides of the chamber have pointed out during this debate, no compensation could be adequate to meet the case. It is hopeless to approach this matter with the idea that we can give to service pensioners an adequate compensation for their sufferings in war. That is not possible. Repatriation pensions are fixed in accordance with the particular disabilities suffered in each, case, and not with any relation to the cost of living or the economic condition of the nation. The compensation for the particular disability in each case is paid at a rate to be determined from time to time. I say "from time to time " advisedly. As the rate of compensation can never be adequate, then it must be determined from time to time in relation to the total amount that the nation can afford to pay as compensation in respect of the war-caused disabilities of all repatriation pensioners. I deplore the tendency that honorable members on both sides of the House have evinced, to advocate the relation of repatriation pensions to some other standard. There is no other standard. We should do the cause of repatriation a disservice if we arranged that pensions rates should in future be related to the cost of living or the basic wage, which are based on entirely different economic conceptions than are repatriation pensions. I turn now to the remarks of the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. McLeay).** Although he made his statements with great sincerity, and although we all are aware of his immense interest in this problem, he may have misled the House, and perhaps the public, when he referred to the repatriation facilities that are available to ex-members of the nursing services. I join willingly with the honorable member in all his eulogies of the nursing services, because I consider that they deserve the utmost praise, but it is not correct to say that ex-members of the nursing services cannot receive the same rights of hospital treatment as can exmembers of the forces. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- Of course they can ! {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Neither ex-service members of the nursing services nor ex-members of the armed forces are entitled to hospital treatment for disabilities that are not deemed to be the result of war service. I wish to direct the attention of the House to the fact that the medical benefits provided under repatriation legislation are quite rightly in my opinion provided in respect of war-caused disabilities and not in respect of all disabilities. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Why not? {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I shall come to that in a moment. The purpose of the legislation is to make provision in. respect of the disabilities that people. suffer as a result of having fought for their country. That appears to me to be a perfectly logical state of affairs. Exmembers of the nursing services participate in the benefits on exactly the same basis as do other ex-members of the armed: forces. Some ex-members of the armed forces, however, are eligible to receive medical treatment above and beyond treatment merely in respect of war-caused disabilities. I refer to 100 per cent. pensioners. As the House knows, they may be admitted to repatriation hospitals,, or receive treatment from local repatriation medical officers, for practically any disability, whether war-caused or not. An ex-member of the nursing services who comes within that category of 100 per cent. pensioner is equally entitled to such benefits. I make that point now because I desire to make it clear that there is no discrimination against members of the nursing services. No one would desire that there should be such discrimination. In my view, the administration of no other department is carried out as sympathetically as is that of the Repatriation Department.. Likewise, I doubt whether any other department has the duty of providing and administering a more comprehensive service. I base those observations upon my personal experience as a local repatriation medical officer for many years. I dealt with many cases of ex-servicemen who applied for repatriation benefits, and in each of those instances the department showed the utmost consideration for the applicant. In any instance in which a doubt arose the benefit of it was given to the exserviceman. The honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths)** cited several cases of ex-servicemen' whose applications for medical treatment had been rejected.. With great respect to that honorable member, whose sincerity in this matter I do not doubt, I am convinced, as a. result of my experience as a repatriation medical officer, that a full investigation of the oases that he cited would show that there could be no doubt whatever that such applicants were ineligible to receive the benefits for which they applied. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Does the honorable member say that the Repatriation Department; is infallible ? {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- No; I say that the department carries out its duties with so much sympathy for those with which it has to deal that no doubt exists in my mind that any ex-serviceman whose application for benefit is rejected must, in the final analysis, be ineligible to receive such benefit. That observation is particularly true in respect of exprisoners of war. Eligibility for medical treatment is based on an ex-serviceman's medical record during his period of service. I know of no other basis on which such eligibility could be determined. When an ex-serviceman applies for medical benefit he is examined by a local repatriation medical officer who records the result of that examination, and the details of it and the application are then forwarded to the offices of the Repatriation Department in the State concerned. All ex-servicemen, certainly all exmembers of the medical services, realize that that examination rests upon the applicant's medical records kept during the period for which he was a memberof the forces. Those records are initiated on the field. When a man is wounded, or falls ill, his medical record is initiated as soon as he arrives at the regimental aid post, and it is kept up to date until the day on which he is discharged. It is on such records that the department decides whether an ex-serviceman is entitled to receive medi- cal treatment under the repatriation provisions. But that is not the complete process. An ex-serviceman, whose application is rejected, can appeal against that decision to a tribunal which is composed entirely of laymen who can decide the *a* ppeal not merely on medical evidence but also on broad human considerations. I have dealt with many applicants whose medical records have been destroyed or lost. Most applicants of that kind are ex- prisoners of war. In such instances, if any doubt whatever arises, the department invariably accepts what the exserviceman says and gives to him the benefit of the doubt. {: .speaker-KFG} ##### Mr Griffiths: -- It does not work out in that way in practice. {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- With respect, I have had greater experience in these matters than the honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths)** has had. The honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua)** spoke about what the United States, of America is doing for its war widows. Do not let us lose sight of the fact that conditions in that country differ from those in Australia. If a wai* widow in the United States of America receives a pension at a rate equivalent to £13 6s. a week in Australian currency, which I do not doubt, she is not being treated more generously than a war widow in Australia is treated. However, do not let us get off the track in this matter. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not a matter of making adequate recompense to ex-service personnel, because it is impossible to recompense them adequately for the service that they rendered to their country. Most people will agree that no government has done more than has this Government for exservicemen and war widows. It is fallacious to compare the provision that is made in this country with that which is made in a country that possesses the great resources of the United States of America. We have done a great deal for ex-servicemen in this country. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Not enough. {: .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Nothing that we could do would be sufficient to repay the debt that we owe to ex-service personnel; but at least we have done a great deal for them. If we are to consider this matter merely on the basis that the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has implied,I point out th'at governments that were much longer in office than we have been might have done a great deal more than this Government has done for ex-servicemen. The Repatriation Act was framed on the basis of recommendations that were made by an all-party parliamentary committee, and we should always approach this subject oil a non-party basis-. Repatriation is one of the greatest responsibilities that rests upon this country. It is profitless merely to compare what this or that government has done in this sphere-. To-day, our repatriation legislation has reached its highest peak in the provision that it makes for ex-servicemen. Whilst ail of us will agree that no government Can ever fully repay ex-servicemen, particularly disabled ex-servicemen and war widows, for the sacrifices that they have made, at the same time, all who examine this, matter impartially will agree that our repatriation legislation has now reached its highest peak in making provision foi' ex-service personnel! **Mr.** j. R. FRASER (Australian Capital Territory) [9.50]. - I support the amendment. The Repatriation Act 1920-1951 is a composite document that has been added to and amended by every government that has. occupied the treasurybench in this Parliament for the last 30 years. For the merits of the act each of those governments is entitled to claim some credit because each of them has added something of value to the act. For the shortcomings of the act each of those governments must share whatever blame is attachable to the shortcomings. This matter should be, and I hope always will be, discussed on a completely impartial basis in this Parliament. ' The' present Government has taken action to effect some improvements in the act and. to correct some anomalies. ' Of course those alterations will not make the act perfect, and it will be for a future government to take further action to irriprove it and to remove' other anomalies, which by that time will have become apparent.- I was impressed by the speech delivered by the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. McLeay).** It was a fine,thoughtful speech, temperately phrased and delivered, and was of great benefit to' honorable members of the Parliament. The honorable member for Boothby is not one who merely speaks of helping exservicemen and their dependants. He has been on active service through Legacy during the last twenty years serving in the interests of the widows and children of his fallen comrades. I heartily commend several of his suggestions. I particularly support his appeal, which was in opposition to the statements of the honorable member for Oxley **(Dr. Donald Cameron),** that there should be a new approach to the fixation of benefits under the Repatriation Act. The honorable member for Boothby claimed that the " budget " approach to this matter is completely wrong. Both he and the honorable member for Oxley said that there can be no adequate measure of the need of people who have served and suffered in a war and who have been left bereft, or have been orphaned through war. The "budget" approach is limiting in purpose, and this Parliament should reach its own decision on what is right and proper in respect of benefits for ex-servicemen and the dependants of deceased ex-servicemen. Having decided upon the right level, we should recognize that it is the community's responsibility to provide benefits at that level, and we should adjust tho rates of all service pensions to it. In further support of the honorable member for Boothby and in opposition to the honorable member for Oxley, I suggest that the Government should peg the rates of ex-servicemen's benefits to the basic wage and its adjustments, so that the pensions will retain the purchasing value that the community and the Parliament has assessed to be proper. There is no adequate financial measuring stick in this community except the basic wage, and it is perfectly proper that pensions should be tied to that wage. The honorable member for Oxley said that it was against the policy of returned servicemen's organizations to have pensions allied to basic wage adjustments. I cannot speak about that matter, because I do not know the policy of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia on it. According to what has been said, I consider that ex-servicemen's thinking on that matter has been conditioned by the memory of conditions, in the depression years when, because of the alliance between pensions rates and the basic wage, some social service pensions were reduced. Another suggestion which I commend to the Parliament and the Government *it* that we must first decide what the community is to do in respect of exservicemen, and then legislate to put that decision into effect. A further submission of the honorable member for Boothby, which I support as against the suggestions of the honorable member for Oxley, is for a provision for service nurses who fall ill in the evening of their lives. The honorable member for Boothby, who 1 think was misunderstood by the honorable member for Oxley, was not speaking of the ordinary benefits provided in our repatriation legislation for nursing sisters. He was speaking of some provision being made for them in their declining years. Women who have served in the nursing services have largely devoted their lives to those services, and in the evening of their lives have found themselves bereft of parents and without ties of home that other women have been able to obtain. Gome of them have found themselves completely alone at the end of their lives, because of their selfless service to soldiers. I commend the suggestion to the Government that such nursing sisters should be admitted to repatriation hospitals. I spent six months in an army hospital at one time, and I know what fine work the army sisters do. I think that nothing we can provide would be too good for them. The honorable member for Boothby deserves commendation for suggesting that there should be a cessation of the power of repatriation department officials to supervise the character and conduct of war widows. Payments made to war widows should not be dependent upon an assessment by an official of their character, conduct, or morals. I believe that the war widows' pension is a right and not a privilege. The suggestion made by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** is simple, and although it might be expensive, it is proper. He said that an ex-serviceman who has been in actual battle, should, on falling ill, be entitled without demur to medical treatment and a pension - if a pension is necessary. It should not be incumbent on such a man to establish that his illness is a result of war service. That principle should be accepted by the Government, the Repatriation Department and the nation. I have a high regard for the manner in which the Minister for Repatriation **('Senator Cooper)** is administering his department. He is a gentlemanly and approachable member of the Government, and is unfailingly courteous and helpful. Everyone who has approached him with problems has been received with courtesy and a full understanding of those problems. In the years immediately after the war, the problems of ex-servicemen were closer to the hearts of the people than they are to-day. I believe that the Ministry of Repatriation became known in Australia then as the suicide portfolio. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr Falkinder: -- The honorable member can say that again ! {: #subdebate-26-0-s13 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- That fact is well known to the honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Falkinder)** and the honorable member for Bass **(Mr. Kekwick),** who succeeded in this Parliament two men who most worthily filled the position of Minister for Repatriation. I believe those gentlemen to be just as entitled to commendation as is the present Minister. The task of the Minister for Repatriation in the years that immediately followed the war, when the problem of every ex-serviceman was urgent and when the minds of the people were closer to the problems of the war than they are now after the lapse of years, was not easy. Much has been said about the worthy work of senior officers of the Department of Repatriation. I cannot speak with any intimate knowledge of this subject, but I have communicated by telephone with the Deputy Commissioner of Repatriation in New SouthWales, **Mr. Carswell,** and his senior officers. My experience is that all of them are invariably helpful, considerate, and eager to ensure that every possible avenue by which an ex-serviceman may be helped shall be explored. But one major difficulty arises when a department is estab lished for the purpose of administering such work as that of repatriation. Care for sick ex-servicemen and for the dependants of deceased ex-servicemen is a noble ideal, and the basis of our Repatriation Act is a noble concept. But, when such a noble ideal is placed in the hands of a departmental organization, difficulties and anomalies inevitably arise. The functioning of the department requires set rules and set procedures, and it could well be that the proper, human approach to the problems of exservicemen can, on some occasions, be lost in the departmental procedures that must be followed. There, again, perhaps the hand of the Treasurer is responsible. In the Repatriation Department no matter how willing an officer may be or how sympathetically he may look upon a case, he must ha ve at the back of his mind, under the present system of finance, the reservation, "We have budgetted for a certain amount and we must look with great care upon this case ". Then, if the case is of a borderline character, it may go by the board. {: .speaker-KWJ} ##### Mr Treloar: -- Rot! {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- That is not, as the honorable gentleman says, rot. I suggest that every honorable member has been approached more than once by an ex-serviceman whose case has appeared to be most reasonable, whose need has seemed to be genuine, and whose every statement has had the semblance of truth and been substantiated by documents, and yet whose application has been disallowed by the department. {: .speaker-KWJ} ##### Mr Treloar: -- Not if the member knows his job. {: .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- I had thought that every honorable member would know of such cases. I say now that every honorable member, with one exception, must have experienced the disappointment of the department having rejected a case he had submitted to it that appeared to be completely watertight and worthy. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr Falkinder: -- The honorable member does not suggest that applicants do not often receive the benefit of any doubt ? {: #subdebate-26-0-s14 .speaker-JWX} ##### Mr J R FRASER:
ALP -- From conversations that I have had with other honorable members, it seems to me thatthe doubt has not always been resolved in favour of the applicant. I believe that to be true. The ultimate test should be the benefit of the ex-serviceman or hia dependants. That should be the only guide that the Government and the nation are prepared to accept. We should err, if we err at all, in favour of the exserviceman, even though the Treasury may bp hurt. I support the amendment. One Government supporter to-night has referred to the poliCy of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia in relation to repatriation. I understand that, before the Government decided upon the increases for which this bill provides, the Cabinet committee of ex-servicemen had the benefit of an address by the federal president of the league, who put to it the official view of that organization. The league considers that the general pension rate should be increased to *£4* 10s. a week. The Government has not seen fit to adopt the advice of the league but has decided to grant certain increases of pensions and allowances. I commend those proposals, and also support the amendment that has been proposed on behalf of the Opposition. {: #subdebate-26-0-s15 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee .- Of all subjects that should remain free of party political considerations in this Parliament, that of repatriation is per.haps the most important. If we could only sink our differences when we consider measures such as the bill now before the House, and work for the common good of ex-servicemen, everybody in Australia would be much happier. There is not the slightest doubt that all Australians aTe eager to give the best possible deal to ex-servicemen, but, when the subject is raised in this House, it is brought into an atmosphere of party politics. No matter how 'good -the administration or the policy of the Government may be, the Opposition invariably tries to find fault and to amend its proposals. This is not in the best interests of the men who receive war and service pensions. I am not referring specifically to the present Opposition because I have been a member of this House long enough to know that my criticism applies to every political party when it is in Opposition. Anybody who has listened to the speeches made by members of the Opposi tion this evening would be led to believe that the Government has been mean in its treatment of ex-servicemen and that the Opposition, if it were in power, would provide much more generously for the needs of ex-servicemen than is proposed in the bill. There is no chance of the Opposition being asked to stand by its declarations, but the people might be misled into the belief that the amendment represents the course of action that the Labour party would take if it were in office. That is not so. Everybody with experience of politics knows that it is only a party political move. This sort of thing is done by all parties in all parliaments. Therefore, we cannot take very seriously the statements of the honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua),** who said that he hoped that the Government would accept the amendment and provide additional benefits for ex-servicemen. Surely every fair-minded member of the Opposition must admit that the moving of such an amendment is only a technical political operation. There can be not the slightest doubt about that. I ask members of the Opposition to believe that I am not criticizing them for party political purposes, because I admit that such tactics are adopted by all political parties when they are in Opposition. One or two statements by honorable members opposite deserve particular reference. As they have adopted a party line, I am obliged to reply to them. The. honorable member for Ballarat said that the increases for which the bill provides should be made retrospective to the 1st July last. Such a proposal probably sounds reasonable to listeners, but I point out that no government, either Labour or non-Labour, has ever given retrospective effect to such increases. Furthermore, these increases will become payable much earlier in the financial year than was the case in other years. Is it not a fact that the Parliament met on the 6th August, last? When the preceding Labour Government was in office, the Parliament did not assemble until late in September. Consequently, ex-servicemen will receive the increased benefits much earlier than they would have had them under the normal practice. Why cannot members of the Opposition say frankly, " We are delighted that the Government summoned the Parliament early in the financial year, because ex-servicemen will receive the increased benefits so much earlier? " Birt they forget about that important fact, and say that the payment of the increased rates should be made retrospective to the 1st July last. Their attitude would be amusing if the position were not serious, because many ex-servicemen who are waiting for the increased benefits, believe that the Government has adopted a different procedure from that followed in the past by Labour governments. Opposition members cannot agree among themselves about this bill. I made that discovery when I listened carefully to their speeches, and made a few brief notes of their remarks. The honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths),** the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron),** and the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Mulcahy), found fault with the administration . of the Department of Repatriation, and spoke forcefully on that subject. But the honorable member for Ballarat praised the department, and described it as a wonderful organization. Is it not reasonable for me to suggest that Opposition members should reach an agreement among themselves on these matters? I appreciated the reasoned speech of the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory **(Mr. J. R. Fraser),** who praised the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** . Every one agrees that the Minister is a fine gentleman, who has the welfare of ex-servicemen at heart. An ex-serviceman himself, 'he suffered greatly in World War I., and he will do everything in his power in order to ensure that ex-servicemen shall receive a fair deal. I took a miniature gallup poll this afternoon, and did not discover any honorable member on this side of the House who had received a complaint about the proposed new repatriation benefits since the presentation of the budget.- I addressed my question to the honorable member for Lawson **(Mr. Failes),** the honorable member for Gwydir **(Mr. Treloar)** the honorable member for Maranoa **(Mr. Brimblecombe),** the honorable member for Lyne **(Mr. Lucock)** and the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Bowden),** who now occupies an exalted position in the Chair. All of them represent large constituencies. The honorablemember for Maranoa has informed me that his electorate is twice as big as the State of Victoria. However, all those honorable gentlemen have had no complaint about the proposed increases of repatriation benefits. I make that statement with the full knowledge that countless people throughout Australia may be listening to my speech, and could easily write to me saying for example, "I complained to **Mr. Failes** ", That is the position. In my opinion, most of the complaints have been conjured up in the minds -of Opposition members. I personally, have not received any complaints, and I point out that the finest soldier settlement in Australia, at Sunraysia, is in my electorate. I assure the House that the exservicemen's organizations and Legacy are most active in that district. Had they been dissatisfied with the proposed new rates, they would have written to me about the matter. Therefore I am amazed at the statements of Opposition members during this debate. The honorable member for Ballarat declared that it was useless to make comparisons with the past, and another Opposition member hopefully repeated that remark. Of course, Opposition members do not want comparisons to be made between the proposed new -rates, and pensions granted by the Chifley Labour Government. When the Liberal party and the Australian Country party constituted the Opposition in this House, we fought on countless occasions for the interests of ex-servicemen, particularly the totally and permanently incapacitated men, but our efforts drew little response from the Labour Government. Some Opposition members have claimed in this debate that the pension should be related to the basic wage. It is well known that the practice of relating pensions to the basic wage was discontinued by the Curtin Labour Government. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- War pensions were never related to the basic wage. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- I was referring, in passing, to age and invalid pensions which, for a number of years, were related to the basic wage. That practice was discontinued by the Curtin Labour Government. Now, some Opposition members advocate that war pensions be linked with the basic wage. They may not be aware that an all-party committee, which was appointed in 1942, rejected such an idea, and the federal president of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, **Sir Gilbert** Dyett, agreed with that view. The Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, that great organization which fights for exservicemen, and other ex-servicemen's organizations which have sent deputations to Canberra at various times to discuss pensions matters, have opposed the suggestion that repatriation benefits should be related to the basic wage. The reason for their opposition is obvious. They fear that if the basic wage were to be reduced drastically, the effect on repatriation benefits would be catastrophic. They consider that pensions payable to ex-servicemen and their dependents should be maintained at a stable level. If time permitted, I should read passages from the book issued by the Minister for Repatriation, but it deals with so many benefits that extensive reference to them would cause me to exceed my time, and thereby deprive some of my colleagues of the opportunity to take part in this debate. However, I shall refer briefly to some of the proposed new repatriation benefits. The general rate of pension will be increased from £3 10s. to £4 a week. The maximum rate payable to the wives of incapacitated members of the forces will be increased from £1 10s. 6d. to £1 los. 6d. a week. The maximum rate of lis. 6d. payable in respect of children of incapacitated members will be increased to 13s. 9d. a week. The present rate of 22s. . payable in respect of the first child of a deceased member will be increased to 26s. 6d. a week, and the rate for other children from 15s. 6d. to 18s. 6d. a week. The rate for orphans will be increased from £2 to £2 8s. a week. The service pension will be increased from £3 to £3 7s. 6d. a week. Other benefits include medical treatment for disabilities due to war service, and subsistence allow- ances. Special benefits are provided for trainees under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme and the new Korea-Malaya training scheme. Not long ago, this Government began to provide motor cars free of charge to ex-servicemen who had lost the use of both legs. When the Liberal party and the Australian Country party were in Opposition, we tried for years to induce the Labour Government to provide such a transport facility, but our representations were invariably rejected. If there is a man in this country who should be given a motor car, it is the man who, owing to war injuries, is confined to his home. The only condition that is attached to the gift is that the recipient shall not sell the vehicle. The cost of the maintenance of the car, registration, licence, petrol and tyres is met by the Government grant of £120 per annum. {: .speaker-KFG} ##### Mr Griffiths: -- To whom are the motor ears given? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL: -- To the exserviceman who is in receipt of pension and has lost the use of his legs. He has a motor car given to him, £120 for the upkeep of the motor car and £10 recreation allowance. That provision was introduced by this Government. Honorable members on this side of the House tried for years to get the Labour Government to do something about it, but it always turned a deaf ear. I refer to these matters only from a party point of view. Ex-servicemen throughout the country are pleased with all that has been done for them this year. I believe that any government that is worthy of the name will assist the exservicemen to the limit of its capacity, but a Government can do only so much as its finances will allow. This Government has done that. Let me stress the need for a spirit of co-operation. I urge honorable members to co-operate on this matter. The honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory delivered a moderate speech, and I believe that other members of the Opposition would cooperate also. Some would stand apart for party political gain, but many would co-operate for the good of the exservicemen. Let us try to forget party differences and refrain from seeking only the fruits of office. Let us resolve that when a bill of this nature comes before the House, we will do all that we can for the men who have done so much for the nation. {: #subdebate-26-0-s16 .speaker-JVA} ##### Mr MORGAN:
Reid .- I shall continue on the theme of co-operation that, has been adopted by the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** . I concur fully in the sentiments that have been expressed by honorable members on both sides of the House that repatriation matters and the problems of ex-servicemen and their families should be above party politics. The honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Falkinder)** put the matter in a nutshell when he said that repatriation should not be a political football. I have been astonished and disappointed that this Government, which has a large preponderance of ex-servicemen from two world wars in its ranks, did not emulate the actions of the Labour governments . that were led by **Mr. Curtin** and **Mr. Chifley** in establishing an all-party committee on repatriation. Honorable members from both sides of the Parliament sat together on that committee and considered the problems of ex-servicemen. The men who went to the wars did not undergo a political test when they enlisted. They came from all sections of the community. They fought and made sacrifices for us all and he would be a poor type of individual who would want to make political capital from their troubles or would fail to ensure that they received the best deal possible. I believe in giving credit where it is due. I do not believe that any previous government can claim all the credit for all that has been done for exservicemen. After the principal Repatriation Act was framed, each successive government helped to improve it. I believe that this Government is entitled to some credit for all that it has done in carrying on the work of previous governments, but the first big step towards a fair deal for ex-servicemen was the appointment of the all-party committee on repatriation which was set up by the Curtin Government in 1942. Before then practically nothing had been done on this matter. I believe that there had not been an increase in pensions for 25 years until a new measure was introduced in 1942 as a result of the work of the all-party committee. Most of the credit for the law as it stands and for the administration of repatriation must go to that committee. When I was first elected to the Parliament in 1940, I thought that the Repatriation Department would be completely stream-lined and that its activities would not involve me in much work. I was astonished to note the number of claims from ex-servicemen of World War I. that were returned to them with an endorsement that their disability was not due to war service. Those matters were brought to my attention with monotonous regularity and the replies were of such a nature and so identical that they might have been framed by an office boy. Those difficulties were remedied by the all-party committee, and the acts that were passed during the regimes of successive Labour governments have been described as the best of their kind in the world. I may claim to have played a part in the establishment of the committee, because I battled in this House for its establishement, not only during the regime of the government that I supported but when the previous government was in office. I was conscious of great satisfaction when, at 11 o'clock one night, **Mr. Curtin** who was then the Prime Minister, promised that the committee would be set up. I submitted twelve points to the committee and all of them have been incorporated in the statute-book. Unfortunately, the administration of repatriation seems to be slipping again. The present administration is doing fine work and it has improved on previous activities, but anomalies will appear in the best of legislation and with the best of administrations. Many illustrations have been brought to the attention of the House by honorable members, particularly by the honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths)** and other honorable members on this side of the House. The cases that they have mentioned merit inquiry. An all-party committee should be established if the Government is sincere in its protestations with regard to the problems of ex-servicemen. The committee could consider also the adequacy of pensions generally. In particular, it should give attention to pensions for widows and others who have been exeluded from the measure that is before the House and to pensions generally in the light of cost of living and other developments which must affect the value of pensions. Some reference has been made to the onus of proof, with regard to war disabilities. Honorable members on this side of the House thought that that matter would have been resolved, and that if there was a doubt, it would be settled in favour of the applicant. "We thought that the onus would be on the Repatriation Commission to disprove that the disability was due to war service. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr Falkinder: -- That is the position once a prima facie case has been established. {: .speaker-JVA} ##### Mr MORGAN: -- A prima facie case has to be made by the commission. The onus is upon it absolutely. An applicant is entitled to have a claim decided in his or her favour whether a disability is due directly or indirectly to war service. The principle involved is the same as that which applies to claims under workers' compensation legislation. While the disability may not be directly due to war service, if something latent in the individual has been aggravated or accentuated by war service, he is entitled to have his claim met as though the disability had been directly due to war service. We know that many of the men who join the Forces have some latent defect. In war-time, when medical examinations are very cursory, many men who are passed as Al have some disability that has not been revealed by such examinations. Recent research has shown that most of the people in the community have some latent defect, and it is probable that less than 10 per cent, of the community is perfectly fit physically. The medical examination that men are required to undergo now before they can be accepted into the Citizen Military Forces is much more rigid and thorough than were medical examinations during wartime, when the situation was desperate and medical officers frequently passed men as fit without having made a thorough examination of them to ascertain whether they were suffering from a disability that was not apparent on the surface. Because medical examinations now are thorough, 50 per cent, of the men who wish to join the forces are rejected on the grounds of medical unfitness. That is true not only of this country but also of other countries. The Sydney *Daily Mirror* of the 3rd September, contained the following article : - Hale *or* Services Draft Unfit. Half of the 3,000,000 Americans called fur military training have been deferred as unfit, according to the peace-time draft director **(Major General Hershey).** " If we could reduce our standards somewhat, I believe we could find the men. The figure of 1,300,000 is just too much wastage. When fathers are conscripted next year, it will be fortunate if half of their 1,000,000 are accepted." " We have got to take somebody or decrease the armed forces." We know that in time of war the attitude of the military authorities to medical examinations is very different from that which they adopt in peace-time. I repeat that many of the men who enlist in the Services or are called up in war-time have some latent defect. In fact there is a very strong presumption that the great majority of them have a defect that is not apparent on the surface. In September, 1951, the journal *Health,* issued by the Department of Health, published the following article about a recent survey of young people in this country: - >This article is a summary of the findings of the ' Report of Investigations into the Incidence and Causes of Postural Defects in Aus tralian Children ", issued by the Common-' wealth Department of Health, 1950. . . . > >The total project consisted of a major factual survey of the posture of 35,000 school children of primary school age. . . . The investigation has provided definite proof for a number of facts bearing on conditions previously suspected, but upon which reliable evidence was not available. It is the first time a survey of this kind and extent has been undertaken in Australia, and its findings should prove of interest and of considerable value to all those working in the field of child health. The survey revealed that nearly 90 per cent, of the 35,000 children who were examined had postural defects. Most of those children .will be called up for service' in the armed forces in- later years. The survey provides evidence that many exservicemen of World War I. and World ¥/ar II., although they were passed as Al, had a latent defect that was not revealed by the medical examinations to which they were subjected. That raises very important issues in connexion, not only with onus of proof and entitlement to pensions but also with medical treatment. Although the repatriation legislation makes provision for medical treatment and hospital treatment to be provided for ex-service men and women in repatriation hospitals, such treatment cannot be given to persons who are not suffering from a disability due to their war service. The difficulty that many ex-servicemen encounter in obtaining hospital treatment to-day has given rise to a serious problem. The matter took a very serious turn this week, because of a lack of finance for many of the public hospitals in which ex-servicemen and their families would seek treatment if they were refused admission to a repatriation hospital. The Sydney *Daily Mirror* of to-day states - >The Hospital Commission of New South Wales has ordered all public hospitals throughout the State drastically to slash expenditure. > >Hospital authorities and doctors, who are gravely alarmed at the " bombshell ", say it will mean: - > >Less vital life-saving and pain-relieving drugs and instruments. > >Severe cuts in provisions and foodstuffs. > >Staff retrenchments, including cuts in nursing and medical staff. > >Closing of wards as the only alternative to seriously reducing present standards. That decision has given rise to a very serious problem for ex-servicemen. If the diseases from which they are suffering are not accepted as being due to their war service, they will be unable, if the present position continues, to get into even ordinary public hospitals. That is a matter to which the Government should give serious consideration. Perhaps an all-party committee could make inquiries to ascertain whether it will be possible to amend the regulations to provide that exservicemen, irrespective of whether their disability is doe to war service, shall be admitted to repatriation hospitals. I believe that that would be- fair. Every exservicemen who is suffering from a disease, irrespective of whether he can prove that it is due to war service, should have- the benefit of the best possible medical treatment, especially in repatriation hospitals. [ turn now to ex-servicemen who are suffering from war neurosis. We know that in the last war the incidence of war neurosis was very great,- owing to the stresses and strains to which servicemen were subjected. Probably the strain upon servicemen in World War II. was greater than that upon servicemen in World War I., because they were fighting under conditions very different from those that obtained in the first world war. Victims of war neurosis have become something in the nature of a forgotten race. In many repatriation hospitals, there are no facilities for them to be treated properly. There has been an agitation for the establishment of a modern neurological centre, but at the present time, many men suffering from war neurosis must enter ordinary mental asylums, especially if their mental condition has deteriorated. I do not think that that is fair, especially in view of the fact that a move is on foot for the operation called leucotomy to be performed compulsorily upon certain patients in State mental institutions. That is a very serious matter for ex-servicemen who are suffering from war neurosis. I do not wish to say anything about the bona, fides of the State authorities, because doubtless they believe that there are good reasons why they should act in that way, but I am very seriously concerned about exservicemen in State mental institutions. I believe that some action should be taken to safeguard their rights in this connexion. I hope that ex-servicemen's organizations will give some attention to the problem. These men fought for freedom, and they are entitled to select the type of treatment that they want. Manipulative therapy is a well established method of treating nerve cases in certain countries, but,, unfortunately, no provision has been made for treatment, of that kind to be given in our repatriation hospitals. I say that victims of war neurosis are entitled to the benefits of the best and latest methods of treatment, including osteopathy, Swedish manipulation, the Kenny treatment and chiropractic treatment. I know that physiotherapy is1 allowed in repatriation hospitals, but they do not give manipulative treatment because the doctors are not allowed by the British Medical Association to give that treatment. 'Nor are they allowed to co-operate with recognized manipulators. The Government should endeavour to override that barrier to the treatment of exservicemen. The Government has made provision for the conduct of postmortem examinations, but those examinations will be poor consolation to those whose relatives have passed on, even if it is determined as a result of the examination that the patient died as a result of a disability which was brought about by war service. Medical diagnosis is inexact and there are more modernmethods of finding the causes of illnesses than are in operation in repatriation institutions. I hope that the Government will give consideration to the problems that are raised by leucotomy operations and the shortage of hospital beds and set up a proper neurological centre where these men may receive immediate treatment for their troubles. {: #subdebate-26-0-s17 .speaker-JSI} ##### Mr BROWN:
McMillan .- I should like to correct an impression that may have been created by the remarks of honorable members opposite. I have been chairman of a repatriation district committee for a long time. This committee was established in 1920 and is still carrying on its work. As chairman of this committee, my relationship with the Repatriation Department has been close and I have been surprised to hear attacks made in this House on the officers of that department. It has been my experience that, in many cases, the benefit of the doubt has been given to appellants and not to the commissioner. I have been rather apprehensive about certain cases that I have taken to the Repatriation Department because it seemed to me that they were far outside the province of the repatriation legislation, but I have been assisted in the presentation of the cases by the deputy commissioner and others and we have found a way in which the appellant could become the recipient of benefits available to returned soldiers under this act. I should not like the debate to finish without my paying a tribute to the unceasing help that I have obtained from the Repatriation Department in connexion with the great many cases that I have taken to it, not only those which have arisen from the last war but also many that have arisen from the first world war. I have been astonished and tremendously pleased with the sympathetic treatment that the officers of the department have always given to the cases that I have taken to them. The officers of the department are themselves all returned soldiers. Honorable members will remember that before 1947 the Repatriation Department was not a part of the Public Service. I think it was a great mistake on the part of **Mr. Dedman** to introduce a bill which made the officers of that department members of the Public Service, interchangeable with the officers of other departments. That bill changed the character of the department. However, in my years of experience with the department I have always been helped to find a way in which a deserving case could be given every possible benefit under the act. I am always rather frightened of tackling this subject because political advantage has been taken of it on both sides of this House. The trend has been to develop pressure groups in exservicemen's organizations which try to play one political side against the other and obtain the best advantage where they can. An alarming book has been published recently by the author of *Mother India* on the War Veterans Association in America called *Soldier, What Next?* I should advise people who are interested in this problem to read it and learn of the dangerous position that can arise if the benefits of repatriation become a football which is kicked from one side of the House to the other. I wish to support the remark of the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. McLeay)** concerning the right of an officer of the Repatriation Department to inquire into the moral life of a war widow and to decide, on the evidence that he collects alone, whether she is fit to continue to receive her pension. I hope that the Government will examine that position. We have accepted *de facto* wives and their children. A service which pries into the morals of war widows with a view to stopping their pensions is an evil that we can very well do without. However, I rose to pay my tribute to the unceasingly good work of the officers of the department and I conelude my speech on that note. {: #subdebate-26-0-s18 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Army · Moreton · LP -- *in reply* - This debate has gone on throughout the day. It has been very disappointing *to* me, representing the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper),** as I looked for some co-operation and worth-while suggestions from honorable gentlemen opposite. Not one reference to the bill itself has emanated from them. They have regaled this House with a lot of criticism of the Repatriation Department rather than of the bill before the House. Many crocodile tears have been shed by Opposition members who have contended that certain action should now be taken which they themselves failed to take during the eight years that their party was in office. Suggestions by the Opposition that the Government should take, action which it is not possible to take do not help returned servicemen and, I think, will be resented by them. Some remarks have been made about an all-party committee. The committee referred to was constituted by **Mr. Curtin** when he was Prime Minister, and its report was furnished on the 11th December, 1942. The committee was composed of six members, of whom three came from each side of the House. The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** the honorable member for Newcastle **(Mr. Watkins)** and **Senator Lamp** were the three Government representatives, and **Senator Collett,** the honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. McDonald)** and myself were ,Lue Opposition members. The principal task of the committee was to examine repatriation activities since the beginning of World War I. to enable it to draft a measure that would be the basis on which personnel of the fighting forces in World War II. would be repatriated and provided with adequate pensions. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- It was a good committee. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- It was indeed a good committee, and it brought in a good report. The recommendations of the committee, and the results of the implementation of its report, have stood the test of time since 1942. One very important recommendation made by the committee was related to a matter to which a number of honorable members have referred to-night. The committee expressed itself as being in complete opposition to proposals that repatriation pensions should be related to the cost of living. It was unanimous in its rejection of proposals for the adoption of such a system. At that time **Sir Gilbert** Dyett, then federal president of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, gave evidence before the committee on behalf of his organization, and urged that the committee should adopt the report which contained recommendations that pensions should not in any circumstances be related to the cost of living. The returned servicemen's organization's officials who saw the Cabinet sub-committee in relation to repatriation legislation this year, were as emphatic a» were the committee and **Sir Gilbert** Dyett in 1942 about that matter. No ex-servicemen's organization which met this sub-committee supports any proposal of that nature. I turn now to the amendment. It is identical in. character with all the amendments that the Opposition has moved in relation to almost every pensions bill the Government has introduced. It is a stereotyped form of amendment. It proposes that the increase of pensions should be made retrospective to the 1st July last. The record of the previous Labour Government shows that it never made increases of pensions retrospective. The Repatriation Bill 1943 was passed by the House of Representatives on the 1st April, 1943, but did not come into operation until a month after it had received the Royal assent. A similar situation occurred in 1947, when, although the Repatriation Bill was passed on the 30th A pril, it was not until the 10th July, more than two months later, that the increase of pensions provided for in the legislation became operative. Similar instances occurred in 1948 and 1949. Every honorable member who was a member of the Labour party during the eight years of office of the last Government, knows that not once did it make any increase of pensions retrospective. In 1950, however, the first repatriation legislation that this Government introduced provided substantial increasesof pensions which were made retrospective.' Much ofthedebate to-dayhas been directed to severe criticism of members and officers of the RepatriationCommission. I wish to make it quite clear that I regard the members and officers of the commission, 99 per cent. of whom are ex-servicemen who are doing their utmost to ensure that ex-servicemen generally receive proper treatment, are splendid people. Every member of the commission and ofthe Entitlement Appeal Tribunal and the Assessment Appeal Tribunal is an ex-serviceman. The Repatriation Departmentdoctors are also ex-service- men. The major proportion of the sisters and nurses in repatriation institutions and hospitals also have had service overseas in war-time. All the people who have any association with decisions on whether or not an ex-serviceman is entitled to a pension are themselves exservice personnel who have been on active service, and know the horrors of war and the difficulties and suffering associated with war disabilities. I consider that the Repatriation Department is doing a very vital job. Honorable gentlemen opposite have claimed that the onus of proof provision in repatriation legislation was first introduced by a Labour government. I deny that assertion emphatically. That provision was first introduced into repatriation legislation in 1929 by the BrucePage Government. In 1935 the Lyons Government, another non-Labour government, improved the provision , so as to make it more favorable for the exservicemen and less favorable for the Repatriation Department. In 1943 the Labour Government embodied the two provisions in one provision. The onus of proof provision has been ofsubstantial assistance to ex-servicemen in having their claims satisfactorily adjusted. Some lengthy discussion has occurred to-day in respect of war widows' pensions. Time does not permit *me* to deal with that matter in detail, but I wish to point out that, contrary to the assertions of honorable gentlemen opposite, the war widows pension is not, in most instances, limited to an amount of £3 10s. a week. A widow with three children has a pension and allowances that total £3.0 17s. a week. *The* war widows pension itself is£3 10s. a week. The domestic allowance payable, which is substantially increased by this legislation, is £1 12s. a week, the allowance in relation to the first child is £1 6s.6d. and to the second and subsequent children 18s. 6d. a week each, whilst the educational allowance in respect of two children is £l 6s. 6d. The pension and allowance, together with child endowment of £1 5s. a week, provide such a widow with an income of £10 17s. a week. Inaddition, she has free medical and hospital treatment and, should she subsequently remarry, a marriage grant of about £150 is available to her. It has been suggested that some consideration should be given to providing war widows with homes for themselves and their families. This Government has this year provided that war service homes shall be available to war widows on varying special conditions, under which they are entitled to a period of 50 years in which to repay the price of the home, the weekly repayments being slightly over £1. Such conditions were never dreamed of by honorable gentlemen opposite, when a Labour government was in office, yet the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** claims that everything good in the repatriation legislation was put there by the government of which he was a member. Nobody who knows the honorable- gentleman would consider for a moment that anything he said was worthy of any serious consideration. I repudiate the allegation that this Government has not been sympathetic to ex-servicemen in relationto war service homes. Up to the time that we took office, Australian governments had provided £53,000,000 for war service homes since the inception of the scheme, but in the last two and a. half years this Government has provided£61,000,000. The largest amount ever provided by a Labour Government in any one year was only £8,000,000. We have provided £28,000,000 in each of the last two years. The average number of homes provided per annum over the 30 years preceding this Government's assumption of office was 818. The average number provided by this Government is 14,800. During the last30 years the number of war service homes' provided by all governments: was 54,500. During the last two and. a. half: years, this Government has provided. 36,350 homes. The honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Falkinder)** expressed concern because the repatriation hospital in Hobart was not able to provide accommodation for all female members of the services. During the dinner recess the Minister for Repatriation. **(Senator Cooper ) assured: me that plans were well advanced for remedying this defect, and that, at an early date, the requirements of all servicewomen would be met.** Question put - >That the words proposed to be left out **(Mr. Haylen's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Archie Cameron.) AYES: 48 NOES: 37 Majority . . . . 11 AYES NOES Question so resolved, in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and committed *pro forma;* progress reported. {: .page-start } page 2201 {:#debate-27} ### PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE Message received from the Senate intimating that the following Senators had been appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts: - **Senator. Byrne,** Paltridge and Seward. {: .page-start } page 2201 {:#debate-28} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Housing - Hartnett Motor Car - Government Enterprises {: #subdebate-28-0-s0 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · Kooyong · LP -- I move - >That the House do now adjourn. In doing so, I desire to make a few remarks about matters arising out of. a question that the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** asked some time ago. I have received a report from the Department of: National Development which makes it clear that the request by the honorable member for Lilley for an investigation into the Queensland Housing Commission project at Zillmere was completely justified. Officers of the Department of National Development spent almost four days in Brisbane.. They have reported - (1) That the standard of workmanship in many of the houses and especially the earlier ones, is very poor; (2) that there has been inadequate supervision of the contracts by the Queensland Housing Commission; and (3), that many of the criticisms covering a wide range of items were substantiated. These items included the method of fixing roofs; quality of timber and ceiling construction; cracking of asbestos cement ceiling lining; wall's, ceiling and floors being out of level; rooms out of square; sub-standard joinery; defective painting, &c. There is also grave doubt whether in at least one major element of construction the houses have been built according to the drawings and specifications that were approved as part of the arrangements whereunder the Australian Government agreed to subsidize the cost of each house by £300. It is a very serious position. There are SS6 houses in the contract. The Commonwealth was entitled to rely upon the supervision of the Queensland Government. It has already paid a subsidy of £300 on S50 completed houses, or a total of £255,000. The first point to be determined is whether the Queensland Government was entitled to receive that £255,000 having regard to the standard of the houses that have been erected. The Commonwealth Experimental Building Station is the authority that certifies in relation to the structural sufficiency of imported houses. The Minister has arranged with the Queensland Housing Commission for this authority to investigate and report on whether and to what extent, the construction of the houses differs from the original plans and specifications upon which it was agreed to pay the subsidy. The next point to be clarified is the situation of the Commonwealth in relation to the whole Zillmere housing project. The average cost of the houses, including the Commonwealth subsidy, has been about £2,500 "so that the total cost of erecting the SS6 houses will be of the order of £2,215,000. This amount will have been provided by the Commonwealth under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. It will be remembered that last year most of the funds provided under this agreement were obtained from taxation levied by the Australian Government, because it was not possible to obtain the money by loan raising. The Queensland Government has consistently criticized the Australian Government for not providing more money by this method to finance its works and housing programme. It is, therefore, to say the least, ironical that the indications are that the Queensland Government has failed to supervise efficiently the expenditure of the money that it has already received. The trouble seems to have occurred in theearly stages of the contract. At that stagethe Queensland Housing Commission apparently failed to exercise adequate supervision of the work being carried out. In many instances where the standard of workmanship is undeniably poor I am informed that the Queensland Housing: Commission acknowledges the faults involved. Subsequently, steps were taken to ensure better supervision of the contract, but by this time many dwellings were occupied and others were at such an advanced stage of construction that the rectification of the faults entailed wholesale reconstruction of the buildings. This, obviously, must be proving most costly to the contractors. What the final outcome of the investigation will be remains to be seen. The commission, I am informed, is holding retention moneys of approximately £150,000 to ensure that repair and reconstruction is carried out by the contractor. It is doubtful whether this amount will be adequate. In addition, the contract provides for a three months' maintenance period that gives the commission further protection against defective materials and workmanship. But none of these considerations can explain why so much faulty work has been allowed to continue for so long. In the terms of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, the amount advanced by the Australian Government to the Queensland Government is to be repaid over a period of 53 year3. During the whole of that time the Australian Government is obligated to bear a proportion of losses, and losses will be increased by any excessive maintenance arising out of the faulty construction of these houses. In the view of the department, it is doubtful whether some of the houses will last 53 years unless there is constant heavy expenditure on maintenance. Any abnormal cost of keeping houses in repair is, of course, going to reduce considerably the net rentals receivable from them. The matter will be pursued and further investigations conducted. There is a prime responsibility upon all governments to control efficiently the money that the Australian people make available to then for public works. There is no doubt in my mind that the Queensland Government has failed lamentably to supervise this large contract properly. {: #subdebate-28-0-s1 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne -- The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** was good enough to hand me a copy of the statement that he has just read. The statement deals with the alleged poor standard of workmanship of many houses that are being built in Queensland; but it appeared to me and to members. of the Opposition that the real purpose of the statement was to afford to the right honorable gentleman an opportunity to attack the Queensland Labour Government. If the Prime Minister's statement is correct - I have no doubt that it is factual - that officers of the Department . of National Development spent several days in Brisbane and made a report to the Government on this matter, I should have imagined that, at that stage, the right honorable gentleman would have communicated the terms of that report to the Premier of Queensland and asked him for his comments upon them. That, at least, would have been the fair thing for the Prime Minister to do. {: .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies: -- The Queensland Premier knows the contents of the report. {: #subdebate-28-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** is entitled to be heard in silence. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- The agreement to which the statement refers is a joint Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, under which the participating State supervises the building of houses and the Commonwealth pays a certain sum towards the cost of their construction. I believe that when the Queensland Government hears of this report to-morrow it will have an answer which will put a complexion upon the matter different from that which the Prime Minister has put upon it to-night. I believe that the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight),** in raising this matter, was not concerned so much about the standard of the houses as he was to pursue a vendetta against the Queensland Labour Government. This statement con tains nothing but a long collection of innuendoes and inferences against the Queensland Government because of its alleged failures. *Government supporters interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! I insist on a silent hearing for the honorable member for Melbourne. If honorable gentlemen persist in interjecting I shall commence to name them. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr CALWELL: -- It seems that the gravamen of the charge against the Queensland Government is that it has consistently criticized the Australian Government for not providing more money under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement to finance its works and housing programme. But the Queensland Government is not the only government which has criticized the present Australian Government for its failure to provide sufficient money for housing. Every State government has criticized this Government on that ground. Even the Liberal governments of South Australia and Western Australia and the Australian Country party government of Victoria have criticized the Government in this connexion. I have not the slightest doubt that in all of those States defective workmanship could be found in some buildings not perhaps of the magnitude referred to in this statement, but certainly it would be possible to discover defective work. Some contractors are better than are others. Some are more honest than are others. Gould that be regarded, however, as sufficient justification for an attack upon all the other State governments in the way in which the Prime Minister has attacked the Queensland Government to-night ? The right honorable gentleman has said, in effect, that the Queensland Government has failed to deal with the housing question, that it has been guilty of faulty supervision of the erection of 860 houses which will cost £2,250,000, and that it has defaulted in the most serious way possible. In those circumstances, I think that it would have been better, before this National Parliament was used as a forum in which to attack the Queensland Government, to give that Government an opportunity to consider the report of the officers of the Department of National Development. A statement by the Premier of Queensland, as well as the criticisms of the officers of the Department of National Development, should have been tabled simultaneously in this House. The Opposition knows nothing of the story which has been presented by the Prime Minister, but if the Government is forced to use the forms of this House for the purpose of attacking a sovereign State government, which is a partner with it in the construction of houses for the Australian people, it has been reduced to a desperate position. {: #subdebate-28-0-s3 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley .- The honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell)** is clearly on the wrong track when he suggests that to-morrow, when the Queensland Government becomes aware of the report made by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** to-night, it will probably be able to place a different construction on the information that has been placed before this Parliament. I should like to assure the House that every suggestion and every remark made by the Prime Minister this evening have been made previously, not only to the Commissioner for Housing in Queensland, but also to the Minister for Housing in that State. With your permission, **Mr. Speaker,** I propose to read a letter which I personally wrote to the Commissioner for Housing, which deals with the specific points that were made by the Prime Minister this evening. Although this letter was written on the 18th September and has been received by the Commissioner for Housing, he has not seen fit to acknowledge it or to deny the allegations which it contains. The letter reads as follows: - >In compliance with your request, I herewith furnish the allegations made by me in regard to the Zillmere Housing Project. > >The tenants maintain that in quite a number of cases when leaking roofs have been repaired it is not uncommon for leaks to break out : again on the occasion of the next rain. It is further maintained by them that when rain is driven in different directions according to the wind, leaks occur in the various parts of the roof. " > >I 'have personally seen the drainage system provided in the area and consider it unsuitable. > >From one of the sumps in the area I took a bottle of water which was found to be full of mosquito larvae. > >I have been in several houses which ure almost structually completed but as yet unpainted in which the walls are out of plumb, the floors uneven and the stumps not level. > >Many of the tenants complain that the windows in their homes are stuck and can be opened and closed only with the greatest difficulty. > >All the T.14 typo homes which I have inspected have the bearers cut through to allow the waste from the bath to be emptied, and in some instances I have noted that bearers and joists have been cut through. I have actually seen a bearer which had .been cutthrough propped up with a piece of timber that was not even embedded in the ground. Honorable members will appreciate that the bearer is one of the basic foundations of any housing structure. The letter goes on - >I have seen dry rot on the exterior walls of homes and I have seen walls that were out of plumb. > >In almost every house I visited which was tenanted I found the ceilings were cracked. Many of the tenants allege that they have been waiting for periods up to almost twelve months for repairs to be effected to these ceilings. In other cases where ceilings have been replaced, these have not been painted. In one instance the tenant informed me that carpenters came to replace the ceilings which were cracked and discovered that the ceiling joists were seriously affected by dry rot; although admitting this, new ceilings were affixed to these same joists and no indication was given that they were to be replaced. The new ceiling has now cracked. > >Many allegations have been made to me by competent carpenters and tradesmen to the effect that much of the workmanship is of a very inferior standard and much of the material used in the construction should have been rejected. From my own observation as a layman, their contentions appear to be based on sound premises. > >I have in my possession letters from responsible citizens who are ex-employees of the Queensland Housing Commission and Lecorche Bros. & Schroth, in which it is alleged that they were unable to have much of the shoddy and faulty workmanship rectified and faulty matertials replaced, by the action of either your administrative staff or by the instructions of the works supervisor employed by the contractors. > >It was also maintained that should an inspector insistently demand that his request ;be complied with, he was transferred from the project to another position or dismissed from the service of the Commission: also that many complaints made by your inspectors were ignored by the administrative staff and to their knowledge have never been .rectified. To-morrow I shall table in the House definite evidence to corroborate that information. The letter continues - >It lists also been alleged that some of your technical officers are without sufficient experience to qualify them for their position. lt was further maintained that the specification endorsed by the Commonwealth had not been rigidly adhered to. Many of the studs did not answer to the required lengths and, in order to obtain an evenness of construction, had to be cut. lt was maintained that the majority of the workers were not Australians and that the work of the Australian workman was satisfactory but that the work of the majority of the tradesmen from overseas indicated that they were not tradesmen yet had been admitted and accepted by the trade union and were employed on the project. Those men had been admitted with the approval of the Queensland Government and were employed as carpenters. The letter goes on - >Orders given by inspectors to rectify bad workmanship or faulty or inferior timber were " rebuked ", and dry rot, if not of considerable proportion, had to be covered and sealed as quickly as possible. > >It was further alleged that the paint used in the painting of these homes was of an inferior quality containing a high .proportion of lime. > >In regard to the quality of the paint, my personal observation has suggested that there is definitely ground for the complaint that the paint is of an inferior quality. I believe this is confirmed by the number of houses which have required repainting so soon after their completion. It has been complained that this paint loses its gloss completely, and that within six months it has been found necessary to repaint. In regard to the quality of the paint, I have found from personal observation that there are definite grounds for complaint. The letter, proceeds - >I have personally seen stumps which have been built up by pieces of fibro cement so as to make them meet the bearer. > >I have been informed by a most reliable source that the Queensland Forestry Department endeavoured to prevent the use of certain timber but was unsuccessful. It was overridden by a decision of the Queensland Labour Government and that material was used against the advice of the Queensland Forestry Department. {: .speaker-KID} ##### Mr Luchetti: -- I rise to a point of order. I desire to know whether the whole of the statement of the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** is con tained in the letter allegedly addressed to the Queensland Government? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! That is a matter for the honorable member himself. If he wishes to read a letter that he has written it is a matter for him. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- The bathroom- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- I ask that the letter that has been read by the honorable member for Lilley be placed upon the table of the House. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I believe that the letter is the property of the honorable member for Lilley. It is not an official letter written by a Minister. I shall further consider the matter. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- Copies of the letter have been forwarded to State Ministers and I shall be happy to table a copy of the letter. {: #subdebate-28-0-s4 .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy .- I was rather surprised at a statement made by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** to-day. *Conversation being audible,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I can hardly ask honorable members to maintain order if a Minister does not do so. {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN: -- I heard the question asked by the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** this morning, and I heard it said that the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** would reply to-morrow at question time. Much to my surprise the Prime Minister, on the motion for the adjournment to-night, has taken the opportunity to acquaint this House and the country of the fact that he has received a report concerning the matter which had been previously raised by the honorable member for Lilley. I am not acquainted with the facts of the matter, nor are other honorable members, and I ask that the Prime Minister should do the right thing and table the report in this 'House. {: #subdebate-28-0-s5 .speaker-KXB} ##### Mr WATKINS:
Newcastle Some few weeks ago- *Conversation being audible,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! If the House is not prepared to maintain order I can easily leave the chair. The honorable member for Newcastle **(Mr. "Watkins)** has risen on two or three occasions in an attempt to get the call, and I have now called him. {: .speaker-KXB} ##### Mr WATKINS: -Some few weeks ago I directed questions to the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Beale)** and through him to the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner),** concerning the progress of the production of the Hartnett motor car. The Ministers were good enough to reply to my questions, but the replies did not contain the information that I sought. Therefore, I asked for some further information outside this House. The matter originated from one of my constituents who had invested money in the Hartnett Motor Company Limited, and was worried about the progress of the concern, and consequently asked me to make some inquiries. I raise the matter to-night because the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited is controlled by the Commonwealth, and the Hartnett Motor Company Limited is owned by the general public. I cast no reflection on the efficiency of the workmen of the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited, but I must naturally reflect upon the management of that company, in which the Commonwealth owns more than 50 per cent, of the shares. In May, 1950, the Hartnett Motor Company Limited placed an order with the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited for complete sets of panels to be used in the manufacture of its Australian motor car. The Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited provided the Hartnett Motor Company Limited with a Commonwealth Bank guarantee of performance which had the effect of guaranteeing that that company would deliver the panels in accordance with its offer to produce, which covered time, price, and so on. The amount of the guarantee was 10 per cent, of the contract price, which was £144,000. Therefore, the guarantee was £14,400. The Hartnett Motor Company Limited in return provided the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited with a confirmed irrevocable letter of credit for a like amount, that is, £14,400, on which the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited could draw as panels were delivered. As time passed no serious effort was made by the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited to make dies for production, and eventually some of the work was farmed out. By June, 1952, more than a year late for the promised deliveries, the Hartnett Motor Company Limited had not received a single production unit or a bonnet or a grille panel, but they had had a number of chassis lying around for a long time waiting for the delivery of these panels, so that their cars could be put on the market. It may be noted that the panels had been on order since May, 1950, which is nearly two and a half years ago, and *that* delivery had been promised for May, 1951. ' The more the Hartnett Motor Company Limited complained to the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited about non-performance of the contract, the more dilatory did the latter company become, until its attitude culminated in a misleading and offensive letter from the chairman and managing director, **Mr. George** "Watson. The Hartnett Motor Company Limited placed the matter in the hands of its solicitors, who advised it to collect the £14,400 under the guarantee supplied by the Commonwealth Bank. Directly the Hartnett Motor Company Limited collected that money and placed it in trust it had the Commonwealth Bank apparently on its side because the bank took strong action against the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited for further straining its account. . Until this time the guarantee had been merely a banker's document. The Hartnett Motor Company Limited now had it converted into cash. Then, the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited, without making any endeavour to negotiate or treat with the Hartnett Motor Company Limited, and without giving any explanation, went to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and, acting on the clause printed on the back of its order form, took out an injunction which virtually sealed the banking account of the Harnett Motor Company Limited. The Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited demanded arbitration in terms of that clause. As we all know, arbitration is a tedious and costly process. Therefore, I contend that Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited rubbed salt into the Hartnett organization's wounds and virtually brought its activities to a standstill. Its bank account is sealed as the result of the Supreme Court injunction, and it now has to employ solicitors and barristers to prepare a most elaborate case which will cost anything up to £5,000 or £6,000, provided, of course, that the funds can be found for this purpose. The case will probably take from six months to one year to determine. It is typical of the high-handed, disinterested attitude of the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited that, tomy knowledge, it has never sent any of its men to discuss matters with the Hartnett Motor Company Limited, which it has so greatly offended and damaged by failing to fulfil orders. This Government is opposed to government-owned enterprises, yet it is permitting the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited, which it virtually owns because it holds more than 50 per cent. of the shares and appoints three of the five directors, to crucify the all-Australian car project. It is allowing the company to take action at law which any reasonable solicitor would condemn as high-handed and grossly unfair. I believe in government ownership and I believe in close co-operation between government and private enterprise, but this Government has gone to the utmost lengths to hamper, if not to disband, Trans-Australia Airlines. It has also sold the Commonwealth's interest in Amalgamated Wireless (Australasia) Limited, and is now talking of selling its shares in Commonwealth Oil Refineries Limited, and of disposing of the Commonwealth shipping line. All this is being done presumably because honorable members opposite believe that government enterprises are inefficient and are not beneficial to the country, yet another government-controlled organization, the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited, has been allowed to kill the Hartnett motor car project, which is an all-Australian endeavour to provide this country with its own motor car producing organization. One would expect the Australian Government to give solid aid to a project of this kind, but it has done the very opposite. It has killed the undertaking stone dead. If the Government sincerely believes that governmentowned businesses are not efficient' it should do its best to safeguard young enterprises from high-handed action of the kind that has been taken by the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited on this occasion. Whether the Hartnett Motor Car Company can survive now depends entirely upon the Australian Government, or perhaps upon the Government's agency, the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-28-0-s6 .speaker-JVA} ##### Mr MORGAN:
Reid . -As the works of the Commonwealth Engineering Company Limited are in my electorate, I am interested in the remarks of the honorable member for Newcastle **(Mr. Watkins).** For some time past the management and employees of the works have been unsettled because of rumours that the undertaking is to be sacrificed as other government enterprises have been sacrificed. That fear has undermined the efficiency of the whole organization. Apparently the Government is not very much interested in supervising the company properly, just as it has not been interested in supervising the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. {: .speaker-KE8} ##### Mr Kekwick: -- I call attention to the state of the House. **Mr. Speaker** *having counted the House,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- There being no quorum present, I shall adjourn the House until the next day of sitting. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- **Mr. Speaker,** I wish to ask whether- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! There can be no discussion when there is no quorum present. The House stands adjourned until to-morrow at 10.30 a.m. {: .page-start } page 2207 {:#debate-29} ### PAPERS The following papers were pre sented : - >Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for - Aerodrome purposes - Llanherne, Tasmania. > >Department of Works purposes - Launceston, Tasmania. > >Postal purposes - Derwent Bridge, Tasmania. Flinders Island, Tasmania. Lucaston, Tasmania. Public Service Arbitration Act - Determinations - 1952 - No. 60 - Commonwealth Public Service Clerical Association and the Federated Clerks' Union of Australia. No. 63 - Federated Clerks' Union of Australia. No. 64 - Amalgamated Engineering Union and Australian Workers' Union. House adjourned at 11.46 'p.m. {: .page-start } page 2208 {:#debate-30} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Broadcasting {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-JWU} ##### Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP r asked the Minister acting for the Postmaster-General, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the total staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission at 30th June, 1950, and at the 30th June, 1952? 1. In what departments of the commission have increases of staff occurred, what is the number in each case and for what reason were the increases made? 2. How much floor space in Sydney was occupied by the commission at the 30th June 1950, and at the 30th June, 1952? 3. In what buildings is this space located? 4. What departments now require more space than two years ago, how much more do they require and for what reason? {: #subdebate-30-0-s1 .speaker-C7E} ##### Sir Earle Page:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Total strength of Australian Broadcasting Commission staff at the 30th June, 1950, was 1,279; total strength at the 30th June, 1952, was 1,286. 1. Total increase of seven staff members was necessary for regional development (extension of regional news service), increased concert activities, and appointment of an i n ves ti gati ng officer - expenditure. 3 and 4. Floor space in Sydney at the 30th June, 1950, as follows: - Floor space at the 30th June, 1952, as above plus following: - {: type="1" start="5"} 0. No additional accommodation has been provided for TXX staff. The underground extension at Forbes-street, referred to in answer to questions 3 and 4 provides an additional small studio and recording centre' for new type of recording activities. Bourke-street Church provides an additional music studio to relieve the very heavy demand on the limited number of general purpose studios. Coal. {: #subdebate-30-0-s2 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr Casey:
Minister for External Affairs · LP y. - On the 2nd September, the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Mulcahy)** asked the following question : - >Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Development able to inform me whether it is a fact that the Joint Coal Board is negotiating secret contracts with open-cut coal-mining contractors overseas? Is it also a fact that in some instances when tenders have been called contracts have been let to those contractors at such low rates that economic mining operations would be impossible and that the board has made secret adjustments to increase rates? If those matters are correct, will the Minister explain how such contracts are not publicly negotiated in the usual way, and will he also table details of contracts in which secret changes have been made during the last two years? The Minister for National Development has now supplied the following information : - >The Joint Coal Board is not negotiating secret contracts with open-cut coal-mining contractors overseas. The question whether a contract rate is economic depends upon a number of factors, including, particularly, the efficiency of the contractor. The contracts, of course, have been entered into freely by the contractor concerned. In some cases, as a result of changes in the physical conditions or in other factors it has 'been necessary for the parties to subsequently agree on a variation of the conditions of the original agreement. It is a fact that the board negotiated certain contracts for open-cut mining in New South Wales. The rates for overburden and coal and other conditions contained in these contracts were fixed after full examination of costs by the technical experts of the board and the contract documents were thoroughly examined by legal experts before completion. At the time these contracts were negotiated, the field of prospective contractors was extremely limited and if tenders had been called the rate of production must have been retarded. The board's sole aim has been to get the best results in the shortest possible time and this largely accounts for the satisfactory position of coal production to-day. The tabling of contract rates without reference to the plant to be utilized, the conditions of . the ground to be worked, the coal seams, &c, to be won, would be misleading. However, should the honorable member bc concerned with any particular contract, the board would be pleased to furnish him with details of the original contract and of any subsequent variations.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 September 1952, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1952/19520925_reps_20_219/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant