House of Representatives
13 October 1955
21st Parliament · 1st Session
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- QUESTION
- LEAVE OF ABSENCE
- QUESTION
- ORDER OF BUSINESS
- REPATRIATION BILL 1955
- TARIFF PROPOSALS 1955
- TARIFF BOARD
- REPATRIATION BILL 1955
- SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1955
- ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER
- NEWSPAPER REPORT
- QUESTION
- ADJOURNMENT
- ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. C. F. Adermann) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 1547
QUESTION
FLOOD DAMAGE IN INDIA
Dr EVATT:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I ask the Vice-President of the Executive Council, in the absence of the Prime Minister, whether he can expedite the Government’s answer to a request that was made some weeks ago for a grant for the relief of distress caused by the recent disastrous floods in India. I understand that India made a contribution to Australia following the recent disastrous floods in New South Wales. I understand, moreover, that similar representations have been made by the Overseas Mission Department of the Methodist Church. I ask the Minister whether he will investigate the matter. The Government’s answer must have been delayed for some unusual reason. I suggest that it is the wish of the Australian people that some assistance should be given.
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– -A similar question was asked a few days ago. I then acknowledged that the Government had been considering this matter, that on past occasions it had contributed to the relief of distress caused by disastrous floods in India, and that India in turn had contributed towards the relief of distress following the last disastrous flood in Australia. I shall confer with the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs, through whom no doubt requests have been made and inquiries have been instituted, to ascertain whether I can give a reply to the right honorable member, and whether the Government’s decision can be expedited.
page 1547
QUESTION
GYPSUM
Mr ROBERTON:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP
– Is the Minister for Works aware of the fact that the new and singularly successful process of gypsum construction has been adopted as standard building practice all over Europe, Canada and the United States of America? Will he give every encouragement to builders generally to introduce and utilize this new process in our own country, over much of which, and in the territories, there are unlimited deposits of gypsum, and where there is an increasing demand for buildings of every description which cannot be met by the conventional methods of construction ?
Mr KENT HUGHES:
Minister for the Interior · CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP
– I know that the honorable member has been very keen to foster what might be called new or more modern building methods and the use of light-weight materials in order to cheapen the cost of construction. Most of the proposals that have benn submitted to the Department of Works have been investigated very closely by the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station, and most, if not. all, of the forms of construction have been proved to be satisfactory. On the other hand, it is very difficult for the Department of Work? to use every form of construction suggested to it. One very light, weight form of construction cm me to my notice the other day. It was quite sound in itself for certain building purposes, but not quite satisfactory for the type of buildings that the Department of Works constructs. However, I can assure the honorable member that the department; and its research experts du everything they can to keep in touch with the latest methods of construction, particularly of modern homes; but. it i* not possible, as I have said, for the department to accept all the proposals made to it. In fact, most of the materials and forms of construction suggested, whilst suitable for certain types of construction work, are not suitable for the type of work undertaken by the department. Many people have already criticized what might be called the modern homes in Canberra, and want a much more conventional type of home with a high gabled roof. It is very difficult to please everybody. However, I again assure the honorable member that these various forms of construction are kept under constant review by the department even though they are not. always suitable for its purposes.
page 1547
QUESTION
PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE
Mr ANDREWS:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA
– Will the Minister for Health say whether it is true that the British Medical Association is requesting a reduction of the number of pensioners eligible to receive free medical treatment under the pensioner medical scheme ? Is it proposed to apply a means’ test in order to determine which pensioners shall participate in the scheme? If this is so, how has such a position arisen ?
Sir EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP
– The British Medical Association has not requested anything at all with regard to this particular matter. The Government has made a decision respecting the medical treatment of pensioners because of the fact that the new rates of pension, as a result of the liberal treatment of pensioners by the Government during the last five years, the law made it possible for a married pensioner couple to have an income of £15 a week including concessional medical treatment. This has created an anomaly which must be dealt with over the whole of the population, because there are hundreds of thousands of people in Australia whose incomes lie between the basic wage and £15 a week, and the question would arise, if something were not done in connexion with this matter, of providing concessional treatment for these people and that, I can assure the honorable member from my experience of medical practice and of what has happened in other countries, would be an impossible task to carry out.
page 1548
QUESTION
SUPERVISED TRADE UNION BALLOTS
Mr OSBORNE:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question which arises from the debate in the House yesterday on the need for certain safeguards in relation to trade union affairs. Is the Minister aware that one of the principal means by which Communists gain control of trade union affairs is to help their nominees to a controlling position in the federal executives of the unions, from which positions they can intimidate office-bearers of the State branches of the unions concerned with threats of suspension or other penalties, if those officers do not conform to Communist demands? Will the Minister consider the introduction of two democratic safeguards into the industrial arbitration system, the first being that no duly elected officer of a State branch of a trade union shall be suspended or removed from office except by the body that elected him to office and, secondly, that no trade union official shall remain in office without resubmitting himself to election at reasonable intervals, say, not exceeding three years ?
Mr HOLT:
Minister for Immigration · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP
– I shall be pleased to consider the very interesting suggestions made by the honorable member.
Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– My question to the Minister for Labour and National Service is supplementary to that asked a moment ago by the honorable member for Evans. I ask the Minister whether he does not agree that the attitude towards the framework of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act that he evinced yesterday lends itself to giving the green light to Communists to do the very thing just mentioned by the honorable member for Evans. Did the Minister really mean what he said yesterday to the House, that he was not certain that the Government had fully covered in its legislation situations where trade union members were subject to threats of intimidation over secret courtcontrolled trade union ballots. If the Minister did mean that, I ask him whether he has lost sight, altogether, of section 73 of the act, which provides for a penalty of £50 or six months’ imprisonment for any one who obstructs the taking of a ballot or uses any form of intimidation in order to prevent any person from voting who is entitled to vote under the act.
Mr HOLT:
– I tried to point out to the House yesterday that whilst we appear to have covered the position when an election was actually going to be held, there was some doubt as to whether or not we had protected those persons who might wish to bring about an election and who wished to discuss the matter with their fellows in order to persuade them, if they could, that this was a desirable course, only to find that, as a result of that process, they had become subject to threats or intimidation of one kind or another by officials of the union. I do not think that the section to which the honorable gentleman has referred covers that position; nor does section 96n, to which I made detailed reference yesterday. However,
I intend to examine the matter thoroughly in order to see whether any further legislative action by this Parliament is desirable.
page 1549
QUESTION
HAIL-STORM DAMAGE
Mr JEFF BATE:
MACARTHUR, NEW SOUTH WALES
– By way of explanation of a question which I address to the Minister acting for the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, I wish to point out that fruit-growers cannot insure against hail-storm damage. My question is : Has the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization done any work on the use of lockets for the control of hail-storms? If success has been obtained, will the Government reconsider an application to import rockets? An application for this purpose has been rejected. Is it a fact that the cost of the 400 rockets that have been asked for would be less than the cost of one luxury car, and that these rockets would save many thousands of pounds’ worth of fruit and could also be made available for further exploratory research work?
Sir PHILIP McBRIDE:
Minister for Defence · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP
– I am not aware of the stage that work on this problem has reached, but I shall ascertain the position and inform the honorable member.
page 1549
QUESTION
SUPERVISED TRADE UNION BALLOTS
Dr EVATT:
-I desire to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question which is supplementary to the question which he answered on the amendment of the industrial arbitration legislation in relation to ballots. Will the Minister make certain about the present legal position? I think that, in the generally accepted view, the position as stated by the honorable member for Blaxland is correct. Will the Minister examine the recent decisions by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court and the High Court that the so-called court-controlled ballot cannot be reviewed by either the arbitration court or the High Court, notwithstanding allegations or proof of the most grave irregularities? That decision was given quite recently, and I presume that the Minister will agree that if any ballot must be conducted without irregularity and subject to the stringent control of the courts, it is a court-controlled ballot.
Mr HOLT:
LP
– I do not feel competent to discuss in any detail at this stage the point that the right honorable gentleman has raised, but I shall have it in mind in making the general review which I have indicated will be made.
page 1549
QUESTION
PARLIAMENT HOUSE
Mr LAWRENCE:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA
– I should like to ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the House engineers have made any alteration to the amount of heat that is supplied to this chamber. I ask this question because, together with other honorable members, I find that the House seems colder than usual.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Periodical checks are made by the House engineer, and a recent report from him indicates that the air-conditioning of the chamber is entirely satisfactory in every corner.
page 1549
QUESTION
ST. MARY’S FILLING FACTORY
Mr FULLER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I ask the Minister for Defence Production whether, in order to win tradesmen from their present jobs for the St. Mary’s ammunition project, they are being offered an increase in pay of 50 per cent. Has this offer been made to carpenters, bricklayers, plumbers and technicians in many parts of Sydney? What effect will this poaching have upon the economy? Will the Minister prevent this new wave of inflation by ordering the practice to cease at once?
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– This project has been under criticism from certain quarters for some time. The fact that, for mobilization purposes, Australia has a deficiency in explosives of 6,000 tons, or about 60,000 tons in steel containers, seems to be of no importance to the critics. In every war scandals have been associated with munition shortages. Indeed, even in the recent Korean war there was a shortage of ammunition. No doubt the critics would be even more critical if action were not taken to correct the deficiency.
I have had inquiries made this morning from the Utah Construction Company, Concrete Constructions Limited, and the architects, Stevenson and Turner. No general payment above award rates is made. In fact, the contractors have an agreement with the Government, through the Department of Labour and National Service, that they will not, without approval, advertise for labour. Moreover, they have agreed that when they do receive approval they will accept direction as to what form the advertising should take. They have agreed further that they will not indulge in extravagant wage payments. The contractors claim that they have not paid more than the award rates, and that the statement that the nien are working four days of ten hours, each week, with overtime on Friday and Saturday, is incorrect. They do not guarantee any employee that he will receive overtime. They have agreed with the Department of Labour and National Service that, each week, for each man, overtime will not exceed eight hours. There is no guarantee that any man will be allowed to work eight hours’ overtime, or that, if overtime is worked, it will be worked every week. The contractors have made no statement to the effect that a site allowance will be paid. They Lave, in fact, agreed with the department that it will not. They propose to keep to this agreement. The critics are saying that extravagant rates of pay are being offered by the contractors, but to-day there is a strike because they will not agree to pay the high rates demanded by the employees. The critics have a completely twisted version of what has happened.
With regard to the criticism relating to the employment of a certain boilermaker, it appears that he has been employed by the control agency as a boilermaker inspector. He will be included in the staff. He will not be paid overtime but will be paid staff salary and will be required to remain on the job, on demand, seven days a week, rain, hail or shine. He is employed not as a boilermaker, but as a staff man doing an inspection job for the control agency, not for the contracting authorities. No general conclusions should be drawn from that special case. The Department of Labour and National Service has confirmed that the Utah Construction organization has stated that the 826 persons employed have not caused an abnormal movement of persons to the St. Mary’s area. They have come substantially from the Eildon weir project, and others were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Office for jobs, and so on. They have been given no guarantee at all.
Mr Haylen:
– I think the Bells of St. Mary’s are tolling for the right honorable gentleman.
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– With regard to overtime - the eight hours overtime a week that I have mentioned - the company will not work men additional overtime except in exceptional circumstances. For instance, it may he that the men will have to be employed over the weekend to avert damage or danger in the course of construction, and in such particular cases the period of eight hours overtime might be exceeded. In such pases prior approval would be sought. With regard to the extraordinary statement made that the project might ultimately cost £50,000,000 - I see by certain criticism in this morning’s newspapers that the estimated cost has been advanced to £100,000,000 ; they do not do things by halves ! - every inquiry I have made, every inquiry that has been made of the architects, and every inquiry that has been made of the contractor has revealed that, the estimated cost of £23,000,000 will not be exceeded. Indeed, it is possiblethat construction will cost less than that amount. What would be the use of this Government going in for a balanced defence project, creating conventional arms and weapons, unless it provided for the manufacture of ammunition to fire out of those conventional arms and weapons ? I would not be responsible, as the manufacturing Minister, to have an assessment made by the services that on mobilization we would require a certain amount of ammunition, and then fall down on the job by not making the necessary arrangements to produce the wherewithal. The chiefs of staff and the defence services have said that this is a No. 1 priority project. They have said that it must be undertaken. I challenge any honorable member in this House to say that he would take the responsibility of disagreeing with requests of that nature.
page 1551
QUESTION
URANIUM
Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND
– I address a question to the Minister for Supply. Is it a fact that the uranium development agency has built up stockpiles of uranium oxide in the United Kingdom and the United States of America? If it has done so, will this have any effect on the prospective disposal of the increasing output of uranium oxide in Australia? is any further information available regarding the development of the industrial atomic power projects in the United Kingdom and the United States?
Mr BEALE:
Minister for Supply · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– In the first part of the question I think the honorable member made a slip of the tongue when he referred to the uranium development agency; I think he meant the Combined Development Agency. We can assume that stocks of uranium oxide have been accumulated by the agency, which means by the British and American Governments, but the Government has no information which suggests that any such stockpiles will have any effect on the future prices of Australian uranium oxide. The second question, I think, related to information as to the progress of the development of industrial atomic energy in Great Britain and the United States. As to Great Britain - I think I covered this in a statement that I made to the House the other night - there is now a £300,000,000 ten-year programme for the building of industrial reactors in Great Britain. The first of these reactors - the one at Calder Hall - will be ready some time next year and will feed upwards of 50,000 kilowatts of electric power into the British electric authority’s system. That is to be followed, I think, by fourteen or fifteen further reactors over the next ten years or so, developing until in due course almost the whole of the British electrical system is generated by nuclear power. That is a very ambitious and dramatic programme, necessitated by the shortage of coal fuel in Great Britain. That is in addition to the various research reactors which are operating for testing and research purposes in the British Isles. In Canada, in addition to the research reactor programme, a power reactor is now being built in the State of Ontario by the Canadian General Electric Company in conjunction with the Canadian
Atomic Energy Authority. That will be operated by the Ontario Provincial Authority and that, again, will feed power into the Canadian grid. In the United States of America an enormous research and development programme is being conducted. There are probably over twenty reactors in the United States. They have planned for six or seven power reactors-
Mr Calwell:
– I rise to order. The honorable gentleman has been asked a question. He is delivering a lecture on power reactors and what is happening in Canada and the United States. He is interfering with the rights of honorable members to ask questions. I wish he would follow the example of his leader.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! It is generally recognized that a Minister may answer questions in his own way, but I think it would be more advantageous if some of those answers were put in the form of statements.
Mr BEALE:
– With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thought I was directly answering a question upon the power programme in the United States.
Mr Calwell:
– The Minister is consuming our time.
Mr BEALE:
– Then, I conclude by saying that the United States has planned for a large industrial power programme, involving six or seven large power reactors, over the next five years. The British programme will be in operation first, but there is a very big American programme, and I have no doubt that, in the course of a few years after that, there will be many more actual industrial reactors operating in the United States.
page 1551
QUESTION
IMMIGRATION
Mr FITZGERALD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES
– As the millionth immigrant is due to arrive in Australia shortly, I should like to ask the Minister for Immigration whether he can advise the percentage of the various nationalities that have been brought to Australia under the immigration scheme. Will the Minister, through the department, arrange for details of the numbers from each country, and, in addition, advise the ‘ numbers expected from various countries under the 125,000 target for the current year?
There is a strong belief that the influx of British immigrants is falling below the aggregate from other countries.
Mr HOLT:
LP
– That information can be made readily available to honorable gentlemen. The intake of other than British immigrants has varied according to circumstances obtaining in some of the European countries. For example, in the period after the war, when a large displaced persons programme was an element in the general immigration programme, we had a considerable number of people coming to Australia from Poland, the Ukraine and other countries which are now behind the Iron Curtain. Of course, there has not been a continuation of intake from those points. In more recent years, most of our European intake has come from Italy, Holland, Germany and Austria. In still more recent times, there has been an increased flow from Greece. Over the whole period, the British component has amounted to from 48 per cent, to 49 per cent, of the total intake. Far from the British flow falling away, I am happy to be able to report to honorable members my belief that interest has never been keener in the United Kingdom, despite the prosperous and full employment situation there. We are getting a continuing flow, on the scale that we desire, of immigrants from that country. If our resources were greater, we would be able to cope with a bigger British intake, and would be glad to do so. But within the programme we have decided upon, we are getting the numbers of British migrants that we are seeking. I shall make available to the honorable gentleman the break-up of the nationalities as he has requested.
page 1552
QUESTION
THE PARLIAMENT
Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA
– I direct a question to the Vice-President of the Executive Council, a.3 the leader of the House. Will he consider ending the utterly absurd practice of all-night sittings, which have come to be an accepted custom at the close of a session? Does not the Minister consider that it would be far more sensible for the House to sit an additional week than to indulge in the absolute absurdity of sitting continuously, as has sometimes been the case, until 8 a.m.? Does not he agree that it is quite impossible to have a reasonable and sensible debate in the early hours of the morning?
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– The honor; able member has me at a considerable disadvantage, because I cannot remember when we last had an all-night sitting. Indeed, very rarely have we sat after midnight since I have been leader of this House. I suppose that has occurred on no more than about four or five occasions. I do not think we have sat into the small hours of the morning more than once or twice since I became leader of the House. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand what the honorable member is complaining about, although I might say that I completely agree with him that we should not sit in the early hours of the morning. I do not think we can have a worthwhile debate when honorable members are tired. If the honorable member wants the House to sit for an extra week, I remind him that it is not long since 1 was asked to eliminate the Friday sittings. I cannot understand the object of the question or what I am expected to say in reply to it. The facts speak for themselves.
page 1552
QUESTION
COMMONWEALTH SHIPPING LINE
Mr HAYLEN:
– I ask the VicePresident of the Executive Council, in the absence of the Prime Minister, whether he is aware of the existence of a secret document in relation to the sale of the Commonwealth shipping line. Is he aware that such a document has been circulated to the shipping interests in Sydney and overseas that are considered to be prospective purchasers, and that it has been scanned and rejected for the time being i Since a Commonwealth and national asset is concerned, will the Minister make the document available to honorable members?
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– I have no knowledge of a secret document in relation to shipping, although, on recent occasions I have heard something about other secret documents. If the honorable member suggests that there is a conspiracy between the Government and the shipowners, may I tell him that the alleged conspiracy is in exactly the same category as are other conspiracies that have been mentioned recently in this House.
page 1553
QUESTION
WAR SERVICE HOMES
Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES
– I desire to ask the Minister for Social Services a question about war service homes. I refer to information that the Minister gave me earlier about alleged reports of delay in the making of valuations for applicants for finance for homes in the Newcastle, Wyong, Gosford and Woy Woy districts. Has the Minister had an opportunity to investigate those reports?
Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Social Services · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP
– The honorable member was good enough to direct my attention to the fact that, since the Government approved the granting of temporary finance in respect of existing properties, it was highly desirable that valuations should be completed as quickly as possible and that in appropriate cases the applicant should be given a letter approving the granting of temporary finance. Subsequently, complaints were received, particularly from the honorable member for Shortland and the honorable member for Robertson, that delays in the making of valuations were occurring in the areas mentioned by the honorable member for Robertson. A thorough review has been made, and I am very glad to be able to say that, with one possible exception, no delays have taken place. A report that is now on my table lists each of the applications, the date of application, and the date on which the valuation was completed. The one possible exception applies to a property in an outlying district, many miles from Newcastle, .Gosford or Woy Woy, which the valuer was not able to inspect quickly, but he is now valuing that property and will put in his valuation within a very short time. I am very glad of the action that has been taken by the honorable gentleman, because it does permit us to check upon the efficiency and rapidity with which the work of the division is done, and I am. pleased to be able to say that as a result of the examination made no delays, or no unreasonable delays, have come to my knowledge. I am certain that the honorable gentleman, and every other honorable member who sits on the Government benches, will be glad to know that during the last few days the head-quarters of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia has written to the division, thanking it for the promptness and efficiency with which it makes these valuations, and for the courtesy it shows’ to ex-servicemen when the league approaches the division to obtain some help.
page 1553
QUESTION
QUESTIONS
Sir Eric Harrison having asked that further questions he put on the noticepaper,
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– When the Leader of the House indicates that questions shall cease, the Chair has no alternative in the matter. In regard to the recognition that is due to leaders of parties, when the Leader of the Opposition rises to ask a question it is customary for the Chair to recognize the importance of his office and to give him the call.
Dr Evatt:
– None should know that better than the honorable member for Hunter.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– The Leader of the Opposition has received four calls this week during question time, and the honorable member for Hunter one. I have been trying to watch many of his colleagues who have not asked a question, in an endeavour to give them the call. For obvious reasons I gave them preference over him.
page 1553
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Motion (by Mr. Joshua) agreed to -
That leave of absence for one month be given tn the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryson) on the ground of ill health.
page 1554
QUESTION
PENSIONER MEDICAL SERVICE
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr C F Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND
– I have received from the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Eraser) an intimation that he desires to submit a definite matter of urgent public importance to the House for discussion, namely: -
The retrograde decision announced by the Minister for Health for the alteration of the pensioner medical service.
Ls the proposal supported?
Eight honorable members having risen in support of the proposal,
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
ILS J. - ‘ihe circumstances of the decision to whittle down the entitlement of pensioners to medical services appear to constitute one of the sorriest chapters in the whole history of federal government. For some time past there has been evidence of a growing lack of direction in the Cabinet, a sense of indecision, and a paralysis of activity, that is very evident in the barren nature of the legislative programme which it is submitting to the Parliament in this sessional period. It has become increasingly evident in the reversals of decisions which have recently constituted the major factor in Cabinet operation, but the decision in this respect is so extraordinary in the circumstances in which it has been made, and in the merits of what is now being done, that it would be regarded, I think, as almost incredible unless it came from a government with the record which this Government has had in recent months. We have been accustomed indeed to continual reversals by this Government of decisions which it had made in former times. But here is a complete reversal of a decision which the Government proudly announced only one year ago. Last year, the Government announced that 90,000 additional pensioners would come within the scope of its muchvaunted free medical service. The Government took the utmost credit for that situation. It proclaimed it as a bold step forward. If it was a bold step forward twelve months ago, the reversal of the decision to-day is surely a shameful step backwards.
Mr Osborne:
– The decision has not been reversed.
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
-The honorable member for Evans (Mr. Osborne) would be wise to hold his tongue for a little while. If he does not understand, I will explain it to him in simple terms which I hope he will comprehend. First, this constitutes the reversal of a decision which the Government announced with great pride as recently as twelve months ago. I have heard, and every other member of the House has heard, the honorable member for Evans say, “ What matter is not so much the money value of the pension paid by this Government, as the value of the free medical services which are available even to a pensioner who has a pension of only a few shillings”. Under this decision, that free medical entitlement is to be taken away from every future pensioner who is entitled to only a few shillings as a pension.
In what circumstances has this decision been made? This decision has been made in. surrender to an ultimatum issued to the Government by the British Medical Association.
Sir Earle Page:
– Nonsense !
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– The right honorable gentleman says, “ Nonsense ! “ I refer to his own statement, issued at 5 p.m. on the 7th October. It is a very long statement, covering two pages, in which he announces the change that is to be made by the Government. In the whole of the statement, there is not one word to express the Government’s view about the necessity for such a change. Throughout the statement, the right honorable gentleman says, “ The B.M.A. has told us this. The B.M.A.’s view is that. The B.M.A. says this, and the B.M.A. says that “.
Sir Earle Page:
– No.
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– I hope that the right honorable gentleman will speak later.
Sir Earle Page:
– I will.
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– If the Minister intends to speak later, I hope that he will reserve his strength until then.
Sir Earle Page:
– I shall not say another word.
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– Thank you. Let me quote a passage from the statement. I hope the Minister will remain silent while I do so. This is what he said -
Consequently, the B.M.A. informed the Government that it would continue the pensioner medical service . . after 31st October, 1955, only if the service was restricted to pensioners able to satisfy the means test in force at 31st December, 1953.
Was that a request to the Government for consideration of the British Medical Association’s case? It was a decision by the British Medical Association, conveyed to the Government of this country and accepted by the Government of this country. In that sense, this is a shameful surrender indeed. We frequently hear the Government make bold statements of its ability to resist sectional pressure in this community, but on this occasion it has surrendered, and surrendered abjectly, to such pressure.
The third feature of this extraordinary decision to which I direct attention is the hotch-potch character of the proposed arrangement. It will create a very unfair and vicious discrimination between citizens. Every pensioner who has a medical entitlement, provided his income is within the pensioner means test, will continue to enjoy that entitlement, but a new applicant after the 31st October will be submitted to a new and more stringent means test. Obviously, that arrangement will lead to the most extraordinary and unfair discrimination between citizens. Two pensioners, one of whom has an income of £7 a week, may be living side by side. Because he has received his entitlement before the 31st October, the pensioner with an income of £7 a week will be entitled to free medical service, but the other pensioner, who may have a total income, including pension and permissible income, of £5 lis. a week, will be disqualified from the right that his neighbour enjoys. No doubt such discrimination is permissible constitutionally, but it is not permissible in honest government, and surely it is not anything to which a responsible Minister would subscribe his name.
I now direct attention to a second form of discrimination that will be effected by the proposed arrangement. If an appli cant with an income of £5 9s. a week makes his application for medical entitlement on the 31st October, he will get it. Thereafter, even though his income, including the pension, rises to £7 10s. a week, he will still be entitled to free medical service, whereas any other applicant who, on the 31st October, has an income exceeding £5 10s. will be disqualified. Surely such forms of discrimination will create resentment and indignation throughout the community; but, more than that, they ought to be alien to any conception of responsible government in a democracy.
It is necessary to point out also the injury that will be caused by the Government’s decision, which means a return to the means test of 1953. In 1954, the Government agreed that the means test was far too rigid, and it substantially raised the amounts of permissible income and permissible property. It made a feature of the fact that 90,000 additional citizens would become eligible for free medical service under the ameliorated means test, which was adopted because of the change in money values since 1953. Now the Government, at the direction of the British Medical Association, takes a step right back to 1953 - a retrograde step, indeed. It means that a single man or an elderly woman who is living alone, who is paying rent for a room, who is trying to clothe himself or herself on a total income of £5 10s. a week, and who will be an applicant for a pension, will be deprived of the medical entitlement, which all of us who come in contact with pensioners know is one of their most prized possessions. The feeling that in their loneliness, their old age, and their illness, they have the right to free medical attention is very important to them. That right is to be taken from them after it has been accepted as a feature of community entitlement at a certain age. Who will say that £5 10s. a week for the maintenance of a pensioner leaves anything from which to provide a reserve to pay for medical attention? We all know that £5 10s. a week is utterly inadequate for that purpose.
I now refer to the broken pledge that is involved in his decision, which represents another act of repudiation by this Government. Opposition members are continually referring to the Government’s broken promises, because it has broken so many promises. This is the repudiation of one more solemn promise, made as recently a3 last year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) when he stood on the election platform, asked for votes, and made a compact with the electors. In his policy speech of April, 1954, the Prime Minister - the right honorable the Prime Minister - said -
Whatever rate of pension is drawn-
L ask honorable members to note those words - they are also entitled to the benefit of the free medical and medicine service.
Now that right honorable gentleman, the right honorable the Prime Minister, has permitted Cabinet and the Minister for Health (Sir Earle Page) to accept the ultimatum of the British Medical Association to withdraw that free entitlement which he then so explicitly stated would be available to every pensioner in the community. Have honorable members opposite no self-respect whatever? Have they no sense of responsibility ? Are they prepared to do anything at all in order to cling to office? Is the British Medical Association so powerful that the Minister must bow the knee every time it issues an edict? I know he will say that ho cannot impose civil conscription on members of the association. Of course, he cannot do so. But who wants and who needs civil conscription in Australia for reasonable dealings and reasonable negotiation? Has not this Government the power, the strength and the ability to say, “While we are the Government of this country, we will be the arbiters of policy. We and the National Parliament will decide these matters, not any outside junta “?
Effect has not yet been given to the decision. I have every reason to believe that it was concealed from Government supporters for some time. [Extension of time granted.] I thank the House for the extension of time. That the decision was concealed from Government supporters for some time is obvious, because, during the debate on the Social Services Bill (No. 2) 1955, which has just concluded, they were still making a parade of the fact that every pensioner was entitled to free medical service. Indeed. they defended the Government’s decision not to give a larger increase of the pension rate by claiming that every pensioner was entitled to the great advantage of free medical service, although the Minister for Health, at a conference many weeks ago, had given the British Medical Association an assurance that that benefit would be withdrawn. That he did so is evident from his own statement. Apparently the right honorable gentleman withheld the information from his own colleagues. The remedy, of course, is still in their hands. They still have the final responsibility. It is proposed that the decision shall not be implemented until the 3lst October. The responsibility for deciding whether it shall be implemented rests with members of the Government parties. If they allow the Government to implement the decision, they also will be recreant to the pledge that the Prime Minister gave in their name, and in thimost explicit terms, as recently as April, 1954. They will be betraying the pensioners to whom they promised justice. They will be inflicting a real injury on people with as little income, plus pension, as £5 10s. a week on which to maintain body and soul, who will in future, under this Minister’s decision, made at the behest of the British Medical Association, be deprived of entitlement to free medical treatment. I do not know whether this matter will ever come before the House in the form of legislation. One can search in vain for any legislation or any regulation which gives an outline of the pensioner medical scheme. The whole basis of this service - a most restricted service, by the way - is contained, first of all, in a regulation which gives the DirectorGeneral of Medical Services power to establish a medical practitioner service and, secondly, in a series of letters exchanged between the Government and the British Medical Association and a letter sent by the Director-General of Health to medical practitioners throughout Australia. That is the basis on which this scheme exists. Now the Minister will probably, as his answer this morning shows, claim that this step had to be taken because the continuance of the present practice would place pensioners at an advantage as compared with other members of the community - young people with families to rear on similar incomes to those of some pensioners, but who are not entitled to free medical service. Faced with that dilemma, the Minister proposes to go backward, and take a much-needed benefit away from future applicants for the age and invalid pension. Surely what he ought to do, and what the people of this country would wish him to do, and what any enlightened government would do in such a situation, is not to go backward, but to go forward. Of course there is a need to extend some advantage of this kind to young people struggling to rear families and pay for their furniture and acquire homes, on incomes of £13, £14 or £15 a week !
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! What has this to do with the motion?
Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP
– It has this to do with the motion - that the Minister’s argument for withdrawing this benefit is that it is not available to people outside the pensioner range. I am saying that the correct way to deal with this matter is not to withdraw the service from pensioners who need it so badly, but to arrange for an extension of national medical service and medical benefits.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
Minister for Health · Cowper · CP
.- The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) has given us this morning a. typical example of pure exhibitionism, which is, I suppose, inseparable from the fact that he is a trained journalist who once had to seize every opportunity to get in first with the news, whether it was true or otherwise. During the last few months we have had from the honorable member for Eden-Monaro a demonstration of the acme of ignorance, on the occasion when the honorable member submitted to this House a proposal for discussion as a matter of urgent public importance in respect of the Salk vaccine, simply because of claims made in newspapers at the time regarding that vaccine. Now, everybody in Australia agrees that I was right in the attitude that I adopted in regard to that matter. Similarly, we had another example of the honorable member’s exhibitionism when he took it upon himself to desert every one of his colleagues on both sides of the House who had sat as judges in connexion with a matter of privilege. The honorable member decided, after having himself tried the case as a judge here, and found the persons concerned guilty, that he was the only man in the House who had a conscience. It was pure exhibitionism. Again we see, in connexion with this matter to-day, the very acme of hypocrisy.. The honorable gentleman has been telling us, with crocodile tears streaming down his face, that what he would do would be to give these medical benefits not merely to pensioners who have more than £15 a week, but to give them also to everybody in the community. But Labour governments were in office in the federal sphere for some twenty years since federation, and not once did any Labour government suggest a system of free medical practitioner service, even for pensioners. Yet now the honorable member, a Labour party supporter, sheds crocodile tears about the pensioners. While the Labour Government that he supported was in office he never raised his voice in this chamber on behalf of the provision of free medical treatment for pensioners. I know that that is so, because I have been here all the time that he has been here. Neither did any one of his colleagues ever raise his voice in that regard. But now, the honorable member goes off halfcocked because he has seen a statement in the press that I was forced to make because of a false report in one journal, which was apparently obtained from some midnight reveller of one of the parties in this House. I had to put the thing right in the public mind, instead of waiting, as I was trying to do, for the proper time at which it should have been put to the public, which will be when the bill to deal with the whole question of amending the National Health Act, which I have foreshadowed, is before the House. On that occasion the honorable member for Eden-Monaro would have enough information before him on the matter to be in a position to talk about it. But now he rushes in, as he did in the case of the Salk vaccine and in the privilege case. As long as there is plenty of newspaper publicity to be had he is right on the ball straight away, with the idea of making capital out of the misery of people generally.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– “We on this side of the House have always been concerned with-
Opposition members interjecting,
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! The House will come to order or I shall strictly apply the Standing Orders.
Mr J R FRASER:
ALP
– The Minister is being very provocative.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– I sat absolutely silent while the honorable member for Eden-Monaro was speaking, because he said he did not like interjections. I myself do not mind them. The position is that Labour has never done anything, in its many years of office, in the nature of providing this particular service yet now, because the Commonwealth has called a halt, in the general interest, to this particular service in some of its aspects, because otherwise it would materially interfere with all sorts of conditions throughout the country at large, the honorable gentleman claims that we have taken a retrograde step. At any rate, we have established a position in which, as I said in my statement, everybody who is a pensioner at present, no matter on what basis he got his pension, keeps his medical treatment entitlement. It is quite true that all people in future, up to a certain income range, will be able to enjoy that entitlement, but a married couple with £15 a week with a new pension will not be able to keep the entitlement, because their income is £4 a. week above the basic wage, and we could not justify to the people of Australia the provision of free medical treatment for people with such incomes. “We cannot say to some people, “You will get this special treatment because you are old “, and say to other people, “ But because you are young, with two or three children, struggling to educate and keep them, you cannot get this service “. I repeat that never, in the Labour party’s history in office, did it do anything about providing the service that it now claims should be provided.
I should like to put the House clear on this matter. Nothing is being taken away from anybody. Anybody who has received a benefit up to the 31st October will keep it. So there is no retrospectivity in regard to the matter. Every thing being done about it is being done above-board, and the public can make up its mind on the matter.
Mr Costa:
– It is very disappointing.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– The honorable member says it is very disappointing, but I point out to him that the Government has so relaxed the means test that it is twice as liberal as it was when the Chifley Government went out of office. In addition, all pensioners-and one reason why this whole matter is being dealt with at this particular time is that there has been an increase of 10s. in age and invalid pensions - and new pensioners who have not had pensions before will have the advantage of an increase of 10s. a week. The ordinary pensioner will be entitled, automatically to this free medical service, but new pensioners with substantial means will not be entitled to it. 1 venture to say that it will probably be found that new pensioners with means will already be insured with a medical benefits organization, and all they will require to do will be to continue to pay their contribution of ls. a week, which they can do from the increase of 10s. in the’ pension which the Government is granting.
The honorable member for EdenMonaro claims that we are taking a retrograde step. Of course it is a retrograde step in his opinion ! The fact is that he has never uttered in this Parliament, one word of praise for the pensioner medical scheme since it was initiated. The first thing he thinks of doing is to decry the scheme from various aspects.
Mr Beazley:
– Why does not the Minister give us arguments instead of abuse?
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– I shall give the honorable member arguments. The figures that we have show that, at the very most, only 1 per cent, of the total number of pensioners will be affected by the Government’s decision. But that decision will remove the anomaly which I mentioned in my statement. The possibility of the complete abolition of the means test may soon become an urgent matter for the whole of Australia. The Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt), in his policy speech, before the last general election, made such a proposal. He did not say anything about giving concessional medical treatment to the people who will be affected by this decision, and he did not propose to give concessional medical treatment to all the people. He said that the introduction of the scheme would cost £200,000,000. The provision of free medical treatment to all the people who were working and earning and being taxed would have cost at least another £100,000,000, but the right honorable gentleman did not mention that fact. Surely this matter should be dealt with at this time in its proper perspective. But we should not link a subject of this importance with the subject of concessional fees for a certain section of the community which can already be provided for under the liberal health legislation of this Government. We must try to keep the field clear .so that an issue such as the means test may be dealt with on its merits.
Opposition members interjecting,
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– For heaven’s sake let me go on.
Mr Whitlam:
– The Minister is incoherent.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– The honorable member says that I am incoherent. I suppose that is what has kept me in this Parliament for 36 years, and enabled me to put into the statute-book of this country many provisions that have saved it from calamity. That is a nice sort of remark for a barrister to make.
Opposition members interjecting,
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! The House must come to order.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– I made provision for the formation of the Australian Loan Council, the National Debt Sinking Fund and the central bank-
Mr Pollard:
– The tragic Treasurer.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) is disobeying the Chair. I have called for order, and I ask him to apologize to the Chair for his interjection.
Mr Pollard:
– I interjected amidst the general disorder when it was not possible to hear the Minister because of the interjections of other people. I apologize.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– The honorable member must obey the Chair. If he persists in interjecting after I have called for order, I will ask him to leave the chamber.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– The question that arises is this: If the Government is to provide free medical services to pensioners with incomes of £15 a week, what should it do for other members of the community who earn up to £15 a week? The Opposition has suggested that those people should be provided with a concessional service. Who will give them the concessional service? A concessional service has been given up to the present by the doctors of Australia, who have willingly forgone 40 per cent, of their usual fee in order to give their services to pensioners under the arrangement with the Government. Opposition members may laugh at that statement if they wish, but what was the position when the doctors came to the Government voluntarily in 1951 and said that they were prepared to accept 6s. for a consultation and 7s. 6d. for a visit to pensioners when the usual charges were 10s. 6d. and 12s. 6d. respectively? That offer was made subject to review in the event of a liberalization of the means test. That position has obtained ever since, except for some rises that have been allowed on account of the general rise in prices. The doctors have given this concession. Would they be able to give a concession to hundreds of thousands of other people who are earning their livings? Who could determine what income those people were receiving ?
I have been associated with the medical profession for 54 years, and with the friendly societies during the whole of that period, and I know what led to their decline and fall. It was brought about because they were not able to police the income limit on which they had agreed with the doctors. For years, they were permitted to pay concessional fees to the medical profession in respect of members who earned up to £10 a week, which was quite a, good income in those days. It was found that, although some members had said that they were earning £10 a week, they were actually earning £4,000 or £5.000 a year. Finally, it was found impossible to assess the financial position of members. Such a position would arise if concessional treatment were to be extended to all members of the community who earned up to £15 a week. How could the income of those people be assessed ? Or would the Opposition make all medical treatment free? If that were done, it would be necessary to nationalize the medical profession.
What has happened in the United Kingdom ? The Government dragged the doctors by the hair of their heads into the national health scheme. Inside three years, the Government had to find £35,000,000 under the doctors’ award in retrospective payments in order to keep the scheme going. The Government had tried to insure the health of the people on the basis of panel payments to the doctors which were very much less than the amount that a medical man could live on.
Surely the proper course for the Australian Government to take is to ensure that a satisfactory system is operating in this country. Alongside the pensioner medical service, the Government has built up the medical benefits societies. In Western Australia, for example, about 80 per cent, of doctors’ fees are found by the medical benefits organizations and the Government. In New South Wales, over 70 per cent, of doctors’ fees are provided in this way. The medical benefits scheme is growing like a mushroom. The medical benefits organizations have told me that last year their coverage comprised about 4,000,000 people and it was growing at the rate of 17 per cent, a year, because of the satisfaction that is being given.
What has happened as a result of that position? Last Friday, I gave some figures to the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, who is a. member of the Canberra Community Hospital Board, on which, incidentally, he ha.s rendered very good service. I gave the figures for Canberra, which I was able to get more readily than figures for any other part of Australia. I pointed out that, because of a combination of things that the Government had done, including the health and medical services, and free life-saving drugs, although the population of Canberra increased from 22,000 to 32,000 in six years, an increase of 45 per cent., the daily average of patients in the hospital was no greater than when the population was 22,000. The average length of time spent in hospital by individual patients had fallen from fourteen days to nine days.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! The right honorable member’s time has expired.
Motion (by Mr. McMahon) proposed -
That Sir Earle Page (Minister for Health) be granted an extension of time.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– I do not wish to continue. I move -
That the business of the day be called on.
Mr Beazley:
– I rise to order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister for Social Services (Mr. McMahon) has moved one motion and the Minister for Health has moved another. Which is the motion before the Chair?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Every one knows that if the motion “ That the business of the day be called on “ is moved, the Chair has no alternative but to put that question.
Mr Daly:
– Is the Minister in order in moving that the business of the day be called on as he finishes his speech ?
Sir EARLE Page:
– Yes, I am in order in doing so.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! I will pUt the motion -
That Sir Earle Page (Minister for Health) be granted an extension of time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Sir EARLE PAGE:
– Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that honorable members were getting a little weary of my talking, as they were trying to talk so that I could not be heard. But if the House wishes to hear me I shall say only a few more words on the matter because I shall speak at much greater length when I deal with the subject as a whole.
I shall deal briefly with the charges against the British Medical Association. The members of that association have never left in any doubt their position regarding the pensioner service. The representatives of the association, in their first interview with me at which they agreed to the introduction of the Government’s scheme, stated that they were prepared to give very favorable terms in connexion with this matter. They said that they were also ready to police the scheme with their disciplinary committees which would try to prevent its abuse by the very few dishonest doctors. But they said that they would retain to themselves the right to review the matter when the means test was liberalized to such a degree that the amount of income that they derived from the Government was too great a proportion of their total income. They expressed the opinion that the system should not continue after that stage had been reached. They felt strongly that if the amount that they obtained direct from the Government became, say, 20 per cent, or 30 per cent, of their total income, then the Government, by applying economic pressure to the weaker members of the profession, would be able to enforce its policy on the profession, even though it might be detrimental to the general health of the community and the proper conduct of our medical system.
Motion (by Mr. McMahon) proposed -
That the question be now put.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– I cannot accept that motion. It is out of order. I call the honorable member for Yarra.
Mr KEON:
Yarra
.- Mr. Deputy Speaker-
Motion (by Mr. McMahon) proposed -
That the business of the day be called on.
Mr Daly:
– I rise to order. Is the Minister for Health entitled to have an extension of time, and then wave to another Minister to move that the business of the day be called upon, merely to escape criticism “of his incompetence in the matter under discussion?
Sir Earle Page:
– On the point of order - I took advantage of the extension of time because I had not concluded my remarks. Earlier it had been agreed by the party leaders that after one member from each side had spoken the business of the day should be called upon, and I moved to that effect.
Mr Keon:
– The statement of the Minister for Health that it had been arranged that there should be only two speakers is not correct. I asked the Vice-President of the Executive Council how many speakers on this matter he would permit. Ho said that he would agree to there being one speaker from the Opposition side, one from the Government side and one from this corner of the chamber. Moreover, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, called me in accordance with that arrangement, before the Minister for Social Services put his motion. Therefore, I had the call and was entitled to speak.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– The Chair must comply with the Standing Orders. When the motion, “ That the business of the day be called on “ is proposed, I have no alternative but to put it to the House.
Mr Costa:
– I rise to a point of order-
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– The honorable member cannot take a point of order at this stage.
Question put -
That the business of the day be called on.
The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)
AYES: 50
NOES: 45
Majority . . . . 5
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
page 1562
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Motion (by Sir Eric Harrison) pro posed -
That order of the day No. 1, Government Business, be postponed until a later hour this day.
Mr KEON:
Yarra
.- This is but another attempt to prevent honorable members from having a “ Grievance Day “. The Vice-President of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison) promised honorable members who previously objected to this sort of thing that they would be given an opportunity to grieve once the Estimates had been passed. I wanted to grieve to-day over the fact that the party led by the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) yesterday created a record by voting with the Government against a motion which provided that pensions should be increased in accordance with upward movements of the basic wage. I wanted to grieve considerably about that. The cost-of-living figures-
Honorable members interjecting,
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! I cannot hear the honorable member for Yarra.
Mr KEON:
– In case you did not hear me above the uproar, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I repeat that I wanted to grieve over the fact that yesterday, according to the historians, for the first time since federation the major part of the Opposition voted-
Mr Edmonds:
– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member is obviously complaining about the events of a previous day’s sitting and is taking advantage of his point of order to say what he had intended to grieve about if he had been given an opportunity.
Honorable Members. - That is not a point of order!
Mr Edmonds:
– I suggest that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must decide whether or not it is a point of order. I submit that the honorable member is not entitled at this stage to discuss his grievance.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– I could not, of course, allow the honorable member for Yarra to develop that subject.
Mr Edmonds:
– He was well on the way !
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Honorable members were making so much noise that I could not hear clearly what the honorable member for Yarra was saying.
Mr KEON:
– I am amazed at the attitude of the members of the right honorable member for Barton’s party because I thought that they would be only too pleased to take advantage of “ Grievance Day “ in order to explain their attitude yesterday-
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
– I rise to order! Is it, in order for the honorable member for Yarra, at this stage, to refer to a debate that took place in committee?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– It is not in order for the honorable member for Yarra to go outside the scope of the motion, which is that order of the day No. 1 be postponed.
Mr Pollard:
– I, also, rice to a point of order. Is it in order for the honorable member for Yarra to refer to the “ right honorable member for Barton’s party”? There is no such party in this Parliament.
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– Hear, hear! There is no such party.
Mr Pollard:
– It is the Australian Labour party.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! The honorable member for Yarra may proceed.
Mr KEON:
– I was objecting to the deferment of “ Grievance Day “ again on this occasion despite the fact that fortnight after fortnight the VicePresident of the Executive Council (Sir Eric Harrison) has deferred “ Grievance “ Day “ with promises that when consideration of the budget and the Estimates had been completed he would give us an opportunity to air our grievances. As evidence of the need for a “ Grievance Day “ debate, I was about to refer to the happenings in the House yesterday-
Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP
– In the committee.
Mr KEON:
– When all members of the Labour party who were present joined with members of the Government parties to gag the debate on the Social Services Bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! The honorable member will confine his remarks to the motion before the House.
Mr KEON:
– The matter that I have mentioned, which the Chair has ruled I may not discuss, is, I consider, of sufficient importance to warrant our being given an opportunity on “ Grievance Day “ to discuss it. I believe, also, that it is of sufficient importance to warrant an explanation by the members of the so-called Labour party of their actions yesterday. Therefore, I oppose the motion.
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– in reply - I do not intend to take up the time of the House on this matter, but I think we should clearly understand just what has happened. The House has had an unequalled opportunity - I do not suppose it has been equalled before in the history of this country over a score of years or more - to debate in detail the Estimates which, in themselves, enable a form of grievance debate to be indulged in. The honorable member for Yarra (Mr. Keon) has had time - almost unlimited time - to raise whatever matters he might want to discuss in this House. It was rather significant that while the consideration of the Estimates was in progress, in the main the seats allotted to the corner party were devoid of members in the chamber, and members of that party did not avail themselves of the opportunity to grieve if they desired to do so.
Mr Keon:
– I rise to order ! The VicePresident of the Executive Council knows perfectly well that because of the unnecessary badgering indulged in by himself and by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), we were limited to one speaker in fourteen speakers on the Estimates, and consequently we did not get even an opportunity to address the chamber during the consideration of certain sections of the Estimates.
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– I think that that statement is a reflection on the Chair in relation to the calling of honorable members. The manner in which the calls are allotted in this House has nothing to do with me. The main point is that last night this House was continued in session on the adjournment debate until about midnight, although the motion for the adjournment was moved at about 10.45 p.m. That debate provided the honorable member with almost unlimited time in which to grieve, and I think that on calm reflection he will admit that this is just a little bit of sham fighting on his part to delay the expedition of a bill that is before the House. We intend to proceed with the matter, notwithstanding the objections of the honorable member.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1563
REPATRIATION BILL 1955
Second Reading
Debate resumed from the 12th October (vide page 1531), on motion by Mr. Francis -
That the bill be now read a second time.
Upon which Mr. Haylen had moved by way of amendment - -
That, all words after “That” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “having regard to the sustained and continuous decline in the value of Australian money, the bill be redrafted to provide substantially greater benefits for ex-service personnel and their dependants with effect as from the 1st July, 1955 “.
Mr McCOLM:
Bowman
.- The provision of what might be termed repatriation benefits in the form of war pensions goes back in British history far beyond our Australian history. I understand that it was in 1593 in the United Kingdom that Lord Willoughby of Eresby introduced a form of pensions for soldiers. In his honour some one wrote the following lines, which I should like to read to the House: -
To the soldiers that were maimed
And wounded in the fray,
The Queen allowed a pension
Of fifteen pence a day;
And from all costs and charges
She quit and sent them free;
And this she did all for the sake
Of brave Lord Willoughby.
The preamble to the bill that was drawn up by Lord Willoughby was quite interesting, and it is most appropriate in our present time. It sets out the whole basis of war pensions in the following words : -
Forasmuch as it is agreeable with Christian Charity, Policy, and the Honour of our Nation, that such as have adventured their lives and lost their limbs or disabled their bodies or shall hereafter adventure their lives, lose their limbs or disable their bodies in the defence and service of Her Majesty and the State, should at their return be relieved and rewarded to the end, that they may reap the fruit of their good deserving and others may be encouraged to perform the like endeavours.
Those words, which were written in 1593, are equally as appropriate to-day as they were then. I should like to suggest that the tradition that was commenced with the writing of that preamble has been very proudly carried on by Her Majesty’s subjects in Australia. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who has served for a record term in that capacity, has assisted the carrying on of that proud tradition more than did any of his predecessors. The persistence that he has shown in working in the interests of ex-servicemen is reflected in the many amendments that have been made to the repatriation legislation since he has occupied the repatriation portfolio. His quality of sincerity has made him beloved of all persons ex-servicemen and others with whom he has come into contact. I am glad of the opportunity to pay that personal tribute to Senator Cooper.
I think it is well worth while to cite some figures to show what has happened since the preamble to which I have referred, which set the tradition, was incorporated in the 1593 bill. Last year, 900,141 ex-service personnel of both world wars were in receipt of repatriation pen sions from the United Kingdom Pensions Office, out of a total population in Great Britain of 47,000,000 people. In Australia at the present time, 584,975 ex-service personnel, out of a population of approximately 9,000,000 people, are receiving repatriation pensions. I think that this achievement says much for the. attitude of successive Australian governments which have administered the repatriation legislation.
Mr Haylen:
– Does the figure that the honorable member cited in relation to Australia include wives and dependants?
Mr McCOLM:
– I am not certain whether it includes wives and dependants. At present, the average amount of war pensions being paid is approximately 37 per cent of the full general rate pension. That fact speaks for itself. I should like to congratulate the Government not only on the increases of pensions that it has made during its term of office, hut also on the amendments that it proposes to make in the principal act by the bill before the House. The increase from £9 5s. to £9 15s. in the special rate pension gives a rise of 10s. a week. In the general rate pension, the increase from £4 10s. to £4 15s. has given a rise of 5s. a week. The increase from £4 to £4 10s. has given a rise of 10s. a week to war widows, and the attendants’ allowances have been increased in two categories. In the first category, the increase is from £1 15s. to £2 1 5s., and in the second from £3 10s. to £4 10s., a rise of £1 a week in each case. Service pensions have been increased from £3 10s. a week to £4, a rise of 10s.
Over and above that, and, I think, most important of all, is the removal of the ceiling limits. I do not propose to discuss that in great detail. The people who have been affected by it in the past and who have been relieved by the removal of the ceiling limits at the present time are the ones who will truly appreciate the action the Government has taken in this matter.
I do not believe that repatriation questions should in any way be treated as a political football. I do not believe that they should be treated as a political football by either political parties or ex-service men or women’s organizations. But the sad fact arises that in fairly recent months ex-servicemen’s organizations have been allowing themselves to be used as political footballs. I quote the outstanding example of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia at Darwin in the case of the Japanese pearl divers. They came in and made a loud noise and many public statements on this question. They made statements that were completely opposed to the feelings and the beliefs of the federal body of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. That particular section of the league allowed itself to be used purely for political purposes. Our ex-servicemen’s organizations have a great strength, and they serve a very useful purpose in our community, but their usefulness and their strength will be maintained only so long as they remain non-party political bodies. If they do other than- that, they will eventually destroy themselves and, as a result, a great influence for good in our community will be removed.
Any government, regardless of its political views, must find itself in a position of difficulty and embarrassment from time to time with the representations it receives yearly from the various ex-servicemen’s organizations. As the secretary of the Government members ex-servicemen’s committee, I know that our committee has received representations from only a fraction of the number of organizations that have approached the Government directly. Even so, we have had dealings with different exservicemen’s bodies, the Australian Blinded Soldiers Association, the Commonwealth Council of Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Associations, the Legion of ex-Servicemen and with the South African War Veterans Association. All the questions that have arisen from the visits we have had, and from the correspondence we have received, have led to discussion either with our own sub-committees, or with the Minister concerned, and in a number of cases, with both.
I can only say that in the vast majority of cases that have been put before our Government members ex-servicemen’s committee and which have been discussed with the Minister, the Minister has convinced us that the course he has taken, that the decisions he has made are both logical and just, and that he has been working truly in the interests of exservicemen and has their interests at heart. I do not propose to spend all my time extolling the virtues of what this Government lias done since 1949 or what it is doing, by this present bill, on behalf of the ex-servicemen. I believe that we should take this opportunity to discuss quite frankly some of the contentious subjects that are dear to the hearts of some ex-service men and women.
Firstly, I propose to make mention of the very contentious subject of the onusofproof provision - section 47 of the Repatriation Act. Before doing so, I think it would be well for me to remind the House that if an ex-serviceman puts in a claim for a pension, his claim goes, first, to a repatriation board in his own State. That board, at the present time, consists of three ex-servicemen. If it rejects his claim, he has the right of appeal to the Repatriation Commission. At the present time, the three repatriation commissioners are ex-servicemen. If, in turn, they reject his claim, it will then go either to an entitlement appeal tribunal or an assessment appeal tribunal. The entitlement appeal tribunal is by far the more important of the two bodies. At the present time, the chairman of each of the entitlement tribunals is an exserviceman, as are their members. In respect of the assessment tribunal, at least one member - the chairman - is an exserviceman. I do not believe that any exservice man or woman could ask for a better set up in the form of either the bodies to which they make their initial claims or the bodies to which they take their successive appeals.
There is not the slightest doubt, either, in the Government’s mind, in the minds of Government members or in the minds of the vast majority of ex-service men and women, that the boards, commissions and appeal tribunals set up under the Repatriation Act are manned with men of the highest integrity who have the interests of the ex-service men and women at heart. At the same time, they have a duty to perform. That duty is to interpret the act as it is laid down. I feel that this might be where there arises one point that has become a great bone of contention. It would be completely wrong, and completely foolish, to deny that there are some cases in which it does appear that an injustice has been done, or, perhaps I should say, in which justice has not been done. Cases have occurred in which people have appeared before tribunals and in which it has subsequently been found that, in the first instance, they did not receive the benefit of the doubt. That is an undoubted fact, but it would be equally wrong and equally foolish to attempt to claim that this has affected any very great number of people. It has affected only a very small number indeed, but the fact that it has affected a small number has left a doubt in the minds of a large body of people.
I think we might examine what could be done and, in fact, what attempts have been made to eliminate that. The chairmen of the three entitlement appeal tribunals are legal gentlemen. I should like the House to bear in mind that I am not attempting to cast any reflection on their integrity or their sincerity. It is conceivable that three lawyers, being only human, might give different interpretations of the same act. I do not say that that occurs, but, from the figures that I have been able to obtain relative to the number of applications approved by the various tribunals, it seems that there must be differences of opinion in the interpretations made. How can that difficulty be overcome? One might say that the Government could give a direction to the chairman of a tribunal or to the tribunal itself. Not only the Minister for Repatriation and other Ministers, but also rank-and-file Government supporters, consider that it would be completely wrong to attempt to coerce the tribunals.
It is true that, in 1953, the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Spicer), at the request of a number of honorable members, submitted through the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies), gave an interpretation of the principal act. Copies of the interpretation were circulated by the Repatriation Commission to all officers dealing with pension claims and all the repatriation boards. In addition, the Minister forwarded copies to all war pensions entitlement appeal tribunals and assessment appeal tribunals. I have not time to read the interpretation, but I hope that another honorable member will read it later. It set out clearly the AttorneyGeneral’s interpretation of some of the contentious sections of the act. There cannot be the slightest doubt about the intentions of the Government in this matter, for they were clearly stated in that interpretation made in 1953. I do not know, and am not prepared to say, whether the Government’s intentions are being given effect in exactly the same manner by every tribunal. I sta te merely that the possibility of removing difficulties should be carefully investigated. The Government has made a number of improvements to the machinery provisions of the repatriation legislation, all of which are designed to assist applicants for benefits. An example of those improvements is the amendment of the principal act to be effected by this measure, which will clearly establish the right of an appellant whose case has been referred back to a war pensions entitlement appeal tribunal under sub-section (6.) of section 64, to appear again before the tribunal, with an advocate, if he so desires, to make submissions for him.
As I have stated, the Government is satisfied that the provisions relating to the onus of proof and the benefit of the doubt are clearly stated in the act and that they are being given effect. However, there is still a slight doubt about the manner in which they are interpreted. I have stated what I consider may be a possible solution of the problem. In 1953, the Government tried to make clear to the tribunals exactly what its intentions were, and, in fact, it has made its intentions clear. It is possible that some of the difficulty is caused because the tribunals do not interpret the act in the same manner. There is only one way of removing this difficulty for all time. The intentions of the Government and the integrity of the tribunals are beyond reproach. The Government, quite rightly, does not consider that it should dictate to the tribunals.
There is justifictaion for the establishment of a simple form of appeal to a court purely on questions of law. I have heard that an amendment to this measure proposed in another place was designed to take all the proceedings to a court and, in fact, to empower a court to do all the work of a tribunal. Other Government supporters and I are completely opposed to such a course, and I believe that the great majority of associations of ex-service men and women also are opposed to it. Ex-service men and women are far more competent to deal with these matters than is any court of law. However, it must be admitted that at times it would be of advantage to have a court give an interpretation purely on a point of law, and I hope that, in the not-far-distant future, the principal act will be amended to make provision for this course. If it were adopted, an applicant who considered that the law had not been justly interpreted would have the right to take the matter to a court. Some authorities maintain that such a right already exists, but other eminent lawyers do not agree. If it were made clear, by an amendment of the principal act, that a case could be taken to a court purely on a question of law, we should be able to obtain a proper legal interpretation of the act as it stands at the present time. I am certain that, if such an interpretation were unfavorable to exservice men and women, any government that happened to be in office would immediately amend the act to remove the unfavorable effect of a court’s decision. If that were done, all doubt would be removed from the public mind. The tribunals would have definite guidance, and would not be hampered by the legal jiggery-pokery and hocus-pocus that could result from the acceptance of the Opposition’s amendment. If the course of action that I have proposed were taken, we should safeguard the real interests of ex-service men and women and enable them to obtain legal interpretations of the act that would remove all doubts from their minds.
Mr Haylen:
– Does the honorable member understand that the Opposition intends that the judge shall be a reviewing authority and not a court usurping the functions of an assessment appeal tribunal ?
Mr McCOLM:
– I do not think the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) understands what I have said.
I have stated that the appeal to a court should be only on a point of law and not on the facts.
Mr Haylen:
– That is the intention of the Opposition’s amendment.
Mr McCOLM:
– I should like to mention now another matter that, at times, is fairly contentious. I refer to the fact that a person whose appeal is rejected by a tribunal is not notified in writing of the reason for the rejection. The applicant’s ignorance of the reason for the rejection of his appeal has, in many instances, caused much ill feeling. “We on this side of the House have given the matter very careful consideration, and we are of the opinion that it would not be in the interests of ex-servicemen, and more particularly, in some instances, of their next-of-kin - I do not propose to deal with this point more specifically - that written notification of the reasons for the rejection of an appeal be forwarded to the applicant. In fact, it might greatly prejudice the interests of ex-servicemen and their next-of-kin. Therefore, we do not subscribe to the idea.
Mr Morgan:
– It would be prejudicial only in certain instances.
Mr McCOLM:
– If one applicant is to receive written notification, all must receive it. No exceptions can be made.
Mr Morgan:
– There could be discretionary power to give such notification on request.
Mr McCOLM:
– How can an exserviceman or his next-of-kin know, before making the request, that the answer is likely to be unfavorable? For the reason that I have mentioned, we on this side of the House do not support the idea that written notification of the reasons for the rejection of an appeal should be given. However, an applicant is entitled to a reason, and I suggest that it should be possible for the Repatriation Commission to include on the notice of rejection advice in words similar to the following : -
If you will ring Mr. So-and-so of the Repatriation Department at such-and-such a number, an interview will be arranged for you so that you may obtain a full explanation of the reasons why the appeal has been rejected.
That would remove much of the ill feeling that occurs at present. The officers who conducted such interviews would have to have great human understanding and be well versed in practical psychology. I envisage them working within the spirit of the preamble to the first pensions measure passed in the United Kingdom, to which I have referred, and within the spirit of our own Repatriation Act, to assist ex-service men and women by advising them with sympathy and understanding. I feel quite sure that in some cases a little judicious questioning in a kindly way could, and probably would, elicit information and evidence which had not previously been put before boards, commissions or tribunals. Iri such cases it could help to bring about a further and successful appeal, and I think that the idea, is well worth considering.
The final word that I should like to say concerns the members of organizations who have approached both the Government and the Government members’ ex-servicemen’s committee with suggestions as to what should be done, or possibly could be done, to assist them. I refer particularly to the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association, and the Blinded Soldiers Association. For a number of years there has been a. feeling among members of both of these organizations that they should receive free medical benefits for their wives and children. We have discussed this matter with the Minister for Repatriation, and in his wisdom, I think with very considerable justice, and with our agreement and backing, he maintains that the dependants of ex-servicemen, other than war widows, are not the responsibility of his department to anything like the same extent as are other men and women who are still suffering from war-caused disabilities. In other words, he thinks that if some added benefit can be given, it should be given to ex-service men and women who are suffering as a direct result of their injuries, and not directly to the dependants of persons who at present receive some form of compensation for their own suffering. There is much to be said for and against this proposition. The tragedy and sorrow that have come to many families because of the war-caused illness of a husband or son are known to most honorable members. I think that they will agree that the Minister for Repatriation is just in his approach to this problem, at the same time sympathizing completely with those whom he cannot assist further at the moment. I hope that improved conditions with the passing of time will enable us to help these people in the field of social services. I feel that particularly in regard to blinded mcn, because it must be admitted that an anomaly exists in their case. The dependants of a civilian pensioner receive free medical treatment, without the application of any means test. The dependants of a blind ex-serviceman do not receive that1 free treatment, and I hope that in future we shall be able to do something about it.
Mr Andrews:
– Would the Minister not consider accepting responsibility for the wives of blinded soldiers, because the British Medical Association was willing, apparently, to have them included?
Mr McCOLM:
– I agreed with the Minister’s view that that is not in fact a repatriation matter. In conclusion, I should like to say that one of the finest gestures that the Australian Commonwealth could have, and should have, made on the occasion of its jubilee would have been the granting of full repatriation benefits to those men of the South African war who, having volunteered to fight for our country, and for a principle that was approved by our country, do not now receive those full benefits.
Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Ballarat
– I think it must be said, in all fairness, that this very important bill is the most generous that has come before this House for many years. Honorable members have endeavoured to approach the matter in a non-party spirit. The honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) told us throughout his speech that he was adopting a non-party attitude, and I commend him for that. While I am commending persons, I commend the honorable member for Dawson (Mr. Davidson) for his speech, which was one of the most informative that we have heard for a considerable time. However, several matters must be mentioned. First, the amendment moved by the Opposition is formal. I am disappointed in it, because it prevents me from placing before the Chair an amendment which I think would be far more useful and which merits great consideration. I shall now have to leave it until later when we are in committee. I intended to move for the addition of a new clause to make provision for the establishment of a royal commission to ascertain and inform the Parliament of suitable standards of living and comfort which should be established and maintained for the comfort and needs of the various recipients of repatriation payments. Let us look at the greater reason for such an amendment than for the purely formal amendment moved by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen). This bill provides for most generous treatment to certain sections of ex-servicemen. Totally and permanently incapacitated soldiers who are married will receive £15 a week, and they have expressed complete satisfaction with that amount. It is not for us to say whether or not that amount is sufficient; it is for the ex-servicemen themselves, and I am glad that they have written in those terms to the Minister. The extraordinary position is that nobody knows why the amount should be £15 a week. Let us take the case of a man on a 100 per cent, pension, who receives, in addition, an age pension. If he is married, he and his wife will receive £14 10s. a week. Let us consider the case of a man who is over 60 years of age, and who, all his life, has suffered a 100 per cent, disability. At that age he would be quite unfit for any sort of work at all. He receives £14 10s. a week, while the totally and permanently incapacitated soldier and his wife receive £15 a week. I do not see any reason for the difference. They are very fine distinctions and the payments should be based on some system or reasoning, but up to date I have not found any system or reasoning in the fixing of those variations in rates.
The honorable member for Lalor directed attention to the position of widows, but he did not really deal with the matter at all. If a royal commission examined these matters, it would have before it evidence relating to the conditions of war widows. For example, why should a war widow be limited to an income of £7 10s. a week under the terms of this bill, when a totally and permanently incapacitated single exserviceman will receive £9 15s. a week? Where is the rhyme and reason for that differentiation? The war widow has lost her man. She sent him away to the war and he was killed. She faces life as a widow without her partner. For some reason or other she is regarded as being able to get by on considerably less than is some soldier who did his job and returned in a very bad state of health. He receives £9 15s. a week, but for some reason the war widow is supposed to get by on £7 10s. a week. That is really a grievous matter which a royal commission should consider, especially as- the War Widows Guild has, time and time again, made representations for better treatment and produced supporting evidence to the Government. There are only a few of these people, but they merit the greatest consideration. I know a lady who recently became a war widow. She and her husband lived together in a flat, for which they paid about £4 a week. Then her husband died as a result of war injuries. She receives a pension of £7 10s. a week, but she has to pay £4 a week for her flat. Does the Minister for the Army (Mr. Francis) think that she should give up her flat and take a room somewhere else at a lower rent? Surely honorable members will agree that, when a woman loses her husband, the home in which she lived with him is the greatest asset that she has. She can invite her friends there and can continue to live in much the same way as before. It is quite clear that a pension of £7 10s. a week is not enough to enable a war widow to pay for reasonably comfortable accommodation. I say that the pension should be increased, in accordance with a formula based on evidence produced before a royal commission such as I have suggested.
Some months ago, one newspaper - from the look of the print on the cutting that I have, it was probably the Melbourne Argus, the journal that always supports me - published the budget of a war widow with two children. The mother’s allowance was £4 a week. It will be £4 10s. a. week when this bill has been passed. The children’s allowance was £1 14s. 6d. a week. That will not be altered by this bill. The home allowance was £1 14s. 6d. a week. That will not be altered either. The cost of maintaining a home has risen in the same way as other costs have risen, but there is to be no increase of the home allowance. The education allowance shown in the budget was lis. 6d. a week. That will not be increased by this measure. The total income of the widow was £8 lis. a week. When this bill has been passed, it will be £9 ls. a week. Then her expenses were given. As a family man, I think the figures were very near to the mark. Milk cost her 15s. 9d. a week, bread 8s. 2d. meat £2, groceries £2 5s., fruit and vegetables £1 3s. - they seemed to like a lot of fruit, but fruit is good for children - rent £2 5s., firewood 10s., and gas and electricity 14s. The total was £10 0s. lid. I think that is a very reasonable budget. But, although her expenses were £10 0s. lid. a week a few months ago, her income when this bill has been passed will be only £9 ls. The newspaper article stated that child endowment of 15s. a week had been excluded from her income, but excluded from her outgoings was expenditure on clothing, school fees, chemist’s goods and entertainment.
It must be apparent to all honorable members that the pension proposed for war widows will be grossly inadequate. It is high time that a proper inquiry was made into the needs of pensioners. If we had proper information about those needs, I believe the war widows would be much more likely to receive justice than they are at present. The amendment that I have foreshadowed suggests that we try to ascertain a suitable standard of living for pensioners, which then should be established and maintained. The totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen have asked that their standard of living be maintained. They appreciate what the Government has done for them, but they realize that the benefits that have been conferred upon them now may be taken from them by a depreciation of the value of money as time goes on. They want their present standard of living to be maintained. They suggest that their pension should be attached, so to speak, to the basic wage, the C series index or some other reliable guide to the real value of money from time to time.
We hope that that will be done. We believe that it must be done before any real progress can be made in this field. It will not be of much use to increase the war widow’s pension from £4 to £4 10s. a week if wo do not increase also the home allowance, the children’s allowance and the education allowance. As the value of money decreases, so the value of pensions and allowances decreases also. We must find some means to maintain the real value of these payments.
I turn to the appeal tribunals. I am grieved that the honorable member for Parkes has foreshadowed an amendment which any member of the Labour party should regard as scandalous. It is not in accordance with Labour principles, and the splinter group over there ought to be ashamed of itself for having prepared it. The honorable member for Parkes said -
One of the amendments that I foreshadow concerns the matter of appeals, which we consider can best he handled by the High Court as the final arbiter.
Surely that conflicts with everything that the Labour party has ever said on the subject. Labour men have never been in favour of appeals in repatriation cases being subjected to the expensive processes of the law, if that can be avoided. When that amendment is put, this party, as the true Labour party, will not support it.
I wish to deal with the appeal tribunals as I have found them to be. It was wrong and reprehensible for the honorable member for Parkes to make a statement such as this -
That the resistance is there is made manifest when one reads that brilliant medical men outside the Repatriation Department who give their evidence - unbiased evidence - and are careful to write a case history in order to help the department, arc brushed aside.
That is completely wrong. The honorable member should not have made such a statement. If he had investigated some of the cases dealt with by the tribunals, as most honorable members have done, he would know that the tribunals are composed of responsible men. They have their difficulties, of which they are well aware. An appeal tribunal consists of a legal man, assisted by medical men. When the members of a tribunal make a decision, they make it on the basis of legal requirements and the medical evidence supplied to them. I have been at pains to help some people to supply that evidence on certain occasions. The tribunals are prepared to receive any evidence that can be adduced in support of a claim, even evidence of a fragmentary nature. Tribunal members have told me that they are bound to make their decisions on the basis of legal requirements, medical evidence and what they know of medical science. Sometimes, although they would like very much to allow an appeal, legal requirements and the medical evidence produced preclude them from doing so. They have the quality that is called human sympathy. They would like to use it to influence decisions in favour of applicants, but they dare not do so. They are sympathetic men but, as members of, so to speak, a legal and scientific tribunal, they are bound to make their decisions on the basis of the facts. I have always found that they do so in a most responsible manner.
The honorable member for Dawson foreshadowed an amendment, the effect of which would be to enable people who could produce extra evidence to place that evidence before a tribunal, without the necessity, as I gathered from what the honorable member said, for the evidence to be examined by the tribunal first to see whether it was material and relevant. “Mr. Francis. - The honorable member for Dawson did not foreshadow an amendment. He referred to a clause of the bill which proposes an amendment of the act.
Mr JOSHUA:
– I took it that that was the purport of the amendment. Under the act as it stands, if a person produces additional medical evidence, that evidence is submitted to the tribunal, which has to decide whether the evidence is material and relevant to the case. If the tribunal decides that the evidence is materia] and relevant, it proceeds to re-hear the case. That is the present procedure. Under the new procedure, when additional medical evidence is produced, the tribunal will re-own the case and consider the evidence. It will not have to decide, as a preliminary step, whether the evidence is material and relevant to the case. I do not think that provision will be of very much help.
I suggest that the Government give consideration to another method of granting relief, which I feel is warranted and goes to the very root of this business about the onus of proof. I know of claims that were rejected - quite soundly rejected - by appeal tribunals, although the tribunals were sympathetic to the claimants, because the necessary evidence had not been produced. I say that a man who had an honorable and gallant record in the forces, who for years preserved his independence, supported himself and paid his own medical expenses, is entitled to every consideration.
Silting suspended from 1245 to 8.15 p.m.
Mr JOSHUA:
– Before the suspension of the sitting, I bad been dealing with the onus of proof, and I had indicated that, in my opinion and experience, the members of the “War Pensions Entitlement Appeals Tribunals did their work with great patience and a great sense of responsibility, and that they made their decisions after taking into consideration the legal aspect and the scientific and medical evidence placed before them. However, in some cases, although the tribunal is eager to assist disabled ex-servicemen, it is unable to make a finding in favour of the appellant because there is insufficient medical or scientific evidence to support the appeal.
The Government has introduced amending legislation which it believes will be of assistance to applicants for pensions. During the suspension, I was informed by some honorable members that the Government proposes to make provision in the Repatriation Act for a process that has been in operation for some time, the benefits of which some ex-servicemen have already enjoyed. It is proposed that any additional evidence that is obtained shall be considered by the Repatriation Commission, and shall then be submitted to the appeal tribunal to decide whether it is material to the case. I understand that in some cases ex-servicemen have not been permitted to attend the sittings of appeal tribunals at which additional evidence has been considered, but it is now proposed that they shall be permitted to do so. I assume that those persons who are assisting the appellants will be permitted to attend, and that they will be able to give evidence in support of the appeal. I have enjoyed that privilege on some occasions when I have assisted exservicemen. My party supports that part of the amending legislation which makes provision for such a procedure.
The particular point to which I wish to direct attention is the fact that the inclusion of such a provision in the act will not overcome all the difficulties that are associated with the onus of proof. Very close examination reveals that one element that ought to be considered is being left out of consideration. I think the Parliament should direct its attention towards providing that an ex-serviceman shall be entitled to have the whole of his case properly ‘ and sympathetically reviewed. At the committee stage, I propose to move an amendment to provide that the appeal tribunal, having considered all the evidence, may make a suitable recommendation to the Minister for sympathetic treatment of the application. That element is not included in the existing legislation, but I believe that it is the desire of the Parliament that it should be considered. Ex-servicemen are supposed to receive sympathetic treatment. The Minister will probably say that on many occasions he has stated that the Repatriation Department gives sympathetic consideration to these cases.
Mr Francis:
– And I repeat that statement, without qualification.
Mr JOSHUA:
– Let me inform the Minister that, as the law stands, a war pensions entitlement appeal tribunal is not in a position to give sympathetic consideration. The tribunal, after examining the material medical, scientific and legal aspects of the case, may not find in favour of the appellant, but that is as far as it can go. I have been told by one tribunal that that is as far as it can go, and I agree that that is so. What I am saying is that other evidence which is received during the hearing does not get any consideration at all.
Mr Francis:
– I should like the honorable member to tell me what evidence cannot be given, and why it cannot be given.
Mr JOSHUA:
– -I did not say that the evidence is not given. I said that it is given, but that it does not receive con sideration. Let me quote the case of a soldier who fought in Egypt during World War I., and who was evacuated sick. The evidence placed before the tribunal revealed that he was a gallant soldier. Some difficulty was experienced in relation to his medical records but, with the assistance of the tribunal and the assisting officers, that matter was straightened out. It seems that the soldier in question suffered from some sort of stomach trouble. The evidence revealed that he collapsed on the first day after his discharge from the Army and that thereafter he was treated by a doctor, who charged him for his services. This young man had a job on the trams for about twenty years. Although he had frequent absences from work because of his stomach trouble, he did not receive any benefit from the Repatriation Department. He gave every indication of being a man of independence who stood on his own feet, and who endeavoured to earn his living and lead a respectable life without calling on anybody else for assistance. Eventually he suffered from an ulcer, and it became necessary to decide whether his war service had anything to do with this condition, which had been developing for years. The tribunal decided, on the evidence before it, that his war service had nothing to do with his condition.
Mr Francis:
– The evidence that the honorable member has just outlined could be placed before the tribunal.
Mr JOSHUA:
– I gave the evidence to the appeal tribunal. The certificate that we obtained from his employer had been obtained with great difficulty. The original employer had died, but his song furnished a certificate stating that they had been working with this lad when he collapsed. I also obtained certificates from the tramway board to prove his long absences from work. The whole history of this case indicated that it was a very deserving one, but we were unable to obtain the necessary medical evidence for the tribunal to find in the appellant’s favour. Unfortunately, one doctor had died, but another doctor who had treated him for twelve years furnished a certificate that was in his favour.
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– Which is the evidence that the honorable member says could not be considered ?
Mr JOSHUA:
– I produced to the tribunal additional evidence in the form of letters and certificates. I said to the tribunal, “ This is the best evidence that L can furnish “, and the tribunal said that the evidence would be considered. [ then said, “ In the event of the tribunal finding that this evidence is material and relevant, I wish to tell you that I cannot furnish any further evidence. Is the evidence that I have furnished sufficient to enable this man to win his appeal?” The tribunal replied, “ If we decide that this evidence is relevant, he has gone a long way towards winning his case “. But the tribunal eventually decided that the evidence that was produced was not sufficient to enable the appellant to win his case.
Mr Francis:
– How long ago did this happen ?
Mr JOSHUA:
– It happened only a few months ago. I say that here is a case of a man who has a gallant record, and is a very fine type of man who is worthy of all the consideration he can be given by the department and this House, and I am sure that everybody would willingly give it to him, but the entitlement appeals tribunal did not see its way clear to allow the appeal, although it had every sympathy with the appellant. Can the Minister say that the element of sympathy was being given its full weight?
Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944
– “With great respect, the honorable member said that the evidence had been placed before the tribunal, which found that some of it was not relevant. The tribunal obviously considered the whole of the evidence.
Mr JOSHUA:
– The tribunal considered the medical aspect only. I say that what should be considered are not only the legal and medical aspects, but also the element of sympathy, which must enter into consideration of a matter, because that element is recognized in our ordinary judicial procedures. Many juries which bring in a verdict of guilty add a recommendation for mercy to the verdict. This is not exactly in the same category as a recommendation for mercy, but it is along the same lines. We are trying, in relation to this case, to have the element of sympathy given itS full weight, and sympathetic treatment accorded to the appellant. We say that that principle is based on sound reasoning, and is analogous to an established judicial practice. I believe that in some cases the entitlement appeals tribunal should make a recommendation to the Minister, or the Repatriation Commission, stating that, as far as it can see, the case cannot succeed, but that it draws the attention of the Minister to certain facts corollary to the case.
Mr Francis:
– If the honorable gentleman will identify the case for me I shall examine it.
Mr JOSHUA:
– The tribunal could direct the attention of the Minister to the fact that the evidence in the case had raised difficulties, and that one doctor had died, but there was evidence based on certificates which the tribunal believed to be true yet could not recognize it as medical evidence, because of its lack of weight as such evidence. I believe that if the tribunal were empowered to do so. it would render to the Minister such a certificate recommending sympathetic treatment and relief could be granted in cases in which the tribunals cannot grant it at present. I believe that the tribunals would be happy to operate such a system. I do not mean that a tribunal would make such a recommendation in every case, because there are some instances in which obviously the appellants have no real case but are trying to build one up. In other cases, however, there is an element of doubt, and there are other factors which should have the most sympathetic consideration. I believe that tribunals could examine those aspects of cases and, where they thought fit, could make appropriate recommendations to the Minister for the granting of relief. I think that the adoption of such a procedure would overcome much of the difficulty we are experiencing and would prevent much of the quite unwarranted criticism of entitlement appeals tribunals which, as far as they can go at present, are doing a very good job.
In my opinion the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) made a very weak reply to the case advanced for free medical treatment for the wives of blinded ex-servicemen. The British Medical Association is quite willing that this small section of the community be so treated, and if doctors are willing to engage in such treatment the Government might well take advantage of their willingness and make this service available, quite apart from the desirability of extending such a benefit to other sections of the community. The fact is that the wives of blinded ex-servicemen can get this treatment from the medical profession if the Government is agreeable; they have asked for it, and the British Medical Association is prepared to give it. .! should like the Government to consider seriously the provision of this service.
Earlier in my speech I mentioned the inadequacy of widows’ pensions and stated that in order to raise them to the level of the pension paid to a single totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman would mean an increase of £2 5s. a week of pension and involve an additional expenditure of £3,300,000 a year. I think that that would be wise expenditure, and as the Government has exhibited such a generous spirit in relation to many aspects of this bill - something I am glad to see and which I am sure will gladden the hearts of the whole community - I should like to consider this matter further, and to ensure that war widows get something extra.
During the committee stage my party will move two amendments, one of which will provide that a new clause be added to make provision for the establishment of a royal commission to ascertain and inform the Parliament of suitable standards of living and comfort which should be established and maintained for the comfort and needs of the various recipients of repatriation payments.
The only other point with which I wish to deal is that I have encountered, as other honorable members must have encountered, cases of war widows who, at the age of 50, find that their eldest children, aged sixteen-
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:
-Order! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr WIGHT:
Lilley
.- It is not often that the Government has the pleasure of bringing into this Parliament a bill, which receives commendation from all sides of the House. It is usual for the Opposition to criticize strongly any bill of this character. On this occasion that has not been the case. The last speaker on the Opposition side, the honorable’ member for Ballarat (Mr. Joshua), paid the most complimentary tributes to the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) and the Government for the introduction of this legislation, lie made two points, however, to which I wish to reply. First, the honorable member for Ballarat said that the reply made by the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) to the case put for dependants of blinded ex-servicemen was weak. Let me inform the honorable member for Ballarat that the honorable member for Bowman did not make a weak reply to the case, but gave a very explicit and truthful reply to it. He pointed out that this was not a matter to be dealt with under the Repatriation Act, or by the Minister for Repatriation. It conies within a completely different field. The honorable member for Bowman has been investigating this subject with a view to trying to ascertain whether, if there is really an anomaly, it can be rectified. If the honorable member for Ballarat had done justice to the honorable member for Bowman he would have paid a tribute to him rather than suggest that the reply made by the honorable member for Bowman to the case advanced was somewhat weak.
The other point raised by the honorable member for Ballarat concerns entitlement appeals tribunals, in relation to which he proposes to submit an amendment during the committee stage. I cannot agree with his views on that matter. He has suggested that if the decision of a tribunal is adverse to the appellant, there should be recourse to the Minister for Repatriation so that the appellant may put his case to the Minister for further consideration. I suggest that if such a system were implemented, every single appeal rejected by the tribunals would be brought to the Minister, who would have time to do nothing else but examine case histories of rejected appeals. I would resist strongly any suggestion that we should remove from the entitlement appeals tribunals the right to be com.petely independent bodies. Who can deny that the most just, the most sympathetic and the most fair way of dealing with repatriation problems is finally to give them to independent tribunals constituted, as the entitlement appeals tribunals are constituted, of ex-servicemen with distinguished war records, who were described by the State president of the returned servicemen’s league in Queensland as “ bending over backwards to try to assist ex-servicemen in the hearing of cases “ ? Sol can assure the honorable member for Ballarat that at the committee stage his amendment will meet with a considerable amount of opposition.
It was pleasant to hear the genuine attempt of all honorable members who have taken part in this debate to express themselves with real sincerity in relation to the repatriation of ex-servicemen. I think that the honorable member for Bowman expressed the position clearly this morning when he said that all governments had done much to improve the standards of repatriation.
The honorable member for Bowman cited the number of people who benefit from repatriation in the United Kingdom and in Australia. He was asked by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) whether his figures included dependants. At that time, the honorable member for Bowman had not the full report from which he was quoting, and was not quite clear whether the figures included dependants. I am now able to state that the figures given at that time do include dependants. During the suspension of the sitting, I obtained this information for which the honorable member for Parkes asked. As at the 31st August, 1953, Australia, with a population of 9,000,000, had 584,975 persons - that is ex-servicemen and dependants - who were in receipt of war pensions under the Repatriation Act in respect of service in the wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45. These figures do not include service pensions. In the United Kingdom, with its population of over 50,000,000, only 900,141 persons, including dependants were in receipt of pensions in respect of service in both wars under United Kingdom legislation.
Another interesting point which I think is worth knowing, is that the amount of money expended by the United Kingdom Government on repatriation as at the 31st March, 1954, was £43,156,719, whereas, in Australia, the figure was £36,7S5,6S4. I quote those figures further to illustrate how proud all members of the Australian Parliament may be, because the members of all parties helped to bring about these benefits. So all honorable members and the people of Australia may be proud of the manner in which they have honoured their obligation to the ex-servicemen of this country.
All governments, State and Federal, in this country, have done much in the matter of rehabilitation and the repatriation of our ex-servicemen - all governments, that is, but one. One government only has evaded and refused to shoulder its responsibility in that matter, and that is the present Queensland Government. I am not being political when I make this statement. Let me say that war service land settlement is one important part of repatriation and reestablishment. The late Premier of Queensland, the Honorable Mr. E. J. Hanlon, was a returned soldier, and he did introduce a scheme of war service land settlement. But he was succeeded by the present Premier, a Mr. Gair, who has expressed his sentiments about returned soldiers in the Queensland Parliament. I shall quote from a copy of the Queensland Parliamentary Debates. When a member of the Queensland Parliament was emphasizing the need for the Queensland Government to play its part in the repatriation of ex-servicemen, Mr. Gair interjected -
Men went to the war to get out of their obligations.
Let that be clearly understood; the Premier of Queensland stated that men went to the war to get out of their obligations.
Mr Haylen:
– On what date was that said?
Mr WIGHT:
– In 1932. It is reported at page 923 of the Queensland Parliamentary Debates. Mr. Gair said that by way of an interjection which was followed by uproar. I have perused the report of that debate, and I find that there is no record of the present Premier rising to his feet in order to make a personal explanation to suggest that he did not mean what he had said. He did mean what he said, and he proved it recently. After the previous Labour Premier of Queensland, who was a returned soldier, had introduced war service land settlement in that state, this gentleman, Mr. Gair, abolished it. No longer can the ex-servicemen of Queensland avail themselves of a soldier settlement- scheme.
I shall now deal with the bill before the House. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Repatriation Act 1920-1954. It will do three things of great importance. First, it will increase pension rates. Secondly, it will abolish the limitations on pensions which could be received by ex-servicemen by abolishing the ceiling limits. Thirdly, it will amend the machinery that deals with appeals heard by appeals tribunals. The proposed increases in pensions are worthy of examination. The first increase concerns the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, the totally and temporarily incapacitated exservicemen, and blind persons, all of whom are grouped under the beading of special pension rates. The special pension rate has been increased from £9 5s. to £9 15s. a week for a single man. That is the amount of income that a totally and permanently incapacitated, or a totally and temporarily disabled, soldier will now receive if he is not of the age at which he i? also able to claim the service pension. In addition, there has been an increase from £1 15s. a week to £2 15s. a week in the allowance paid to the attendants of totally and permanently incapacitated and blinded ex-servicemen who, because of their disabilities, require to have the attention of attendants.
Suggestions have been made in the past that this Government has not been giving these people sufficient remuneration. It should be clearly established that this is the basic rate of pension which the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman can receive. If he is single, hp will receive £9 15s. If he has a wife and child, the following rates will bo payable: - A pensioner and his wife will be paid, bv way of pension and allowance, a total of £11 10s. 6d. a week.
A married pensioner with a child aged twelve years will receive, in respect of the child, a war pension of 13s. 9d. a week, an education allowance of lis. 6d. a week and child endowment of 10s. a week. If he also has a child of fourteen years, he will receive in respect of that child a war pension of 13s. 9d., an education allowance of 15s. and child endowment of 5s. The family income will then total £14 19s. 6d. a. week. If the father is so incapacitated that he needs the assistance of an attendant, an additional £2 15s. a week will be paid to him, making a total income for that family of £17 ]4s. 6d. I consider that that is a generous and reasonable pension.
Under the terms of this bill, the Government is abolishing the ceiling which previously limited the income of a single pensioner to £5 12s. 6d. and the income of a married pensioner to £9 12s. 6d. As a result of the abolition of the ceiling rates, the totally and permanently disabled ex-serviceman who attains the agc of 60 years will be able to draw, in addition to his war pension, his social services pension which is known as the service pension. That means that if he is eligible for a service, age or invalid pension as well as his totally and permanently incapacitated pension, his total income will bc- £15. I suggest that this indicates that, the Government has gone thoroughly through the Repatriation Act in order to ascertain the problems which are associated with repatriation and which are causing the greatest difficulties to exservicemen. In order to obtain this information, the Minister for Repatriation has been in constant contact vith all ex-servicemen’s organizations. In the period of time during which he has been Minister for Repatriation, he has gradually implemented all the requirements of ex-servicemen. The general rate pension, which is usually referred to as the “ 100 per cent, rate “ has been increased from £4 10s. to £4 15s. Let me make it clear that the 100 per cent, disability is an entirely different classification from the totally and temporarily or totally and permanently disabled classification to which I have just referred. A pensioner whose war pension classification is 300 per cent, is able to work and, indeed, he does. If such a pensioner is so incapacitated as to be unable to work, he would qualify for the totally and temporarily or totally and permanently disabled pension, that is the special rate to which I previously referred. Therefore, a married man on the 100 per cent, rate will receive a pension payment of £6 10s. Cd. In addition, he may earn his living. For this he must be paid, under the law, no less, than the award rate. He will certainly receive more than the basic wage. Let us consider how much extra his family will receive if there are children. I am assuming that he has not attained the age of 60 years. If he has a child aged twelve years, a war pension allowance of 13s. 9d. a week and child endowment of 103. a week will be paid in respect of that child. If he has another child, fourteen years of age, he will receive a further war pension allowance of 13s. 9d. a week, and child endowment of 5s. a week. In all, he will receive £8 13s. a week in pension payments in addition to what be can earn by reason of his employment in industry. That sum is paid by the Repatriation Department to compensate him for the disability from which he suffers as a result of war service. Under the existing legislation, because of the ceiling limits which were imposed in 1943, once a pensioner attains the age of 60 years and becomes eligible for the service pension, he is denied the full service pension. If, by that time, he is single, or a widower, he is unable to obtain from both his pensions more than £5 12s. 6d. a week. If he is married he can obtain no more from the two pensions than £9 12s. 6d. a week. However, under the amending legislation which we are now discussing the situation will be very different. Instead of £5 12s. 6d., the single pensioner will be entitled to £7 10s. If he is married, he and his wife may receive between them, from service, age, and war pensions, a total of £14 10s. 6d. a week. Therefore, the Government can claim that it is bringing the war pensioners into a field in which they will not be prejudiced because of their war service, as they were when ceiling limits were imposed.
I come now to the proposed increase of war widows’ pensions. The honorable member for Ballarat referred to the situation in which war widows were placed.
Under this bill a war widow who is more than 60 years of age may obtain an income of £7 10s. a week. This will be made up of a war pension of £4 10s., a domestic allowance of £1 14s. 6d., and an age pension of £1 5s. 6d. A widow who is ineligible for the age pension and has, say, two children, one of whom is under twelve years of age, will receive a war pension of £4 10s., and a domestic allowance - because she has children - of £1 14s. 6d. For the other child aged, say, thirteen years, she will receive a war pension of £1 6s. 6d., an education allowance of lis. 6d., and child endowment of 5s. The total income for the three members of the family will be £9 16s. a week. If the widow happens to have three children, one of whom is attending a university, her total income will be £13 7s. a week. Therefore, the Government can say quite honestly that it has faced its obligations and done what can only be described as a first-class, and sympathetic job in regard to war pension rates. As I have said, the service pension has been raised from £3 10s. to £4. Therefore, pensioners in the 60 years and over bracket will benefit not only by the pension increase but also by the abolition of the ceiling limits.
I want now to come to the alteration j, proposed in clause 6, in the method of hearing appeals. These proposals were referred to by the honorable member for Ballarat. First, I should say that the claim of an ex-serviceman undergoes a series of hearings, which begin when he first seeks from the department recognition that his disability has been due to war service. The medical evidence i3 then considered by a repatriation board. This comprises three returned soldiers, who give the claim every consideration, and “bend over backwards” - to quote the words of the State president of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia in Queensland - to give the ex-servicemen the benefit of the doubt. It must be remembered that the board includes at least one member who has been selected from a panel of names submitted by the ex-servicemen’s organizations. It is reasonable to assume that if those organizations felt that their representative on the board was not doing his job, or that sympathetic consideration was not being given to claims, he would be removed from the board, upon the expiration of the period for which he had been appointed. That could be done by omitting his name from the panel of possible appointees submitted to the department.
Mr Joshua:
– The finding is not based on sympathy.
Mr WIGHT:
– Honorable members must not forget that sympathy comes into the matter when the onus of proof is under consideration. The benefit of the doubt is always given to the appellant.
Mr Joshua:
– The finding is based on the medical evidence.
Mr WIGHT:
– All the available evidence is placed before the board and the onus of proof is removed from the appellant. The board will go out of its way to giant the claim if there is in the evidence anything that will make it possible to attribute his disability to war service. If an appellant feels that the board has dealt harshly with him he may appeal to the Repatriation Commission which, again, consists of ex-servicemen, whom one would reasonably expect to be sympathetic. The Repatriation Commission goes right through the medical history of an ex-serviceman who lodges an appeal, and searches through the files in_ an endeavour to find some way of tying up the disability for which he has appealed with something that happened during his war service. If the commission is unable to satisfy its mind that there is no doubt whatsoever about the cause of the disability, and if it finds for certain that, it cannot relate the appellant’s disability to his war service, it rejects the appeal. If the commission rejects the appeal, the appellant can make his final appeal to a completely independent tribunal.
Mr Beazley:
– But the commission does not call evidence to prove that the disability is not related to the appellant’s war service.!
Mr WIGHT:
– I shall explain thai aspect of the matter in a moment. The tribunal, which, also, is composed only of ex-servicemen, is inclined to be sympathetic to the cause of the ex-service man. It considers the evidence that is now submitted, not only by the appellant, but also by his advocate. That is the manner in which appeals are dealt with. The commission makes available a full summary and the medical history that is relevant in regard to the appellant - all medical history, because there may be something in it that the appellant or his advocate can link to the disability in respect of which he is claiming. The summary of medical evidence is perused by the tribunal, and it is closely scrutinized by the advocate, or by the appellant himself, because somewhere in the summary of evidence the advocate who has been selected by the appellant from, perhaps, the returned servicemen’s league, which supplies an officer for this purpose, or from the Repatriation Department, which also supplies officers for this purpose, or one of the skilled advocates who is available, may find something related to war service. The advocate can, with permission, search the full files relating to the appellant which are in the possession of the Repatriation Department. So, he is able to construct his case to enable him to place before the tribunal all of the evidence and the interpretations that can be gained from what is contained in the summary of evidence. In order to support the claim, he has the right to go to any medical man he wishes to select. The advocate can go to the medical man, show him the summary of evidence, and ask, “ Can you relate this to the disability that is suffered by this ex-serviceman ? “ Invariably, the medical officer W 111 do his utmost - he will go to extreme ends - to relate the disability to war service, because he is sympathetically inclined to ex-servicemen. So the advocate and the appellant go before the tribunal.
It has been suggested that the onus of proof must be on the commission and the board to disprove that the disability was caused by the appellant’s war service. Now consider the usual procedure that the commission adopts. The appellant has all the evidence which might show that his disability is related to his war service. The tribunal, sitting in judgment, peruses the summary of evidence and the files. As the matter has gone to the tribunal, it is reasonable to assume, because it was rejected by the board, and rejected, also, by the commission, that there is evidence contained in the summary of evidence which disproves, in the minds of the members of the commission, that the appellant’s disability could possibly have been caused by his war service. So the advocate terriers to the tribunal, on behalf of the appellant, the arguments as to why the appellant’s disability can be related to his war service, Immediately some doubt may be created in the mind of the tribunal, which is required to weigh the evidence that has been submitted by both the commission and the appellant. The tribunal weighs this evidence. If it is possible to give credence to the arguments advanced by the advocate, the matter is resolved in favour of the ex-serviceman - always with the onus of proof on the commission to prove that the disability is not related to the appellant’s war service. Any element of doubt must be in the mind of the tribunal, and it is unreasonable to assume that any ex-serviceman-
Mr ACTING:
- DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr. McLeay). - Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.
Mr GRIFFITHS:
Shortland
.- This debate has proved to be really remarkable inasmuch as every supporter of the Government who has spoken so far has endeavoured to defend the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), the officials of the Repatriation Department, and the Repatriation Act. They have strictly avoided any reference to the justification of the various tribunals refusing pensions in cases to which so much publicity has been given lately. I refer to the cases of Dr. Glissan, Laurie Atkins, and Mrs. Latter. I believe that the Government members are unhappy about the position in relation to those cases, which are similar to many other cases that have been mentioned in this House from time to time by me and by other honorable members. That is why I have repeatedly stated that there should have been established another joint parliamentary committee to discuss and work out all of the problems associated with the Repatriation Act, especially those involving the application of section 47.
I do not intend to answer the long dissertation of the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight), and the aspects that have been raised by the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) and other supporters of the Government. The honorable member for Lilley has explained the procedure of the tribunals, and he asserted that they bend over backwards to try to help ex-servicemen in their applications for war pensions. The honorable member explained at length how the tribunals examine all of the files and evidence at their disposal. However, he forgets - and the repatriation tribunals forget - that many things happen during war-time of which no record is made. I believe that that is true to-day especially in relation to ex-ser icemen of World War I., many of whom have suffered during the last 30 or 40 years from disabilities due to the service that they gave to the nation. In many instances there is no record of events which caused their disabilities, because they happened on the field of battle. That can be proved by people who are able to give evidence of what actually happened in certain encounters in France during World War I., and, more recently, in Malaya. I consider that something should be done to put beyond all doubt the application of the Repatriation Act to ex-servicemen who require assistance. Once and for all, this matter should be elevated above party politics.
The honorable member for Bowman indicated that he favoured in some respects an appeal from the decision of a tribunal in relation to a matter of law. I want to say to him that, as far as I know, the intention of an amendment that was moved in another place by the Labour Opposition was to enable matters which it was considered the tribunals had not properly assessed to be decided by a supreme court or the High Court. I urge the Government parties’ ex-servicemen’s committee, of which the honorable member for Bowman is a member, to reconsider this matter before consideration of the bill in committee is completed. I urge him to ask the » Government to adopt Labour’s proposal to enable something to be given to ex-servicemen who are refused pensions because the tribunals have discharged the onus of proof. I consider that it should not be left to the determining authority to decide whether or not it should discharge the onus of proof. The Minister for Repatriation recently said in another place -
We could argue for a month about the onus of proof and the benefit of the doubt provisions.
I do not propose to do so. Briefly, the benefit of the doubt provision refers to a doubt that the authority has, and not to a doubt in a doctor’s mind. I want to know what is the use of section 48 of the act which requires doctors to furnish an opinion relating to the cases they have in hand. They are asked to express an opinion as to whether they have a doubt. They are asked to express an opinion as to whether they are sure, one way or the other, that the ailment or complaint from which the ex-serviceman has died could have, been either caused or aggravated by war. I believe that this matter will have to be determined finally by this Parliament, whether it be during the term of this Government, or during the term of a Labour government when it is returned. I will certainly pursue the matter until such time as it is satisfactorily adjusted in the interests of ex-servicemen.
Mr McColm:
– I hope it will be before Labour’s time.
Mr GRIFFITHS:
– I hope it will be adjusted before Labour’s time, because we cannot allow cases such as those of Dr. Glissan, Laurie Atkins and Mrs. Latter, as well as my own cases of Cantello and others, to continue as they are. These instances are causing nasty doubts in the minds of the public with relation to the deal the ex-servicemen have been getting under this act.
The bill before the House does two things. It provides for increased benefits to war pensioners and some of their dependants. It makes a number of other changes which, I believe, will be of great benefit to all those who come within the ambit of the legislation. Still, I believe that such benefits fall far short of what should be done for ex-servicemen, and it is because the Opposition holds that view that the honorable member for Parkes has submitted an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the bill. I hope that, at least, the Government will have a look at the proposals, even if it does not accede to them. These proposals are designed to make the Repatriation Act what it should be - an act to compensate all those who gave such valiant service to the nation and impaired their own general health and physical well-being in doing so. I support the amendment, and I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of accepting it, because the proposed increases undoubtedly are not sufficient for the requirements of those who come within the pensions provisions. We should be failing in our responsibilities if we did not congratulate the Government and the Minister for Repatriation upon the improvements they have effected to the act by the increased payments and by lifting the ceiling limits. But why have the wives of service pensioners been forgotten? Why has no provision been made for the thousands of ex-servicemen whose applications the tribunals cannot recognize and, therefore, must refuse? I have endeavoured over a long period to find out just how many servicemen have been affected in this way. Not so long ago, I asked a series of questions in this House in an endeavour to ascertain how many ex-servicemen of World War I., who saw active service abroad, are still living, how many applications for pensions have been rejected, how many servicemen of World War I., who were discharged from military service medically unfit, are still alive, and how many medically unfit servicemen there are who have never been granted a war pension. I am told that, there are no statistics available.
The general rate pension has been increased by 10s. to £4 15s. a week, while the wife’s allowance remains at £1 15s. 6d. This means that a 100 per cent, war pensioner and his wife receive between them a total of £6 10s. a week on which to live. Here, it is interesting to , repeat what the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Francis) said in this chamber during his second-reading speech on this bill. Dealing with the increases in costs that had taken place over the past six years, he said -
The proposed new rate for the genera] rate pension of a member is £4 15s. a week, which is an increase of £2 a week on the rate payable in 1049. In this case, if we make a comparison of pension rates and the C series index figures, we find that the pension has risen by 73 per cent, ae against a rise of 67 per cent, in the C series index figures.
I want to know where the Minister got his figures. If the percentages he quotes are right, then the statement made by the
Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) in the White Paper, which he presented with the budget, must be wrong. At that time, the Treasurer said that the wholesale prices of basic material and foodstuffs had increased by 75 per cent., and that retail prices had increased similarly. That meant a general increase of 75 per cent. But the Minister says that the C series index figures have increased by only 67 per cent. There we have a difference of at least 8 per cent, between the figures quoted by the Treasurer and those put forward by the Minister. That would represent the addition of approximately 6s. 6d. to the proposed increase of 10s. in the pension payable under this bill.
Mr Hamilton:
– Is the honorable member assuming that that is all that the man on 100 per cent, pension has to live on?
Mr GRIFFITHS:
– I am referring to the percentages quoted by the Minister in his second-reading speech and those stated by the Treasurer in the White Paper he submitted with his budget. One or the other is right. I do not know which is right and which is wrong, but I do think that Cabinet Ministers should get together and decide which percentage is right. The actual prices people have to pay for their commodities, as shown by the Statistician’s figures, should be the yardstick by which the rates of pension are fixed. This would enable recipients to derive full value from their pensions. In view of the difference between the percentage quoted by the Minister and the actual rise in costs, it must be abundantly clear to every one that the pension increases proposed by the Government are not sufficient. My criticism against the Repatriation Act is that it allows glaring examples of injustices to ex-servicemen to continue, even in the face of intense public feeling.
I want now to congratulate the newspapers that have taken up the fight for the ex-servicemen. Especially do I congratulate Truth, which has indicated quite clearly its displeasure over the interpretation of section 48, which contains the onus of proof provision. As I have said over a long period in this House, the Repatriation Department does not apply the spirit and intention of this section to the cases with which it deals. I am more convinced to-day than ever before - this is being illustrated every day - that there is a cold, calculated and inhuman approach made by the Repatriation Department to the problems of thousands of ex-servicemen, especially those of World War I.
When we members on this side of the House criticize from time to time the failure of the Government to do something with relation to this measure, we are immediately assailed with the cry that the Labour party did nothing about it in the years when it was in office. All I can say is that if the Labour Government did nothing about relieving the position, or about adjusting it, many of my colleagues and I were not in this House at the time, and I feel that this assertion is no excuse for the Government continuing to perpetrate a wrong which has existed for so long.
Recently, the Minister for the Navy attacked me in the House because I raised certain matters affecting exservicemen. He said I had always been flogging a dead horse, that I was talking on matters about which I knew nothing. That may be so, but at least those matters are affecting some of my constituents. I know the sufferings and privations they have had to endure because their income is insufficient for them i to live properly. Irrespective of what the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) may do, or may say, or think of me, I shall continue to raise these matters until exservicemen receive justice from the government of the day, whatever may be its political complexion. If iis clear to the great majority of people that there is something wrong with the Repatriation Act, as is clearly demonstrated by the cases that have been ventilated in the press. For example, there is the case of Dr. Glissan, a man who gave yeoman service to the nation in two world wars. He worked sixteen hours, and probably twenty hours, a day, and was called out at all hours of the night. Such strenuous activity must undermine the health of a man over a period of years. I know a doctor in my own electorate who is unable to continue his practice any longer and who refuses to apply to the Repatriation Commission for a pension because, as he says, he will not grovel to and be humiliated by the commission. The treatment that he fears is a great reward for faithful service to the nation !
There is the case also of “ digger “ Laurie Atkins. We all have read about it in the newspapers. I understand from the newspaper reports that he joined the 41th Australian Watercraft Workshops Section in 1941. He developed arthritis in 1942 and was declared medically unfit, but continued in service until 1945. He served in the Pacific islands, often waist-deep in water. Will any honorable member say that working in cold and wet conditions could not have contributed to his contracting arthritis? Another case is that of Mrs. Latter. A number of doctors, including specialists, have stated that Mr. Latter’s death was due to reticular sarcoma, which could have resulted from his sufferings in a French prisonerofwar camp, where he suffered from diarrhoea and recurrent attacks of dysentery. It is interesting to note that the Minister for Repatriation accepted the opinion of Professor King about Latter’s illness, and quoted that opinion in full, but, at the same time, he refused to make available the opinion of Professor Harvey Sutton.
I wish to mention also the case of an ex-serviceman who served in World War I. and World War II. It has been said that former soldiers receive the benefit of the doubt. This man has been a serviceman all his life. I have a list of his military discharges, which date from 1898 to 1943. He served in the Boer War, offered his services in the Chinese Boxer Rebellion, but was rejected, and served in World War I. He was granted a pension in 1917. This ex-serviceman holds a certificate - the only one I have seen, although I have asked many former soldiers whether they have it - which was issued in 1919. It states -
No. 2180, Sgt. Arthur T. Ford, No. 1 Seige Brigade, served with honour and was disabled in the Great War. Honorably discharged on May 9th, 1D17.
He received a pension from the date of his discharge until 1933. In 1928 he obtained a position in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. He was discharged from Randwick Military Hospital, where he spent some months, in 1.933, and returned to work in the Post master-General’s Department. Re enlisted in 1940 and served until 1943. The records reveal that, throughout the years since 1933, he has applied and reapplied for the restoration of his pension on the ground that he is suffering from neurasthenia and neuritis. I have seen him many times. His right arm and leg are completely crippled as the result of a siege gun rolling on him in England in 1915. When he was unable to continue serving, owing to the state of his health, he was discharged from the military forces in 1943. He tried to return to his former position in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. I have a certificate from Dr. John J. Donnellan, of Blacktown, which states that Mr. Ford was suffering from neuritis of the right arm, hand and foot and that, in the opinion of Dr. Donnellan, he was incapable of doing other than the lightest work. The restoration of his war pension was refused. Over the years, doctors have expressed the view that he suffered from neurasthenia and neuritis caused by war service. In fact, Dr. R. Walsh, of Strathfield, at one time stated -
Undoubtedly medically fit when I passed you at South Head for the Australian Imperial Forces and put you into Lydd Hospital, 1st October, 1915, with neurasthenia. Will most certainly support your claim. Request must come from Repatriation Department, so as I can give day and date, as I have no official record.
Dr. Parker stated, in 1934, that Mr. Ford was suffering from neurosis caused by war service. Dr. J. Fraser Boag stated, in 1934 also, that he was suffering from nervous debility and neurasthenia caused by war service. Dr. Boag later made a declaration confirming the statement in his certificate. Dr. Stiles stated that he was suffering from neuritis caused by war service. In certificate after certificate, it is stated that this former soldier suffered from a complaint caused by war service; yet the repatriation tribunals have refused to restore his pension. The Repatriation Commission states now that he suffers from general degeneration of the limbs. Of course a man more than 70 years of age would suffer from some form of degeneration. When he was discharged from the military forces he could not get back his former job in the Postmaster-General’s Department. He was refused a service pension because he had a little too much money, and he and his wife are now forced to live on the age pension. In spite of this kind of treatment, Government supporters say that the various assessment appeal tribunals and the Repatriation Commission act fairly in the interests of ex-servicemen.
Mr Brand:
– The application made by the gentleman in question was rejected when a Labour government was in office.
Mr GRIFFITHS:
– I do not care what happened when Labour was in office. I want the matter rectified now. I have been trying for five years to have it rectified. Honorable members opposite who always hark back to what a Labour government did or did not do leave me cold. If a Labour administration did something wrong, that is no reason why this Government should perpetuate an injustice.
Time will not allow me to discuss at length another case that I have in mind, but I wish to mention it briefly to show honorable members how the Repatriation Commission acts. This is the case of a woman who was married to a former soldier in 1919. The reply given by the Minister for Repatriation to a letter that [ wrote to him states that the exserviceman referred to was discharged from the forces on the 19th May, 1918, and was granted a pension from the 20th May, 1.918, in respect of debility following gassing. On the 29th March, 1919, he was married, and a child was born on the 14th April, 1919. Honorable members will note that the child was born only about a fortnight after the marriage. Having returned from World War I., this ex-serviceman seduced a young woman nineteen years of age, and then abandoned her. He was finally traced within a fortnight of the child’s birth, and married the young woman. T invite honorable members to read a letter written by him to his wife on the 18th September, 1921. I have never seen its like for sheer illiteracy. Subsequently, he left the young woman whom he had seduced and infected with venereal disease. The child was born blind, and its mother is now blind in one eve. The Repatriation Commission withdrew her pension early in 3933 because it considered that she had entered into a de facto relationship with another man. The full pension has never been restored. The ex-serviceman, who was no good at all, died at the Liverpool State Hospital in 1954, from carcinoma of the stomach. At the time of his death he was unmarried and was receiving a pension in respect of debility following gassing. The Repatriation Department knew well where this man was in 1944, because on the 11th February, 1944, it wrote to the Newcastle representative of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, saying -
Your letter of 1st February, 15)44, would appear to refer to the above-named, and I would be glad if you would advise the wife that information as to her husband’s present whereabouts is confidential and may not be disclosed.
The department knew that this man was in a State home, that he was in receipt of a 50 per cent, pension, and that he was possibly dying of a carcinoma. Itknew that this woman was not getting a “razoo”. I have been to the police and to other authorities to try to find her a home and so that she could receive a pension or some other means of subsistence. To-day, she is living under the roof of a man who promised her mother in 1944 that he would provide a home for her daughter as long as she lived. She takes as many as ten epileptic fits a day as a result of the venereal disease contracted from the soldier in 191S. The Repatriation Department knows full well that this man died as a result of war-caused injuries. In 1952, a pension of 35s. 6d. a fortnight was restored, and that is all she has to live on. She said to me recently, “ They will have to do something before long, or I will go over the cliff and they will then have to bury me “. The Department of Social Services has said that it does not regard her as a single woman and that she is living in a de facto marital relationship with this man. The police have stated that they have no interest in the case, that she had borne a baby and nobody knows where it is, although it is supposed to be adopted. The Newcastle Hospital is treating her now and has been doing so for some years. I have a certificate from the hospital stating that she is attending the psychiatric department and is unable to earn her living because of ill health, as she is suffering from epilepsy and hypertension. She is living on 17s. 9d. a week.
We are told that the Repatriation Department is doing its job. I believe its job is to do something for such people as this woman who can do nothing for herself. Payments to war widows in respect of children cease when the children reach sixteen years of age. The Repatriation Department should advise widows, and if children are unable to earn a living, it is the department’s job to see that they are trained to do so.
Mr Wight:
– Why does this lady not marry her de facto husband?
Mr GRIFFITHS:
– He is not her de facto husband. If the honorable member bad made a pledge to do something for a person, he would not turn her out if he had any Christian instincts at all. This woman has no one at all. I am not pleading her case because to do so means votes for me, but because there is some appeal to humanity in it. The Department of Social Services refuses to acknowledge her. The Repatriation Department likewise refuses to acknowledge her. One might ask why this man has given her a room. I can assure honorable members that any one who saw the woman could not believe that a man would have a de facto marital relationship with her. There is a humanitarian aspect to the case. The Repatriation Department is not doing its job as it should be. I invite any honorable member opposite to examine this file and see what he makes of it. He will conclude that it is time that the Government took stock of the position and did something in the interests of such people.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
– Order ! The honorable gentleman’s time has expired.
Mr LESLIE:
Moore
.- The honorable member for Shortland (Mr. Griffiths), in his story about this unfortunate woman and her most harrowing experience, has struck a very deep note of sympathy in the minds of everybody who heard him speak. I pay the honorable member the tribute of saying that I believe he is very sincere in making an effort on her behalf, but I wonder whether his plea is being made in the right place. I agree that he has raised a problem which is of a humanitarian nature, but we in this place, although we may be filled with all the sympathy in the world, are dealing with laws and entitlements. It is possible that while the Repatriation Commission may be filled with an anxiety to assist this unfortunate woman as far as it possibly can - and I cannot imagine that anybody would not adopt a sympathetic attitude to her - it may be’ that under the terms of the act which the commission has to administer it is brought up against a. brick wall. I have had that experience in many cases.
Mr Curtin:
– The commission has discretionary powers.
Mr LESLIE:
– The making of laws to cover every possible aspect of life has yet proved to be beyond the capacity of any parliament. I cannot suggest to the honorable member for Shortland just what action can be taken in the circumstances of the case.
Mr Curtin:
– Those discretionary powers should be used.
Mr LESLIE:
– I was very pleased to hear from thu honorable member for Shortland, as well as from other members on all sides of the House, tributes to th, Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper). I desire to join in those tributes. I am not so very much concerned about the improvements which he has brought about in the Repatriation Act and the department. To me the Minister’s greatest attribute is that he is so splendidly approachable by any one, from the humblest ex-serviceman to the member of Parliament or ‘Minister of the Crown. He has an open door and a sympathetic and understanding ear for every case which is put to him. I speak from personal experience, as I know other honorable members can and will do. Possibly the Minister’s attitude is determined by the fact that he is a severely handicapped ex-serviceman and, consequent upon his own experience, he has an understanding of the problems and difficulties which face ex-servicemen in fitting themselves into ordinary spheres.
In the course of my remarks I hope to refer to a number of aspects which have been raised, and I desire to deal with particular provisions of the bill which is before the House. They have been summed up very ably by the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Wight). The bill contains provisions for an increase in pensions and for an alteration of the Repatriation Act in two or three respects. In my view, the most important alteration which the bill seeks to make is the repeal of section 91a of the principal act to remove the ceiling limit which is applied to ex-members of the forces who are in receipt of a war pension and would be entitled also to an age pension, but to whom a means test has been applied with the result that they have been unable to receive the full benefit of the age and war pensions. Consequently, they were receiving less money each fortnight than were civilians in receipt of an age pension. I raised this issue in the House in 1950. I think that was the first occasion on which it was raised in the House. I pointed out the anomaly that existed. At the same time, the attention of the Minister was drawn to it by ex-servicemen’s organizations. This is the first opportunity to remove the anomaly that has occurred since the whole of the matter was examined. The fact that it is to be removed is very encouraging and makes me confident that, as the result of representations which have been made and are being made to the Minister, other but less serious anomalies which still exist in the Repatriation Act will also be removed. The repeal of section 91a will be of material benefit to a large number of ex-servicemen and will remove the cause of serious injustice.
Another most important provision of the bill is the proposal to amend section 64 of the act, which, in its operation, is related to the much discussed section 47, dealing with the onus of proof. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about the operation of section 47. Even the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), although he claimed that the language of the section was clear, revealed that he was uncertain about the meaning of the section. The intention of the section is quite clear. The doubt to which it refers is a doubt existing in the mind of a tribunal. Because there has been so much loose talk about the benefit of the doubt, many ex-servicemen are aggrieved, believing that the act is not being applied correctly. It does not make any difference how much doubt there is in the mind of a doctor, a medical specialist or a member of the Repatriation Commission. Those people are not called upon to give the benefit of the doubt to an ex-serviceman. It is the tribunal which must give the benefit of the doubt, to an ex-serviceman.
What is the procedure? An exserviceman submits a claim to the local Repatriation Board, which rejects it. Then he submits a claim to the Repatriation Commission, which also rejects it. Then he appeals to a tribunal. The tribunal receives from the Repatriation Commission the whole of the evidence available on the ex-serviceman’s file, or a resume of it. The ex-serviceman’s advocate, having been given an opportunity to examine that evidence, presents a case to the tribunal. It is the job of the ex-serviceman and his advocate to create in the mind of the tribunal an element of doubt whether his ability was war-caused.
Mr Beazley:
– That is not what the act says.
Mr LESLIE:
– Section 47 applies to the tribunal. It provides that the tribunal shall give the benefit of the doubt to the ex-serviceman concerned. I think I know what the honorable member for Fremantle (Mr. Beazley) has in mind. He may take the view that, if a doubt exists in the mind of the doctor, the doctor is bound to communicate that doubt to the tribunal. That is correct. The doctor does so. Then, if the doubt remains uncleared, the tribunal, by the terms of section 47, is bound to give the benefit of it to the ex-serviceman. If there is a doubt inherent in the evidence submitted to the tribunal, there must be a doubt in its mind. In those circumstances, it is bound to give the benefit of the doubt to the ex-serviceman.
But sometimes one doctor states that a disability cannot possibly be related to a man’s war service, and the man’s doctor states that the disability definitely is attributable to war service. In such a case, where there are two definite but conflicting statements, the tribunal must exercise its judgment. It must examine the evidence. It must examine what the Repatriation Commission says and what the soldier says. If, having examined the evidence, the tribunal is perfectly satisfied that what the commission has stated is correct, it rejects the claim. If the tribunal is perfectly satisfied that what the ex-serviceman has stated is correct, it must accept the claim. If a doubt remains in the mind of the tribunal - if the ex-serviceman, his advocate and his medical adviser have created a doubt in the mind of the tribunal - the tribunal must give the benefit of that doubt to the ex-serviceman. That has always been the procedure.
Very often - in fact, generally - on an appeal, the ex-serviceman and his advocate produce new evidence, which the Repatriation Commission has not seen and which it has not been able to consider. Under the provisions of section 64, the tribunal refers that evidence back to the commission. It is bound to do so. The ex-serviceman has raised a new issue and, as the onus of proof is on the Repatriation Commission, the commission has the right to consider the new evidence that has been produced. Under the present procedure, when the Repatriation Commission has replied to the case submitted by the ex-serviceman, the tribunal makes a judgment on the rebutting evidence, if I may so call it, submitted by the commission.
Honorable members probably are aware that I am not without experience in these matters. I have been a member of the returned servicemen’s league and an office-bearer since about 1920. I am still a member of the State executive of the league in Western Australia. In my experience, what happens generally is that, on receipt of the fresh evidence, the Repatriation Commission accepts the claim. But when the commission feel3 that it has sufficient evidence to induce the tribunal to reject the claim, it submits that evidence to the tribunal. At present, the appellant - that is the ex-serviceman - does not have an opportunity to find out what the commission has said in reply to the evidence that he has submitted to the tribunal. That has been the cause of injustice. That has been one of the weaknesses of section 47 and section 64. Under the present procedure, the ex-serviceman, having submitted this claim, does not have an opportunity to find out why it has been rejected by the tribunal. He does not have an opportunity to find out whether an element of doubt exists, because section 64, as it stands now, states that the tribunal shall decide the issue when it receives the reply from the Repatriation Commission.
The Minister has gone miles ahead in order to remove this cause of grievance. The bill proposes that if the Repatriation Commission still contests the claim after the case has been referred back to it by the tribunal, the tribunal shall re-hear the case and the ex-serviceman shall have the right to be present at the re-hearing. He and his advocate may then hear the case that the commission is presenting in rebuttal. If, at that re-hearing, the appellant observes an element of doubt in the submission of the Repatriation Commission, he may, although he need not do so, rightly claim, and be given, the benefit of the doubt, and may reassure himself in relation to the justice or otherwise of his claim. That is all-important. There has been a burning sense of grievance in the minds of many ex-servicemen who have gone out from a re-hearing feeling that they have established the necessary element of doubt, but who, without being informed of the grounds upon which the decision was based, have later received advice from the commission that the tribunal has not allowed their appeals. The amending legislation will remove that very grievous source of annoyance.
The amendment is comparatively obscure, because it provides only for the word “ hear “ to be substituted for the word “ consider “ ; but, because it provides a remedy for this very real ground for complaint, it represents a great departure from the existing procedure. I believe, however, that there is no substance in the suggestion that the tribunals have not operated in the interests of the exservicemen. To give to an ex-serviceman the right to be present at a re-hearing of his claim without the necessity of having to advance fresh evidence, which has been the law hitherto, means that his mind may be set at ease. To give him that right represents an application of a principle that so many of my learned friends constantly pour into the ears of laymen - that not only must justice be done, but that it must be seen to be done.
I do not intend to engage in any debate about whether this Government has been generous or ungenerous in the amount by which it proposes to increase the pension. I do not propose to condemn or to praise any previous government, because I am of the opinion that the basis of the war pensions scheme is entirely wrong. Before I proceed on that line, let me say that it must be borne in mind - and I do bear it in mind - that, by comparison with the repatriation legislation of other countries, the Australian Repatriation Act is very generous. I know that honorable members and ex-servicemen can refer to more generous terms in relation to particular items in the repatriation legislation of other countries, but I can point to very serious disabilities and anomalies also in that legislation. For instance, I remind honorable members that in some countries outside the British Commonwealth of Nations a time limit is placed on the period within which an ex-serviceman may apply for a pension. In some cases the limit is five years, in some cases seven years, and in other cases longer. In fact, in the United Kingdom a time limit is imposed upon ex-servicemen of World War I. In Australia, if an ex-serviceman who is 90 years of age and who has served in the Boer War is able to produce medical evidence that his disability is related to his war service, he is in the picture.
Mr McColm:
– Not an ex-serviceman who served in the Boer War.
Mr LESLIE:
– That is so. I mean an ex-serviceman who has served in World War I. I was merely referring to the Boer War as an illustration of a period of time. A number of benefits that are given in other countries are not given in Australia, but, in the overall picture, although, in my opinion, a number of matters should be adjusted, the Australian act is extremely generous.
Whilst I do not wish to say whether it is sufficient or insufficient, I now propose to direct attention to the amount of the pension. J do not think any honorable member would care to assess suffering in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. Is there any honorable member who is prepared to say what it is worth in cash to an ex-serviceman, who is discharged from the Army at, say, 27 or 28 years of age, to live the remaining years of his life in constant ill health? Is there any man who is prepared to say what amount of cash would compensate any of the men who arc suffering from a disability that denies them the opportunity of participating in some of the pleasures that are available to the normal healthy person ? One cannot assess those tilings in cash, and it is sheer hypocrisy to suggest that cash will compensate for their sacrifices. At the most, money may provide compensating enjoyment, or some other compensating factor.
The 100 per cent, pension is not related in any way to a man’s capacity to earn. Only when we get beyond the 100 per cent, pension is the earning capacity of h n ex-serviceman taken into consideration, and I suggest that the honorable member tor Shortland (Mr. Griffiths) should bear that fact in mind. A man with facial disfigurement gets the 100 per cent, pension, yet he may earn the biggest income that is earned in this country. A great number of ox-servicemen who are earning high incomes are also receiving n substantial war pension. On the other hand, the special rate pension, the total and temporary incapacity pension, the total and permanent incapacity pension, and the blind ex-servicemen’s pension are related to earning capacity. They should be dealt with quite separately from the general rate pension, and should bc related to the purchasing power of money. Recipients of those pensions are required to live on their pension. I suggest that, if the ordinary rate pension is increased by ls., these other pensions should be increased by a substantially greater sum, and should be related in some way to the needs of the individual. I think that war pensions should be divided into two categories. The first category should include what I might call the economic pensions - the total and permanent incapacity pension, the total and temporary incapacity pension, the blind ex-servicemen’s pension, and the special i ate pension, the recipients of which are unable to earn an income. I say that the rate of pension should not be a subject for decision by the Parliament. In making that statement I do not mean to suggest that in this debate pensions have been made a. political football. I am, in fact, delighted that even the honorable member for Lalor (Mr. Pollard) gave the most moderate speech I have heard him make in this House, and one for which I admire him greatly. But I am concerned over the fact that, whilst there may be those of us in the Parliament who want to leave this question of benefits to ex-servicemen out of the partypolitical football ground, the ex-servicemen themselves, either as individuals or through their organizations, are attempting to throw the subject into the political football ground, and to put their votes up to be bid for by politicians. I have sat round a table with ex-servicemen at meetings of organizations and resisted the suggestion that members of Parliament should be circularized in order to discover what they are prepared to give to ex-servicemen.
Mr Pollard:
– So they should be. What is wrong with that?
Mr LESLIE:
– I believe that the economic pension, which I have explained to the House, should he removed entirely from the partypolitical field, and that, once the pension is established, it should be automatically varied according to the purchasing power of money.. The second pension, which I call the “ compensatory pension “, which is the war pension that I myself receive, is a benefit which should not be related, and which nobody has the right to relate, to the purchasing power of money. That pension is on a different basis, and its rate should be determined, not by party politicians, but by a tribunal which could operate in a manner similar to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. Ex-servicemen, through their organizations, could submit claims to the court, or tribunal, showing the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the amount awarded to them as a compensatory payment, and the decisions of that court or tribunal would be final and binding. By adopting that procedure ex- servicemen’s benefits will be removed even from the suspicion and what a sorry suspicion it can be that they are being dealt with on a purely partypolitical basis. So long as we have the benefits determined on the present basis, so long will some one be tempted to gain political capital out of promises to ex-servicemen, or by telling hardluck stories on behalf of ex-servicemen. In the last few years we have gone a long way by amending the Repatriation Act and securing increased benefits for ex-servicemen. Our latest success was the removal of the ceiling limit in relation to pensioners in receipt of both civil and non-civil pensions, and in having a vital and drastic alteration made to the system under which the onus of proof and benefit of the doubt operate, which will also be of great benefit to ex-servicemen. We have also succeeded in amending the legislation in other ways that are not so important as the two that I have mentioned. I take courage from our success and from the very great sympathetic understanding which the present Minister for Repatriation has shown, of ex-servicemen’s problems. I believe that, within the next few years, more anomalies will be removed, and that the benefits, as a result of alterations to administration, regulation and decisions, will be still greater. I hope that some thought will be given to the suggestion I have made that the basis of payment of the war pension be changed to a system that will leave members of the Parliament conscienceclear, and able to say to the public that we have done our job in the light of the responsibility we feel we owe to those who have suffered in the service of the nation.
Debate (on motion by Mr. Beazley) adjourned.
page 1588
TARIFF PROPOSALS 1955
Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 5) ; Customs Tariff (Canadian Preference) Amendment (No. 3)
In Committee of Ways and Means:
Sir ERIC 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. 5).]
- That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1954, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the fourteenth day of October, One thousand nine hundred and fiftyfive, at nine o’clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs bo collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1954 as so amended.
- That, without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 1 of these Proposals, the GovernorGeneral 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.
- 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.
- 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 cense 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.
- That in these Proposals, unless the contrary intention appears - “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates, namely : - 26th May, 1955 ; and 8th June, 1955 ; “ Proclamation “ mean a Proclamation by the GovernorGeneral, 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 headed “ Intermediate Tariff “, in respect of goods in relation to which the expression is used.
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following items : - >Aluminium and aluminium alloy sheets, sections and other shapes; aluminium foil and foil paper. > >Directcurrent mill type motors. > >Fuel injection equipment. > >Household aluminiumware. > >Lubrication nipples. > >Motor vehicle parts front axle assemblies. > >Pen nibs. > >Pheuothiazine and diphenylamine. > >Phosphorus derivatives. > >Plumbers' vises. > >Ribbons, trimmings, ornaments, &c. {:#subdebate-19-0} #### Vegetables {: .page-start } page 1593 {:#debate-20} ### REPATRIATION BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-20-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed *(vide* page 1588). {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- The honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** and the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** gave what they thought was a description of the process which applies when the onus of proof rests upon the Repatriation Department to prove that a man's disabilities are not war caused. Neither of them gave any description of any other process than the process in which the onus of proof rested upon the appellant. Their argument that it was the duty of the ex-serviceman to create a doubt in the mind of the tribunal before which he appeared is in clean contradiction to the explanation of that section of the legislation which was given by the AttorneyGeneral of the present Government **(Senator Spicer),** who is, I think, one of the most brilliant lawyers in the Commonwealth. If the onus of proof rests upon the Repatriation Department, this is the process, and there is no other process. The ex-serviceman asserts that his disability is war caused ; and that is established by his assertion, unless it can be overthrown by the Repatriation Department. That is the situation in which the onus of proof rests upon the Repatriation Department. In order to establish that that is so, one could not do better than quote the words of the AttorneyGeneral himself. In reply to the former member for St. George, who had asked for some clarification of the whole onus of proof section, **Senator Spicer,** in the course of a long statement, said - >In the Repatriation Act, Parliament has completely reversed the normal process. It has expressly declared in section 47 - > >That it shall not be necessary for the claimant applicant or appellant to furnish proof to support his claim, application or appeal ; and > >That in all cases whatsoever the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority opposing the claim, application or appeal. > >The effect of this is that it is not for the claimant to prove that he is entitled to a pension. It is for any opposing person or authority to prove that he is not entitled to a pension. In every case, the question is not has the claimant satisfied the tribunal that he is right but, has the opposing person or authority satisfied the tribunal that the claimant is wrong? {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- That is the policy of the department. That is what has been carried out. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I take it that that is the policy of the Government because of the words of its AttorneyGeneral. But the processes described by the honorable member for Lilley and the honorable member for Moore bear a much closer relationship to what actually goes on before the tribunal. The honorable member for Lilley gave a picture of a man building up an elaborate structure of proof and bringing in doctors, whereas, according to the statement by the Attorney-General, the applicant's mere assertion stands unless it can be overthrown. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- He can bring in other evidence to dispute the department's argument. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I agree with that- {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- That is all he does. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- But that is not the experience of members of this Parliament. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- Quite so. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- It is in the interests of the claimant himself to put forward any evidence which he thinks will help his case. That is what the honorable member for Lilley said. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- But the position which the Minister has described, with the tribunal weighing two sets of evidence and balancing them, one against the other, is not the position as described by the Attorney-General, which is that the averment establishes a proof unless it is overthrown. It is not a question of balancing two contending arguments, and picking out what one thinks is the better. The whole weighting of the arguments, according to the Attorney-General, should be in favour of the appellants. It is not a question of what has been done under this Government or under another government. I consider that the present Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** is the most courteous, considerate and gentlemanly person who could possibly occupy the post, and I agree with the honorable member for Moore that he is also one of the most approachable. But it is unfortunate that it does not matter what virtues or vices a Minister for Repatriation has, under the system that has developed in this country, under any government, no Minister for Repatriation should exist, because it is no use making any representation to him whatsoever in connexion with these cases. It is simply a question of what the tribunal has decided. I recognize that this is a department which is particularly vulnerable to the idea that the Treasury can be raided - that you can get anything you like out of it. Therefore, there has been a distrust of the making cf political decisions by Ministers on the representations of honorable members who may wish the department to pay a pension or some sort of compensation to an ex-serviceman. As a result of that fear, this rigid system of tribunals has been established. I remember having had occasion to write to the predecessor of the present Minister or Repatriation concerning a man who had had a chronic stomach ulcer. For weeks and weeks there were delays in the tribunal, and delays in the Repatriation Department. I was informed, in answer to my letters, that the X-ray plates of the deceased member's stomach were being studied. I wrote to the Minister, and said that only the pen of a Dickens could do justice to a situation in which it was pretended that these learned gentlemen on the tribunal, by staring at an X-ray plate, could determine whether the ulcers were war-caused or not. In view of this situation, I ask how the onus-of-proof section of the Repatriation Act was being applied. The averment had been made that the trouble was war-caused. Staring at the plates would not produce proof to the contrary; and yet these intolerable delays had taken place in dealing with the claim of the widow. The matter was finally resolved. But it would be wrong for honorable members to speak in terms of appreciation of the Minister for Repatriation and then speak in terms of appreciation of the tribunals and assume, *ipso facto,* that because the members of the tribunals are ex-servicemen, they are necessarily sympathetic to ex-servicemen. There have been times when the members of such tribunals have been old dug-outs, who were not sympathetic to ex-servicemen. Speaking from my experience in dealing with cases of constituents, I feel that the delays which take place are completely intolerable. I do not see that the onus-of-proof provision is operating in the way that the Attorney-General so clearly and justly said that it should operate. The Minister for Repatriation is to be congratulated on the increases in pension rates and on his whole approach to this matter. But there are two things that I want to say. As the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** said last night, the responsibility in connexion with this matter must rest upon honorable members on this side of the House as well as on the Government, because we formed the Government for exactly half the period between 1939 and the present day. The position in 1939 was this: The 100 per cent, war pension rate was £2 2s. a week; it is now £4 15s. a week, which is an increase of 126 per cent. The basic wage in 1939 was £3 18s. ; it is now £12 6s., which is an increase of 215£ per cent. The war pension has increased by 126 per cent.; the basic wage has increased by 215£ per cent. The position of the war pensioner in this community is now worse, although it is an incomparably wealthier community in 1955 than it was in 1939. In 1939 the totally and permanently incapacitated rate of pension was £4 a week. I draw the attention of honorable members to this: In 1939, when the total and permanent incapacity rate was 80s., the basic wage was 78s. In other words, the man on the total and permanent incapacity rate was better off than the man on the basic wage. To-day, the total and permanent incapacity rate is 195s. It has increased by 14'4 per cent., but the basie wage has increased by 215.5 per cent. {: .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr Bowden: -- The honorable member is giving the figures for a pensioner who is single. The family man is receiving more than that. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I agree. Government supporters may bring in child endowment and so on, but the point that I am making concerns the actual pension rates. If the 100 per cent, rate and the special rate had been increased proportionately -to the basic wage since 1939, the general-rate pensioner would to-day be getting not £4 15s. but £6 13s., and the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman would be getting not £9 15s. but £12 12s., or 6s. a week more than the basic wage. Therefore, the position of the single ex-serviceman, whose case we are considering, has entirely changed. 1 want to speak about one aspect of this matter particularly, and to direct my remarks especially to the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis),** who was responsible for the introduction of the bill. I hope that pension measures such as this will not again have associated with them all sorts of references to child endowment, which has nothing to do with war pensions. It is just the same as saying to me, in a discussion of parliamentary salaries, " You receive £147 a month . ." - as, in fact, I do - ". . . but as you have three children under sixteen, you actually receive another 25s. a week, or £65 a year". That has nothing whatever to do with parliamentary salaries, and it has nothing whatever to do with war pensions. Such references would not be permitted before, say, the Public. Service Arbitrator when salaries were being fixed. I cannot, for the life of me, see why the Minister has found it necessary, at every point, to interlace this measure with references to child endowment. If the belief that child endowment is a factor to be considered in drawing up these pensions is operating upon thu mind of the Government, quite clearly the Government is, to that extent, abandoning the idea that these payments are compensation, in addition to what a man would ordinarily be receiving, for what he has lost because of his war service. When that kind of thinking is applied to war widows' pensions, it must be remembered that child endowment is paid also to the widow of a person killed in a road accident. It is not in any sense additional compensation paid to a war widow because the community has appropriated the life of her husband by sending him to the battle front. If allowances paid to the children of a war widow are in some sense, as they ought to be, compensation for the loss of a father, the child endowment, which they would be receiving were their father alive, has nothing whatever to do with this measure. I hope that in future, when repatriation measures are introduced, we shall not hear references to child endowment, for they are completely irrelevant. I should like to draw attention to one particular aspect of the Minister's speech. He said - >As a result of the increase of 5s. per week contained in this bill, a member and his wife receiving the full general rate will have a total pension between them of £fi 10s. 6d. a week. If they have two children under sixteen years cif a?re there will be payable further pension to the children amounting to £1 7s. 6d. a week. The Government is to be congratulated upon the fact that it has granted an increase, but if we are to stay in the realm of reality we must admit that any person with children will agree that £1 7s. 6d. a week is .not a very solid contribution towards maintaining a child. My children are not yet in their 'teens, when their maintenance may be expected to be more expensive, but I must say that that sum seems very low. My frank opinion is that it is unreal to think of the keep of a child of a widow costing less than £2 10s. If the Government is to take the place of the father all the allowances for children will have to be revised upwards. Certainly, child endowment, which they would be receiving had their father been alive, has nothing to do with compensation for the loss of their father. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- Labour paid only 7s. 6d. for the upkeep of a child. This Government has increased that figure to £1 7s. 6d. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- I am not for a moment disputing the fact that reforms have been effected. Government supporters will appreciate the position of a backbencher in relation to the Cabinet. For eight years I was in the position that most Government supporters are in. now. They know that they cannot overturn a government because it does not do what they think is right on every point. I do not pretend that the Chifley Government was generous in these matters. Between 1948 and 1949 there was a "bolt" in the cost of living, and what **Senator Lamp** said after his defeat about our failure to make those adjustments was perfectly correct. My aim is not to prove that this Government is not more generous than Labour was. My aim is to establish, first, that these allowances ought not to be considered in conjunction with child endowment, and, secondly, that the number of these children is not so great as to impose a tremendous burden on the Treasury if their allowances were increased. If the Government is to replace their fathers, it should pay them an allowance of at least £2 10s. a week. Another aspect of the Minister's speech which was, I thought, somewhat unhappy, was his reference to C series index changes since 1949. I recall that, when I was supporting the Chifley Government, the present Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. Holt)** made an extremely just speech on the C series index. The important point is that this index has been falsified for many years. No one ever pretended that it was an adequate basket of goods for a family to live on. The justification claimed for the index was that the prices of the goods in the basket moved with general prices in the community. That may well have been true, but the moment that prices were prevented, by subsidies, from moving upwards, the index ceased to be an indicator and, to that extent, a true index. It was a falsified index, and, so far as it was followed by the court, it helped to keep the basic wage down. The court then conceded that if subsidies were paid in respect of any of the items in the C series index, it should take no notice of the index. If one looks at the Treasurer's statement for last year, which is included in the period to which the Minister has referred, one sees that a subsidy of £5,070,022 was paid on taa and £15,749,998 on dairy products. These payments, so far as they affected the basket of goods, prevented the index from reflecting the real movement in the cost of living. Therefore, when the Minister says that since 1949 the C series index has risen by 67 per cent, and the pension by 73 per cent., I am inclined to suspect that the pension is not in front of, but rather is behind, the real movement in the cost of living. In other words, I do not accept the validity of the index as an indicator. We must look at the whole war pensions situation. By 1939, and certainly by 1945, it was exceptional for veterans of World War I. to have young, dependent children. To-day, with the rush of veterans from World War II., most of whom are in their middle thirties, or at most 40 years of age, there is a large number of young, dependent children of ex-servicemen. Therefore, we are in an immediate post-war situation where clearly the main problem that the widow and the disabled man have to face is the bringing up of their children. I think that we ought te take that into consideration and start weighting heavily the educational allowances for children who were born during the war years. They are just beginning to enter secondary schools, and the present allowances do not cover expensive educational requirements. Many of them will, within five years, commence to receive tertiary education at technical schools and universities. What we should be looking at is a heavy up-movement of the allowances made for the children of widows and disabled men for educational purposes. I agree with the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** that what the Parliament should do is to look at the whole pensions system in order to find some agreed base rate, to vary it with some agreed index of the cost of living, and otherwise to consider the special position of widows with children and disabled men with children. **Mr. FALKINDER** (Franklin) [4.26).- This debate has been fortunate in the sense that, with one or two exceptions, it has been conducted very largely on nonparty lines, and honorable members have quite genuinely and sincerely, I believe, tried to offer useful suggestions in order to attack the problem in a sensible way. Before I proceed with the main theme of my speech, I wish to deal with two points which have been raised by honorable members opposite. The first is the statement by the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** that the present specialrate pension for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen is niggardly in the extreme. I propose to cite a few figures in order to rebut that assertion. In J 943, when Labour was in office, the pension for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen was increased to £4 16s. a week. In 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 no increase whatever was made in the rate of that pension. As the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** quite rightly said, in 1948-49 there was a sharp upsurge of prices. Let us consider the increases that have been made since this Government came into office in 1949. During our first year of office, we increased the rate from £4 16s. to £5 *Gs.* a week. In 1950, it was increased to £7 and in 1951, to £8 15s. a week. No increase was granted in 1952, but in 1953 the rate was increased to £9 5s. a week. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- That is not niggardly. {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER: -- This year, the rate has been increased to £9 15s. a week. I suggest to the honorable member for Parkes that that rate is not niggardly. I want to make one or two comments on the remarks of the honorable member for Fremantle in relation to averments made by exservicemen. I think that the honorable member understands the position, but I want it to be clearly understood by all honorable members that the averment is made by the ex-serviceman when he makes application to the commission for a pension. lt is from that point onwards that the appellant may follow the procedure that has been mentioned during this debate. Therefore, he has ample opportunity in which to press his case further. Because there seems to be some considerable misunderstanding in the minds of one or two honorable members about the procedure that is followed in repatriation pension cases, I shall trace it right, through. When an ex-serviceman makes an application, he makes the first approach to a repatriation board. The board in each State consists of three members, all of whom are returned servicemen. The chairman is appointed by the Repatriation Department. One member is appointed by a servicemen's organization, and the other is appointed by an outside body. In some cases, the member is a representative of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, or of other ex-servicemen's associations. If a repatriation board rejects an application, the applicant may appeal to the Repatriation Commission. The present chairman of the Repatriation Commission is Major-General G. F. Wootten, who is a returned serviceman of both world wars. **Mr. H.** G. Roy, the deputy chairman, is a returned soldier. The other member of the commission is **Mr. E.** V. Raymont, who was formerly the federal secretary of the returned servicemen's league. He was appointed from a panel of names submitted by that organization. The member appointed by an ex-servicemen's organization holds office for only five years. At the end of his term of office, he has to go back to bis organization for re-appointment. The Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** cannot re-appoint him. Either that man, or some other man must he appointed by the ex-servicemen's organization, so that there is some hold over him to ensure that he will do good work for the organization which appointed him. If the Repatriation Commission does not uphold the appellant's case, he may appeal to a war pensions entitlement appeals tribunal. Each tribunal has three members, all of whom are returned servicemen. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That does not prove anything. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER: -- It proves one thing, surely, which is that the members of the tribunal would be sympathetic towards appellants. That is an indisputable argument. The chairman must be a barrister or a solicitor of the High Court of of the Supreme Court of a State. One member is appointed by an ex-servicemen's organization, and the other by the Governor-General, on the recommendation of the Minister for Repatriation. That is the set-up of the war pensions entitlement appeals tribunals. In the case of the war pensions assessment appeals tribunals, the position from the ex-serviceman's point of view is better still. The personnel of each tribunal consists of a chairman and two medical members. The doctors are selected from lists of medical practitioners, having regard to the nature of the incapacity in the case or cases under consideration. But the chairman is nominated by an exservicemen's association. Therefore, the ex-servicemen's organizations have complete control of the assessment appeals tribunals. The chairmen of those tribunals are appointed for five years, and since the present Minister for Repatriation has held that portfolio, only one chairman has left his position. He retired because he had attained the age of 65 years. However, there are three chairmen of entitlement appeals tribunals who have graduated to their present positions from being chairmen of assessment appeals tribunals. The entitlement appeals tribunals are the bodies which decide whether they will accept ex-servicemen's disabilities for repatriation purposes. The assessment appeals tribunals are merely for the purpose of assessing pension rates. If the Repatriation Board decides that a pension rate should be 40 per cent., the man involved may appeal to an assessment appeals tribunal and need not go before the Repatriation Commission at all. However, an ex-serviceman can appeal to the commission and, if dissatisfied with its decision, he can then appeal to an entitlement appeals tribunal. Every claimant who appears before an entitlement appeals tribunal is entitled to an advocate - not a member of the legal profession, because the ex-servicemen's organizations decided that they did not want to be involved in legal technicalities - but an advocate supplied by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, other exservicemen's organizations, the Legal Services Bureau or the Repatriation Department. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Could a member of Parliament appear as an advocate ? {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER: -- Yes, I believe he could. In many instances, the department has supplied an advocate, who hae done a very good job for the exserviceman. In fact, the advocates made available by the department take a pride in winning the cases in which they appear. I know this to be so from personal experiences in my own State. It is open to the Repatriation Commission to have a representative appear before the entitlement appeals tribunal, but up to the present time it has not availed itself of that opportunity, because it has not desired to influence the tribunals in any way. It has been said that the tribunals do not give to applicants the reasons why their appeals are dismissed. The Repatriation Commission sends to the chairman of the tribunal a summary of the evidence on which the commission has found against the claimant. The commission also sends on all the files on the case. A copy of that summary is handed to the appellant's advocate who then knows exactly why the commission had disallowed the claim. The advocate then takes that summary along to medical specialists and gets their advice on how to handle the medical evidence that he wishes to put before the tribunal. After the tribunal has accepted or dismissed the claim, the advocate knows, because the matter has been decided largely on the summary, the reason for the verdict, and may inform the claimant. I think the suggestion made by the honorable member for Bowman that a member of the Repatriation Department might also notify the claimant is a very good one indeed. It is one that I think might well be considered. The advocate gets the summary a week or a fortnight before the case comes on. If he has not sufficient time to consider the evidence he may have the hearing deferred. After a case has been disallowed by the tribunal, the appellant can obtain further evidence at any time and resubmit his case for further hearing by the tribunal. The tribunal then sends that evidence to the commission, which may rehear the case, and the ex-serviceman's disability may be accepted for repatriation purposes. If the commission again refuses to accept the disability, the fresh evidence may be placed before an entitlement appeal tribunal, which will hear the appeal again. An ex-serviceman can bring fresh evidence forward at any time. If new discoveries in medicine or science have a bearing on his entitlement, he can put fresh evidence before the commission, and an amendment to that effect is coming before the committee. Australia is the only country in the world in which that procedure may be followed. In Great Britain, for instance, once a man's claim has been refused, he has no redress. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- It is a very comprehensive review. {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER: -- Exactly. Now I propose to turn to the interpretation of the onus of proof, and here may I say that the honorable member for Dawson **(Mr. Davidson),** who is chairman of the sub-committee on repatriation of our Government members ex-servicemen's committee, of which I happen to be president, did a very fine job indeed, first of all, as he himself said, in approaching the subject of the onus of proof with a critical mind and then making a very thorough investigation into the whole subject with the department, with the Minister, and with many outside people. I thought he made a very fine speech indeed in introducing this subject into the Parliament. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** has referred to the opinion given by the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Spicer)** on the subject of the onus of proof. He said, and I quite agree with him, that the interpretation as given by the AttorneyGeneral was the spirit in which, and means by which, the Repatriation Department should administer the question of the onus of proof. Indeed, if the department does not administer in that spirit and intent, then it is failing in its duty. The honorable member for Fremantle quoted the specific opinion of the AttorneyGeneral on the interpretation of section 47, which provides that, (a) it shall not be necessary for the claimant, applicant or appellant to furnish proof to support his claim, application or appeal, and (b) that in all cases whatsoever the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority opposing the claim, application or appeal. The AttorneyGeneral goes further in his interpretation and I want to quote this to the House so that all honorable members may be aware of it. Later on in his statement, the AttorneyGeneral says this - >Of course, the claimant may find himself in a position in which it is greatly in his own interest to supply evidence in support of his claim. For example, the opposing person or authority may be able to supply evidence which, taken alone, might discharge the onus of proof which the opponent carries. In such a case, it would be advisable for the claimant to supply evidence which would at any rate raise a doubt in his favour. > >The onus remains with the opposing person or authority throughout the proceedings. The claimant need not, but he may, if he so desires, furnish proof in support of hie claim. But, whether he furnishes proof or not, the onus will, at the end of the proceedingswill be upon the opposing person or authority to satisfy the determining authority that the claimant is not entitled. > >Section 47 does two things- > >firstly, it requires that the determining authority shall give the claimant, applicant or appellant the benefit of any doubt in regard to certain enumerated matters, which, in effect, cover the whole field of matters relevant to the inquiry; and > >secondly, it provides that the adjudicating authority shall be entitled to draw, and shall' draw from all the circumstances of the case, from the evidence furnished and from medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant, applicant or appellant. > >To aid the determining authority in carrying out the will of Parliament as thus expressed section 48 (2) requires a medical practitioner, where he entertains any doubt concerning any of the matters upon which he is required to report, to state that he entertains such a doubt and to indicate, as far as practicable, t he na ture and extent of his doubt. > >A claim is not to be dismissed because the Tribunal is left in a state of doubt as to any question whatsoever which arises from its decision. The claimant is always to be given the benefit of any such doubt. As the onus of proof in all cases whatsoever lies on the person or authority who contends that the claim should not be granted and the claimant is to be given the benefit of any doubt, it follows that the claim should be allowed unless that person or authority proves beyond doubt, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt, that the claim is inadmissible. Only if the evidence is such that the determining authority is left in no such doubt that the claim should be refused can it properly dismiss the claim. If the authority has some doubt, that is to say if it is not convinced beyond doubt that it should refuse the claim, the claimant must be given the benefit of the doubt and his claim must be granted I turn now to some of the improvements that are encompassed in this amending act, in partic ular, in relation to tribunals. In the present, sections relating to appeals to tribunals, there is a lack of uniformity in the language used. This occurs in relation to the operations of both entitlement appeal tribunals and assessment appeal tribunals, and it has given rise to some differences of opinion as to the exact meaning of some of those sections. Section 6-1 (6.) is a good example of this. In accordance with sub-section (4.), when an entitlement appeal tribunal has further evidence produced to it, that tribunal refers the matter back to the commission to reconsider the case. If the commission's decision is adverse to the appellant, the appeal tribunal is then required by sub-section (6.) to "consider and decide" the appeal. Some doubt has arisen as to whether that further consideration by the tribunal is a "hearing" at which the appellant may appear and be represented if he so desires. These amendments will make it clear that when the case is referred back to the tribunal under sub-section (6.), there will be a further hearing at which the appellant can appear. To avoid any other similar doubts, other sub-sections of section 64 are being amended. The general effect of all these amendments is to give greater clarity to all the sections I have mentioned, and to make sure that an appellant, with his advocate if he desires, will before the tribunal gives its decision, have full opportunity to comment on or answer all evidence which has been produced to the tribunal. That is, indeed, a very desirable forward step. I wish now to refer to an amendment proposed by the Opposition in another place to provide for an appeal to a court either the High Court or a Supreme Court. The members of the Government Members Ex-servicemen's Committee have discussed this matter very fully, and I am sure that they all would support the proposal if it were genuinely felt that it would be of real advantage to exservicemen. The members of that committee consider that, in the form in which the amendment was proposed, it had serious defects from the point of view of ex-servicemen. On the general principle of an appeal to a court, whether it be the High Court or a Supreme Court, the members of the ex-servicemen's committee consider that it would be detrimental to the interests of ex-servicemen to provide such an appeal on questions of fact. Let me explain what I mean by that statement. As I have already stated, the repatriation tribunals are composed of men who are skilled in sifting the facts of cases of the kind that might be presented to a court if the amendment proposed in another place were accepted.I am sure that honorable members on both sides of the House will agree that the exserviceman is more likely to obtain a favorable decision and, after all, that is what we are striving for from exservicemen who thoroughly understand the facts and must favour the interests of ex-servicemen. The question of an appeal on matters of law is another matter altogether, and it deserves careful consideration. There would probably be a great deal of merit in an amendment to provide for appeals to a court on questions of law. But there is another factor that causes members of the Government Members Exservicemen's Committee to oppose the amendment proposed by the Opposition in another place. That amendment made provision for the court to make an order for costs. The result would be that the ex-servicemen who appealed would be required to pay the costs of counsel engaged. That might be to his detriment, because most ex-servicemen who apply for pensions are fairly impecunious. Another point also arises. I have not been able to have it clarified, but I believe that if an appeal on matters of fact and questions of law were made to a court the decision would be final and there would be no opportunity for recourse to a further appeal at a later date. The honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua),** who made a very wellreasoned contribution to the debate this afternoon, referred to medical benefits for the dependants of blinded ex-servicemen. 1, in common with the honorable member, understand that the British Medical Association would probably accede to such a proposal. I point out that, at the present time, no means test is applied to blinded persons who are not ex-servicemen and that they receive free medical benefits. I am hopeful that the principal act will soon be amended to make provision for the payment of medical benefits to the dependants of blinded ex-servicemen. I, for one, propose to support such an amending measure if and when it is introduced. I wish to refer also to another matter, which is closely related to repatriation benefits. The Department of Social Services subsidizes, on a £l-for-£ 1 basis, organizations that build homes for aged people. In the repatriation field we have a regrettably diminishing number of ex-servicemen who served during World War I. The survivors are in their late fifties or, more numerously, in their sixties. In most States, there are homes that provide accommodation for the diggers who served during World War I. In Hobart, for instance, there is a home known as Gellibrand House, which does excellent work. I should like the Government to consider a proposal that such homes be assisted on a £l-for-£l basis when any new building is constructed or any substantial extension of an existing home is made for the accommodation of ex-servicemen. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- Are these residential establishments ? {: .speaker-KEP} ##### Mr FALKINDER: -- They are wholly residential, and they provide for all the needs of the ex-servicemen accommodated in them. I wish to refer, in passing, to one other matter. Recently, I put on the noticepaper a question about promotions in the Hobart office of the Repatriation Commission. Having made some investigations of my own, I now believe the answer I received to be not completely satisfactory. On the information that I have, the Hobart office, regrettably, seems to be conducted as a sort of promotion centre for officers from other States. I propose to give further information about the matter to the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper).** The principle on which the Hobart office is conducted is a very bad one, and I hope that the position will be corrected. I regret to say that it has resulted in the resignation from the commission of a number of Tasmanian officers who found that, once they had attained a certain level of seniority, they had no further opportunity of advancement. One cannot blame any man for resigning when such a situation exists and taking a better joh or an equally good job with better prospects of promotion elsewhere. I do not suggest - and I do not think any honorable member would contend - that our repatriation system is 100 per cent, perfect. Indeed, the need for amending measures such as this from time to time is evidence that we are continually improving the administration of repatriation affairs. I know that many honorable members feel as I do from personal experience in handling repatriation cases. We have talked a great deal about the repatriation tribunals in the last two days. Many honorable members feel that a rejected claim was justified and that justice has not been done entirely. This measure will do much to make appeals easier for unsuccessful applicants who, in the opinion of myself and other honorable members, were entitled to succeed. Finally, I say that, generally speaking, we may well be proud of our repatriation system, and I commend all governments that have helped to make it what it is to-day. We take pride in the Minister for Repatriation, who is a fine administrator and enjoys the respect and admiration of us all. {: #subdebate-20-0-s2 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo -- I support the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen).** I listened with a great deal of interest to the well-considered and moderately stated arguments of the honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Falkinder),** who indicated that, in the main, he was well satisfied with this bill. However, the Opposition considers that, at any rate in respect of increased pensions, it is unsatisfactory. Important and necessary amendments to the Repatriation Act have not been included in the bill. There is a growing feeling of dissatisfaction in the community generally about the need to amend the principal act. There is a feeling that something is wrong and that the law should be amended in order to give to returned servicemen a greater measure of justice than they appear to receive at the present time. In the course of the discussion on this measure last evening, the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis)** expressed the viewpoint that dissatisfaction was being expressed in regard to certain payments only in the State of New South Wales, but I can assure him that I, as a federal member, have received from organizations in Victoria correspondence expressing dissatisfaction. The latest criticism which I received came from the Commonwealth Council of Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Associations of Australia, whose address is Clarendon-street, East Melbourne. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- As appears in *Hansard,* the council sent a telegram to the Minister in which it expressed appreciation of the measure. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- It issued this brochure, which consists of eight pages. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- How old is it? {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- It is dated the 23rd February, 1955. The brochure expresses extreme dissatisfaction with the rates of pension fixed for totally and permanently incapacitated persons and with a number of other matters. The council complains of the inadequacy of existing pension rates, and the lack of medical benefits for wives, and it states that benefits generally are inadequate. It suggests the erection of convalescent homes, the building of flats, and the provision of hostels. The brochure contains a statement that promises in regard to some of the proposals were made in days gone by, and those promises have not been redeemed. This certainly seems to indicate that, so far as totally and permanently incapacitated persons are concerned, a good deal of dissatisfaction exists, and in connexion with a measure of this description one is able to bring that dissatisfaction to light in an effort to have conditions improved. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- The honorable gentleman says that those proposals were made in February. It is now October, and a telegram of appreciation has come to the Minister from those people. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will obtain and read a copy of the brochure. He will find that the bill contains nothing to meet the requests which are being made by the associations. The report is signed by the federal **president, Mr. Wingate,** and the federal secretary, **Mr. Storer.** Apparently, it bears the imprimatur of the associations. The attitude which has always been adopted by the Labour party in regard to this matter is that totally and permanently incapacitated persons are entitled to receive a pension which will not only compensate them for decreases in the purchasing power of money, but will also give them a share in the prosperity of the community generally. If as a consequence of increased production of goods and services a greater measure of comfort, a higher standard of living, and greater opportunities are available to the mass of the people, totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners are entitled to share in those benefits. I think that the principle is generally accepted, not only in this country, but also in all countries, that as the prosperity of the community increases, the right of all people to share in that prosperity is inherent. Figures which have been recently released show very clearly that there has been a material increase in production in Australia during the last five or six years. I quote from the index figures of the Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited. Between 194S-49 and 1954-55, productivity in Australian factories increased by no less than 41 per cent., and the general overall production of the community increased during that period by about 22 per cent. Those who are receiving pensions as a result of war service are entitled to share in that increased productivity. They should not be put off with an increase which is claimed to be merely restoring the purchasing power of money. One has to bear in mind that totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen, at the time of their enlistment, were physically and mentally fit. They gave all that was required of them by the nation, and at the time of enlistment they were promised that if, as a consequence of their war service, they suffered physically or mentally, or if their dependants suffered, they would be looked after by the community generally. When young people who were fit in every way become totally and permanently incapacitated as a result of war service, one expects that the attitude of the nation to them should be very much more generous than to give them merely a static standard of living. . I direct the Minister's attention to a statement which appears on page four of the brochure issued by the Commonwealth council of these associations. It reads - >There was a time when the basic wage was £3 18s. per week, and our pension was then £4, phis ]Ss. for wife, and over the years, it has dwindled away until to-day the pension received by both man and wife is below the basic wage, yet the cost of living has increased greatly. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- It is not greatly below the basic wage at all. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- If at one stage the totally and permanently incapacitated servicemen were receiving a pension in excess of the basic wage - leaving aside for the present the question of an allowance for wives - there is no reason why to-day, with the higher standards in the community generally and improved production, this pension should not be as rauch in excess of the basic wage as it was then. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- When the honorable member makes comparisons with the basic wage, he must include the wife's pension too. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- I am talking about the comparative position as shown by the totally and permanently incapacitated serviceman himself. When the basic wage was £3 38s., he was receiving £4 a week. To-day, the basic wage for the six capital cities in Australia, on the frozen basis of September, 1953, is £11 16s., and the pension being received by the totally and permanently incapacitated man is £9 5s. Even with the proposed increase, it will only be £9 15s. Let us examine the compensation payments which are made to persons who are injured in industry. Rates of compensation have been raised enormously, yet the purchasing power of the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman and his share of the national income have been declining. I cite this as a simple illustration of the manner in which other sections of the community have gone ahead and the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman has fallen behind. I take the year 1934 as a basis because it is a good starting point. The usual rate of compensation for workers who were injured during the course of their employment was then 30s. a week. To-day, that rate has risen to £S 15s. in South Australia, and in respect of Commonwealth employees, £8 16s. in Victoria, *New* South Wales, and Queensland. £9 in Tasmania, and £8 16s. in Western Australia. Although there is a tendency constantly to increase the compensation payments made to people injured in industry - to increase both the amount of the payments and the standard of living that they will provide - all the figures indicate that, whilst the nominal rate of the pension paid to a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman has been increased, the actual purchasing power of the pension and the standard of comfort that it will provide has declined continuously. I say definitely that that is not in the best interests of the community. That is a very poor way in which to treat men who have sacrificed their health and their capacity to work and who will be totally incapacitated for the rest of their lives. Some people may think that that treatment is satisfactory, but I do not think it is. I do not think that this measure will give to those men the compensation or the standard of comfort which the community can afford to give them and which should be given to them. The next matter that I desire to bring to the notice of the House is that the wife of a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman is not entitled to receive free medical benefits. That is a very serious matter to these men. I have received a letter from the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association which contains the following paragraph : - >We were promised a form of medical benefits for our wives in 1951, but so far it has not eventuated, and we urge you to find out why and have this rectified. Our wives- are both wives and nurses and receive no extra pension for the numerous tasks they have to perform in looking after us as a result of same. A great many have cracked up under the strain and now find that, owing to the easement of the means test in the last budget, the ordinary citizen, man and wife, now receive those benefits on a ceiling rate of £14 a week, whereas we, on a rate of £11 0s. Cd. a week, cannot obtain those benefits for our wives. I suggest to those honorable members who are ex-serivcemen that, if there is a case for giving free medical benefits to age and invalid pensioners and their wives, there is a stronger case for giving them to the wives of totally and permanently incapcitated ex-servicemen. Those women devote almost the whole of their time to the welfare and health of their husbands. When they become ill, they should be entitled to receive free medical treatment and free pharmaceutical benefits, in the ame way as age and invalid pensioners nd their wives. The present position is that out of a small pension of £9 5s. a week, which will be increased to £9 15s., a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman has to meet medical expenses for his wife. I think that is wrong and that the act should be amended to provide that free medical benefits and pharmaceutical benefits can be given to these people. I want to deal now with section 47, and the onus of proof. I listened with a great deal of interest to the very well thought out speech which the honorable member for Franklin **(Mr. Falkinder)** made to the House on that subject. I want to put certain views before the House which indicate that, whilst the honorable member for Franklin covered the procedure of the various tribunals- {: .speaker-KWE} ##### Mr Timson: -- He did it very well. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- I agree. I think he stated his case very moderately and very well. But, unfortunately, things do not work out just in the way that he has suggested the procedure will enable them to work out. I shall read to the House an extract from a letter on this matter that I have received from the chairman of the Repatriation Commission. I had asked him for an explanation of the way in which the provisions of section 47 were applied to eases that came before the commission, a repatriation board or an appeal tribunal. In his letter, he stated - >The section is clear in its language, lt provides that the applicant must be given the benefit of any doubt in the mind of the determining authority, and that from all the circumstances in the case, from the evidence furnished and from medical opinions, that authority shall draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the applicant or appellant. The section further provides that the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed. I think that bears out all that the honorable member for Franklin has said and all that the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** has said. Now I want to express the view taken by the legal representative of an ex-servicemen's and ex-servicewomen's organization in New South Wales. The journal of the organization, *Reveille,* published an article written by Vincent j. Brady, in which he asked the question, "Is the onus of proof a myth?". He writes with he experience of one who has appeared before repatriation tribunals on many occasions. Time will not permit me to read the. whole of the article, but there are some paragraphs of it that I believe should be placed before the House so that honorable members will have the benefit of the experience of a man who has appeared frequently before the tribunals. The first part of the article is as follows: - >The question of the onus of proof and its application to the claims of ex-servicemen has for some time been the subject of discussion. The question at issue appears to be not bo much the act itself but the spirit in which it is administered. Are questions ' on the onus of proof determined by medical men ignorant of legal principle involved ? > >As one of the few lawyers privileged to get behind the iron curtain of repatriation tribunals I was in a position to examine the manner in which the onus of proof and the benefit of the doubt clauses of the act are applied. Without the guide of written judgments or statements made by either the commission or tribunals it is difficult for the applicant, inexperienced in legal matters, to undertake or offer u correct guide as to the principles which have been followed. **Mr. Brady** makes it very clear that without the guide of written judgments or statements the procedure of the tribunals is very hard to follow. One of the complaints that we have received is that there are no written judgments or statements that will help appellants. Later in the article the writer stated - >Where there is a conflict of opinion, e.g., in trauma as a possible factor in creating the prepared area for cancer many world authorities are in conflict, no layman can say which side is correct until there is positive proof. > >Since the cause of cancer is so far unknown, the principles laid down by **Mr. Justice** Denning of the High Court of England, as set out in *Miller* v. *Minister for Pensions,* E.L.R. 1947, Vol. 2, should apply : " Where the cause of the case is unknown or imperfectly known, the only proper conclusion is that the Minister cannot discharge the onus of proof, because the unknown cause may he a cause incidental to war service, and for that purpose the evidence must reach the same degree of cogency as is required in a criminal case before the accused is found guilty ". One does not know how the tribunals arrive at their decisions, because they issue no written judgments or written statements. All that is received by the applicant or appellant is a statement that the commission or the tribunal has found that the disability is not due to war service. But some ex-servicemen are suffering from cancer. Who can say what is the cause of cancer? If the cause of cancer is not known, how can anybody say that cancer in an ex-serviceman is not due to war service? Yet claims of this kind are dismissed. **Mr. Brady** concluded his article in these words - >Only when the evidence is positive can it be beyond reasonable doubt,, since the very principles on which they may determine this case may subsequently be proved incorrect, and it is for this reason that **Mr. Justice** Denning has laid down the principles that where the cause is unknown or imperfectly known, the Minister cannot discharge the burden of proof. It is only when the evidence is in the positive field that they may reject the claim of the Ex-serviceman. If Parliament opens- And this is the statement of a legal man who appears on behalf of very many exservicemen - the proceedings of these Tribunals to the light of clay, and judgments are given when principles of Onus of Proof and reasonable doubt are accepted or rejected, then the Ex-serviceman will feel happy, and any suspicions, however unfounded they may be, will be removed. I suggest that, in view of certain cases that I propose to cite, there is indeed very grave doubt about whether the principles that are involved in clause 47 are being carried out. I refer to the case of one of my constituents, **Mr. L.** C. Buck, who had 1,132 days' service in World War II., of which 757 days were spent on active service. He was attached to the unit known as Chief Inspection Armament Fighting Vehicles, and he and a number of other personnel were required to spend day after day testing all types of machines, from bicycles to aeroplanes, as they came off the production line to ascertain whether they would stand up to the strain and stress of war conditions. There were many accidents, and this man was involved in quite a number. During the latter portion of his service, he developed neurosis, as a consequence of which he was admitted as a patient to one of the mental hygiene hospitals. He was eventually discharged, and he returned to his unit and continued on the same type of work. He later suffered another attack of neurosis, and entered the Rockingham Hospital in Victoria. He was later discharged from service and told that he would never he able to work again for an employer. His certificate of discharge was marked " suffering from neurosis anxiety ". He subsequently developed arteriosclerosis, hypertension, and some other conditions associated with those diseases. He then applied for a pension, but was told that his condition was not due to war service. He undoubtedly was suffering from neurosis when he was discharged from service. In accordance with the practices and traditions of the Repatriation Department, war neurosis has been held to aggravate or to assist in causing the condition known as hypertension or arteriosclerosis; but, because this man was discharged suffering from neurosis anxiety, and although it has been stated that his work involved tension which could well have aggravated his condition until he eventually developed hypertension, his claim for a pension has been refused on the ground that his condition was not due to war service. Another case that has come under my notice concerns a man named Berry. **Mr. Berry** served in "World War I., and at the time of the armistice was rendering service in Belgium. There a horse fell on him and injured his back, and he subsequently returned to Australia. He complained of a condition in his back from the time when the horse fell on him, and he eventually developed osteitis deformans. For the last ten years, this man has been on the broad of his back, and for seven years before that he was able to work only occasionally. He applied for a pension, but, despite the fact that the origin of the trouble was the falling of the horse upon him, it was refused on the ground that his present condition wa3 not due to war service. **Mr. Berry** is now an invalid pensioner. In my opinion, and in the opinion of other persons who know him, there is no doubt that his condition is due entirely to the accident that occurred whilst he was on active service. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- The act provides that, if there is a doubt, he should get the benefit of it. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- That is so. Those two eases indicate very clearly that section 47 of the act has not operated in the best interests of the ex-servicemen, and that many persons who are entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt do not receive it. I wish to mention two other matters before I resume my seat. First, I protest against the administrative decisions of the Repatriation Department in relation to assistance that is given to handicapped persons. In June, 1955, the department issued Administrative Instruction No. 3G/24 to its State branches. That was a definite instruction that collapsible or telescopic crutches would no longer be available to ex-servicemen. The instruction, which is very clear, states - >The Commission has decided that the only issue of crutches to eligible member amputees will he the standard full length wooden type as issued at present. These are only to bc issued when requested by the member. {: #subdebate-20-0-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-20-0-s4 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr McLEAY:
Boothby -- I am pleased to have the opportunity at this late stage to make a slight contribution to the debate, even if it is for no other reason than to pay tribute to the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** for the excellent job that he has done on behalf of the Government during his term of office. The Minister has gained a wide experience in his association with ex-servicemen, and he has a sympathetic and practical understanding of their problems. As has already been stated, he has an open door for anybody who wishes to see him about any problem. It can be said, at the same time, that he is a man of great responsibility, and that he is not willing to be subjected to pressure by various groups within the service organizations and by other persons who wish to obtain cheap publicity at the expense of ex-servicemen. I have a very high regard for him and for his opinion, and a great admiration for the job that he has done under hardship and under a handicap because of the price that he has paid in the defence of his country. I do not want to cite a lot of figures. Frankly, although it is rare for me to be unable to follow the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey),** I did not follow him too clearly this afternoon, and I think he went astray in his argument regarding recipients of the special rate pension. I shall therefore remind the House of the three groups of pensions. The special rate pension, which is payable to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, is to be increased by 10s. a week to £9 15s. a week for a single man, whilst a married man and his wife will receive £11 10s. 6d. a week war pension between them. A pensioner couple with two children of, say, twelve years and fourteen years of age, will receive between them, by way of war pensions, educational allowances and child endowment, a total of £19 4s. 6d. a week, their pensions of £11 10s. 6d., war pension, £3 9s. 6d. for service, age or invalid pension, war pension for a child aged twelve, 13s. 9d., service pension for child 2s. 6d., educational allowance 12s. 6d., child endowment 10s. ; and for the child aged fourteen, war pension 13s. 9d., service pension lis. 6d., educational allowance 15s., and child endowment 5s. In my view that can be regarded as a recognition of the price these people have paid as a result of the service they have given to their country. I think we can justly say that since this Government came into office we are entitled to some credit for repatriation reforms. Ex-service Government supporters have been responsible for persuading the Cabinet to have written into the Japanese Peace Treaty provisions which resulted in some repayment to exprisoners of war who suffered at the hands of the Japanese. We must never forget that the honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull),** who regularly advocated a reward for prisoners of war, at one stage received from the Labour Government a definite " No " when he asked for further assistance for ex-prisoners of war, and was told, in effect, that he was wasting his time in continuing to raise the matter. It stands to the credit of the ex-service supporters of the Government that they were able to persuade the Government that it had an obligation to ex-prisoners of war of the Japanese. We are also very proud of the fact that the Government made available an amount of £250,000 as a fund from which would be met the needs of those prisoners of war who suffered in the war. The Government waa also responsible for removing the " snoopers " section of the legislation, under which the private affairs of war widows were pried into by officials. It also encouraged war widows to remarry by giving them a grant of a year's pension on marriage, so as to make it possible for them to equip themselves with domestic necessaries. The Government has also laid a great deal of emphasis on the domestic allowance, so as to relieve the strain on the wives of war pensioners who have to stay at home and rear their children, and are therefore unable to supplement the family income. We are also proud of the fact that we reduced the deposits on war service homes for war widows, so that now the sum of £50 is accepted as a deposit, lt was this Government which removed the anomaly under which war widow pensioners were in an invidious position compared with *de facto* widows. It gave war widows the right to have their pensions posted to, them instead of their having to join in a queue every fortnight to collect them. I should also like to say a word in praise of the many organizations throughout Australia that have rendered very great service by supporting the interests of the dependants of men killed in war, no matter what government was in office. I should like to pay a tribute to the legacy clubs of Australia for the excellent job they have done in helping families of servicemen killed in war. Having seen some of the splendid service rendered by girls' clubs, boys' clubs, camps, employment committees, and problem committees of Legacy, I know that they have done a tremendous job in assisting the Government to honor its responsibilities to the dependants of men killed in war. I think it is appropriate that I should pay a tribute to men who, in an honorary capacity, have done so much ever since the legacy clubs were formed to help the dependants of their fallen comrades. I know that in the financial year 1953-54 the amount raised by Legacy in South Australia from the public, and expended on behalf of the dependants of men killed in war, was between £45,000 and £50,000. I should also like to pay a tribute to the South Australian Government, which is largely honouring the Commonwealth's obligations by providing a housing scheme for war widows and dependants of dead servicemen of World War I. As a result of the vision and courage of the South Australian government of the day, a scheme was initiated after World War I. under which any war widow, whose husband had died as a result of the war, could get a house of her own for 7s. 6d. a week, and had the right to purchase it at any stage for £650, which wa3 the capital cost. To-day, as a result of the vision and wisdom and generosity of that South Australian government, many war widows own their own homes, of which they were first tenants, and later, purchasers on favorable terms. I think a tribute should be paid also to the present South Australian Premier for his continued sympathetic attitude towards exservicemen. As a result of discussions and collaboration with Legacy he came to an arrangement for the provision of homes for war widows under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. In that matter he did a really good job. Not only is the South Australian Premier a returned serviceman, but he has also never lost his interest in the welfare of ex-servicemen, nor his sympathy with them. The only other point that I wish to touch concerns a problem in relation to which I am able to convince myself that I am right, although up to date I have not been able to convince anybody else in the same way. I wish to direct attention to the problems of young married service pensioners. I suggest to the Government that this is the appropriate time to examine the anomaly that exists in relation to the means test as it applies to service pensions. A married age pensioner is entitled to receive an income of £364 a year, apart from pension, without its affecting the pension rate, but the service pensioner is in a different position. Within a fortnight of his starting to earn extra money his pension becomes subject to the means test, and if he earns more than £15 a week his pension is suspended. If he works continuously for 24 weeks he may have the whole of his pension suspended during that time, and at the end of the year, although he has earned only £360, which is below the amount that an age pensioner may earn, his pension is not restored to him. The amount that he can lose as a result of this interpretation of a section of one act in comparison with another, both of which are a Commonwealth responsibility, should be looked at. I feel certain that, having put the case to the Minister for Repatriation I have convinced him that there is an injustice. We have an obligation to ex-servicemen to see that, if ex-service personnel do not receive more than civilians, at least they should not receive anything less. I feel that it is the obligation of every exserviceman to fight for that case. Tn this regard, I pay a tribute to the Minister for Repatriation for 'the excellent job that he has done, for the attention that he has given to these arguments and for his acceptance of some of them. The army nurse who has reached the evening of her life is a worthy case for tolerance, sympathy and understanding, and I think that she should receive an amount beyond the age pension. I feel that 99 per cent, of the men who served in the war would be prepared to give up anything in order to assist those dear old army girls - the " Old Barges " as they were affectionally called. They had more courage and more vigour than many of us, as they carried on in 1914-18, and in the kid's war. I feel that they have a very strong case for consideration. The Repatriation Department should open its heart a little and allow these people certain hospitalization so they will not be dependent on a neighbour to run in to them with a cup of cold, weak tea to sustain them in the evening of their lives. I hope that the Minister, although he has taken a firm stand against classifying any particular group, will examine this situation as a whole. I urge him to accord these people all the sympathy in his heart, and assist a section of the Australian Imperial Force that has the affection, the esteem and the admiration of every honorable member who served in the forces. {: #subdebate-20-0-s5 .speaker-JTF} ##### Mr TOM BURKE:
Perth .- At the outset I want to pay my tribute to the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper).** *Conversation being audible,* {: #subdebate-20-0-s6 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr C P Adermann:
FISHER, QUEENSLAND -- Order! There is so much conversation that I cannot hear the honorable member for Perth. {: .speaker-JTF} ##### Mr TOM BURKE: -- I believe that every member in the House would be prepared to pay a tribute to the honorable senator who is Minister for Repatriation. His kindliness and courtesy to honorable members who approach him in connexion with repatriation problems and his devotion to his duties, are well known. Honorable members on this side of the House pay a tribute to him, no less than the tribute paid by the honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. McLeay).** Repatriation is a matter which is far removed from party politics. All honorable members believe that the maximum that we can give to ex-servicemen in the way of benefits should be given to them. We are governed by that opinion when we chide the Government for not having given sufficient attention to some aspect of repatriation policy, or when we criticize the operation of the Repatriation Act and, in particular, the onus-of-poof section of that act. The bill before the House does give substantial monetary benefits, particularly to some classes of pensioners, but it has not overcome the disparities in purchasing power that have been brought About by continually rising costs. This, of course, is not a problem affecting the recipients of repatriation benefits alone. Et is one that affects the whole Australian community The situation must be covered, but I shall pass over this subject quickly because it is not strictly relevant to the bill. Until the Government is prepared to face intelligently the economic problems that have been largely of its own creation, this situation will remain. As my colleagues have pointed out, the purchasing power of the pension is less than it was at the beginning of "World "War II., if the rise in the basic wage and the 0 series index is taken as a basis of comparison. Whilst pension payments have risen, they have not kept pace with the rise in prices. There is one particular aspect of repatriation which deserves the attention of the Government and which has its counterpart in other social service legislation. That is the position of the service pensioner. As in the case of the invalid pensioner, when the wife of a service pensioner is not eligible for a pension, she receives, not a pension, but a wife's allowance. I think that the Government, even at this late stage, might well pay attention to the urgent needs of those who are in receipt of a wife's allowance. The wife of a pensioner is not eligible for a pension if she is under the age of 60 years. The pension that is paid to the husband and the allowance that is paid to the wife, by an act of grace, are not enough to enable them to live- with a reasonable degree of comfort. I urge the Government to accept the view that that is not a matter that can be left until the next budget iB introduced. It could be approached by means of amending legislation at an early date, even if an early election is likely. I think that there is not a great number of cases of this kind, and real hardship would btavoided if the Government, even at this stage, would introduce an amendment to the Repatriation Act and a corresponding amendment to the Social Services Act in order to increase the wife's allowance substantially. Another matter on which I wish to speak affects the war widows. The war widows' pension is not a substantial amount in terms of purchasing power. It gives no real security, nor does it give any comfort to the people who receive it. A similar position exists in relation to the pensions of other widows. Much is due to the widow who has lost her husband in the service of the nation. We should give her as much as the country can afford. We have the same obligation in respect of children; but in giving assistance with respect to children, we make an investment in the nation's greatest asset. If a widow can bring up her children in comparative comfort, and provide for them adequately, they become better citizens than they would otherwise become. So the Government ought to be generous, and even over-generous, in the treatment of widows, and particularly in the treatment of widows with children. It is not desirable, nor is it usually possible, for widows with children to engage in work in order to supplement their pensions. Widows with children possibly have the greatest obligation of any class of pensioners. With the cost of living as it is at present, the cost of rearing, educating and clothing children is very considerable. Consequently, this matter might well engage the immediate and generous attention of the Government. I now want to say something about the onus of proof, the way in which the Repatriation Act is administered and the way in which the various repatriation tribunals operate. I realize that it is intensely difficult for a government, to implement the section of the Repatriation Act concerning the onus of proof. But a person who enters the services in Al condition and who is discharged less than perfectly fit should immediately become entitled to a pension. There is a great deal to be said for that, though I would not be dogmatic about it. It is rather the ideal, which we should try to attain. When a man is accepted as being in Al physical condition and, after the stresses and strains of service, especially in the front line, returns home in something less than Al condition it might well be considered that an immediate obligation is placed ipon the Government to compensate him. Whilst it is true that, under the act the onus is upon the Repatriation Commission to prove that a disability was not brought about, or contributed to, by service conditions, in effect the exserviceman must prove his case. Frequently it is impossible to do that. This 13 especially so where a period of years has elapsed and the serviceman has not had, on discharge, the benefit of a medical board. As one of my colleagues pointed out the other day, many happenings which at the time appear insignificant, but may have far-reaching consequences, are not recorded on the soldier's medical history sheet. It is fairly easy to prove that a disability has stemmed from a particular incident, but often such incidents are not reported or recorded. Such an incident may have even more important effects in the case of the ageing serviceman, and may contribute substantially to a physical condition that makes itself evident later in life. The ex-serviceman who approaches a war pensions entitlement appeal tribunal has either to prove, by producing his medical history, that something occurred from which the later condition has developed, or give substantial evidence that service life has contributed to that disability. It is very hard to do that. It is difficult for a doctor, no matter how sympathetic he may be, to state that a condition from which an ex-serviceman suffers is due solely to war service, or that war service has contributed to its development. I have no doubt that the war pensions entitlement appeal tribunals are sympathetic to the claims of those who come before them. It is also true, as the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** pointed out, that the records of the branch of the services in which an appellant served are available to him ; but as I have said, incidents that lead, perhaps years later, to disability are not always recorded, so that does not meet the case. If no doctor can be found to say with some degree of certainty that a disability could have been caused, or contributed to, by war service, the ex-serviceman is not likely to win his appeal, although he may think he has a very good case. The complaints of ex-servicemen may be psychological, or real, but their organizations point out that a great many applications possessing real merit are rejected. In their view, the onus of proof is not being properly discharged. In some instances, the full weight of the evidence is not sufficiently appreciated by the advocate presenting the case. The difficulty of associating with war service a latent disability, particularly of an exserviceman of World War I. is not, perhaps, appreciated even by ex-servicemen. There is, however, very real dissatisfaction on the part of advocates and ex-servicemen's organizations with the large number of appeals that are rejected. Two cases came to my notice some time ago. The evidence available appeared sufficient to enable one to draw a reasonable inference that the disabilities stemmed from service conditions, but the appellants were unsuccessful. In one case the tribunal expressed its sympathy and said that the claim was apparently justified but that, because of the difficulty of identifying the complaint with the cause it was obliged to reject the application. In view of the inadequacy of diagnosis, and the general lack of medical boards after World War I., it is almost certain that no medical practitioner could say positively that a disability was directly attributable to service in that war. The difficulty may be resolved, as was suggested by the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** and the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen),** by setting up a joint committee of ex-servicemen in the Parliament, to consider the problem. Motion (by **Sir Eric** Harbison) put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr.C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 46 NOES: 35 Majority . . . . 11 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the words proposed to be left out **(Mr. Haylen's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. C. F. Adermann.) AYES: 46 NOES: 35 Majority . . 11 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* {: #subdebate-20-0-s7 .speaker-JRJ} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA -- Order! Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be considered as a whole? {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- No. Clause 1 (Short title and citation). {: #subdebate-20-0-s8 .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Ballarat .- I move- >That the clause be postponed. > >I do this as an instruction to the Govern ment - > >That immediately on payment of the present in creases provision should be made for the establishment of a royal commission to ascertain and inform the Parliament of suitable standards of living and comfort which should be established and maintained for the comfort and needs of the various recipients of repatriation payments. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- Is the honorable member asking for a royal commission? I did not hear him. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- Yes. I am asking that a royal commission be appointed. The reason for this amendment, as I foreshadowed in my secondreading speech, is that there are various inconsistencies in the rates now. The whole question of pension payments is reaching such vast proportions that it is necessary that they be placed on the soundest possible footing. So far as I know, there has never been any systematic approach to this subject in the history of repatriation. At the moment, very large amounts are being paid out of the Treasury. Some people just do not know where they stand in connexion with this matter. None of these payments is based on any proper inquiry, and we suggest it is high time that the Government conducted a suitable examination. It could do so immediately by appointing a royal commission whose findings could be made available before very long. The types of anomalies that we see under the act are differences in rates of pension for no apparent reason. For example, a special rate is applied to the totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen. Is that the right rate ? Under this bill, an elderly pensioner and his wife will receive about £15 a week. On perusing the bill a little further, honorable members will see that, other people in the same circumstances do not receive that amount. Great differences between the payments made to other deserving sections of the community are revealed. Compare the position of the elderly married couple who are receiving £15 a week with the position of the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman in his 'twenties or 'thirties who has a wife and two children, aged twelve and fourteen years. According to the Minister's statement, that young man will receive only £14 4s. 6d. a week. That seems to be quite inconsistent. The young man who has a wife and family will obviously have greater responsibilities than the elderly married couple. I cannot see any reason why the Government should not institute a proper inquiry to ascertain why these inconsistencies occur. Again, I cannot see why a single totally and permanently incapacitated soldier should receive £9 5s. a week while the elderly war widow receives only £7 10s. Surely the cost of providing decent standards of comfort for an elderly war widow is not less than the cost of providing them for the single totally and permanently incapacitated soldier. Proper and decent standards must be provided for war widows. That matter has never been properly examined. "We have had most extraordinary cases of the public's idea of human sympathy, yet they have not been reflected in the smallest degree in anything done by the Government. The case of the war widow merits the closest attention, and I suggest that the appointment of a royal commission would be the best way of examining this complex subject. An elderly war widow will receive £7 10s. a week to compensate her for the loss of her husband! I feel that this is just a "rough and ready" amount and I do not know how it was arrived at. These matters should be investigated properly. Another thing that the royal commission could do it seems quite impossible for this Parliament to do it would be to establish certain rates and arrange for the maintenance of them. The Government, when it increases rates for the benefit of certain recipients of pensions, should compensate them for increases in living costs. The allowances also vary. For example, the war widows have been given a rise of 10s. in their basic rate. That sounds quite a sizeable amount, and much has been made of it by the Minister, but the children's allowances have not been increased, education allowances have not been increased and domestic allowances have not been, increased. When these things are taken into account, it will be found that the 10s. barely compensates for the rise that takes place in the cost of living from time to time. We suggest that certain rates should be established and that they should be related to some standard such as the basic wage, the C series index or other reliable measure of real value. The Government's approach to this matter is wrong. It should make a proper start on this subject. As I have pointed out before, the trouble is that we have this bidding in connexion with social services. The Repatriation Act is made a political football. As time goes on, the Government offers something, the Opposition will offer more and I suppose that before long I shall be expected to fall into line and offer something even more generous. The Government should give careful consideration to this subject. The answer that has been given so far constitutes- no good reason why the Goverment should not appoint a royal commission immediately so that its findings may be made available to the people and to Parliament. The reason put forward as to why we should not have this royal commission to inquire into these complex matters is that most of the information that the commission will require will be given by officers of the Department of Repatriation, who have already supplied much information to the Government and that, in those circumstances, the Government would not be helped by the findings of such a commission. That reasoning is absolutely wrong. The type of information that would be required by a royal commission would be that which may be obtained, not from departmental officers, but from the general community. If my suggestion were adopted, it would be the means of putting our Repatriation Act on a very much firmer and sounder basis. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** delivered a speech this afternoon that completely supported this view of the Anti-Communist Labour party. I shall be pleased to see him support that amendment. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- When is he going over to the honorable member's party ? {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- This is a most important matter. It is put first amongst the amendments proposed to the bill. We would have moved it even earlier in the proceedings if we had not been thwarted in our attempts to do so by a large list of amendments, some of them quite formal, moved by the Evatt Opposition. I therefore move my amendment with great confidence, and hope that the Government will accept it because I believe that it is a very necessary measure and one that would be of great benefit to the community. Its acceptance would do much to lift this matter of repatriation benefits out of the political arena. After all, are not these things important? Are not they the things that ought to be established first, before the Government comes to its budget? It appears to me that the Government makes up its budget, or its economic pattern, and then says, " How much can we give foi repatriation? Is there anything left for repatriation pensioners?" If there is not much left, they go without. It is obvious that they are the last ones to whom any thought is given. The Government's first objective should be to ascertain, after proper investigation, what payments the recipients of repatriation pensions should enjoy. How can the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis),** who is also Minister for the Navy, expect to attract recruits to the Army and the Navy if servicemen have not the comforting feeling that, in the event of terrible consequences, their dependants will be looked after? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-20-0-s9 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Navy and Minister for the Army · Moreton · LP -- The amendment is most extraordinary. The honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua)** devoted most of his remarks this afternoon to expressions of appreciation, and he applauded the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper).** Indeed, he stated that the bill provided most generous treatment and that honorable members would applaud the Government for the added benefits that are included in this measure. Time will not permit me to deal with all the points he raised after he had applauded the Government at great length for what it has done. Having expressed appreciation, he immediately asked the Government to appoint a royal commission to inquire into the administration of the Repatriation Act and the Repatriation Commission, which he had praised almost unceasingly. Almost every speaker on both sides of the chamber has paid tribute to the Minister for Repatriation and the Government, indicating clearly that this measure is a generous contribution to the welfare of repatriation pensioners and not open to suspicion. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- Sheer political bribery! {: #subdebate-20-0-s10 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable member for Yarra will remain silent. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- I know of no groups of people who regard as highly as do the ex-servicemen's organizations in Australia legislation enacted especially for their benefit. I say that as a member of a Cabinet sub-committee that considers the problems of ex-servicemen. Needless to say, all the members of that sub-committee are ex-servicemen. They frequently meet representatives of most of the exservicemen's organizations, who are invited into the Cabinet *room* to discuss their problems with the sub-committee. I say advisedly that ex-servicemen have a very warm and generous appreciation of what the Government has done for them. The Minister for Repatriation read in another place a telegram from the Commonwealth Council of Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers' Associations expressing thanks to the Cabinet, to the exservicemen's committee, and to himself, for increasing the ceiling rates, and stating that the consequential benefits to many would be *greatly* appreciated. {: .speaker-JLW} ##### Mr Andrews: -- Where did that telegram come from? {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- It was sent by **Mr.** Wingate, the federal president of the organization, and **Mr.** Storer, the honorary federal secretary. This afternoon the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** tried to base his arguments on a very old and antiquated document that originated with the same organization, although it was contrary to the telegram of appreciation sent on the 19th September, after the announcement of the Government's proposals. Honorable members may examine the problem in any way they wish. Let us recall how Labour treated ex-servicemen and compare that treatment with the treatment that ex-servicemen have received from this Administration. In 1943, the pension paid to totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners waa £4 16s. a week. The Labour Government allowed it to remain unaltered in 1944 and 1945, although living costs were increasing rapidly. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- Living costs did not increase during the war. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- The rate was allowed to remain unaltered in 1946, 1947 and 1948. This Government took office on the 16th December, 1949, by which time the rate had been increased to £5 6s. a week. In 1950, this Administration increased it to £7 a week, in 1951, to £S 15s. a week, in 1953, to £9 5s. a week, and it proposes now to increase the rate to £9 15s. a week. That treatment is in sharp contrast with the treatment meted out by Labour; yet honorable members opposite state that this Government has no sympathy with exservicemen. I remind them that this Administration has done for repatriation pensioners something that no other administration has done. Let us compare the position in Australia with that in Great Britain. This comparison will reveal that there is no occasion for the amendment. Australia has a population of approximately 9.000.000. The population of the United Kingdom is more than 50,000,000. At the 31st August of this year, 584,975 persons, including ex-servicemen and their dependants, were receiving war pensions in respect of World War I. and World War II. under our Repatriation Act. At the 31st December, 1954, 900,141 persons, including ex-servicemen and their dependants, were receiving war pensions in respect of both wars under the repatriation legislation of the United Kingdom. For the year ended the 31st March, 1954, expenditure on war pensions in the United Kingdom was £43,156,719, for 900,141 persons, whereas at the 30th June, 1954, expenditure on war pensions in Australia was at the rate of £36,785,684 annually, for 584,975 persons. This comparison clearly demonstrates that pensions in Australia are greater than those in Great Britain. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- The Minister is making a secondreading speech. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! I remind the Minister that the purpose of the amendment is to postpone the clause. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- It is designed to postpone the clause so that a royal commission may be appointed to investigate the administration of the Repatriation Act. I wish to prove that there is no occasion for the appointment of a royal commission, and I have just pointed out that the scale of repatriation benefits in Australia is substantially better throughout than the scale of benefits in Great Britain. The standard of repatriation pensions in Australia is generally much higher. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- It always has been. It was higher when Labour was in office. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- If I were the honorable member for Melbourne **(Mr. Calwell),** I would not mention what happened when Labour was in office, because, for four years, the Labour Government did not increase repatriation pensions by one penny. It has never even considered increasing them. I wish honorable members to understand clearly that the Cabinet sub-committee of exservicemen regularly reviews repatriation problems. The Government members ex-servicemen's committee gives a lot of time and thought to the examination of these problems and to the discussion of them with representatives of exservicemen's organizations. I say without hesitation that ex-servicemen have never had so much goodwill for any administration as they have for this Government. I. repeat that there is no occasion for the amendment. No ex-servicemen's organization has asked the Government to appoint a royal commission. Therefore, I move - >That the question be now put. Question put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. BOWDEN.) AYES: 53 NOES: 6 Majority . . . . 47 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the clause be postponed. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 5 NOES: 63 Majority . . . . 58 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Clause agreed to. Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to. Clause 6 (Appeals). **Mr. JOSHUA** (Ballarat- Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party) [8.35]. - I move - >That, after paragraph (d), the following paragraph be inserted: - *"(da)* by inserting after sub-section (6.) the following sub-section : - (6B.) At the conclusion of its deliberations where an Appeal Tribunal cannot find in favour of the appellant on the medical and other evidence submitted to it, the Appeal Tribunal may if it thinks fit, render to the Commission a certificate recommending sympathetic consideration by the Commission of certain important features of the evidence. Upon receipt of this certificate the Commission may grant a pension to the appellant.';". This amendment was carefully framed after a great deal of personal investigation into the operation of the section dealing with the onus of proof. As honorable members know, I have given a great deal of attention to it. Every year we hear poire honorable members complain about the operation of the onus of proof provisions, whilst other honorable members declare that those divisions and the work of the appeal tribunals are completely satisfactory and that there is nothing wrong with them. But there is something wrong with them. Many men who should receive a pension do not get one, and that is the cause of much discontent. The object of the amendment is to permit appeal tribunals, not only to make their findings on the technicalities and precedents which are at present the basis of their findings, but also to express opinions concerning other matters which at present it is not within their province to decide. Those matters come before the tribunals as a part of the evidence, yet the tribunals must completely disregard them except insofar as they affect technicalities and legal points. For example, the character of the appellant is important. He may be a straightforward type of man who is obviously telling the truth. That is a point in his favour and is something that is most important when the facts of the case are being decided. Many appellants encounter difficulty in collecting evidence to support their cases. In many instances, it is a very real difficulty. Some of the men concerned were injured many years ago and, owing to the lapse of time, it is very difficult for them to collect evidence to refute the evidence brought against them by the commission. Frequently, evidence is lost. Doctors' clinical notes are lost or are not handed on. Sometimes chemists' records are not available. Frequently an appellant finds that a doctor who attended him in the past has died. Some appellants have had great difficulty in collecting the evidence required to support their claims. I think a tribunal should be able to take that into account, but at present all that a tribunal can say in such a case is, " There is not sufficient medical evidence to support the claim". It cannot take account of the difficulty that the appellant may have had in collecting evidence. Another important factor is the character of the appellant. He may be a man of an independent nature a man who is not always on the back of the community, a man who has never sought the assistance of the Repatriation Department, perhaps because he has been a member of a lodge. Those circumstances may make it more difficult for him to prove his case, but all that the appeal tribunal can say is, " There is not sufficient medical evidence to support his claim. Therefore, we cannot allow it ". Then there is the appellant's service record. An appeal tribunal must have a great deal of sympathy for a man who has fought gallantly. The appellant's service record may show that he fought in a number of campaigns and that he was very seriously hurt. I believe the service record of an appellant also ought to be taken into account by the tribunal. But these factors cannot be taken into account now. They may create a doubt in the mind of the tribunal, but it is not the sort of doubt that the tribunal can take into account. It decides the case on the basis of the opinion of one doctor versus the opinion of another doctor of equal standing. On the other hand, there is very little room for doubt, because the disabilities and sicknesses are codified, and a certain degree of consistency is maintained. So the whole thing becomes a science. Similarly, the legal considerations are systematically examined by the legal member of the tribunal. These are technical matters, and the Government cannot say that the decisions of the tribunal are based on, or are influenced by, the quality of human sympathy. I feel sure that the act requires that appeals shall be considered sympathetically, but they are not so considered. At the most, one can only say that the appeal tribunals apply a kind of comprehensive diligence to a consideration of all the evidence that is put forward. They have not even the power to seek evidence, but must decide on the evidence that is placed before them. If the amendment is agreed to - and I hope that it will be 'agreed to - it will mean that if, at the conclusion of its deliberations, an appeal tribunal cannot find in favour of the appellant on the medical and other evidence submitted to it, it may, if it thinks fit, render to the commission a certificate recommending sympathetic consideration, and the com mission may, if it concurs, grant a pension. I emphasize the words " if it thinks fit ". I do not say that, after the hearing of every appeal, the tribunal should, as a matter of course, render a certificate recommending sympathetic consideration. I know that, in the course of a hearing, an appeal tribunal feels circumscribed by the method of finding that it is obliged to adopt. If a tribunal could render such a certificate, I believe that it could give to the Repatriation Commission valuable advice on which it could act and, in a number of cases, grant a pension which would undoubtedly be warranted but which otherwise could not be granted merely because legal, scientific and medical evidence could not be adduced. The method of hearing has been reduced to a science, but this amendment provides for a means of introducing a little sympathy. I know of a number of cases where relief could be granted if such a provision were operative. If the amendment is rejected, I say without any doubt that, when another repatriation measure comes before honorable members next year, there will be a flood of protests from the Opposition about the application of the onusofproof clause. On the other hand, if the amendment is accepted, a provision will have been added which will make the legislation more effective. {: #debate-20-s0 .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- This is a very sincere amendment. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** does not know what he is talking about. I have conducted a lot of personal investigation, and I do know what I am talking about. If the amendment is accepted, it will provide a great benefit to ex-servicemen. They should receive that benefit, and the Opposition ought to vote in favour of the amendment instead of crossing the floor to vote with the Liberal party and refusing to act as a proper opposition. I hope the amendment will be accepted. {: #debate-20-s1 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Navy and Minister for the Army · Moreton · LP -- The proposal that has been submitted by the honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua)** is quite impracticable, and is wholly unacceptable to the Government. Therefore, I move - >That the question be now put. Question put. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 47 NOES: 5 Majority . . 42 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put - That the paragraph proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Joshua's amendment)** be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 5 NOES: 57 Majority . . . . 52 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 7 to 28 - by leave - taken together and agreed to. New clause 3a. {: #debate-20-s2 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes -- I move - >That the following new clause be inserted: - "3a. After section twentyfour of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 24aa. Where a member of the Forces has been granted a discharge on the ground of medical unfitness and that unfitness did not arise - > >from intentionally self-inflicted injuries: or > >from, or from any occurrence that happened during the commission of, a serious breach of discipline by the member, the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Act, be liable to pay to the member or his dependants, or both, as the case may be, pension in accordance with this Division.'.". This is the Parliamentary Draftsman's concept of a human problem to which, sooner or later, we must face up. It is the problem of the man who has been discharged medically unfit after service overseas, and of his eligibility for a pension. The amendment, which I hope the Government will accept, will provide that service in a theatre of war shall be one of the pre-requisites to eligibility for a pension. The other pre-requisite will be that the applicant's unfitness did not arise from intentionally self-inflicted injuries, or from any occurrence that happened during the commission by him of a serious breach of discipline. The reason why the proviso about self-inflicted wounds has been inserted is because it appears in the original act. The simple fact is that when men are discharged from the services medically unfit after service in a theatre of war they sometimes find it impossible to obtain a pension. Their applications to the Repatriation Commission, and, later, their appeals to the entitlement appeals tribunals, are rejected despite the fact that they obviously left the services as a result of having been declared medically unfit. Here is one of the most screaming and glaring anomalies that occur in relation to the Repatriation Act. This is the time, now that the Government has made a move in relation to increases, for the Minister to consider the matter that I have raised. On the face of it, this is something which rather disturbs honorable members who, in the course of their ordinary work as parliamentarians, meet with these cases. A man comes to an honorable member and says, " I have been discharged from the Army, medically unfit. When I go to the Repatriation Department, I am refused a pension because the injury in respect of which I claim a pension is not accepted by the department as being due to war service ". It is to deal with the perplexity of such a man that this amendment has been proposed. I dare say every honorable member knows of a case similar to the one I am about to relate. I have selected the case of Mervyn Holland because it has been regarded by the returned servicemen's organization in Sydney as a test case. It concerns a soldier of World War II. who was discharged as medically unfit after long service in New Guinea and was then refused a pension. On his medical sheet which was filled in upon enlistment appear the following references to his health: Sight defects, nil; distinguishing marks or scars, nil; x-ray, O.K. - or the equivalent mark; all other tests, satisfactory. So, in the circumstances, Mervyn Holland was a fit man when he went to New Guinea. He served in the forces in New Guinea for a couple of years, and was discharged as medically unfit owing to disabilities incurred as the result of service there. Those disabilities included a skin disease and a rare complaint, similar to yaws, contracted in New Guinea, tinea and other conditions of neurasthenia - conditions arising out of tropical service and debility which resulted in his being discharged. *Conversation being audible,* The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! There is too much audible conversation. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- These conditions resulted in his being discharged on the 10th June, 1944, as medically unfit. At the same time, during his service, he became deaf. The deafness was progressive and it was some months after leaving the Army that total deafness came upon him. It was pointed out by his own local medical adviser that this was the natural consequence of his other disabilities. He approached the Repatriation Department, only to be turned down. The decision of the Repatriation Commission and of the tribunal was that his deafness was not due to war service. That is the height of absurdity. Here is a young man whose fitness has been vouched for in the terms that I have quoted. He was fit in all respects when accepted for service in the Army. He went to the Middle East and later to New Guinea and there he suffered the disabilities that are inseparable from tropical service. As the result of those disabilities being aggravated beyond the ordinary run of those complaints in the tropics, he was discharged. One of the other consequences of his service has been progressive deafness which worsened until he became stone deaf. Since he was a fit man when he joined the Army iri 1939, and since he was an unfit man in 1944, it is senseless for the Repatriation Commission, the tribunal or any body of doctors to say that this man's deafness was not due to war service. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- When did he start to go deaf? {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- Upon leaving the Army he was not as deaf as he afterwards became. It was a progressive case. Who could say, even if he left the *Army* in full possession of his hearing, that his service was not the cause of his deafness? But I understand from the papers that were supplied to me that the deafness- was progressive. He was not absolutely deaf when he left the Army, but he became stone deaf. The point that I now raise concerns the fact that the man's discharge was marked " owing to medical unfitness ". Does that mean anything? It is an extraordinary anomaly that such a state of affairs as this can exist: A man may come to a member of this Parliament and say, " There is my discharge from the Army, medically unfit ' ". The member asks him, " Do you. get a pension ? " He says, " No, because my illness is not due to war service; and the Army discharged me as medically unfit ". What nonsense that makes of the onus-of-proof section of the Repatriation Act ! lt bears out my general contention that something is haywire somewhere in the whole approach to pensions. This amendment has been moved in all sincerity. Honorable members opposite have come up against this problem and it is rather a poser. Often, a serviceman who has left the Army after serving in a theatre of war has been discharged as medically unfit. All the Opposition asks is that the bill should give him an automatic entitlement to a pension; but the assessment, or the amount of the pension to be paid must be left to the commission or a tribunal for determination. The case that I have mentioned is one of many. I daresay that every other honorable member would be able to submit such a case. But as this is a recent case concerning a man from the last war, and as all the relevant facts are fresh, I submit the case to the Minister for the Army as irrefutable evidence that he should do something in regard to this section of the a.ct and accept the proposed amendment. I shall sum up, in the few moments that are left to me, by saying that nothing special is asked for in this amendment because, in many cases, medically unfit men do get pensions; but when an applicant for a pension has had his discharge endorsed " medically unfit " repatriation doctors should be prepared to follow the matter through so as to ascertain whether or not a deterioration in the man's health has resulted from service in the forces. How ridiculous it is for the department to tell such a man as I have mentioned that this disablement happened to him after the Army had sent him home. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-20-s3 .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE:
Moore .- On the face of it, this amendment would appear to command a lot of sympathy. Unfortunately, there is a great deal more in it than meets the eye. It is true that attempts have been made, to my knowledge, in the past two or three years, by individuals or groups of ex-servicemen to obtain something like this provision by submitting motions to congresses of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, but the congress in every case has turned them down on the grounds that they obviously ask for far too much and are unreasonable. The reason for that is simple. It is not correct to suggest that if a man has been admitted to the services as medically fit and, subsequently, his discharge shows him to be medically unfit, whatever illness arises during his service must be the result of his service. It is possible for an illness to be aggravated- {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- The honorable member realizes that the amendment refers to service in a theatre of war? {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr LESLIE: -- It was considered that the act covered the case of the man who had been fit when he went into the Army - as indeed he must - but had a latent disability which was subsequently discovered and led to his discharge from the forces. If medical evidence suggested that the disability had been aggravated by his service it would be taken into account, but his basic ailment may have nothing whatever to do with that service. It is important to remember that if we put a dragnet provision in the Repatriation Act we shall be so undermining its benefits that really deserving cases will suffer. Under such a provision almost every man who had been in the services could claim that an ailment or illness from which he suffered was attributable to that service. The proposal for automatic qualification for a pension, if a soldier is discharged medically unfit, is far too wide. There might be some ground for such a provision if action were taken to exclude certain degrees of unfitness which could not be attributable to war service, but rather to natural or unnatural consequences. However, I point out that, already, if a man is discharged as medically unfit and the Repatriation Commission does not show that his disability cannot be attributable to war service, he is automatically entitled to repatriation benefits. In view of the reasonableness of the ex-servicemen's requests for increased repatriation benefits, I must oppose the amendment. {: #debate-20-s4 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- The honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** has just described the amendment as a " dragnet " provision, as though it would open the floodgates of the Treasury. No more unjustified expression could be used. The qualifications incorporated in the clause are completely reasonable. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** pointed out by way of interjection that the first condition to be satisfied was that the soldier had been taken by the Army to a war zone. Also, illnesses arising as the result of intentional selfinflicted injuries, or from occurrences in the course of a breach of discipline will be disqualified as grounds for the granting of pension benefits. The amendment seeks to clarify a position that has caused so much distress in cases with which many honorable members are familiar. A soldier goes into the Army completely fit, is taken to a war zone, and falls ill and returns unfit. Then the argument about war cause arises. In the case that I cited this afternoon the soldier had died from a chronic, ulcerated condition of the stomach. It was agreed that he did not have stomach ulcers when he joined the Army. His ulcerated condition developed in New Guinea and his widow and others contended that it was caused by Army food and the circumstances of Army life. There were months of delay while haggling went on about whether the man's condition was caused by war service. As I said this afternoon, a former Minister replied that the X-ray plates showing his ulcerated condition were being studied. But every one knows that it is not possible, merely by looking at such plates, to decide whether the ulcerated condition was attributable to tension resulting from war service in New Guinea. The point made by the honorable member for Parkes is that the amendment relates only to the man who is taken into the Army physically fit, and becomes ill while on war service. With the exceptions that I have mentioned - selfinflicted injuries and disabilities due to occurrences in the course of a breach of discipline - the illness becomes the responsibility of the Army, which has taken him out of his normal surroundings. To deny that would be just as foolish as to say that, having become ill in a war zone, the soldier in question would not be entitled to medical treatment whilst there. The Army obviously admits that that is not so. He is immediately put in an army hospital. If his incapacity results from such illness, or he is left in a weakened condition that subsequently develops into something more serious, the matter ought to be the responsibility of the repatriation authorities. The amendment of the honorable member for Parkes attempts to achieve this. {: #debate-20-s5 .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT:
Lilley .- Honorable members should recognize that this is a completely redundant amendment, and not in conformity with the arguments of the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** or the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley).** I challenge either of those honorable gentlemen to bring into this Parliament any evidence that a soldier who became ill or suffered an incapacity in a " war zone ", not as a result of a self-inflicted wound or of anything described in paragraph (&), such as an incapacity arising from any occurrence that happened during a serious breach of discipline, has not to-day a repatriation entitlement. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- I could bring forward evidence of a dozen such cases. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- The honorable member for Parkes mentioned the case of a soldier who served in the Middle East and New Guinea and returned to Australia suffering from a skin disease, tinea, and neurasthenia. He was then discharged as medically unfit. I should say that Soldier has an entitlement from the Repatriation Commission for those three conditions. If, subsequent to his discharge, he began to grow progressively deaf he could apply for recognition of the fact that his deafness was attributable to war service. If the Repatriation Commission were able to produce evidence that his deafness was hereditary or had been brought about by conditions that existed subsequent to his war service, it would have discharged the onus of proof under section 47. That responsibility would be transferred to the exserviceman, who would have to show that while he was still in the Army some incident occurred that could possibly be related to his deafness, or that a previously existing condition had been so aggravated as to induce deafness. If the soldier is able to produce such evidence even to the board - it would not have to go as far as the tribunal - or, indeed, to the Repatriation Commission, it would not be rejected, but would be accepted immediately. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- But it has been rejected. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- Every ex-serviceman member of this committee who has had experience in these .cases knows that that is true. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** tried to mislead the committee into believing that the ex-serviceman, upon being discharged on medical grounds, did not receive recognition or entitlement for the very illnesses for which he was discharged. That is complete nonsense. Immediately a serviceman is discharged on medical grounds, he is accepted automatically by the Repatriation Department for an entitlement for the very medical disabilities for which he was discharged. The proposed new clause is redundant. The Opposition is trying to convince people who are not familiar with the repatriation services that an anomaly exists when it does not exist at all. Consequently, I oppose the amendment. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- Apparently the honorable member considers that anybody who disagrees with him does so from an ulterior motive. What a convenient theory ! {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- The honorable member for Fremantle should be a good judge of such conduct, having set such an example in this chamber on a number of occasions. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- The honorable member for Lilley is only stooging for the department. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- Let me say that I should not have the courage to stand up in this Parliament and say that these things were true if they were not true. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr Beazley: -- I do not dispute the honorable member's sincerity. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr WIGHT: -- During my eleven years' experience in close association with ex-servicemen, I have never heard of one case in line with the case that was suggested of a soldier being discharged with a disability and the Repatriation Department refusing to grant him a pension. Let me say that I have seen hundreds of cases brought before the Returned Servicemen's League in respect of which, upon the first evidence being submitted that the ex-serviceman had found some disability which could have contributed towards an aggravation of a condition from which he suffered, the Repatriation Department has not immediately said, " Then we will accept your condition without further argument", and he has not had to appear before the board. What th.e Opposition is trying to suggest is that legislation has to be introduced to meet cases where a board has failed to carry out its responsibility under the act. The Opposition claims that not only is the board - which consists of ex-servicemen, one of whom has been appointed by an ex-servicemen's organization - insincere, but also that the commission, which likewise consists of three ex-servicemen, one of whom is appointed by an exservicemen's organization, is insincere in carrying out responsibilities under the act. In other words, the Opposition is laughing at the Repatriation Act and the whole system of repatriation. I challenge any member of the Opposition who has raised this issue to check the agenda of the conference of the Returned Servicemen's League which will take place within the next week or two. I defy honorable members opposite to find anything like this on the agenda for decision. Are honorable members opposite trying to tell me that if an anomaly like this exists, the thousands of ex-servicemen who subscribe to the league would not have directed attention to it in the subbranches; that the sub-branches would not iri turn have brought it to the notice of the districts, the districts to the State branches, and the State executives to the federal executive of the league so that it would be included on the agenda? I notice the honorable member for Werriwa perusing the report of the 1944 federal conference of the Returned Servicemen's League. Let me assure him that he will not find it in that report either. The amendment is a hollow sham, and I oppose it. It has been brought forward for no other purpose than to create a doubt in the minds of the ex-servicemen who submit claims to the Repatriation Department. {: #debate-20-s6 .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA:
Leader of the Anti-Communist Labour party · Ballarat , - The Australian Labour party (AntiCommunist) opposes this amendment for three reasons. I think that perhaps the feelings of honorable members are becoming a little frayed. Let us say that the Opposition is sincere in this amendment, but the three reasons that I shall put forward will show that it is not a good amendment, and that it should not be agreed to by the committee. In the first place, as the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** has said, the matter is well looked after at the present time by the procedure of the Repatriation Department, which works on a very carefully laid-down code that if a soldier joins the forces fit and is discharged unfit, the fact that there is a liability on the department to pay him a pension is very strongly established. In fact, that is stating it mildly; it is established in actual fact. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- It is not automatic. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr JOSHUA: -- I have been informed by the chairman of the appeals tribunals that that is the way in which they regard it. I have not known of any case in which an application has been rejected on those grounds when the facts have been proved. In addition to that, of course, the tribunal has before it a statement which the repatriation doctor must sign. One of the questions on the form reads, " Is the illness of the soldier at the time of the examination aggravated or caused by his war service?" The doctor must answer " Yes " or " No " to that question. If he answers " No ", he must support the declaration, and it is open to the exserviceman to prove him wrong. He might get some further medical evidence. The tribunal will accept any reliable evidence to show that the best information of the department is wrong. That is the first reason. It is already well looked after by the department and, up to the present time, literally hundreds of thousands of cases have been satisfactorily decided by the department. Secondly, one of the weaknesses about the amendment is that discharge certificates are not always reliable. I have handled a number of discharge certificates which showed that the soldiers were discharged medically unfit, yet they did not get a pension. If this amendment were accepted, it would be necessary only for an ex-serviceman to produce his discharge certificate showing that he had been discharged medically unfit in order to get a pension. I have found that in the discharge of hundreds of thousands of troop3 in a hurry, discharge certificates are not always correctly made out. The ex-serviceman might produce his certificate years afterwards to show that he was discharged medically unfit, and it might then be found that an incorrect entry was made on the certificate. We cannot take the discharge certificate as being a document of authenticity which will stand the test of medical investigation. Thirdly, we consider that the amendment has been very carelessly and loosely framed. It does not say anything about a. soldier suffering from a disability when he enlisted. Many men were of B2 medical classification on enlistment, but they were sent overseas to theatres of operations ; I have met them overseas. If the amendment were accepted, such servicemen who were discharged medically unfit would be automatically granted pensions. For these three reasons, the AntiCommunist Labour party will not support the amendment. **Mr. MACKINNON** (Corangamite) [9.29 J. - On this occasion, I find myself in agreement with the opinion that has been expressed by the Leader of the AntiCommunist Labour party **(Mr. Joshua)** that the amendment has been very loosely framed, and that what it seeks to provide is already provided under other sections of the act. I suggest that whatever merit might lie behind the amendment has been negatived by the loose manner in which it has been drafted. I oppose the amendment on two points. I intend to be very brief in the matter. The first point on which I oppose it is this : The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** went to great pains to try to convince the committee that the amendment was designed to protect the interests of men who come back from active service - those who have really played a part in the defence of this country. I suggest to him that that is a completely false premise, which has been designed to delude honorable members. I suggest also that it is in line with the rather pathetic case that was mentioned by the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey).** As to the case mentioned by the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey),** I gather, reading between the lines, that the unfortunate man developed war neurosis from driving a 3-ton or 2-ton truck round a capital city for three or four years during the war period. On that ground, I say that the case is presented in a completely false light, a light that may distract the minds of honorable members of the committee from the real benefits that arc contained in the act generally. I rather regret stating my second reason, and I hope that my intentions will be taken as completely honest, but *J.* am reliably informed that the amendment, as it is worded, would include the cases that were presented to us in this place by the honorable member for Shortland **(Mr. Griffiths)** in an earlier debate, and it would make available to such people the benefits of the Repatriation Act. So I suggest that on those two grounds alone the amendment should be opposed. Those grounds, briefly, are: The fact that it is badly drafted, that by virtue of its drafting it includes people who are presented by the honorable member for Parkes as being great war heroes; and the fact that because of its wide provisions it would include people whom I do not think any honorable member of this committee would agree should receive any benefits under this act. {: #debate-20-s7 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- 1 cannot understand the contention of the honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr.** Mackinnon). He said that it was an unworthy or unsatisfactory case that I presented. {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: -- No. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- I received particulars of this case from the general secretary of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia at 4 o'clock this afternoon. The case was handed to me as one of those which the league puts forward as key cases in its claim that there should be automatic entitlement in these circumstances. Unless I misheard the honorable member for Corangamtie, he said that this man's medical condition upon his return made this an unsatisfactory case. {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: -- No. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- I reject the second point about sloppy draftsmanship. If we try to get something done by the draftsman relating to a mighty act like the Repatriation Act, if we seek to obtain an amendment that is cohesive enough to be read in one breath, we have got to accept what he gives us. We know what we are after. We are after automatic entitlement for these cases. It is of no use the honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Wight)** beating his breast and stooging, every time we make a proposal for the amendment of the act. He is an extremely sincere man. He knows what the problem is, but he is coming down in exactly the same way as the commission and the tribunals, on the side of bureaucracy. I appeal to him to come down on the side of common sense. He knows, from his own service, that deafness in New Guinea is, I might say, all embracing, because of the coral insect in the water. How many of the men who have returned from New Guinea have had their eardrums punctured or are suffering from deafness? One is the natural corollary to the other. The man to who I referred got no pension because he had tinea. He got no pension because be had a certain horrible skin disease which disappeared in a milder climate, but which was obvious. That is the case I make. I still maintain that he did have deafness upon leaving the army. The right to a pension is always provided in the act, and the onus of proof is always provided in the act, yet the most bedevilling section of the act, section 47, with which we will deal later, has the same anomalies as this. We on this side are trying to get a fair deal for some men, and it ill becomes ex-servicemen who are trying to debunk this attempt because they wish this legislation to pass without, amendment. Bead the case of Mervyn Holland again, and tell me that he is not entitled to a pension, that there should not be automatic entitlements in these matters ! Do not natter or go into gobbledegook about what should be done, or try to read English into the Repatriation Act because any one who tries to do so will either die of frustration or be eligible for a pension himself before he is finished ! The honorable member for Ballarat **(Mr. Joshua)** said that, as an officer, he knew that many of the officials issuing discharges are not efficient, and that many mistakes are made. What sort of an officer was he to allow those mistakes to be made? Did he declare men to be medically unfit? What a horrible admission ! I cannot believe that it is possible. The point which I have risen to make is that there is another very important amendment and I hope that we shall have the opportunity to discuss it. T also wanted to say that if I misunderstood the honorable member for Corangamite, I apologize. I thought he laid great emphasis upon the untruthfulness of these assertions. This case is something that has been given to me as a standard case in one section which the Returned Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia in New South Wales is fighting. The contention that the amendment is outside the ambit of the act, and that this matter is already covered, must be rejected for reasons given by the honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley),** and the reasons given in my few remarks on this subject. {: #debate-20-s8 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS:
Minister for the Navy and Minister for the Army · Moreton · LP -- The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen),** who has introduced this amendment, expressed regret that the honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Mackinnon)** did not understand it. I want to say to the honorable member for Parkes that the whole of his speech has been based on false premises, because nothing in this amendment deals with eligibility based on service in a theatre of war. " Theatre of war " is not mentioned in the amendment. The honorable member for Fremantle **(Mr. Beazley)** also based his argument on the grounds of service in a theatre of war. I do not think the honorable member read the amendment. There is nothing in it that deals with a theatre of war. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- This is a serious matter. Do not make a joke about it. We want to see about this fellow's pension. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- This is factual. I am dealing with the amendment before the committee, not with individual cases. I have not the facts of the individual case. Before I can deal with individual cases, I must be given details from the Repatriation Department. I am only representing the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper).** One would need to have all the files here in order to deal with the cases that may be raised from time to time. All I want to say is that the honorable member made an *od misericordiae!* appeal on the basis that all the people who were to benefit under this particular section would require to have had service in a theatre of war. There is nothing in this proposal to that effect. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- We will amend the amendment to fit that, if the Minister wishes. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr FRANCIS: -- That is not the proposal which the honorable member has submitted to the committee. The amende ment, as worded, either would not make any alteration to the act, as at present drafted, or would open the gate far too wide. I have had lengthly experience with ex-servicemen's associations. I joined the Returned Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia back in December, 1919. I have served as president of a sub-branch of the league and as a district president, and I have served on the State executive in Queensland. I know that, on many occasions, ill-informed people have raised this proposal at branch meetings of the organization, but when the consequences of such an ill-considered proposal as that included in the amendment moved by the honorable member for Parkes were pointed out, the proposal was rejected. The amendment provides that where a member of the forces has been granted a discharge on the ground of medical unfitness and that unfitness did not arise from intentionally self-inflicted injuries, or from any occurrence that happened during the commission of a serious breach of discipline by the member, the Commonwealth shall, subject to the act, be liable to pay to the member or his dependants, or both, the pensions provided under this act. Section 24 of the principal act sets out quite clearly that the persons entitled to war pension are those who suffer from a warcaused disability. If the words " subject to this act " in the proposed new clause are given their ordinary natural meaning, the liability of the Commonwealth to pay a pension would be subject to the provisions of section 24. That would take us nowhere. On the other hand, if that is not what is intended, the amendment obviously goes much too far. Let us consider, for example, the case of a man who, on enlistment, concealed a disability, and was accepted, only to be discharged as medically unfit when the disability was discovered at a subsequent medical examination. Does the honorable member for Parkes suggest that that person should receive a pension? His discharge would clearly have been due to a physical disability that was present before enlistment. Surely no honorable member would suggest that a person who did everything possible to hide a, disability that subsequently became apparent under strain and stress, should receive a pension. An impossible situation would be created, and, therefore, the Government will not accept the amendment. Question put - >That the clause proposed to be inserted **(Mr. Haylen's amendment)** be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 23 NOES: 40 Majority . . . . 17 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. New clause 4a. {: #debate-20-s9 .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton -- The hour is late, but I want to put before the committee an amendment which has certain legal aspects in relation to the on us-of -proof clause. I think that the meaning and intent of section 47 have been cleared up during the debate. The statement of the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Spicer)** which has been distributed and which deals with the onus of proof and the degree or standard of proof, is in accordance with the views that have been put from this side of the chamber by many honorable members, including myself, over a period of years; that is to say, the view is the view for which we contended last year and the year before. But the problem is to make sure that those rules are obeyed. The essence of section 47 is contained, I think, in the last few lines of the statement of the AttorneyGeneral, which deals with all claims - >A claim is not to be dismissed because the tribunal is left in a state of doubt as to any question whatsoever which arises for its decision. The claimant is always to bc given the benefit of any such doubt. As the onus of proof in all cases whatsoever lies on the person or authority who contends that the claim should not be granted and the claimant is to be given the benefit of any doubt, it follows . . . And these are the words of the AttorneyGeneral, and this represents, I presume, not only a view of the law but also Government policy. Section 47 says it and the Attorney-General says it - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. .that the claim should be allowed unless that person or authority proves beyond doubt . . . That is, the one who is opposing the claim - . . that the claim is inadmissible. Only if the evidence is such that the determining authority is left in no such doubt that the claim should be refused can it properly dismiss the claim. {: .speaker-L0V} ##### Mr Wight: -- The determining authority ! {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- Must I read it again? Everybody else understands it. {: #debate-20-s10 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order ! The honorable member for Lilley will remain silent. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr EVATT: -- The Attorney-General's statement continues - >If the authority has some doubt, that is to say, if it is not convinced beyond doubt that it should refuse the claim, the claimant must be given the benefit of the doubt and his claim must be granted. That expresses, as we have endeavoured to express in debate after debate, and in individual case after individual case, that the clear intention of section 47, as amended by the Labour Government of **Mr. Curtin** in 1943, is in accordance with that. The only problem is to make absolutely certain that that principle is applied at all levels - applied by the gentleman of the Repatriation Commission in the first instance, because if they do not apply it it goes to the various appeal tribunals - and it must be applied, above all, by the entitlement tribunals. What is the good of honorable members opposite saying that the tribunals are very good and that the members are all returned servicemen? It is not a question of their goodwill. It is a question of applying the law, according to the law. It does not need any beneficial construction. There has never been another section so carefully drafted as the section to which I refer. We had great difficulty in getting the Repatriation Commission authorities to accept it, because over and over again during that period we found one or more individuals who did not like it. What does it mean? It means that in every case where there is war service, where the question is whether the war aggravated the condition caused or instituted, the decision must be given in favour of the applicant unless one can say beyond a reasonable doubt, not on the balance of probabilities but beyond doubt practically to a moral certainty, that it had nothing to do with war service. Take the case of a heart complaint. Who can say beyond doubt that a serious heart condition in the case of a man who has been in a war zone could not have been caused by war conditions, yet one finds heart cases in which the claim is denied - all contrary to section 47. So our proposal is to do what has been done in England, where for years **Mr. Justice** Denning gave interpretations of the English act on this question, which act is pretty well on all fours with ours, and so make certain that the decisions of these tribunals, in appropriate cases, are reversed, and that they are told to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt. A passage was cited this afternoon by the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey),** in which **Mr. Justice** Denning, in the case of *Miller* v. *Minister for Pensions,* in 1947, said - >Where the cause of the case is unknown or imperfectly known . . . And that happens in so many cases - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . the only proper conclusion is that the Minister cannot discharge the burden of proof, because the unknown cause may be a cause incidental to war service, and for that purpose the evidence must reach the same degree of cogency as is required in a criminal case before the accused is found guilty. He means that it must be accepted unless one can say, as a jury must say before convicting a person, that the condition could not have had anything to do with war service, and be sure of that beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the statement of the principle. We suggest a practical means of setting up an appeal tribunal. The Government might want to put restrictions on the appeal. We would not object to that. We want some supervisory judicial authority which will make certain that that principle stated by the Attorney General and agreed to by us is put into effect. The only way is to have that tribunal, and that is the view, I understand from my colleague, the honorable member for Parkes, which has been put by the returned servicemen's association in New South Wales. I say that in many cases that principle is not applied. The *Latter* case, which was mentioned in another place, shows on the face of it that the medical man was dealing with an obscure condition very like that which **Mr. J** ustice Denning referred to in England. That case should have been decided in favour of the applicant, not because one can be sure that war caused it, but because one cannot he sure that war did not cause it. I appeal to the Government to review this matter and get this question of onus of proof before a judge who will administer it, not sympathetically, but according to the letter of the law. The AttorneyGeneral has interpreted it. We agree with his interpretation. As matters stand at present one entitlement tribunal takes one view and another takes another view. Mostly, one cannot find to what extent they have applied the rule. I ask the Government to consider this problem from the point of view of a new approach, in the sense that there is no dispute about the meaning of it. The AttorneyGeneral accepts the view which the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Sir Eric Harrison)** knows I have often put under considerable difficulties, in the face of opposition from unexpected quarters. Let some judge be appointed to determine the disputed case, and then justice will be done. I move - That, after clause 4, the following new clause be inserted : - " 4a. After section fortyseven of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 47a. - (1.) Where a claimant, applicant or appellant under this Act considers - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. that, in hearing, determining or deciding his claim, application or appeal, the Commission, a Board, an Appeal Tribunal or an Assessment Appeal Tribunal did not give to him the benefit of any doubt in respect of a matter or question referred to, in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1.) of the last preceding section ; or 1. a person or authority who contended that his claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed did not discharge the onus of proof placed on that person or authority by sub-section (2.) of that section, the claimant, applicant or appellant may appeal to the High Court,or to the Supreme Court of the State or Territory of the Commonwealth in which he resides, against the determination or decision of the Commission, Board, Appeal Tribunal or Assessment Appeal Tribunal, as the case may be, on the ground that he was not so given the benefit of a doubt or that the person or authority did not so discharge the onus of proof. (2.) Jurisdiction is conferred on the High Court, the several Supreme Courts of the States are invested with federal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction is conferred on the several Supreme Courts of the Territories of the Commonwealth, to hear and determine an appeal under this section. (3.) The jurisdiction conferred on, or invested in, the High Court or a Supreme Court by this section shall be exercised by a single Justice or Judge, as the case may be, of the Court. (4.) The Court hearing an appeal under this section may make such order with respect to the appeal as it thinks fit and that order shall be final and conclusive. (5.) An order as to the costs of an appeal under this section shall not be made. (6.) The regulations may make provision for the furnishing to a Court to which an appeal is made under this section of any records in the possession of the Commission which relate to the appellant.'.". {: #debate-20-s11 .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- I was extremely interested to hear the Leader of the Opposition on this question of section 47. I have heard him so often deal with section 47, but I was amazed to find that he can generate so much heat in putting the case again, because his record with regard to it is notorious. I think I should say something about it, because it is perfectly true that he did give an opinion. It is perfectly true that the amendment was made, but it is equally true that having given the opinion, and being the AttorneyGeneral of a government, he was not game enough to enforce it. When the entitlement appeals tribunal made a statutory report to the Parliament and criticized the commission for failing to implement the amendment that the honorable member speaks about, strengthening its criticism by quoting the opinion given by the Attorney-General on that occasion, the Minister for Repatriation at that time told the entitlement appeals tribunal that if it did not withdraw that statutory report and alter it he would dismiss the members of the tribunal. In other words, he stood over an appeal tribunal - the high court of appeal for the exservicemen in repatriation cases - and said to the members, "Either you withdraw your statutory report to the Parliament or I shall dismiss you ". When, as honest gentlemen, they refused to withdraw the report, he did dismiss them. The AttorneyGeneral of that day remained silent. Although he had given an opinion, he did not attempt to enforce it on a member of the Cabinet of which he was a member. But now he comes into the chamber and, with a great deal of heat, says that these rules must be obeyed. Let me tell the right honorable gentleman that the rules are being obeyed. Let us take a. simple cia.se. An ex-serviceman claims that he is entitled to a pension because a disability from which he is suffering is war-caused. He, makes the simple averment that his disability is due to his war service. He advances no evidence but that averment. What happens then ? The case goes to the local repatriation board. It is the board's job to prove that the disability was either caused or not caused by war service. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is not. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- It is. Let us assume that the board considers that it has evidence sufficient to justify it in rejecting the application. Then the case goes to the Repatriation Commission. The commission also must discharge the onus of proof that lies on it. If the com- mission is satisfied that the board acted properly and says it is convinced that the disability is not due to war service, the " digger " has the right to appeal to the entitlement appeals tribunal - the high court of appeal in these cases. If he appeals to the tribunal, the whole of the evidence taken up to that point is made available to the tribunal and also to his advocate. The evidence which, in the opinion of the board and the commission, proved that the injury was not due to war service is made available to the appellant's advocate, so there is no hole in the corner business. The appeal tribunal has the right to upset the finding of the commission, because it is the high court of appeal. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Do not look at me all the time. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- I thought I could convey some information to the honorable member, but I am afraid that is hopeless. I shall not look at him. I shall look at one of the intelligent members of the Opposition, the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam).** I hope I shall not embarrass him. At that point of time, the appeal tribunal can upset the decision made by the commission if it is satisfied that it has not been proved conclusively that the disability is not associated with, or is not the direct outcome of the appellant's war service. There we have the whole system working properly. The right honorable gentleman refers to a returned servicemen's organization in New South Wales. No objection has been made to the present procedure by either the federal body or any of the other State branches of that organization. The ex-servicemen's committee of Cabinet listens to every request made by responsible members of the organization at the federal level. We sit in conference with them in the Cabinet room here in Canberra. Not once have they raised the question of the onus of proof provisions with us. But we know full well the politics that are associated with the New South Wales organization. It stands on its own in this matter. Let me say clearly that all the fuss and fury in which the right honorable gentleman has indulged stands exposed for what it is. "When he was AttorneyGeneral, he gave an opinion on legislation introduced by the Government of which he was a member, but the Minister for Repatriation in that Government refused to act in conformity with the opinion. He stood over the high court of appeal of the returned servicemen in an intimidating manner. He threatened the members with dismissal unless they withdrew a statutory report to the Parliament. When they refused to do so, he dismissed them peremptorily. Although the right honorable gentleman took no action in the matter then, now that he is the Leader of the Opposition he finds that it is something to which he must pay attention. He says that the rules must be obeyed. The AttorneyGeneral in this Government has given an opinion on the matter that is on all fours with the opinion given by the right honorable gentleman, but the great difference is that, under this Government, the opinion is being complied with. The present Attorney-General has the strength of character necessary to ensure that when he expresses an opinion, effect will be given to it in the quarters to which it is directed. That is the difference between this Government and the Government of which the right honorable gentleman was a member. Exservicemen can always turn to this Government for relief of their disabilities, knowing full well that we will give them that relief. We do not pay lip-service to them, as honorable gentlemen opposite did when they were in office. We take definite action. {: #debate-20-s12 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- I am filled with admiration for the performance of the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Sir Eric Harrison).** He is the best party hack of the century. He has pranced round and round the sawdust ring in relation to this matter. I have seen his performance on many occasions over ten years. It is always the same. There is the arched back, the little trot, the best breeding and away we go. He thoroughly enjoys it. But he has not answered the question that we have directed to him through this amendment. It is all very well for the right honorable gentleman to refer to what the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** did seven or eight years ago and accuse him of not acting in a bona fide manner in this matter, but I say - and *Hansard* will vindicate me - that we have been driving at this for many years. Concede that there was a difference of opinion on the matter between the Minister for Repatriation and the Attorney-General in the Chifley Government. What could the Attorney-General of that day do about it? It ill becomes the senior member of the Government present to-night to do nothing but talk about what happened in the past. The Minister has made no valid contribution to the question whether, in this century, we shall ever solve the problem of the onus of proof. He has said that everything is all right in this best of all possible worlds, but we are entitled to disagree with him. When the Leader of the Opposition was Attorney-General, he gave a clear opinion on this matter, with which I agreed and with which the present Attorney-General has agreed. The only point is whether the provisions of section 47 are being applied in accordance with that opinion. The only way in which we can find out is to refer the matter to a judge of the High Court. Let him look at it, on the evidential side, and see whether that opinion is being complied with. But the Minister will not hear of that. He goes into his dance and makes a great deal of noise, but he does not touch on the subject in any way. He does not answer the question at all. There is a vendetta against the New South Wales branch of the Returned Servicemen's League. The Minister says that the congress of that organization has said this and the federal authority has said that. What is wrong with the New South Wales branch ? Is there no validity in its decisions upon this matter? The question is simple enough. As I have said before, the onus of proof is the thing that bedevils the Repatriation Act. It is useless for the Minister to deny that that is so. We want to find out why 80 per cent, of the applications are refused. Does the Minister think that 80 per cent, is an abnormally high percentage of refusals? Does he think the applicants are malingerers ? Or does he believe that there really is something wrong with the men - most .of whom served in World War I. - who make the applications? Government members take the view that everything is all right because they are in power, but let me tell them that there is anger about this matter, at least throughout New South Wales. I cannot speak for the other States. The Minister has made a very bad impression on me - and J am sure, on many others - by making no attempt to answer this question. We want some one with a knowledge of the law- {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The Opposition would wipe out the diggers' court of appeal. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- We should not wipe it out. We are asking that some one with ti knowledge of law be appointed to examine the position to ascertain whether the law is being carried out. Was not the proposition advanced by the Leader of the Opposition a simple one? He said, " This is the law. I agree with it. On the other hand, this is what has been done by the commission and the tribunals, and. again, this is what we contend should be done ". Who is to ascertain the truth for us? The Vice-President of the Executive 'Council has not answered that question The Government says, in effect, " Everything possible has been done. There are no cases that cannot be explained ". But let me cite a case that was referred to me from Sydney to-day. J refer to the case of Sister Blake, who suffers from hypertension, cardiac and vascular disease, gallstones, arteriosclerosis, angina pectoris, neurosis, and debility. She has applied for a pension for years without success. She is the rose of no man's land. The honorable member for Boothby **(Mr. McLeay)** waxed lyrical to-day about the dear old nurses - the old barges he called them with a sympathetic tear and a reminiscent sigh. Sister Blake has been waiting for years to get a pension. Need I repeat the awful catalogue of her injuries? When she appeals to the entitlement tribunal, whose legal approach is always to show sympathy, what happens? She is thrown out. She is told that she is too old, and that she is suffering from senile decay. Will the Vice-President of the Executive Council still say that everything possible is being done in such cases? So moved was her doctor, who had known her for years and saw service with her, that he said that the decision of the tribunal that Sister Blake's condition was not due to war service was pedantic and puerile. He stated that it was one of the most extraordinary decisions of which he had heard during his medical career. He said that, in his view the gall bladder condition, the angina pectoris, and the neurosis were due to the fact that the woman had worn herself out prematurely by nursing soldiers during the war and later in repatriation hospitals. Yet it was held that the onus of proof had not been discharged, and she was not granted a pension. Her doctor said that his remarks were based on an observation of the devoted work of Sister Blake over a period of twenty years. When considering another clause, I directed attention to the case of Mervyn Holland. Each of these cases constitutes an indictment of the appeal tribunal for its decision in relation to the onus of proof. The Leader of the Opposition made a clear case in relation to the legal aspects of the matter, and I am surprised and bitterly disappointed that the VicePresident of the Executive Council will not give to the committee any more than a superficial comment on a sober amendment which seeks to have such matters referred to a justice of the High Court of Australia. The right honorable gentleman refers glibly to the high court of the soldiers. We say that the legal aspect of the matter should be examined. The right honorable gentleman should not use words that do not mean anything. The need for such an amendment has been abundantly proved by the cases that have been cited unless, of course, there is a solid phalanx of opposition to any attempt to do anything to the Repatriation Department, and it is suggested that it is a perfect department and that everybody is doing the most magnificent things. We concede that, in relation to some matters, magical performances have been staged, but the section to which I refer has always been a bone of contention. It is extremely disappointing to see the Vice-President of the Executive Council, when we move a worthwhile and vital amendment, do no more than to reminisce and talk about what happened in 1946. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- And not very accurately, either. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- Perhaps not. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- Very effectively, though. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- The right honorable gentleman goes over the same hurdles and through the same hoops on each occasion this matter is raised. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 **Sir Eric** *Harrison interjecting,* {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- The Opposition presses the amendment. I have only a few minutes left at my disposal, and I hope that the right honorable gentleman will silence himself and subdue his temper until I have finished my speech. Let me say, in conclusion, that no valid reason has been given for rejecting the amendment. The Vice-President of the Executive Council has treated it superficially and with too much humour and not enough sincerity. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- I have proved that the Government is already doing what the amendment seeks to provide. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- That is not so. Throughout the country, there is a conflict about the manner in which the law has been carried out. Does not the right honorable gentleman think that, if it is desired to have a check on the manner in which the law has been administered, it is logical to get a lawyer to do it? What is wrong with getting the greatest lawyers in the country to examine the matter ? {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The " diggers " have set themselves against legal representation and advocacy. They have their own people, who are all " diggers ", appearing before the appeal tribunals. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition, who is a legal man, wanting legal representation. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- It would be possible to obtain the services of a justice of the High Court, who is an ex-serviceman. We are only looking for an indication that the law is being carried out. The preference act could be invoked to ensure that the judge who was to consider the matters would be an ex-serviceman, and we could ensure that he would work in sweet harmony with the Vice-President of the Executive Council, who talks so much trash about the members of the tribunals. Of course they are good men. We are not suggesting that their decisions are anything but genuine, but the Opposition thinks, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, that there is a case for the appointment of a judge. What is a judge but a sifter of evidence - a man who would examine the facts, and send a case back to the tribunal, still actively in operation, pointing out that the onus of proof had not been discharged? If the Government believes that the law is being observed, it should be delighted to accept the amendment, and to thank us for having moved it. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The Labour party had eight years in which to do something about it. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- The question of time has no relation to the matter at all. We urge the Government to do something vital about the Repatriation Act, and to make it live and work for the benefit of the ex-serviceman, as was originally intended. {: #debate-20-s13 .speaker-KWR} ##### Mr TURNER:
Bradfield , - I wish to speak very briefly and without heat about the amendment that has been moved by the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen).** First, I think it is desirable that the matter should be placed in due proportion. It must be recalled that every year hundreds of applications are submitted to the Repatriation Department and are allowed, in the first instance, by the Repatriation Commission, and that only a very small proportion go to the entitlement appeal tribunals. A number of that proportion is granted also. In regard to some of the applications that are rejected, it may be that there are some cases - indeed, there must be some cases - where justice is not being done. But let us be quite clear about the fact that we are dealing with a very small proportion of the total number of applications that are submitted to the department. The debate revolves around section 47 of the Repatriation Act, which establishes the principle that the onus of proof lies upon the commission and not upon the applicant. It also provides that, in all circumstances, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the applicant. I do not think there is any quarrel with the wording of that section. I believe that it carries into effect the intention of the Parliament. The matter for debate is whether the section is being carried into effect by the entitlement appeal tribunals. If, in some cases - I suggest there are only a few such cases - it is not carried into effect, a question arises as to how the Parliament can ensure that effect is given to it. The amendment that has been submitted by the honorable member for Parkes does not represent the best way of dealing with this matter. The Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** has stated, in so many words, that the amendment merely seeks to give effect to the provisions contained in the English legislation. That is not true. There is a vital distinction between the amendment and the provisions of the English act, as honorable members will observe when I quote the wording of the English act in a moment or two. What is contemplated by the amendment now before the committee is a rehearing by a judge of the High Court of Australia. A re-hearing, or rather a complete review of the case, and a reassessment of the whole of the evidence would take place. In other words, the High Court judge would be put in a position of being a super entitlement appeals tribunal. There would be a complete re-consideration of the case. I suggest that this would lead to a multiplicity of appeals, and in the long run would result in the supplanting of the entitlement appeals tribunals by a High Court judge.. I believe that that is not what ex-servicemen want. It would replace an expert and sympathetic tribunal by a judge without the expert knowledge of the tribunal which I believe, is so essential in the administration of matters of this kind. It is not what the ex-serviceman wants, and I suggest, in any event, it would be wrong to, in effect, deprive that expert tribunal of the function that it ought to perform. For those reasons I believe that the Opposition's proposed amendment is not a desirable amendment to the law, and that it does not represent the best way of effecting the purpose which, I have no doubt, all sides of this Parliament wish to see carried into effect. In another place it has been argued that there is no need to make a provision such as is contained in the British act for appeals on points of law. It has been argued in that place that a writ of *mandamus* will serve the purpose. It is a technical matter, and I am not qualified to express an opinion on it, but I believe from what competent lawyers have told me that the procedure of issuing a writ of *mandamus* is extremely expensive and cumbrous and, indeed, is a very blunt instrument for effecting the purpose that no doubt the Parliament has in mind. The Leader of the Opposition will be aware of that fact, as a result of his sitting on the High Court bench in an appeal *Rex* v. *War Pensions Appeals Tribunals ex parte Bott* in 1933. Despite his dissenting judgment, it was decided that under that procedure it was not possible to do justice in the particular case before the court. So I reject the suggestion that has been made in another place that that is an adequate means of giving effect to the purpose the Parliament has in mind. I believe that the provisions of the British law are those best designed to achieve the purpose we have in mind. The British Appeal Tribunals Act 1943, provides in section 6 (2) as follows : - >Where, in the case of an appeal to the Tribunal (under certain other sections of the act) the appellant or the Minister is dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal as being erroneous in point of law, he may, with the leave of the Tribunal or of a judge of the High Court nominated for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor appeal therefrom, . . . It is quite clear that the appeal provided under the English law is not an appeal such as is contemplated in the Opposition's amendment at present before the committee. {: .speaker-DTN} ##### Dr Evatt: -- Then why does not the honorable member move for the inclusion of the English provision, which we will support ? {: .speaker-KWR} ##### Mr TURNER: -- The Leader of the Opposition admits, in effect, that the English procedure is not the same as would be introduced by the Opposition's amendment. I believe that the system of appeal on points of law is the right way to approach this matter, because it would mean that, whereas the expert tribunal would still deal with cases, it would enjoy the benefit of judicial supervision and guidance. It would mean that, from time to time, when an appeal was made on a point of law, a judge of the High Court could give some guidance to the tribunal as to how it should interpret the law in cases in which the same set of facts was involved. In the course of time the tribunals would have the benefit of an accumulated body of guidance that would enable them to give effect to the intention of the Parliament as expressed in section 47 of the principal act. I do not think that this would result in a great number of appeals, but it would mean that tribunals, having had the benefit of judicial guidance, would be able to frame their decisions on cases in which the facts were similar to those on which a judge had already ruled. I pass now to something that I regard as another weakness in this matter. I believe that the procedure before the entitlement appeal tribunals could be greatly improved. My experience of cases that have come under my notice is that very often the advocates who appear before the tribunals on behalf of appellants are, not so competent as they should be, and very often evidence that should have been obtained and submitted to the tribunals has not been obtained and submitted to them. A week or two ago, when I was speaking on the debate on the proposed vote for repatriation services, *1* told the committee of a case where, quite obviously, the evidence of a psychiatrist was essential to enable the tribunal to have before it all the facts it required to determine the case in accordance with considerations of justice. I blame the advocate, whoever he may have been, who did not see that all the evidence was before the tribunal. I believe that it is unfortunate that lawyers may not appear before those tribunals, or that those who do appear for applicants are not more competent than they are. If the advocates who appear for appellants were more competent, a certain number of faulty decisions would not be given. The tribunals themselves are hardly to blame for making faulty decisions, because all the evidence has not been placed competently before them ; but those who present cases for appellants in an incompetent manner are blameworthy. It is impossible for members of Parliament to have both the time and the necessary training, when they are dealing with cases that are brought before them, to do the job that ought to be done by the advocates before the tribunals. I think that mort honorable members have had cases brought to their notice only becauseadvocates before- the tribunals have not done their jobs properly. I oppose the amendment, and I commend to the Government and the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper)** that careful and sympathetic reconsideration should be given to the question of adopting the English provision for appeals on points of law. It is not something to be lightly brushed aside. I believe that it would give great satisfaction to all concerned in this matter. I think, also, that the returned servicemen's league might put its own house in order by ensuring that cases are far better presented to the tribunals in future than they have been in the past. {: #debate-20-s14 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- It is gratifying to us on this side of the chamber to see that the Government has taken this amendment so seriously. No less a personage than the Vice-President of the Executive Council **(Sir Eric Harrison)** was called in to answer our arguments on the amendment. He replaced the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Francis),** who represents in this chamber the Minister for Repatriation **(Senator Cooper).** It seems to be a case of Bombastes Furioso replacing Falstaff. The Vice-President of the Executive Council, of course, was somewhat imprudent in referring to statutory reports, because, as with so many statutory bodies during this sessional period, no statutory report for the last financial year has been presented by the Repatriation Commission or any of the appeals tribunals. The last statutory report of the Repatriation Commission was for the financial year 1953-54 and was tabled on the 10th May last. So, therefore, if we must refer to statutory reports, the Vice-President of the Executive Council should put his own house in order so that we can discuss this matter with full information on it. The right honorable gentleman was ungracious enough to refer to the preceding AttorneyGeneral, the present Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt).** "When the Leader of the Opposition was AttorneyGeneral he not only re-drafted section 47 of the principal act, and did his best to see that it was applied by the Repatriation Commission and all its organs, but he also instituted the Legal Service Bureau to see that adequate advocates could appear for ex-servicemen before the tribunals. The next speaker on the Government side was the honorable member for Bradfield **(Mr. Turner),** who put forward a much more serious, not to say solemn, case than the Vice-President advanced. It is interesting to recall that only a week ago in this chamber the honorable member for Bradfield cited a flagrant case where an ex-soldier was denied" treatment in a repatriation hospital, and a pension. Justice in that case has been done only as a result of the efforts of the honorable member for Bradfield and his secretary. I compliment his secretary on the photograph of her which appeared in last Thursday's Sydney *Sun.* It is only after their combined efforts and research in the Public Library of New South Wales that the widow has at last had the disability admitted, three years after her husband's death. The honorable member for Bradfield has properly commended the English legislation in this regard. If he is prepared to move an amendment which would have the effect that he mentioned, I am authoritatively informed that the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** will withdraw the Opposition's amendment and accept the amendment which the honorable member for Bradfield moves. I am, not going to say that members of the appeals tribunals are at fault; but the tribunal system is certainly at fault. One does not know whether the tribunals are acting correctly or not. One does not know whether they are applying section 47 of the act because, as a member of the public, who is not an applicant before the tribunal, one cannot attend before it, because it sits in closed court. One cannot read the evidence, because it is not available to members of the public. One cannot read any judgment because no judgment is ever delivered. So it is the fault of the tribunal system which was instituted in 1929 and which has remained unaltered since then that members of the public feel serious disquietude concerning the decisions of the tribunals. I am not going to criticize the members of the tribunals because I am in the same position as every other person in this country who is not an appellant before a tribunal. I do not know and cannot know what goes on before it. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr Joshua: -- I found out, and the honorable member can find out if he wishes. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I cannot because, having a legal qualification, I am disqualified from appearing before a tribunal. One can find out about it if one appears as an appellant or as an advocate. But if we have legal qualifications, we are disqualified from appearing as advocates. The proceedings of the tribunals are not open to members of the public. They sit *in camera.* The dissatisfaction with section 47 of the act is the subject of several paragraphs in the annual report for the last calendar year which will be presented by the federal president of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia to the fortieth annual congress in Brisbane in eleven days' time. The president holds a responsible position. He has been knighted upon the recommendation of the Government. He is not lacking in gratitude to the Government, but he has made the following statement : - >War compensation officers throughout State Branches, when submitting cases in which a very strong element of doubt appears, have been completely bewildered when such ' cases have been rejected especially as the Government's invariable reply for a more sympathetic interpretation is that the benefit of the doubt is given. ... I sincerely hope that as early as possible the section will be applied as Parliament intended it should be applied and that the onus of proof will lip where it belongs - fairly and squarely on the Repatriation authorities. And the following sentence is in heavy type : - >It is important to know that the Commission is unable, in many instances, to state the causes or the dates of commencement of the diseases. More important still, the League believes that the Commission is, in many instances, unable to reply satisfactorily or competently to outside doctors who have supported ex-servicemen's claims. As to the claim of the Vice-President of the Executive Council that the members of the appeal tribunals are diggers, I point out that there are three members on each tribunal; the members, but not the chairman of the entitlement tribunals, must be diggers; and. the chairman, but not the members of the assessment tribunals, must be diggers. {: .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis: -- They are all diggers. Every one of them is a returned soldier. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The solutionof this problem is to make tribunals into courts of law or to give the right of appeal from them to a court of law. The solution of making the tribunals into courts of law was the one adopted at the annual State congress of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia in New South Wales last August. The congress passed the following resolution: - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. That the War Pensions' Appeals Tribunals should be conducted on the lines of Workers' Compensation Commission Courts, so that applicants may have if they wish the advantage of an open hearing and a written judgment. 1. That applicants whose applications arc rejected by such courts shall not be required to pay costs other than for their own representatives and witnesses. 2. That applicants whose applications are granted by such Courts shall be paid reasonable costs for their representatives and witnesses. I take some satisfaction from the fact that the motion came from my own subbranch, which is one of the largest in Australia, and was moved by myself. I am indebted to the honorable member for Bradfield for his very adequate debunking of the suggestion of the AttorneyGeneral in another place I refer, of course, to the present egregious holder of that office that returned soldiers can apply to the High Court by way of writ of mandamus. How much would that cost? I need not add to the adequate remarks of the honorable member for Bradfield in that regard. The suggestion that courts should be established would have the following advantages: - Independent persons would make the decisions; they would sit in open court; evidence would be given on oath and tested by cross examination; a judgment would be delivered and reasons for it would have to be given. {: .speaker-KDX} ##### Mr Joshua: -- What about the costs? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- That is covered by the resolution of the State congress which I quoted and by sub-clause (5.) of the amendment, which the honorable member should have read. On the subject of the independence of these tribunals, I shall quote some words that were recently used by Judge O'Sullivan of the New South Wales District Court, a former chairman of an appeals tribunal and a former member of the Taxation Board of Review. {: #debate-20-s15 .speaker-JRJ} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. *The sitting continuing, the remainder of the report of this day's proceedings will precede the report of the proceedings of* *Thursday, IS October, 1955. (Continuation.)* {: #debate-20-s16 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON:
Dawson .- I have no intention of competing with honorable gentlemen opposite on some of the legal niceties that they have used in this debate. But I believe that there are several cogent reasons, based purely on common sense, as to why the proposed amendment should not *he* adopted. I point out that the amendment, as drafted, means, first, that a decision in the matter of an appeal by an ex-serviceman to a tribunal will be transferred from the competent experience of those who now handle those appeals and placed in the hands of a single judge of the High Court or of a Supreme Court. I make no apology for saying that I believe that that would be a retrograde step. It would not bc in the interests of ex-servicemen. I feel strongly that the members of the appeal tribunals have had considerable experience in a task that requires a peculiar knowledge to determine these questions properly. These gentlemen have acquired a knowledge of such matters which I say, with all. the respect in the world to the judiciary, the judges cannot have because they have not had anything like the same experience in this type of work as the members of the tribunal. Therefore, I feel that it would not be of advantage to ex-servicemen generally to transfer the determination of these matters from the bodies that now handle them into the hands of a judge. The second practical reason that I advance against the proposal is that it will mean that the whole case must be re-heard because, in order to determine whether the onus of proof provision has or has not been carried out, the whole of the evidence must be sifted again. Therefore, the whole of the evidence, including the submissions of medical men, will become the subject of wrangling by lawyers. The whole case will develop into an argument among medical men as to whether the disability was war caused or not. In short, this proposal simply means that we would provide a feast for lawyers at the expense of ex-servicemen. That is another practical reason why the proposal should not be adopted. It is very significant that this proposal, which is not new, has been consistently opposed by ex-servicemen's organizations, which have had considerable experience of this sort of thing. My third reason why the proposal should be rejected is that in clause 14 of the proposed amendment, it is stated that the court hearing an appeal under this section may make such an order with respect to the appeal as it thinks fit and that order shall be final and conclusive. In doing that the amendment would take away valuable rights now enjoyed by appellants. At present, even though an appeal has been rejected, it may be reopened if fresh evidence is brought forward. The bill provides that if such fresh evidence has been submitted, and referred back to the commission, the appellant and his advocate can appear before the tribunal and argue the matter anew. The amendment would take away that right. The bill also provides that if, in the light of advances in medical science, it becomes evident that a case should not have been rejected, the commission may re-open the matter and grant the application. Sub-section (4.) of the proposed new section would deny that right to the ex-serviceman. Sub-section (5.) of the proposed new section states that an order for the costs of an appeal under that section shall not be made. I am not a legal man and therefore I do not know whether the sub-section means what it says, but as a practical layman it would seem to me that the appellant could win his case and still be required to pay all the costs. Would that be of advantage to exservicemen? If the amendment were accepted the Parliament would be saying, "We shall give you the right to appeal to a High Court, but you must brief counsel, stand up to cross-examination by clever lawyers and, when you have won your case, dig into your pocket and produce a couple of hundred pounds to meet the costs ". {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- That is not so. The honorable member should read the amendment. {: .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr DAVIDSON: -- The amendment should be rejected on practical commonsense grounds. Question put - >That the new clause proposed to be inserted **(Dr. Evatt's amendment)** be so inserted. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. G. J. Bowden.) AYES: 23 NOES: 41 Majority . . . .18 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1638 {:#debate-21} ### SEAMEN'S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1955 {:#subdebate-21-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 6th October *(vide* page 1318), on motion by **Mr. Francis** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-21-0-s0 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes .- This bill has been perused by the Opposition. It contains the same provisions as the Repatriation Bill which has just been debated. The Opposition has no objection to the bill, and that will enable it to be passed through all stages with facility. Before that is done, however, I should like to mention a reference that was made in the Minister's secondreading speech to the definitions of " child ", " wife " and " widow ". In the schedule of pensions for seamen the definition, as the Minister has explained, has been changed to provide pensions for wives who married seamen after they had been incapacitated by war injuries and allowances for children born after that date. The previous anomalous position has been corrected, and the bill is now in conformity with general repatriation standards. The pension rates appeal to be similar to others that have been fixed by the Repatriation Act, and therefore the bill has the approval of the Opposition. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill - *by leave* - read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1638 {:#debate-22} ### ABSENCE OF MR. SPEAKER Motion (by **Sir Eric** Harrison) - *by leave* - agreed to - >That, during the absence of the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker may perforin the duties and exercise the authority of the Speaker in relation to all proceedings of Standing Committees and Joint Statutory Committees to which the Speaker is appointed. {: .page-start } page 1638 {:#debate-23} ### NEWSPAPER REPORT {: #debate-23-s0 .speaker-JLW} ##### Mr ANDREWS: -- I wish to make an explanation regarding a misrepresentation that appears in to-day's issue of the *Sydney Morning Herald.* {: #debate-23-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr C F Adermann: -- Does the honorable member consider that he has been misrepresented? {: .speaker-JLW} ##### Mr ANDREWS: -- Yes. The report to which I refer appears in the *Sydney Morning Herald,* of to-day's date. The portion that refers to me is in two widely separated parts of the report, and I propose to read only the relevant parts. It says - {: #debate-23-s2 .speaker-JLW} ##### Mr T W Andrews:
Communist Labour Victoria · Anti sought to amend the bill to establish a royal commission to ascertain and inform Parliament on what would he true pension rates. The report further states - >The effect of the amendment would have been to delay payment of pension increases which the Government proposes to pay from the 27th October. The Opposition also voted with the Government against **Mr. Andrews's** motion. That report could have two effects. In justification of my claim regarding misrepresentation I point out that the position was not as reported in the *Sydney Morning Herald.* We indicated quite clearly in our amendment that we sought the appointment of a royal commission by the Government, after the payments had been made, to inquire into the suitability or otherwise of the rates proposed by the Government, but our main purpose was to have a higher rate fixed if that was found to be justified. The Sydney *Daily Telegraph,* in its report on the matter to-day, said - > **Mr. Andrews** said that immediately after paying the new pension rates the Government should set up a royal commission to investigate whether the new pension was high enough That seems to me to be a true report, whereas the matter was reported, probably through inadvertence, quite wrongly in the *Sydney Morning Herald.* It is important that a correction should be made, if the newspaper will make it, because I repeat that I moved the amendment on behalf of my party to seek the appointment of a royal commission, after the payment of the increases provided for in the bill that has just been before the House. The other effects of the *Sydney Morning Herald's* report could be to justify the Opposition in voting in the way that it did. It should be emphasized that my party's position was perfectly clear, and I think that inadvertently, and not maliciously, the *Sydney Morning Herald* has reported, the matter incorrectly. However, I think that it is the only newspaper that reported the matter in that wrong form, and it is therefore important to me that a correction should be made. It was not the intention of my party to delay the payment of the pensions beyond the date that the Government determined for their payment. That is the explanation that I desired to make in justification of the position taken up by my party in relation to this matter. {: .page-start } page 1639 {:#debate-24} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-24-0} #### ST. MARY'S FILLING FAC TOBY {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- I should like to make a personal explanation in order to correct a statement that appears in a newspaper to-day, and that misrepresents something I said in answer to a question in this House regarding the St. Mary's ammunition filling factory. My statement was made with regard to criticism that had been levelled against the proposal to construct the St. Mary's factory, when it was alleged that extravagant wages and overtime rates had been paid, and that nien were working four days a. week, ten hours a clay. I answered that criticism by saying - >No general payment above award rates is made. In fact, the contractors have an agreement with the Government, through the Department of Labour and National Service, that they will not, without approval, advertise for labour. Moreover, they have agreed that when they do receive approval, they will accept direction as to what form the advertising should take. They have agreed further that they will not indulge in extravagant wage payments. The contractors claim that they have not paid more than the award rates, and that the statement that the men are working four days of ten hours each week, with overtime on Friday and Saturday, is incorrect. I emphasize that, because that was the basis of the criticism. My statement continued - >They do not guarantee any employee that he will receive overtime. They have agreed with the Department of Labour and National Service that, each week, for each man, overtime will not exceed 8 hours. There is no guarantee that any nian will be allowed to work 8 hours' overtime, or that, if overtime is worked, it will be worked every week. What I said in answer to the question has been reported in to-day's Melbourne *Herald* as follows : - >The 826 people employed had not caused any abnormal movement of workers in the St. Mary's area. They worked four days a week at 10 hours daily, and did not receive overtime for Friday and Saturday. Obviously, the newspaper report will create a wrong impression. I went to great pains to make it clear that the mcn do not work four days of ten hours each week, with overtime on Fridays and Saturdays, because that is what was stated in an article in a morning newspaper to-day which criticized me, and it is wrong. I do not think for a moment that the Melbourne *Herald* has deliberately misrepresented what I said, but I think that that newspaper should correct the report so that the people will be correctly informed about the matter. {: .page-start } page 1640 {:#debate-25} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Industrial and Political Leaders Motion (by **Sir Eric** Harrison) proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS:
Herbert .- I apologize to the House for rising to speak at this late hour, but I do not think that, honorable members can complain very much about the number of occasions on which I speak on the motion for the adjournment. I wish to refer to statements that were made in this House yesterday by the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. W. M. Bourke)** and the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr.** Keon). In the course of their remarks they made bitter attacks on a man - a very important man in this community - who has been judged, except by those whom he now opposes, to be a man of great character and ability. I refer to **Mr. Tom** Dougherty, who is the general secretary of the Australian Workers Union. The honorable member for Fawkner expressed regret for having to make some of his remarks. He said, to use his own words, that it was distressing for the honorable member for Blaxland **(Mr. E. James Harrison)** to refer to a man named Clark, who was at one time the secretary of the Melbourne branch of the Waterside Workers Federation. He then went on to say that **Mr. Clark** worked his way to the position that he held, and because he became weak he stole some money the property of the union and was committed to gaol. It may be that the honorable member was right when he said that it was distressing to hear the references made to that man. All right, it may have been distressing, but it was infinitely more distressing for the honorable member then to proceed to attack another man who has never been convicted and sent to gaol, and who has never stolen anybody's money. At least we can say for **Mr. Dougherty** that he is honest. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M Bourke: -- Can the honorable member say anything else for him? {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- Yes, I can, and I shall say quite a lot for him. I have known **Mr. Dougherty** for very many years. I worked alongside him. **Mr. Dougherty** is a man who won his way to the position of general secretary of the Australian Workers Union, which is the highest position in that organization in this country. Apparently the only crime that **Mr. Dougherty** committed was to oppose the actions of persons who are associated with the corner group in this House. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- What about the New South Wales executive? {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- At the moment, the New South Wales executive is quite capable of looking after itself, and it can deal with **Mr. Dougherty** if he has done anything in contravention of the rules. What I am concerned about is that certain honorable members in this House will take exception to remarks made about a man who was, in fact, proved guilty of stealing his union's funds, and committed to gaol, and then proceed to attack a man of the calibre of **Mr. Tom** Dougherty. The honorable member for Fawkner said all sorts of things - I have not time to refer to all of them - including this remark - > **Mr. Tom** Dougherty is apparently able to flout with complete immunity the executive of the New South Wales branch of the Labour party. **Mr. Dougherty** regards himself as above and beyond any ordinary citizens of the community. The honorable member then proceeded to say other things regarding **Mr. Dougherty** which were quite untrue. He also said that it was a disgrace to see men of the ilk of **Mr. Dougherty** reaching the stage where they become the big bosses of the Australian Labour party. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- He is a racketeer - nothing else! {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- In their speeches yesterday, both the honorable member for Fawkner and the honorable member for Yarra seemed to delight in accusing a man named Piatt of being a Communist, or one who supported communism - or both. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- Who is telling lies now? {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- The honorable member for Yarra said that **Mr. Piatt** was one of twelve men who control the destinies of the Australian Labour movement - that he was a member of the federal executive of the Australian Labour movement. So far removed are both of these gentlemen from the union from which they have been recently expelled that they did not know that **Mr. Piatt** is not a member of the federal executive, and never was. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- He was a member of the federal conference. {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- The honorable member for Yarra cannot have it both ways. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: **Mr. Keon** *interjecting,* {: #subdebate-25-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Herbert must be given a chance to make his speech. {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- I assure you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that the interjections are not worrying me. Both honorable members implied that **Mr. Piatt** and **Mr. Dougherty** were fighting to retain the positions that they now occupy. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- Hear, hear ! It was the New South Wales executive that said that. {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- Apparently the members of the corner group think that they have the sole right to be antiCommunist in this community, and that anybody who does not support their thoughts is a Communist. Do they accuse **Mr. Tom** Dougherty of having any association with communism ? If they do, they do not know what they are speaking about, or they are misstating the facts, because there is no one in the trade union movement to-day who has resisted and fought communism more valiantly than **Mr. Dougherty** has done. So **Mr. Dougherty** is fighting to continue to keep his position ! He is not a fit and proper person to be a member of the Australian Labour movement, because, for some reason,, he has found himself in opposition to the industrial groups and the things that they espouse and support ! I, too, was once a supporter of the industrial groups, as was **Mr. Dougherty** and many other trade union officials in this country. We all changed our ideas for the same reason - because we found that the industrial groups were not correcting the things that we thought they would correct, and which they still claim to be correcting. Nobody in. this House can justifiably attack **Mr. Dougherty** as having any association with communism. If the honorable member for Yarra, the honorable member for Fawkner, or anybody else is prepared to smear a man's character merely because he is in opposition to them on any particular set of conditions, it is time that they got out of this House once and for all. I have the authority of **Mr. Dougherty** - I was in touch with him. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- Ah ! {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr EDMONDS: -- He is my friend and my mate, and if I am not entitled to get in touch with him about these terrible smears that were thrown around the chamber, then no other honorable member is entitled to do so. I have **Mr. Dougherty's** authority to inform both of those honorable members - particularly the honorable member for Fawkner - through you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that he challenges them to repeat anywhere in this country, outside of this chamber, the statements that they made yesterday. If the honorable member for Fawkner is sincere and knows that he is speaking the truth, he will have nothing to fear by repeating outside the smearing accusations against **Mr. Dougherty,** that he made yesterday. That is the challenge that **Mr. Dougherty** makes. **Mr. Dougherty** is as good and as decent a citizen as any other man in this community. He has worked hard all his life and has worked his way up through the Australian Workers Union. It is a strange thing that the Australian Workers Union which, for years, has been a bulwark against communism, should be thought to have some association with communism merely because honorable members of the Anti- Communist Labour party say so. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-25-0-s2 .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE:
Fawkner -- From what I recall of this matter, which **Mr. Dougherty** apparently has instructed the honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Edmonds)** to raise in the House- {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr Edmonds: -- That is another lie. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- I made several remarks, and I must say that the honorable member has put up a pitifully weak case in defence of the man who told him to come here and defend him to-night. I did not say very much about **Mr. Dougherty,** but the gravamen of the case was that **Mr. Dougherty,** as secretary of the Australian Workers Union in New South Wales, apparently regarded himself as above and beyond the law of this country, and whereas, in respect of any ordinary citizen of the community who transgressed and broke the law, the law took its normal course, so that an ordinary citizen, whether a member of the community or a member of Parliament, would have to pay the penalty and face a charge in court, when **Mr. Dougherty** broke the law and a summons was issued against him for a traffic offence- {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr Edmonds: -- A traffic breach. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- Did I not say that? **Mr. Dougherty** used his influence and had the case withdrawn. The honorable member for Herbert did not try to say that those statements were not true. What I said was true. {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr Edmonds: -- The honorable member said that he was not a fit and proper person. That was not true. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable gentleman must be allowed to speak without interruption. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- Apparently, **Mr. Dougherty** is not prepared to deny- {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- Oh, you are a smearer! {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- Did you call for order, **Mr. Deputy** Speaker? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! I asked the honorable member for Herbert to allow the honorable member for Fawkner to speak. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- Apparently, **Mr. Dougherty** does not deny that those statements I made about him are true. They are true. As for this ridiculous challenge to go and say these things outside the House- {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr Edmonds: -- The honorable member is not going to do that, is he? {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- Certainly, I shall accept that challenge. I shall go and do it to-night, or wait until next week, if the honorable member likes, and I shall read out whatever is reported in *Ilansard* about what I have said, and other matters could be added to it, too. {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr Edmonds: -- Including what was said about the Premier of New South Wales? {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- If the Premier of New South Wales wants to go on with that matter, we should be quite happy about that, too. If the Premier of New South Wales, and some of his colleagues, are prepared to throw open the books of the " slush " fund of their party and to disclose their personal assets position, we should be quite happy to go on with that matter also, though they have not shown very much readiness to do so. Anyhow, that is another matter. What has the honorable member for Herbert to say about the disruptive activities of this man Dougherty regarding the Labour party in Queensland, and his attempts to wreck the Gair Government and drive it out of office, to defeat a Labour government which has been doing a great job for the people of Queensland? Why does not the honorable member for Herbert tell us that, when **Mr. Dougherty** and the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** went up to Brisbane recently, they addressed a meeting in the Brisbane Trades Hall, and that that meeting was directed against the Gair Government? They want to get rid of **Mr. Gair.** Government Supporters. - Hear, hear ! {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- Apparently, **Mr. Dougherty** has some allies. It is a well-known fact, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that when **Mr. Dougherty** and **Mr. Ward** announced their intention to go to Brisbane and launch their attack upon the Gair Government, the honorable member for Herbert was simply scared stiff about the matter. He was so frightened of what the repercussions might be, and of what the effect might be as far as he was concerned, that be stayed here in Canberra for the week-end. He was not game to go back to Brisbane, because he might have had to declare himself and go on the platform and side with **Mr. Dougherty,** or he might have had to stay away from the meeting and try to side with **Mr. Gair,** in which case his big friend, **Mr. Dougherty,** would have had him on the carpet. So this brave man stayed here in Canberra and kept out of the way, in order that he might not put himself in such an invidious position. He was not game to go to Brisbane, because he was too frightened to be lined up with this man Dougherty in the attempts he is making to smash and get rid of the Gair Government. I do not know whether **Mr. Dougherty** really is complaining because somebody said something about him in this Parliament, but I point out that **Mr. Dougherty** runs a newspaper called the *Australian Worker,* and he sends copies of it to some honorable members here, at times when he is attacking them and bashing them. I have received a few copies of that newspaper from **Mr. Dougherty.** He devotes page after page to attacking people he does not like, and he prints their photographs in that newspaper. {: .speaker-KDB} ##### Mr Edmonds: -- But he leaves himself open. He does not sneak into this chamber and do it. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- As regards the statement that we are sneaking in here to do it, I say that if **Mr. Dougherty** made that challenge, I am very glad to accept it. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- Let him make the challenge. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- Yes. I do not know that he really has made it. I invite the honorable member for Herbert to state that **Mr. Dougherty** wishes these statements to be made outside the House, and I shall be very happy to oblige him. I might say, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that I imagine that not too many members of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labour party would be very happy to come in and support the honorable member for Herbert, or to support **Mr. Dougherty,** because in addition to doing his best to wreck the Gair Labour Government in Queensland, **Mr. Dougherty** has been conducting constant warfare against the democratically elected executive of the New South Wales branch of the Labour party, for no other reason than that those people refused to be the stooges of **Mr. Dougherty,** and refused to do what he instructed them to do. It is a well-known fact that, when **Mr. Dougherty** was elected to the executive there a couple of years ago, he was associated with the groupers in those days. But he broke with the groupers because the executive of the New South Wales Labour party would not give him one of the plums and make him a member of the Sydney Council. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- He wanted to be Lord Mayor of Sydney. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- He wanted to get into the council. He had his eye on something. Because they would not let him do that, he started to sulk and would not play with them any more. From that moment, he set out to wreck the New South Wales executive of the Labour party, and he has done a pretty good job of it. {: .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton: -- Who is this **Mr. Dougherty?** {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- He is just a Sydney gangster. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M BOURKE: -- **Mr. Dougherty,** apparently, conducts his activities on a nation-wide scale. As I have indicated, already he is attempting to wreck the Gair Government, and he has been attacking the members of the New South Wales executive of the Labour party. Why they put up with him, I do not know. Why they have allowed him to get away with it and break all rules of the Labour party, I do not know, either. Perhaps they are just as scared of him as is the honorable member for Herbert. **Mr. Dougherty** also had a hand in what happened in Victoria. As a matter of fact, it is well known that before things split up in Victoria, **Mr. Dougherty** promised, through his union, to put up sufficient money to run break-away left-wing candidates against the official branch of the Labour party in that State. He would put up the money because he was determined that if he could not control the Labour party, not merely in New South Wales, but throughout the Commonwealth, and that if he could not get all the people to do just what he wanted them to do, he would smash it up. In the past, before Dougherty got control of it, the Australian Workers Union had a magnificent tradition of fighting communism and of pro-Australianism. That tradition has gone. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- (Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-25-0-s3 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .- This grizzling Quisling- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honorable member will withdraw that remark, and apologize to the Chair. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I withdraw and apologize to you, sir. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- The honorable member should apologize to every one. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- You said, "to the Chair ", **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** and I have apologized to you. < GOVERNMENT Members. - Sit down! {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! There is too much noise. I cannot hear what the honorable member for Werriwa is saying to me in reply. I have asked him to withdraw a remark, and apologize to the Chair. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I have done so. The honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. W. M. Bourke)** interpolated in his tirade another reference to the Premier of New South Wales. He was referring, I take it, to the unscrupulous and irresponsible suggestion he made in this chamber, which he would not make outside it concerning the Premier of New South Wales. A month ago, when I was precluded from being here- {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- Tell us about it. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The reference as I recall it, because I happened to hear it over the radio, was- - {: .speaker-KGC} ##### Mr Hamilton: -- -What were you doing ? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: --.! had the mumps, to be frank, but without complications. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- Tell us about it. The mumps suited the honorable member. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The House will have to come to order, or I shall have to terminate the sitting. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- For three weeks I had to suffer the bloated and porcine appearance that the leader and deputyleader of the rebel and reject group have to bear for the rest of their lives. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- Very clever stuff ! {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I am afraid I cannot reciprocate. The honorable member for Fawkner stated that the Premier and two other members of the New South Wales Cabinet had received gifts from the liquor interests, to repeal section 41 of the Liquor Act of New South Wales. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- Is that so? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The honorable member for Petrie **(Mr. Hulme)** should have a greater sense of responsibility than is indicated by such an interjection. The honorable member for Fawkner, as a member of this Parliament, and as a person who has the qualifications to practise law, could have familiarized himself with the position, and should have spoken with greater accuracy and responsibility. The position is that section 41 of the Liquor Act makes it an offence for any person to have a beneficial interest in more than one liquor licence. For two generations the courts had construed " person " in this context to mean an individual and h.ad excluded the very common extended meaning of " company " or " body corporate ". Accordingly, the section was a dead letter because any two individuals could form themselves into a proprietary company and through it gain a beneficial interest in a liquor licence. They could form as many proprietary companies as they wished. So long as those two persons formed a separate proprietary company for each hotel, they could have a beneficial interest in as many licences as they wished. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M Bourke: -- Is that a brief from the breweries? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- That is a filthy remark. If the honorable member repeats it outside the House, I will deal with him there, too. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! I did not hear what the honorable member said. {: .speaker-JRF} ##### Mr W M Bourke: -- The honorable member will have mumps again. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I could catch worse than that from the honorable member. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! I did not hear the interjection, but the honorable member for Werriwa must restrain his language. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I have had some acquaintance with this subject. It is an acquaintance which the honorable member for Fawkner could very easily have acquired, both as a member of Parliament and as a lawyer. It is quite plain from the evidence given before the royal commission of inquiry into the liquor laws and allied subjects in New South Wales, that section 41 was a dead letter. No party represented before the commission gave evidence in support of the section. The commissioner reported that the section served no useful purpose, and recommended that it be omitted from the Act. The New South Wales Government carried out his recommendation, as it did all his other recommendations, and repealed the section. It is typical of the distortion practised by this person that he should repeat, in this protected cloistered place, such contemptible and irresponsible but nevertheless damaging suggestions. Because it is reported in *Hansard,* anybody in the country can repeat it with impunity outside. Until, it is repeated outside, not just by way of quotation from *Hansard* of what this honorable member said, but as an independent statement, no body can correct it or seek vindication. It is a prime example of an abuse of parliamentary proceedings. A person can be smeared ; the smear can be repeated and quoted throughout the length and breadth of the country; and he can do nothing to clear himself unless the smearer uses the words, not by way of quotation from *Hansard,* but by substantial statement outside. I shall be interested to see whether the honorable member for Fawkner will venture to repeat his statement outside the House, not as a quotation from *Hansard,* but as a substantial statement, not in this chamber, which has become a coward's castle at his hands, but in public, where the persons who are attacked can seek vindication. {: #subdebate-25-0-s4 .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON:
Yarra , - I do not intend to be dragged through the liquor commission by the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam).** The statement made by the honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Edmonds)** in relation to what I said about **Mr. Piatt** cai;...-, strangely enough, from a member of the party that issued the document from which I quoted. Every word I said about **Mr. Barney** Piatt's crookedness, about the garage and the cars- {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- The honorable member said that he was a member of the federal executive. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- What a quibble ! In the course of the debate, I said " executive " instead of " conference ". As the federal conference is a higher body than the federal executive, **Mr. Piatt** is a person who has even more responsibility than he would have in the position I mentioned. That was only a natural mistake that I made during the course of the debate. Every word I quoted about all the funny business that went on with the union's funds, the garage, the union's cars and so on, and every word about fraud, forg ery and everything else that took place in this union came from a document issued by the executive of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labour party, which is the governing body of most honorable members sitting on this side of the House this evening. Almost every one of the members of the executive that issued that statement are still on that executive. They are the presidents, secretaries and members of the executives and the members of the honorable member for Herbert's own party. That being so, if there was any slandering of **Mr. Piatt,** if there was any smearing of **Mr. Piatt,** the slandering and smearing were done by the executive of his own party. The document which I quoted in relation to that gentleman was the pamphlet issued by the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labour party, so if he has any complaint to make about smearing or slandering, I suggest that he get the New South Wales members of his party who are represented on that executive to take the matter up with the executive. Now let us consider **Mr. Dougherty,** the almighty **Mr. Dougherty.** Honorable members of the Australian Labour party have talked of smearing and slandering, but there is no .journal in Australia, apart from Communist publications, that contains more smears, slanders and lies against the opponents of **Mr. Dougherty,** both inside and outside the Evatt Labour party, than does the *Australian Worker,* which is under **Mr. Dougherty's** control. There are half a dozen honorable members sitting in this House who, the week before last, were denounced by **Mr. Dougherty** himself as traitors to Labour, and were charged with having entered a conspiracy against the Labour party. The honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart),** the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly),** the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith **(Mr. Gordon Anderson)** and **Senator Armstrong** were all featured in photographs, and in articles of the most despicable type, which attacked their persona] character, their political purity and their loyalty to the Labour party. {: .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- What did they do about it? {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr KEON: -- Nothing. Every time **Mr. Dougherty** opens a door they shiver in their shoes. Everybody knows that the honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Edmonds)** was in a state of complete collapse during the weeks prior to the holding of the meeting in the Queensland Trades Hall, which was to be addressed by the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** and **Mr. Dougherty.** 1 know of the representations that the honorable member for Herbert made to the leader of his party in which he told him that if he went to Queensland and spoke on the same platform as the honorable member for East Sydney and **Mr. Dougherty,** there would be trouble. In order to pacify the honorable member, the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt)** decided not to go to Queensland. What did **Mr. Dougherty,** this pillar of loyalty to Labour principles, do when he got to Queensland? He held a public meeting in the Brisbane Trades Hall, and the majority of his audience was whipped up by Gerry Dawson and other Communists. The object of the meeting was to denounce a Labour government, of which he was a pledged supporter, the Premier of New South Wales and the Premier and Treasurer of Queensland, who disagreed with **Mr, Dougherty's** viewpoint. I suggest to the honorable member for Herbert that if he is as interested in the unity of Labour as he tries to make out. lie should be addressing his remarks not to the honorable members of this House, but to **Mr. Dougherty** who, by virtue of his alliance with the Leader of the Opposition, has wrecked the Labour party throughout Australia, and is determined to keep it wrecked until he gets his own way. He does not care what happens to the workers or to the unity of Labour, upon which the fate of the workers of Australia largely depends. All' that **Mr. Dougherty** wants out of the mad campaign on which he has embarked, and out of the smears and slanders in his journal, is to get his own way. If he cannot get his own way he will tear the house down, and the honorable member for Herbert and those who sit with him in this House know that that is the truth. When they suggest, in the face of what has happened in New South Wales and Queensland, that **Mr. Dougherty** is a pillar of Labour probity and an exemplar of Labour solidarity, the whole matter becomes farcical. Now, let me deal with **Mr. Piatt.** Not only have we a New South Wales official statement about this gentleman, but in **Mr. Dougherty's** publication, which is issued every week, we find attacks on the members of the Labour party, the very people that the honorable member for Herbert pretends to be loyal to. What did the members of the Australian Labour party in this House do about the page spreads and photographs of their colleagues which appeared in **Mr. Dougherty's** journal? Did they say to **Mr. Dougherty,** " This is no good to the party? " Did they protest about those attacks and about the personal abuse of their colleagues ? Of course they did not. If they had any real concern for the welfare of the Labour party and for the welfare of the great Australian Workers Union, which is being dragged to destruction by the madman in charge of it, they would be out telling **Mr. Dougherty** all about it, and not telling the honorable members of this House. The sincerity of the honorable member for Herbert will be judged by whether he has the intestinal fortitude to tell **Mr. Dougherty** that he is to stop attacking his colleagues and trying to tear the Labour party in New South Wales apart in his own interests. The best way to describe such people who will not stand up for their colleagues is to say that they have the backbone of an intestinal tapeworm when it comes to dealing with **Mr. Dougherty.** When anybody suggests to me that we are smearing this gentleman, when anybody accuses us of smearing **Mr. Dougherty** and **Mr. Piatt,** all I can do is to refer him to the publications of the Labour party that I have already mentioned. No matter what anybody said about **Mr. Dougherty,** it could in no way equal the vicious lies that he has told about honorable members of this Parliament, and the vicious slanders that he has published about the members of my party and the members of the Labour party. There is only one person who could match him as a smearer and slanderer, and that is the Leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-25-0-s5 .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I rise to reply to the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Keon).** I appreciate the joy with which Government supporters listen to statements such as those just made by the honorable member, but the honorable member for Yarra and his party attached themselves to outside groups, which brought about the need for great changes in the Labour party. When he attempts to attack the Cahill Labour Government, and the people loyal to the Labour movement, he is undertaking a task that should rightly be left to the opponents of Labour. If he puts himself in that category, why does he not immediately take out his membership with the Liberal party? Now ' let us consider what has been said by the honorable member for Yarra and the honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. W. M. Bourke)** about **Mr. Piatt** and the New South Wales Government. It is all very well for the honorable members to attack Labour men, but if they have any Labour blood left in their veins they should know that there is a great tribunal in the Labour movement that is called together each year to determine relationships within the Labour party, and to decide who is to govern the Labour party. What happened in respect of Piatt ? He went before the conference, which was composed of approximately 647 delegates, and won from it a rank-and-file vote as did Bill Colbourne. Will the honorable member for Yarra, at this stage, condemn a rank-and-file conference of the Australian Labour party that considered all those things that he did not hesitate to bandy about the chamber this evening, and will he then say, " We shall determine who shall control the Australian Labour party"? Will he associate the same people who elected Bill Colbourne to the position that he now holds in the New South Wales branch of the party with the activities about which he has talked this evening? The people who allege that the Australian Labour party is being killed by the right honorable member for Barton **(Dr. Evatt)** or some one else stand branded, in the eyes of every decent Labourite, as the guilty persons. Because they are so branded, they make allegations in this House. They know that they are living on borrowed time and that decent Labour people will abhor the type of tirade that they utter in this House night after night. These people who attack the honorable member for Herbert **(Mr. Edmonds)** for defending a man who has fought against communism are lost in the wilderness. They do not know how to fight communism, because they believe in one thing only - control by a minority. I say deliberately to the honorable member for Yarra that, in supporting control by a minority, as he has done, he has served the Communist cause. He has served it well because he has attempted, in his wilful way, to create an organization that will fight communism by the methods in which he believes - an organization that could become a greater problem and a greater menace than communism itself. {: .speaker-JLW} ##### Mr Andrews: -- Is the honorable member talking about New South Wales? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- We ' can understand why the honorable member for Yarra and his associates attack the Cahill Government. They do not say anything about the New South Wales executive of the Australian Labour party. Why are they not honest? Why did they not state that the very thing about which they complain in relation to the meeting in Queensland was discussed by the New South Wales State executive of the Australian Labour party? Why do they not point out that the meeting was held with the approval of the executive ? I challenge the honorable member and his associates to attack the executive. They should attack it if they consistently follow their principles to the limit. The honorable member for Yarra has attempted to drag a red herring across the trail by referring to the New South Wales Labour Government and members of the Australian Labour party in that State. In taking this action, he has followed the pattern of conduct that he and his associates have followed ever since they set out to capture the Labour movement. {: .speaker-K7O} ##### Mr Cremean: -- What is the honorable member's opinion of Dougherty? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The honorable member for Hoddle **(Mr. Cremean)** is concerned not with Dougherty, but only with destroying the Labour movement. He should get his Liberal ticket and take his place among the members of the Liberal party. That is where he should be. *Honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! If the House does not maintain order, I shall suspend the sitting. {: .speaker-K7O} ##### Mr Cremean: -- The honorable member for [Blaxland should not tell lies ! {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Hoddle will obey the Chair. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am concerned with the need to preserve democracy in Australia. There is a need for a Liberal party and an Australian Labour party, and the time has arrived when people who do not support the Labour movement should take their rightful place in the ranks of the party that is opposed to Labour. The honorable member for Yarra should take that course, and those who follow him should do likewise. They have attempted to create an organization that, for its own purposes, would capture the Australian Labour party and, finally, take control of the country. I see that Government supporters are laughing. They may laugh, but I put it to them- {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- The honorable member is an unprincipled liar. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Yarra will withdraw and apologize to the honorable member for Blaxland. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- I withdraw and apologize. {: .speaker-KCD} ##### Mr Davis: -- Tell us what you did say about Dougherty? {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am discussing the matter that is causing most concern in this chamber. {: .speaker-K7O} ##### Mr Cremean: -- Did the honorable member not describe Dougherty to us as a dirty yellow-belly? Why not tell the truth? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! The honorable member for Hoddle will withdraw and apologize. {: .speaker-K7O} ##### Mr Cremean: -- I withdraw and apologize. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! I shall name the next honorable member who uses language of the description that we have just heard. I shall not allow honorable members to behave in that fashion. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The honorable member for Yarra and his associates cannot take it. They know that they set out to create an organization designed to capture the Australian Labour party and, finally, to win the treasury bench on behalf of a group that would destroy the very principles that govern our way of life. {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- The Queensland Premier is a " grouper ". {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The honorable member for Yarra and his associates know all about that, too. They know that, when the Queensland Premier became fully aware of the machinations of these people, he decided, as did a Labour Premier of similar type in New South Wales- {: .speaker-KIF} ##### Mr Hulme: -- He ran for cover. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- He did not run for cover. He did the decent thing by Australian manhood. The honorable member for Yarra and his associates have branded themselves for what they are. Time and again they make the same pleas and utter the same cries in this chamber. Let me say, frankly, that they will never be able to create the organization that they wished to develop. It adds to the strength of the Australian Labour party that it has saved Australia from the kind of control that the honorable member for Yarra, and the organization that he was so blatantly developing, attempted to impose on the country. {: .speaker-KEJ} ##### Mr Keon: -- Tell us more abou; it. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- There is no need for me to tell the honorable member more, because he knows ful well- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-25-0-s6 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is amusing to hear the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Keon)** refer to another honorable member as one who shivered in his shoes every time **Mr. Dougherty** opened the door. No one knows better than does the honorable member for Yarra the identity of the person who shivered in his shoes when **Mr. Dougherty** opened the door and gave him the opportunity to explain why he made a secret visit to Sydney some time ago in order to obtain the services of an officer of the Australian Workers Union, one Bielski, in order that Bielski should be corrupted and induced to work against the organization that paid his salary in an endeavour to defeat **Mr. Davis** in a ballot for the position of secretary of the Victorian branch of the union. **Mr. Dougherty** gave the honorable member for Yarra, who is the person concerned, an opportunity to meet **Mr. Bielski** in his office in order to substantiate the denial that the honorable member had made in relation to Bielski. **Mr. Bielski** was then able to reveal other interesting facts concerning the honorable member for Yarra, and no doubt it is because this little plan came unstuck that the honorable member for Yarra and his friends are now so bitterly opposed to **Mr. Dougherty.** It was subsequently revealed that the honorable member for Yarra, had addressed a meeting of the Polish community in Sydney at the invitation of a **Mr.** Krieger. **His** speech so much impressed the people present that they asked **Mr.** Krieger at a subsequent meeting why the honorable member for Yarra was not a member of the Liberal party. **Mr.** Krieger replied that the honorable member was a Liberal, but knew that he could not win a workingclass seat like Yarra as a Liberal candidate. For that reason he said it was excellent tactics for the honorable member for Yarra to continue to run as a Labour man, although he is really a Liberal man. **Mr.** Krieger is no mean personage, cither. {: .speaker-KCD} ##### Mr Davis: -- The honorable member is getting all mixed up. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is almost impossible to get mixed up about this matter because **Mr.** Krieger came out to Australia on the very same boat as **Dr. Bialoguski. Dr. Bialoguski** is the bosom pal of the honorable member for Yarra and was able to tell the honorable member's friend, **Mr. Santamaria,** fifteen months before Petrov defected, what was going to happen. **Dr. Bialoguski** was ultimately exposed by the Leader of the Opposition **(Dr. Evatt).** That also constituted another reason why the honorable member for Yarra and those who sit with him had to oppose the Leader of the Opposition. Nobody has had more disagreements with **Mr. Dougherty** than I have had, and T guarantee that nobody else in Australia can make that claim. I have had more disagreements with him than I have had with anybody else and I guarantee that he has had more disagreements with me than he has had with anybody else. I have fought him always when I thought I was right, and I bet he. always fought me when he thought he was right. Nobody can say that Tom Dougherty has not a. ton of " guts " or that he has not been a damn good Labour man. *Honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honorable member must moderate bis language. {: #subdebate-25-0-s7 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- He has never been responsible for destroying a Labour government as the corner group has. *Honorable members interjecting,* {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order ! As it is evident that the House has no intention of trying to help the Chair to keep order, I adjourn the sitting to Tuesday next, at 2.30 p.m. House adjourned at 11.54 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1650 {:#debate-26} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS *The following answers to questions were circulated: -* Industrial Arbitration. Coal. {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Iron and Steel {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr Makin:
STURT, SOUTH AUSTRALIA n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, *upon notice -* >What were the quantities, value and country of origin of imports of iron and steel into Australia each fiscal year from 1st July, 1949, to the 30th June, 1954? {: #subdebate-26-0-s1 .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The Minister for Trade and Customs has furnished the attached schedule in answer to the honorable member's question: -
BURKE, VICTORIA s asked the Minister for the Army, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many members of the defence personnel who have applied are unable to obtain homes at Puckapunyal, Victoria? 1. What action is being taken to provide homes for married service personnel at Puckapunyal, and when are those seeking houses likely to obtain them ? {: #subdebate-26-0-s3 .speaker-JWT} ##### Mr Francis:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. As at the6th October, 1955, there were fourteen officers, 32 warrant officers and sergeants, and 50 rank-and-file members of the Australian Military Forces stationed at Puckapunyal recorded as having applied for married quarters there but for whom no such quarters were available. 1. Since the World War II., some 2,103 married quarters have been provided for Army personnel throughout Australia. At Puckapunyal, 415 have been built since 1949. There is a need for married quarters for Army personnel at various places throughout the Commonwealth. Quarters for single members, storage facilities and other works are also urgently required. The importance of married quarters is fully recognized and their provision has been accorded a very high priority in the Army's works programmes. Our ability to provide additional houses at Puckapunyal is, of course, subject to the overall capacity of the building industry in Australia and the competing claims upon it by the Army and all other Government departments and public authorities, both State and Federal. I would remind the honorable member that, in the Housing Agreement, signed by **Mr. Chifley** with the States in 1945, there was a provision for a percentage of the houses built under that Agreement to be allocated by the State authorities to servicemen and ex-servicemen. In the negotiations which are at present current with the States, it is hoped that that principle will continue in force in the new agreement. And, in consultation with my colleague, the Minister for National Development, I shall be taking up with the State authorities the possibility of providing houses for serving members in the Permanent Forces, in accordance with the original intention of the Housing Agreement. {: #subdebate-26-0-s4 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr Makin: n asked the Minister for Supply, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will he supply the names of persons who signed the first agreement between the State of Tasmania and the Commonwealth of Australia for the establishment of the aluminium industry in Tasmania? 1. What was the date of the agreement? {: #subdebate-26-0-s5 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows : - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Right Honorable Herbert Vere Evatt, Acting Minister of State for Supply and Shipping for and on behalf of the said Commonwealth in the presence of A. V. Smith and Robert Cosgrove, the Premier of the State of Tasmania for and on behalf of the said State in the presence of R. G. Osbourne. 1. The 18th April, 1944. {: #subdebate-26-0-s6 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard:
BASS, TASMANIA d asked the Minister for Supply, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the cost per ton of aluminium ingot produced at Bell Bay by the Aluminium Production Commission ? 1. How is the cost distributed, in detail, under the various heads of expenditure? {: #subdebate-26-0-s7 .speaker-JOI} ##### Mr Beale:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In view of the fact that production of ingot aluminium at Bell Bay has only just commenced it would be premature to state the cost of production until the plant has settled down to full operation. 1. Cost when established will embrace material, labour, electrical and energy charges, plus provision for maintenance depreciation and interest. {:#subdebate-26-1} #### Supreme Court of Papua and New Guinea {: #subdebate-26-1-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: e asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral, *upon notice -* {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it considered that citizens of Papua and New Guinea should be entitled to assert and protect their rights as citizens against the Crown by action in the law courts ? 1. Is it a fact that the Supreme Court of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea has no authority to entertain the suit of a citizen against the Commonwealth? 2. Did counsel for the Commonwealth, at the hearing of a suit recently brought against the Commonwealth in the High Court by J.L. Chipper and Company Limited, a company incorporated in the Territory, argue that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the suit, and was the case thereupon settled to a less advantage to the plaintiff than if the suit had proceeded and been won by the plaintiff? 3. If the answers are in the affirmative, will the AttorneyGeneral institute legislation to correct this anomaly? {: #subdebate-26-1-s1 .speaker-KNX} ##### Sir ERIC HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944 -- The Attorney General has supplied the following answers to the honorable member's questions : - >The High Court action to which the honorable member refers, and which was brought by J. L. Chipper & Company Limited against the Commonwealth, comprised both claims by the company and counter-claims by the Commonwealth. When it came before Taylor *J.,* candour required the Commonwealth to point out that, in the present state of the authorities, there was some doubt whether or not the High Court had jurisdiction in the matter. The honorable member will appreciate the fact that consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction. Having heard the evidence, Taylor -A stated that the case was beset with many difficult questions on both sides, and that the matter appeared to him to be one which ought to be settled if it were at all possible. He offered to discuss the matter with counsel in chambers, and advantage was taken of this offer. The matter was subsequently settled by consent, but I do not think the doubts as to the court's jurisdiction had any influence on the settlement. The questions of law and policy raised by the honorable member's questions are at present under consideration.
Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 October 1955, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1955/19551013_reps_21_hor8/>.