House of Representatives
12 September 1961

23rd Parliament · 3rd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1961

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

page 1035

DEATH OF SENATOR REX WHITING PEARSON

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– It was a very great shock to all of us, to whatever party we may belong, to learn of the death yesterday of Senator Rex Whiting Pearson, a senator from South Australia and a man who, I think, was a friend of everybody in both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, I know that 1 speak for all members of this House, though no doubt my friend, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), will also say something, when I express our genuine sorrow at the untimely death of our colleague and friend. He was 56 years old - much too young to die.

Before he came to the Federal Parliament, Senator Pearson had been Member for Flinders in the House of Assembly in South Australia for ten years, having entered the South Australian House of Assembly in 1941 and having been reelected in 1944, 1947 and 1950. From 1945 to 1951, he served as Government Whip and in March, 1951, he resigned from the State Parliament to contest the federal election. He was elected to the Senate from South Australia and was, of course, re-elected in 1953 and 1958.

In the Senate, he acted as a Temporary Chairman of Committees from September, 1953. But perhaps the great service he rendered in that House and in this Parliament was the contribution he made of his own personality and character. He was a quiet man, a courteous man, but a man of deeply held principles, to which he adhered in all circumstances. I do not suppose there was a man in the Senate more warmly regarded in a personal sense or more greatly admired for the true qualities that a man can bring to the service of the Commonwealth than was Rex Pearson. He, of course, was known not only in the Senate; he was known here. One of the great features that one likes to remember about parliamentary life is that there are

F.7613/61.- P..-12Z]

many friendships that have nothing to do with party and many respects that are given to people with whom one can disagree most violently.

We have lost a friend, a distinguished servant of this country, a man who has, as the dates have shown, given the bulk of his adult life to the service of Australia and who has done it without making any enemy and without forfeiting one belief for which he stood. Sir, I move -

That this House expresses its deep regret at the death of Rex Whiting Pearson, a Senator from the State of South Australia, places on record its appreciation of his long and meritorious public service and tenders its profound sympathy to his family in its bereavement.

In doing that, I venture to hope that what is said in this House - it will be said with the greatest sincerity - may afford some comfort to those who have suffered this bereavement.

Mr CALWELL:
Leader of the Opposition · Melbourne

– The Opposition, too, feels grieved at the passing of Senator Pearson. It was only a week or so ago that we learned that he was ill. He was a quiet, humble, man who did not speak of his troubles or his ailments. It was not until a fortnight ago that we found out for the first time that he had suffered an attack about two years ago. He kept all those troubles to himself. When we found that Senator Pearson was stricken with an incurable disease only quite recently, we all felt very sorry for him and for his family.

As the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) has said, Senator Pearson was a man who commended himself by his conduct and his own natural qualities to all who were privileged to know him and to share his friendship. He did not obtrude himself at any time. His friendship was easily obtained, but it was never forced on people. He represented his State to the very best of his ability and worked hard for it. Naturally, he is remembered best where he came from. As the Prime Minister has said, Senator Pearson served in the Parliament of South Australia and was succeeded in the seat of Flinders by his brother who is now a Minister of State in the Playford Government. Senator Pearson served on various committees of this Parliament and in the natural course of events would have been destined to serve at some time or other as a Minister of State had the party of his allegiance remained in office or, if it had been defeated, had later returned to office. Senator Pearson had all the requisite qualities. He had natural ability and determination and his own views of what was right and wrong and what should be done. This Parliament can ill afford to sustain his loss.

To his sorrowing relatives and friends, we of the Opposition add our words to those of the Prime Minister. We hope that time will help to assuage the grief that they so naturally feel at the passing of a man at his relatively early age. As the Prime Minister has said, he was too young to die; but he has left a fragrant memory both for his political friends and his political opponents, for his own State colleagues and for those who knew him in the wider sphere. We are all the better for having known him.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– I should like to associate my colleagues of the Australian Country Party with the motion that has been proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) and supported by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). Senator Rex Pearson was a man whom we came to know, respect and like. He was a quiet man but nonetheless a very firm man in his personal and political convictions. He brought to the Parliament the living evidence that one can have very firm views here without being involved in political tensions. He was never wavering in his views and I am sure that he gained respect and friendship not only from all those of us who came in personal contact with him but also by his public conduct over the years in both the State and Commonwealth Parliaments. We all grieve his passing very greatly and tender our sincere sympathy to his widow and family.

Mr FORBES:
Barker

– I should like to associate my back-bench colleagues from South Australia with this motion. We have lost a much admired colleague and a very dear friend; one who, until illness struck him down a few years ago, was, by his experience, his ability and his deep understanding of human nature, our undisputed leader.

While we join in expressing our deep sympathy with Senator Pearson’s wife and son, I should like the House to give some thought to his mother. Her husband was killed in France in the First World War and she set to work to rear four young sons. How well she performed that task is testified to by the tributes that have been paid to Senator Pearson to-day, and by the records of her other sons, one of whom, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) remarked, is a Minister in the South Australian Government. Another son was killed in New Guinea during the last war while serving there as a clergyman. Now Senator’ Pearson has gone long before his time.

I support the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honorable members standing in their places.

Mr Menzies:

– Mr. Speaker, I suggest that as a mark of respect to the late honorable senator you suspend the sitting of the House until 8 p.m.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I feel sure that the suggestion made by the right honorable the Prime Minister meets with the concurrence of the House. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased senator, the sitting is suspended. The Chair will be resumed at 8 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 2.43 to 8 p.m.

page 1036

QUESTION

MENZIES MINISTRY

Mr CALWELL:

– I preface a question to the Prime Minister with the observation that when he came back from the Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference on 30th March of this year he said, during a press conference in Sydney, that he was not aware that he was doing any considerable amount of work more, because he had taken on the portfolio of External Affairs, than he did when he was solely Prime Minister. Subsequently, according to the official transcript, he said in answer to a question about Treasury matters -

I won’t take on three men’s work. Two men’s work is enough.

My question, Sir, is this: As the Prime Minister is at present taking on three men’s work - namely, that of the Prime Minister, that of the Minister for External Affairs and that of the Treasurer - does he now maintain that the external affairs of Australia are currently so trouble free and uncomplicated that no Minister is required to give them specific attention; or that the economy of Australia is at present so smooth-running that it does not require the specific and detailed attention of a Minister; or that he himself is now able to do the work of three men-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable gentleman is going beyond the point of tolerance by indulging in argument.

Mr CALWELL:

– I am not arguing anything, Sir. I am asking a question based on a statement by the Prime Minister. 1 shall proceed, Sir, with your approval, and only with your approval.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I direct the honorable member’s attention to the fact that, if there were any relaxation of the Standing Orders in this case, there would be a tendency for other honorable members to follow his example.

Mr CALWELL:

– May I conclude my question, Sir? Or does the Prime Minister maintain that he himself is now able to do the work of three men, contrary to his estimate of his own powers given as recently as March of this year? This is the final point. As you are long suffering, Sir, the sting is always in the tail. If the Prime Minister has not changed his mind since March last and still thinks that two men’s work is enough, will he say which two of his present three jobs he intends to do?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am greatly indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for his extremely witty series of questions. If he is really as interested in the state of my mind as he says he is, I must tell him that my mind on these matters is exactly the same as it was in - did he say March or April?

Mr Calwell:

– March.

Mr MENZIES:

– It is exactly the same as it was in March. I never feel compelled to change my mind, as he does occasionally. If he will look back over his notes he will remember that I said - I have said it repeatedly - that I have the great advantage in the Department of External Affairs of powerful assistance from Senator Gorton, who sits in another place. He does a great deal of work that would otherwise come on to my table. I read the documents and consider the problems that

I would consider as the Prime Minister. I agree, of course, that I lack the opportunity of consulting a full-time Minister for External Affairs. But really the thing has worked, I think, pretty tolerably. I am not aware of having said less to this House about external affairs than has any of my predecessors in that office. I think that I have given the opportunity, and will give it again this week, to the Opposition to explain how wrong I am, or how wrong we are. As for the Treasury portfolio, this is - what is the phrase - rather a ham act, because last year when the Treasurer was away I acted as Treasurer, and I do not remember any complaint from the honorable gentleman, but he explains to-night perfectly on my behalf. He says: “ Is the economy running so smoothly? Are things going so well that you can act for the Treasurer? “ The answer is, “ Yes “. And how sorry all you boys are that that is the state of affairs.

page 1037

QUESTION

RUSSIAN ROCKET TESTS

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any official confirmation of a radio report that as from to-morrow Soviet Russia will begin testing powerful new multi-stage rockets in an area of the central Pacific to the north-east of Australia. If so, has adequate warning of the danger area been given to all Australian ships and aircraft?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am aware of this report, which was a report from Tass. Our embassy in Moscow has confirmed this information and has in fact advised us that the announcement was published in “ Pravda “ the following day. According to the announcement, the tests will be carried out in a central part of the Pacific bounded by certain co-ordinates. I need not repeat them; they have appeared in the newspapers. Tass, being the official newsagency, was authorized to announce that the Government of the Soviet Union requests the governments of other countries using naval and air routes in the Pacific to instruct relevant agencies that ships and planes keep off the indicated area. I may say, Sir, that the announcement has been brought to the notice of the Department of Air, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Shipping and Transport and the Department of Civil Aviation, so that aircraft and vessels may be warned accordingly.

page 1038

QUESTION

PREFERENCE TO AUSTRALIAN GOODS

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Government supporting the general commercial drive intended to impress upon the public the desirability and importance of buying Australian-made goods whenever and wherever possible? If the Government is supporting this commercial drive, is it the policy of the Government to insist upon the principle that in all contracts let by Commonwealth Government departments Australian manufactured goods and parts be used wherever possible?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– The problem of preference to Australian goods is one that is not quite so simple as the question might suggest, but it is one that has been only recently once more engaging the attention of the Government. The honorable member, of course, will realize at once that if some clear artificial or concrete rule were laid down on this matter the whole process of tendering might be affected accordingly - men being human beings - and therefore in the Government we have been directing our attention to ways and means of ensuring that tendering is true and that in a genuine sense preference will be given to Australian goods. The honorable member may take it that, broadly expressed, that represents our policy.

page 1038

QUESTION

FINANCE

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Treasurer. First, is the right honorable gentleman aware that English insurance companies have received a circular from the Chancellor of the Exchequer requesting them to remit to the United Kingdom a higher proportion of profits earned abroad than in the past? Secondly, adverting to the so-called “ invisible “ item, “ insurances “, in the adverse balance of our overseas trade, has the Treasurer or the Government given consideration to redressing this in some measure by means of legislation along the lines of that operating in Canada in respect of insurance companies or by any other means? Finally, if the details are, understandably, not at the right honorable gentleman’s fingertips at this -moment, will he have the matter examined and give an informative reply in due course including the figures and the factors involved and the reasons for the Government’s considered attitude on this question?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– In reply to the last part of the honorable member’s question, I will do as he asks. I do not have the details, as the honorable gentleman quite rightly says, at my fingertips, but I will see that the points that he has raised are dealt with in an appropriate reply.

page 1038

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mr COURTNAY:
DAREBIN, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Social Services received any request from the United Kingdom Government for aid in distributing United Kingdom unemployment benefits to unemployed British migrants in Australia similar to the additional benefits now being distributed by the Italian Government?

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

– No approaches have been made to me to enter into an arrangement with the United Kingdom Government or any other government such as the honorable member has suggested nor would approaches of the kind be of any value. I remind the honorable member that there is a complete and absolute reciprocal agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia concerning social services. To my great personal satisfaction it is working admirably for the governments of both countries and for the people they are elected to serve.

page 1038

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– My question to the Minister for Trade is based on the fact that much tobacco leaf has been left unsold in recent auctions and is being left unsold in current auctions and that obviously any shortage has to be replaced by imports. Can the Minister state whether the Government feels that it is unable to do anything about the buying policy of manufacturers? Continuance of the policies which the tobacco manufacturing companies followed in the last several seasons would take up a lot of leaf at present being left unsold and avoid the necessity for so much expenditure on imports. Has the Government a policy to ensure that growers’ tobacco is bought?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– It is quite clear that if insufficient Australian tobacco is purchased to take care of Australian manufacturers’ requirements a greater quantity will have to be imported. The Government is very concerned at the fact that in the present circumstances quite substantial quantities of Australian leaf are being left unsold. A great deal of advice - and I think I can say a great deal of evidence - is being given to the Government that types of tobacco leaf which found a ready sale in other years are being left unsold this year. Of course, the Government will not expect leaf which would be unacceptable to Australian smokers to be bought; but it does expect leaf which is acceptable to Australian smokers to be bought at a fair price, and used.

It does appear that the type and grade of leaf that manufacturers bought in previous years can be regarded by growers as a guide in planting and in the techniques of production and grading of their leaf. The Government and the growers are so concerned in this matter that manufacturers ought not to change their buying policies without seeing that State and Federal governments and the growers are fully informed of the new policy. Likewise, the growers’ organizations have an obligation to keep in touch with events and inform their members.

The Government is awaiting the report of two committees. First, it is awaiting the report of the review committee which has been examining for the Commonwealth and State governments, the growers and the manufacturers, the leaf that has not been bought at auction. Secondly, the Australian Tobacco Growers Council, as the honorable member for Indi knows, recently asked the Commonwealth and State governments to help it in the establishment of a committee to study the problems of the industry. I can assure the honorable gentleman that, as soon as the reports of these two bodies are to hand, the Government will give early and very full consideration to them.

page 1039

QUESTION

BASIC WAGE

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the conflicting statements which have been made in this House during recent weeks by his junior Ministers, the Treasurer and the Minister for Labour and National Service, will the right honorable gentleman inform the House of the size of the family unit which the Government believes can be sustained in frugal comfort - to use the words of the 1943 judgment of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration - on the present basic wage?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am shocked to discover this further evidence of lack of harmony on the Opposition side. A little earlier to-night the Leader of the Opposition challenged me about holding down three jobs. The honorable member for Lang now wants me to add a fourth - that of arbitrator. I really have not the time to do so.

page 1039

QUESTION

QUARANTINE STATIONS

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– Will the Minister for Health consider asking his department to conduct a survey of the live-stock quarantine stations in Tasmania with a view to ascertaining the suitability of the present sites in relation to the present-day needs of quarantine as affected by changing transport systems and the vast growth of suburban buildings adjacent to these sites?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– There are two animal quarantine stations in Tasmania - one near Launceston and one at Hobart. The station near Launceston is a State station and is not used at all by the Commonwealth Government. So I have no responsibility in that regard. The station near Hobart is very conveniently situated. The honorable gentleman may be interested to know that some time ago a quite considerable area of it was surrendered for the purposes of the Tasmanian Government. However, J shall ask officers of the department to have a look at it. In fact, I shall do better; I shall look at it myself.

UNEMPLOYMENT. Mr. POLLARD. - Is the Minister for Labour and “National Service aware that the Government’s credit squeeze and other financial measures have caused serious unemployment and distress in the city of Broadmeadows, Victoria, that the local benevolent society cannot cope with the problem, and that the Broadmeadows City Council has called a conference to be held on Wednesday, 27th September, to consider the matter? Will the Minister say what financial or other assistance the Commonwealth Government can give to remedy this state of affairs?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I was not aware that, due to the action of General MotorsHolden’s Limited in temporarily laying off certain employees at Fishermen’s Bend, there could be difficulty at Broadmeadows during the next few weeks. I can make no other comments about the matter beyond saying that General Motors-Holden’s Limited has informed me that on this occasion the lay-off should be only temporary, and that it hopes this is the only lay-off that will be necessary. Naturally, I regret that lay-offs have occurred; but the company has assured me that in its opinion, based on the facts known to it at present, there will not be any further lay-offs. Moreover - this is not my opinion; it is the company’s opinion based on its knowledge of the facts - the company does not think there will be any permanent retrenchments. As to the last part of the honorable gentleman’s question, I have not been fully informed of the facts concerning the local council. I shall inquire from the Department of Labour and National Service, and if there is any information that I can give to him, I shall let him have it.

page 1040

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT BOARD

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Primary Industry. The activities of the Australian Meat Board are limited by its constitution to the promotion of the sale of meat. Is not the time ripe for the board to be empowered to do more than this and actively to sell meat overseas, particularly to open up new markets, as is done by the New Zealand Export Development Company?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The Australian Meat Board is essentially a regulatory body, but it is empowered to buy and sell meat on behalf of the Commonwealth. However, that power is not being exercised at present. 1 believe that the thinking of this Government and of the industry itself is that the industry can best manage its own affairs and deal through the exporters who have done such a good job for Australia. I think that cannot be denied. However, the board will survey the full export position at its next meeting, and I look forward with interest to its recommendations.

page 1040

QUESTION

CANBERRA PRICES

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I ask the Prime Minister, as Acting Treasurer: Has the Commonwealth Statistician under compilation a consumer price index for Canberra? If this is so, will the right honorable gentleman ascertain when the index may become available? If a consumer price index is not at present being compiled for Canberra, will he consider the need for such an index to enable the cost of living in this city to be properly assessed?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– Quite shortly: I do not know, but I will find out.

page 1040

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS

Mr JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the right honorable gentleman’s recent visit to Newcastle, when the immediate needs of that city were explained to him in detail, I now refer him to the New South Wales Government’s £10,000,000 harbour improvement plan and the Commonwealth Government’s decision to allocate £1,500,000 in this financial year for thai developmental plan. I ask: If by chance this Government is returned to office at the end of this year, will it, in the next two years, renew that £1,500,000 allocation, and will the Prime Minister immediately make a £1 for £1 grant up to £20,000 for the establishment of an autonomous university on the site proposed at Shortland on terms similar to the grant that was made last year to the Monash University in Melbourne?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– This is a rather agreeable argumentative question. The honorable member knows that what happens about universities will follow the pattern which has been established and will be pursuant to inquiries made. But I do not like that bit in his question when he said, “ If by chance the Government is returned . . . “. The Government cannot win the next election by chance. It can only win it by the votes of the Australian people.

page 1041

QUESTION

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Postmaster-General been directed to the proposed planning in the United States to throw into the stratosphere a copper screen of very thin wires for the purpose of bouncing television signals? Will he inform the House of the effect that this copper screen will have on radio and television reception in Australia?

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

– I have seen some reference to the matter raised by the honorable member for Balaclava and have consequently made some inquiries as to the possibilities inherent in such a proposal. My information is that if such a proposal were carried out - whether it is possible or not I do not know - it would not offer the possibility of any interference with either radio or television reception in Australia. As I am informed, the proposal will entail the putting up of a screen of very fine copper wire, approximately 1,000 miles above the earth’s surface. Such radio and television signals as are bounced back come from the ionosphere, about 500 miles up. When that factor is taken into account, in conjunction also with the fact that the normal radius of signals from either a television or radio transmitter is about 100 miles, it will be seen that if by some chance a signal were bounced back from 1,000 miles up it would have to travel about 2,000 miles and by the time it got back to the earth it would be too weak to have any effect or to be picked up at all. Whether that applies in the case of radio astronomy I do not know.

page 1041

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry a question. I preface it by reminding the Minister that last week in answer to a question he said that a committee would inquire this week into the financial position of tobacco-growers to determine the degree of hardship which they are suffering. I ask the Minister: Who are the members of the committee? Where and how can it be reached? To whom can I give the names and addresses, which I have, of 48 tobacco growers who are suffering hardship at the present time?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– The committee that was established by the Australian Tobacco Growers Council is now operating in Western Australia. 1 suggest that any communication should be directed to the president of that council. I do not know the names of all the personnel of the committee. They include a representative of the Government of Western Australia, from the Department of Agriculture, and one of my own officers, a Mr. Harvey, who is well acquainted with all the factors pertaining to the tobacco industry. However, 1 will obtain the names of the members of the committee for the honorable member.

page 1041

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr BANDIDT:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Government considered the dire effects that would follow the introduction of a capital gains tax?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I have thought about this problem a great deal. The more I think of the proposal the sillier it appears.

page 1041

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Mr CALWELL:

– I address a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. It is supplementary to the question asked by the honorable member for Yarra. Will the Minister appoint a government committee to examine the problems of tobaccogrowers in Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria? Growers in those States are suffering hardship because they cannot market all their crops this year, allegedly because the buyers regard a large proportion of the crop as unusable? The result is that many growers have to take their leaf home again and either destroy it or plough it back, suffering great loss in either event.

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– To superimpose another committee on the review committee and the committee appointed by the Australian Tobacco Growers Council would simply add confusion to the present position. I refer the Leader of the Opposition to the answer given by the Minister for Trade to the earlier question about tobacco, which, I believe, sets out clearly the position of the Government.

page 1042

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Social Services. By way of preface, I refer the honorable gentleman to the reciprocal agreement entered into with the United Kingdom Government, and to the fact that some immigrants, because their residence in the United Kingdom extended over too few years, cannot establish the twenty years’ residential qualification necessary before the age pension can be received. I ask the Minister whether any ruling has been given that periods of active service with the armed forces of the United Kingdom should be treated as residence in that country on the principle that the home addresses of the various units are in the United Kingdom.

Mr ROBERTON:
CP

– The reciprocal agreement entered into by the Government of the United Kingdom and the Australian Government provides that residence in one country shall be accepted as residence in the other. A similar arrangement applies in respect of New Zealand, under the reciprocal agreement entered into between the Government of that country and the Australian Government. That reciprocal agreement, as I said in reply to another question, is working admirably. Insofar as I am in a position to judge, when a resident of one country is engaged in the armed services of that country abroad, his position with regard to residence in the country concerned is not prejudiced in any way. Whether a person is serving in the armed forces of the United Kingdom or is actually residing in that country, the reciprocal agreement still applies.

page 1042

QUESTION

COMPANY PROFITS

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister. As certain companies that enjoy a favoured position in the industrial life of this country, because of the substantial markets for their products and a succession of annual profits running into millions of pounds, have recently taken measures to preclude Australians from holding shares in them, so that there will no longer be any necessity for them to disclose their profits, will the Prime Minister take suitable action to compel such a company to declare its profits publicly, in order to safeguard the community against profiteering and excessive charges?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I believe I detect a fairly broad hint as to the particular company to which the honorable member refers. I simply point out to him that this Parliament has no jurisdiction over the general company law. What is to be done in the case of Victoria must be considered in the light of the Victorian Companies Act. So far as I am concerned, if I had power to enforce the disclosure of the profits I certainly would do so.

page 1042

QUESTION

COMMUNIST CHINA

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Consistent with whatever considerations may be appropriate to security, could the Government have prepared a paper setting out the military forces at the disposal of Communist China? I refer particularly to the development and preparation of nuclear weapons by Communist China.

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– As the honorable member will realize, it would be quite impossible to be accurate in any such calculation, because the information coming out of Communist China is pretty incomplete; but insofar as we have any information that may seem to be reasonably on the mark, I will be very happy to have it provided.

page 1042

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that 1,000 postmen were bitten by dogs in the course of their duties during the last financial year? Is there a shortage of dog food due to the credit squeeze?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– Honorable members will remember that this matter has been referred to in this chamber previously, and that I made a press statement some time ago in which I stated that if householders’ dogs bit our postmen, then the postmen would be relieved of the responsibility for delivering letters to the households concerned. I have recently inquired about the result of our suggestion that householders should exercise some control over dogs of this kind but I have not had any further reports. Whether the incidence of dog bites has diminished I do not know, but 1 can assure the honorable member that the department is quite serious in this matter.

If postmen are submitted to such attacks, we will relieve them of the responsibility of facing this risk.

page 1043

QUESTION

PINEAPPLES

Mr BROWNE:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry.. Will he confer with the pineapple growers and canners in Queensland with a view to more attractive packaging of pineapples for export, particularly those from the Wide Bay area?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– The pineapple industry in Queensland is essentially a State industry operating under a State marketing act. I will pass on the honorable member’s request to the State Minister for Agriculture.

page 1043

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. It concerns the American system of lay-offs which is being increasingly applied in the Australian motor industry. If an employee is given a week’s notice of dismissal, but is told that his job will be available to him again after an interval of a certain number of working days, is he entitled to receive the unemployment benefit, and after what interval is he entitled to receive it?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Naturally enough, I have inquired from the department whether there are any facts upon which we can come to the conclusion that the American system of lay-offs and seasonal periods might apply in Australia. The fact is that we have no evidence of that kind. The present lay-off, of which the honorable gentleman must be thinking, has no association with seasonal conditions; it is related to the supply and demand position and the build-up of stocks in this country.

As to the second part of the honorable gentleman’s question, I think he well knows that people who are laid off even for temporary periods become entitled to employment “benefit after seven days. In other words, if people are laid off for eight days or more, they are entitled to register for employment, and subsequently ask that unemployment benefit be paid to them.

page 1043

QUESTION

RAIN-MAKING

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health, in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, relating to the conference of rainmakers from various parts of the world which is being held in Canberra at the present time. Is the Minister in a position to say who was responsible for calling this conference? Further, at the conclusion of this conference, will a report be. made available to those people who are interested?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This is much more than a conference of rainmakers; it is a conference on cloud physics and it is jointly sponsored by the Australian Academy of Science and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. I have no doubt that a full account of its proceedings will be published, but not from -Government sources so fax as I am aware.

page 1043

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr REYNOLDS:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service whether he is aware of statements made at the weekend by the superintendent and general secretary of the Sydney City Mission, the Reverend N. F. Reeve, by Canon R. G. Fillingham of the Church of England Home Mission Society, and by a spokesman for the Matthew Talbot Hostel for Destitute Men to the effect that Sydney charity organizations are being severely taxed to meet the demands of unemployed persons and their dependent families for food relief. Is it a fact that welfare workers described the unemployment position as the worst since the depression? Did they also condemn the federal unemployment benefit as unrealistic and inadequate? If the Government is still unable to provide employment for all these unfortunate people, will the Minister recommend that the charity organizations providing relief be given financial assistance to aid them in their task?

Mr MCMAHON:
LP

– As the House will know, the Minister for Social Services has already introduced a bill dealing with unemployment benefits for an unemployed worker, his wife and his children. The House will have an opportunity of voting on that measure when the second-reading debate is completed.

I have not seen the statements made by the three persons to whom the honorable member has referred. I have seen several statements which have been made, but I cannot specifically identify those to which he has referred. But I can say to the honorable member that we have said that from now on we can expect the employment situation to improve generally.

page 1044

QUESTION

HEART DISEASE

Mr CHRESBY:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Health. In view of the fact that recently a department under his jurisdiction issued a very valuable booklet relating to the ability to eat and live, would the Minister consider the production, for the benefit of the people, of a booklet setting out in non-technical terms the present opinion of the medical profession as to the causes of the various types of heart diseases?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do not think that this is really the responsibility of the Commonwealth Department of Health. The medical profession is amply qualified to speak for itself.

page 1044

QUESTION

MOTOR INDUSTRY

Mr L R JOHNSON:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service: Does the Government condone or condemn the General Motors Holden’s Limited lockout of 8,400 employees for periods ranging from two to four weeks? Has the Government given any intimation to the company that it disapproves of its short-term retrenchment policy? Have the profits of the company been such that it could reasonably be expected to carry its employees over this short period of over-production?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I think I can say that we all very much regret the fact that the company has temporarily laid off a large number of employees in Victoria and South Australia. However, as I have said before, the company has informed me that these lay-offs will be temporary and that it is not expected that there will be any more temporary lay-offs once the men have returned to their work. Expressing my personal opinion, I regret also that the company did not employ other methods to try to increase its sales. In view of what happened in the case of Australian Motor Industries Limited, the company might have made a temporary reduction in the list prices of its vehicles. This might have had a quite decisive effect on sales. Having said that, I point out that the policy relating to these matters is a question for the company itself. While we are very interested in what is done, the decision is one for the General Motors Company alone.

page 1044

ELECTORAL

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister and Minister for External Affairs · Kooyong · LP

– by leave - Confirming all the rumours, Mr. Speaker, the Government has decided to recommend to His Excellency, the Governor-General, that the House of Representatives be dissolved on 2nd November next and that the general election be held on 9th December. Other relevant dates, as I see them at present, are: Issue of writs, 3rd November; closing of nominations, 14th November; return of the writs; on or before 1st February, 1962.

Mr Costa:

– The best news Australia has had for a long time.

Mr MENZIES:

– Wonderful! The best news I have had for three years.

page 1044

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– by leave- 1 again thank the House for granting me leave to make what I hope will be the final statement in connexion with the accusation made by Senator Cole in the Senate on Wednesday, 30th August. Since my two previous statements I have been collecting further evidence in the fight to establish my complete innocence of the charge made against me. Any one in the same position as I would pursue the same course. After all, I was on the receiving end of a very grave accusation, the detrimental effect of which, especially among new Australians, is impossible to assess.

There are three groups of people who read about it: (a) Those who, knowing my background, rejected the accusation as false; (b) those who want to believe it, and repeat it to damage me politically; and (c) those who are left in doubt. So all fairminded people, surely, would agree I have the right to clear my name of this smear.

I was accused of having been not only a Communist, but a member of the Communist Party in Victoria before my transfer as a Methodist minister to Tasmania in 1944. 1 have already said that this is a malicious falsehood. I have voted for the Australian Labour Party since my first vote in 1933. From 1934 to 1941 1 was studying for the Methodist ministry and preparing myself for ordination, and was too busy with study and probation to take an active part in politics. From 1941 to 1944 I was Methodist minister at Foster in Victoria. There, in 1942, I joined the A.L.P. officially and helped to form branches. As Senator Pat Kennelly can confirm, for he was Victorian organizer at the time, 1 did active work for the Labour Party in these years.

In a further attempt to clear my name, my leader, the Honorable Arthur Calwell, of his own volition but with my approval contacted the Victorian Commissioner of Police and asked him to check up in the appropriate quarters. The Commissioner, Major-General S. H. Porter, C.B.E., D.S.O., replied saying that 1 have had no criminal record, which relieved me greatly, and have had no connexion with the Communist Party. If Senator Cole is still not satisfied I would welcome his getting the Commonwealth security service to check.

The other aspect of the accusation was Senator Cole’s statement that Dr. Ian Pearson, of Burnie, had told him I was a member of the Communist Party at Foster. Dr. Pearson categorically denied this. There has never been a branch of the Communist Party at Foster to my knowledge, and this has been proved through two other sources. One of Foster’s oldest residents has written to Mr. Calwell condemning the accusation against me and telling him there has never been a branch of the Communist Party in the town. I also confirmed this by contacting the editor of the “ Foster Mirror “, whose father before him had the paper, and they have never heard of there ever being a Communist Party branch in Foster.

I again ask Senator Cole to repeat his accusation outside parliamentary privilege, and I make this offer to him: If he can prove by concrete documented evidence that I have ever been a member of the

Communist Party, or the Eureka Youth League, I will resign from the Federal Parliament. Surely this is fair enough. If he cannot prove this accusation he ought to resign. In conclusion, I might add that I have received anonymous telephone calls with a distinct flavour of intimidation. In each case, after the caller spoke, without giving me his name, he hung up. I have also appreciated the wonderful support of many people including members from both sides of this Parliament. Several letters have come from different States - two of them from Liberal supporters - condemning the attack of Senator Cole and his baseless allegations. I have not attacked Senator Cole personally in any of my three statements in this House, and I do not intend to do so. It is my hope that this unhappy incident will have the effect of preventing wild, unsubstantiated accusations of communism from being levelled at members of the A.L.P. by leaders of the D.L.P., or even Government supporters, in the future. Such accusations are degrading to the accuser and a misuse of parliamentary privilege, which is a very precious thing in a democratic parliament.

page 1045

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1961

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5th September (vide page 806), on motion by Mr. Roberton -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr Allan Fraser:
Monaro · EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

.- I move-

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - “this House condemns the Government for having failed to increase rates of payment of various Social Services to correspond with increased prices, and particularly condemns the Government for again refusing to make any increase in child endowment, thus leaving child endowment unaltered since 19S0, during which time its purchasing value has halved”.

As the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) told us when he moved that the bill be read a second time, this is the twelfth successive year in which the present LiberalCountry Party Government has introduced social service legislation. The Minister did nor tell us that this is the eleventh successive year in which such legislation has contained no reference whatever to child, endowment. During. those years the value of money has halved. Inflation has been continuous. The basic wage has almost exactly doubled in that time. It has risen from £7 2s. a week to £14 8s., that being the weighted average for the six capital cities.

The prices index reflects the same process of continually rising prices. The mother knows it when she goes to do her shopping. When she seeks the needs of her children to-day she can buy only half what she .could buy previously. The Government, therefore, is guilty of betraying the mothers and the children. It piously proclaims that the family is the cornerstone of national life; yet, it has robbed the family of food and clothing,, of milk, eggs and butter for children’s stomachs.

Mr Mackinnon:

– “What about the free “milk scheme?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member ought to keep quiet. He should be ashamed. The- Government has robbed the family of shoes for children’s feet. There are many families going short of these essentials to-day because of the failure of the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Mackinnon) and his colleagues to endeavour to live up to the pledge on which they were elected to this Parliament. I refer to the pledge to maintain the value of social services.. The honorable member for Corangamite may not be aware that there are many families who are to-day going short of the essentials of life; more now than ever, because prices have soared higher wilh every year of this Government’s term of office. To-day, they are higher in this country than ever before, and there is no relief in the form of child endowment, either in the Budget or in this bill.

The point is that the larger the family the more cruel- is the Government’s betrayal of it, the more real the suffering that the mothers and the children experience. At a time when population is our greatest need, the people who dare to bring Australian children into the world-

Mr Hasluck:

– You do not dare to do it; you do it naturally.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know the Minister’s reputation in this matter. I would not quarrel with him- on his statement. The couple who dare,, economically, to bring Australian children into the world are penalized with increasing severity by this Government with each additional child they have. This deliberate withholding from the Australian family of money which is their right, money which belongs to them and not to the Government, occurs at a time when this same Government is pouring out unlimited millions to bring migrants to Australia from overseas, to meet the population need. It would be an utterly stupid action on the part of the Government if it were not in fact something far worse.

I have used the word “ betrayal “ to describe the Government’s conduct. I have spoken of the deliberate withholding of money which belongs to the family. It may be objected that those descriptions are immoderate, that they go further than is justified by the actual facts of the case; but the proof of the statements I have made is to be found in the words used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) when he was seeking election to the high office of Prime Minister of Australia. He then solemnly pledged that if the people would only elect him his Government would maintain the value of child endowment. He went further. He said that his Government would not only maintain the value of child endowment but also increase it; and in eleven successive years of continually declining value of child endowment-

Mr Mackinnon:

– He was re-elected.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Prime Minister has not lifted his little finger. It is true, as the honorable- member for Corangamite says, that he was re-elected. Apparently, to the honorable member, the thing that matters is the fact that the Prime Minister has been re-elected, not that- he is failing to honour his- pledged word.

Mr Mackinnon:

– That has been the judgment of the public.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Prime Minister has done nothing to maintain the value of child endowment. That is the challenge I offer to the honorable member for Corangamite and to every honorable member on the other side of the House. The Prime Minister has watched value flow out of child endowment, and neither he nor his Government has done anything about it. He has seen the suffering of the large family continually increasing and he has merely smiled. He has seen his solemn pledge turned into a mockery. He has ignored his publicly pledged word to the Australian people. Yet, of course, the Prime Minister is an honorable man.

Mr Hasluck:

– Hear, hear!

Mr Mackinnon:

– I am glad to hear the honorable member say that.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes. In fact he is a right honorable man. At least, his office gives him the right to the title “ right honorable “, and it is sweet in his ears, even though it was obtained by political deceit and held by political betrayal.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think that is a very grave reflection. I must ask the honorable member to withdraw that remark.

Mr Hasluck:

– It is a reflection on the people of Australia.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker. I state instead - and I trust that it will be stated in the most moderate language I can command in speaking of a situation which I think would fill any ordinary, decent man with anger - that the Prime Minister has maintained his office and his title of “ right honorable “ while, at the same time, he has repudiated the pledge to maintain the value of child endowment, on which he was elected to that office. I do not know whether that means the same thing, Mr. Speaker, but I hope it is at least in parliamentary form.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would not draw too much attention to it.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I shall draw as much attention to it as the Australian public will take of it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I say again: Of course, the Prime Minister is an honorable man. Has he not kept in full the promises that he made to his friends before he was elected?

Mr Anderson:

– What friends?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will tell you. I say that the answer comes in the form of record profits, record dividends, record prices, record hire-purchase rates and record interest rates. All those things bear witness to the full honouring of the Prime Minister’s promises to his friends.

Mr Anderson:

– This is demagoguery.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am indulging in demagoguery, am I?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask honorable members to cease interjecting and I ask the honorable member for EdenMonaro to address the Chair.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member for Hume has suggested that I am indulging in demagoguery. I think I am indulging in a mere statement of facts which cannot be controverted. A simple statement of the truth of this matter is that the Government pledged itself to maintain the value of child endowment and instead it has allowed half the value to run out of child endowment to the great injury of the Australian family, without doing anything about that. Is that demagoguery in the mind of the honorable member for Hume? It is certainly not demagoguery in the mind of the average Australian family. The common people, of course, were not the friends of the Prime Minister of this country. They were beneath his arrogant contempt, in my opinion.

Mr McMahon:

– Mr. Speaker, I take exception to those words used by the honorable gentleman. I ask that they be withdrawn. I refer to the words “ arrogant contempt “.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I ask the honorable member to restrain himself. I think the phrase to which the Minister has taken exception was fair comment, but the honorable member must restrain himself.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Indeed, I will. As I have said, I will be as restrained as I think any decent man can be in this rather unfortunate and unpleasant situation.

Mr McMahon:

– Again I ask that that phrase be withdrawn.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Minister may not canvass the ruling.

Mr McMahon:

– Sir-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I call on the honorable member for Eden-Monaro to continue.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I say that for the Prime Minister the family existed only to be politically tricked into voting him into the glittering prize of the Prime Ministership, and then the promises made to it were repudiated.

Mr Hasluck:

– That is a reflection on the electors.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a reflection on the electors, is it?

Mr Hasluck:

– You say that they can be tricked.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Do you not think that it is a reflection on the Government? Do you not feel any personal responsibility for the pledge to which you were a party?

Mr McMahon:

– If you are a decent man you will quote his words and show where he has not lived up to them.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have quoted them before.

Mr McMahon:

– Quote them now.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At the request of the Minister I will quote them now.

Mr McMahon:

– Well, do it.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– His words were, “This party, if elected to office, will not only maintain the full value of all social service payments; it will in fact increase them “.

Mr McMahon:

– Are you reading that from what he said?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am telling you what he said. Do you deny it?

Mr McMahon:

– I am asking you to read it.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does the Minister deny it? He knows his history and he knows the facts. This has been said over and over again in this chamber and has never been denied by any Minister. It was in the election speech of the Prime

Minister. 1 wonder whether any fairminded man can place any other interpretation on the fact that this Government solemnly pledged itself to maintain the value of child endowment and has since stood idly by while the value of child endowment has halved. The indictment, of course, is not only against the Prime Minister; it is equally against every member of the Liberal Party and the Country Party who subscribed to that pledge and was elected to Parliament on it. At that time every member of the Liberal Party and the Country Party did so subscribe and was so elected. Every one of them endorsed the pledge made by the Prime Minister and every one of them received his election to this Parliament on the strength of that pledge. Does not one of them feel the taint of personal dishonour” I would not willingly do a wrong to any member of the Government parties.

Mr Mackinnon:

– Not much!

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would not. So, if there is any member of the Government parties who, in those eleven years, has ever dared to stand in his place and demand that the pledge given be redeemed, I will withdraw the indictment against that member.

Mr Jess:

– You would make a very good deputy leader.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That interjection is completely irrelevant. What the honorable member should be concerned with is whether he feels himself bound by that pledge and whether he feels any obligation to the families of Australia to ensure that that pledge is carried out.

Mr Jess:

– I do more than you do.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member says that he does more than I do. He is in a position in which he can influence the decision of the Government. I am not in a position to influence the Government. I feel the position very strongly. He says that he feels it even more strongly than I do and he feels even more strongly than I do that this pledge ought to be kept. Therefore, I ask him what he has done in his place in this House to see that the pledge about which he feels so strongly was honoured. The answer is silence, because. although he feels strongly about the matter, for some reason or other he has not dared to do anything at all about it.

In answer to the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. Mackinnon), who is indicted as much as anybody else, I say that the indictment stands irrespective of the result of any election. It is a simple question, which any ordinary person can understand, of the making of a promise and keeping it. The honorable member for Corangamite is going through the gesture of washing his hands. That is the gesture that was made by Pontius Pilate on a similar occasion when he wished to rid himself of the responsibility for the action he was taking. But the honorable member for Corangamite cannot rid himself of the responsibility for the action for which he has as much responsibility as any other member of the Government parties.

Mr Mackinnon:

– At least I am not a hypocrite.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member says that he is not a hypocrite. In answer to his statement I simply say to him that he made and subscribed to a pledge that he would maintain the value of child endowment and he has done nothing about it. No doubt, to the honorable member for Corangamite that is not hypocritical from his point of view. I accept that. I do not know what he considers hypocritical. The rate of child endowment will not be put right until a Labour government comes to office in this country. Then the matter will be put right without delay.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen only one explanation of the Government’s failure to increase child endowment. That was given in this House the other day by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt). I intend to read it to the House because 7 think it is the strangest statement that has ever been made by a responsible Minister in this Parliament. If the Treasurer is now as ingenuous and simple as this answer makes him out to be, it is no wonder that the Australian economy is in the condition in which we find it to-day.

Mr Turnbull:

– That means a good condition.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The interjection by the honorable member for Mallee means that when 113,000 people are registered as unemployed in this country that is a good condition and a condition that the honorable members enjoys seeing in Australia. The honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) asked the Treasurer to explain the action of the Government in, for all practical purposes, making child endowment a dead letter. The first thing that the Treasurer did was to recall the circumstances in which he - because it was the same man - first introduced child endowment into the Australian Parliament. Child endowment had been in existence already for a number of years in New South Wales, having been pioneered there by a Labour government; but the man who is now the Treasurer was the first to introduce it into the Australian Parliament. In his answer he recalled the circumstances in which he did so. He said that in 1941 the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration -

  1. . examined the circumstances of the economy and the situation of families which had to live on the basic wage, and it came to the conclusion that the wage, although adequate for a man and wife with one or, at the most, two children, was not adequate for a family in which there were more than two children.

The Treasurer continued -

As it was unable to remedy the situation by an increase of the basic wage, which would have general application to all wage-earners, it recommended that the Government consider introducing a scheme of family endowment. The Government acted in accordance with this recommendation.

In other words, the Treasurer proclaimed that he had no enthusiasm for child endowment and that the Government had no idea of introducing child endowment. He said that child endowment was not part of the Government’s policy and that it introduced child endowment only on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court. The Treasurer’s statement was noi quite correct. I will state the facts. The court did have power to increase the basic wage, although the Treasurer claimed that it did not. The court warned the Government that if child endowment was not introduced the court would be compelled to increase the basic wage. The Government introduced child endowment on an Australia-wide basis not because it believed in it or because it wanted to help the Australian family but because it wished to avoid a general increase in the basic wage.

The Treasurer made that abundantly clear in the answer that 1 have quoted. In that answer he stated further -

T have always thought that it would have been better for the Australian community if, subsequently, the trade union movement, instead of periodically seeking increases solely in the basic wage and on the basis of the highest wage that industry could afford to pay, had pressed for at least portion of any increase to go into an endowment fund, thus benefiting families with more than two children.

Has any honorable member the slightest idea what the Treasurer meant by those words, because I certainly have not?

Mr Turner:

– That statement is perfectly straightforward and perfectly right.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– One membertrie honorable member for Bradfield - says that the Treasurer’s statement is perfectly straightforward and clear. Perhaps the honorable member will tell me whom the Treasurer had in mind to control the endowment fund, how it should be created and how payments should be distributed. The Treasurer made none of those things clear in his answer, but apparently they are clear to the honorable member for Bradfield.

Mr Turner:

– I do not have the right to reply now to the honorable member, as he well knows.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member for Bradfield says that he does not have the right to reply to me. He means that he has no right to interject.

Mr Turner:

– That is right.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the honorable member was quite ready to interject, and did, in fact, interject only a moment ago when he said that the Treasurer’s statement was perfectly clear. Only when I asked him to explain what the Treasurer means, and gave him time to do so, did he take refuge in the claim that he is not allowed to interject.

Mr Cleaver:

– He will explain later.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I hope so. It is perfectly clear that the trade union movement could not ask the court to pay into an endowment fund any portion of an increase granted to workers as the result of, say, an interstate dispute. The court would have no power to create such a fund; the union applying to the court would have no right to seek the creation of such a fund; there is no way by which portion of any increase granted to the workers could be paid into a fund; there would be no body that could manage the fund; and there would be no basis for the distribution of money from the fund. The Arbitration Court did not have power to do any of those things. But the Government did have the power.

Mr Turner:

– Could the court not ask the Government to co-operate?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The honorable member for Bradfield feels obliged to interject again.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I think it would be better if the honorable member for Bradfield obeyed the Standing Orders.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think it would be far better. In his answer to the honorable member for Wills the Treasurer said further -

But the trade union movement pursued the other course.

Then he made this most extraordinary statement -

Obviously, industry, being required to carry the highest wage that is within its capacity to pay, could not be expected to carry it in the other direction as well.

How on earth does that absolve the Government from honouring its pledge to maintain the value of child endowment? Child endowment is financed partially from payroll tax. Pay-roll tax is a charge on industry before the distribution of wages. Neither the trade union movement nor the court could establish an endowment fund. If such a power had resided in the court, the court in 1941 would not have been required to call upon the Government to introduce child endowment. The court was faced with the alternatives of increasing the basic wage - exercising the only power open to it - or waiting for the Government to introduce child endowment. It decided to call upon the Government to introduce child endowment. At the time the present Treasurer was the responsible Minister to whom the court’s request was made. He knows perfectly well that the alibi that he gives the Government for not increasing child endowment and maintaining its value in accordance with the cost of living is not worth the paper on which it is printed in “ Hansard “.

It is not only in respect of child endowment that this Government has dishonoured its pledges to maintain the value of social services. Although this is not a matter of any importance to honorable members opposite, the Government has also failed completely to alter the rate of funeral benefit, which was established at £10 back in 1943. This is a matter of great importance to a number of aged poor people and to a number of pensioners. Those people are considerably concerned to ensure that they have a decent burial. They are entitled to rely on this Government’s promise that the value of that minor benefit at least would be maintained. But during its thirteen years in office the Government has never altered the rate of funeral benefit to bring it into line with the value that it held when the Government assumed office.

Mr Cleaver:

– What is your proposal in this connexion?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– 1 am glad that the honorable member for Swan has asked that question. The policy of the Australian Labour Party is lo increase the funeral benefit to £30.

Mr Cleaver:

– Would that be a blanket cover? Would it cover everybody?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It would be paid to the relatives who meet the cost of burial of a pensioner. If the Commonwealth had power to ensure that the benefit went in fact to the pensioner and not to some other section of the community, a Labour government would use that power. This Government has completely repudiated its promises to the family and to aged persons. lt has completely repudiated promises made in respect of infants. During all its years in office it has done nothing to increase the value of the maternity allowance. The Government came to power pledged to maintain and even to increase the value of the maternity allowance. It has done nothing to honour that promise.

What is the Government’s record in respect of age and invalid pensions? During the greater part of its term of office. it has permitted the level of subsistence of the aged and invalid poor of this country to sink lower and lower. It has allowed their plight to become more and more desperate.

Mr Turner:

– That is just not true.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have the figures. They have been supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician. The honorable member for Bradfield claims that my statement is not true. I ask him to bear with me a moment while I read to him the official figures for each year from 1948 to 1961. These figures will show that over a number of years the plight of the aged and invalid became worse year by year because the Government refused to honour its pledge to maintain the value of pensions. Only in recent yeaTS has the Government gradually done a little to restore the value of those pensions. Only in an election year has it finally restored their value to what it was when the Labour Government last adjusted pensions in 1948.

Mr Turnbull:

– What about starting from December, 1949, when Labour went out of office?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will give the honorable member the figures at Budget time in each of the years from 1948. That is the year when the Chifley Government made its last adjustment of the age and invalid rate.

Mr Turnbull:

– But what about 1949?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will give you 1949, too. In 1948, the pension was £2 2s. 6d. a week, and the basic wage was £5 16s. 6d. a week, the pension being 36 per cent, of the basic wage. The figure 1 am giving for the basic wage is the weighted average for six capital cities. In 1949, the pension was £2 2s. 6d., the basic wage was £6 9s. and the pension was 32.9 per cent, of the basic wage. In 1950, the pension was £2 1Os., the basic wage was £7 2s. and the percentage was 35.2. In 1951, the pension was £3 and the basic wage was £10, so the pension was 30 per cent, of the basic wage. We can all imagine the sufferings of the age and invalid pensioners at that stage, but the percentage went even lower than that. In 1952, the pension was £3 7s. 6d.. the basic wage £11 lis. and the percentage had dropped to 29.2. In 1953, we had a pension of £3 10s. with a basic wage of £11 16s., and the percentage was 29.7.

I point out that the basic wage in these years was frozen and did not attract the increase in the cost of living. The real position, therefore, is even worse than that shown in the Statistician’s figures.

In 1954, the pension was still £3 10s., the basic wage £1 1 16s. and the percentage 29.7. In 1955, the pension was £4 and the basic wage was still £1 1 16s., giving a percentage of 33.9. In 1956, the pension was £4, the basic wage had risen to £12 6d. and the percentage had dropped to 32.5. In 1957, the pension was £4 7s. 6d., the basic wage £12 16s. and the percentage 34.2. In 1958, the pension was £4 7s. 6d., the basic wage £13 ls. and the percentage 33.5. In 1959, the pension had increased to £4 1 5s. and the basic wage to £13 16s., giving us 34.5 per cent. In 1960, coming to an election, the pension was increased to £5, the basic wage was still £13 16s. and the percentage was 36.2. In 1961, three months before an election, the pension was £5 5s., the basic wage £14 8s. and the percentage 36.5.

It is only after those thirteen years, and on the eve of an election, that the age and invalid pension has reached the equivalent of the purchasing value it had at the time of the Chifley Government’s last adjustment of the pension rate. Every member on the Government side of the House ought to be ashamed of that position. To betray a promise to the wealthy and the powerful is one thing; to betray a promise to the weak and the helpless is, in my opinion, infinitely worse.

I find it extraordinary that the Minister for Social Services in introducing the bill should make extravagant claims about increases in the value of social service payments given by this Government. Never did he give a figure - the figures would completely contradict him - but he had no hesitation whatever in making the most extraordinary claims for the Government. To contrast with the actual figures I have given, 1 will quote some of the Minister’s statements. In his second-reading speech, the Minister said -

In no twelve years in the history of our Commonwealth has this Parliament ever had before it such a succession of social service bills conferring such manifold benefits upon so many people. In no twelve years in our history has any other government, or any other succession of governments, ever been able to induce such a degree of stability and encourage such a measure of prosperity that it could confidently expect this Parliament, representing the Australian people, to endorse, year by year, measures for social progress that were expressly described as utterly impossible only thirteen years ago.

Yet in respect of three major social services, as I have shown, the Government, far from increasing the value of the payments, has allowed the value of child endowment to fall by half, has allowed the value of invalid and age pensions to fall very greatly throughout very many highly inflationary years and has allowed other benefits - 1 mentioned the maternity allowance and the funeral benefit as examples - to remain at the rates at which they stood before this period of inflation even began. But the Minister has - I think I am entitled to use the expression - the political audacity to claim that the Government has increased the value of social service payments.

The Minister made an even more extraordinary statement. Some people may be deceived by his words, so I shall quote them and give the House the facts. The Minister said -

It is to the everlasting credit of this Government that it was the first Government to give practical recognition to the principle of providing assistance, by way of an additional payment, to class A widows and invalid pensioners who have the custody, care and control of more than one child, and of increasing the amount of that assistance in direct proportion to the number of children in their custody, care and control.

The Minister, of course, was referring to the payment of an additional 10s. a week to class A widows and invalid pensioners for each child after the first. This sounds like something until we realize that, having allowed the value of child endowment to be cut in half, the Government is merely restoring to widows with children the value that ought to be received by every family in Australia. It is not improving their position; it is merely giving back to them what it has withheld, by the repudiation of its pledge, from every Australian family except the families of widows and invalid pensioners. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am entitled to say so, that is political humbug.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I think the honorable member is getting a little close to the line.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, I am running close to it, but of course I want to keep just within it.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– 1 remind the honorable member that it is not a matter of what he wants; he will keep within it.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In this bill, the Minister has proposed no amelioration and no improvement of the social services means test, as far as it affects age and invalid pensioners. Last year, the Minister introduced a generous improvement in the property means test, but I remind the House that he did it in rather peculiar circumstances. The honorable member for Port Adelaide (Mr. Thompson) has already given the facts and they have not beer: denied by any one on the Government side of the House.

As the honorable member for Port Adelaide has mentioned, the proposal which last year became part of the Government’s Budget, and which was given effect in the Social Services Bill, was examined by the Interstate Committee on Social Services set up by the Federal Conference of the Australian Labour Party. A letter was sent to the Minister setting out the proposal and inviting him to give an estimate of the cost involved so that the committee could judge whether it was politically and economically practical. The Minister replied that no estimate of the cost of such a proposal could be made. The next we heard of it was when it was announced in the Budget. Anyhow, 1 am very glad it has been adopted. It makes a very considerable improvement in the position of age and invalid pensioners. I would not even bother to make the claim that if it had not been for the action of the Parliamentary Labour Party, the proposal would not have been part of last year’s Budget. Of course, no amelioration was made of the income means test, on which, as it happened, we had submitted no proposal to the Minister.

The income means test for age and invalid pensioners has remained unaltered since 1954. This again is an indictment of the Government, in respect of its promise to maintain the value of social service payments, and of all those members of the House who profess to favour the amelioration or abolition of the means test. No alteration has been made in the means test since 1954 - that is, during seven years of this Government’s life. In 1961, the figure remains at £3 10s. after seven years of inflation, lt was the same in 1954 when the pegged basic wage was £11 16s. The basic wage is now £14 8s.

The Australian Labour Party maintains its objective: The abolition of the means test by progressive stages; and if elected as the government, it will make a substantial amelioration of the income means tes: to remedy the injustice that has been done to the people by this Government ever since 1954.

But we believe that what is needed immediately in the present desperate economic position of Australia is a system of national assistance for those who have nothing except their pensions and who are exposed lo particular costs and expenses. There is a very great difference, for example, between the position of a married couple, each receiving the full pension, and also possessed of the maximum income and property allowed under the means test in addition to a house, a car and all the other things that are excluded from the property means test, and on the other hand the plight of a pensioner living alone with no resources except the pension and paying an exorbitant rental for a room. In the present period of inflation when the housing position is desperate, such a pensioner can live only a dreadful existence.

The Labour Party proposes, therefore, to establish a system of national assistance. First of all, we will expand the present supplementary allowance by taking away the rigid conditions which prevent nine pensioners out of ten from gaining the benefit. Secondly, wc will increase the rental allowance to 30s. a week as a maximum. We will also establish a system of assistance based on the special needs of the individual pensioner. This is a system which operates with success in other countries and is overdue for introduction into Australia.

In the few minutes left to me, I should like to highlight some of the features of the social service policy that a Labour Government will introduce into Australia. In the first place, we will make the basic rate of age and invalid pension £5 10s. a week. Secondly, as I have explained, we will introduce a system of national assistance to pensioners. We will increase the allowance of the dependent wife of an invalid pensioner - which up to now has been a wretched and miserable 35s. a week - to the equivalent of the pension of £5 10s. Why should the dependent wife be able to live on less meat, less bread, and less clothing than does the pensioner himself?

Next, we will increase the rate of child endowment. We will not increase its effective rate, but we will restore the value which it possessed when we were last in office. This will be done by raising endowment for the first child to a minimum of 10s. a week; to 17s. 6d. for the second child and to 20s. a week for the third and additional children, plus whatever additional increase is necessary in accord with the level that the cost of living has reached by the time this Government leaves office.

Mr Jess:

– How much will this cost?

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I will tell the honorable member. The approximate cost on the figures I have been given would be £70,000,000 a year. That is the cost of doing the honorable and decent thing by restoring to the people of this country the money of which they have been politically robbed by this Government. A Labour government will increase the maternity allowance to £30 for the first child, rising to £35 for the fourth and subsequent children. The funeral benefit will be increased from £10 to £30. The rate of unemployment and sickness benefit for an adult will be raised to £5 10s., with £2 12s. 6d. for the spouse and 12s. 6d. for each dependent child. In addition, the couple will be entitled to child endowment at the adequate rate.

The Opposition’s proposals for widows’ pensions will revolutionize the position of civilian widows in Australia. All widows will receive £5 10s. a week - the same amount as is paid to age and invalid pensioners. In addition an A class widow who is solely engaged in the care of her children and is not in outside employment will re ceive a domestic allowance of £3 10s. a week, allowing her to live in modest comfort at home and bring up her family at no great cost to the Treasury.

The age pension residential qualification is a matter of the utmost importance to new Australians. I am ashamed that this Government has done nothing at all for them. We will alter the entitlement so that the residential qualification will be ten years instead of twenty years. In the meantime, a newcomer existing in a state of hardship and whose sponsor is unable to keep his guarantee,, will be entitled to special assistance at the rate of sickness and unemployment benefits which I have previously stated.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP

– I think it has become obvious to the House that the honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) had no justifiable case to put to the people. Having no justifiable case, he descended to exaggeration and vituperation of the worst kind. Sir, the honorable member’s remarks about the Prime Minister (Mr. Menzies) were totally unwarranted and they should not have been made in this House: I regret that they have been made; I am more interested at the moment in correcting a falsehood because I believe that, if a falsehood is uttered in this House, that fact should be made known at once. I am immediately concerned with the statement by the honorable gentleman that the Prime Minister had not lived up to his election promises. Upon this point, Sir, the honorable member made two statements. First, he referred to a pledge by the Prime Minister, according to the honorable member, that the value of child endowment would be maintained. Secondly, the honorable member said that child endowment was increased in 1940 purely to prevent the Arbitration Court from giving an increase in the basic wage.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Not in 1940, in 1941.

Mr McMAHON:

– The honorable member says that he said “ In 1941 “. He is wrong whichever way it goes. I regret that the honorable member, when challenged by me, did not take the opportunity to read what the Prime Minister said in his policy speech in 1949. I shall now recite it to the House. The honorable member protests now, but I remind the House that he said that this was his recollection of what the Prime Minister had said. This is what the Prime Minister actually said -

We therefore state our proposals in the alternative.

If the basic wage, whether increased in amount or not, remains on the same foundation as at present, we will give some extra help to families by providing an endowment of 5s. per week for the first child under sixteen years, the second and subsequent children continuing to be endowed, as at present, at 10s. per week.

If the foundation of the basic wage is altered -and its amount is calculated by reference to the needs of a married couple without children (and we have noticed that such a basis has been suggested), then we shall of course provide endowment for the first child on the 10s. rate.

The Prime Minister prefaced that remark by stating -

That wage is at the moment under complete re-examination by the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, whose decision we cannot anticipate and have no desire to influence.

Consequently, the two statements which were made by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro are false. If he were an honorable man - he has used the word “ honorable “ himself - he should now withdraw not only his accusation but also the two statements which he has made. I repeat that the Prime Minister’s statement relating to child endowment is set out in his policy speech. He stated that the Government would pay 5s. endowment for the first child under certain conditions - which was done - and he made clear reference to the fact that the Government had no intention whatever of influencing the decision of the court. The honorable gentleman made great play on the payment of child endowment and on keeping up the purchasing power of the pension. I think that I should attempt to put this matter of child endowment in perspective. When this Government considers welfare payments and, in fact, the money that is received by the family group, it takes account of every member of that group - the father, the mother and the children.

As the basis for comparison let us consider the basic wage or, what I prefer to use as a more accurate figure, the average weekly earnings per male unit in the com munity. The average weekly earnings have increased from £16.26 in 1953-54 to £23.17 in June, 1961. In addition to that, as every honorable member knows, there is the payment of 5s. child endowment for the first child and 10s. for each subsequent child. Finally, we have our system of national health, and hospital and pharmaceutical benefits. In that context payments to the family and to the child have to be judged, and against that background I make this clear and categorical statement: To-day the earnings of and the payments made to the average family group as a whole, in terms of purchasing power, are substantially greater than they were in 1949. That is the first point relating to child endowment with which I wish to deal.

I repeat that the statements made by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro in relation to the alleged commitment given by the Prime Minister and in respect of the basis on which child endowment was granted originally are not true in fact. When considering child endowment we must view it against the background of average earnings, the child endowment itself, payments to widows and to the wife and children of invalid pensioners, and the benefits that are received by the community as a result of the various measures which have been enacted by this Parliament. I again state categorically that in value the earnings of and payments made to the family group to-day are higher than they were in 1941.

Let me turn now to the more specific case relating to the general age pension. The honorable gentleman attempted to make a case to prove that to-day the purchasing power of the pension is somewhat lower than or perhaps the same as it was in 1949. I should like to cite certain figures that I have received from my colleague, the Minister for Social Services, to prove again that what the honorable member for Eden-Monaro has said is not correct. Adjusting the pension rate that was paid when the Labour Government left office in 1949 in accordance with the consumer price index, we find that if the Labour Party were now in office, and if the consumer price index were applied, the age and invalid pension would be £4 3s. In other words, it would be 17s. a week less than the present rate of £5 and 22s. less than the proposed rate of £5 5s. So again the honorable gentleman, who claims to be a technical expert in these problems, has not bothered about the facts or his own standard of veracity. I repeat that to-day the purchasing power of the age pension is 17s. a week, higher than it was when the Labour Government was in office and, with the proposed increase, will be 22s. higher than it was then. Taking the case of widows, the payment made to a class A widow will be 17s. 3d. a week higher than it was when the Labour Government was in office, and in the case of a class B widow it will be 20s. 3d. higher than it was then. Those are the facts as given to me by my colleague. I can well understand the irritation of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro. who is now interjecting, for being proved to be wrong, but 1 think it wise that the House should know the facts and that they should be emphasized repeatedly.

Getting away a little now from the statements that were made by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, the first point I want to make is that those who have listened to what he has promised on behalf of the Opposition will know that every one of his statements has been published already. In the light of this, we must ask ourselves this question: Can the Opposition, and the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, again parade in this community as democrats? From February until July this year statements have been made by federal conferences and by the federal executive of the Australian Labour Party committing any future Labour government to carry out a policy not determined by the Cabinet of the day but by the conference of the Australian Labour Party. The implementation of that policy will be determined in accordance with this section of the Labour Party’s platform -

The Federal Conference of the Party shall be the supreme governing authority and policymaking body, and its decisions shall be binding on all Stats Branches and Affiliates thereto, and upon the Federal and State Parliamentary Labour Parties, and upon the Federal Executive.

Every one of the honorable member’s statements was forecast in a series of reports issued by the conference and executive, and appropriate pledges were given. So no longer can he claim that he had any degree of independence in what he said to-night. What he said was determined not by himself but by the federal conference of the

Australian Labour Party. And just as policies made by the conference can be forced on a Labour cabinet, so can they be secretly repudiated by this oligarchy, secretly and without reference to a Labour cabinet.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You silly fellow.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr McMAHON:

– That is the point. It can be repudiated.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Mr. Deputy Speaker, 1 am being grossly misrepresented. I have in my hand an official report of the Australian Labour Party conference which I make available to show that the statements 1 have made are in accordance with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Mr McMAHON:

– That was the first point I wished to mention.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– But the Minister’s statement is false.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! 1 remind the honorable member for EdenMonaro that he has already spoken in this debate. His interjections while the Minister has been speaking have been fairly numerous. I now suggest that he cease interjecting.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What protection have I against completely false statements by the Minister?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member must not reflect on the Chair.

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am asking for your protection.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– You have the protection of the Chair, under Standing Orders.

Mr McMAHON:

– I shall repeat what I was saying, under Mr. Deputy Speaker’s protection. The point I want to make to the House - and I hope the House will remember - is that during the election of 1954 much the same kind of promises were made by the then Leader of the

Australian Labour Party, Dr. Herbert Vere Evatt. The promises are set out in the pamphlet I have in my hand. They would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds to fulfil. When the cost became known to the Australian public and the improbability that those promises could be lived up to, the Labour Party was defeated - and badly defeated - at the elections.

But, Sir, let me proceed with some of the matters that have been mentioned by the honorable gentleman. He mentioned child endowment for the first, second, third and additional children. Always in considering endowment the first thing we must ask is: What will be the cost to the community? And the cost of those increases, even though they might take place gradually over a period, would be £61,000,000, with an extra amount in respect of children who are in institutions.

If we go through all the other promises that were mentioned by the honorable gentleman, we will find that they add up to £82,000,000 in a full year. I ask honorable members to remember that in 1954 extravagant promises were made. It was known that those extravagant promises could not be fulfilled, and I venture to say that on this occasion the promises now made could not be lived up to. As well, knowing the organization of the Labour Party, the real probability would be that a conference of the Australian Labour Party, or the executive of the Australian Labour Party, or whatever oligarchy might exist within the Labour Party, would decide whether or not this policy was to be implemented.

More importantly, the honorable gentleman has gone further to-night than his superiors had gone before. He believes that there should be complete abolition of the two means tests for income and property. We do not know in what precise form or over what period that would take place, but the complete abolition of both means tests would cost between £140,000,000 and £150,000,000 per annum. These are the official figures. Consequently we come back to this thought: Of course, the Labour Party wants to please every one. It wants to buy votes as the honorable the Leader of the Opposition made clear a few months ito. If it can buy votes at the forthcoming election, whether from manufacturers or from any other section of the community, it will do so. 1 want to point out to the House here and now that implementation of the Labour Party’s statement of definite policy, or intention, would cost the people at least £81,000,000 per annum. If we take the other parts of the policy, then the cost would be, at the minimum, from £140,000,000 to £150,000,000 more and it would spiral ever upwards in the future.

The point to be emphasised about those promises is this: Obviously, the Labour Party cannot understand what the consequences would be. The Leader of the Opposition said during his speech on the Budget that he agreed with the diagnosis made by the Treasurer of Australia’s present economic problems. In other words, he said: “ Yes, we know that you had a problem of inflation. We know that you had a problem concerning the balance of payments. “ But having accepted the fact that the only way in which we can destroy the favorable balance of payments and make it unfavorable again and that the one certain way in which we can ensure that inflation will get out of hand again is by pumping more money into circulation without obtaining an equivalent increase in production he proceeded to advocate policies that would have those effects. We are in the happy position of having very good overseas funds, ample overseas reserves. We are now in the position of having a favourable international balance of payments helped, it is true, by international capital movement. The rate of inflation has been brought substantially under control and we have better industrial relations than we have had for many years All this has been achieved by maintaining control of the money supply and by ensuring as far as we can that the money supply keeps pace with the increase in production. In fact, what we are trying to avoid is a position in which there would be too much money chasing too few goods.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, if the Labour Party’s policies were carried out - and I know they will not be because that party will not be given an opportunity to do that - we would have violent inflation of the kind that the country could not possibly put up with. All the difficulties that 1 have mentioned would occur in an aggravated form.

And, Sir, with what consequence? The very people that the Labour Party now professes to help - the age pensioner, the parent who receives child endowment, the people most in need - would be the first ones to suffer. Under inflationary conditions it is the needy section of the community, that which is least able to look after itself, that suffers when the value of money falls sharply. So I dismiss as sheer foolishness this attempt on the part of whatever it is - the conference of the Australian Labour Party or the executive of the Australian Labour Party - to buy votes and to force its decisions on to those members of the Opposition who allegedly have been elected as part of the democratic system of this country.

T come to two other matters that I bring to the attention of the House. The first one is: My colleague, the Minister for Social Services, has said during the course of this debate that the Government has increased the allowances to the wife of an invalid pensioner and to the first child of invalid pensioners. I want to emphasize what those payments mean because the honorable member for Eden-Monaro stated during his speech that one of the intentions of any future Labour government would be to make payments to those people most in need.

The Minister for Social Services, a few years ago, introduced what I regarded as an historic break-through in terms of social service payments. He introduced a system of supplementary payments to those most in need - not an increase in pensions right across the whole front, but an increase to those people who the Government thought were most in need at that particular time. Supplementary assistance was given to the single pensioners or married people when only one person was in receipt of a pension and they had to pay rent and had little other income. This memorable breakthrough was made when this class of pensioner was given a supplementary allowance - or supplementary pension. The principle behind supplementary pensions is developed in this year’s Budget.

My colleague and the Government have, in. this year’s Budget, wisely made additional provision for the wife of invalid or of permanently incapacitated pensioners. The

Government is providing increased allowances both in respect of the wife and of the first child of invalid pensioners. This is a clear recognition of the principle of making payments according to needs. I believe that it develops the principle that was established a few years ago and I think that it is something that every Australian will welcome.

When I consider the range and scale of pensions and of social .service payments as a whole, I agree with statements that have been made by many eminent authorities on social services that a comparison made between the Australian system and that in force in any other part of the world shows us that by and large there is no equal, in terms of its breadth and the liberalness of its cover, of the Australian system of social services. For that reason, I applaud what has been done by my colleague, the Minister for Social Services. Not only do I applaud it, but I believe it is recognized as being reasonable by the Australian people. I have already referred to the fact that the Labour Party has not understood the economic situation in this country. It has not understood that we are a great trading nation and that we cannot make wildly extravagant promises and live up to them without causing inflation. We all know that if inflation is not kept under control, our primary industries must suffer and our internally real income will fall. Our capacity to pay pensions must then be diminished.

The point I want to make in conclusion - I think it is one which at this period of our life as a Government should be emphasized - is that when we are considering the problem of pensions we should remember that we have twenty or more years of development in front of this country. The nation is crying out for the very things that are necessary for development if it is to go ahead and if it is to absorb an increasing population, both natural and immigrant. That means that savings in this community end the amount of money and resources that we put into development must be increased. You, Sir, will have heard the Prime Minister announce in recent days such magnificent schemes as the standardization and extension of Western Australian railways and the establishment of a blast furnace and steel mills in Western Australia, at a total cost of about £86,000,000, the building of beef roads, the improvement of coal ports, and assistance for the South Australian railways. These projects are part of the investment and development policies of the Government and they can be achieved only if we save and if we direct our resources to them. Upon them depends our future wealth.

So> when we are considering our social service policies, we have these great problems to reconcile. We have to consider how much we can afford in terms of what the basic wage will purchase and what social service benefits will purchase and balance that against the investment and development policies of the Government. I venture to say that no previous government has paid so much attention to and put so much thought into developing our resources as this Government has done..

Looking at our budget problems in the light of what we should do in the field of social services and what we should do in the field of development, those who give the matter real and honest consideration will say: “ What the Government has done has provided a balanced programme. You have been fair to recipients of social welfare benefits and you are making a real drive in the development of this country’s resources. It is on this that our future and in truth the future of welfare payments depend.” For that reason, I applaud not only the economic policies of the Government but also what has been done by my colleague, the Minister for Social Services, to give a fair deal to the recipients of social service benefits.

Mr BIRD:
Batman

.- We have received from the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) his usual display of sophistry, which will deceive nobody but the most naive. Holding a very weak brief, he wandered from point to point in an endeavour to rend asunder the splendid case put up by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser). I should say that the Minister failed most lamentably in his endeavours in that direction. As a matter of fact, he made several statements that one could hardly conceive a responsible member of the Ministry making. Therefore, I should like to take him to task before I develop the case that I have prepared.

For example, the Minister said that the Australian Labour Party had no right to accept any policy that was drawn up by an outside body. He apparently is of the opinion that a parliamentary party alone should conceive its policy, with no reference at all to the people who give that parliamentary party its existence. I want to inform the Minister that the Labour Party is a party with several levels of representation, including the trade union level and party branch level. Members join the party because it espouses their own sentiments in regard to national, social and economic problems. They are prepared to support the party by voluntarily giving their time and money. The rank and file expect their representatives in the parliamentary arena to carry out the policy that they are pledged to support. Before I decided to seek selection by the Labour Party, I knew the party’s policy. I was not compelled to pledge my support of a policy of which I was unaware. I knew the policy and I knew the machinery of the party. My views and the views of the Labour Party coincided. I cannot see how it can be said that I have been dictated to by an outside junta, as I pledged myself to support a policy of which I was aware before I decided to stand for Parliament.

Any one would think that the Labour Party is the only party that has a conference of people who are not members of Parliament. I frequently read in newspapers of conferences of the Country Party, and these reports make very humorous reading. I frequently read in newspapers of conferences of the Liberal Party. We frequently read of delegates at Liberal Party conferences going to town over the alleged inactivity of some Liberal government, in either the Federal or the State sphere. Apparently the Minister attempted to convey the impression, both to this House and to the country in general, that the Labour Party was the only party, representatives of which, who are not members of Parliament, customarily meet at intervals and decide to amend, add to, or deviate from previous policies. The Labour Party is completely democratic. Delegates are elected by the rank and file of the party in the respective States. Then, representing the States, they meet at the federal level and put the views of the State organizations on the issues that are at stake. Federal conferences are meetings of representatives of the six States. For the life of me, I cannot see what is wrong with that. After all, there would not be a parliamentary Labour Party if it were not for the fact that tens of thousands of volunteers outside the Parliament are prepared to work their fingers to the bone to put us into Parliament. We come into the Parliament as their spokesmen. I did not come into this Parliament to put my point of view only. I came to put the point of view of the Labour supporters in my electorate, and I have done that to the best of my ability. Every decision made by the Labour Party at one level ot another comes from a Federal or State conference.

By contrast, many of the decisions of the Liberal Party are, as far as I can see, made in very dubious circumstances. They certainly do not express the point of view of rank and file Liberal supporters. Somebody gets the ear of the Ministry, and so decisions are made. The Labour Party’s decisions are made regularly at conferences. Press statements are issued at the conferences and at the end printed reports of the results of the conferences, which may be obtained by the public, are issued. Therefore, I cannot see just what reason the Minister has for criticizing the basic constitution of the Labour Party. I strongly suspect that he took tha! course because he had no case with which to break down the forceful argument of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro.

The Minister made the most absurd statement - that is the only word of which I ‘can think to describe it adequately - that in terms of purchasing power the basic pension is 17s. higher to-day than it was when Labour was in power. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro pointed out that the only satisfactory method of determining the purchasing power of pensions was to relate pension rates to the basic wage. I do not claim to have a super-human intelligence. To my limited intelligence, it is quite clear that this is the only way in which you can determine the value of the pension from one decade to another, because, generally speaking, the basic wage is tied to purchasing power. The Government ought to seize this opportunity to bring the rates of social service payments generally up to a level consistent with justice and fairness. The

Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) became so wrapped up in his own eloquence and in telling us what wonderful improvements have been made in social services under his administration that he got away from the facts. The facts are that Australian social services leave much to be desired when they are compared with those in other western democracies. We lag in the field. The Minister used the most extravagant language when, at the end of his speech, he said -

It provides an opportunity to re-affirm our faith in ourselves, in our country and in the democratic systems and institutions that, with all their faults, have brought us thus far along the road of social progress - farther, and in a shorter space of time, than the systems and institutions of any other country have brought any other people since the dawn of human history.

What a statement to make! I do not believe that the Minister honestly believed that. He thought it would make a grandiloquent end to his speech. He thought he might as well finish with a fanfare of trumpets and a burst of eloquence, so he dished that up to us, but he was a long way from the truth. Australian social services are a mere bagatelle compared with those of the Scandinavian countries. The Minister might be enthusiastic but I suggest that he make a more detailed study of social service schemes in other countries before he repeats the kind of statement that he made in his speech on this bill.

What has this much-vaunted bill, about which the Minister is so keen, brought forth? Lt might be said that the mountain has laboured and brought forth a mouse. To start with, it has produced, in these days of creeping inflation, an increase in the age and invalid pension of 5s. a week. I heard the Minister for Labour and National Service say that the Government had not stopped inflation. I thought that the economic measures which the Government took last year were going to stop inflation and we were told by Government supporters during the Budget debate that inflation had been stopped, but here we have a tacit admission by the Minister for Labour and National Service that it has not been stopped. Whom can we believe on the Government side of the chamber? There are so many contradictory statements about the aims and results of Government policy that it is no wonder that the country is in a state of confusion.

Mr Makin:

– Government supporters are a mass of contradictions.

Mr BIRD:

– That is quite right. To-day we find that inflation has robbed the pensioner of almost the whole of the improvements rendered possible by rises in productivity over the years. Although other sections of the community enjoy increased standards of living because of rises in productivity, the benefit of those rises has been denied to pensioners because of inflation. I suggest that £5 5s. a week is not enough to live on, with inflation eating insidiously into money values. Any one capable of simple arithmetic knows that £5 5s. a week will not cover the ordinary weekly household expenses of a single pensioner.

Of course, some pensioners are in a better position than others. I think we shall have to get away from the concept that a basic pension should be given to everybody. Indeed, the Government endeavoured to do this three or four years ago by introducing the supplementary rent allowance. I think that that indicates a solution to the problem of pensions, and the Australian Labour Party has grasped the nettle firmly in both hands with its policy of a supplementary national assistance grant of £1 10s. a week. As I have said, some pensioners are better off than others. A pensioner who lives with a married daughter or son can get along fairly well and a pensioner who can earn additional income is not so badly off, but for the majority there is no relief from the bitter struggle to keep themselves going.

Labour’s policy, as enunciated by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, is a clear and unambiguous set of proposals promulgated in the light of conditions prevailing to-day. The Labour Party has brought its social services policy up to date. Labour makes no apology for always being in the vanguard of any move calculated to improve the lot of the ordinary citizen. That is what the Labour Party was formed for. Hundreds of thousands of workers, over the years, have identified themselves with the Australian Labour Party. They have formed themselves into a co-ordinated movement for the purpose of improving their lot. Our policy has always been for the uplifting of humanity and the rectification of injustice.

The average wage paid in industry to-day makes no provision for large-scale saving. Therefore, we have to make arrangements to ensure that citizens who have given 40 or 50 years of service to the community will not be left semi-destitute when industry wants them no longer. It is quite erroneous for the Minister for Labour and National Service to say that pensions would not be as high as they are now if Labour were in power; but, apart from that, the pensions paid at various times should be compared, not on their nominal values, but on the basis of the necessaries of life that they will purchase. On this basis, the present pension of £5 5s. a week is inadequate for most pensioners, although there are the exceptions. No section of the community is more deserving of the right to lead a life of self-respect and freedom from economic insecurity than is the pensioner section. Unfortunately, the fixation of pension rates has always been approached in a haphazard way. This has been so under all governments, but Labour has now amended its policy in this respect. Labour recognizes that, because of present-day circumstances, there must be a new approach and a set of principles must be laid down that will ameliorate the lot of pensioners who cannot carry on with £5 5s. a week - or £10 10s. a week for married couples.

Age. illness and inflation have condemned many people to penury. How many persons who have reached the age of 65 or 70 years could earn the permissible income of £3 10s. a week, even if they were physically fit to do so? It is all very well to say that a married couple can earn an additional £7 a week, but they cannot get work. No employer wants a man of 65 or 70 years of age. We have a pool of 113,000 able-bodied men who cannot get work. Therefore, this talk about permissible income does not cut much ice with the pensioners. However, the Labour Party considers that the permissible income certainly should be increased, because inflation, over recent years, has dissipated much of the value of superannuation and other retiring allowances towards the cost of which many contributed from their earnings over long periods. We must concede to people who have contributed to superannuation and pension schemes that their voluntary acceptance of a 5 per cent, lower living standard during the years of their earning capacity justifies a relatively greater degree of living comfort and security during retirement. With the present permissible income, that is not possible. A permissible income of £3 10s. a week is a very harsh recompense for the sacrifice and thrift of many thousands of decent Australians.

Mr Curtin:

– They are deprived of the benefit of the pensioner medical service, too.

Mr BIRD:

– I did hope that the rent provisions which were introduced in the 1958 Budget would be followed by the giving of further assistance in special circumstances. But nothing has been done. Apparently the Government took a momentary step forward and is not game to go any further. Possibly it is not allowed to go further by people who are behind the scenes. Something must be preventing it from advancing. Many people in the community who are not in receipt of the rent allowance are suffering as great hardship as are people who are receiving it.

Let us consider the lot of a married couple who own their own house and are receiving £10 10s. a week. First, they have to pay municipal rates. Rates are going up by leaps and bounds, because the councils have been hit by the inflation that has been caused by this Government. The married couple we are considering would also have to pay water rates, to maintain the property in some semblance of order, and to insure it against fire. Being in receipt of only £10 10s. a week, they are not able to find the necessary money. I should think that under a scheme for a national supplementary assistance allowance the plight of the pensioners whom I have just described should be taken into consideration.

Every year members of municipal councils are requested by local pension bodies to remit the rates of pensioners, but the councils themselves are in such a desperate financial plight as a result of the inflationary policies adopted by this Government that they cannot remit those rates. Municipal councils throughout Australia are living on a shoe-string and, even though they would very much like to remit the rates of pensioners, they cannot do so. When all is said and done, why should they? The care of the aged is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. The Com monwealth is responsible constitutionally, because it has the power to raise the necessary money. It is very unfair to expect municipal councils to remit rates when they have only one source of income - rates from property.

I now wish to refer to another anomaly which was mentioned by the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr. Curtin) a moment ago. I thought that by now something would have been done about the iniquitous medical means test under which a pensioner who earns more than £2 from some other source may not enjoy the benefit of the pensioner medical service. This means test imposes very severe hardship upon many people. I have had brought to my notice cases in which people are receiving £2 2s. or £2 5s. a week above the pension - perhaps from some superannuation or pension scheme - and who for that reason are deprived of assistance from the Government under the pensioner medical service. This means test is very unfair. Pensioners who were in receipt of this benefit before 1955 still enjoy it, irrespective of their income. But those pensioners to whom the means test, which was introduced in August or September, 1955, applies are being treated outrageously by the Government. They are not receiving medical treatment for the illnesses which age brings in its train.

I now wish to mention another matter that I have mentioned to the Minister for Social Services on earlier occasions and in relation to which I had hoped something would be done when this legislation was introduced. I am not the only one who has mentioned it; I recall that last year the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Fox) referred to it. However, the Minister does not seem to worry about it. To make provision for the benefit I have in mind would not cost much money but would remove a very serious anomaly. I am about to quote a passage from the Minister’s secondreading speech. In fact, he was very proud of it, as he was about the whole of his speech. I got a lot of amusement from looking at the self-satisfaction which literally oozed from the Minister when he delivered his speech. But he oozed more self-satisfaction than usual when making this statement -

Before passing from the proposed increases in pension rates, perhaps I should mention that where a pensioner is an inmate of a benevolent home this bill provides that, of the 5s. increase, 2s. will be paid to the pensioner. At present a pensioner inmate receives 35s. a week of his pension and the balance is paid to the authorities conducting the benevolent home. When the legislation is amended, the pensioner will receive 37s. a week with £3 8s. paid to the home for his maintenance.

There is nothing wrong with that statement. I heartily approve every word of it. But unfortunately it provides for the perpetuation of a gross injustice that is meted out to inmates of mental homes.

A pensioner who is in a benevolent home may receive treatment in the medical ward of that home for one ailment or another. Unfortunately, very often in elderly persons physical sickness brings about a deterioration of the mental faculties and those persons become mentally deranged. They are then transferred from the benevolent home to a mental home. Then what happens? Instead of receiving 37s. a week, they get exactly nothing - not a solitary penny. Surely the Government should redress that anomaly. Attention has been directed to it not only by myself but also by other honorable members. When I raised this matter last year I received from the Minister for Social Services the evergreen answer: “ No government, be it Liberal or Labour, has ever done it. Why should it be done now? “ Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is supposed to be a progressive Parliament. We come along here to legislate for the changing times. It may have been thought to be good enough ten, fifteen or twenty years ago not to give a mentally ill person a pension. But times have changed, and the outlook of the community towards mental persons has changed. I am happy to say that over the last ten years the general approach to mental illness has changed.

The States, from their quite meagre resources, have done quite a lot to improve the plight of the unfortunate inmates of mental institutions. They have built very up-to-date buildings. Certainly they have done that with Commonwealth assistance; I do not begrudge the Commonwealth credit for having given the States money in recent years to build such homes. But the States have to bear the responsibility from that point onwards. Women’s auxiliaries provide entertainment and so forth for the inmates of mental homes, and special mental health weeks are observed for the purpose of enlightening the public about the changing methods of treatment for these people. Many of us, of course, are quite aware of the improvement in the whole approach to the curing of mental illness. But I point out again that whenever a pensioner enters a mental home the Government makes a profit of £5 Ss. a week, because the pension is taken from the pensioner.

What does that mean to the unfortunate mental patient? It means that he has to depend upon the charity of others to buy sweets, tobacco and toilet requisites. If he wants to go home for a week-end, his relatives have to pay his fare - probably in a taxi, because most of the institutions are at a distance from public transport The mental patient may be one of a married couple. The other partner is left to keep the house going on £5 Ss. a week and, if he wishes to bring his unfortunate spouse home, he has to pay the fares. That is a scandalous situation. I should have thought that the Minister for Social Services would have realized the plight of these people and would have done something about it. Apparently he is quite happy to think that we have the best social services legislation in the world and that unfortunate pensioners who are moved to a mental institution are not worth a minute’s consideration.

The Government should earnestly consider this matter as early as possible. I do not suggest that the patient should receive the whole £5 5s., or that the Government should give money to every patient. I realize that the condition of some patients is such that they would not be able to handle money. But as everybody knows, a tremendous number of patients are fairly rational; they appreciate what 2s. is and what it will buy. But the Government is adopting an obstinate attitude and is exercising a lingering prejudice against mental illnesses, lt is guilty of a discrimination which is exceedingly unjust and is out of keeping with modern times. Such an attitude is a legacy from the misguided thinking of the past. Such legislation should be removed from the statute-book. If the Minister really wants to make a name for himself and wants to receive the plaudits of the public, including those of the Labour

Party, he should have the legislation amended in this respect.

Mr Anderson:

– Just another handout.

Mr BIRD:
BATMAN, VICTORIA · ALP

– The attitude which the Government continues to adopt is quite outmoded; it is a blot on the record of this Parliament. I hope the Minister will take steps in the very near future to ensure that the anomaly is corrected.

Last year, the honorable member for Henty said that, according to his assessment, the cost of removing this anomaly would be approximately £2,000,000 a year. But just let us consider the amount of joy and satisfaction that would give the persons concerned. Members of the Parliament talk with a great deal of gusto about the improvements that have been effected in this direction and that direction. We say that we lead the world in this avenue and that; but when it comes to our treatment of mentally ill pensioners we are certainly living as though we were in the eighteenth century. 1 hope that the Government will do something about them very shortly.

In the short time that I have left, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to say something about child endowment. I am amazed at this Government’s attitude towards child endowment. It is incredible that the Government has once again evaded its responsibilities. The reason for this, which was given by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), in answer to a question last week, completely dodged the issue. The history of child endowment in Australia is one of gradual and reluctant recognition that the community owes something to the family unit, regardless of the expense involved; that is, a recognition that those who shoulder the responsibility of raising families ought to receive governmental aid.

When the measure which introduced child endowment was placed on the statute-book in 1941, we thought a new era had arrived. Labour governments increased the amount, which, then, was paid only for children other than the first, by 2s. 6d. a week in 1945 and by a further 2s. 6d. a week in 1948, to bring it up to 10s. a week. When this was done, we appeared, at long last, to be on the road to social uplifting in a way that would assist families and bolster family life. But the value of this benefit is being eroded by increasing living costs, and child endowment is now worth only a fraction of its value in 1950. The Minister for Social Services, other Ministers, and Government supporters generally, seem to be hiding behind the decisions of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Very many telling and logical arguments can be adduced to suggest that child endowment payments ought to be overhauled, but suffice it to say that this benefit is a gratuity from the Government and should in no way be considered in the computation of the basic wage.

At this stage, I should like to return to an interjection which I overlooked earlier. When I was discussing social service benefits for mental patients, the honorable member for Hume (Mr. Anderson) interjected and said, “ Just another hand-out. “ I hope that he was not serious when he said that. If he was, apparently he considers that a pension paid to a mentally afflicted person is merely a hand-out. I am sure that, in his right senses, he would not agree with that idea. If he would, he has gone down a lot in my estimation. Mental patients are a most unfortunate section of the community, and I regret that the honorable member saw fit to describe as just another hand-out benefits which I suggest ought to be paid to mental patients and which were suggested last week by another Government supporter, the honorable member for Henty. I maintain that every person has a right to a pension at 65 or earlier, according to his circumstances. Yet a pensioner who has to live in a benevolent home because he is physically afflicted will receive a pension of only 37s. a week. This just does not make sense to me.

In conclusion, I should like to say that pensioners to-day are largely the product of an age in which any suggestion tha! wages ought to come before profits was regarded as rank economic heresy. Age pensions can be regarded as a device by means of which industry generally has gradually passed on to the community a burden which, to a degree, is the responsibility of industry itself. The wages paid in industry have been so low as to make it impossible-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Brimblecombe:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr CASH:
Stirling

.- Mr. Deputy Speaker, every year, in debates in which we discuss social services, the Opposition adopts the attitude that every pensioner is dissatisfied with the social service measures brought down by the Government from time to time. But, of course, this is not so. I know, from moving round my electorate, as many other honorable members on this side of the House know from moving about their electorates, that the great majority of pensioners are very satisfied with the pensions that they are getting to-day, because the £10 10s. a week that a pensioner couple have coming into their household provides them with most of the things that they need, particularly if they have a motor car and own their own home. There may be other circumstances in which some pensioners are not happy and are always looking for another increase in the pension, and I think that, in certain circumstances, they are entitled to think in that way.

The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) delivered this evening what he said was the Australian Labour Party’s policy speech on social services for the coming election. I had an opportunity last week to point out that some of the Opposition’s promises would involve the taxpayers in higher taxation to finance astronomical expenditure. The additional benefits proposed by the Labour Party in its pre-election promises, which, fortunately, it probably will not have an opportunity to fulfil, indicate that Labour intends to spend about £400,000,000 a year more of the taxpayers’ money. That will be necessary in order to give effect to its new social services policy on top of the promises that it has already made.

The honorable member for Eden-Monaro related his proposals for increases in various social service benefits to increases in the cost of living. In this regard, the Opposition’s attitude appears to have changed from time to time. It will be remembered that, some years ago, Labour’s policy was entirely different. At one stage, Labour believed that the rates of age and invalid pensions ought to be linked with the costofliving index, and twice tried to give effect to this idea, but it was abandoned in 1943. I may point out, Sir, that after pensions had been increased several times under such a system, a Labour government found it necessary, in 1943, as a result of a fall in the cost-of-living index, to reduce pensions by 6d. a week, from 27s. to 26s. 6d. a week. This, of course, had such repercussions throughout Australia that, after only two days at the reduced rates, Labour, having as always an eye to politics and social services combined, quickly cancelled the reduction and restored pensions to 27s. a week, with retrospective effect over the two days for which the reduced rates had operated. This was done under the National Security Regulations, which also suspended the operation of the provisions of the social services legislation providing for adjustments of pension rates in accordance with the movement of the cost-of-living index. These provisions were eventually repealed in 1944.

Between 1944 and 1949, many requests were made to the Labour Government for the re-introduction of a system to provide for the adjustment of pensions according to movements of the cost of living, the reason being, of course, that the cost of living was then rising. I emphasize that when a Labour government was in office the cost of living was rising. The Labour government of the time strongly resisted all such requests and, as its reason for so doing, asserted that a system providing for adjustments according to movements of the cost of living was not regarded as satisfactory and that a review of pension rates from time to time in the light of the financial position was a more satisfactory method of ensuring that pension rates were adjusted periodically to meet the needs of pensioners. The Menzies Government has carried on that system of adjusting pension rates from time to time, that system being concerned mainly with the ability of the taxpayers to pay. We should like to give to people who want social service benefits everything that they want, but we must always keep in mind the ability of the taxpayers to pay, because they and not the Government foot the bill.

This Government’s record in the field of social services has been one of increasing benefits over the last ten years or so, and its efforts in this field have certainly outstripped those of any Labour government.

Many anomalies have been revealed, but, in most instances, the Government has taken corrective action when the anomalies have been pointed out.

Many aspects, of social services will be discussed during this- debate. 1 should noi like to discuss points that have already been covered or matters that will be covered by later speakers from this side of the House. Therefore, I shall confine myself to only two matters to which L think the Government and the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) ought to give some attention. We know that the Commonwealth’s civilian rehabilitation service is at present making a great contribution to the welfare of physically handicapped people. Indeed, Sir, this service which is provided by the Department of Social Services in Australia compares very favorably with similar services provided in every other country. However, the department carries this kind of work only to a certain stage. Certain follow-through activities are needed, and particularly the provision of special housing for disabled people. This kind of housing is not readily available in this country.

The first essential, if a disabled person is to be in secure employment, is suitable residential accommodation fairly close to his employment or to the area in which a job may be available for him. Certain civilian organizations have been trying to solve the problem in this respect, but the demand for such housing is becoming so great that it far exceeds the supply of the special kind of accommodation that is needed. One would find it difficult to present a complete survey of the special accommodation needs of people who are physically handicapped. But investigations made by me and also by other honorable members on this side of the chamber make it apparent that there are many such people for whom suitable accommodation is just not available at the present time. This means, in many cases, that they are not able to accept some particularly suitable job that may be offered, and the result is that they must continue to draw the invalid pension. In different circumstances regarding accommodation, they would have been in receipt of a regular wage, and being in employment they would not be obliged to seek the pension payment.

Many of these people, in the early stages of their disability have the assistance of parents, relatives and friends, but there comes a time when for many reasons this protection is not available. Often the health of these people in all other respects is good. They are willing and able to work, but their main problem is an inability to cope with steps and stairs and most types of public transport. When they have not the protection and assistance of their friends and relatives they often have to go into homes for the aged and chronically ill, or mental hospitals. In many cases this means loss of employment or, if they have not yet received benefits of some rehabilitation service or other service, the loss of the possibility of receiving such benefits..

To receive the benefit of the Commonwealth rehabilitation service the prospective rehabilitee must have a reasonable chance of being placed in employment within three years. Rehabilitation is often denied to physically handicapped people who are capable of employment, but who live in the country or the more remote outer suburban areas, because they cannot travel to the working area to which they desire to go. It is difficult for these people to secure accommodation, because of their inability to cope with steps and stairs and even if they find that ground floor accommodation is available the landlord is often reluctant to receive them as tenants in case they become at some later time a personal responsibility for him.

The plain fact is that if the physically handicapped person cannot find suitable accommodation he misses out on a job and becomes again the responsibility of the Government. In many countries voluntary organizations have set up accommodation hostels for the physically handicapped. When these hostels were being built, full regard was paid to the various disabilities from which residents might suffer. For instance, the designers have provided ramps for wheelchairs, hand rails and modifications for bathrooms and toilets and have eliminated steps and stairs. In Australia the Commonwealth Government has provided these people with invalid pensions, hospital and sickness benefits and rehabilitation centres. And we must not forget the excellent work done by the Commonwealth Employment Service in placing in suitable positions as many of these people as possible.

However, I believe that now is the time for the Commonwealth Government to examine the question of whether it can assist with the housing of these people under some plan perhaps comparable with the Aged Persons Homes Act introduced by this Government a few years ago. Under that legislation over £10,000,000 has already been made available for the housing of the aged. In New South Wales one branch of the Civilian Maimed and Limbless Association is operating a small hostel for physically handicapped people. It has made a most useful contribution towards easing the many problems encountered by these citizens. Bigger centres or - perhaps even more suitable - additional centres are needed. Their establishment would be hastened if the Government agreed to subsidize them on a £2 for £1 basis, as is the present position under the Aged Persons Homes Act. From an economic point of view such hostels would represent a reasonable proposition for the Government. On the assumption that the capital cost of this special type of accommodation was £1200 per person, the cost to the Government on the basis of £2 for £1 subsidy would be £800 and the balance would be raised by the appropriate associations or voluntary organizations. For every person so accommodated - as each would be in employment of some kind, because that would be a necessary provision - the savings to the Government in pension payments in the first three years alone would equal the capital cost per person. The provision of these hostels would remove the necessity for many of these people to stay in hospitals or other institutions and the capital cost per person would therefore be cancelled out in an even shorter term.

Further gains to the Government would be from income tax as these people received income, and from indirect taxation as they were able to purchase more of the necessaries for daily living. The proposals that have been prepared by the interested oragnizations in Australia have a great deal of merit. Similar projects in other countries have proved of great value and have been found to be an economic saving.

This Government, by assisting physically handicapped people in this manner will, I suggest, fulfil one of the obligations of government, which is to ensure that every person in Australia has the opportunity to live a full and useful life. At the present time more than 90,000 men and women over the age of sixteen years are receiving lifetime invalid pensions from the Department of Social Services. Many more thousands are receiving repatriation pensions and many others are being supported by their own families.

The direct cost of invalid pensions alone is over £20,000,000 a year. The indirect losses through so many handicapped people being kept idle would be very difficult to calculate, but it could well be in the vicinity of £40,000,000 annually. The disabled worker can make his own contribution to the national prosperity, but it is much more difficult for the disabled pensioner to contribute in a like manner. The rehabilitation of 12,000 people into Australian industry over recent years now saves the Government over £3,000,000 annually in pensions alone, which is sure evidence that on every front rehabilitation does pay.

I turn now to another section of our community which is deserving of more consideration in many ways, not only from governments, but from the whole community. I refer to civilian widows. The recent increases in the rates of widows’ pensions were of some help, but I believe that they did not go far enough. This Government has looked after the interests of war widows very well, and with just cause, remembering our debt to those who gave their lives in the service of this country. But I believe that the civilian widow, and particularly the widow with children, has many problems and the Government could give her more help in meeting them. I have taken the opportunity over the past two or three years to have a look at the problems of civilian widows, as have many members on both sides of the House, and 1 have come across a number of cases which I think are worthy of mention during this debate. I will mention them now to illustrate further a point which I would like to make later to the Minister for Social Services and the Government.

I have here half a dozen cases which have been looked into. They are not in my home State of Western Australia, but in one of the eastern States. They illustrate some of the problems with which widows and their families can be faced, and how they sometimes get into these circumstances. The first case is of a deserted wife aged 39 years, with three children aged thirteen years, nine years and seven years respectively. Her total income, including her deserted wife’s pension, is £9 2s. 8d. a week. I have here figures which indicate the rent paid and the food that is required at the minimum according to national standards and the allowance made for fares and incidentals, the allowance for fuel, and in some cases for entertainment. This woman has an income of £9 2s. 8d., while her minimum obligations amount to £11 3s. lOd. It is fortunate that a voluntary organization provides her with the extra £2 assistance which she needs. This woman has a severe illness which prevents her from working. She manages to keep out of debt, but occasionally is forced to take out some form of time payment to meet needs such as for house linen and blankets. She also requires a special diet and the doctor is concerned about her being continuously under weight. It is interesting to note that when her diet was supplemented, on the doctor’s recommendation, she began to put on weight. The behaviour of her thirteen-year-old son has been difficult, but has now settled down. That is one of the end products of the family being forced to live in such circumstances. Where a widow has to raise a family on insufficient income problems arise with children. Perhaps they cannot go to school as neatly dressed as other children and that leads them to play truant in an attempt to avoid embarrassment in various ways.

I have another case, where the wife is aged 39 and has four children, aged thirteen years, ten years, seven years and three years. She has an income, including pension, child endowment and child welfare department allowance of £10 15s. 2d. Her requirements, in order to keep her family operating, shall we say, amount to £13 14s. a week. Her income, therefore, falls short of her requirements by about £3 a week. She, too, would have the benefit of some outside family assistance. However, in this case it is very seldom that the amount shown as available each week for food is spent on food. In fact, whereas the basic requirements for food for the family would amount to £7 6s., the amount actually given as available for this purpose is £5 17s. 2d. As I say, it is rarely that the estimated amount is spent on food, because small emergencies arise from week to week, such as the necessity to take children to clinics. However, on the weeks when the stated amount is spent, there is still a difference of £1 8s. lOd. between the amount available and the minimum amount needed for food requirements.

Of this family a sixteen-year-old child is in a mental hospital, and an eight-year-old child is in a Child Welfare Department home because of truancy. The wife was deserted by her husband, who is now known to be in a mental hospital in another State. In spite of the mental instability there is a strong bond of affection between the members of the family, and the mother and all the remaining children make sacrifices in order to visit the two who are away from home. Despite their circumstances the members of the family are striving to keep together. So I suggest that the Government should try to assist such families, even if it means going beyond the scope of the existing social services legislation.

The next case I want to mention concerns a wife with children aged fourteen, twelve, eight and six years. The total income of the family is £10 12s. 6d. a week. In this case the requirements are smaller, mainly because of low rent. The woman’s husband is in a mental hospital as the result of a brain injury. There are two boys at high school, and this means that the wife has to meet all sorts of expenses in which she might not be involved with children attending primary school. She has been given a housing commission home which is furnished with only the bare necessities. She has a constant struggle to make ends meet, and she describes her situation as “ eating one week and starving the next “. She pays small insurance premiums to enable her to cover school expenses for the two girls.

These different families all have different problems, but they are all, I suggest, in need of extra assistance from the Commonwealth. Let me mention another case, involving a wife aged 38, with three children aged from fourteen down to eleven years. The total income of the family, including child endowment, Child Welfare Department allowance and social service benefit, is £8 17s. 6d. Total requirements amount to £10 13s. 6d. In this case the widow is paying off her own home, but she just cannot save money to pay rates. There is provision at present in the social services legislation for supplementary assistance of 10s. a week for certain pensioners, and I suggest that widows or women in these circumstances should certainly be given this extra assistance. This woman constantly needs help to pay rates and buy clothes, and this she obtains either through the Red Cross or through the Canteens Trust Fund. Fortunately she has access to this fund. The eldest child is fourteen years of age and has had to be taken to a guidance clinic because of certain behaviour disturbances. It is widely believed that such problems of children aTe mainly caused by the economic conditions in which families live.

I have a couple more cases I should mention. The first concerns a wife aged 40 years with four children, aged respectively fifteen, thirteen, ten and four years. When the eldest daughter became fifteen recently the Child Welfare Department reduced this woman’s allowance, although the daughter will be going to school until December so that she can sit for her Intermediate Certificate. The bank helped by reducing the monthly repayments on the home from £15 to £8, but it is still impossible for the woman to manage to pay council and water rates without assistance from voluntary agencies. Clothing is also a big problem, as are school books, school fees, &c. The family income is £9 15s. 4d., but the minimum requirement, quite apart from extra needs such as school fees and clothing, is £12 3s. 7d.

The next case is rather different. It concerns a woman of 68 years of age, with an adopted son aged thirteen. This woman lost her husband last year when he was killed by a hit-and-run driver. She and her thirteen-year-old adopted son now live in a

Housing Commission home, and, because she is a very capable manager, she is just able to manage at normal times. However, the budget cannot provide for clothing or any entertainment, and difficulties arise in times of extra need. For instance, she recently fell and badly dislocated her shoulder, and her thirteen-year-old son looked after her and the home and did the shopping. These two people have an income of £6 4s. a week, while the minimum basic requirements are slightly greater than this amount.

The last case I shall mention is that of a wife who in this instance is working. Her husband is in a mental hospital. She works as a cashier in a city retail store, there being no work available in her district, and she has to pay quite a large amount in fares. She does not get home until 6.45 p.m. She has indulged in what might be considered the luxury of a television set, so that the children can be kept occupied until she gets home in the evening. This has involved her in an extra £2 ls. a week for payments in accordance with the hire-purchase agreement. This woman has an income of £16 5s. 7d. a week, but her minimum requirements are £18 6s. 2d. a week. It should be realized that in all the other cases I have mentioned there has been no income at all by way of wages, and the circumstances, therefore, would be even more necessitous. I believe that the Government should certainly do something special to assist women in such circumstances.

Let me point out that all civilian widow benefits are subject to a means test. The widow is permitted to earn £3 10s. a week, plus 10s. for each child under sixteen years of age, including the first. If the widow receives other income, either from her own employment or, for example, in maintenance paid by a deserting husband, her pension is reduced by the amount that this exceeds the permitted income of £3 10s. plus 10s. for each child. I feel that the Government has erred a little in respect of civilian widows, because I think we should devise some system whereby a civilian widow could earn more than £3 10s. a week. It is very difficult these days for any person to get part-time work to earn only £3 10s. This amount is payable for perhaps a couple of hours more than a day. Employers do not make that kind of work available. The usual part-time work available for civilian widows is house cleaning or washing, for, say, two days in the week. This would give her more than she is permitted to earn under the existing legislation. I know that these considerations are all bound up generally with the means test, but I think the Government should look at the matter more closely and either liberalize the merged means test so that the widow may earn more, or provide a special rate of permissible income free of any assessment according to the merged means test.

The civilian widow is in a different position from the war widow, although she has similar obligations. We know that special consideration is given to the war widow because of the sacrifices made by her late husband, but the civilian widow also has to bring up a family in exactly the same circumstances and send them to exactly the same schools, fitting them to take the same kind of places in the community. A war widow with two children has an income of £12 19s., while the civilian widow gets £7 10s. This represents quite a difference. In some States the various child welfare departments give extra allowances. In New South Wales, for instance, it is £1 a week. In Western Australia the Child Welfare Department does a great job. However, it is the Commonwealth that is responsible for the differential treatment of civilian widows and war widows.

In the case of the war widow no means test is applicable. Very substantial provision is made for the education of her children up to the tertiary stage. Medical and hospital treatment is provided under normal repatriation arrangements for the war widow. She also has the benefit of substantial aid from Legacy. Civilian widows do not get any comparable assistance.

We draw, therefore, Sir, the following conclusions: The widow with pre-school age children cannot subsist on the present benefits without going out to work, and still could not subsist even if she earned the maximum permissible income. The cost of food alone, on the lowest possible scale, for a woman with two children under school age, was in 1959 reckoned by the Nutrition Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council at just over £4 a week, eggs, butter and biscuits being excluded as too expensive, and other items such as soap and matches being excluded.

We further conclude that when the children are of school age these civilian widows would have the utmost difficulty in keeping their families, even on a full wage - and this is quite apart from the fact that sufficient maternal care cannot be provided for the children. That was illustrated by the last of the several cases I mentioned to the House earlier in my speech. An overall increase in civilian widows’ pensions might not find favour everywhere because of the added cost, and because the assets and incomes of widows and their families vary considerably. I should like to suggest to the Minister for Social Services, and to the Government, that the Department of Social Services pay special benefits at the discretion of the director in each State. I feel sure that with the assistance of the social workers of the department, and of the nutrition experts and the housing authorities in each State, all cases of necessity could be assessed in relation to incomes and the liabilities of household budgets. My suggestion is that the Director of Social Services in each State be empowered to make an extra weekly payment to help bridge the gap between income received and the amount necessary to keep the family housed, clothed, fed and prepared for school.

As I pointed out before, community organizations, such as the Red Cross and the Services Canteens Trust Fund, have given tremendous help. Legacy and other groups have played their part also, and in some States child welfare departments have done a great job with the funds available to them, but there is still more that could be done. I should like to commend the Child Welfare Department of Western Australia for the wonderful job it has done in rendering some assistance to deserving cases. 1 ask the Government to have a look at the suggestions I have put forward to-night. We have a responsibility in which the community must share also, and I feel that the setting up of a “ special benefits “ plan for helping the civilian widow with a family is part of that responsibility.

The Opposition has been critical of the Government’s social services policy generally. I think it would be a useful exercise, therefore, to examine the social service benefits now in operation and to inform ourselves about the various benefits introduced by the Menzies Government. It was the Menzies Government that introduced child endowment, and it was the same government that extended child endowment to a first child, in the face of bitter opposition by the Labour Party. In 1951 the Menzies Government increased pensions by 7s. 6d. from £2 2s. 6d. to £2 10s. - an increase of 17.6 per cent. Then in the same year the Government introduced the pensioner medical service scheme which provided free medicine and general practitioner services for pensioners. In 1951-52 the Government increased pensions by 10s., an increase of 20 per cent., and it increased the property limit from £750 to £1,000. In 1952-53 the Government further increased the pension by 7s. 6d. and introduced a provision that all blind persons, irrespective of means, would be entitled to a pension. Such a provision could have been brought in by any previous Labour government but, as usual, the Labour Party did nothing for a very deserving section of the community. In the same year the Menzies Government extended the invalid pension to persons between sixteen and 21 years without imposing a means test on their parents. Again, Sir, that was a worthy extension of social service benefits which the Labour Party had ignored in previous years. In 1953-54 the Government again increased the pension rate, raised the allowable income and the property limit. In 1954-55 the Government increased the permissible income from £2 to £3 10s. and increased the property exemption.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

–

Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr JONES:
Newcastle

.- The honorable member for Stirling (Mr. Cash), during his contribution to this debate, has been very critical of his own Government. He took up a considerable portion of the half-hour allotted to him in criticizing the Government’s paltry, inefficient and insufficient social services scheme, particularly in relation to widows’ pensions, yet when the amendment moved by the Opposition is put to the vote in this House at a later stage the honorable member will no doubt vote against it. For an honorable member to talk in the way that the honorable member for Stirling has just spoken and then vote against the Opposition amendment is sheer humbug and hypocrisy.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Newcastle will withdraw that remark.

Mr JONES:

– I withdraw it. The honorable member for Stirling is only trying to score a point at the expense of his mates. I have a poor opinion of a person who is prepared to score points off his own mates and off his own Government. He will have an opportunity to give effect to his criticism of the Government, but when the Opposition’s amendment is put to the vote he will no doubt vote against it, although it suggests that something should be done about the anomalies that exist in the Social Services Act at present.

We have listened to the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) lauding the social services legislation to high heaven and telling us how marvellous it is, but previous Opposition speakers have shown, as will others who will take part in this debate later, that in actual fact our social services have not kept pact with the progress that the nation has made. When we discuss social services we should not be concerned mainly with the relativity of pensions to the basic wage to-day and ten or twenty years ago, with what the Labour Party did when it was in office, or with what the Liberal Party did when it was in office before the previous Labour Government. We can examine the social services structure over the years and we can find many omissions for which we can criticize governments of all kinds.

The honorable member for Stirling made reference to the failure of the Labour Party to increase the age pension during one year when it was in office and he stressed the fact that in 1941 the Menzies Government introduced the maternity allowance. He should have gone back a bit further to the so-called good old days, under anti-Labour governments, when, if a pensioner passed away owning property, the government stepped in and took over his estate so that it could recover what had been paid to him. Why talk about what other governments did? Why not have a look at the history of the present Government parties?

The amendment that has been moved by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser), on behalf of the Opposition, is to the effect that -

  1. . this House condemns the Government for having failed to increase rates of payment of various social services to correspond with increased prices, and particularly condemns the Government for again refusing to make any increase in child endowment, thus leaving child endowment unaltered since 1950, during which time its purchasing value has halved.

I feel we must look at the bill before the House in the light of some of the remarks made by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in his Budget speech. Let me refer briefly to a remark made by him in the first paragraph of that speech. He said -

To-day the Australian economy is, I believe, basically stronger than it has ever been.

We know that productivity to-day is greater than it has ever been. We know that as a result of the introduction of mechanization industrial production has increased greatly. Take the coal industry as an example. It is producing more coal with approximately two-thirds of the previous labour force. Some 18,000,000 tons of coal is being produced each year by a work force two-thirds of the size of that employed in 1952-53, when mechanization really started to move into the coal industry. A similar state of affairs exists in other industries. In the electricity-generating industry the same amount of electricity is being generated today with less coal and with less labour. In some old-time plants 500 men were required to produce a maximum of 70,000 kilowatts, but to-day the newer power houses are producing up to 300,000 kilowatts with a staff of 350 men.

Social service benefits should be considered in the light of these things. Just as the workers are entitled to their share of the increased productivity brought about by mechanization and new methods of production, so the people who are unfortunate enough to depend on social service payments are entitled to an improvement in the general standard of social service payment. Unless the political party that happens to be in control of the treasury bench is prepared to look at social service payments in that light, it is obviously falling down on its responsibility to the people it represents and, indeed, to the nation as a whole. We all know that both profits and produc tivity are higher to-day than ever before, but we also know that the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, Sir Richard Kirby, when delivering the basic wage judgment on 3rd July last, stated that an increase of 12s. was granted, not because of inflation caused by increased wages but because of inflation brought about by excess profits. We must examine the social services structure in the light of that judgment in arriving at what the Government should be prepared to pay pensioners. Having examined the position in the light of those circumstances, we of the Opposition have suggested the amounts that should be paid.

That brings me to the first point I wish to discuss - the base rate pension of £5 5s. a week for age and invalid pensioners. Much has been said by Government supporters of how marvellous a pension rate this is. Much has been said about how the present Government has increased the base rate pension over the years, but 1 have taken the trouble to work out some figures and I now propose to state the true position. In 1948, which was the last year in which the Labour Government increased pensions, the base rate pension of £2 2s. 6d. a week represented 35.7 per cent, of the basic wage. I know that the next speaker from the Government side who follows me in this debate will say that in its 1949 Budget the Labour Government did not increase the rate. It was not increased because the then Prime Minister, realizing that the economy of the country was in a state of flux, was not prepared to accept the responsibility of increasing the pension in that year. However, he did say that if Labour were returned to office at the 1949 election the pension rate would be increased. Having in mind the humanitarian legislation passed by the Chifley Government, I honestly believe that, had Labour been returned to office again, justice would have been done to the pensioner. In 1949. the year in which the Labour Government brought down its last Budget, the base rate pension represented 32.6 per cent, of the then basic wage. The £5 5s. which this Government is prepared to pay in an election year represents 36.1 per cent, of the present basic wage of £14 8s. a week. In other words, the new rate will represent a percentage increase of .4 of 1 per cent., or less than one-half of 1 per cent., on the percentage paid by the Chifley Government in 1948. Those figures give some idea of just how much this Government is prepared to give to the pensioners of Australia as their share of the increased productivity that has been made possible by mechanization and the introduction of new methods in industry.

Let us now consider what the new rate of £5 Ss. will represent to the pensioner in Victoria where, as a result of the lifting of rent and other controls, the basic wage has skyrocketed. In that State, where an anti-Labour government has abolished quarterly basic wage adjustments, the workers are being paid much less than they should be. In fact, they are actually receiving 37s. a week less than they would have received had quarterly adjustments of the basic wage been maintained. The new pension rate of £5 5s. a week represents only 31.3 per cent, of what should be the ruling basic rate in Victoria to-day of £16 4s. That percentage is very much less than the 32.6 per cent, which was the ratio of the pension to the basic wage when Labour left office in 1949, about which so much criticism came from the Government side to-day. It cannot be denied that a close analysis of the figures reveals that the pensioners are not in the happy position that honorable members on the Government side would have us believe. Further, a critical analysis of the figures discloses that honorable members on the Government side do not state the true position - they merely select what to them are juicy figures in order to present a misleading picture to the people. 1 come now to the 10s. supplementary rent allowance. The Government should examine this allowance closely with a view to giving some real assistance to pensioners. At the present time, the supplementary rent allowance is paid only to a single pensioner who is paying rent. In order to emphasize the sort of anomalies that can arise, I propose to quote the case of an old lady pensioner in my electorate who was the tenant of a little old house for which she was paying 10s. a week rent. Because she was paying rent, she was entitled to the supplementary rent allowance of 10s. a week. Eventually, the estate of which this house formed a part was sold. The new owners of the estate told the old lady that she would either have to vacate the house or buy it. They told her that if she decided to buy it they would arrange finance for her. The unfortunate lady bought the place, and immediately after she had done so her weekly payments on the property jumped from 10s. to 17s. 6d. The moment she signed on the dotted line and became the owner of the property the supplementary rent allowance was withdrawn. She had to buy the house or get out. Where could she have gone if she had got out? Immediately after she bought it in order to be sure of. a roof over her head, she was 17s. 6d. a week worse off. Not only had she to forego the 10s. supplementary rent allowance, but also she had to pay an additional 7s. 6d. over the previous rent to meet the repayments of the loan she had obtaned to buy the home. These cases should not be determined in the hard, cold light of a legal enactment. We all know that the law says that a pensioner must be single and must be paying rent in order to qualify for the supplementary allowance, but in cases such as that which I have mentioned, all the circumstances should be considered and special provision should be made for some assistance to be granted. It is in order to meet cases such as that that the Opposition has suggested that a form of national assistance ranging up to 30s. a week should be available. I know that the Government will ridicule the suggestion, but I remind honorable members opposite that the honorable member for Stirling (Mr. Cash) advocated some such form of national assistance when he was taking a rise out of the Government and scoring a point at the expense of his mates in the speech which he delivered to-night. We are suggesting that a national assistance fund be administered by the Department of Social Services which could thoroughly investigate all cases. For instance, in a case such as the one I have quoted in which the old lady was forced to become the owner of the house in order to have a roof over her head, some assistance should be granted. Incidentally, the loan she obtained to buy the house was advanced by one of the burglar shows - the hire-purchase shows - at a rate of 6 per cent, flat, which actually represents Hi per cent, simple interest.

A fund such as we suggest could be used to assist people in circumstances such as that, lt could also be used to assist pensioners who, because of the abolition of rent control, are required to pay from £3 to £4 a week in rent and who, because of that, have not enough left out of the pension to live in reasonable comfort. Each case should be considered on its merits. We should not adhere strictly to the provision that, before qualifying for the supplementary rent allowance of 10s. a week, the pensioner must be single, paying rent and not receiving other income in excess of 9s. 9d. a week. In our view, our suggestion is the only sensible, humanitarian approach to this problem, and such an approach is vital in the interests of the pensioners.

Then there are pensioners who find themselves in extreme difficulty in meeting medical costs. I refer to those suffering from chronic complaints who are required to pay out substantial sums to obtain necessary medical treatment. The fund which we suggest could also be used to assist those unfortunate people.

There is room for improvement, too, in the payment of allowances to dependent wives of pensioners. This has been a burning question for some considerable time. 1 refer to those cases in which the husband is of pensionable age and the wife is not. Prior to the easing of the means test, an allowance of up to 35s. a week was automatically paid to wives in those cases where the husband was an invalid pensioner and the wife was not of pensionable age. The amount of the allowance varied from place to place according to the whim of the Deputy-Director of Social Services in the State concerned. In relaxing the means test, the Government sought some means of saving some of the cost involved and decided to hit at the unfortunate invalid pensioner whose wife is not of pensionable age. Those wives who previously received 35s. do not now enjoy that benefit. W.of the Opposition say there should be a more sensible approach to the problem than that. If my father were a pensioner, I should hate to see my mother being required to go out to work at 55 years of age if ray father were incapable of keeping her on his pension, or if I were incapable of maintaining her. That is the attitude of most people. Many sons and daughters who now find it hard enough to support their own families have no option but to help their elderly parents as best they can in such circumstances rather than see their mothers go out to work because they are not of pensionable age. After all, as was mentioned by the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Bird) where could an age pensioner obtain employment to-day? Nobody is interested in giving a job to a person as old as an age pensioner. I know a man of 68 or 69 years of age who is very active and has tried everywhere to get a job in order to supplement his pension, but he cannot find one.

Mr James:

– There is just no work to be had.

Mr JONES:

– Exactly. There is no work for even the 113,000 able-bodied men at present unemployed. So we on this side of the House believe that once a breadwinner reaches pensionable age his wife should receive an immediate grant equal to the widow’s pension because, as we see it, there is no difference between her and a widow, in that she, too, has to live. We support the proposition that the wife of a pensioner must at all times be given sufficient money to live on.

There is also a great anomaly in relation to invalid pensions. A young married couple came to see me not long ago. The husband had had an accident which occurred at home and for which no compensation was payable. As a result of the accident he cannot work, and to the end of his days he will be an invalid pensioner. That couple’s income will be £5 5s. from the husband’s pension, plus, under the present proposal, £2 12s. 6d. wife’s allowance. How can this couple, who are now about 27 or 28 years of age, be expected to exist on such a paltry amount? Why should anybody who is unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident or have some incapacitating complaint be doomed to poverty for life? We feel there could be a fair and reasonable approach to assist people in such circumstances, and we propose the payment to the male invalid pensioner of £5 10s. a week with a similar amount as wife’s allowance. Such a combined payment would not be exorbitant; it would be fair and reasonable. In fact, those amounts should have been paid many years ago.

Child endowment is another important social service benefit. The honorable member for Stirling (Mr. Cash) showed himself to be very proud of the fact that in 1941 the Menzies Government introduced child endowment at the rate of 5s. for each child after the first. But I remind honorable members that at that time child endowment was granted by that Government only because the Commonwealth Arbitration Court had indicated that if the Government did not grant child endowment it, the court, would increase the basic wage. What happened in 1941 made the Labour Party fear, during the election campaign in 1949, that if child endowment were paid to the first child the result would be an immediate reduction in the basic wage, or that if the workers were entitled to an increase in the wage it would be withheld because of the endowment of the first child by 5s. a week or 10s. a week or whatever sum the government in power decided. The Government’s supporters know quite well that that was what we feared, but they continually rise in this chamber and claim that the Labour Party opposed endowment for the first child.

That brings me to a comparison of the value of child endowment now paid with its previous value. In 1945 the Labour Government increased child endowment to 7s. 6d. a week. In 1948 the endowment was increased to 10s., again by the Labour Government. The basic wage in 1948 was £5 19s., so the child endowment rate of 10s. a week was about one-twelfth of the basic wage. What is the position to-day? The present child endowment rate is onetwentyninth of the six capital cities basic wage. At the beginning of the Budget speech, the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) said-

To-day the Australian economy is, I believe, basically stronger than it has ever been.

Is that reflected in the amount paid in child endowment? We suggest that the rate of child endowment should be increased to 17s. 6d. a week, and even then it would approximate only one-fifteenth of the basic wage, which would be a lower proportion of it than was represented by the rate as a proportion of the basic wage in 1948, when the last increase in child endowment was made.

An increase to 17s. 6d. a week would therefore not maintain the 1948 relativity, but it would at least be better than anything the Government is prepared to do at present. The Government claims that on economic grounds it could not increase endowment for the second child and subsequent children to 17s. 6d. a week, yet the increase to bring the rate to that amount would not involve an outlay of as much a head of population, and therefore not a greater charge on the economy, as did the increase to 10s. a week in 1948. Our proposal would raise the total amount paid in child endowment to £63,000,000 annually. The Government claims that this would ruin the economy as a whole and would cause inflation. That claim is just too silly for words in view of the figures that I have given showing the relativity between the child endowment rate in 1948 to the then basic wage, and the present relativity. We put our proposition forward in the belief that the amount we suggest is in conformity with the present state of the economy.

The Government has fallen down on its responsibility in other directions in the social services field. It has fallen down on its responsibility in relation to maternity allowance, for example. The last increase in maternity allowance was made by a Labour government in 1943. Could any one seriously say, Mr. Speaker, that the economy of Australia to-day cannot afford an increase in the allowance after all that time? We believe that it can, and that the allowance should be increased in order to encourage this country’s birthrate. At the next election we are prepared to submit a proposal to increase maternity allowance to £30 for the first child, rising to £35 for the fourth child and subsequent children.

A social service benefit whose present level causes embarrassment to pensioners is the funeral benefit, which also has not been increased since 1943 from its then level of £10. We know, and honorable members opposite know, that aged people are embarrassed because they cannot afford to make provision for their funeral expenses. They feel that they are accepting charity and placing some burden on other members of their families in order to have a decent burial. We consider that in present circumstances the benefit should be increased to at least £30.

I turn now to unemployment and sickness benefits. The “ Sydney Morning Herald “ of 12th September publishes some comments of the various churches in Sydney regarding the unemployment position to-day. One of the members of the Church of England who are handling social affairs is reported to have said that the unemployment benefit is quite insufficient. According to the newspaper, the St. Vincent de Paul Society is providing 400 additional free meals a day. The Reverend N. F. Reeve, the superintendent and general secretary of the Sydney City Mission, has stated that the mission is serving about 2,500 additional free meals each month. Those are just a few of the comments that have been made about the unemployment position that exists at the moment. As honorable members know, in Melbourne the Church leaders got together and complained. They pointed out that the unemployment benefit was entirely inadequate.

When the previous Labour Government introduced the unemployment benefit of £2 10s. in 1945 the amount of the benefit represented 55 per cent, of the basic wage. To-day, the benefit of £7 a week for a man with a wife and child is only about 48 per cent, of the basic wage. The Government says that it has increased social service benefits, but it does not add that the benefits have not the same relative value to the basic wage that they had under the Labour Government. The Labour social service legislation was of a much higher standard. The benefits that it provided were available to those who really needed help.

I come now to the sickness benefit, which calls for the closest examination by the Government. Under the new proposal, a man with a wife and one child will be entitled to £7 a week and to permissible income of a additional £2 a week, making a total amount of £9 a week, on which they must live. Yet, an age pensioner couple, with no children to look after, are to receive £10 10s. a week. If a person on sickness benefit belongs to a sickness fund, he may receive an additional £2 a week from the fund, thus raising his income to £9 a week.

From that amount he must meet his medical expenses and everything else. I appeal to the Minister to review this benefit and to relax the means test considerably, so that people may be entitled to join a number of lodges or sickness funds and thus increase the benefits they may receive. When I was serving my time during the depression years, I contributed ls. a week to the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited sickness fund. The basic wage was then about £3 4s. 6d. a week. To-day, it is £14 8s. a week, and the employee still contributes only ls. a week.

It is most important that the means test, which applies to the permissible income of persons who are in receipt of sickness benefit, should be liberalized. People who are sick for relatively short periods are not entitled to the invalid pension. Once a doctor says to an employee, “ You are sick. Probably in three months, four months or six months you will be able to go back to work,” that man has to support his family on £7 a week, with an additional £2 if he belongs to a sickness fund.

Mr SPEAKER:

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

Mr BANDIDT:
Wide Bay

.- It is obvious that the subject of social services is apt to become something in the nature of a political football when it is discussed in this House. It is a pity that that should be so because it is a subject that requires sober and quiet consideration. I should say that all thinking members of this Parliament believe that the aged, the infirm, the sick and those who cannot help themselves, need the help of their country. The question that always arises, of course, is: What help can the country afford and what help should those people receive? [Quorum former.] The honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) has suggested that child endowment should be increased to 10s. a week for the first child, 17s. for the second child and £1 for all other children.

If child endowment were to be increased by 5s. a week for each child it would cost more than £43,000,000. If we were to increase child endowment according to the suggestions made by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, on to-day’s figures the cost would be approximately £60,700,000. made up in this way: For the first child. an additional £19,630,000; for the second child, £18,000,000; and for the third and subsequent children, £23,000,000. It must be borne in mind, at the same time, that that is not the only additional payment that the Opposition would make. It would also pay considerably more for many other items. I had occasion in this House only recently to consider some of those items. It is reasonable to say that the cost of the other suggestions made by the Opposition would be £300,000,000 or more, in addition to the £60,700,000 that the increased child endowment payments mentioned by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro would cost. If pensions were to be raised by ls. a week it would cost nearly £2,000,000 at present. If pensions were increased by about £1 15s. a week, to bring the combined pensions of a married couple to somewhere near the basic wage, it would cost an additional £66,000,000 a year. As I have said, the suggestions of the Opposition - in fact, they are promises - are additional to other promises that would cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the correct thing to do is to look at this matter in perspective and not to treat it as a political football. The bill for national welfare is rising every year. The Government must adopt a responsible attitude in deciding the amount which should be added to the bill. This year, the National Welfare Fund provides for expenditure of £358,000,000, including payments for health and other services. That is an increase of £28,000,000 on last year’s figure. Repatriation benefits will cost £102,000,000 this year, or about £4,000,000 more than last year. Any government must ask itself: By how much can we increase such payments. The Government must always have in mind the fact that the nation can afford only so much. If too much is paid out, the wrong result is achieved, because inflation follows. Of course, there is the question of how to find the money. When I interjected in this House only recently, one member of the Opposition said that I was only concerned with money. Surely the most important thing when one wants to spend money is to know where one will get the money. I am afraid that some members of the Opposition are quite careless about how much money is earned; all they are concerned about is that we should keep on spending more and more. How long would the average wage-earner last if he earned £16 a week and continued to spend £18 or £20 a week?

I submit that this Government has approached the question in a responsible way. One of the very good things it has done has been to introduce the merged means test. I will not go into details of that because so much has been said about it already. It is sufficient to say that more than 100,000 additional people to-day are receiving pensions in a fair way as the result of the introduction of the merged means test.

From all that is said in this House one would gain the impression that every pensioner in Australia is very dissatisfied. I have not found that to be so. I have found that in some instances pensioners do need more money. I shall mention some such cases shortly. But it is only fair to mention the other side of the picture, too. Many pensioner couples, who receive two pensions between them, have told me that they are quite satisfied. I have in my hand an extract from a letter written by a person from Ballarat to the Minister for Social Services. I cannot quote the whole letter because it is too long, but it says in part -

Dear Mr. Roberton,

I feel I must send you a few lines, for we are both listening to Parliament. You no doubt get and hear a lot of “ moans “ from pensioners. I feel you should hear the good side.

My husband and I are both pensioners. We worked hard (when able), bought a home and are able to live comfortably on our pension. We do not waste money but we live a simple happy life

We think you are doing a wonderful job. God bless you. . . . Thank you for your wise and generous understanding of people like ourselves.

Yours sincerely,

I am sure that if any member of the Opposition wanted to see the original of that letter the Minister for Social Services would be only too glad to show it to him.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention some of the cases about which I am not quite so happy. The Minister, in his secondreading speech, said -

Other structural, changes are under consideration. They involve differential rates of pensions and allowances to meet the needs of modern society . . .

I suggest that when the Government is considering changes it should take the question a little further than it has taken it hitherto.

It has been a matter of great personal pleasure to me to see that the Government has increased pensions in certain ways. 1 refer particularly to the rises of 12s. 6d. in the dependant’s allowance and 3s. 6d. in the child allowance. I consider that the Government has been very wise in doing that. However, I shall continue to advocate for the increases in these and other allowances.

Let hie take, for example, the case of an old married couple who, when their pensions are increased, will receive £10 10s. a week ^between them. They have a house worth, say, £1,200 or £1,500 which they have paid for out of their savings over the years. They are able to manage. They are able to live reasonably, but not in a luxurious manner, on their £10 10s. a week. They are able to “meet their rates and other expenses. However, if one of them dies, the survivor will have only £5 5s. a week with which to keep the house going and to live. My experience is that people who have not been able to save much money and so are not able to use that money or interest from it to help them along, find it difficult to keep a house and themselves on £5 5s. a week. I advocate that the Government further consider that question. The Minister’s remarks in his second-reading speech indicate that he will do so.

I now come to the case of an age pensioner whose wife is, say, 57 years of age. She is too young to receive the age pension, but because she is somewhat up in years she does not find it possible to go out and work. Under the new system the age pensioner will receive £5 5s. and his wife will receive 12s. 6d. in addition to the £1 15s. that she used to receive. If they have a young child - and we all strike age pensioners who have one or more young children - the child will receive 15s. a week. I advocate that the Government give close consideration to increasing those allowances even further because, although the addition of 12s. 6d. to the £i 15s. depandant’s allowance is useful, the allowance is still not enough. The same argument applies to the invalid pensioner with a dependent wife. Many invalid pensioners are in such a condition that their wives even if they can go out and work, feel that they must stay at home and look after their invalid husbands. The allowance they receive is not very great.

I cannot enumerate all the items to which I should like to see consideration given because time will not permit me to do so at this late hour. I suggest, as the honorable member for Stirling (Mr. Cash) has suggested, that the Government consider the position of widows, especially those with children. When a woman is left without a provider she is in a difficult position, especially when she has children. It is hard enough for a widow if she has no children, but it is doubly hard for her if she has children because she has the responsibility of bringing them up without the help of her husband. If she goes out to work in order to supplement the family income, she deprives her children of the attention that they should receive if they are to grow up as good citizens. Therefore, it i» obvious that in the interests of the nation, as far as possible, a widow should be enabled to look after her children without going out to work and leaving them to fend for themselves. Sometimes it happens that children can be looked after by a relative who just happens to be available, and the mother can go out from time to time. I believe that she should be permitted to go out because she is sure to want to earn more money to help the family along and to educate her children. I believe it is reasonable that she should be able to earn more money than she is allowed to earn at present without her pension being reduced.

Another suggestion I make - I know that it has been made in this House previously - is that pension increases should be made retrospective, if possible. I know that such action would cost more money, but I suggest that it would not cost so much more. If, for financial or other reasons, it is not possible to make pension increases retrospective to the first pay day after 1st July in the particular year, I suggest that the Government give earnest consideration to making pension increases retrospective to the first pay day after the introduction of the Budget.

I suggest also that the Government should subsidize the erection of social centres for pensioners. The Government’s subsidizing of homes for aged persons has proved to be popular, but it is important that pensioners should have access to social centres. When a pensioner becomes very old or sick he tends to become a little shy. Sometimes he will sit on a bench in the park and occasionally people will stop to talk to him. Surely the best place for age and invalid pensioners to meet other people is in reasonable surroundings, such as in a club room or a hall. I know that halls have been provided in various places. For example, in my electorate pensioners have collected a good deal of money for this purpose. In certain cities in my electorate other citizens have helped in this way. But it is very difficult for pensioners and others to raise sufficient money to build a social centre.

The Government would be doing pensioners a great service if it acknowledged the great benefit that would accrue from the provision of social centres for pensioners. If the Government cannot see its way clear to provide £2 for every £1 raised by pensioners and others for the provision of social centres I suggest that for a start it subsidize the erection of these places on a £l-for-£2 basis. If that were done I am sure that the results that would flow would be very worth while. If the Government subsidized the erection of social centres for pensioners it would be providing a comfort to a lot of people who are not as fortunate as most of us.

The suggestions that I have made would not involve the expenditure of a great deal of money. It may be argued that whilst I have pointed out that to put the Opposition’s suggestions into effect would cost a lot of money I myself have put forward suggestions that would cost a lot of money to implement. However, I submit that a careful scrutiny of my suggestions will show that if they were put into effect, as well as other improved benefits to which I have not alluded, the added cost would not be more than one-tenth of the cost of implementing the Opposition’s proposals.

Another suggestion that 1 make does not concern solely the Minister for Social Services, but it fits in with the general scheme of national welfare. I suggest that the retiring age should be raised from 65 years to 68 years. Because of the advance in scientific knowledge and in health-giving drugs and medicines, most people to-day at 65 years of age are in much better shape than were people of a similar age 30 or 40 years ago. I have known men who, at 65 years of age, were very fit. It is a great pity that such men should be withdrawn from the service of their country and thrown out of work through no fault of their own. Those men would be better off if they could remain in employment. I know that some men, because of their particular ability, are able to get work after they attain the age of 65 years. I heard it suggested in the House to-night that no man over 65 years of age can get a job, but I can introduce honorable members opposite to quite a number of men in my electorate who, at the age of 65, are still working satisfactorily. They return to work every year in the season. But not all men are as fortunate as those. Some men, once they lose a job, are not able to secure another position despite the fact that they are perfectly capable. I know of an instance of a man who wanted a certain machine part at the week-end. He wanted it quickly. He went to a coastal city and contacted the principal of a firm there. When asked for the machine part, the principal said, “ We will get old Joe to do this “. Old Joe was over 80 years of age, but he was the best man to do the repair job on that complicated machinery. My point is that we are wasting the ability of many men in our community. No country can afford to waste its man-power. We should give our elderly men and women the opportunity to work longer than they are working now, provided they are fit. If necessary, the Government should arrange to have employees medically examined when they reach the age of 65 years. If they are found to be in good health they could continue to work. If they are found not to be in good health they should cease work. If a person 65 years of age is not in good health it would be an advantage for him to know it.

The Government is to be complimented on the reasonable approach that it has made to this very difficult and vexed question of national welfare. The Government is to be complimented on the steps it has taken. The fact that it has made changes in the social services legislation this year shows that it is prepared to listen to suggestions. One honorable member opposite said to-night that everybody on this side of the House should say the same things in this debate and that nobody should make any suggestions for improving social services. What a ridiculous suggestion!

The very fact that Government supporters make suggestions in the House is an indication that they have minds of their own. The fact that the Government has made so many alterations and improvements in social services in the past shows that it is ever alive to the situation and is ready to make alterations when the situation permits. I hope that the Government will make whatever alterations are necessary to the legislation for the benefit of those people in the community who are not as well off as the members who sit in this place.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Duthie) adjourned.

House adjourned at 12.5 a.m. (Wednesday).

page 1080

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Land Settlement of Ex-Servicemen

Mr Davies:
BRADDON, TASMANIA

s asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice -

  1. What amounts have been expended to date on war service land settlement projects at (a) King Island, (b) Mawbanna, (c) Preolenna and (d) Togari in Tasmania?
  2. How many (a) dairy farms and (b) sheep farms have been established in each of those centres.
  3. How many acres have been approved for re-development on King Island?
Mr Adermann:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1. (a) £3,921,775, (b) £170,582, (c) £128,818, and (d) 2,240,229. The above figures represent net expenditure as at 31st August, 1961.

  1. King Island, 108 dairy farms, 59 fat lamb farms; Mawbanna, 11 dairy farms; Preolenna, 8 dairy farms; Togari, 46 dairy farms. Of the 46 farms at Togari only seventeen have as yet been reserved for settlers. One farm at Mawbanna is being aggregated with another reducing the final number to ten dairy farms.
  2. 5,209 acres.
Mr Davies:

s asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice! -

  1. . What new plant and machinery for war service land settlement on King Island was ordered or purchased during (a) 1960-61 and (b) 1961-62 to date?
  2. What was the actual or estimated cost of this plant and machinery?
Mr Adermann:
CP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1. (a) One Steelweld 2-ton crane, three 16-row Shearer drills, four K. & L. Willow drop spreaders, one Slape spray outfit, (b) Nil to date, but provision made for the purchase of: - One D7 or TD tractor, six AWD7 tractors, two D6 tractors, two D4 tractors, three Moore slashers, four 5-ton tip trucks, one flat top truck, four Land Rovers, three Utilities (International), one Utility (Holden), six S.J. harrow sets, one Ferguson 35 tractor. 2. (a) Actual cost of machinery and plant purchased during 1960-61, £3,481. (b) Estimated cost of machinery and plant to be purchased 1961-62, £85,944.

Education in the Northern Territory.

Mr Nelson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

n asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice -

  1. How many (a) intermediate exhibitions and (b) leaving scholarships are available to school children in the Northern Territory?
  2. How many children (a) quality for and (b) are able to take up these exhibitions and scholarships?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1. (a) Twelve intermediate exhibitions valued at £40 per year are available each year subject to a means test, (b) Twelve leaving honours scholarships of £50 per year subject to a means test were available for the 1961 school year. The number is to be reviewed for the 1962 school year. A boarding allowance of £80 per year and an annual return fare is paid to any student, whether an exhibitioner or not, living more than 10 miles from the nearest suitable school. 2. (a) Thirty-two intermediate and 27 leaving students qualified academically, (b) In 1961 three intermediate exhibitions and two leaving honours scholarships were awarded.

Telephone Services

Mr Swartz:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

z asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

  1. Has a master plan been prepared for the provision of rural automatic telephone exchanges throughout Australia?
  2. Are priorities for the installations based on such a plan?
  3. How many of these exchanges will be installed in the Darling Downs electorate during this financial year, and what areas will they serve?
  4. Are all rural automatic exchanges now being manufactured in Australia?
Mr Davidson:
CP

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

  1. Yes. The community telephone plan provides for the conversion of all manual exchanges to automatic working with the connexion of all calls both local and trunk under the direct control of the subscriber. This plan is necessarily of a long-term nature and will take many years to achieve. During the 1960-61 financial year, however, the number of automatic exchanges in country areas increased from 1,453 to 1,551 while the number of country subscribers receiving automatic telephone service increased from 223,456 to 256,610, an increase of 15 per cent.
  2. Yes. Priorities are determined by a study of all relevant factors such as the number of applicants for telephones in each area, the hours of service being provided by the existing manual exchange, the capacity of the manual exchange to meet demand and technical considerations involved in the switching of telephone traffic within the area.
  3. One; Kincora.
  4. No. Approximately 50 per cent, of the automatic equipment to be installed in country districts thi’s financial year will be manufactured in Australia and it is expected this percentage will increase progressively to complete local manufacture during 1963-64.

Basic Wage

Mr Ward:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

d asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice -

  1. Did Sir Douglas Copland, in evidence given before the Commonwealth Arbitration Commission earlier this year, state that, in terms of 1939 money values, the basic wage to-day is worth only £4 8s. 8d., which is less than the basic wage in existence in 1939?
  2. Did the same gentleman also state that, during the same period, productivity had risen by 18 per cent.?
  3. Does he accept the accuracy of the figures quoted by Sir Douglas Copland?
  4. If so, what is the justification for his repeated statements that the Australian workers’ standard of living has improved during the term of office of this Government?
Mr McMahon:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s questions - is as follows: -

  1. to 4. The basis and assumptions on which Sir Douglas Copland’s figures were calculated would, by general assent, I think, be very much open to discussion and argument. Indeed, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission itself said - “ We cannot agree with Sir Douglas that 1952-53 is a satisfactory base year from which to compare increases in productivity and increases in the real basic wage “ (page 20 of judgment). The amount of £4 8s. 8d. appears in an exhibit tendered by Sir Douglas, ft represented, according to him, the real basic wage for the year 1959-60, that is to say, the nominal basic wage deflated by the C series retail price index using 1939 as the base. According to the same table, the real basic wage in the year 1938-39 was £3 15s. lOd. The actual basic wage ranged during 1939 from £3 17s. to £3 19s. The 18 per cent, mentioned in question 2 had reference to the period 1952-53 to 1959-60. In this regard, please see observation by the commission quoted above. On the basis of Sir

Douglas’s evidence, real average weekly earnings per employed male unit at constant prices increased very markedly between the years 1952-53 and 1959-60.

Honours and Awards

Mr Ward:

d asked the Prime Minister, upon notice -

Is it deemed necessary to secure the acquiescence of an intended recipient before a recommendation is made by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty for the conferring of an Imperial honour?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: - 1 direct the honorable member’s attention to the answer I gave to a similar question on notice from him which is printed in “ Hansard “ for 31st August.

Postal Services

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice -

What changes were made in the rates charged and the annual payments received by each railway system and airline after the transfer of most letters to airmail?

Mr Davidson:
CP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: - 1 Payments to the various railway systems are based on mail weighings conducted at two-yearly intervals. By agreement with all railways, payments are determined from base rates per pound in agreed zones, escalated for certain cost increases measured over regular two-yearly periods. The results of the mail weighing are applied to these escalated rates to calculate payments due to each railway system for the next two-year period, commencing on 1st January following the year in which the mail weighing is held.

  1. The rates for determining payment to the railways were therefore independent of the change in conveyance from rail to air for eligible letterclass mails. In addition, because of the change due in November, 1959, the mail weighing in that year was deferred to September-October, 1960. The adjusted payment, however, was retrospective to 1st January, 1960. fri view of this arrangement payments made to the respective systems for mail conveyed during the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 are given -
  2. Although operation “ Post Haste “ was, generally, responsible for the reduction in payments, other factors, such as increases in postage rates in 1959 and the altered routing and method of conveyance for some mails, also affected the payments.
  3. Details of the payments made to all domestic airlines for the three years 1958-59 to 1960-61 are set out in the attached statement together with the rates of payment to those airlines prior to and subsequent to 1st November, 1959.

Shipping

Mr Whitlam:

m asked 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 (if) other owners? 2 What is the tonnage of these ships?

    1. Who are the builders?
    2. When did the Government approve the orders?
    3. What is the estimated date of completion?
Mr Opperman:
LP

n. - The answer to the honorable member’s questions is: -

The following is a list of vessels under construction or on order in Australian yards for Australian owners: -

Trading vessels -

In addition to the above there are several tugs, barges, &c, under construction at various yards throughout Australia.

There are no trading vessels on order overseas for Australian shipowners.

Retired Public Servants

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for Health, upon notice -

When Dr. A. J. Metcalfe, C.B.E., retired as Director-General of Health, did he seek or receive the Minister’s approval to become a consultant to ( ederle Laboratories?

Dr Donald Cameron:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

page 1083

No

Taxation

Mr Crean:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

n asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

How many income tax returns from (a) individuals, (b) partnerships of two partners, (c) partnerships of more than two partners, (d) trusts, (e) private companies, (f) non-private companies, (g) co-operative companies and (h) non-profit companies, were lodged in each of the last ten years for which statistics are available?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The attached table provides the available information for the income years 1949-50 to 1958-59 inclusive. In those years for which precise figures are not available the approximate numbers have been included and appropriately footnoted. It will be noted that the latest information available is for the income year 1958-59. The classifications are statistically recorded as the returns are assessed which, of course, may be one year and, in some instances, two years after lodgment. Statistical compilation for the income year 1959-60 has not so far been completed.

Insurance Companies

Mr Crean:

n asked the Acting Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Is any action being taken to remedy the situation pointed out in paragraph 8 of the Fifteenth Annual Report of the Insurance Commissioner that, while some old established companies have an unsatisfactory rate of forfeiture for ordinary business, there is also evidence of a higher than average number of forfeitures amongst some of the newer companies?
  2. What are the names of the new companies referred to?
  3. Do the figures in column (9) of Table 14 of the report, which show expenses as a percentage of premium income, reveal that some companies had a percentage below 20 whereas others were well in excess of 30; if so, can he say why there are these wide discrepancies?
Mr Menzies:
LP

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

  1. Yes, but the action being taken is necessarily subject to the secrecy provisions of the Life Insurance Act.
  2. See answer to first question. As particulars relating to forfeitures of policies may be published in terms of the act, they are published in the Insurance Commissioner’s annual report against the name of the company concerned.
  3. Yes. Some reasons are indicated in footnote (b) to the table where it is stated that no allowance has been made for such factors as the relative proportions of (i) new business and renewal expenses, or (ii) the types of policy mainly issued.

Treaties

Mr Whitlam:

m asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice -

What treaties have been drafted or reviewed at conferences attended by Australian representatives or observers in the last year?

Mr Menzies:
LP

– The answer to the honorable member’s question is as follows: -

The following treaties have been drafted in final form at international conferences attended by Australian representatives or observers since August, 1960. The list indicates the cases where earlier treaties have been reviewed at such conferences: -

Customs Convention (6th October, 1960) on the Temporary Importation of Packings.

Declaration on the Provisional Accession of Argentina to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (18th November,

1960) .

Declaration (19th November, 1960) on the

Continued Application of Schedules to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1961-63.

Declaration (19th November, 1960) giving effect to the Provisions of Article XVI.: 4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Declaration (19th November, 1960) on the extension of the Standstill Provision of Article XVI.: 4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Amendment (9th December, 1960) on the

Constitution of the Eastern Regional Organization for Public Administration.

Convention (14th December, 1960) against

Discrimination in Education.

Asian Oceanic Postal Convention (23rd

January, 1961).

Single Narcotics Convention (30th March.

1961) .

Convention (18th April, 1961) on Diplomatic Relations.

Convention (29th April, 1961) for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Carriage of Passengers by Sea.

Customs Convention (8th June, 1961) or the Temporary Importation of Professional Equipment.

Protocol (21st June, 1961) amending

Article 50 of the Chicago Convention on Civil Aviation.

Convention (26th June, 1961) concerning the Partial Revision of the Conventions adopted by the General Conference of the International Labour Organization, at its first 32 sessions for the purpose of standardizing the Provisions regarding the Preparation of Reports by the Governing Body of the International Labour Office on the Working of the Conventions.

Arrangements (21st July, 1961) regarding

International Trade in Cotton Textiles.

There have also been negotiations under

Articles XXVII., XXVIII., and XIX. of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade with the following countries: - United Kingdom, France, Federal Republic of Germany, the Benelux countries, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Hong Kong, Czechoslovakia, United States, India and South Africa. There have also been negotiations with the European Economic Community under Article XXIV.: 6 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 12 September 1961, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1961/19610912_reps_23_hor32/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant