House of Representatives
8 October 1957

22nd Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 22nd Parliament
  3. 1957

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1105

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– 1 address a question to the Prime Minister. By way of preface, 1 may say that during a visit to the Snowy Mountains over the last weekend I was pleased to note that the Adaminaby Dam is well on the way towards completion. I would like to suggest to the Prime Minister that he might care to arrange for the lake that will be formed by the construction of the dam to be named Lake Hudson, after the commissioner who has done such a magnificent job. He might also, possibly, consider naming other minor lakes that will be created during the progress of this scheme after the deputy commissioners. However, at the moment I am dealing only with the Adaminaby Dam. Will the Prime Minister consider this proposal and, if he is favorably disposed towards it, will he confer with the New South Wales Government, if such a step is necessary, to see what can be done in this way to commemorate the name of a very great engineer?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I share the honorable member’s admiration for the work done by Sir William Hudson and all those associated with him. I will, of course, give some thought to the suggestion he has made. I think I should say that I feel, as a general principle, that when local and sometimes native names are connected with places they are worth preserving unless there is some overwhelming reason to the contrary. However, the honorable member may say that his proposal is not necessarily inconsistent with that principle. I will have a look at his suggestion.

page 1105

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Mr FREETH:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry, relates to sales of tobacco leaf in “Western Australia this year. Was the price received satisfactory? How did it compare with the Australian average price and with last year’s prices? What percentage of the leaf offered remains unsold?

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

– I am glad to be able to inform the honorable gentleman that the gross return to farmers for tobacco leaf this year increased from about £3,000,000 to £4,500,000. There has been, therefore, a very substantial increase in the return to the producer. With regard to Western Australia, I think about 420 tons of tobacco leaf was offered for sale, and approximately 6i per cent, was rejected. The price this year for Western Australian leaf was about 125d., which was a slight reduction on the price realized last year. When we take into consideration the increase in the quantity of leaf and the total value received for the leaf, it is not a big fall and one which I, personally, do not think will present any great difficulty to the industry. I am very glad to say that in response to the Government’s policy of encouraging tobacco growing, the industry is producing more and more and I think the prices received are fairly satisfactory.

page 1105

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr OPPERMAN:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Is the Minister aware that the first aural evidence of the presence of the Russian satellite over Australian territory was heard through that outstanding Victorian broadcasting station, 3GL, which, through its efficient and speedy co-operation with a Geelong amateur radio operator, Mr. Brownbill, gave an eager and appreciative public the strong, clear, sound effects of the red moon in full flight, while giving its pips to the earth. If so, does the Minister not agree that this a further indication that, even to foreign bodies, Geelong is regarded as the first worthwhile point of contact in the Southern Hemisphere, and that therefore it is quite understandable that thousands of Australian citizens feel the gravitation pull of its many and varied attractions and settle there? This, in turn, explains the constant demand for telephones, which appears to me to be rapidly increasing. The crux of my query is: Can the Postmaster-General inform me what is the backlog of telephone applications for Geelong and district?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– There are several claims to having been the first to record and report the progress of the Russian satellite, but I am prepared to concede to the honorable member for Corio that the claim he has made for his area is at least based on truth. It seems to me also that his question bears out the fact that there is a relationship between the achievement to which he refers and the significant role of the PostmasterGeneral’s Department in matters of this sort, because, as I know the honorable member will agree, the department has played a very important part in the tracking and recording of the satellite. Therefore, it would appear that there is some relationship between that and the telephone problem which has been worrying the honorable member for some time and concerning which he has from time to time requested my assistance. As a result of his requests I can tell him from memory that at the moment there are less than 900 outstanding applications in his area. I recently supplied the honorable member with some figures, which have not materially altered. The honorable member’s electorate embraces a number of exchanges and plans for relief in the various localities will be carried into effect during the next twelve to eighteen months. For instance, the automatic equipment which is to be cut in at one of the Geelong exchanges should come into use in 1958. Included in this year’s programme are plans for other subexchanges, some of which will come into use this year, and others in 1958. I feel sure that the honorable member will agree that when they come into operation the position in his area will be considerably relieved.

page 1106

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he is able to give the House any further information on the Snowy Mountains Agreement and its possible encroachment on the River Murray Waters Agreement. Did his discussions last week with the Premier of South Australia include the matter of possible litigation which the South Australian Government might be forced to take to protect South Australia’s interests under the River Murray Waters Agreement? Finally, was he able to reach any agreement with the Premier of South Australia?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– On Friday afternoon last, two of my colleagues and I, accompanied by the appropriate officers, conferred with Sir Thomas Playford and his appropriate officers about the matter of the Snowy Mountains Agreement and its parti cular relation to the River Murray Waters Agreement. We had four hours’ discussion. Various points were raised and recorded and we agreed that we would consider what had been said on each side. I have undertaken to send Sir Thomas Playford by Thursday of this week a statement of the Government’s view on the points raised by him.

page 1106

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Mr BRIMBLECOMBE:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Trade aware that the Australian coastal shipping freight on wheat from Adelaide to Brisbane is £7 17s. 6d. a ton, compared with a freight rate to the United Kingdom of £5 15s. a ton? If so, can he tell the House why this wide discrepancy exists, particularly in view of the fact that the distance from Australia to the United Kingdom is five times that from Adelaide to Brisbane?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– There are certain circumstances which establish a scale of freight rates on the Australian coast. I think that the House and the public are generally familiar with those circumstances. In respect of overseas rates, these fall into two categories if one wishes to compare Australian freight rates with them. There are the freights that attach to the Conference lines which have regular and contracted services, and there are the freight rates which operate from time to time on the charter lines. The latter vary tremendously in accordance with the world supply and demand situation. For example, in the last year or so, charter rates on Australian bulk cargo to the United Kingdom have varied from, I think, 210s. a ton, about fourteen months ago, to as high as 290s. a ton at the beginning of this year and down to 110s. a ton, which, I think, is about the current rate. I am told that that is the lowest the rate has been for about three years. Consequently, any advantage or disadvantage at which Australian shipping freights would stand depends upon whether they are compared with charter rates or Conference line rates and also on the time the comparison is made. But in certain circumstances it is true that Australian coastal shipping rates are, by and large, and over an average period, very high indeed, in comparison with overseas shipping freight rates.

page 1107

QUESTION

ST. MARY’S FILLING FACTORY

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Was the priority decision by the Government’s technical advisers in relation to the St. Mary’s filling factory no more than an oral one? If so, does the Prime Minister consider it correct to base expenditure of at least £23,000,000 on oral advice, which cannot be produced or examined in Parliament?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– Unless I have been grossly misinformed, I had understood that the Opposition was contemplating a motion on this matter. If so, I will deal with all those points at the proper time. I certainly do not propose to have a fishing expedition conducted pending the presentation of that motion. That would not be fair to anybody in this case, and certainly not fair to us. I have not the slightest doubt that when the discussion is all over the honorable member will be as satisfied as he possibly could be.

page 1107

QUESTION

EARTH SATELLITE

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister: In view of the scientific significance of the successful launching of the satellite by the Soviet Union, and in view of the undeniable propaganda value of the venture to the Soviet Union, is the Australian Government making available to United Kingdom scientists every facility to enable those scientists to equal or surpass the Soviet in this engaging enterprise?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– There is complete cooperation between Australian scientists and those in Great Britain and the United States of America, and no information is available to us which is not freely and instantly made available to them. Perhaps it is worthwhile pointing out that the launching of satellites has been contemplated for some time as part of the experimental work to be done during the International Geophysical Year. The fact is that the first one actually launched has been launched by the Soviet Union, and it has been launched ahead of what was understood to be the schedule for the International Geophysical Year. But there will be others, and I hope - and everybody will hope - that all the information gathered by this international venture of the International Geophysical Year will be freely made available all round to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

page 1107

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRWAYS PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Now that Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited has disposed of its aircraft and other assets, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will fry to secure an answer from the Minister for Civil Aviation to the question that I placed on the notice-paper six weeks ago. He will notice that the question has been on the notice-paper longer than any other in this session, and that it concerns the Commonwealth’s financial stake in the company and the operation of the agreement which he himself signed with the company in 1952.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation thought it desirable - and I entirely agree with him - that matters of this kind could usefully be deferred until the arrangements that were under discussion were concluded. They have been concluded now. I have no doubt that he will at once let the honorable member have an answer to the question. I will advise him in that sense.

page 1107

QUESTION

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister, both as such and in his capacity of Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Office of Education. Has the right honorable gentleman noticed that our Australian system of education has certain serious deficiencies, particularly with reference to scientific and technical education?

Although education is a function of the States, would not the fact that certain of these difficulties apply in all States indicate that this matter might properly be an object of Commonwealth concern?

Will the right honorable gentleman consider consulting the Premiers of the States with a view to obtaining their co-operation in setting up some overall inquiry into this urgent problem and into the way in which the Commonwealth may assist the States in connexion with it, perhaps upon the analogy of the recent Commonwealth sponsored inquiry into Australian universities?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The question of scientific and technical education does not arise for the first time. It has been under very close consideration for some time now and, in particular, by myself. I appointed, earlier, a committee to investigate the position of the universities. I am at present engaged in a study of the committee’s report which, I think, will turn out to be an extremely valuable one; but it is full of issues which will require Government consideration and the determination of Government policy. I was also, at some period last week, put in possession of’ a lengthy report made by the Australian Academy of Science, and I have had the opportunity of having discussions with the academy about it. That report relates to scientific education in the pre-university stages. I therefore hasten to say that, so far as I am concerned, this matter is not raised for the first time. It has been engaging my attention for some time.

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question somewhat similar to that asked by the honorable member for Mackellar, but concerning a different aspect. In view of the great and spectacular success achieved by the Russians in launching in the last few days a satellite which travels at a height of 560 miles above the earth’s surface, will the right honorable gentleman give early consideration to the needs, financial and otherwise, of the science faculties in Australian universities and technical colleges, so that proportionately this country will be able to produce as many scientists and technicians as are now graduating in any other country. If he deems it desirable, will he ask the distinguished Englishman at present investigating the problems of our Australian universities to present an interim or progress report on this aspect of his inquiries?

Mr MENZIES:

– I am delighted to find this interest. I exhibited interest months ago by appointing this very distinguished universities committee. It has made a report, a great deal of which is concerned with this very problem of scientific and technological training, although not with that alone, because that is not the only body of knowledge that we need to conquer in this country. That report, as I say, has just been delivered to me. I propose, with the approval of my colleagues in the Cabinet, when I have had a look at this matter and when they have had an opportunity of studying it, to produce the report side by side with the views and decisions of the Government on the recommendations made by the committee, and I propose to have that done at a time when this House is still sitting and the whole matter can still be discussed. I think that that willi commend itself to honorable members on. both sides of the House.

This is a vastly important problem and, of course, it involves profound consideration, which it is entitled to have. I imagine, and I hope, that I shall have all this ready for decision and announcement well before the end of this sessional period. Depending, on the amount of time that my colleague, the Treasurer, can give to it immediately after his return, I should hope to have this available for publication and discussion, certainly by the beginning of November.

page 1108

QUESTION

DISEASE KNOWN AS “LAUGHING DEATH

Mr SWARTZ:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Territories seen recent reports indicating, that a disease known as the “laughing, death “, for which, it is claimed, there isno known cure, has been prevalent amongst natives of certain parts of New Guinea?’ If so, would the Minister inform the House of any official information that is available regarding this subject?

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I assume that thereports to which the honorable member refers are those which appeared in someweekend newspapers, apparently derived from some statements made by a man who, it would seem, is skilled in photography but completely unskilled and ill-informed inmedicine. The facts of the matter are that, about two years ago, it came under the notice of the Administration medical officer in the Kainantu district that a disease which could not be identified was apparent in a. rather restricted area around the Okapa patrol post. The total population to which the examination is being confined is about 15,000 people, and during the period that this disease has been under study there have been about 60 cases. The preliminary estimate has been that the incidence of the disease is perhaps about 1 per cent, of the population. Up to date the disease has not been identified as any of the known diseasesthat afflict human beings. It has apparently been present in this area for quite a long time, and at least within the memory of the present generation of native people. It has a name in the native language which suggests it has been known to them for perhaps longer than a generation.

In its outward symptoms it is a form of palsy. Strangely, it occurs mostly in- children and adult females and very seldom among adult males. Although the disease has been studied by Administration doctors and by teams from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, and although specimens of sera and blood have been examined in the Royal Melbourne Hospital, and an American scientist of some repute has now joined in the investigation, the disease has not yet been identified as one of the known diseases, nor are the causes or the progress of the disease fully known. It is a matter of some scientific and medical interest, and perhaps for the layman the most unusual feature of it is that it occurs only in this restricted area and among this particular population. Phrases such as the “ laughing death “ which have been applied to it by the press are, of course, sheer fantasy and infantilism.

page 1109

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Territories to a question I asked him on the last sitting day regarding taxation in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, in reply to which he said that there had been adopted there a tax in the form of a capitation tax of £2 a head a year on all adult males over the age of eighteen. I ask the Minister now whether it is a fact that a native labourer earning 25s. a month would pay the same capitation tax of £2 as the Administrator, who receives a salary of about £4,800 a year, would pay. If that is so, how can it be considered to be a just tax levied in accordance with the principle of the ability of the individual to pay? Also, is it a fact that some natives in some localities pay as much as £4 a head a year in tax?

Mr HASLUCK:
LP

– I should make clear once again, as I tried to make clear in the answer I gave to the previous question to which the honorable member has referred, that this capitation tax is not the only form of taxation in the Territory. To put it into perspective, I should mention that in this financial year the capitation tax will yield about £100,000 of the Territory budget, whilst the total amount of local revenue raised in the Territory will be about £5,000,000; so, the other forms of tax applied to the Territory, plus the charges and fees applied to the residents of the Territory, will raise approximately £4,900,000, whereas this particular tax with which the honorable member is concerned will raise £100,000. Now, the incidence of the tax is that it is a tax per head but, as I tried to explain before, apparently unsuccessfully so far as the honorable member is concerned, any contributions already paid by the native people by way of voluntary taxes for the upkeep of their local government councils or village affairs will be allowed as a deduction, so that if the native to whom he refers is, in fact, already paying £4 in village tax he will escape completely any liability under the capitation tax.

page 1109

QUESTION

MEAT RESEARCH

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is it a fact that certain officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization who are anxious to establish a national centre for meat research have approached the Minister and asked whether the Government would match on a £l-for-£l basis contributions from private donors for this project? In view of the considerable assistance that such a centre could give to our meat exporting industries, will the Government be able to assist this very worthwhile project?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Approaches have been made to me to ascertain whether contributions could be made on a £l-for-£l basis to assist meat research at various institutions in New South Wales. After discussions with the Meat Board and, I think, with the Graziers Federal Council, it was decided that it would be far better to explore all the possibilities of meat research throughout Australia and, therefore, to consider imposing a slaughter tax or some other tax to raise the necessary funds. The project mentioned by the honorable member is, I am sure, a very desirable one and one which would receive a high priority, but the department and I think it would be wise if we could get the total picture before we made up our minds on which project should receive priority.

page 1109

QUESTION

CANBERRA HOUSING

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for the Interior: Will the Minister consider making a full public statement on the present housing position in Canberra and on any actual or proposed variations in the system of allocating houses to those on the waiting list? Will he in his statement say whether a system of priorities has been re-introduced consequent on the need to attract to Canberra the tradesmen and others with particular technical and professional qualifications needed for the expanded building programme? Will h(> also say whether the projected rate of home construction under the expanded programme of 4,600 houses in five years will be at least sufficient to maintain the present waiting time for homes or can we expect that the waiting time will be extended? Will the Minister also say on what basis public servants being transferred from Melbourne to Canberra will be placed on the waiting list for homes?

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for the Interior · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I will give some general consideration to the question of supplying a statement on the matters raised by the honorable member. However, I point out that, though it is true that in recent months it has been necessary to take certain houses out of the available pool and allot them on a priority basis to officers who are concerned with the developmental programme itself, ‘ it must be understood that, as the Government is spending money to develop Canberra as such, no wholesale undertaking can be given that houses will be allocated in strict order of registration. As far as the total number of houses available is concerned, it would appear from anticipations that we will be ahead of the normal rate of delivery of homes to those already on the waiting list up to about th2 end of next year. By that time, of course, it will be necessary to reserve homes for the transfer from Melbourne. Those officers will take a block priority because, if we are to transfer a department from Melbourne, it is necessary that the whole of that department should be transferred in the shortest possible time.

page 1110

QUESTION

UNIVERSITIES COMMITTEE REPORT

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. When the Government is considering the actions to be taken following the report of the universities committee, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the serious shortage of veterinary surgeons in Australia and the detrimental effect this shortage is having on the progress of our live-stock industries?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– All I can say is that when we consider, as we will without avoidable delay, the report of the universities committee, we will deal with everything that is in it.

page 1110

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS SCHEME

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to ask the Minister for Labour and National Service a question about an industrial dispute at Cabramurra, in the Snowy Mountains area, that appears likely to become serious. It arises from the dismissal by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority of the chairman of the Cabramurra job committee. The allegation made is that this man is being victimized because of his trade union activities. The reason given by the Snowy Mountains authority for his dismissal is that there is not sufficient work available for him as a blacksmith. A combined meeting of the employees on the joh has been held, and resolutions have been passed. I ask the Minister whether he will examine the matter, and perhaps confer with the Minister for National Development, and through him, with the Snowy Mountains authority, to see whether a peaceful settlement can be obtained on just terms.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I am sure that I speak for all honorable members when I say that we all are very glad to see the honorable member for Eden-Monaro back in his place in this House, and when I express the hope that he is restored to good health. I had not had brought to my notice previously the particular dispute that he mentions, but now that he has presented certain of the facts to the House, I shall follow up immediately with the Department of Labour and National Service, obtain what information I can, and see whether some action of the kind that he recommends could usefully be taken towards bringing the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.

page 1110

QUESTION

WOOMERA ROCKET RANGE

Mr FAIRBAIRN:

– Can the Minister for Supply give to the House some details of the newly constructed supersonic wind tunnel at Woomera? Is it a fact that this wind tunnel is the first in the Southern Hemisphere in which supersonic speeds have been attained, and that speeds of up to Mach 2.8 have been achieved?

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

– Yes, as part of the Joint British-Australian Long-range Weapons Project, we have, among other things, this quite new - and very expensive, if I may say so - installation of a wind tunnel. I myself cannot give the honorable gentleman the technical details, as perhaps 1 should be able to do, but knowing his interest, I will see that they are compiled and supplied to him.

page 1111

QUESTION

ST. MARY’S FILLING FACTORY

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Prime Minister a question. Does the Government intend to take any action arising from the criticism by the Commonwealth AuditorGeneral of Messrs. Stephenson and Turner, the architects, and Utah (Australia) Limited and Concrete Constructions Proprietary Limited, the contractors, directing attention to waste, and lack of supervision, in the construction of the new St. Mary’s ammunition filling factory? Is it proposed to pay in full to Messrs. Stephenson and Turner the architects’ fee of £1,250,000 for designing the project, and supervising its construction? Finally, will the Prime Minister make available to all members of the Parliament the audit inspector’s reports upon which the Auditor-General’s remarks were based?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I stated in the House the other day that I was not purporting to deal with these allegations, because I was confining my remarks to the particular questions of principle that had been raised. My colleague, the Minister for Defence Production, will deal with the matters raised by the honorable member, and I indicated the other day that the Minister would do so during the consideration of the Estimates. Of course, should the Opposition promote a debate on the matter before the relevant portion of the Estimates is considered, I have no doubt that the Minister will be equally obliging on such an occasion.

page 1111

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr WEBB:

– I ask the Minister for Social Services whether it is ‘ a fact that negotiations are taking place with respect to changes in the reciprocal agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom with a view to deleting the requirement of a twenty-year qualifying period of residence for the age pension for immigrants from the United Kingdom. If this is so, will the Minister inform the House when the new agreement is likely to take effect? Further, will he consider deleting the twenty-year qualifying period of residence for immigrants from other countries?

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– It is a fact that the reciprocal agreements that exist between the Commonwealth Government and the Governments of the United Kingdom and New Zealand have been under discussion for some considerable time. It is also a fact that senior officers of the Department of Social Services, together with responsible officers of the Government of New Zealand, have recently visited the United Kingdom and have explored the possibilities of improving the general terms of the reciprocal agreements that exist. They have reached degrees of unanimity as to what should be done. The matter is currently under examination by the three governments concerned, and if and when finality is reached - and I hope it will be reached before very long - a full statement will be made in the House as to. the terms of the new agreements that will be entered into.

page 1111

QUESTION

ST. MARY’S FILLING FACTORY

Mr CAIRNS:

– I ask the Minister foi Defence Production, now that the Prime Minister has thrown the ball to him, whether it is a fact that the firm of Stephenson and Turner, architects, had practically no experience in industrial design before the St. Mary’s project was commenced, and as a result had to sub-let to other architects contracts for the design of the St. Mary’s ammunition filling factory. If this is so, why was the original contract let to the firm of Stephenson and Turner in the first place?

Mr BEALE:
LP

– I invite the honorable member for Yarra to have patience. All will be revealed in due course.

page 1111

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr KILLEN:

– Can the PostmasterGeneral give an indication of the progress being made in Queensland with the development of television?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I take it that the question deals with the development of television recently announced by me on behalf of the Government. With regard to the development of the national station in Brisbane, officers of the Postmaster-General’s Department and the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and some of the officials of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, have had conferences and have formed a working party for the purpose of investigating all the preliminary details necessary for proceeding with the Government’s intention to establish in Brisbane, as also in Adelaide, Perth and Hobart, a national station. On the other hand, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board is moving toward the calling of applications for commercial licences in those four centres and, finally, the hearing of those applications. I expect to be able to announce very shortly the times decided upon by the board for the making of applications by interested parties, the times when the board will hear those applications in the four cities, and the times when it will make its reports to the Government. I think I will be able to make that information available within the next week or two.

page 1112

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES FOR ABORIGINES

Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Does the Prime Minister know that I wrote to him on 11th July of this year concerning the failure of this Government and previous governments to extend to aboriginal natives living on mission reserves the same social service benefits as are accorded to other members of the community, that the Minister whom he appointed to look after his affairs while he was absent acknowledged my letter on 8th August, and that although I again wrote on 3rd September asking for further information not one single word of information has been received by me? Does the Prime Minister feel satisfied with this rather lackadaisical attitude on the part of the Minister whom he has appointed? If not - as I presume is the case - will he appoint some one else to do the job?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I did not know about this matter myself, but I am sorry that this delay has occurred. I will see that it comes to an end.

page 1112

QUESTION

DIESEL FUEL TAX

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister whether any decision has yet been reached as to the method of distribution of the moneys to become available from the tax on diesel fuel?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– No decision has yet been reached. I have had further extensive discussions with the Minister for Shipping and Transport with regard to this matter, during which we analysed a certain number of figures. It turned out that there were some errors in the calculations. They are now being put right, and I would hope that immediately after the next Cabinet meeting we will be in a position to announce a decision.

page 1112

QUESTION

CANBERRA INDUSTRIAL AREA

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– Will the Minister for the Interior inquire into the rate of development of what is known as the new industrial area at Fyshwick, on the south side of this city, with particular reference to the facilities to be provided by the Government at that centre? Will the Minister inquire into the delay in providing a railway siding to serve the industries already established at the centre, and will he ascertain whether there will be any development of retail trading to complement the industrial activity there?

Mr FAIRHALL:
LP

– I am bound to say that I have had no complaints from any one operating in the industrial area about the lack of facilities, but I will look into the questions that the honorable member has raised.

page 1112

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3rd October (vide page 1102), on motion by Mr. Roberton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Mr. Thompson had moved by way of amendment -

That all words after “ That “ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - “the bill be redrafted to provide, as from 1st July, 1957, in the light of the declining purchasing value of money, increases in the rates of social service payments to the maximum extent that the national economy will permit, and, particularly, to ensure as a minimum that each of these payments is restored to the same percentage of the (unpegged) basic wage as it was under the adjustment of rates by the Chifley Government in 1948 “.

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP

– I am indebted to the House for giving me an opportunity to address myself to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson). I do not propose to delay the conclusion of the debate any longer than I can help. It is, admittedly, the duty of

Her Majesty’s Opposition to oppose - presumably in the public interest, and if and when it is likely to gain any party political advantage from so doing - but Her Majesty’s Opposition in this Parliament dare not oppose the Social Services Bill in the strict sense of the word, since, quite obviously, this would be contrary to the public interest and no possible political advantage could be gained thereby. Indeed, straight-out opposition to this measure could do grievous and irreparable harm to a great many innocent people, men, women and children alike. Therefore, an amendment has been moved.

The amendment proposes that the bill should be withdrawn and redrafted, that the increased payments should be made retrospective, and that they should be related to a fixed percentage of the unpegged basic wage. To withdraw and redraft a bill of this description, a bill that has involved me in the preparation of submissions and alternative submissions, over the last twelve months, covering the entire scheme of social services, could serve only to delay the passing of this most important piece of legislation and to inflict untold anxieties and miseries on hundreds of thousands of people. This Government will not do that.

To withdraw and redraft this Social Services Bill would mean the withdrawal and redrafting of other important bills either currently before this Parliament or to be introduced into this House. I refer, particularly, to the repatriation bills that have been passed in another place and which were introduced into this House only last week. It is not common knowledge that repatriation bills and social service bills are closely related. Indeed, one is the complement of the other. In a great many instances social service benefits are supplementary to repatriation benefits, and vice versa. Justice demands that any alteration in social service benefits should coincide with compensating alterations in repatriation benefits, and it would be a flagrant injustice to withdraw and redraft this bill without redrawing and redrafting the Repatriation Bills. Of course, there are other bills involved also.

The amendment proposes that the increased social service payments should be made retrospective to 1st July. It is an old and futile proposition which has been soundly condemned by the Labour party In the most conclusive terms on the rare occasions when Labour has been in office.

It is most unfortunate that, when the honorable member for Port Adelaide moved this amendment, only nine Opposition members were present, and that during the 45 minutes of the honorable member’s speech that number dwindled to five, with never more than one on the front bench. That matter is, perhaps, unimportant, but for the fact that had the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) or his deputy been present, they might have told the honorable member for Port Adelaide that the fixed policy of the Labour party on the question of retrospective payments-

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I rise to order. Is the Minister speaking in reply, and if so, is he replying to argument advanced during the debate?

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay).The Minister is speaking to the amendment. He is in order.

Mr ROBERTON:

– 1 said when I rose that I had only a few minutes in which to speak, and I hope the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr. J. R. Fraser) will not delay me unduly. I have said that had the Leader of the Opposition or his deputy been present in the House they might have told the honorable member for Port Adelaide that the fixed policy of the Labour party on the question of retrospective payments was restated and re-affirmed by the Labour Prime Minister and Treasurer, the late J. B. Chifley, as recently as October, 1948, when he rejected a similar amendment. Speaking on that amendment, the Labour Prime Minister and Treasurer said in the most forthright terms -

I think I should make it clear now . . . to the committee at the very outset . . . that the Government does not propose to accept any amendments to this bill. In saying that I refer not only to the matter under discussion-

He was referring, of course, to retrospective payments - but also other payments under the bill. General principles have been laid down by the Government regarding various types of benefits proposed in the legislation … the Government does not propose to depart from these principles.

As recently as 1952 the soundness of the policy of the Labour party on the question of retrospective payments was acknowledged and restated by no less a person than the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), whose return to good health gives so much pleasure to us all. The honorable member said, inter alia -

It is true that it is not the practice to make increases in social service payments retrospective. It must be admitted that the general rule is that an increase shall operate from a date subsequent to the passing of the relevant bill, [t is also true, and in fairness should be admitted, that when the Chifley Government increased the rate of pension by 5s. a week in 1948, the payment was not made retrospective but operated from a date subsequent to the passing of the bill.

I can only express my profound regret that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro was placed by his uncharitable colleagues in the position of having to second this most dubious amendment.

But the amendment also proposes that the increased social service payments should be related to a fixed percentage of the “ unpegged “ basic wage - that entirely fictitious term. I am reluctantly compelled to say that social service payments never have been related to the basic wage, pegged or unpegged, which now includes loadings completely divorced from the cost of living. But it is possible, and most profitable, to make calculations that reveal the extraordinary progress which has been made since the introduction of Commonwealth pensions in 1910.

It is interesting to note that in 1910 when the basic wage was 45s. 6d. and the pension was 10s. a week, the percentage of the pension to the basic wage was 22 per cent. As the pension rate increased to 12s. 6d. and 15s., the percentage of the pension to the basic wage fell from 22 per cent, to 16.9 per cent. That was in 1920, when it reached its lowest point.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– Under what government?

Mr ROBERTON:

– The percentage of the pension to the basic wage fell from 19.7 per cent, in 1916 to 16.9 per cent, in 1920 under governments which were predominantly Labour. After the percentage had reached its lowest point at 16.9 per cent, it commenced to rise progressively year by year, until this year, 1957, under the present Government, when the basic wage is £12 16s. and the pension rate is 87s. 6d., or 34.3 per cent. It is also interesting to note that in the past when pension rates have been increased by various governments, the percentage of the pension rate to the basic wage has occasionally fallen and conversely where the pension rate has been decreased, as it was by a socialist government, the percentage of the pension to the basic wage was increased.

There were two periods during which pensions were adjusted in accordance with variations in the cost of living. They were from 1933 to 1937 and from 1940 to 1944, but the system was never satisfactory and, irony of all ironies, it was terminated by no less a person than the present leader of the Labour party, who, of course, has not been present during this debate, either when the honorable member for Port Adelaide introduced the amendment or at any other time.

On 23rd February, 1944, in the course of a second-reading speech on a bill that was specifically designed to sever forever the relationship between rates of pensions and the cost of living, the right honorable member for Barton said in his inimitable way -

The main purpose of this bill is to give legislative effect to the Government’s decision to abandon the principle of linking the rate of invalid and old-age pensions with the cost of living figures, namely the weighted average retail price index number for all items of household expenditure - C series - for the six capital cities.

The honorable gentleman went on to. say -

As a result of a further examination of the position and having regard to the fact that considerable administrative work and many complications arise from the present system, the Government has decided to repeal the sections of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act which provide for the adjustment of the maximum rate of pension in accordance with the variations of the price index number.

The leader of the Labour party concluded by saying -

In consonance of the Government’s decision to remove the cost of living provisions from the act. the bill provides for the omission of the term “ Federal Basic Wage “ in relation to the permissible income from the blind . . .

Mr. Speaker, it is possible that the honorable member for Port Adelaide - I am duty bound to say this - did not know the policy of the Labour party and the decisions so succinctly expressed by both the late J. B. Chifley and the present leader of the Labour party on the question of retrospectivity and on the question of the relationship of pensions to the basic wage, and it is possible that the honorable member for EdenMonaro has forgotten them, or they might never have introduced an amendment that is contrary to Labour policy and, paradoxically enough, contrary to reason and the realities of the economic situation. The cold and formidable fact remains that the workers of our country - and some one must speak for the workers - men and women alike, old and young alike, will be called upon to find some £243,000,000 to meet health and social service expenditure in the current financial year, and, in addition, some £60,000,000 to meet repatriation expenditure for the same period - a total of more than £300,000,000. It is a prodigious task, and this Government does not propose to add to that burden until it is demonstrated that further increases can be borne without undue stress and undue strain, and without endangering the economic stability of our country in this most critical climatic year.

This spurious amendment must fail, or it will throw into confusion all the arrangements which have been made to meet these increased payments at the earliest possible date, both with respect to social service payments and repatriation payments. There are no party political advantages to be gained from trifling with the expectations of the old, the bereaved, the sick, the maimed, the unemployed and the women and children who are dependent on them. I find it hard to pardon an amendment of this description; and that makes it easy to reject it as a form of social cruelty which cannot be condoned.

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) has quoted selected portions of a speech which I made in 1952, in order to give the impression that I then opposed retrospectivity in pension payments. The fact is that the speech from which he has quoted was one in favour of retrospectivity of pension payments. In that speech, I freely admitted that this had not been a practice in the past, but I argued for it as a new practice. I am sorry that the Minister, who so kindly welcomed me back to the House after my period of ill health, should have quoted selected portions of my speech and so given a completely wrong impression of it, as would be shown if it were read in full.

Mr Thompson:

– I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr Thompson:

– Yes. The Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) claimed that I did not understand Labour policy and said that if the Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) had been here, they could have told me that what I was moving by way of amendment did not represent definite Labour policy. My personal explanation is that what I moved was not an idea of the honorable member for Port Adelaide, but something that was decided by the Labour party as the policy to be put forward.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Thompson’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 47

NOES: 29

Majority…. 18

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 -

This Act shall come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– I should like to state that not all of the amendments that have been circulated in my name are intended to be moved by me. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) was with me in their preparation and he will move some of them, including the first.

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move -

That in clause 2, omit “ come into operation on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent “, insert “be deemed to have come into operation on the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven”.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to ensure that the increased rate of pension, and all other increases in social service benefits, shall be retrospective to the commencement of the financial year. It is true that this has not been done previously in the history of the Commonwealth. It is also true, as the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) should have known, that the Labour party, for several years past, has adopted this as its policy. It has pledged itself to give effect to this policy when it becomes the Government at the end of next year.

The reason that it was not done in the past is that, in years of comparative monetary stability, large alterations in the pension rate were not essential. Now, in years of high inflation, it is necessary that i ncreased pension payments, which reflect t he changed value of money, should be made from the beginning of each financial year. This practice would enable Parliament to deal with social service legislation without undue haste. It has been an unfortunate feature of debates on social services in the last few years that they have had to be hurried through in order that pensioners, at the earliest possible moment, could get the increase that they so desperately have needed.

If the principle of retrospectivity to the 1st July is adopted it will be possible for the Parliament, in future, to debate the matter at reasonable length and take all considerations into proper account without the pensioners losing anything thereby.

I trust that the Minister, even now, will accept this amendment, which is quite in line with the practice adopted by the Parliament in so many other matters involving salaries and monetary payments. It has become the practice to make increases of salaries retrospective. We have given ourselves retrospective increases of salary. We have given the judges retrospective increases of salary. We have given the top civil servants in this country retrospective increases of salary. It comes ill, now, to hear members of the Government say that it would be wrong in principle to do this for the aged and infirm.

Mr CHAMBERS:
Adelaide

.-I support the motion. I cannot help but reply to the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton), who referred to the attitude of the late Mr. Chifley in 1948 to retrospective payments. If one analyses the economy of Australia in 1948 and compares it with the economy of Australia in 1957 one can honestly appreciate the action and the thoughts of the then Prime Minister. It does not matter how we juggle figures in order to suggest that the pensioner, with his increases since 1948, is in a better financial position than he was in that year-

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Adermann).Order! The Committee is discussing clause 2, which fixes the time that the measure is to come into operation. We cannot have a second-reading speech on clause 2.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– I think that this bears on retrospective payments.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member is answering the speech which the Minister for Social Services made on the amendment proposed in the House. The honorable member is out of order.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– The Minister has :made a statement that goes over the whole of the broadcasting system-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member may make his point on another -clause of the bill, but not on this one.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– I think the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) made it very clear that, in other instances, retrospective payments had been made. They have been made to people who were in far better circumstances than those “who are now being called upon to await “the payment of these increases until such time as this measure has passed through all -stages. I do not believe that the Minister is the tough person that some members claim he is. I believe that he has a kind heart, -and is a humanitarian. I do not believe that he does not fully appreciate the serious situation that many pensioners are in to-day. Retrospective payments are badly needed, particularly by those who are merely in receipt of the rate for a single person. Retrospectivity means much to them. As on many occasions we have granted retrospective payments to other persons, I make -a final appeal to the Minister to give this matter further consideration. I ask him to plead with Cabinet to grant these increases retrospectively.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- I support the amendment. I do so because I believe that its adoption would bring order out of chaos and that, henceforth, we would not be faced with the necessity to determine this question of retrospectivity. I suggest that this is a matter of social justice and of being fair to the pensioners. Can any one deny that the cost of living has continued to increase for many months past? If the committee this afternoon determines that increases of pension rates shall commence from 1st July, we shall merely be putting the records right and giving to the pensioners money that has been denied them because of the failure of the Govern-: ment to increase pensions before now.

I have been inundated by requests from pensioner organizations, branches of the Australian Labour party and other bodies interested in this matter, suggesting that, once and for all, the Parliament should face up to its responsibility and decide that increases of pensions should be dated back to the beginning of the financial year.

Then, when future budgets were being considered and increases of pension rates were being determined they would automatically commence from 1st July, and the question of retrospectivity would not arise as a precedent. The honorable members for EdenMonaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) and Adelaide (Mr. Chambers) have clearly pointed out that in respect of payments to other people in the community who do not urgently need money for the provision of food, clothing and shelter, such as public servants, judges and parliamentarians, there is no hesitancy on the part of the Parliament in agreeing to retrospectivity. Let us also have unanimity in this matter of pensions. We could put the matter right by agreeing to the amendment which, after all, seeks no special advantage for the pensioners. It would not give to pensioners the benefit of a new principle. All that it would do would be to say that, from 1st July of this year, pensions would be paid at the higher rate. In each subsequent year, alterations of the rates would apply as from 1st July.

I make this plea to the committee because I believe that the majority of honorable members are just, and can see the wisdom and the fairness of this proposal. I am sure that, by doing the right thing, which they will do if they support the amendment, they will earn the gratitude of the people of this country and the thanks and the admiration of all pensioners.

Mr MINOGUE:
West Sydney

.- I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser). It is of little use for us to discuss, at Budget time or at any other time, what we are going to do for the pensioners in the future if we are not sufficiently honest and sincere in our approach to matters that concern them. We, on this side of the chamber have asked, not only during the last few weeks, but also at previous times, for retrospectivity to be applied to increases of pensions. As other honorable members from this side of the chamber have said, we have approved of retrospectivity in relation to salary increases for ourselves, for judges, and for other members of the community who are not in the pitiful plight that the pensioners are in at the present time. This Government has been in office for almost eight years and has just introduced a Budget which is both shameful and disgraceful. It has said that, in the next twelve months, it will go into ways and means of doing something for the pensioners. It has even been suggested that pensioners who live alone may be granted a few shillings more.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr MINOGUE:

– I come back to the desperate plight in which pensioners find themselves at the present time, and I make this final appeal on their behalf. This is an opportunity for the Liberal partyAustralian Country party Government to do something for the pensioners, instead of waiting for an election year. It should help these people instead of humbugging them, as it has done for the last week or so.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- This amendment, to the unthinking, may appear attractive. The Australian Labour party is asking the Government to do something that Labour itself refused to do when it was in office. But that does not necessarily mean that to do what it asks now would be in the best interests of the pensioners. Let us examine the matter and see what the proposition is. If this amendment were adopted, it would involve the payment of an additional £3,945,000. A sum of money has already been appropriated and set aside in the Budget for the payment of these increased pension rates of 7s. 6d. a week. If we were to undertake an additional commitment on that sum it would mean that the pensioners would not get £4 7s. 6d. a week, as is proposed under this Budget, but something less, because this initial payment would have to be made out of the moneys appropriated for the payment ot the increase of 7s. 6d. Otherwise, an additional appropriation of £3,945,000, which would require a message from the GovernorGeneral, would be needed. I certainly would like to see such an additional sum made available for social services, but I suggest that if additional money is to be provided it should be paid to those who are really in need, such as widows, widowers and single people who are paying rent and who will still have the greatest difficulty in living on the increased pension of £4 7s. 6d. a week.

Mr Thompson:

– Would the honorable member move in that direction?

Mr WILSON:

– I am quite capable of making my own speech and of dealing with the matter of social services in my own way. All that I ask of the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) is not to make political capital out of the pensioners. He knows perfectly well that this amendment, which has been proposed by the Labour party and which embodies a principle which Labour refused to adopt for very sound reasons, represents an attempt to make political capital.

I should very much like to see an additional £4,000,000 appropriated for the pensioners, but that is a matter for the Government, not for the Parliament, because it is only the Governor-General, on the advice of the Government, who can appropriate public moneys. Therefore, however much we as a Parliament might desire to see additional funds set aside for such a purpose, first it would be necessary to have a message from the Governor-General recommending the appropriation. Therefore, I am not prepared to support this amendment, because I know that it would result either in cutting down pensions below £4 7s. 6d. a week or in delaying the payment of the increase while the Government goes through the process of obtaining a further message recommending the appropriation of an extra £4,000,000. In addition, if the Government can get the extra £4,000,000 I wish to see that extra sum go to those pensioners who are in need rather than those who will receive, under the provisions of the measure, £15 15s. a week and who would, if the amendment were carried, have a very substantial bonus added to that weekly payment. So, I repeat, there arc two sound reasons “ for opposition to the amendment. The first is that adoption of it would involve the need to obtain another message from the Governor-General and the second is that any additional money that can be found for payment to the pensioners should go to those who are in the most need.

Mr FOX:
Henty

.- I believe that the Opposition has moved this amendment, as it moved the previous amendment, more *.with the intention of embarrassing members on this side of the chamber than with the hope of achieving any alteration in the bill. I make that statement without intending to cast any reflection on the integrity of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), who moved the amendment, because I believe he sincerely has the interests of the pensioners at heart. For reasons which have been well and truly and adequately stated by the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon), I am not prepared to cross the floor on this amendment. I think that the whole intention of Opposition members in moving these amendments is to enable them to point to the “ Hansard “ record at some time in the future and say, “ Honorable members opposite voted against an increase in the pension and also were not prepared to make what increase they gave retrospective “. That is not the sentiment of honorable members on this side.

I want to leave with the Minister for Social Services one suggestion which he may not see fit to accept this year but may find worthy of consideration in the future. My suggestion is that on the last pension pay-day before Christmas the pensioners be paid one week’s additional pension. 1 make that suggestion in the knowledge that its adoption would virtually mean an increase of ls. 6d. in the pension rate over a full year and would involve an additional pay ment of perhaps £2,500,000.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! That is outside the scope of the amendment.

Mr FOX:

– 1 am putting that suggestion forward in lieu of the suggestion contained in the amendment that payment of the increase be made retroactive to 1st July. This is a way of making something up to the pensioners and achieving much the same effect as the amendment seeks to achieve. At Christmas time most workers receive some sort of bonus whilst others are paid for two or three weeks holiday; but for the pensioner Christmas time is no different from any other time of the year. I do not want to embarrass the Government by moving my suggestion in the form of an amendment. I merely leave the suggestion with the Minister with the hope that he will consider it in the future.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I support the amendment, and I should like to say that members on the Government side are completely in error when they suggest that this amendment is designed merely to gain some political capital. I sincerely believe, in fact I know, that the Labour party in office will take the action which it suggests in the amendment.

Mr Stokes:

– You were a long time getting there.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– The honorable member may interject, but he should remember that if the Labour government in its day rejected a similar amendment, that amendment was put forward by those who to-day form the Government. So, if honorable members opposite intend to impugn the sincerity of the Opposition in this matter let them look back to the days when they, who now sit on that side, moved a similar amendment. But they moved it with this difference - that in power they took no action to carry it into effect. We say to the people, and to this Parliament, that the Labour party in office will see that pension increases are paid from 1st July of the budget year.

I support the amendment because I feel that the value has so far dropped from the weekly payments made to pensioners that the Government should do everything within its power to restore something of that value. When we talk about making the increase of pension retroactive to 1st July we realize that to do so would involve the payment of an additional 7s. 6d. a week for some nine weeks.

Mr Thompson:

– Fourteen weeks.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I must have dropped a month somewhere. The total sum involved is not a great one. You might permit me, Mr. Chairman, in developing the theme that the value has dropped from pensions to such an extent that this retroactive payment should be made to compensate for the value already lost, to quote some figures made available to me by the Commonwealth Statistician. Those figures show the relative value of foodstuffs purchasable by the pension at various times. They show how much of these foodstuffs can be purchased by the pension as it is to-day, and as it is proposed to be after the passing of this legislation. To illustrate what assistance could be given to pensioners by making the increase retroactive, the figures given by the Commonwealth Statistician, under the dates 4th September, 1956, 10th September, 1956, and 3rd October, 1957, show the prices charged in the six capital cities for a line of foodstuffs including bread, butter, fresh milk, tea. sugar, potatoes, rump steak, chuck steak and eggs. On converting the pension into purchasing power according to the price index of each of these items, one finds that the present rate of pension buys less of each one of those basic foodstuffs than could be bought by the same pension payment twelve months ago.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think you had better bring your remarks under the clause. I cannot allow you to proceed on that Une on clause 2. The value of the pension should be discussed under another clause.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– I shall be happy to do that, Mr. Chairman. I had hoped to use those figures from the Statistician regarding the purchasing power of the pension in order to support my contention that, because value had dropped from the pension, payment of the proposed increase should be made retroactive in order to compensate the pensioners for what they have already lost in this financial year. I support the amendment, knowing that the Labour party in office will take action to see that pension increases are paid from 1st July of the Budget year.

Mr BIRD:
Batman

– I was always under the impression that this National Parliament was a progressive Parliament. In other words, we should not be bound by the conventions and decisions of the past. The Government’s main argument now seems to be that because the Chifley Government, in 1948, and other governments of similar vintage in the past, saw fit to pay pension increases from the date on which the relevant legislation received the Royal Assent, we have to follow suit in 1957. That is to say, we are expected to follow, in perpetuity, a precedent that was established in 1903 or 1904. I suggest that in an era which has seen such vast increases in productivity, and in which it has been proved conclusively that this nation can pay the pensioners more than we are paying them, we should decide that the arguments that were valid in the past cannot be related to the conditions of to-day. I do not think that the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) would contend that the Government cannot afford to pay an extra paltry amount of £4,000,000. I do not think for one moment that the Government’s unwillingness to accept the amendment rests on the finding of that extra £4,000,000. I think the Government’s reason is that it has taken the slogan that no good can come out of Nazareth, and thinks that anything that the Labour party suggests must be treated with contempt. If that is the position, all I can say is that there is no hope for the future in this country. Surely, it is wrong to hold that, because something has happened in the past for which the Labour party may have been to blame, a suggestion made by the Labour party to alter it now nine years after it left office, is not justified. Surely, we can make deviations from established traditions. The simple fact is that because the payment of pension increases from the date that the legislation receives the Royal Assent has become an established tradition, the Government is now contending that that tradition must be treated as inviolate, as immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians. I can say that the Government should look at this matter fairly and squarely. This situation concerns a vast body of pensioners. They are denied increases not because the Government cannot find the money to pay them but because of a decision made in the Parliament 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Summed up, that is all that the argument of the Government means. I agree with the honorable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr. J. R. Fraser) that any future Labour government will make the payment of pension increases retrospective. I do not want to re-echo that sentiment too much. We were not too particular about precedents when our salaries were increased some time ago. We did not say that because pensions were not paid retrospectively our salary increases should not be paid retrospectively. With one or two exceptions, the Parliament unanimously decided to adopt the policy of retrospectivity in the payment of our salaries. When the salary levels are compared, how can we look a pensioner straight in the face and say, “ Though it is good enough for our increases to be paid retrospectively, it is not good enough for you “. I appeal to the Minister to make political history by saying that the Opposition has put up a reasonable case and that he will resubmit the matter to Cabinet.

I do not place much credence on the argument of the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) that the adoption of the Opposition’s amendment would cost an additional £4,000,000 or would mean a reduction of the pension rate. If the Parliament agrees to the insertion of a clause to permit the retrospective payment of pension increases, the Parliament could also allow for an increased appropriation to pay the increased pensions; Parliament is its own master! I do not think that the honorable member for Sturt placed much faith in his argument. As one who has taken a great interest in pensions, I believe that he thought he should find some argument to support the Government. On reflection, 1 am sure he will agree that it was a weak argument. Pensioners are trying to live on £4 7s. 6d. a week, and this Government would be known as a government that gave justice to pensioners if it accepted the Opposition’s amendment. Under the present policy, no Government supporters could make that claim.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- I believe that honorable members should make clear where they stand on this matter. The honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) has referred to the payment of salaries of members of Parliament and has compared the action taken on salary increases with the action suggested in the amendment now before the committee. Honorable members know very well where I stand on parliamentary salaries. At a certain stage I pointed out what should be done and I do not need to go into that matter now.

Mr Webb:

– Did you accept the increase?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Mr TURNBULL:

– No, I did not.

Mr Webb:

– What did you do with it?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! When I ask for order I expect the honorable member for Stirling to obey.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti) said that if the increase in pensions was made retrospective, that would be done only for this year; next year it would be done automatically. Of course, that is not so. It is very wild thinking. If pension increases are to be made payable from 1st July, I support the view that the only way to do so is to introduce the Budget earlier. The honorable member for Macquarie said that if the increases were made retrospective to 1st July now, their payment on 1st July would be automatic in each subsequent year.

Mr Thompson:

– He said that it creates a precedent; that is all.

Mr TURNBULL:

– It does not become automatic; it becomes retrospective every year.

Mr Bird:

– A precedent is established;, that is all.

Mr TURNBULL:

– I am replying to the argument of the honorable member for Macquarie. I should not have to repeat this, if Opposition members would let it sink in. If you make it retrospective now, it does not become automatic in subsequent years. It would have to be made retrospective each year, if the Budget is introduced at the same time as it has been, perhaps, since federation. During the time that pensioners were asking honorable members what they would do, I met only one group. The only group that asked me to meet it was the Combined Pensioners Association, Sunraysia branch, which represents pensioners in my electorate. It is a very active body.

Mr Whitlam:

– That shows what they think of you!

Mr TURNBULL:

– It does, and they wrote this letter to me which I have just received -

May I on behalf of the Combined Pensioners Association, Sunraysia Branch, thank you for presenting petitions; also past co-operation and courtesies shown us in the past.

If the honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) wants to look at that letter, he may see it. When I met the representatives of that association, I told them very definitely that I could not support any amendments seeking an increase in pension rates or retrospective payment of increases. If any one likes to ask the secretary or other members of the association who were present, they will learn that what I say is correct. I am not concerned which side of the House moves such amendments; they are moved chiefly for some political purpose. I admit that when I was in opposition, similar amendments were moved. As a member of more mature years now, I believe that that was done only for political expediency.

Mr Bird:

– Ah! True confessions!

Mr TURNBULL:

– It is not a confession now. If the honorable member looks back in “ Hansard “ he will see where I said that in the past. I do not say something here for political expediency. If the honorable member for Batman, who is smiling so much, likes to come with me to the Library where copies of “ Hansard “ are kept, ‘. will show him where I said exactly the same thing in the past. Opposition members cannot score any points off me on pensions, members’ salaries or other things, because I have been most consistent throughout the time I have been a member of this Parliament.

The policy in the past has been that pensions have been paid for a full twelve months at the rate decided upon, and that is happening now. If the payment of increases was made retrospective and the first payment, which would probably amount to £5 5s., was made now, pensions would receive the same amount in the twelve months period and would not gain anything. For the reasons I have given, I shall take the action I told pensioners I would take when I met them at Mildura.

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP

– I have listened to what honorable members on both sides have had to say in regard to the proposed amendment, and I agree with honorable members on the Government side that this amendment has been moved by the Opposition for political purposes only. It has been moved to confuse and confound the credulous and the uninformed. Ever member of this chamber knows that no matter who the Minister for Social Services might be from time to time or what political party he represents, his parliamentary duty is to prepare submissions for Cabinet. On the merits of those submissions and on the financial capacity of the community to pay, so is the Budget determined for submission to the Parliament. Government supporters have to accept the responsibility for that state of affairs. Opposition members, o’ course, have no responsibility in the matter and they move spurious amendments such as this to confuse the credulous and the uninformed. They know that no additional amount of £4,000,000 - that would be the immediate cost of this proposal - would be available to me. They know, also that if it were available to me it would not be used in the way they suggest; it would be used to much greater advantage, to gif the greatest relief to those who are in the greatest distress. Therefore, there is no substance in the proposed amendment at all, and it should receive the judgment of this committee that is its due.

I regret that from time to time the personal element is introduced by honorable members opposite. They describe me as a hard man or as a man not quite so hard. Decisions on these matters are not exclusively mine. If they were, a state of perfection could be reached very easily. It is not of any use to argue that, since there have been fantastic increases in the salaries of parliamentarians, senior public servants, judges, and other people, who have received the benefit of retrospectivity, the same sort of treatment should be accorded to those who qualify for social service benefits of any kind. I remind the committee that I have said before - and I take pleasure in saying again - that, if it were left to me, parliamentary salaries, and the salaries of senior public servants - for the good of their souls - and of the judges of supreme courts and the higher courts, would be reduced. But the decision does not rest with me.

Mr ALLAN FRASER:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to order. Is the Minister required to stand by the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility, or is it in order for him to dissociate himself from the decisions taken by his colleagues in the matters to which he refers?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The Minister is answering remarks made about parliamentary salaries, as he is entitled to do, but I hope that he does not pursue that line of discussion, because it has nothing to do with the clause now before the committee.

Mr ROBERTON:

– With very great respect to you, Mr. Chairman, I shall pass on to something else. However, if the decision were mine, it would be taken forthwith, as I have indicated.

I just want to direct the attention of those who may be interested in this question to the fact that retrospectivity involves all sorts of physical and administrative problems, the nature of which cannot be comprehended by people who are not intimately associated with the work of the Department of Social Services. For example, from time to time, ten of thousands of people qualify for social service benefits of every description, and tens of thousands of others become disqualified because of changed circumstances. Since 1st July last, 23,000 people have qualified for pensions. But, against that, 18,500 people have been disqualified by their more fortunate circumstances. Is it suggested that the 18,500 people who, it is to be presumed, are not now in need of social service benefits, should receive the benefit of retrospective application of this measure, and be given a bounty, to the prejudice of the 23,000 people who have qualified for pensions since 1st July last? These, of course, are rightly problems of administration. They are not insuperable; I suppose that we can get over them. But, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, if, by some stroke of good fortune, the department could lay its hands on an additional £4,000,000, it would spend it gladly, but not in the way that has been suggested. We would see to it that the maximum of assistance was given to the lowly men, women, and children who are in the greatest need.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– The honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) said that, if the amendment were agreed to, the money would have to come from somewhere, and that, if it came out of the vote for the Department of Social Services, the pension could not be increased to as much as £4 7s. 6d. a week. I think he knows as well as any other honorable member knows that, in nearly all departments or fields of government activity, items of expenditure additional to those approved in the Estimates are incurred during the financial year. For example, a new salary or wages award may be made retrospective. Although provision for it may not have been made in the original Estimates, our parliamentary procedures allow for the additional expenditure to be made under the Additional Estimates, or under the Treasurer’s Advance, out of which the Treasurer may expend money on an additional item of expenditure, which is later provided for in the Supplementary Estimates. Therefore, the honorable member’s argument carries no weight. It is argued, also, that the funds that would be needed if the amendment were agreed to could be used for different purposes, but quite a lot of amendments to the act would be needed if they were to be so used.

I ask Government supporters not to harbour the thought that in this matter of retrospectivity, Opposition members are trying to put up political arguments. I know that the government of the day has the power to decide what will be done. This amendment, and others that we propose to move, are designed to give a fair deal to people who we think have not been given justice. If the amendment were agreed to, pensioners would receive an additional £5 5s., which would mean a great deal to them. The Government must decide whether or not it will accept the amendment. I am certain that, if we cannot persuade the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) to accept the amendment, and he opposes it, Government supporters will support him when a vote is taken. I know that, if I were a Minister, and supporters of the government to which I belonged did not support me, I should wonder why I was a Minister. Therefore, we can understand the position. However, this amendment provides an opportunity for Opposition members to support the just claims of pensioners, not with any thought of political advantage, but in order to give them something that we think they are entitled to receive. That is the sole purpose of the Opposition’s amendments. We think that the pensioners have been overlooked. We do not propose these amendments for any political purpose. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Several honorable members rising in their places,

Motion (by Mr. Beale) put -

That the question be now put.

The committee divided. (The Chairman, Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 46

NOES: 33

Majority…. 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Allan Fraser’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 46

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 13

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 -

Section twenty-eight of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1a.) the words “ Two hundred and eight pounds” and inserting in their stead the words “Two hundred and twentyseven pounds ten shillings “; and

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

. I move -

That in clause 3, after paragraph (a) insert the following paragraph: - “ (aa) by omitting from sub-section (2a.) the words ‘ but does not exceed One thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds ‘; and “.

That amendment will come up several times in other clauses, but the Opposition will accept the vote on this clause as decisive. If the amendment is agreed to, consequential amendments will be made in the other clauses. At present, to determine an age or invalid pension, £1 per annum is deducted from the maximum pension for every £10 by which the applicant’s assets, other than the home in which he lives, exceed £200. Years ago, a pensioner whose assets were just less than the amount at which the pension cut out entirely received only £13 a year. As the act stands at present, the pension ceases to be payable when the assets of the applicant exceed £1,750. There is, initially, an exemption of £200, which means that the means test in the case of a person who has assets valued at £1,750, is applied to only £1,550. Thus, the deduction of £1 for every £10 by which the assets exceed £200 means that a total of £155 is deducted from the full pension of £208. So, if a person has assets valued at £1,750 he may receive a pension of £53 a year. If, however, the assets total £1,751, no pension is payable. Thus, there is a substantial difference between the position of a person who is entitled to the minimum pension and the person who is entitled to no pension at all. With the increase of the age and invalid pension by 7s. 6d. a week as proposed in this legislation a person with £1,750 may obtain a pension of £72 10s. a year. Yet, the person whose assets are valued at even only £1 over the £1,750 cannot get any pension at all. My proposal is that the limit of £1,750 be abolished and that the pension continue to be reduced by £1 for every £10 of property until it cuts out altogether.

Let us consider the position of a man whose property is valued at £2,000. Allowing for the exemption of £200, the means test would be applied to the remaining £1,800 and therefore £180 would be deducted from the new maximum pension of £227 10s., giving him a pension of £47 10s. If his assets were valued at £2,250 he would then be entitled to a pension of £12 10s. At £2,480, his entitlement to a penson would cease.

This suggestion is not new nor has it any political implications. Two or three years ago, a retired minister of religion came to me in connexion with this matter. He said, “ I have more than £1,750 and I have it invested in bonds at 3i per cent. My only income is the interest from the bonds, and that is not half as much as the pension. If I attempt to sell the bonds I will lose quite a lot of money on them, but my position is such that I must do something “. If that man had had £2,000 invested in bonds at 3i per cent, his income would have been only £62 10s. a year. He had no other income at all. Even assuming that his money were invested at 5 per cent, per annum his income would only have been £100.

So, it will be seen that the man who is debarred from a pension simply because his assets total more than £1,750 is not being treated justly. The limit of £1,750 has been fixed arbitrarily and cannot be defended.

Some years ago, the figure was £1.250. Under the legislation then applying, there was a deduction of £1 for every £10 of property in excess of the statutory minimum and a further deduction of £2 for every £11 over a certain higher figure. Honorable members will recollect that the previous Minister for Social Services, now the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr. McMahon), altered that provision when the limit was raised to £1,750, and that calculations have since been made on the basis of a reduction of £1 for every £10 by which the value of assets exceeds £200. Originally there was not a great disparity between the position of the man who was entitled to some pension and a man who was entitled to none at all, but that is not so to-day.

It may be argued that the proposal that I have made will cost a lot of money. I point out that it would not help the man who has income above the maximum for a full pension as well as capital between £1,750 and £2,480. It will only help those whose income does not exceed a little more than £200 a year, and who are practically living on what they are getting from their property.

I know that the Opposition is asking quite a lot of the Minister at this stage, but I appeal to him to give consideration to the people I have mentioned. The minister of religion to whom I have referred had capital of more than £1,750, but the income that he was deriving from that capital was less than half the pension. Yet, he could get no pension at all.

The Minister for Social Services said, earlier to-day that if he had another £4,000,000 to give to the pensioners, he would give it to those who really deserve it. I contend that the Minister would be taking a great step forward if he were to accept the Opposition’s amendment. There is, unfortunately, in the community a tendency to feel that it does not pay to be thrifty. If the minister of religion to whom I have referred had invested his money in an annuity that brought in not more than £3 10s. a week, he could have got a full pension. But because he put his money into Commonwealth bonds and other similar investments he is penalized. To-day, advisers on pension matters are telling people to go to assurance companies and buy annuities, knowing that if a married couple have an annuity which yields not more than £7 a week, they can get a full pension in addition. Clearly, this is a better financial proposition than holding capital in excess of £1,750 and being debarred from the pension.

Even if the Minister cannot see his way clear to accept the amendment at this stage, I suggest he consider it fully with a view to inserting it when the bill reaches the Senate,

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP

– I am most anxious to have this bill passed as quickly as possible. Everything that the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) has said is known to the Government and every member of the Government parties. These matters are never out of our minds. Indeed, a Government members’ social services committee sits constantly, examining these phases and aspects of the general social service scheme. Year after year the Government has made tremendous improvements in the application of social service proposals. The measure of those improvements is to be found in the expenditure of the Department of Social Services.

Honorable members will recall that when the Labour government was defeated in 1949 the total expenditure on health and social services was confined within the limits of £80,000,000. We have said this before. Immediately this Government was elected, the particular problems and perplexities that the honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) has mentioned, were grappled with straightaway and the expenditure rose from £80,000,000 to £114,000,000, £165,000,000, £189,000,000, £223,000,000 and, to-day, to £243,000,000. The Government is handling the situation year by year and Budget by Budget. But the brunt of the burden has to be borne by the taxpayer and whatever decision the Government makes, the taxpayer is deserving of some consideration. We must keep our proposals within the limits of the financial capacity of the Australian community to pay them.

Several honorable members rising in their places,

Motion (by Mr. Beale) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 4 to 8 - by leave - taken together.

Mr CHAMBERS:
Adelaide

.- The rate of widow’s pension, which is the subject of clause 5, is something that we often pass over too easily. We are living in an era when it is most important that a mother, who has lost her husband and is responsible solely for the maintenance, training and teaching of her children, should be given some assistance. It is a national responsibility so to provide for her in order that she will not have to go to work to provide for the upkeep of her family. If we take the case of a widowed mother with two children, as outlined by the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton), we find that the total income, including child endowment to which she is entitled, is £5 7s. 6d. Honorable members all know that it is impossible to maintain a family of three on £5 7s. 6d. a week. In such a difficult period as the present through which young people are passing, open as they are to the influence of bodgie and widgie cults and with crime ever increasing, mothers who have lost their husbands are faced with a sad and difficult situation in which to carry the responsibility of rearing their families.

The other evening the Minister for Defence Production (Mr. Beale) in a speech in this chamber eulogized the good work that was being done for youths of eighteen who were undergoing national service training. He pointed out that these young men were being disciplined and that their morale was being uplifted and strengthened. That such training is necessary is indicative of the times in which we live. If, with all the other taxes that are paid by the community, a defence tax has to be paid to provide the means for the Army organization to teach our youth discipline and morale, it is the responsibility of the home and school to provide adequate training for these children during their school years. This country has nothing to be proud of if sufficient pension is not provided to enable a widowed mother to stay at home and rear her family. It is wrong that she should be forced to go to work to earn sufficient to do so. Let us not talk about what a Labour government did in the past or what a Liberal government did during a particular period. Let us think of the fact that in the present circumstances children need home training. We cannot escape that fact. If we could make a complete survey of Australia and take into account the serious situation that is developing for our young people, we might fmd that those who have become delinquent are the product of circumstances in which mothers have to leave their homes and go out to work all day. The responsibility of widowed mothers is in the home all day long so that they might care for and protect their family. Irrespective of what governments in the past have done, let us face present realities and make provision for those who need protection most.

The Government would set a worthy example if it devised a plan - if it is too late under the present Budget, then in the future - which recognized that the responsibility for training children rests upon the mothers in the homes and that particular attention should be given to widows who have to carry the responsibility of both father and mother. It would be a great credit to any government if, from now on, it provided sufficient pension so that no widowed mother, who has the responsibility of maintaining and training her family, should be forced to go to work. I say again that it is a national responsibility to make such provision. Never in the history of this country has it been so essential that social service assistance be provided to the extent that a widowed mother will not be forced to leave her home during the day to go ‘to work, and as a result allow her children to run wild on the streets after school hours. She should not have to earn money to supplement her pension to keep body and soul together and give her children the training they have been denied by the loss of their father. I appeal to the Government to originate a principle to provide adequately for widowed mothers and so obviate the need for them to go to work.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

.- There is a great deal of merit in what has been said by the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Chambers) and to a large extent I support his remarks. The need for mothers of large families to go to work to earn sufficient to provide for the needs of home and children is not in the best interests of the rising generation. I was pleased that the honorable member for Adelaide approached this problem in a very practical way. I appreciate his suggestion to the Government that, although it is too late to make provision in this Budget, it should make an investigation with a view to increasing at an early stage the pensions of widows who have the responsibility of a large family and have not sufficient means to maintain a home and provide for their children. I strongly support that suggestion. I know that the Government has now entered into its financial commitments for the year. I know, also, that since federation, money bills have never been altered at the committee stage and I am well aware that the Government will not alter the monetary provisions in this bill at this stage. 1 do support what has been staled by the honorable member for Adelaide. I hope that the Government will make an investigation into the pensions paid to civilian widows with the idea of increasing them, thus relieving these women of the necessity to go out and work to support their families and themselves.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

.- Clauses 4 to 8 of the bill deal with certain social service benefits, and the conditions applying to them. We can hardly measure the value of social service pensions merely in terms of money. A short while ago, the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) said that in 1949, when the Labour government went out of office, expenditure on social services amounted to £80,000,000 a year, whereas it was now £243,000,000. Those figures are impressive unless one takes them to pieces and shows what can be purchased with the money that is being made available in social service payments to-day. I propose to do that in order to illustrate the extent to which the value of money has changed since 1948 when the Chifley Government announced a rise in social service payments.

There is considerable difference between the amount of essential foodstuffs thai could be purchased with pensions in 1948 and the amount that can be purchased now. I am fortunate in having had made available to me by the Commonwealth Statistician figures which show the prices of various foodstuffs at various periods of time comprising the September quarter of 1948, the June quarter of 1955, the June quarter of 1956, and the June quarter of 1957. Those foodstuffs are bread, butter, fresh milk, tea, sugar, potatoes, rump steak, chuck steak, and eggs. I suggest that that is a range of foods - with the exception of rump steak - which pensioners find it necessary to buy. Most pensioners are not able to afford rump steak. I admit, also, that the price of potatoes varies from time to time. The figures are as follows: -

These figures show conclusively that not only does the present pension of £4 a week buy less of each one of these foods than £2 2s. 6d. would have bought in 1948, but it shows that even with the increase of 7s. 6d. a week, the pension will buy less than £2 2s. 6d. bought in 1948. With £4 7s. 6d. it will not be possible to buy as much bread, butter, milk, tea, sugar, potatoes, meat and eggs as could have been purchased with £2 2s. 6d. in 1948. The following figures will show the extent to which the value of the social service payment has dropped since 1948. I have calculated them on the basis of the figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician, and my cauculations have been checked and found to be perfectly correct. The result of the calculations is set out in the following table: -

These figures show that it is quite illogical to compare pension rates of 1948 with present rates, purely in terms of money. A comparison can be made only in terms of what the relevant social service payments will purchase. I think I have shown, by reference to the table, that a pensioner on £4 7s. 6d. a week will be able to buy less of those staple foods than he could purchase in 1948.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

.- I wish to join other honorable members who have invited the attention of the Minister to the case of the widow with children. Under this legislation, a widow with two young children receives, by way of pension and child endowment, £5 17s. 6d. a week. It is perfectly obvious that she cannot properly feed and clothe herself and her two children on that amount. Therefore, she is forced to go out to work. We must ask ourselves whether it is right for a widow, with young children, to have to leave the home to earn a living. Australia’s greatness has been built on its home life, and I believe that there is a definite weakness in our social services legislation if widows, who are not in any way responsible for their present : position, are forced to go out to work, to leave the home and to entrust their children to the care of others, because there is not sufficient money for food and clothing.

This matter, the facts of which should be obvious to every honorable member, calls attention to the need to remove the injustice that occurs in the community because of the existence of a general rate of pension, a matter to which I have referred previously. There are some widows, such as those without children, who are able to engage in part-time employment and who are thus able to manage reasonably well -with the present rate of pension, but there are others, such as those referred to by the honorable members for Adelaide (Mr. Chambers) and Mallee (Mr. Turnbull), who obviously cannot manage unless they do what really amounts to an injustice to the community. I feel that the time is long overdue for a complete overhaul of the whole range of social services, first, to remove the injustices caused by the operation of the means test, and secondly, to remove the injustice that must result from any system of social security that does not provide for cases of special hardship.

In the case of the widow with two children, there probably are times when it is in the interests of all concerned that she accept some kind of occupation; for example, while the children are at school it may be of advantage to her to take parttime employment for certain hours of the day, because otherwise she might be too lonely. This brings me to a point that I have made on several previous occasions during this current sessional period - the urgent need for a special pension based on the circumstances of the person concerned. There should be no great difficulty in the way of a body of competent men or women determining a special rate of pension for a widow with two children aged, say, two years and four years, in addition to the general rate of pension, to enable her to remain at home and look after the children. Perhaps in two or three years time, when the children had gone to school, such a widow would say, “ I would like to accept part-time employment between 10 o’clock in the morning, after I have got the children to school, and 4 o’clock in the afternoon, when they come home “. In such circumstances, a lower special rate of pension would become payable. In this connexion, the Department of Social Services should emulate the grand work that Legacy and the administrators of the Services Canteens Trust Fund do for the persons for whom they are responsible.

In our Department of Social Services we have some of the finest departmental officers in Australia. Honorable members from both sides of the chamber, one after another, have spoken highly of the sympathetic treatment, the understanding and the consideration that they have received from these splendid officers who, throughout the Commonwealth, have to examine cases of hardship. Surely they must say to themselves, time after time, “ If only I had a little discretion, so that I could meet cases of urgent need!” But their hands, and also the hands of the Minister, are tied. I do not mean that we should scrap our base pension rate. What I mean is that we should set aside a sum of money to enable competent officers to meet special cases in a special way. Until we do that, we are not going to solve the problem of the bodgies and the widgies, because there is not the slightest doubt that the behaviour of bodgies and widgies reflects a lack of home life, in many cases because widows are forced, through economic circumstances, to go out and take jobs. We can solve that problem without the expenditure of a large amount of money; but a certain amount of money should be appropriated to enable competent officers of an efficient department to examine cases according to individual circumstances.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Proposed new clauses.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– Proposed new clauses 2a and 2b refer to the property limit of £1,750, with which we have already dealt. As the. committee has voted against amendment of the act in that respect, there is no point in my moving that those new clauses be inserted. Proposed new clauses 3a and 3b both refer to the wife’s allowance. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we take the two amendments together.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I suggest that you move them singly, and the committee debate them together.

Mr THOMPSON:

– I shall do so. 1 move -

That, after clause 3, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 3a. Section thirty-two of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in sub-section (I.) after the word ‘ pensioner ‘ (second and third occurring) the words ‘or an age pensioner

Section 32 provides as follows: - (1.) Subject to this Part, a wife (not being an age or invalid pensioner) whose husband is an invalid pensioner shall, as long as her husband continues to be an invalid pensioner, be qualified to receive a wife’s allowance.

The effect of my amendment would be that the wife of an age pensioner would be entitled to a wife’s allowance in the same way as is the wife of an invalid pensioner. I admit that this is raising a big question. At present, we can put up a good case for our proposal. For instance, an age pensioner may be 65 years of age, while his wife is aged 58 years. She may be unable to go out to work, but she cannot get a wife’s allowance under the law as it stands. On reaching 60 years of age, she would get an age pension. But if the age pensioner, even at the age of 65, is totally incapacitated, she would get an allowance similar to that paid to the wife of an invalid pensioner. We are arguing that the wife of an age pensioner should be granted the allowance.

I now turn to the other amendment, which deals with a matter about which I have very strong feelings. I move -

That, after clause 3, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 3b. Section thirty-three of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words ‘ Ninety-one pounds ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ One hundred and forty-three pounds

At present, the wife of an invalid pensioner, or an age pensioner who is totally incapacitated, receives an allowance of 35s. a week. The allowance was increased from 30s. to 35s. by this Government, in 1952. No increase has been made in the allowance since then. We contend that 35s. is not sufficient as a wife’s allowance because of the increased cost of living and also because of the increases made in the rates of allowances paid to wives in respect of other pensions. The Government has really slipped on this matter. Recently a man aged between 45 and 50 years of age told me that he was on invalid pension, that his v/ife had to look after him and could not go out to work, and that she was receiving only 35s. a week as an allowance. We contend that the allowance should be increased, and the effect of the adoption of my amendment would be to increase it from £1 15s. a week to £2 15s. a week. I do not think that even that is as high as we should go. Even £2 15s., added to a pension of £4 7s. 6d. a week received by the husband, would be insufficient to keep the pensioner and his wife. In view of the fact that other allowances have been increased, this allowance should also be increased in common justice to the recipients of it. Naturally, there will be a certain amount of money involved in the increase, but I feel that this is one section of the community that has been overlooked.

During my speech on the Budget I mentioned this matter, although I did not know at that time that I would be in a position to move amendments on behalf of the Opposition concerning it. I said then that I would never relax my efforts until what I considered to be justice had been given to the wives of age and invalid pensioners. The Minister for Social Services may be able to give some reason why this increase should not be given, but I cannot understand why something more than £1 15s. a week cannot be paid to them. This bill contains provision to increase the allowance paid to the wife of the recipient of a sickness benefit, and wives’ allowances have been increased in all other cases. But a man may require sickness benefit for only a few weeks or a few months, during which time his wife will have to look after him. Her allowance is to be increased. The wife of an invalid pensioner may have to look after him indefinitely, yet her allowance is not to be increased.

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP

– I refer to the amendment for the alteration of the wife’s allowance. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to make a wife’s allowance payable to the wife of an age pensioner as such, provided she were not a pensioner. At present it is payable to the wife of an age pensioner only if the pensioner is permanently incapacitated for work or is blind. In practice, however, all age pensioners of 70 years of age or over are assumed to be permanently incapacitated for work, and thus their wives are deemed eligible for the allowance, although there is no specific provision for this in the act.

Mr Thompson:

– I accept that.

Mr ROBERTON:

– It is a matter of generous interpretation. The cost of the present allowance of £1 15s. a week, if paid to the wife of every age pensioner would be £1,000,000. The cost, if the rate were increased to £2 15s. a week, in accordance with the amendment, would be £1,500,000. It is estimated that 11,500 wives of age pensioners not now in receipt of wife’s allowance or pensions would qualify under the amendment. The proposal differs, in principle, little from that frequently made, that the wife of an age pensioner should be paid a pension irrespective of her age, though, of course, the rate of wife’s allowance is less than the rate of age pension. The proposal has been consistently rejected by the Government every time it has been made as a submission, for the good and sufficient reason that to spread the available resources too thinly would be to defeat the purposes of social services in their application to individuals.In simple terms, there are 1,500,000 reasons why this proposal could not be implemented at the moment. The cost of the other amendment would be £650,000. The expenditure on both amendments would, therefore, exceed £2,150,000.

Mr Thompson:

– You would not consider the second one without the first?

Mr ROBERTON:

– No. If those resources were available to me, without any additional resources, conceivably the Government would devote them to causes for which, despite a good case that can be made out in this instance, a better case could be made out.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

– Mr. Chairman-

Motion (by Mr. Beale) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Proposed new clause 3a negatived.

Proposed new clause 3b.

Question put -

That the clause proposed to be inserted (Mr. Thompson’s amendment) be so inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 33

NOES: 48

Majority . … 15

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– The amendment I propose to move refers to funeral benefits. Honorable members know that £10 is allowed towards the cost of the funeral of a pensioner in certain circumstances. If, for instance, the pensioner were a member of a pensioners’ funeral fund and the cost of the funeral did not amount to £20, only the difference would be paid. Generally speaking, £10 is paid towards the funeral of an age pensioner. In many instances great hardship is caused at present. An old couple, with no means other than their age pensions, may join a funeral fund conducted by a branch of the pensioners’ association. That entitles them to the payment of £10 towards their funeral. In addition, £10 is paid by the Government, making a total of £20. When that provision was introduced, many undertakers in my electorate arranged to conduct a funeral for pensioners at a cost of £20 or a little less. Pensioners, therefore, were able to have that funeral.

Some years ago, when I was a member of the council of the Adelaide University, one of the most prominent members of the council referred to the difficulty of obtaining bodies for the medical faculty. He said, “ Since provision was made for the payment of £10 as a funeral benefit for age pensioners, we have had difficulty in obtaining sufficient bodies for our medical school “. The payment of £10 enabled a funeral to be held and the bodies were not going to the hospitals. At the present time, the amount of £10 is totally insufficient. If the Government thinks that no money should be paid towards the cost of a funeral, it should tell the people so. If it considers it right that the Commonwealth should make any provision for the burial of pensioners, it should take into account the charges made by undertakers for funerals, and compare them with the present benefit of £10. Those of us who have paid, or who have relatives who have paid, for a funeral in the last year or two know how much the cost of funerals has increased.

If a funeral costs less than £30, to which amount we suggest that the benefit should be increased, the Government should not be required to pay the full amount of £30, just as it does not pay the full amount of £10 at present if the cost of a funeral does not come to £10. The benefit will be only the same as the cost of the funeral, up to a limit of £30.

I move -

That, after clause 4, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 4a. Section fifty-five of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ‘ Ten pounds’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ Thirty pounds’.”.

Mr MINOGUE:
West Sydney

.- I support the amendment. I am very deeply concerned about the provision of funeral benefit for pensioners. Hundreds of them feel that they are in a terrible plight when they realize that there will not be enough money to bury them decently. This worry is passed on to the children and other relatives. Many people who are caring for aged mothers and fathers are not in a position to pay £50 or £60 for a funeral.

On 30th April last, I asked the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) whether he would consider increasing the funeral benefit to £30, and he gave me a good answer; he said, “ Yes “. I told him of the plight that pensioners were in, and I naturally thought that the Budget would provide for an increased funeral benefit for them. However, the Government has treated pensioners callously - that is the only word for it - because it has refused to increase the funeral benefit above £10, at which it has stood since pensions were introduced. Apparently, this Liberal party-Australian Country party Government does not want pensioners to be given a decent burial. That is the only conclusion that one can reach.

Mr GALVIN:
Kingston

.- MrChairman

Motion (by Mr. Beale) agreed to -

That the question be now put.

Question put -

That the clause proposed to be inserted (Mr. Thompson’s amendment) be so inserted.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. C. F. Adermann.)

AYES: 33

NOES: 47

Majority…. 14

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr THOMPSON:
Port Adelaide

– I move -

That, after clause 8, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 8a. After section one hundred and forty-five of the Principal Act, the following section is inserted: - 145a. Where a person would, but for this section, be in receipt of a pension, allowance or benefit under this Act at a rate less than the rate of Thirteen pounds per annum, the rate of the pension, allowance or benefit payable to that person is, by force of this section, the rate of Thirteen pounds per annum.’.”.

In moving this amendment I have in mind the possibility that if a person is entitled to only a very small pension, perhaps as little as, say,1 s. 6d. a week, the department may consider that it is not worth while paying such a pension, after taking into account the other income of the person involved and the property qualification. Some years ago I learned the value of half a crown. It was at the time when the Lyons Government cut down the pension. If a person had an income of up to half a crown a week his pension was cut down by half a crown. A case was brought to my notice involving a family consisting of an old man, his elderly wife, and a grown-up daughter of about 60 years of age who was looking after her parents. The total income of those two old people was 30s. a week, representing their combined pensions. When I put the case to the department, and told the departmental officials that the old man could not do any work, they could not have acted more quickly in granting those old people an extra half a crown a week each. When I wrote to those people and told them that the increase had been granted, the letter that I received in reply from their daughter made me realize what an extra half a crown a week means to people in those circumstances. Since then I have always been of opinion that where a very small payment is being made even a small increase would be very helpful. There may not be many cases of people receiving less than 5s. a week, but we would like to ensure that if a person is entitled to any pension at all the minimum amount payable should be 5s. a week, or, as stated in the amendment, £13 a year. It is for this reason that I, on behalf of the Opposition, move that the new clause be inserted.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leaves - read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 5.55 to 8 p.m.

page 1133

REPATRIATION BILL 1957

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3rd October (videpage1056), on motion by Mr. Davidson -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- In resuming the second-reading debate on the Repatriation Bill I first of all want to foreshadow on behalf of the Opposition several amendments that will be moved at the committee stage. The first of these will have reference to the payment of the increases provided for in the measure. The Opposition will move during the committee stage that those payments be made retrospective.

The second amendment that I foreshadow is a most important one, because it refers to the means test relating to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. I shall possibly have an opportunity to refer more fully to that matter at a later stage of my remarks. The third amendment that I foreshadow is also very important and will specifically deal with the onus of proof. I shall certainly take the opportunity to refer to section 47 of the Repatriation Act during the course of my remarks.

I emphasize that although no specific increases in the various categories of repatriation payments are mentioned, I shall refer specifically to important repatriation payments.

First, I acknowledge the fact that Cabinet has decided that certain increases in repatriation payments were necessary and has accordingly made provision for those increases in the measure now being debated. I speak of Cabinet, because I know that Government supporters have no individual say in these matters. There must inevitably be considerable difference of opinion on the value of those increases themselves, having regard to the decline in living standards. While at the moment I am not prepared to make any definite statement about increases in the total and permanent incapacity pension, I have always held the opinion that the pensioner in this category, who, as a consequence of his war service, is no longer able actively to engage in a normal occupation, should receive a payment that will compensate him for his disabilities and be commensurate with his family responsibilities and the social sacrifice that he has made as a result of that war service.

The totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner is, of course, completely dependent upon this Parliament to ensure that the rate he receives is commensurate with those family and social responsibilities. At present totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman’s rate is £9 15s. a week. Under this bill the rate is being increased to £11 a week. That is an increase of 25s. a week, which, on the face of it, appears to be fairly substantial. I do not dispute that fact. 1 believe it is a substantial increase, but I hope to be able to demonstrate later in the debate that that 25s. most certainly does not apply to all totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen or that if it does they will suffer a reduction in other rates.

In 1948, when the basic wage was £5 16s. a week, that total and permanent incapacity pension was £5 6s. a week, or very nearly the basic wage. Under this legislation the rate will be increased to £11 a week. But the federal basic wage to-day for the six capital cities would be, if un pegged, £13 5s. That is, of course, substantially in excess of the total and permanent incapacity rate. The result is that when one examines the increase that is being given under this legislation one must, in my opinion, inevitably be left with the feeling that a pension rate which is not even equivalent to the basic wage is most ungenerous.

I acknowledge at once that for a married man there are additional allowances, such as dependants’ allowances. But at the moment we are referring to the actual pension rate. I know that in other years - and I want to be perfectly fair in my approach to this measure - certain increases have been effected in dependants’ allowances and other payments. I also make it clear that I am not prepared to accept the point of view, often expressed in this House, not only by private members on the Government side but also by Ministers on occasions, that dependants’ allowances and, in some cases, allowances for children should be taken into consideration when assessing the pensioner’s total income. In my opinion reference to child endowment particularly is completely irrelevant. It has nothing whatever to do with war pensions. The 5s. a week which I receive from this Government as child endowment for my only child has no relation to my parliamentary salary. Therefore, there can be no consideration of child endowment in relation to war pensions. In dealing with the totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen’s rate, the only amount which should be considered is the amount now being received by the pensioner and the amount that he will receive under the legislation now before us.

I have no desire at the moment to debate that point any further and I pass therefore to the general rate pension. Under this legislation the general rate pension is being increased by 7s. 6d. to £5 2s. 6d. a week, with proportionate increases for those who are in receipt of partial pensions. But if the contention of the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden) concerning Australia’s internal prosperity can be accepted as factual, surely a general rate pension of £5 2s. 6d. a week must be regarded as far too low if measured in terms of the incapacity of the 100 per cent, pensioner, whose injuries were either sustained or aggravated in the defence of this country. It must be remembered, too. that while the general rate pension is to be increased by 7s. 6d. a week, the 10 per cent, pensioner will receive an increase of only 9d. a week. Whether pensioners in that category will regard an increase of 9d. a week as being a generous gesture on the part of this Government will no doubt depend on their approach to these matters.

Before I turn my attention to a further serious aspect of pension rates I wish to refer, even if only briefly, to what I regard as a very serious omission from the secondreading speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper), who introduced the bill in another place. I have looked in both of those speeches for a full explanation of the effect of the 25s. a week increase in the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman’s income. According to the Minister, a married, totally and permanently incapacitated exserviceman who is in receipt of the service pension may, together with his wife, receive a combined income from all sources equivalent to £11 15s. a week. Incidentally, I point out that there are no totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen who are not eligible for the service pension, with the exception of those who, as the Minister is fully aware, are in receipt of superannuation payment, or have an income from private sources, or who have not served in a recognized theatre of war. It means, in effect, that the income of the great majority of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen is supplemented by the service pension.

I am open to correction on this point, but I understand that the actual number who, to-day, are supplementing their total and permanent incapacity pension by means of the service pension would represent approximately 53 per cent. Prior to the introduction of this measure, a married member could, together with his wife, have a combined income from service pension and the total and permanent incapacity pension of £ 1 1 a week. I acknowledge at once that that was made possible when section 91a of the act was repealed in 1955 by the present Government to bring the ceiling limit into line with the pension rates re-adjusted in that year to meet the needs of age and other classes of pensioners. I emphasize also, however, that no special consideration was given to the totally and permanently incapacitated ex- servicemen in that year. The ceiling limit was adjusted because age and other classes of pension were adjusted. 1 say again that to-day, prior to the introduction of this measure, a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman who was married and in receipt of the service pension could, together with his wife, receive a total of £15 a week. Under this measure he will receive £15 15s. a week, which is an increase of only 15s.

In my opinion the Minister - or perhaps both Ministers - have carefuly evaded giving a full explanation of this matter. If honorable members read through both second-reading speeches, they will find that not only the Minister who introduced the measure in this House but also the Minister for Repatriation in another place failed to make any reference to the reduction in the rate of the service pension for the totally and permanently incapacitated exserviceman who is married and in receipt of that pension. Both Ministers carefully evaded giving a full explanation of that matter. The fact is that the great majority of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen who are receiving a service pension will receive an increase of only 15s. a week because the Government has not adjusted the ceiling limit. The ceiling limit has been raised to the permissible income that to-day applies to age and other classes of pension because, under legislation introduced into this House only recently by the Minister for Social Services, married age pensioners can now have a combined income, from all sources, including their pension, of £15 15s. a week. The same will apply to a married totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman. The Minister knows that the Government has not adjusted the ceiling limit, therefore the great majority of these totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen will receive an increase of only 15s.

A great anomaly is obvious, because, as I have just pointed out, the great majority of these special rate pensioners have no other income apart from their special rate income, which, in recent years has been supplemented with the service pension. In my opinion, the applause from Government supporters, which greeted the announcement by the Treasurer (Sir Arthur Fadden), when he introduced the Budget into this chamber only a few weeks ago, of an increase of 25s. a week for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, was obviously premature. The Government does not intend to increase the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen’s rate of weekly income by 25s. Of course, the Minister may prefer to put it in another way. He may prefer to say that all totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen will have their special rate increased by 25s. a week. He may do that, if he cares to, but the fact remains that the service pension will then be correspondingly reduced by 10s. a week.

Let me deal with the actual rates that will be paid to a married, totally and permanently incapacitated member in receipt of a service pension. If his wife is over the age of 60 years she will qualify for a proportion of the age pension. Only a few days following the announcement by the Treasurer of the 25s. a week increase, I referred this matter to the Repatriation Department in Melbourne and I have here the official figures with which I was supplied. Prior to the introduction of this measure a married, totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner who is also in receipt of a service pension and who, as well as his wife, is over 60 years of age, received a combined income from the totally and permanently incapacitated rate of £11 9s. 9d. a week. The service pension supplemented that to the extent of £3 10s. 3d., so that under the 1955 legislation that couple received a combined income of £15. Now, let us see how they are affected under the measure which we are now debating. The member will receive £11 from war pension and an additional amount of £1 9s. 9d. as service pension. His wife will receive a war pension of £1 15s. 6d. which will be supplemented by the age pension of £1 9s. 9d. The total from the war pension was £12 9s. 9d. When the wife’s age and war pension of £3 5s. 3d. is added, it will make the grand total £15 15s. That means that a totally and permanently incapacitated exserviceman in that class will not receive an increase of 25s. a week. His weekly income will be increased by 15s. The Postmaster-General <Mr. Davidson), who is at the table, may prefer to put these rates in another way, but the net result is the same - an actual increase of only 15s. for the great majority, and not 25s. as indicated by the Treasurer in his Budget speech.

I said a few moments ago that an anomaly exists in the treatment of these people because the only class of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner who will benefit to the full extent of the increase of 25s. comprises those who are in receipt of superannuation payments, those who have an income from a private source, those who have not served in a recognized theatre of war, and the single totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. They do not represent the majority of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. The great majority of the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen have no other income apart from the special rate pension, supplemented by the service pension.

Mr Haylen:

– They are subject to a means test.

Mr BARNARD:

– That is right. That is one of the reasons why we foreshadow an amendment to deal with the means test during the committee stage of the bill. I shall be interested to hear the PostmasterGeneral explain, on behalf of the Minister for Repatriation, how the continuance of the anomaly to which I have just referred can be justified. I hope that this is not a clumsy attempt to mislead the people of Australia into believing that all totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen will have their weekly incomes increased by 25s. a week. Cabinet must have known at the time it approved the increase that, for the great majority, the increase would be 15s. a week and not the sum of 25s. a week to which the Treasurer has referred.

I now want to refer to another very serious aspect of war pensions, namely, the rate which is now being paid to war widows. I concede at once that certain recommendations have been made in other years concerning this most worthy section of the repatriation responsibility. War widows must always look to the Government for justice in order to ensure that they and their families shall be able to lead normal, happy and healthy lives. I concede that, in recent years, certain improvements were effected to allowances appertaining to war widows generally. But I doubt whether, at this moment, any one could seriously dispute the fact that the position of war widows has deteriorated considerably if measured by present standards of living.

In 1948, the war widows’ pension rate was 53 per cent, of the then federal basic wage. To-day, the war widows’ pension is only 38 per cent, of the unpegged federal basic wage averaged over the six capital cities. I emphasize that the Government must accept the blame for the decline in the pension rate since 1948. Until the Government has taken some action to restore living standards of pensioners so that they receive at least the same proportion of the basic wage as they received in 1948, the Government

Cannot take to itself any credit in respect of war pensions.

I said a few moments ago that additional benefits had been made payable to war widows. I emphasize, however, that whatever additional allowances the war widow may receive for her children or by way of

Other allowances, these are another matter entirely. What we are considering is the War widows’ pension rate, which, under the legislation that we have before us, will be increased by 7s. 6d. a week to £5 2s. 6d. a week.

The last increase in the children’s allowances was made, if I remember correctly, in 1955, when the amount was adjusted to £1 7s. 6d. But I emphasize that even the Postmaster-General would protest if he were told that he would be expected, in future, to maintain each of his children on £1 7s. 6d. a week. I am certain that he will agree with the truth of that assertion. Nevertheless, he will support this measure, which proposes to grant an increase of only 7s. 6d. a week to a war widow and nothing at all in respect of her children. Measured by any standards, the present rate leaves a great deal to be desired. While it may be argued successfully that other governments in other years have been at fault, that does not, in my opinion, excuse the Government parties in 1957 if the war widows’ rate is not an equitable one. I suggest that a rate which, when considered as a proportion of the basic wage, has declined by no less than 15 per cent, in seven years, certainly cannot reflect any credit upon the Government.

I want to take this opportunity to make a brief comparison of the rates as outlined in this measure with the rates that obtained rin 1948 in order to support the contention that in many cases the pension rates have declined since 1948, which was the last budget year of the Labour Government.

Mr Wilson:

– What about 1949?

Mr BARNARD:

– I am referring to the last budget year of the Labour government. The honorable member may cite 1949 if he wishes to do so. In 1948, the pension rate for the 100 per cent, incapacitated exservicemen was £3 6s. a week, or only 10s. less than the basic wage of £3 16s. a week. Under the proposed legislation, the rate will be £11, which is £2 5s. a week less than the unpegged federal basic wage of £13 5s. a week. To put it another way, the basic wage has increased since the last Labour Budget of 1948 by 128 per cent., but the totally and permanently incapacitated pension rate has increased during that period by only 50 per cent., approximately. The Opposition reaffirms the opinion that it has expressed on many occasions that the special rate pensioner does not enjoy the same proportion of the basic wage as he enjoyed in 1948.

The value of the 100 per cent, general rate pension has also declined. In 1948, the 100 per cent, war pension was £2 15s. a week. When this legislation has been passed it will rise to £5 2s. 6d. a week. But if the general rate - and I stress this point - had increased proportionately to the basic wage since 1948 it would be now, not £5 2s. 6d., but £6 a week. Finally, let us examine the rate of pension for war widows as it is at present, and as it was in 1948, the year of the last Labour Budget. At that time, the pension was more than half the then basic wage, whereas to-day it is approximately 12 per cent, less than half the basic wage. In each of those three main types of repatriation pensions that I have mentioned there has been a falling-off in standards.

Having said that, I turn to other serious matters which affect not so much the rates of pension, which I acknowledge are always debatable, as the bases upon which those rates are established. Naturally, that brings me to section 47 of the act. I admit at once that this is a section which has exercised the minds of honorable members, of all political parties in this House, who have interested themselves in the rights of ex-servicemen since the inception of the legislation some 37 years ago. I understand that, as far back as 1920, an alparty committee of this Parliament endeavoured to find a provision which, when inserted in the act, would place the onus of proof, not upon the pensioner, or the ex-serviceman, or the appellant, but upon the Repatriation Department. I have no doubt that the objective of that committee was to make certain that technicalities at least would not prevent an exserviceman from establishing that his disability was either aggravated by or due to his war service. Thirty-seven years later, we find ourselves in exactly the same position, because section 47 is not being applied any more correctly to-day than it was so many years ago; at least, it is not being applied in the generous way in which, I believe, this Parliament originally intended that it should be applied. The right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt), as I am reminded, gave a most careful analysis ot this section during a debate on repatriation matters in 1956.

Section 47 makes it perfectly clear that the onus of proof is placed upon the Repatriation Department in every respect. It states - (1.) The Commission, a Board, an Appeal Tribunal and an Assessment Appeal Tribunal, in hearing, determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case, shall not be bound by technicalities or legal forms or rules of evidence and shall give to the claimant, applicant or appellant the benefit of any doubt . . .

Accordingly, the onus of proof rests upon the Repatriation Department. In other words, when an ex-serviceman asserts that his disability is due to his war service, the evidence must be accepted as factual unless it can be overthrown by the department.

I, of course, sympathize with the tribunals. I appreciate that their intentions are good. All honorable members who appear before them, as I frequently do, must know that they are courteous and friendly, and in all the cases that I personally have experienced, most helpful to the ex-servicemen in the presentation of his case. But sentiment is not sufficient. Section 47 lays it down clearly that in every case in which an ex-serviceman has asserted that his disability was either aggravated or caused by his war service, that assertion must be accepted unless the tribunal can say with absolute certainty that his dis ability had nothing to do with his war service. I am sure that every honorable member, during a debate of this nature, could cite individual cases. I could refer to many which would show conclusively that the onus of proof has been on not the Repatriation Department but the appellant. I have appeared before tribunals on numerous occasions, and I could bring into this House details of cases to illustrate what I am putting in this respect.

I know that previous Ministers for Repatriation have cited, when they were in Opposition, cases to show that in their opinion the onus of proof provision was not being applied as the Parliament intended. I want to put it clearly to the House - and I wish to be completely nonpolitical on this matter - that the onus of proof is not being applied any more correctly now than it was in, say, the days of the Labour government, between 1943 and 1949. There is no reason to suppose that, merely because there is a Liberal party-Australian Country party Government, the provision is being applied correctly now. If it was necessary 37 years ago for a committee of this Parliament to try to devise a provision which, when inserted in the act, would guarantee that the onus of proof in fact rested upon the department, then I say that we need another all-party committee to again examine this question carefully. It is for that reason that the Opposition will take the opportunity, at the committee stage, to refer more closely to this particular section which has an important bearing on the claims and the rights of ex-servicemen generally.

Mr Haylen:

– Does the honorable member think that the tribunals understand the laws of evidence?

Mr BARNARD:

– I am perfectly certain they do not. As T said a few moments ago, I believe that the tribunals are sympathetic, and in all the cases that I have experienced, they have been helpful to the ex-servicemen in connexion with the presentation of their cases. However, on occasion, I have had a case adjourned because the doctor has said that the disability of the appellant was due entirely to age. Although I have proved that the disability was not due to age, the tribunal has said, “ Well, in this particular case we will adjourn to allow you to seek further evidence “. In other words, it was I who had to seek the further evidence, not the tribunal or the appellant, who was not in a position to do so. Whether a tribunal is prepared to seek such evidence, I cannot say, but I do know that on such occasions I have had to secure additional evidence to sustain the case of the individual concerned. So far as the Opposition is concerned, and I know that so far as many honorable members opposite are concerned, section 47, this vital part of the act, is not being applied as generously as the Parliament intended that it should be applied when it was incorporated in the act in 1920.

I conclude my remarks by emphasizing again that we on this side of the House are not satisfied with some parts of the Minister’s second-reading speech, particularly those relating to the general rate pensions. The Opposition will therefore take the opportunity, at the committee stage, to take action referring to these matters. I reemphasize to the Minister that the Opposition is entirely dissatisfied with section 47 and will, at a later stage, take the opportunity to move in accordance with that feeling.

Mr JOSKE:
Balaclava

.- This bill to amend the Repatriation Act provides for various increases of rates of pension. As the amounts are set out in the secondreading speech of the Postmaster-General and Minister for the Navy (Mr. Davidson) I do not propose to recapitulate them. The speech that we have heard from the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) was mainly concerned with matters upon which it is proposed to move by way of amendment to the bill, and I therefore do not intend at this stage to discuss them. It seems to me that the proper stage at which they should be discussed, in the main, is when the amendments have been actually moved, so that honorable members may know just what is being amended, and so be able to deal with the subject properly. However, I take the honorable member for Bass to task to the extent that he emphasized on three or four occasions that the last Budget of the former Labour government was brought down in 1948. He was invited by the honorable member for Sturt (Mr. Wilson) and other honorable members to come forward to 1949, but he said, “No. The last Budget of the Labour party was brought down in 1948 “. That is not so. The last Labour party Budget was brought down in 1949. The Labour government did not go out of office until after the election on 10th December, 1949.

Mr Barnard:

– 1 said that 1948 was the last Budget year in which the rates were adjusted.

Mr JOSKE:

– Yes, the last occasion on which the rates were adjusted was in 1948. Labour entirely failed to adjust those rates in 1949, which was a year of very great inflation and steeply rising prices. Labour ran away from its obvious duty to adjust those pension rates. We now at least have got it from the honorable member why he referred to 1948. He was not game to refer to 1949.

Now, 1 come to statements by the honorable member for Bass about section 47 of the Repatriation Act. I shall read to honorable members some remarks made by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) when he was speaking at the 40th annual congress of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia in Brisbane in October, 1955. This extract is important, because it indicates the views of the Minister as to the meaning of section 47 and also what the Minister has done in order to bring before the Repatriation Commission and the tribunals what the legal position is and what legal tests should be applied. The Minister said -

It is not for the claimant to prove his claim, but, throughout the whole proceedings, the onus remains on the opposing person or authority to prove that he is not entitled.

Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– To disprove.

Mr JOSKE:

– I have the words in front of me. There is no need for the honorable member to interject. The Minister continued -

In April, 1953, the Attorney-General prepared a short statement explanatory of the provisions contained in Section 47.

In the recent parliamentary debate on the Repatriation Bill the Leader of the Opposition (and former Attorney-General), Dr. Evatt, agreed that this was a clear exposition of the law.

The Minister continued -

This statement has been furnished to the officers in the Repatriation Department dealing with pension claims; the commission has made it available to the members of the Repatriation Boards and I have forwarded copies to the members of the Entitlement and Assessment Appeal Tribunals.

That shows the views of the Minister and what he has done in the matter, and I think that he is to be commended. Nevertheless, one does find that the tribunals are not carrying out section 47.

Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Then you agree with the honorable member for Bass?

Mr JOSKE:

– If the honorable member will be patient he will discover what I have to say, and then he will see for himself whether or not I agree.

Mr Cope:

– Then divorce yourself from interjections.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Order!

Mr JOSKE:

– I do not propose to be very long, and as I have plenty of time I will take my time. On 18th September, 1956, No. 2 War Pensions Entitlement Appeals Tribunal published its annual report, and this report has, I believe, not yet been the subject of debate in this House. What the tribunal said is of considerable importance. It dealt directly with the point of the onus of proof and it expressed great resentment at criticism of the tribunal for the way in which it had applied the onus of proof provision. This resentment was expressed in language which was decidedly derogatory of these critics. Before dealing with the details of what was said on this point by the tribunal allow me to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is directly opposed to the statement made by the Minister which I have already quoted and likewise, of course, directly opposed to the Attorney-General’s clear exposition of the law. This is what the tribunal said with regard to those who criticized it in respect of the onus of proof -

As they read the Act, all that an ex-serviceman need do is claim that his incapacity is a Repatriation responsibility without alleging when, where or how it had its origin, or in what manner it was caused, or contributed to, or aggravated by, or during, his service. Then the onus of proof is on the commission to disprove the claim.

That is to say, according to the critics the onus of proof is on the commission. Now, that is exactly the case that is made out by the Minister and he, therefore, must be regarded as a person who criticizes the tribunal. Then the tribunal goes on -

If the critics’ idea of ‘ onus of proof ‘ were correct, the ex-serviceman would win his case without putting forward one word of evidence or explanation to support it.

That, of course, horrifies this tribunal. It continues -

It is not a reasonable inference that a claimanthas a good case when he does not put that caseup. Until he puts up some sort of case toanswer - some fact, or theory, or suggestion, from which a reasonable inference in his favour - might be drawn - there surely can be no onus on. the Commission to disprove his case.

Despite any objections to the contrary from, the Opposition, I say emphatically that that statement is absolutely contrary to the law* as it stands.

Dr Evatt:

– This side of the House doesnot dispute it; your side does.

Mr JOSKE:

– The right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) can interject as much as he likes, but I intend to continue with my speech nonetheless. In support of” what I am saying and of my criticism of this tribunal, I refer to the opinion given, by Senator Spicer as Attorney-General.

Mr Curtin:

– He would know.

Mr JOSKE:

– Of course, when the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith* (Mr. Curtin) interjects, he has forgotten, for the moment that his Leader approved of this statement as a clear exposition of the law.

Dr Evatt:

– What statement?

Mr JOSKE:

– This statement of theAttorneyGeneral; if the right honorablegentleman will listen instead of interjecting.

Dr. Evatt. - Of course, I am interjecting!”

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member will resume his seat. Thereare too many interjections from the lefthand side of the chair. The previousspeaker had a really good hearing. I ask. honorable members to be courteous and not to trangress the Standing Orders.

Dr Evatt:

– I rise to order. Highly technical matters are being discussed, and. a question now and again, if you, Mr. Speaker, will permit it, will make the wholematter clear.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Such procedure would be out of order. I ask that interjections cease.

Mr JOSKE:

– I have no objection to answering questions, but, when so many interjections come from all round the chamber, it is very difficult to answer questions. The statement to which I refer, and of which the right honorable member for Barton approved, is the statement by Senator Spicer on the interpretation of section 47. He gave the statement as Attorney-General and it was circulated by the Minister for Repatriation. The Attorney-General said -

Ordinarily, the onus lies on the party who makes a claim to prove the facts necessary to support it. Thus, unless otherwise prescribed by Parliament, the onus would be upon the claimant for a pension under the Repatriation Act to establish that the necessary conditions are fulfilled.

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, applica tion or appeal.

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

Of course, the claimant may find himself in a position in which it is greatly in his own interest to supply evidence in support ofhis claim.

He gave examples and then continued -

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 his claim. But, whether he furnishes proof or not, the onus will, at the end of the proceedings, still be upon the opposing person or authority to satisfy the determining authority that the claimant is not entitled.

In pages of the report of the tribunal, in which it cites all manner of law and opinions from here, there and everywhere, no reference is made to the opinion which was given to these tribunals to guide them. Having regard to the fact that the Minister has circulated this opinion as a guide to the interpretation of this section, the proper way in which tribunals administering this act should apply the law is to follow the opinion of the Attorney-General of the day, which has been put before them by the Minister as a correct interpretation of the law. Instead of that, this tribunal, in a very angry way, has refused to do so, has set its face entirely against the view that has been put to it as the proper view of the law and has stated in clear language that it intends to apply a view of the law which is entirely opposite to the correct interpretation of the law. As I have said, the Minister for Repatriation has endeavoured to bring to the Commission, the boards and the tribunals the correct interpretation of the act. I ask the Postmaster-General to inform the Minister for Repatriation that the No. 2 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal is definitely going in the face of the interpretation which has been given to it and which unquestionably is the correct interpretation of the law.

Dr EVATT:
Leader of the Opposition · Barton

– This matter is so important and may colour the debate to such an extent that I want to deal with if immediately. One would suppose that some discovery had been made by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske). Nothing of the kind has happened. Senator Spicer did give a ruling, but he gave it only after several years of continuous agitation by honorable members on this side of the House, who put up individual cases in which the section had not been applied. I agree with the honorable member for Balaclava that the section is clear in intention and clear in expression; but the entitlement tribunals will not give effect to it. It needs only a couple of moments to follow it. That is exactly what the honorable gentleman has said and, of course, he applies the bastinado to some tribunal that has made the mistake that has been made in hundredsaf cases. The mistake has been made in hundreds of cases, not only by the entitlement tribunals, but also by the Repatriation Commission, which should have so ruled that many cases need never have gone to the entitlement tribunals.

It is all very well to say that the section is clear but the great shame in these repatriation cases is that, where the justice contained in the section dealing with the onus of proof is denied, delays occur and a fight must take place. We on this side of the House, particularly in 1955 - the year to which the honorable gentleman referred - after mature consideration, thought that the tribunals could not be relied upon to carry out the law contained in the amendment made by the Curtin Government during the war. Those who took part in the drafting of the amendment thought it was foolproof. It was clear; the honorable member for Balaclava admits that, but the then honorable member for Wentworth, now Sir Eric

Harrison, never admitted it. Senator Spicer, after continual pressure by the Opposition, came down with a ruling.

Mr McColm:

– The Government Members Ex-servicemen’s Committee was responsible.

Dr EVATT:

– Not at all. I do not deny that that committee played a part, but it made no contribution in the sense of an original contribution by government supporters who were ex-servicemen, or by the government of the day. Senator Spicer gave his ruling after prodding by Opposition members, who fought for every individual case that came to their notice.

Mr McColm:

– That is not so.

Dr EVATT:

– The honorable member may have it as he likes. Can the honorable member for Balaclava tell the House what was the date of the decision of the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal that he cited?

Mr Joske:

– The report was issued on 18th September, 1956.

Dr EVATT:

– It is quite recent. Senator Spicer’s ruling was given long before that. It must have been, according to the “ Hansard “ report of the debates. Here we have an instance in which what the Attorney-General of the time said has not been treated as binding. Nor is it binding. The honorable member for Balaclava will agree that it is not binding. The AttorneyGeneral cannot tell these tribunals what the law is. They can be told only by a tribunal with proper authority to tell them what it is.

In 1955, the Opposition proposed that we should do in Australia what is done in the United Kingdom, where a similar problem has arisen. Mr. Justice Denning, when a judge of first instance, gave interpretations of the meaning of the United Kingdom act on this question almost on all fours with the Opposition’s interpretation of the Australian act, so as to correct tribunals immediately if they did not give ex-servicemen the benefit of the onus of proof. As reported in “Hansard” for 13th October, 1955, at page 1627, during the consideration in committee of the Repatriation Bill 1955, I cited the views of Mr. Justice Denning on the kind of case that occurs so often - the case where the cause of disability or death is unknown, or imperfectly known. It may be that, in the course of war service, a man was stricken down and suffered serious injury or even death. There may be nothing further to go on. The act says that he or his dependants are to be given the benefit of the doubt unless the Repatriation Commission proves that the disability or death was not due to war service, not contributed to by war service, or not aggravated by war service. That is for it to prove. Referring to official evidence offered in opposition to an application, Mr. Justice Denning said -

Where the cause of the case is unknown or imperfectly known 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.

That is a tremendous onus. Mr. Justice Denning, now Lord Denning of the supreme tribunal in the United Kingdom, and a famous judicial authority, has said that the authorities must prove that the death or disability could not have been due to war service, contributed to by war service, or aggravated by war service, and has added that the authorities are under the duty to prove that by evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. My comment, in 1955, as reported at page 1628 of “ Hansard “, was -

He means that it must be accepted unless one can say, as a jury must say before convicting a person, that the condition-

Of a serviceman, or a deceased serviceman - 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, on this side of the House, agree with that. The honorable member for Balaclava has stated again what Opposition members have been arguing for years. Labour members stated it when section 47 was inserted in the act, and again in 1949.

One has only to see the decisions to learn that a lot of mistakes have been made. They are made at all stages,. and may be made at any stage. The medical practitioner is told to state in his reports facts that could lead the Repatriation Commission to find, pretty clearly, in ordinary cases, that the serviceman is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but very often the practitioner will not say anything about it.

Mr Griffiths:

– Even when he does, the authorities dismiss it, and refuse to discharge the onus of proof:

Dr EVATT:

– The honorable member has raised case after case on the question of the onus of proof, as other honorable members have done.

The only reason why 1 intervened in the debate was to raise the question of what is to be done to see that the tribunals carry out the law as it is properly interpreted. It is of no use to tell them what Senator Spicer or anybody else says. These tribunals take no notice of any one. They are a law unto themselves. We see the tragedy of this kind of debate every year after the Budget has been brought down, with the same faces turning up among the ministerial advisers, who know perfectly well what the view of the House is. Nevertheless, during the ensuing year, the same old procedure is followed. For that reason, in 1955, the Opposition proposed that, in every instance in which a serviceman or his dependants were dissatisfied, there should be an appeal to a tribunal - the High Court of Australia, or the Supreme Court of a State or Territory - against the decision of the Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Board, Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, or Assessment Appeal Tribunal, on the ground that the benefit of the doubt had not been given to the applicant. That would give jurisdiction to judges, as Lord Justice Denning exercised it in the United Kingdom. A judge could see at once whether the repatriation authorities observed the law, and he could say whether the benefit of the doubt had been denied in any case. The honorable member for Balaclava has given an illustration in which it has been denied, and I ask the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson), who is now at the table, to put the matter before the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) and the Government.

Judges of existing courts, whether of the Supreme Court of a State or Territory, or of the High Court of Australia, could be given this jurisdiction in order to correct the decisions of these tribunals, the members of which do the best they can. Unfortunately, this is a very complex branch of the law, and the tribunals do not fully understand it, as is clear from the passage of the decision read by the honorable member for Balaclava, who was intent on telling us what it meant, but who will not listen to the practical solution that I advance as a cure for the evils that are occurring throughout Australia in repatriation matters. I again urge upon the Government the need for that solution to be adopted. No doubt my colleagues who are dealing with this measure on behalf of the Opposition will propose in committee amendments designed to bring about the adoption of this solution, which is to let the judges take control so that they can correct decisions where the benefit of the doubt has been denied.

The opinion given by a former AttorneyGeneral will not influence the tribunals, which are not bound to follow the opinions given by executive officers. If the tribunals think that their opinions are right, they stick to them, although they may be wholly wrong. If they are wrong, there is no remedy, unless the Parliament gives a superior tribunal, not necessarily a full court, but a single judge experienced in these matters, authority. If that were done, any error in the application of the law would be detected immediately. It could not go unnoticed. If this solution were adopted, we should have in Australia a situation comparable with that in the United Kingdom, where, according to accounts that I have heard and read, the repatriation law is administered always with scrupulous regard for the principle that, in every case of disability or death, one starts from the assumption that the applicant is entitled to his claim unless the body corresponding to the Repatriation Commission in Australia proves beyond doubt that the war service in which the serviceman was engaged could not have had anything to do with the injury or death.

Mr Chaney:

– That is-

Dr EVATT:

– I ask the returned servicemen on the Government side to whom the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm) referred to consider that. It is perfectly simple. This solution would make it unnecessary for the Parliament to deal with individual cases, or for the Minister to do so, and would put them all on a legal basis that would require the tribunals to do as directed by a legal tribunal. That was the solution suggested by the Opposition in 1955. In 1957, it is just as sound, and, unfortunately, just as necessary. The number of cases in which justice has been denied under this section must be very great.

Mr Haylen:

– Eighty per cent, of applicants have been denied justice.

Dr EVATT:

– My colleague, the honorable member for Parkes, says 80 per cent, of applicants, and I venture to say that if their cases were looked at by a judge it would be found that in half of them the applicant had been deprived of the statutory right given to him by the overwhelming decision of Parliament - not merely by the Curtin Government, which amended the particular section, but also by the then Opposition, members of which now occupy the Government benches. I know that all sorts of reasons can be advanced against my suggestion by the gentlemen of the Repatriation Commission who are always armed with reasons for doing nothing and letting the matter drift on. Letting it drift on means denying or delaying justice to ex-servicemen in this country, and delaying justice is almost as bad, in many cases, as denying it altogether.

Mr McCOLM:
Bowman

.- I had intended to make mention of section 47 later in my remarks this evening, but as the matter has already been brought up I shall proceed immediately to deal with another aspect of the application of this section. I should like to preface my remarks by informing the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt) that the Government exservice members’ committee has for some years been working on this problem, and one of the big difficulties that it must face before it can make a recommendation to the Government is that it has no great desire to make any recommendation that could lead to ex-servicemen becoming involved in heavy legal costs in the pursuit of their claims.

Mr Haylen:

– There are no costs involved with regard to the tribunal.

Mr McCOLM:

– I am not prepared to argue with the right honorable gentleman the question whether my statement in this regard is accurate or not. I am merely telling him the actual facts.

Dr Evatt:

– I think the honorable member’s fears are groundless.

Mr McCOLM:

– The second point that I would like to make is that the Government ex-service members committee, ever since it was first formed after the Government came to power, has entertained a doubt as to whether section 47 was being correctly applied.

Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– For the last seven years!

Mr McCOLM:

– That is very true, and the committee has, in some fashion, got somewhere with the problem. I should like to point out that some of the remarks made to-night regarding Entitlement Appeal Tribunals should, in my opinion, be applied also to Assessment Appeal Tribunals. I shall give the House particulars of a case which not only shows clearly, to my mind, that in some cases Assessment Appeal Tribunals are not functioning as they were intended to do under this act, but also raises another grave anomaly. It concerns an exserviceman who was employed by a Commonwealth Government department for about nine and a half years after his war service. During that time he applied for and received from an Entitlement Appeal Tribunal an entitlement on two grounds. After serving nine and a half years in this Commonwealth government department he was retired on the ground that he was medically unfit to continue in employment. Having contributed to a superannuation fund, he received superannuation benefit of about £14 a week. He was at that time receiving a 70 per cent, pension, and 1 should like to make it clear that he was retired from the department because of the very disability for which he had been granted an entitlement and was receiving a 70 per cent, pension from the Repatriation Department. The man concerned was advised to apply for an increase in his pension, after he was superannuated. He did so, and on 19th September of this year his pension was reduced from 70 per cent, to 50 per cent.

These facts show clearly, to my mind, that one of the two things, and possibly both, could be wrong. Undoubtedly, section 47 is not being properly applied in this case, because the section, which applies equally to an Assessment Appeal Tribunal as to an Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, states quite clearly that the benefit of a doubt based on any medical evidence available must be given to the man concerned. In this case, to my certain knowledge, there were reports from three medical officers to the effect that the man was, in their opinion, completely unemployable. If that does not raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of members of an Assessment Appeal Tribunal I do not know what would. It could be said that the tribunal consists of specialists who, therefore, have greater knowledge in their own particular fields and would be better able to give an exact opinion, but I submit that specialists studying a case from records and, possibly, one medical examination of the man concerned, could not disagree, with 100 per cent. certainty, with the opinions of a number of other medical gentlemen who had studied the case over a period of time. Even if only one doctor had been constantly in attendance on the man concerned, the opinion of that doctor must raise a doubt in the minds of members of an Assessment Appeal Tribunal. I believe, therefore, that in this case the Assessment Appeal Tribunal did not apply section 47 correctly.

There is another aspect of this matter, and, I think, quite an important one, to be considered. Should a man be superannuated from a Commonwealth department and paid £14 a week for the rest of his life unless he is medically unfit in every sense of the word? When a man has been granted an entitlement by a tribunal, and is later retired from a Commonwealth department because of the disability for which he is being paid a pension, I believe that an Assessment Appeal Tribunal must agree that he is 100 per cent. unfit. On the other hand, if Assessment Appeal Tribunals are right, in circumstances such as I have outlined, then the other Commonwealth doctors must be quite wrong in their estimate of a man’s capacity to work. For these reasons I believe that the Government must take some steps to investigate all cases of this kind, either from the repatriation angle or from the angle of the other government departments’, because something is gravely wrong somewhere.

The pension list of any country is, without a doubt, an honour roll, when considered in terms of service given by those who are receiving pensions, particularly if they are receiving them as a result of war service. When this Government first came to power in 1949 it pledged itself to a constant review of repatriation provisions, pensions and other benefits. Every budget that the Government has brought down since 1949 has adequately proved that this pledge is being honoured.

Mr R W HOLT:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Utter rubbish!

Mr McCOLM:

– The honorable member who made that interjection is, in my opinion, contemptible, because what I have said is true and has been proven in every Budget that the Government has brought in. That does not by any means imply that we do not think there can be further improvements in our repatriation benefits, but I believe that every Australian should be proud of the fact that the repatriation benefits granted to the ex-servicemen of this country rank among the highest in the world.

There are still some anomalies that have to be sorted out. We have never denied that, but we have been effective in doing something about them while we have been in government, which is more than honorable members opposite did when they were in government.

Opposition members interjecting,

Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER:
Mr. Lawrence

– Order! There are too many interjections.

Mr McCOLM:

– I do not mind the interjections. Opposition members are just showing themselves in their true colours, or lack of them. There is another thing which I believe can be, and should be, improved in the times that lie ahead. AsI mentioned earlier, almost every year we have seen some improvement in repatriation benefits. This year, not only are pensions and certain other payments being increased, but also provision is made for retrospective payment of a pension for up to four years in the case of an appeal to an entitlement appeal tribunal, eventually succeeding. That is a great step which will serve to rectify some wrongs or misjudgments that have occurred in the past through lack of evidence.

There are still some people deserving of more consideration, not only from the point of view of helping the individuals concerned to maintain their morale, but also from a common-sense point of view, and from the point of view of saving the Commonwealth money in repatriation benefits. There is, therefore, the two-fold purpose - improving or maintaining a man’s morale and at the same time saving the payment of public moneys, perhaps through a small initial payment or concession. I refer to general rate pensioners who are working at various jobs.I have two particular cases in mind. One man has a spinal injury which resulted in the loss of use of one leg. He is unable to exert pressure in some directions with that leg. The spinal injury also causes him to wear a brace continually, and he has to use crutches in order to walk. That man requires transport to and from his place of employment, and, with the failure of a bone graft which he had on his spine, he has now become completely unable to exert the pressure that would be necessary to operate the clutch of a car - something that he was able to do only a short time ago. To overcome that difficulty, he had a vacuum attachment fitted to his old second-hand car, but the car had twin carburettors and the vacuum attachment to the clutch would not work. Consequently, the Queensland Police department would not pass the car as fit for him to use. As a result of that, the Repatriation Department could not assist him in the purchase of the vacuum attachment. He requires transport to and from his work and is completely unable to use public vehicles. He is able to walk only very short distances. Unless he has some means of transport to and from his work he will become a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner - he could be so regarded to-morrow if he wanted to - but he does not want to become one because he feels it is better for his own morale if he continues to work. I think all honorable members will agree with his view in that regard.

As I have said, his second-hand car will not take the vacuum attachment, but if he were assisted to get another vehicle, even by means of a sales tax ‘reduction or exemption, it would be a very real help and the loss to the Commonwealth would be negligible. The gain to this man’s morale would be very considerable and there would eventually be a financial gain to the Commonwealth because as long as this man continues to work he will not be drawing the total and permanent incapacity pension.

There is another similar case. It concerns a man who has ‘ lost one arm and has about two inches of bone missing from the other. He is gradually losing the use of his remaining arm. The more he uses it the quicker he will lose the use of it. He has a job, and if he could transport himself to and from work he would continue in employment, his morale would be maintained, and the Commonwealth would save money. I would like to see some provision whereby, on production of a certificate from the Repatriation Department stating that if no private transport was available the use of remaining limbs would be lost, such men could obtain a car free of sales tax. There are not many such cases. It is a concession that could bc very easily guarded by the department, and I feel certain that it would be of real human value to the individuals concerned and real financial value to the Commonwealth.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– Has the committee of Government ex-servicemen taken it up and had it rejected?

Mr McCOLM:

– It has been rejected under the existing act. It was not taken up by the ex-servicemen’s committee. It was taken up privately, and too recently for an amendment to be incorporated in this legislation.

I have already mentioned the difficulties that we have seen for some time in section 47. I do not propose to continue at greater length, other than to say that the benefits that are being conferred by this present bill are something that this Parliament feels are substantial. This measure may not make full provision for everything that we consider should be provided for, but it is a step in the right direction. It shows that the Government has maintained its pledge to review repatriation matters continually and it shows that the people of Australia still think that a pensions list in our country is indeed a roll of honour.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The actions of the Government continue to surprise me. With regard to the new pension rates, particularly those for the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, the Government has imposed a means test. It talks glibly of lifting the ceiling, but what is the ceiling except a means test? So, the Government has lifted the ceiling and imposed a means test. The Opposition has not been able, in repeated discussions with the Minister, or by interrogation of his staff, to find out just what is to happen with regard to totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners. Many crocodile tears have been shed here during discussions on social service measures, which I refer to only in passing, and in which honorable members, one from South Australia and one from New South Wales, talked about lifting the means test. If you are going to lift the means test anywhere, I suggest that you lift it off the poor old totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, who now comprise about 10,000 to 12,000 of the remnants of the first Australian Imperial Force. They are dying at the rate of ten a week in repatriation hospitals in this country.

I would say that, in regard to the imposition of this means test ceiling - or call it what you like - the general concept of the Australian community is that the soldier’s pension should not be touched. No reduction should be applied to it because the pensioner has additional income. That is what the public feel and believe is implicit in the Repatriation Act. The pensioner should receive the equivalent of the basic wage. The Government has not been courageous enough to give him the basic wage, although it is little enough to give him for the services he has given to the country. In view of the pitiful remnants which remain it would not cost the Government very much. In the light of a £100,000,000 surplus, or close to it, over the last three or four years, a suggestion of applying the means test is both pitiful and crude. But in order to save finance some Babbitt in the department will say, “ I will tell you how you can get away with it. You can give them a pension of £11 or something similar and then lift section 91 and enable them to get the burnt-out pension so that they may add their social services to the meagre allowance allowed for the total and permanent incapacity rate “. Then some genius, some skinflint, some Scrooge comes along and says, “ You have to remember that while you cannot apply the means test to the soldier’s pension, you can put the squeeze on his social service payments.

Such an attitude is utterly contemptible. The Government is not prepared to leave alone the remnant of our fighting forces of World War I. There are some totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen of World War II. also, but the majority of them are of the old brigade. If the Government is not prepared to do what the Labour party suggested as long ago as four years past to give them at least the basic wage with the necessary allowance for the wife and other dependants, it is not doing very well by them in any case. But by a feat of jiggery-pokery the Government applies this treatment, first of all to the full total and permanent incapacity payment, then to the social service payments. Next it brings down the ceiling, or lifts the ceiling by acts in the Senate and creates a means test against that. This is what the Government has done, in effect, as the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard), who led the debate for this side of the House, pointed out. He charged the Government that, although it professes to give the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner 25s. a week, in effect the majority of them will receive only 15s. a week because of the application of this queer arrangement of the pension plus the burntout allowance. In 47 per cent, of the cases ex-servicemen have incomes or superannuation, and this arrangement does not apply to them. I think it is in 53 per cent, of cases that married men with a dependant will get only 15s. instead of 25s. The spokesman for the Labour party in the Senate, and again the honorable member for Bass, who put the case so clearly and concisely for the Opposition in this debate, pressed the Minister for an explanation, but we got only the Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee reply, and nobody knows.

Let. us be clear. The Government should be fair about it, and give the 25s. to all sections of the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. But, in many other cases, it is giving only 15s., because there is a ceiling. Let us have done with the means test. Let us have done with ceilings if the Government is going to look after the surviving 10,000 or 12,000 totally and permanently incapacitated servicemen on pensions in this country. It is little enough, in view of our wealth and in view of their services to the country, without being emotional, but hardly factual upon the matter: it is something we should do. I am sure that honorable members on both sides of the House would applaud any move on the part of the Government that gave them a payment at least comparable with the basic wage.

Throughout the whole of the repatriation pensions, we have challenged the decline in the percentage of pensions as related to the basic wage. Certainly, it is necessary to tie the rate of soldiers’ pensions to some yardstick or standard. The standard to measure it against is the cost of living. The Arbitration Court decides the wage for the worker in industry to-day. That decision must have some validity as a standard against which to measure the pension. Our charge to the Government is that in all cases the percentages have decreased. It is no good talking about inflation or what the Labour Government, or anybody else, did. The charge sits fairly and squarely on the government of the day - a government that has been in office too long, but at least is there by the will of the people - and it must apply some yardstick to pensions. The only yardstick is the percentage of the basic wage. What can one think of a community that boasts that it has a £100,000,000 surplus this year, that it had a £100,000,000 surplus last year and an £80,000,000 surplus the year before that - raking in revenue with both arms - but says to its war widows, “ You may have £5 2s. 6d. a week “. Then somebody starts to get arithmetical, and says, “ There are so many of these widows we cannot afford to pay a higher rate “. How wickedly wrong it is. We have never applied to both social service benefits and pensions for the dependants of those who fell in war, the standard that we apply to our own living.

Therefore, the Government - or governments, perhaps - .may have to face up to the change that the repatriation pension has become a neglected sort of thing. We ,get what we can, but the pensions, like the poor, are always with us. We have never done justice to the pensioners. We certainly have never done justice to the war widows. What happens to a young widow who lost her husband in the war? She is a young woman, and the whole of her future is struck down in one blow. Her standard is debased to that of a pensioner, whereas she could have been a normal member of the community, enjoying its amenities. But we have never caught up on that, and the regrettable thing is that we have never tried to catch up on it. Every time I see the paltry £5 2s. 6d. lined up as the widow’s pension, it makes me feel sick. I do not say that in a political sense. It makes me feel sick that Parliament cannot do better. When I see the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen getting a sum far below the basic wage and being subject to this piece of political cheese-paring and contemptible manoeuvring, and we cannot give him the full amount to which he is entitled in his own right as a soldier but we say to him, “We will feed you with the burnt-out pension”, I feel a contemptible thing is being done. The fact that the digger, being a realist, would take the cash and let the credit go, may have been useful, but it is not decent or honest, in the light of the amount of money spent in this country on so many other services. But pensions, forgotten wars, new wars and repatriation problems have come to be regarded like that blessed word “ Mesopotamia “. We get these machinery talks on repatriation which I am trying to change to-night.

I feel that the increase in the base-rate pension is good. It could have been higher, but I am not going to quibble about it But when the fellow on 10 per cent, gets 9d. how will he feel when he realizes, after all this debate has taken place to-night, that he has a definite disability? His 10 per cent, may well be 100 per cent, in a few years. How will he feel when he realizes that out of the generosity of this National Parliament he gets 9d.? How will he feel when toe remembers that he is the man who made it possible for Australia to be prosperous and for the profiteer to do big things in this country? That is the trouble, with the base-rate pension and with those sections which merely concede to the exserviceman some element of ‘benefit because of his war service. We have to think of these things on non-political lines.

I agree with what the honorable member for Bass said in regard to the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen and in regard to other pensioners. We are not so niggardly as to deny the Government credit for its desire to do something in these matters, but we feel, as we have pointed out before, that in the case of the totally and permanently incapacitated pension, the rate could be easily rectified. There ought to be no ceiling and their ought to be a base rate. Amendments along these lines are foreshadowed and will be moved at the committee stage.

With regard to base-rate pensions and war widows, for goodness sake, let us get up to the standard that operated in 1948. I have heard interjections from the Government side, “ What did you do in 1949? “ It does not matter a tinker’s damn what we did in 1949. Why did we not preserve the standard that was established in 1948, which represented a reasonable percentage of the basic wage? Honorable members opposite may wriggle this way and that and think with the political sides of their brains, but the fact remains that soldiers’ pensions must be tied to a percentage of the basic -wage, and that the Chifley Government set the pension rates at the highest percentage -of the basic wage. The Opposition is trying to force the Government to accept the thought that it should build up pensions to that percentage.

I ask the Government not to make use -of specious economic reasoning, based on some formula. The solid and incontrovertible figures prove that this Government is well behind the Labour government in regard to pensions. Widows’ pensions are 15 per cent, lower than the comparable rate paid by the Labour government. The community and every member of ihe Parlia:ment know how grievous is the plight of the war widow. How often have their -cases been placed before members of this House! The rate for totally and per- manently incapacitated ex-servicemen, the ^general rate, the war widows’ rate and, in special circumstances, the allowances for war widows’ children, should all be reexamined. I pray that the Ex-Servicemen’s Committee of this House, which is made up exclusively of Government members - - for what reason I know not; it was never thus in the old days - will examine the pensions paid to the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen and the war widows, and their relation to the basic wage, and the family allowances paid to war widows.

I come now to the old perennial, the onus of proof. The Government, which has shed crocodile tears about the means test, has now proceeded to apply it to soldiers’ pensions. Whether the means test is applied to a war pension or to a social service benefit paid to the ex-serviceman, “the difference is but the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. The fact is that the Government is imposing a means test. Otherwise, under this legislation, an ex-serviceman could get £20 a week instead of £15 15s. The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. Joske) and the honorable member for Bowman (Mr. McColm), who spoke from the Government side of the House, both denounced the application of the onus of proof. It is not very long since the former honorable member for Wentworth, Sir Eric Harrison, who was Vice-President of the Executive Council, got up in this House and trumpeted that he believed that the Government and the

Repatriation Department were doing the right thing in this connexion. To-night, now that his presence has been removed from this House, two of the Government’s supporters have been prepared to deny that he was right. On 13th October, 1955, when this matter was aired with great strength by the Opposition, the then honorable member for Wentworth said, referring to the right honorable member for Barton (Dr. Evatt), who had moved an amendment concerning the onus of proof -

Let me tell the right honorable gentleman that the rules are being obeyed.

Both the honorable member for Balaclava and the honorable member for Bowman have now denounced the onus of proof provision as it is being carried out to-day under section 47 of the act. The honorable member for Balaclava, who is a lawyer, read to us the decision of the former Attorney-General, then Senator Spicer. He rather amused honorable members on this side of the House because that decision represents what has been our contention for many years. When the repatriation legislation was streamlined in the days of the Curtin Government and, later, the right honorable member for Barton interpreted section 47 in the way which has only now percolated the minds of the backbenchers on the Government side. The honorable members for Balaclava and Bowman have now denied their masters. They have denied the lord highpriest of repatriation, Sir Eric Harrison, who used to be in this House and who said, “ God’s in his heaven; all’s right with the world. The Repatriation Commission is impeccable and inviolable “. Now that he is no longer here, the little rebels sneak out to denounce this point of view.

The criticism of the honorable member for Balaclava was, for him, trenchant. He said that the onus of proof provision was worthless because the law was one thing and its interpretation was another. He made no bones about it. He was filled with disgust that section 47, in its legal sense, was not being applied in any way by the bureaucracy. He asked what was the solution. The solution has already been supplied in the amendment moved in 1955 by the Leader of the Opposition. On that occasion the honorable member for Balaclava voted against the proposed amendment on party lines, as did the honorable member for Bowman, as far as I can gather. I stand corrected if he was paired off. I was leading the debate for the Opposition on that occasion and I certainly did not see a break in the Government ranks.

The honorable member for Bowman said that the ex-servicemen’s committee had examined the amendment moved by the right honorable member for Barton in 1955. He said that the committee considered that it would be all right, but that it did not want to involve ex-servicemen in any legal expenses. If the honorable member had studied the proposed amendment he would have found that the payment of legal expenses was specifically provided for. If the committee has been discussing this matter, I pray that it will deal with it again in the light of the resolution which appears in the report of the repatriation discussions at page 1628 of “Hansard” of 13th October, 1955. In a long resolution which was drafted to follow the trend of British justice in relation to ex-servicemen and the onus of proof, the Opposition moved an amendment which contained this provision -

An order as to the costs of an appeal under this section shall not be made.

Therefore, if the appeal went to a tribunal consisting of a Supreme Court judge, a territory judge, or a judge of similar rank, there would be absolutely no charge to the serviceman concerned.

Mr Graham:

– That would apply only if the appeal were successful.

Mr HAYLEN:

– No qualifications whatsoever were imposed. How many members of this House have heard an ex-serviceman, probably from World War I., pleading for attention and saying, “ I am sorry that I have not all the proof. I should have applied twenty years ago, but I tried to paddle my own canoe “. For having tried to paddle his own canoe he is condemned to some sort of departmental star chamber examination in which he is told, “ Prove it, or else! “ Yet the law says to the department, “ You prove it, or else! “ Who is right and who is wrong? We have battled this matter out in debate after debate, particularly on repatriation legislation.

I would like to correct an impression that was created by the honorable member for Bowman, who is most fervent in his desire to do something for the exservicemen. I am afraid that the ex-Servicemen’s Committee is rather weak, lt is inclined to say to the Government, “ Well, if you say we cannot do it, we cannot do it “. I urge its members to get up and deliver a punch or two to the Government, and say, “ You must do it “. They would find that in such circumstances the Government would quickly do it. If any question is raised concerning charges to ex-servicemen, the committee could quote the position of the amendment that was moved by the Opposition in 1955, to which I have referred -

An order as to the costs of an appeal under this section shall not be made.

The honorable member for St. George (Mr. Graham) said that this provision would apply only if the appeal was successful. Nothing of the sort. The motion means exactly what it says. It was drawn by a master draftsman. On the question of the onus of proof, all the force of argument is on this side of the House.

I am glad that Government supporters, particularly ex-service members, have deserted the old guard who, because of some misplaced loyalty, always felt that they had to do something to defend the Repatriation Department and uphold its decisions. It is extraordinary that when an Attorney-General has given an interpretation of a provision in the law, the bureaucracy should be able to say, “ We do not work in that way. We will not do that “. I do not think that such defiance has previously been known in British history. Lord Denning made it clear that it was the British intention that onus of proof should not lie on the appellant. If I may read what he said, honorable members will see that it is compelling language. It does not say, “ You have to prove it “. Yet look at the paltry language that we get back in connexion with the cases that we handle as members of Parliament - “ I want some more substantial and material evidence “. There is nothing in the act to say that you must supply substantial and material evidence; the Repatriation Department must supply substantial and material evidence that the digger applying for his pension is wrong.

Knowing that this is a world-wide problem, Mr. Justic Denning said -

  1. . the only proper conclusion is that the Minister cannot discharge the burden of proof-

Or, in this case, the Repatriation Department - 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.

The man in the dock can get the benefit of the doubt, but the digger cannot get the benefit of the onus of proof!

That is the situation to-day and that is the situation we have been hammering for so long now. The honorable member for Shortland (Mr. Griffiths) has told in this House, in a graphic way, of many of these pathetic cases. He told me only to-day, when we were travelling to this place, of how a man’s A.46 papers had been entirely lost. He was wounded in France and received treatment at Harefield Military Hospital, outside London. When the authorities looked for his medical papers years afterwards, they were missing. Because those papers had been lost in transfer from France to England and then home to Australia, he was denied a pension. In other words, he was denied a pension through the culpable neglect of the Repatriation Department itself. That kind ot thing goes on and on. The onus of proof is the last big battle left for us to fight for the men of World War I., and it is the first big battle for the men of World War II., because as they get into the forties and the ‘fifties they will be realizing that they, too, because of the disabilities which they are bearing alone at the moment and in respect of which they are not asking for any consideration from what should be a grateful nation, will have to go before the same tribunals and ask for the benefit of the onus of proof.

The old fellows who are now in the very late fifties and sixties face the same problem because an unenthusiastic department has decided that it will make them prove their cases, although the law specifically bends over backwards to help them. If honorable members read section 47 they will agree that it is an extraordinarily generous claim, lt is supported by all sections of the community, by governments and oppositions alike, in an attempt to say, “ In this case do what you can. We are grateful for what these men have done for us. Don’t put them on the grid. If they have something that you cannot turn over, you must give them a pension “. That is what not only we in this Parliament but also the people want; but we are not able to impose on our own bureaucracy and our own Repatriation Department the wishes of this Parliament.

That is why amendment after amendment to section 47 comes from this side of the House. It is extraordinary that this battle should have been taking place for so long. The legal right is there. The clarity of the section itself is undisputed. Yet amendments from this side of the House, attempts at further clarification, are always rejected on party lines. The sad thing about all this is that it is not just an academic discussion. The Leader of the Opposition has just put the matter in crystalline terms, has given an interpretation of the law, and has proved that the department is actually breaking the law. It is not doing what the law demands. To-day the average digger of World War 1. is between 55 and 60 years of age. If we cannot get the Repatriation Department to observe the law, we ought to pass a measure giving any man who served in a theatre of war a pension at the age of 55 years. All that that would mean would be that we would bring the age of eligibility for the burnt-out pension - that pitiful concession to a man who is old before his years - down five years. If we cannot get our bureaucracy to do what we want it to do, we should enact another piece of legislation to cover all cases, because each of us who has done his duty in interviewing his constituents knows that the problem of the ex-serviceman who is over 50 years of age is a grievous and carking one. When he tells you about looking up “Baldy” Kelly or Bill Smith, who was blown up with him but now is either dead or has disappeared, you know that he has not got the evidence that the department requires before it will grant him a pension. It will be pitiful if we cannot cure this defect by some legislation of our own.

When we learn that 80 per cent, of these applications are swept away by one tribunal or another, surely we must wonder whether the machinery of arbitration is too heavy, too over-wrought, too laden with its own ideas about the onus of proof and should be scrapped and replaced by something cleaner and more streamlined. We have had a satellite over Canberra to-night, while we have been discussing the old-fashioned horse-and-buggy machinery of the Repatriation Act. It seems that we have done everything humanly possible. Servicemen’s associations, the committee of returned servicemen in this House, the Labour party as a government, the Liberal party and the Australian Country party as a government, all have tried to make this cumbersome thing work. Yet we come down to the fact that there is no basic wage for the poor, old, totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman. There is a miserable pittance of £5 2s. 6d. a week for a widow. There are no new concessions for her children, some of whom may be grown up now, although, in the case of widows of World War II. servicemen, certainly not all of the children would be grown up.

Then we come to the saddest case of all, the case affected by section 47. It is the case of the man who has tried to “ go it alone “, who finds, at the age of 50 or 56, that he has “ had “ it, applies for a pension, and gets an insulting wipe-off from the various tribunals. He goes through a tortuous process, appealing to the department, appealing to the tribunal, and so on and so on. We know that 80 per cent, of such men get no pension, although they have established that they were in a theatre of war and have a disability. In many cases, the claims of these men are supported by references, regarding their disabilities, from their local doctors and from repatriation doctors, but then the doctors have a war about them. I have never seen such a hotch-potch and a jumble.

I think that the only answer is to be found in the amendments that will be brought forward by the Opposition. First, we will move, at the committee stage, that the payment of increased pensions to exservicemen be retrospective to the first payment in July. We shall seek the application of that principle to all social service legislation, whether it be for the civilian or the serviceman. Secondly, we shall suggest that the Government at least lift the means test from the income, either from social service payments or from a soldier’s pension, of the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman. Finally, we shall propose that section 47 be shattered and remoulded nearer to the heart’s desire, so that we shall be able to do what we all want to do. We want this thing to work so that we shall not be faced, year after year, with a discussion on repatriation in this House. At present, 80 per cent, of the applicants for pensions - the old fellows who have borne the heat and burden of the day - know when they make their claims that they can never get enough evidence and are going to be wiped by a soulless department.

The answer is to be found in the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition. Give us, as a tribunal, a judge who will do nothing else but decide whether the onus of proof has been discharged. I venture to say, and I am sure my right honorable friend will agree with me, that if that were so, no longer would 80 per cent, of the applicants be refused pensions; 8 per cent, would be a more likely proportion.

Mr HAMILTON:
Canning

.- The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) commenced his speech by using some rather extraordinary statements. He used such phrases as “ treating exservicemen with scorn “, “ Do not touch the exservicemen’s pension “, Let us do away with ceilings “ and “ We must have a yardstick to measure the size of these pensions “; and he charged the Government with having a surplus of £100,000,000. If what the honorable gentleman has said is a true indication of what members of the Opposition would like to do then I think that we, as a government, can take some credit to ourselves that at long last honorable members opposite have been persuaded by example to relinquish the practices that they put into operation when they had the opportunity; because it was the members of the Labour party when in office - and the honorable member for Parkes supported the government of which I am speaking - who introduced anything in the nature of a means test on ex-servicemen’s pensions when they made the means test applicable to the sickness and unemployment benefits that an ex-serviceman might be forced to apply for as a result of sickness or unemployment brought about by a disability resulting from war service. Under the present proposal the means test is not to be applied to the totally and permanently incapacitated pension, a point with which I propose to deal later. The same honorable gentleman discussed the question of ceilings. I now ask him, through you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, whether he did not support the government that was the first to introduce such a thing as a ceiling, under section 91a, and whether it was not left to the present Government to remove that ceiling. All ex-servicemen recall, as though it happened only yesterday, that while the Labour party was in office it was not possible for a totally and permanently incapacitated person to apply for a service pension. He was precluded from doing so as a result of the insertion by the Labour government into the Repatriation Act of section 91a, which was repealed by this Government in 1955.

The honorable member for Parkes also, in a scathing sort of a way as I and some of my colleagues think, referred to this miserable Government that was budgeting for a £100,000,000 surplus. The Government is budgeting for a £100,000,000 surplus and I am glad it is doing so.

Mr Curtin:

– Hear, hear!

Mr HAMILTON:

– To those on the opposite side who say “ Hear, hear! “, I point out that I am glad the Government is budgeting for a surplus, because this Government has a full sense of its responsibility. That responsibility includes the return, if need be, of the money invested in Commonwealth loans by people during the war years in order to keep the fighting men going. Honorable members opposite know only too well that this Government, or any other government that happens to be in office will, in the very near future, have to face the colossal job of meeting the maturing securities taken out by patriotic people in order to keep the war effort going. If members of the Opposition want this Government or any government to pay those people back how do they propose that it be done if we do not budget in the good times, when we have the opportunity, in order to save the necessary money?

The honorable member for Parkes also referred to the question of having some relationship between the repatriation pension, the total and permanent incapacity pension and the basic wage. The honorable member for Bass, who led for the Opposition said something similar. The honorable member for Bass, after he had charged the supporters of the Government with having no say in any alteration of social service or repatriation benefits heard, in common with other members of the Opposition, Government supporters state that ever since we have been in office we have had an ex-service members’ committee, a repatriation committee, a war service land settlement committee and a war service homes committee operating on the Governmen side, and that repeatedly the Government has taken notice of the reports of these committees.

Mr Barnard:

Mr. Barnard interjecting,

Mr HAMILTON:

– It is all right for the honorable member for Bass to interject now. I remind him through you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, that when I was interjecting and trying to get some explanation from him he completely ignored me. So, I hope that he will not think I am selfish if I ignore his interjections now. After charging Government supporters with having no say in these matters the honorable member for Bass went on to quote the relationship of the total and permanent incapacity pension in 1948 with the then basic wage. It has been rather remarkable that every member of the Opposition who has spoken on the social services legislation that has been before us recently has very conveniently dodged mentioning 1949 as a year for comparison, because in that year, when it was discovered that there was a great possibility that the then Labour government would not give any increase in any branch of social services or repatriation benefits, several questions were put to the government of the day. One of them was put by my colleague the present honorable member for Mallee (Mr. Turnbull), who was then the honorable member for Wimmera, to which I shall refer in a moment. The honorable member for Bass sought to relate these pensions to the basic wage. What he forgot to do was to quote to the House just what the wife’s allowance and child’s allowance was in this case. I refer the honorable gentleman to volume 205 of “ Hansard “ of 25th October, 1949, at page 1951. The gentleman whose remarks I am going to quote is none other than the father of the honorable member for Bass, and was at that time Minister for Repatriation in the Chifley Government. The then honorable member for Wimmera, speaking on the motion for the adjournment of the House, raised the question of the Chifley Government’s failure to increase the rate of the total and permanent incapacity pension. During some of his remarks he let escape some mention of the basic wage. The then Minister for Repatriation, according to the “ Hansard “ report, which appears on page 1951, said -

He tailed to draw attention to the fact that, in one instance, he quoted the rate paid to a single pensioner, and then drew a comparison with the basic wage which provides for a man, his wife, and at least one child. The only fair comparison would be to take into consideration the amount paid to the pensioner on a special rate.

That was said by none other than the father of the present honorable member for Bass, as Minister for Repatriation in 1949. The fact that this son of the then Repatriation Minister comes in here and endeavours to confuse the House by refusing to quote, in the case that he is advancing for the Opposition, just what a pensioner does receive-

Mr Barnard:

– Will you dispute the figures as they relate to the basic wage?

Mr HAMILTON:

– I am not going to dispute any figures except to say that you tried, to use an Australian colloquial term, to put a swift one over, because you talked about the basic wage which I have heard you and your party-

Mr. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKEROrder! The honorable member will address the Chair.

Mr HAMILTON:

– I am addressing the honorable member through you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker. Every time the Opposition in this Parliament discusses the question of the basic wage, whether on the basis of the capacity of industry to pay or on a needs basis, it always comes back to the family unit. But to-night, when the honorable member for Bass was talking about the total and permanent incapacity pension in relation to the basic wage he took as his example the pension paid to a single person. 1 think, to say the least, that that is a swift one that the honorable gentleman was endeavouring to put over, not only on this House, but also on people who might be listening over the air to the debate. As everybody in Australia knows, the Labour party in 1949 refused point-blank to increase any pension by one penny. In 1948 the total and permanent incapacity pension was £5 6s. with a 24s. allowance for the wife and 9s. for a child, making a total of £6 19s. Under the present measure, which we hope very sincerely will be passed, the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner will receive £11 in pension, £1 15s. 6d. for his wife, and 13s. 9d. for a child, making a total of £13 9s. 3d. The basic wage to-day is £12 16s. But I shall ignore the basic wage for a moment and use the term used by the honorable member for Bass, who referred to the “ unpegged basic wage”, which he placed at £13 5s. I say to the honorable gentleman and members of the Opposition generally, through you, Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, that this Government is keeping up a fair pace, by any yardstick honorable members opposite may care to employ. That, I think, deals with the total and permanent incapacity pension, as a pension.

The honorable member for Bass, supported a few moments ago by the honorable member for Parkes, I think, mistakenly - I am not going to accuse him of deliberately trying to do so - misled the House by making some mention of a very low figure when he was talking about the war widows’ pension. I shall not repeat it. I am rather surprised that the honorable member for Bass, who is leading for the Labour party in this debate, and who is the son of a former Minister for Repatriation, should adopt the tactics that he has adopted. He said that the war widows’ pension in 1948 was 58 per cent, of the basic wage. I will admit that. He went on to say that the war widows’ pension to-day is 12 per cent, below half the basic wage, which, I take it, means that it is 38 per cent, of the basic wage.

Mr Barnard:

– That is right.

Mr HAMILTON:

– Being an ex-school teacher, the honorable member would know and I think his mental arithmetic is correct. I took the trouble to work out the figures and T took into account not only the war widows’ pension but also the domestic allowance.

Mr Barnard:

– Nonsense!

Mr HAMILTON:

– If the honorable member for Bass will bear with me for a moment, he will see what I am trying to prove. To get the 58 per cent, in 1948, the domestic allowance had to be included. The war widows’ pension plus the domestic allowance amounted to 58 per cent, of the basic wage in 1948. Once this legislation is passed - and the honorable gentleman’s attack is based on this legislation - the war widows’ pension and the domestic allowance will be £6 17s. 6d., and that is far more than 38 per cent, of the basic wage, as the honorable gentleman knows only too well. To use two components to bolster up a percentage figure for 1948 and then to ignore them deliberately in calculating the percentage figure for 1957, is not worthy of the honorable member for Bass, particularly on an occasion such as this.

The honorable gentleman devoted much of his time to the question of the total and permanent incapacity pension and the service pension. It seems to me that Opposition members completely disregard the fact that those two pensions are entirely different. As far as my knowledge goes, exservicemen and ex-servicemen’s organizations, of which I have been a member since 1919, have argued that ex-servicemen should receive an advantage over other people when other things are equal. If it is desirable and necessary to apply a means test to age and invalid pensions, then 1 do not think that in one fell swoop we can disregard all the ceilings and other things as we have done. I say again that this Government removed the ceiling. As the service pension is the equivalent of the age pension, except that a serviceman can apply for it at 60 years of age whereas other persons have to wait until 65 years of age for the age pension, the same conditions should apply, for a period anyhow. There is no means test on the total and permanent incapacity pension. The means test is applied when the married totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner applies for the service pension, which, as I have said, is the equivalent of the age pension. Therefore, we must look at some of the figures. I followed the figures used by the honorable gentleman. He said he obtained them from the department. I also obtained some figures from the department, but they do not agree with the figures given by the honorable member for Bass. As we are trying to do the best we can for all ex-servicemen and their dependents, we must approach this matter with a spirit of tolerance and understanding. Admittedly, if 53 per cent, of the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners applied for the service pension, they would receive in toto only an increase of 15s.

Mr Barnard:

– That is not so good, is it?

Mr HAMILTON:

– That is quite a reasonable proposition, but I repeat that the total and permanent incapacity pension is not reduced; the means test applies only when the pensioner seeks a service pension, as it applies to all persons who seek an age pension. 1 am sure that if we had a ballot of all those in receipt of the total and permanent incapacity pension to-day, there would not be very much support for the argument put forward by the Opposition. 1 am sure that ex-servicemen and their dependants would support this Government long before they would support the Australian Labour party, unless they are convinced right up to the hilt at any rate that the Australian Labour party has changed the tactics it adopted- when it had the opportunity to do something for these pensioners.

An important aspect of this matter is section 64 of the act. If an appellant can convince an appeals tribunal or the commission that he or she is entitled to a pension, under the amendment to section 64 the pension can be dated back for four years; at present it can be back dated only six months. The old diggers, who have been mentioned during the discussion on the onus of proof, will welcome from this Government the retrospective payment of any claim in which they may be successful against the department. The Government is to be congratulated for making a further improvement in repatriation benefits. I shall not deal at very great length with the onus of proof. I am not a legal man and I look at these matters from the point of view of the layman. I thought that some time ago we had satisfactorily designed a form of words which would enable the tribunals to meet all the requirements of the onus of proof, but apparently we have not.

Mr Joske:

– There is nothing wrong with the form of words, if the tribunals would only carry them out.

Mr HAMILTON:

– I am leading up to that. I have not had any cases arising under section 47, but I do not doubt that other honorable members have had some.

Mr Stewart:

– Your constituents apparently cannot find you if you have not had any cases.

Mr HAMILTON:

– That is to-day’s funny story, as far as I am concerned, particularly when it comes from the honorable member for Lang (Mr. Stewart). The point, as I see it, is that, though the form of words might be quite satisfactory, a doubt is created in the minds of members of the tribunals. They have the formula. I do not know whether a change of the personnel of the tribunal is needed, but, if something can be done to give effect to the desires of the ex-servicemen, particularly those who are still suffering as a result of World War I., then no stone should be left unturned in an endeavour to do it. During the committee stages, in view of what has been said by two prominent Opposition members, I should like to hear what the Opposition has in mind to rectify the position as it is at the moment. But I repeat that, in the last few years, I have not had any cases of the kind mentioned.

I am somewhat surprised at the remarks of the honorable member for Parkes. He insinuated that this Government was not doing its bit for the ex-servicemen. I ask Opposition members to look at the history of the administration of the Repatriation Act under this Government. It can be found in the pamphlet that is made available by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) and I understand that a new pamphlet will be printed very soon. Remarks have been made about what we are doing for the war widows. But most of the war widows and their relatives will remember for many a long day the treatment meted out to them by the Australian Labour party when it was in office and had the opportunity to do somethting for these unfortunate women.

Mr Bryant:

– Utter nonsense!

Mr HAMILTON:

– It is all very well for the honorable member to say that, but I happened to be a member of this House at the time, and I can tell him that, when the party to which he gives loyal support was in office, it would not accept an application from a war widow for a war service home on the ground that she was an unsuitable risk. That was the first thing that Labour did to the war widows. If honorable members care to look at this booklet, which is readily available from the Minister for Repatriation, they will find that the Labour government left the domestic allowance for war widows at 7s. 6d. a week for year after year. Although this Government has not increased the direct pension paid to war widows as much as some people would wish, the domestic allowance has been increased almost every year - and not by a miserable amount. It is very pleasing to see that, this year, in addition to the increase of 7s. 6d. a week in the war widow’s pension, the domestic allowance is to be increased by 5s. 6d. a week. None of us will say that that is ample and leaves much to spare. But let us not forget that we have to find the money somewhere. We can get it only from taxation, and we have to preserve equilibrium in the entire field of social services, both repatriation benefits and benefits to civilians.

I repeat that, in all aspects of repatriation, this Government’s record is good. It was left to this Government to find some means of enabling poor unfortunates who are paralysed below the hips to get about, by making it possible for them to obtain the means of transport. There was a lot of talk about it between 1945 and 1949, but the Labour government did very little. I could enumerate at great length similar illustrations of the way in which the record of this Government in repatriation matters completely overshadows that of the Labour government.

In conclusion, I suggest to Opposition members that they obtain from the Minister for Repatriation a copy of this booklet to which I have referred. If they cannot get it now, because the supply is exhausted, a new print will be available very shortly, I understand. If they study it, they will learn just what has been done by this Government for ex-servicemen and their dependants.

Once again, I commend the Government for doing something to increase repatriation benefits. It is true that it has not been able to do everything that we would wish for. However, as I have said, if a vote of ex-servicemen were taken, it would heartily favour this Government, which, once again, is helping repatriation pensioners.

Mr Turnbull:

– The totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, especially, appreciate the efforts of this Government.

Mr HAMILTON:

– They, especially, do, because at least 47 per cent. of them will receive an additional 25s. a week. The others are subject to the means test on the service pension, if they apply for it. Once again, this Government has taken action with respect to section 64. I have no idea what the proposal will cost, but at least the retrospectivity of claims will be recognized for a maximum period of four years, instead of for a period of only six months, as in the past.

Mr STEWART:
Lang

.- First, I desire to congratulate the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) and the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) on their contribution to this debate. Both honorable members are ex-servicemen, and so far as I know, they did not receive any decorations or awards for their valour in the field, but they have clearly demonstrated that they have the courage of their convictions, and are prepared to do their best in this House to gain for ex-service men and women the benefits to which they are justly entitled. On the Government side of the House, on the other hand, we have a Victoria Cross winner, and winners of Distinguished Conduct Medals, Military Medals, Military Crosses, Distinguished Flying Crosses, and various other awards, who, although members of the Government Members Ex-servicemen’s Committee, in my experience during the four years that 1 have been a member of this House, are usually conspicuous by their absence when any repatriation matter is being debated. Not only that, but Government supporters who do contribute to debates on these matters usually spend most of their time congratulating the Government on what it has done instead of criticizing it for the things that it has left undone. Indeed, I am beginning to believe that the Government Members Ex-servicemen’s Committee is merely playing at the game of doing something for ex-servicemen, and that the mem.bers who comprise it are interested only in polishing their buttons, rattling their swords, attending functions held by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, patting themselves on the chest, and shouting about the wonderful work that they are doing for ex-servicemen, although, in practice, they cannot point to many repatriation benefits that that committee has won.

Once again, we are discussing a measure introduced in the Senate by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) to amend the Repatriation Act. As my colleague, the honorable member for Bass, pointed out, the Minister made some play on the fact that totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners would receive an additional 25s. a week. The total and permanent incapacity pension is a special-rate pension granted to men totally and permanently incapacitated by injury or illness suffered on war service, or due to the rigours of war. In fact, it is a compensation for war injury, and therefore is in a special category. If it is in a special category, why should not the Parliament treat it in a special way? It is a payment for pain and suffering that men have endured since they went away to protect this wonderful country of ours. The men who receive this pension are unable to work. If they were not totally and permanently incapacitated, they might be holding down highly paid positions, but serious injury or illness arising out of war service has left them dependent on the total and permanent incapacity pension. The Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Pensioners Association justly claims that the total and permanent incapacity pension should be disregarded in the assessment of the service pension, or benefits under the Social Services Act.

At the present time, a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner is entitled to receive for himself £9 15s. a week, and for his wife, an allowance of £1 15s. 6d. a week, making a total war pension of £11 10s. 6d. a week. He and his wife are entitled to receive between them service pension of £3 9s. 6d. a week, making a total of £15 a week. At present, that is referred to as the “ standard allowed income “. Under the terms of this measure, the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner will be entitled to receive for himself £11 a week - an increase of 25s. a week. The allowance for his wife will remain unchanged at £1 15s. 6d. a week; so that, between them, they may receive by way of war pension £12 15s. 6d. a week. However, the service pension that they may receive between them will be reduced to £2 19s. 6d. a week, making a total of £15 15s. a week, which will now be the standard allowed income. In other words, the total and permanent incapacity pension is to be increased by 25s. a week, but the service pension is to be reduced by 10s. a week, making the overall increase only 15s. a week. Therefore, when the Minister and Government supporters say that totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners will receive an additional 25s. a week they are being dishonest.

It is interesting to read the second-reading speech made by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Cooper) when introducing the

Repatriation Bill 1955. He said on that occasion -

A totally and permanently incapacitated member and his wife have hitherto been debarred by the “ ceiling “ limit from receiving a service, age or invalid pension in addition to their war pension. As a result of this bill, they will, subject to the means test, be able to receive a service or social service pension in addition to their war pension. This means that, either from Commonwealth sources alone, or from those sources plus some income of their own, for example, from superannuation, they will have a guaranteed income of at least £15 a week. Towards this amount the Commonwealth will contribute at least £11 10s. 6d., this being the amount of their combined war pensions. Subject to the means test, which takes their war pensions into account as income, they may receive up to £3 9s. 6d. service, age or invalid pension between them to make up the combined income of £15 a week.

In his second-reading speech, when introducing this measure, the Minister for Repatriation said -

I would like to remind honorable senators that, as a result of this Government having repealed section 91a of the Repatriation Act in 1955, and thereby abolishing the ceiling limits, there is now a very large number of war pensioners who benefit both by the increase in the rates of war pension, and in the increase in the service pension or the age or invalid pension.

For instance, the maximum amount which a totally and permanently incapacitated war pensioner and his wife will now be able to receive by way of war pension and service or age or invalid pension, will be £15 15s. a week. Of this amount the total war pension for the member and his wife is £12 15s. 6d. a week, being £11 for the member and £1 15s. 6d. a week for his wife, and this is, of course, paid free of means test. There is a means test for a service, age or invalid pension, and for this means test the war pension is taken into account as income.

The Minister does not, however, mention that the amount of service, age or invalid pension that may be received has been reduced from £3 9s. 6d. to £2 19s. 6d. a week. This omission was deliberate. The Minister had no intention of putting the true facts before the Parliament or before the totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen. In his speech, in 1955, he cited the amount that could be received as service pension, but this year, since there is a reduction in that amount, he makes no mention of it at all. This omission was dishonest and not worthy of the Minister for Repatriation. This House is entitled to know the facts regarding totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners.

It is also interesting to consider the amount of pension that may be received by a general rate pensioner receiving the 100 per cent, pension. The pension will now be £5 2s. 6d. a week. Adding the wife’s allowance of £1 15s. 6d., we get a total of £6 18s. a week. The pensioner and his wife may receive, in addition, if they are entitled, age, invalid or service pensions of £4 7s. 6d. each. The total of service and war pension then may be as much as £15 13s. The totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner, who is debarred from working because of war injuries, is limited to an amount of £15 15s., but a general rate pensioner on the 100 per cent, pension, who, in some instances, can occupy a highly paid position, or who, if he is over the age of retirement, can receive also a full service pension, may receive an amount of pension which, when added to that received by his wife, may give a total of £15 13s. a week. That man and his wife may have been able, during earlier years, to remain in constant employment. The totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner, however, has been unable to work because of his injuries, and his income over the years has been limited by a fixed ceiling. It was limited in that fashion by the Labour government. This was probably a mistake on the part of the Labour government. However, the position was rectified in 1955 by the present Government, but the bill now before the House proposes to allow the position to deteriorate again. It is time that these men who sacrificed so much in the service of their country, and who are now totally and permanently incapacitated, should be allowed to receive their full war pension together with the full social service pension to which they might otherwise be entitled.

I wish now to refer to war widows. In most cases war widows are fairly young women with families to provide for. The war widow lost her husband either during the war or soon after it, or, in some cases, even some time after the war. She has made a great sacrifice on behalf of her country in giving up her breadwinner. Her children have lost their father. >he and her children have lost the love, care and attention of that husband and father. Women such as these are expected to exist on a mere pittance. Every man, woman and child in this country owes undying gratitude and sympathy to the war widows, and it is our duty to grant them an adequate amount of pension so that they may adequately feed, clothe and educate their children. If it were not for the efforts of organizations like Legacy and the War Widows’ Guild, many of these women to-day would be unable to exist on .the meagre pensions that they receive. War widows are in a special category and should be given special treatment. The amount of pension that they are paid is too small, and the allowance for their children, and education allowances, are also too small. I believe that the war widows of Australia should be given greater consideration.

I come now to the onus of proof section in the Repatriation Act, which has received some attention in this debate. I, like the honorable member for Canning (Mr. Hamilton), speak as a layman, but, unlike him, I have been interviewed by many persons during the last four years who have asked me to do something to help them obtain a war pension. Some of their cases have, to my mind, been absolutely watertight, but their applications have been refused by the appeal tribunals. I believe that the onus of proof section is not being administered in the way in which it should be administered. Too often the advice and opinions of repatriation medical officers and departmental medical officers are accepted, while the advice and opinions of local doctors or specialists, to whom the claimant has gone in an effort to obtain evidence to back his claims, are rejected. In far too many cases the tribunals accept the word of departmental medical officers against the opinions of local doctors who have been treating the applicants for years, and against the opinions expressed by men who, in many instances, served in the forces with the claimants. When the widow of an ex-serviceman applies for a pension she often finds that because her husband has neglected to report every little injury that he might have received, or every little sneeze and cough from which he might have suffered during his service in the forces, she must endeavour as best she can to convince the members of the appeal tribunal that her husband’s death was due to war service. I know, as do many other former members of the forces, that if a man was continually going to the first-aid post for treatment he was regarded as a malingerer and not a good soldier. This act, as it is administered to-day, particularly with reference to the onus of proof, means that the man who reported every ingrowing toenail, every scratch on his finger, and every cough, is the man who can obtain a repatriation benefit without any trouble at all. But the man who tried to soldier on and did not report minor injuries is the man who now has to go to his comrades and say, “ Do you remember when we were in such and such a place in New Guinea in 1943 I said so-and-so to you and you said that I should report it? I said 1 had to go out on a job and could not afford the time to report it”, lt is almost impossible for the comrade in arms to recall exactly what went on all those years ago, but because ho wants to do something to help his mate - because he knows his mate was a good soldier and suffered certain injuries during the war - he is prepared to sign a declaration. The way the onus of proof clause is administered at the present time means that some people, although perhaps not telling an untruth, are stretching their imagination a little further than they have a right to. I feel that if the Repatriation Department and the various tribunals were to interview these people, they should be able to tell by an assessment of an exserviceman’s character, and by looking at his war record, whether he had been a malingerer or had endeavoured to do his duty as a soldier, sailor, or airman. I feel the time is long overdue for this Government to see that the onus of proof provision is applied and administered in the way it was intended to be administered.

I revert once again to the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner and the general rate pensioner. In New South Wales, under section 160b of the Local Government Act, the Labour Government has made it possible for councils to remit rates to age and invalid pensioners. If a council is prepared to rebate 100 per cent, of the rates, the State Government will refund to that council 50 per cent, of the rates. In over 80 shires throughout New South Wales councils are rebating, partially or in full, rates to age and invalid pensioners. But if a totally and permanently incapacitated soldier pensioner applies for a rebate, he is unable to obtain it. I feel, as do many councils throughout New South Wales, that as the responsibility for repatriation pensions is solely in the hands of the Federal Government, we should not expect the New South Wales Labour

Government, which already makes concessions to age and invalid pensioners out of the limited funds parsimoniously handed to it by this Government, to extend the rate rebate system to include repatriation pensioners. This Government should be prepared to reimburse the State for rebates granted to totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners and general rate pensioners. If the Commonwealth is not prepared to take over the whole of the rate rebate commitments that have been entered into by the New South Wales Labour Government, then at least it should be generous enough to grant to soldier pensioners the same concession that is granted by the New South Wales Government to age and invalid pensioners.

One other point I desire to mention is the gazettal of a regulation to amend regulation 66. In September, 1955, I placed on the notice-paper questions directed to the Minister for Repatriation. These questions dealt with regulation 66 of the Repatriation Act. In reply, the Minister said-

Regulation 66 of the Repatriation Regulations provides that, with certain exceptions, a member may be treated for a disability which is not due to war service when he is in receipt of war pension at the full General Rate under the First Schedule or the Special Rate under the Second Schedule to the Repatriation Act.

When a member receives war pension from a Dominion other than the Commonwealth of Australia, the amount of such pension must be taken into consideration when assessing the pension payable under the Repatriation Act. Consequently, he cannot receive the full General Rate under the First Schedule or the Special Rate under the Second Schedule.

I asked the Minister whether he would undertake to amend the regulations, and he replied -

Yes, action has been taken to do this.

That was in September, 1955. I made inquiries in the intervening period and was told that the amendment would be gazetted at any time. In January, this year, I wrote to the Minister for Repatriation, sending him a copy of the questions and answers, and asked him when something was going to be done. On 24th April this year the Minister wrote to me and said -

I refer again to your letter of 30th January, 1957, concerning the proposed amendment to Regulation 66 of the Repatriation Regulations.

T have inquired into the present position regarding this matter and find that the amendment to the Regulation is being drafted and will be gazetted as soon as possible.

I notice in the annual report of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers, and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia that it also has ‘ been making representations to have regulation 66 amended and the Minister has replied that an early gazettal of the amended regulation would be made. But the Government still has not done anything about it. Now that the war is a few years behind us, the Repatriation Department is inclined to get a little careless about the problems confronting ex-service men and women. I first raised the matter of Regulation 66 in September, 1955. I am speaking now of 8th October, 1957. A promise was made in September, 1955 that the regulation would be amended. It has not yet been amended. I want the Minister for the Navy (Mr. Davidson) who is seated at the table, to find out why the regulation has not been amended, because these people cannot receive any benefit until the regulation is amended.

I should like to develop one or two other points, but through the graciousness of the Minister at the table, I am allowed to speak for a certain time. I understand that this bill will not be debated after to-night. On behalf of honorable members on this side of the House, I lodge an emphatic protest, because many of them desire to speak on. this measure. Indeed, I feel that there are many members opposite with distinguished war records who would like to say something in criticism of the Government. Perhaps it is with this in mind that the Government has reduced to an absolute minimum the time allowed for debate on this measure. I ask the Minister to see that the matters I have raised here to-night, and the matters that have been raised by the honorable member for Bass and the honorable member for Parkes, receive further consideration and that the men and women who sacrificed so much to keep our shores safe from the Japanese invaders are given the justice and treatment that they deserve.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Chaney) adjourned.

House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

page 1161

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Mr. and Mrs. Vladimir Petrov.

Public Service

Mr Cleaver:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

r asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has considerable concern been expressed in respect of the substantial increase in the number of persons employed by governmental bodies revealed in the latest employment statistics issued by the Commonwealth Statistician?
  2. What action is being taken by the Government to limit further engagements?
  3. Will the Government extend the efficiency campaign introduced in the Department of Customs and Excise last year to all other departments?
Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. There has been some criticism of the growth in numbers in the Public Service in recent times, not all of it well informed. I draw the honorable member’s attention to my statement in the House of Representatives on 3rd October.
  2. I can assure the honorable member that before any increases in staff are provided they are scrutinized by the Public Service Board. I have recently re-emphasized to all departments the need to explore every administrative alternative by way of internal staff adjustment, overhaul of procedures, &c, before any request is made for increased establishment. Recently, I announced the formation of a committee to inquire into recruitment processes and standards in the Public Service. Further, the Treasurer stated in his Budget speech that - the Government has decided to make a full review of the functions of all Commonwealth Departments and has established a Committee of Cabinet for the purpose. This committee will examine the functions performed by each department from the stand-point of cost and of public need and will report its conclusions to Cabinet.

The Public Service Board is preparing material to assist the committee, and some has already been circulated. The committee will commence its meetings quite soon.

  1. The approach to efficiency reflected in the campaign “ Operation Work Simplification “, introduced by the Department of Customs and Excise, is common to all departments, and is being pursued assiduously throughout the Service.

Equal Pay for the Sexes.

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Minister for Immigration, on behalf of the. Prime Minister, in April last received a deputation from an organization known as the New South Wales Combined Equal Pay Committee, which requested action to introduce equal pay for the sexes throughout Australia?
  2. If so, has the matter raised by the deputation received consideration, and when does he propose to announce the Government’s decision?
Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. Yes.
  2. The Minister for Immigration wrote to the deputation on my behalf on 17th September, indicating that he had reported to me and that, in addition, the Minister for Labour and National Service had received, on 2nd September, a deputation led by Mr. Monk, president of the Australian Council of Trades Unions, which advocated the adoption of the principle of equal pay for the sexes. The Minister for Labour and National Service, in his reply to the A.C.T.U. deputation, had indicated that a dilemma seemed to exist. So long as the basic wage is determined on the principle of being the maximum the economy can sustain, the grant of equal pay to women could only be secured by awarding a smaller proportion of the total wage fund to the male wage-earner, who, generally speaking, has heavier social responsibilities. This could result either in a reduction of the male wage rate or the deferment of an increase in the male wage rate which might otherwise have been granted. The Minister for Labour and National Service asked that these points and considerations should be studied, and he told the deputation that the answers which he might be given would be of considerable assistance to him in preparing material for Cabinet’s consideration. In reporting the above to the New South Wales deputation, the Minister for Immigration suggested that it might like to consider whether it could join with the A.C.T.U. in further thought along these lines.

Uranium

Mr Ward:

d asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice -

  1. Are uranium miners exposed to any risk of radiation arising from their occupation?
  2. If so, what steps have been taken to protect them against any such possibility?
Mr Beale:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has furnished the following reply: -

  1. Within the range of grades of uranium ore which are being mined in Australia, radiation is virtually a negligible factor, and is effectively controlled by simple precautions which are standard practice. This is the case in practically all countries in which uranium deposits are being worked. In the relatively few mines in which high grade ores are present special precautions are necessary; but these are fully understood and give workers complete protection.
  2. The Commonwealth in 1954 organized a conference of State and Federal Mines Departments and health authorities and other interested organizations to examine the question of occupational hazards in relation to uranium mining and treatment. As a result, a code of safe working practice, based on accepted international standards was drawn up and adopted for use wherever uranium mining and milling operations are conducted. The code is administered by the State governments in the States and by the Commonwealth in the Northern Territory. There is a wide body of world experience on these matters, and the Australian code was framed after careful study of world practice.

Commercial Television Programmes

Mr Haylen:

n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Do imported syndicated features such as Racket Squad, Captured, San Francisco Beat, Dragnet, Cross Current, Boston Blackie and Mark Saber constitute a television school in advanced criminology?
  2. Will he ascertain whether the Broadcasting Control Board has approved of these features?
  3. Is it considered that these presentations represent the Australian way of life?
  4. Will he ask the board to seek the views of responsible police administrators as to the effect of detailed explanations of crime technique through the medium of television?
  5. Will he also ask the board to examine latest reports from leading social workers in the United States of America into the effects of such television crime features in relation to the growing problem of juvenile delinquency?
Mr Davidson:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. (f the description applied to these television programmes by the honorable member is accepted, it must surely be applied also to very many productions of the stage and the cinema which, with the detection of crime as their theme, have given entertainment to young and old for a long time.
  2. Programmes of commercial television stations must comply with the television programme standards determined by the board, pursuant to section 99 of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1956. All imported films are subject to censorship by the Commonwealth Film Censorship Board and by arrangement between the board and the Broadcasting Control Board, the procedure for the censorship of television films is based on the appropriate provisions of the television programme standards and the classification of films set out in the standards, namely - (i) unrestricted for television, (ii) not suitable foi children, (iii) not to be televised before 8.30 p.m., and (iv) not suitable for television. Special provision was made in the standards to ensure the televising, during times when the television audience is likely to contain a large number of children and young people, of good, wholesome programmes which family groups of all ages might view with complete confidence. None of the programmes mentioned by the honorable member is televised before 7.30 p.m. and only two before 9 p.m.
  3. No.
  4. I am sure the police authorities will not be slow in raising this matter if they think that these features are undesirable in the public interest.
  5. Such matters are under continuous study by the board which, with my approval, has appointed an Advisory Committee on Children’s Television Programmes.

Australian Content in Television Programmes,

Mr Haylen:

n asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Will he obtain from the Broadcasting Control Board details of the Australian content of present television programmes?
  2. Does the Australian content include descriptions of trotting events, basket-ball, racing, turf tipping, rock ‘n roll sessions in the studios and the television exposure of how the press interviews celebrities?
  3. Is it a fact that to date neither Sydney commercial television station has produced a single dramatic feature or purchased a single Australian script?
Mr Davidson:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. During the month of August, 1957, the Australian content of the television programmes provided by the four commercial stations in operation was 46 per cent., 51 per cent., 62 per cent. and 67 per cent, respectively and in the case of the two national stations 39 per cent, and 48 per cent, of the total hours of transmission.
  2. The Australian content, for the purposes of 1, includes programmes which may be described as variety, sporting, news, talks and interviews, musical, religious, women’s and children’s sessions.
  3. Station ATN is at present producing once weekly a quarter-hour dramatic feature utilizing Australian casts and scripts.

Shipbuilding

Mr Whitlam:

m - Asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. How many ships are under construction or on order (a) in Australia and (b) overseas for (i) the Australian national line and (ii) other owners?
  2. What is the tonnage of these ships?
  3. Who are the builders?
  4. In the case of the ships under construction or on order overseas (a) what was the date on which the order was approved by the Government and (b) what is the estimated date of completion’’
Mr Townley:
Minister for Immigration · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has furnished the following reply: -

  1. Merchant vessels under construction or on order in Australia, (i) for the Australian national line -
  2. For other owners -
  3. Merchant vessels under construction or on order overseas (i) for the Australian national line - Nil, (ii) for other owners -

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 October 1957, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1957/19571008_reps_22_hor16/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant