House of Representatives
19 September 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 26th Parliament
  3. 1968

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1247

RHODESIA

Petition

Dr EVERINGHAM presented a petition from certain electors of the Commonwealth praying that this House (1) Take any action necessary to, ensure that the Government does not implement the Resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations imposing economic sanctions upon the Government and people of Rhodesia; and (2) Will consider the advisability of sending a fact finding mission to Rhodesia to see and hear at first hand the existing conditions of life of black Africans in Rhodesia and the’ present and future policy of the Rhodesian Government concerning black Africans.

Petition received and read.

page 1247

QUESTION

SOUTH AFRICA

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for the Navy. I remind him of what appears to be the decision of the Government of South Africa not to permit the Marylebone Cricket Club’s team to play in South Africa while Basil D’Oliviera is a member of that team. To indicate Australia’s strong disapproval of South Africa’s vicious apartheid policies, will he cancel the courtesy visit to be made to Australia next month by three ships of the South African Navy? Will he consult with his colleagues to see whether it is desirable, in Australia’s national interest, to continue to be associated with South Africa in sporting matters in circumstances which might appear to condone the racialist policies of that Government?

Mr KELLY:
Minister for the Navy · WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is: No.

page 1247

QUESTION

DYSLEXIA

Sir JOHN CRAMER:
BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Education and Science aware that more than 25,000 dyslexic children are estimated to be within the education system of Australia? Does he appreciate that these children are, for the most part, highly intelligent and normal except for the fact of their dyslexic condition which makes it very difficult for them to learn to read and write by the standard method of teaching? As a result of neglect in the past and lack of understanding of this problem tens of thousands of young children in the community -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member is now giving a great deal of information. He should ask his question.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– Just a little further.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honourable member will ask his question.

Sir JOHN CRAMER:

– I will. Will the Minister discuss this matter with the State Ministers for Education, have a full investigation made and take such remedial action as appears necessary?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The Department of Education and Science maintains on a continuing basis a wide contact on a variety of matters with State departments. I am advised that dyslexia is a condition that is hard to define in an individual. The honourable member is correct in saying that it is a condition causing difficulty with reading. It is not in any way mental retardation, and occurs often in people with higher than average intelligence. I am advised also that State Departments of Education and. for example, the remedial education centre at the University of Queensland, have warned against making any precise estimate of the number of children who might be affected, because of the difficulty of definition in relation to individual children. The honourable member may be interested to know that the Victorian Department of Education has decided to establish a research clinic to investigate this problem. Pending the establishment of the clinic the Victorian Department intends to establish an administrative unit to assist teachers to deal with the problem. AH State Departments of Education make special provision of one degree or another for children who have some particular difficulty but they prefer, where possible, to maintain teaching within the normal stream and not to isolate children more than necessary. The honourable member may be interested to know that the Australian Research Grants Committee has made funds available to enable a research worker in the University of Sydney to examine the problems relating to dyslexic children.

page 1248

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE

page 1248

FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Mr COSTA:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the Premier of New South Wales said last Saturday, while addressing 500 delegates to the Liberal Party convention-

Mr Dobie:

– There were 700 delegates.

Mr COSTA:

– I thank the honourable member. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Premier of New South Wales told 700 ‘ delegates at the Liberal Party convention that the Commonwealth Government has reduced -New South Wales’ share of taxation revenue from 38% in 1959 to 30% this year? Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the reason for such a drastic reduction? How does his Government expect the New South Wales Government to provide urgently needed health services, hospitals, education facilities, housing, sewerage reticulation services and many other things?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I read some newspaper reports of the meeting to which the honourable member has referred, but to the best of my knowledge I- have not received any communication from the Premier of New South Wales about these matters since the conclusion of the Premiers Conference; I have .not the capacity to answer the particular .statistical question which has been asked by the honourable member, but one fact is undeniable, and that is that year by year the sums of money available to- State governments have been quite considerably growing.

page 1248

QUESTION

COURT HOUSE BUILDING, ADELAIDE

Mr JESSOP:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Attorney-General inform the House whether the Commonwealth Government proposes to construct a Commonwealth court house building in Adelaide? If so, is he able to say what progress has been made on the project?

Mr BOWEN:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Commonwealth has decided to build a new Commonwealth court house in Adelaide -on the corner of King William Street and Wright Street This is in the same block as is occupied by the Supreme Court in Adelaide. At the present stage the Department of Works is considering the matter and sketch plans are being prepared. Negotiations with the South Australian Government to acquire a small additional piece of land are also in progress. I would hope that the proposals for the court bouse would be available for me to seek a reference to the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Works before the Parliament rises.

page 1248

QUESTION

OVERSEAS BALANCES

Mr UREN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that in the’ last financial year Australia had a deficit balance on current account of more than $l,000m and that our overseas reserves were not affected because of the inflow of private foreign investment amounting to SI, 100m. Does the right honourable gentleman agree that on present trends our deficit balance on current account’ will be similar this year to what it was last year? Does he agree with Sir Ian Potter that the foreign capital inflow this year will be approximately $700m? If these predictions are correct does he agree that there will be a fall in overseas reserves of approximately $500m in this financial year? If he does- agree, is this one of the major reasons why there is to ‘be an election this year, and will the Government introduce credit restrictions in early 19697-

Mr SPEAKER:

– The -latter part of the honourable member’s question deals with’ a matter’ of policy and is therefore out of order.’

Mr GORTON:
LP

– It ‘isi a. matter of record that -.during the last financial year our balance of trade on- current account, after taking into account invisibles, was of the order stated by the honourable memberI would -not say it was exactly that amount - and that the overseas capital inflow of $l,000m made up for the deficit on the current account. As . was pointed out in the Budget - I think the honourable member was here during the Budget debateit is expected that in this financial year the current account deficit .should be much less, particularly in regard, to the fact .that the drought which was so bad last year throughout so much of Australia will not have the same effects during this year. The assessment is that the ‘.current account deficit ought to be and probably will - these are all only estimates that people can make - be lower. In that case, as I pointed out myself in my Budget speech, we can have a smaller inflow of overseas capital and not run into the difficulties which the honourable member has suggested. I would not endorse any particular figure, as I am asked to do, for overseas capital inflow, but I would believe that there would be a significant capital inflow during this year and a significant increase in our earnings from current account and therefore that the dreams that the honourable member is putting forward to this House are without any substance.

page 1249

QUESTION

BEEF

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask- the Minister for Primary Industry whether, in view of conflicting and vague accounts of the situation relating to beef exports to the United States and the possibility that .trade interests may take advantage of these circumstances to . panic cattlemen into unloading, stock on the market, with a consequent serious fall in prices which would affect not only the producers but also the livelihood of many station workers in inland areas, he will issue a statement as soon as possible to clarify the position.

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– As I told this House yesterday, if imports of meat into the United States continue at their present rate the American authorities will be compelled to impose quotas on meat imports. This would not be to our advantage, and it would be in our interest to exercise restraint. Discussions are being held on this matter today by the Australian Meat Board. I will also be having talks with Americans who are in Canberra at the moment and I hope to be able to make a statement soon so that the industry may know what action is being taken.

page 1249

QUESTION

DAIRYING

Mr HANSEN:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the proposed scheme for the rehabilitation of the dairying industry by the amalgamation of properties. Is the scheme expected to reduce production, at least temporarily, of dairy products? Is the success of the scheme likely to be prejudiced by the opening up by the Victorian Government of country in the Heytesbury and Otway districts for the establishment of a considerable number of dairy farms?

Mr ANTHONY:
CP

– The objectives of the marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme are threefold; firstly to try to help the small farmer who is getting a very poor income to move off his farm if he wishes to do so, secondly to encourage the amalgamation of properties so that bigger units may be established, and thirdly to bring about, again by the amalgamation of small farms, diversification of production. We hope that in many areas of Australia where dairy farming is marginal the farmers may go out of dairying altogether. This would, of course, tend to decrease the production of dairy products. I have noted with great concern the developments in the Heytesbury area in Victoria where more dairy farms are being established, and I have expressed to the Victorian Minister for Agriculture at meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council my disappointment with the policy of the Victorian Government in encouraging the establishment of these farms. I hope this policy will not continue indefinitely.

page 1249

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to put a question to the Minister for Immigration. What steps have been taken to curb or reduce the tendency of professional and trade bodies to resort to monopolistic practices designed to prevent migrants from practising their skills in this country, so doing a wrong to the individuals concerned and a hurt to the economy and the community as a whole? Is it not desirable that people with professional and trade qualifications should be encouraged to come to Australia and that this country should not acquire a reputation for discouraging such intending immigrants? I ask this question in the context of an influx of Czechs whom we should not only admire but also help, and in so doing help ourselves..

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Immigration · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– There are two matters involved in the honourable member’s question. The first is professional qualifications and the second is trade qualifications. As to trade qualifications a mission will be going overseas next month which will consist of a leader selected from the officers of the Department of Labour and National Service, two representatives from employer organisations and three representatives from trade unions, especially the electrical and metal industry trade unions. The purpose of this mission will be to assess methods of training overseas and to see whether or not these methods of training should lead us to make changes in our Tradesmen’s Rights Regulation Act. I think some good results will come from this.

As to professional qualifications, these are occasioning me much more concern because at present there are two separate arrangements for the recognition of these qualifications. There is governmental recognition and there is recognition by the various professional bodies themselves. We have, as I have said in this House, no power to do anything except in the Territories. Elsewhere’ we must use persuasion. How we can achieve that persuasion is the point at which the honourable member is arriving. I asked all State Ministers for Immigration to meet me in Canberra, and we met about 6 weeks ago. At that meeting the State Ministers and I agreed on a method of approaching the problem. Essentially that method is to have a highly expert person or committee look at all professional areas and at overseas qualifications and suggest to the professional State regulatory bodies what degrees should be recognised in Australia. We emphasise that we want not to lower the qualifications but to give recognition to equivalent qualifications.

At the end of his question the honourable member mentioned Czechoslovakian people who are coming here for resettlement. This raises a very real issue. It so happens that at this time in Austria a number of people of Czech origin who are extremely highly qualified are seeking resettlement in Australia. These people would bring to Australia an intellectual and professional force that would be of great value to Australia in the future. Today I will be sending a communication to my colleagues seeking to enlist their support and the support of their colleagues in the State governments. J am asking my colleague, the Minister for Health, to see whether or not arrangements can be made through professional and governmental regulatory bodies for special action to be taken to recognise the qualifications of these potential migrants to Australia. I hope to have. some success, but I must say that whether or not I have success depends on other people and on the power of advocacy, not only of myself but of all people who think that this problem has lasted long enough and that it is time the walls of objection were broken down.

page 1250

QUESTION

APPRENTICES

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– The Minister for Labour and National Service will remember that some time ago I asked him a question relating to living away from home allowances for apprentices and the extension of that scheme to the Geelong area. On that occasion he said that the matter was under consideration. As some time has elapsed and the placement of apprentices for next year is in train, can the Minister inform me whether any decision has been made on the extension of the Commonwealth apprenticeship allowances to the Geelong area so that boys seeking employment in that area will know the position?

Mr BURY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I vividly recollect the honourable member’s question. He will appreciate that this is part of something wider - that is, the general question of paying allowances not only to apprentices not only in Geelong but also to country apprentices who are training not in other country towns but in capital cities. This problem involves a number of different parties, and I am not yet in a position to say that it has teen resolved. When it has been resolved it will, of course, require further funds. So a governmental process will be involved after that. However, I am pressing ahead with the matter as fast as I can in the circumstances.

page 1250

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr DOBIE:

– Following upon the answer given by the Minister for Immigration to the honourable member for Bradfield I address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the case of Mr Nabil Messiha, a migrant from Egypt who has a degree in agricultural science and who it is reported has been unable to find a job in his field in Australia but has been obliged to take a job as a packer? Is this failure due to a lack of recognition of his qualifications by professional bodies in this country?

Mr BURY:
LP

– I am aware of the circumstances of this particular case, which has been given wide publicity. Unlike many other cases - and my colleague the Minister for Immigration referred to the general problem - this man’s qualifications were readily recognised by the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science. The trouble in this instance is not that his qualifications were not recognised, but that they are in fact so specialised that the opportunities in his particular field are not numerous in Australia, occurring only from time to time. His speciality is land reclamation.

My Department has been trying to find a suitable position for him. His case has been referred to the Soil Conservation Service, the Department of Main Roads, the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board and to about ten private companies which are engaged in the agricultural, fertiliser, chemical, geophysical and mining fields, but so far we have not been able to find what he requires. His is a specialist sphere and he has been in Australia only about 6 weeks.

But there is a wider problem. Because qualifications were readily recognised it does not mean that there are not difficulties in other cases. In many cases, although the people with specialist qualifications are good types of high quality, their capacities and talents are much more difficult to assess, quite apart from any resistance there might be on the part of professional bodies. But in this case we will continue to persevere and to endeavour to find this man an opening.

page 1251

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the AttorneyGeneral a question. It arises from the reports of the distribution commissioners which were tabled last night and which show, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, more and greater variations from the State quota than in any previous distribution. The Minister is aware that the United States Supreme Court has declared such large variations unconstitutional and that my Party contemplates asking the High Court to give a similar ruling under the sections of the Australian Constitution which were borrowed from the US Constitution. Therefore, since such proceedings would in reality be a contest in which the Court had to decide between the Liberal-Country Parties’ views and the Labor Party’s views on the Constitution and in which the Liberal and Country Parties could and would call on the full official, legal and financial resources of the Commonwealth while the Opposition would be compelled, and indeed content, to call on purely private and Party resources, I ask whether the Government is willing, as the Opposition is willing, to seek no order for costs in such proceedings. The Minister will realise that if the Government Parties’ point of view is rejected by the court the public would pay the costs for the presentation of that view and could pay for the presentation of the Labor Party’s view also, while if the Labor Party’s view is rejected by the court the Labor Party would not only have to pay for the presentation of its view but might have to pay for the presentation of the Liberal-Country Parties’ view also. Will he therefore agree-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! It has been the custom and practice in this House to allow some courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition in relation to asking questions, but I feel that this question is far too long for question time, and T would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that although the subject of the question is important to members of the House, the question might have been put on the notice paper. Alternatively, it might be curtailed.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Might I conclude with this question? Will the honourable gentleman therefore agree-

Mr Gorton:

– A point of order. The point of order is whether the Leader of the Opposition is in order in referring to recommendations made by independent commissioners as being the Liberal-Country Parties’ point of view.

WHITLAM, Gough:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not.

Mr Gorton:

– Yes, you did. You are attacking independent commissioners’ recommendations, not Party recommendations.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Leader of the Opposition would not be in order in referring to Party commissioners of any sort. But my interpretation of his question at the time was that he was referring to commissioners as a whole.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Will the AttorneyGeneral therefore agree that no order for costs should be sought, with the result that not only would the Labor Party and its supporters pay less if their point of view were rejected but public funds would be saved if the Liberal-Country Party view were rejected?

Mr BOWEN:
LP

– This is a highly tendentious question in that form. It is clear that if there is to be a challenge, it must be a challenge to the validity of the Commonwealth Electoral Act. Indeed, the particular provision of the Act is section 19, the enactment of which was specifically provided for in the Constitution. A provision in the form of section 19, with its tolerance of 20% above or below the quota, has been in the Commonwealth Electoral Act since its original enactment in 1902. To suggest that a challenge to that law is a contest between the Australian Labor Party on one hand and the Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party on the other is utter nonsense. Such a challenge would be an attack on the validity of a long established and well accepted Commonwealth electoral law. That law has been amended by this Parliament from’ time to time and on every occasion this” provision has been confirmed by the Parliament. It would he unusual in any circumstances for the Government to finance, directly or indirectly, an attack on the laws of this Parliament. I do not know whether the learned Leader of the Opposition is serious in his- suggestion that his Party is contemplating a challenge. It may be rather that he is addressing his remarks to his own supporters. I suggest that if any question as to cost is to be raised if a challenge is made, this is a matter which should be discussed between counsel and should be considered at the proper time.

page 1252

QUESTION

WELD LIFE CONSERVATION

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Education and Science. In view of the concern expressed by the head of the Wildlife Division of. the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation at the drastic effect of the indiscriminate use of pesticides on the Australian wild life population and the fact that at least 25 pesticides in general use in Australia have been classified as being toxic to birds and wild life generally, will the Minister give consideration to the introduction of legislation that will limit the use of pesticides to those which have been examined by the CSIRO and declared to be not harmful to our native birds and animals?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The general problem of conservation and of the CSIRO’s activities in conservation is one which I have been discussing with the Organisation for some time, as I believe the honourable member would know. I think that the question he raises is one that would really involve State legislation, subject to any legal advice, which I am not competent to give. I know that Victoria has been giving considerable attention to the problem of pesticides. In the actions it has taken or proposes to take in this matter, it may well be leading the Commonwealth. I will discuss with the CSIRO the question of the harmful effects that pesticides can have in a number of respects, and will see whether it would be advisable or possible to indicate some course of action.

page 1252

QUESTION

GORTON MINISTRY

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What justification is there for the absence, when the Parliament is sitting, of three senior members of Cabinet? Is it essential that the Minister for External Affairs be absent from the Parliament at a time of considerable international significance? With three members of the Cabinet’s Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee absent, when will the strategic reassessment of Australia’s defence policies be completed?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I would have thought that most members of the House would have agreed with the proposition that it is very necessary for the Deputy Prime Minister to be attending a sugar industry conference the results of which could have such immense effects on the State of Queensland and on Australia generally. Furthermore, the Treasurer is to attend the financial meetings which he has to attend periodically, again for the benefit of this country. The Minister for External Affairs has a necessity, particularly at this point of time, to consult with the countries to which he is going. All of these particular Ministers have copies of the defence strategic review. Their other activities will not prevent them reading and forming judgments on those copies or being in communication with me, because it is quite possible- I say this to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition - for cables, telephone conversations and matters of that kind to be conducted even between people in different parts of the world, and the processes can be well advanced in spite of what is an admitted but unavoidable difficulty of the particular Ministers being away at this time.

page 1253

QUESTION

WATER CONSERVATION

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for National Development, relates to the Commonwealth Government grant of $50m to the States for approved water resources projects. Has the whole of the $50m been allocated? Did the amount involved in applications from the States far exceed the total amount of the grant? Did some applications for grants for projects of great merit and urgency have to be refused? If so, does that indicate that an increase in the basic $50m could, to advantage, be given high priority in Commonweath Government spending? If the Minister thinks that is so, will he, as opportunity offers, keep the subject before Cabinet?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for National Development · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The amount allocated from the $50m so far is $24.6m for one project in Queensland and two small ones in Victoria. We have on a shorter list, which is being looked at closely by various departments of the Commonwealth and which will then be brought before the Government, six additional projects which have been named and from which we hope we can make some selections later this year. If all six projects were agreed to, that undoubtedly would take up all of the $50m that is available under the Commonwealth Government’s present programme. I note that the honourable member apparently desires that this sum be increased. I hope that he will advocate that to many people.

page 1253

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Mr Speaker, my question is directed to you. It relates to what purports to be the bust of Charles James Fox outside the Parliamentary Library, but which I understand is in fact the bust of King George IV. Will you, with the President of the Senate, investigate how this error came about and take steps to exchange with the donors the bust of King George IV for the intended sculpture work, the bust of Charles James Fox, which was left in error in the United Kingdom? Alternatively, could the bust of King George IV be designated correctly on its pedestal?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I assure the honourable member that 1 do not want him to be exhilarated and to bust himself over this question. I will have inquiries made and endeavour to have the error rectified.

page 1253

QUESTION

STATES’ FINANCIAL PROGRAMMES

Dr MACKAY:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and refers to CommonwealthState financial relationships. My question follows one asked by the honourable member for Bennelong on I0th September last. Does the Prime Minister agree that many and basic changes have taken place in Australia’s economic potential and requirements since federation and, indeed, in the last decade? In view of these changes will the Prime Minister give consideration to holding, as early as possible, a joint constitutional conference with the States on the financial implications of measures taken under, for example, section 96 of the Constitution? Will he consider such a conference with a view to arriving at a modern and viable accommodation with the States as to which new areas - I instance mining - might properly be brought more closely under Commonwealth leadership and which others, such as education, might be better further developed under largely State control?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– Quite clearly there has been an immense increase in Australia’s economic potential during the period to which the honourable member refers, just as there has been, in my view, a very greatly increased desire amongst the Australian people generally that there should be equivalents of standards in such things as education and health amongst’ all the areas of Australia, no matter in which area a citizen might live. These are various changes which endorse what the honourable member has said. As for the question to me as to what I would propose to do or would think about doing or would consider doing, that, I think, is not a matter which it is proper for me to answer at question time.

page 1253

QUESTION

RADIO STATION LICENCES

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to a reply to a question of mine in which he told me that West Australian Newspapers Ltd already control four licences for radio stations in Western Australia and there is before him an application from TVW Ltd for the control of four additional licences there. The Minister said, in his answer, that TVW Ltd was not controlled as to 50% of its shareholding by West Australian Newspapers. I ask him: Is he aware that West Australian Newspapers and its nominees control more than 48.% of the shares of TVW Ltd and the remaining 52% are widely distributed among the general public? Is he aware that under section 92(b) of the Broadcasting and Television Act a person is deemed to be in control of a company if he is in a position to exercise more than 15% of the total votes? Is there any limitation in the Articles of Association of TVW Ltd, which has been brought to his attention, which would prevent West Australian Newspapers exercising more than 15% of the votes in TVW Ltd? If there is not, why has he not yet rejected the proposed acquisition which will enable West Australian Newspapers to control two stations in the metropolitan area and eight within the one State, which clearly is in breach of section 90(1.) of the Act?

Mr HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– My understanding is -that West Australian Newspapers Ltd has a 44.4% shareholding interest in TVW Ltd. This question, and the one asked of me on 11th September last, refer to interests in radio stations as distinct from television stations. The Broadcasting and. Television Act provides that 15% shareholding interest is a controlling interest in relation to television stations. In relation to radio stations it is 50% plus 1. So there is a substantial difference between the interest which a person can hold in a television station and the interest which he can hold in a radio station, to be regarded as a controlling interest. Therefore, under the Broadcasting and Television Act, West Australian Newspapers has a controlling interest in TVW, but in fact TVW has no interest in radio stations. A 50% interest would be required before West Australian Newspapers could be regarded as having control of radio stations held by TVW.

page 1254

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Mr MUNRO:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister now received from the Premier of New South Wales a detailed submission seeking an extension of certain Commonwealth drought relief provisions, including grants for local government employment, beyond 30th September, specifically with regard to the Monaro and the South Coast - in fact, virtually the whole of the Federal electorate of Eden-Monaro - and the pastures protection districts of Moss Vale and Cobar, which are at present the only declared drought areas remaining in New South Wales?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– Some material was teletyped through on this matter last Friday and a letter from Mr Askin was received on Tuesday this week in which he did refer to the effects of the drought in the southeastern corner of New South Wales. Detailed material in support of this letter was received only yesterday morning and is being examined at the moment to see what reply we can give to the Premier.

page 1254

QUESTION

DENTAL HEALTH

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for Health aware of a statement made by the President of the Australian Dental Association that the backlog of dental patients is so great that it would be impossible ever to cope with all of them, that there is a staggering backlog of untreated dental disease in the community and that owing to the lack of parental care the parents of tomorrow will be dental cripples? Is the Minister also aware that it is reliably claimed that married couples with young children find it impossible to budget for dental expenses? Has the Government any plans to assume responsibility for the dental health of the children of Australia and thus relieve young married people of this expense? Will the Minister agree that a healthy nation is a wealthy nation?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– All experts on the problem of dental health seem to agree that the appropriate approach to improve dental health is firstly prevention and secondly education, together with a concentration on the treatment of children, which is implicit in the honourable member’s question. As I understand the situation, under our Constitution all of these matters reside within the responsibility of the States. As regards prevention, the most dramatic impact on dental health, particularly in children, can be made by the fluoridation of water supplies, but I regret to say that some States seem to be so busy tilting at the Commonwealth that they are dragging their feet in respect of fluoridation of their water supplies. I would regard it as a gross waste of the taxpayers’ money to pay out large amounts for the treatment of dental caries while this elementary preventive measure had not been taken.

All States have a school dental scheme. I think it is generally acknowledged that the most effective and economical way to tackle this problem is through the school dental service. This service has been held up to some extent by the shortage of dentists, but the honourable gentleman will be glad to know that nearly all States have decided to introduce the system that operates in New Zealand whereby women are trained for 2 years to become dental therapists. Upon completion of their training they undertake not only health education work in the schools, which is vitally important, but also routine dental treatment.

I emphasise the aspect of health education because in the United Kingdom, where for many years a completely free service, within limits, has been available, only 25% of the population has made use of it. As far as I know Tasmania is the only State that already has these young women dental therapists working in the field. Three girls from the Australian Capital Territory are being trained by them down there. I believe that the answer to this problem is to provide the treatment through the school dental services. I believe that all States are making an active attempt to increase the range of their school dental services by introducing these dental therapists into the system.

page 1255

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Army · Flinders · LP

– Pursuant to section 14 of the Defence Act 1903-1966 I present the annual report of the Royal Military College of Australia for the period 11th February 1966 to 26th January 1968. I seek leave to make a short statement.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr LYNCH:

– This report covers a very interesting period in the development of this college and its affiliation with the University of New South Wales. I remind honourable members that my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr Fairhall), in a statement to the House on 9th May 1968 referred to the committee chaired by Sir Leslie Martin which was established to develop a plan for the provision of tertiary level education for officer cadets of all three Services. It will be appreciated that the committee’s report may have implications for the Royal Military College which could affect its future as an Army college.

page 1255

AUSTRALIAN LOAN IN GERMANY

Ministerial Statement

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · Higgins · LP

– by leave - The Commonwealth Treasurer (Mr McMahon) today completed a successful round of negotiations and signed a loan agreement in Frankfurt, Germany, with the Deutsche Bank for the issue of 200 million Duetsche marks, the equivalent of $A44.6m. These will be Commonwealth, securities maturing in 1974. The Deutsche Bank will arrange for private placement of the securities with financial institutions. The terms and conditions of the loan were settled with the approval of the Australian Loan Council. The securities’ will have an interest coupon of 6.25% and will be issued at 99.5% to give a yield to maturity of 6.35%. The net proceeds of the loan will be paid to the Commonwealth on 30th September. The foreign currency proceeds will be added to our international reserves and the Australian currency equivalent will be applied to the Commonwealth Government’s share of the 1968-69 works and housing programme approved by the Australian Loan Council.

The Commonwealth has not previously borrowed for works and housing programmes for periods of less, than 10 years. However, with the public loan markets in New York and London effectively closed to Australia because of high borrowing costs, the amount that could be obtained through long term loans is limited and advantage has been taken of the availability of medium term finance in Europe. This will add usefully to our overseas loan raisings this year. The Government regards this as a highly successful outcome which reflects great credit on Australia’s status as a borrower in the European market. The Commonwealth has previously,- raised two public loans in Germany, each’ for $A22.3m, in October 1967 and July 1968, through underwriting syndicates led by the Deutsche Bank. In addition a loan of 16.8 million Deutsche marks equal to $A3.8m, was arranged with the Deutsche bank in February last for Trans-Australia Airlines.

page 1256

FISHERIES NEGOTIATION WITH . JAPAN

Ministerial Statement

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for External Affairs · Curtin · LP

– by leave - Honourable members are aware that, following the entry into force of the Fisheries Act 1967, a general, prohibition of foreign fishing operations has. been established up to a limit 12 miles from the coast of Australia and the external - territories. During the course of this year, discussions have taken place between delegations of Australian and Japanese officials with a- view to reaching agreement .with respect to Japanese tuna long line fishing in waters off Australia and certain of the territories, including Papua and New Guinea. I wish to inform the House that the two delegations have now submitted a report enclosing a draft agreement for the consideration of their Governments. The Australian Government will be giving early “ consideration to the draft agreement which is concerned only with the operations of - Japanese tuna long-line vessels. A further statement will be made as soon as possible.

page 1256

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION BILL 1968

Bill presented by Mr Sinclair, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · New England · CP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to increase the amounts of weekly payments of compensation payable to seamen and their dependants under the Seamen’s Compensation Act. These increases are to keep payments in line with amounts of weekly payments under the Bill to amend the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act introduced by the Minister assisting the Treasurer (Mr Freeth) on 11th September.

Rates of compensation for seamen are paid by shipowners and not by the Commonwealth. These amendments do not, therefore, give effect to a Budget decision as is the case with the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Bill. It is customary and desirable, however, that changes in the monetary rates of compensation determined by Commonwealth legislation under the two Compensation Acts which it administers should, as far as possible, be kept uniform and be effected simultaneously.

The Bill provides for an increase in the amount of weekly payment from $25.35 to $28.15 for seamen incapacitated by injury or disease attributable to the nature of their employment. It also provides for increases in weekly amounts from $6.00 to $6.80 for the seamen’s wives, and from $2.45 to $2.50 for each of the seamen’s children. In addition, the amount of weekly payment for incapacity for seamen who are minors is increased from $19.00 to $21.10, and where seamen die as a result of injury and have children wholly or mainly dependent upon their earnings the weekly amount for each child is increased from $2.45 to $2.50.

It is intended to introduce a Bill making a number of changes in the Seamen’s Compensation Act along the same general lines as the changes envisaged by my colleague, the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) in the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act. This Bill will be introduced after the proposed Bill for a new and revised Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act has been introduced. I commend the Bill for the consideration of honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Webb) adjourned.

page 1256

NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT BILL 1968

Bill presented by Mr Bowen, and read a first .time.

Second Reading

Mr BOWEN:
AttorneyGeneral · Parramatta · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to make it clear that all jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory under the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act extends to the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Island. The Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Island is by virtue of the Ashmore and Cartier Island Acceptance Act annexed to and deemed to form part of the Northern Territory and aU laws in force in the Northern Territory apply to and are in force in the Territory. However, there is no specific provision in the Northern Territory Supreme Court Act extending to the Ashmore and Cartier Islands the general civil and criminal jurisdiction that Act expressly gives to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in relation to the Northern Territory, and it could be argued, therefore, that the Supreme Court has no general jurisdiction in respect of the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. It is desirable to remove all doubt about the matter by denning the Northern Territory for the purposes of the Act as including the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. That is the effect of the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Debate (on motion by Dr Patterson) adjourned.

page 1257

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Redistribution of New South Wales Divisions

Motion (by Mr Nixon) proposed:

Thai me House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of New South Wales into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs F. L. Ley, C. W. Prince and R. F. Mallon, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the House of Representatives on the 18th day of September 1968, and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted, except that the name ‘Ku-ring-gai’ be substituted for ‘Hornsby’ and the name ‘Grose’ be substituted for ‘Blacktown’ and the name ‘Cook’ be substituted for Kurnell’

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

Redistribution of Victorian Divisions

Motion (by Mr Nixon) proposed:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of Victoria into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs C. J. A. Lack, C. E. Middleton and R. Dowell, tthe Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the House of Representatives on the 18th day of September 1968, and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted, except that the name ‘La Trobe’ be substituted for ‘Maroondah’ and the name ‘Casey’ be substituted for ‘La Trobe’ and the name ‘Bruce’ be substituted for ‘Waverley’ aand the name ‘Holt’ be substitutd for ‘Bruce’ and the name ‘Isaacs’ be substituted for ‘Beaumaris’.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

Redistribution of Queensland Divisions

Motion (by Mr Nixon) proposed:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of Queensland into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs 1. F. Weise, E. F. Lane and E. Smith, the’ Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the House of Representatives on the 18th day of September 1 968, and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Is the Leader of the Opposition moving the adjournment of the debate or is he speaking to the motion?

Mr Whitlam:

– 1 propose to move the adjournment of the debate but, Mr Speaker, you will notice-

Mr Nixon:

– I rise to order. The Leader of the Opposition cannot move the adjournment of the debate and continue to speak.

Mr Whitlam:

– May I ask a question?

Mr SPEAKER:

– The Leader of the Opposition may seek leave to ask a question.

Mr Whitlam:

– Then I seek leave to ask a question.

Mr SPEAKER:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr Whitlam:

– I thank the House. The motion refers to the redistribution as proposed by the three Commissioners. However, the three Commissioners agreed as to some divisions but one of them gave a dissenting report and recommendation concerning other divisions. I therefore ask for a clarification of the import of ‘the motion. As 1 understand it the Minister is probably moving for the adoption of the report made by two Commissioners in respect of all divisions in the State.

Mr Nixon:

– As I understand the situation - I will call on the Attorney-General to verify this if necessary - there can be only one report by the Commissioners who were appointed to recommend on the redistribution. I believe that there is no room for dissent on the maps that are exhibited in the post offices. The report, therefore, is from the three Commissioners and the only place for dissent is- at the end of the Commissioners’ conclusions. The report substantially has to be in the names of the Commissioners appointed and a minority recommendation by any Commissioner has to be tabled separately, as has been done in this instance. The report therefore stands in the names of the three Commissioners.

Mr Whitlam:

– I thank the Minister.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned. .

Redistribution of South Australian Divisions Motion (by. Mr Nixon) proposed:

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of South Australia into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs A. J. Walsh, H. A. Bailey and A. R. Kopp, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the House of Representatives on the 18th day of September 1968, and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted, except that the name ‘Hawker’ be substituted for ‘Holder’.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

Redistribution of Western Australian

Divisions

Motion (by Mr Nixon) proposed.

That the House of Representatives approves of the redistribution of the State of Western Australia into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs. L. J. Abbott, H. Camm and J. W. Robson, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the House of Representatives on the 18th day of September 1968, and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

Redistribution of Tasmanian Divisions

Motion (by Mr Nixon) proposed:

That the House of Representatives approves of the’ redistribution of the State of Tasmania into electoral divisions as proposed by Messrs J. M. Windsor, F. Miles and M. & Young, the Commissioners appointed for the purpose of redistributing the said State into divisions, in their report laid before the House of Representatives on the I8th day of September 1968, and that the names of the divisions suggested in the report, and indicated in the map referred to therein, be adopted.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

page 1258

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 10 September (vide page 818), on motion by Mr Hulme:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

– This debate has been brought on rather precipitately, so far as my side of the House is concerned. We had expected that it would not be debated until next week. We had to come to a decision last night, and I have not had the time that I would have liked to encompass this very important social matter, nor have I had time to read in detail the twentieth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which was tabled by the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) only 5 minutes ago and which I think is fairly important to this debate. I move:

In due course the amendment will be seconded by one of my colleagues. I have had time to look at the financial picture of broadcasting and television over the whole Australian scene, in the report that was tabled a few minutes ago. The figures are set out in the report each year, and at least it is easy to find them at short notice. It is better to refer to the latest set of figures, if they are available, than to those which are 12 months old. On pages 12 and 1 3 of the Board’s report there is set out the picture, as it were, of the operations of commercial broadcasting stations, of the operations of commercial television stations and finally of the operations of the national broadcasting service, which we generally describe as the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

For the year ended 30th June 1967 the total revenue of all commercial broadcasting stations - and basically that means the amount that is raised in advertising revenue- was $27,906,545. The total expenditure of those commercial broadcasting stations in the same financial year was $21,179,084, which gave them a net profit for that financial year of $6,727,461. This profit was shared among 111 stations, 107 of which made a profit and 4 made a loss. The total revenue of commercial television operators for the last financial year was $66,394,178 and their total expenditure was $56,813,124, leaving a net profit for the year of $9,581,054, which was an increase of $6m as against the previous year. That would seem to indicate that some of the commercial television stations had a very successful year, when compared with the previous year. That profit was shared among 42 operators, of whom 33 made a profit and 9 made a loss.

Aggregating those figures, it will be seen that the total revenue of commercial broadcasting stations and commercial television stations was more than $94m. which was an increase of more than Slim over the previous year. My first point is that sometimes it is suggested that commercial broadcasting and commercial television do not cost anything. I am not one who subscribes to that curious myth. I believe that the cost of advertising is borne by the public, in the prices of the products they buy. Therefore, last year commercial broadcasting and television cost this country $94m which was an increase of $llm over the previous year. We come to the operations of the national system and, of course, this is where this mythology really comes in. People seem to imagine that because you pay a television licence, somehow that is a cost to the community, while the so-called commercial system is no cost to the community. To my mind, that is sheer rubbish.

For the year 1967-68 the operational expenditure of the national broadcasting service, including television, was $47,271,359, and capital expenditure in the same year was $7,692,534. Of course, there are no figures dealing with the capital expenditure of commercial operators. So the operational expenditure of the non-commercial broadcasting and television system was $47m, which is roughly one-half of the cost of the commercial system, when we take into account that the cost of the commercial system is virtually revenue derived from advertising. So at least in aggregate the commercial networks have twice as much in resources to spend as does the national system. The commercial networks have a total revenue of $94m, which is shared as to $28rn for broadcasting and $66m for television, as against total expenditure on radio and television, at the national level, of $47m, which is roughly a 2 to 1 ratio.

As 1 suggested before, at least in television, we have one of the most magnificent mediums for entertainment, information and education that has ever been at our disposal, but the way in which we use it seems to me to be a travesty of the possibilities of the service. I think it is time that a much more serious attitude was taken to this great matter than is currently being taken. That is why we have moved the amendment. We think it is wrong that the only bearers of the cost of extending services should be the public, who meet this cost in the form of increased licence fees, particularly when it is considered that the only fee which the commercial systems pay directly to the revenue is the present station licence fee. In this particular year I think that the combined licence fees of commercial television and broadcasting stations totalled less than $l.5m. After all, each commercial broadcasting or television licence is in the nature of a monopoly. It reserves for those to whom it is granted the right - which is limited to a relatively small number throughout the community as a whole - to have a fairly profitable undertaking.

As I have indicated, the latest available figures - those for the financial year ended June 1967 - show that the total profit, or the difference between revenue and expenditure, on the part of commercial broadcasting and television stations was more than $16m. This amount was made up of $6,700,000 in the field of commercial broadcasting and $9,600,000 in the field of commercial television. The only fee that the operators had to pay directly was about $1.5m in the form of licence fees. The actual licence fee is ridiculously low. The annual fee for a commercial broadcasting licence is S50 and that for a television licence S200. plus a charge computed on the basis of turnover. In my view, the computed element is calculated at a very low percentage. This is why we suggest that the medium is now so significant that the Government ought seriously to consider the whole question of the financing of this field of social activity. That is why we are suggesting that a joint parliamentary committee should be established. After all, the purpose of this legislation is to increase viewers’ and listeners’ licence fees. The fee for a combined broadcasting listener’s -and television viewer’s licence will be increased from $17 to $20. Those who still choose to have only a broadcasting listener’s licence will pay $1 more. Those who desire to have only a television licence will pay $2 more. But most people have a combined licence, and the increase for them will be $3.

These increases will raise $5m in the remainder of this financial year and $7m in a full financial year. The Minister has pointed out that the additional costs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission this year are of the order of $18m. Neither $5m in a part year nor $7m in a full year will match this increase. The rest of this amount will be borne by the general revenue. We are suggesting that these costs should be entirely met from general revenue until time has been allowed for a committee to thoroughly investigate the various aspects of television and broadcasting as they operate in Australia. Such an inquiry should have particular reference to the social impact of television, because it is television that brings in the bulk of revenue in this great field now. Something like 2$ times as much revenue is derived from television as is derived from commercial radio. I think that the Australan Broadcasting Commission spends more on television than on radio. On 29th October 1963 the report of the Senate Select Committee on the Encouragement of Australian Productions for Television was presented. “This report is known more briefly as the Vincent report, after the late Senator Vincent, who was Chairman of the Committee. It is interesting to note what the Committee said under a section of the report entitled ‘Evidence of Public Concern’. I suggest that the same public concern is still present in 1968.

At page 1 of the report, under the beading ‘Evidence of Public Concern’, the Committee stated:

There is much public concern over television programmes. This concern, as might be expected, comes mainly from the more informed or responsibly minded section of the community, and it is widespread.

The disquiet, is with programmes from both the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial television, although the greater weight of criticism is levied against commercial television.

Perhaps the main distinction between criticism of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial television lies in the generalisation that, whereas the Australian Broadcasting Commission is trying to provide programmes that are adequate, comprehensive and in the public interest, commercial television is making an inadequate attempt to do this.

The public, concern over the respective deficiencies of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial television will be further discussed in the parts dealing specifically with each service.

The report then lists the major criticisms, and I shall quote one or two of them. It states:

  1. There are insufficient Australian-produced programmes - particularly drama.
  2. There is not enough Australian ‘indigenous’ drama.

The term ‘indigenous’ refers to plays actually written by Australians as against imported plays that may be performed by Australians. The report continues:

  1. There is too much imported drama from the United States. of America.

The report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended June 1967 showed that of the film footage imported into Australia nearly 60% came from the United States of America and slightly over 30% from Great Britain.

Mr Peters:

– Fifty per cent, of the American material was terrible.

Mr CREAN:

– My honourable friend is rather kind when he says that 50% of the American material was terrible; I think that much more than 50% was terrible and was in the terrifying category. The Senate Select Committee, in listing the major criticisms, continued:

  1. There is too much drama involving crime, violence and horror.

The report goes on to list a number of other criticisms. It notes the inadequacy of news. At least, one is happy to see that there now seems to be a greater proportion of news in the programmes of both commercial and national television stations than there w: in 1963. The Committee also noted that educative programmes were unattractively presented and dull. I do not want to list all of the other criticisms - there are thirteen categories - because I do not have the time and I do not think that honourable members would want to listen to the whole list in detail.

If we look at the twentieth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ended 30th June 1968, which has just been tabled, we find at page 144 a table entitled ‘Analysis of Television Programmes by Categories and Programmes of Australian Origin.’ It reveals that the viewing time allocated to educational programmes by metropolitan commercial stations was 1.1% of the total. The viewing time allocated to educational programmes by the metropolitan national stations is shown as 31.6%. Appallingly enough, the figure for country commercial stations is 0.1%. In other words, only one-thousandth of the proportion of Australian material shown by country commercial stations was educational. This is an appalling kind of situation. Not only is the total proportion of Australian material inadequate, but there is a lack of balance between what might be called educational and what is noneducational. Indeed, in the commercial sphere educational material is almost nonexistent. Because the ABC has school telecasts and so on, almost one-third of its Australian programming is educational. 1 commend it for that. It is interesting to note that the proportion of news has increased. Now the metropolitan commercial stations present 10% of their Australian programming m the form of news, the metropolitan national stations 12.2% and the country commercial stations 16.7%. So the country commercial stations make up in the field of news for what they fail to provide in the field of education.

The majority of Australian programme time is taken up with light entertainment, which includes cartoons, light music, personality programmes, talent programmes and variety. One-third of the Australian programme time of country commercial stations is devoted to that rather frothy kind of presentation.

Mr Curtin:

– Such as Donald Duck. i Mr CREAN - Donald Duck and various other programmes. As I said, I have not had time to read the twentieth annual report of the Control Board because it was tabled only a short time ago. In its nineteenth annual report the Board made this observation about the Australian commercial television industry:

During the year several factors have combined lo confirm that the Australian commercial television industry is capable of high quality programme production.

It can do the job all right if it wants to, but apparently it has not a great inclination to do it. The Board continued:

The combination of circumstances in 1966-67 when the television stations experienced difficulty in purchasing programme; from abroad,- 1 take it that some kind of total import limitation or dollar constriction was placed upon them - and the Board introduced more specific requirements for the presentation of local programmes, together with the production strength which some of the metropolitan stations had been developing, has led to a greater volume of original production than for some years.

That was an encouraging reflection. It was contained in the Board’s report for 1966-67. I hope that it is continued in the Board’s report for 1967-68. Nevertheless, the amount of Australian production on both the national stations and the commercial stations is still inadequate in terms of the cultural needs of Australia. That is part of the burden of our amendment.

The proposed committee would look at the question of finance and consider not only licence fees but also whether other revenue could be forthcoming, whether by a specific charge on some of the commercial stations or by the national revenue bearing more of the cost. If we have a national broadcasting commission, I cannot see any reason why large parts of its total cost should not be borne by the revenue at large rather than by the imposition of a licence fee in particular. With the broadcasting system, as with the postal system, surely certain parts of its activity have to be taken to the country areas. I am sure that members of the Country Party believe that they should have the blessings of both radio and television, as do people in the cities. If we are to do that, it may well be that the system cannot be costed on the basis of annual licence fees. It may be necessary to subsidise it because of the sparseness of population and other reasons. Surely there is nothing wrong with subsidising the establishment of television stations or broadcasting stations in country areas if they help to keep the population of the nation in the towns rather than in the cities. I believe that this is a social cost that cannot be computed in the ordinary way. This is a matter that the proposed committee could well consider.

It seems to me that one of the most disturbing features of television as it operates in Australia at the moment relates to what are called the peak viewing hours. It seems that the peak viewing hours are from 7 p:m. until 9.30 or 10 p.m. On page 85 of the nineteenth annual report of the Control Board there is a table that gives details of programmes televised between 7 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. on commercial television stations. On the capital city stations, 75.9% was drama. Of course drama is mainly the American films that my friend from Scullin (Mr Peters) does not like very much. I do not like a great number of them either. On the country stations the proportion of drama was even higher. It was 77.2%.

The other large category is light entertainment. For the capital city stations the figure for that category was 16.9%; for the country stations it was 13.7%. So on the capital city commercial stations 92.8% of the peak viewing time between 7 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. was occupied with drama and light entertainment. On the country commercial stations the viewing time so occupied was slightly less, namely, 90.9%. That is a very disturbing feature of television programming. It is all very well to say that dutiful children are in bed or are doing their homework between 7 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. But that is not the case for seven nights of the week and it should not be expected that it will be the case.

It seems that anything of other than entertainment value is not regarded as good business for those peak viewing hours by the commercial television stations. If one likes to sit up until 10 o’clock at night one may see a different type of programme. In the category of family programmes presented in those peak viewing hours, the figure for the capital city stations was 0.2%, or one-five-hundredth of the time, and that for the country stations was 0.1%, or one-thousandth of the time. If an A or

AO programme is shown one has to hustle the children out. Even if a general exhibition programme is shown one cannot take the risk because it might not be very suitable for children either. 1 suggest that a medium as important as this one is demands a much more sensitive approach by the Government. Let me read one or two short comments that are contained in an interesting pamphlet that we all receive, namely, the ‘ANTC Newsletter’. It is published by the Australian National Television Council, which has as its motto: The people own the air’. The June- July 1966 issuer - Volume 1, No. 2 - contained an extract from the findings of a committee that was set up in Canada in 1964 to report on broadcasting and television. Under the heading ‘Introduction’, the report of that committee stated:

The only thing that really matters in broadcasting is programme content; all the rest is housekeeping.

The reference to broadcasting covered television as well. I suggest that that is a rather interesting observation. I suggest that it is time much more consideration was given to this subject at both the national and commercial levels in Australia. I do not confine my criticisms to the commercial channels. There is a great tendency for the ABC to take note of ratings in the same way as the commercial channels do. Apparently a station’s success or otherwise is determined according to whether it has a certain percentage of people listening to it. 1 think the percentage about which the commercial television stations should be concerned is the high percentage of people who are not watching at a given time because they do not think that any of the programmes that may then be seen are worth watching. 1 am told that at certain quite important peak viewing hours the number of sets that could be turned on but are not turned on can be 30% or even more of the total. The Canadian report quoted from the report of the Pilkington Committee in Great Britain, as follows:

What the public wants and what it has the right to get is the freedom to choose from the widest possible range of programme matter. Anything less than that is deprivation.

I suggest that the content of Australian programmes is such that we have more deprivation than we have good programmes. It is about time we departed from the rather silly statement that is sometimes made that merely because somebody is watching a programme that is what he wants. I suggest that as often as not during peak hour viewing time be has to choose from a lot of programmes of inferior quality rather than from programmes of a superior standard. Programme content and giving the public a wider range of choice could well be considered by the suggested committee. The Pilkington Committee made further suggestions. One was that the national authority should give a lead. To some extent the ABC gives a lead. Nevertheless it suffers from deficiencies In facilities. I again note the observation made in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s thirty-fifth annual report 1966-67 in relation to the circumstances in which its activities were carried on. As far as I can see very little has been done in 1968 to remedy the deficiencies observed in 1966-67. On page 5 of that report the following passage appears:

However, in spite of some improvement, the ABC still operates in Sydney from seventeen separate and largely unsuitable buildings and in Melbourne from ten buildings. In other cities, the situation is similar. Effective supervision and control is not easy because of this division of personnel between widely separated locations - a situation which inhibits the necessary consultation between officers and the effective co-ordination of our varied activities. The Commission has an urgent need for new buildings in Adelaide. Sydney and Melbourne and it is hoped that in spite of other claims, Parliament will find it possible to approve ‘he capital costs involved.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission’s thirty-sixth annual report 1967-68, tabled only a day or two ago, at page 8 states:

In its last report the Commission drew attention to the need for new buildings in several areas, particularly in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide. We have now established a long-range building programme incorporating a list of priorities, the first of which is a new radio and administrative building in Adelaide.

The report continues - and I think this is germane to the amendment that I have moved:

Any extension of programme output in both radio and television is dependent in large measure on the provision of new buildings.

That warning, now stated twice, suggests that improved quality programmes, improved co-ordination and better dispersal of programmes depend not on an increase in licence fees but on the provision of adequate broadcasting houses, if one likes to call them that, in the principal cities of Australia. When one sees around the inner city areas of Melbourne the construction of banks, insurance offices, an international airport, etc., surely it is time that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was adequately housed in suitable buildings in the principal cities and country towns. I am told that one of the reasons why the television service in country areas is restricted is a lack of studio facilities, except in very few cases. For the most part the country areas have to rely on programmes conveyed by landline from the capital cities. I suggest that members of the Australian Country Party ought to raise that matter also. As I suggested earlier, to aid decentralisation and to keep people in country towns rather than have them gravitate to the cities, adequate TV and radio programmes should be provided for country areas. That is the answer in relation to keeping secondary school children in those areas.

We have taken our present line because of the lack of provision of such facilities. We do not suggest that no more money should be spent by the ABC. I believe that more money should be spent by it. Nevertheless some things need to be observed in relation to television and broadcasting, whether it be at the national or at the commercial level, to obtain better co-ordination and give the people what they need rather than what some people think they want merely because they turn on a set when a programme is on.

The Minister pointed out that the additional $5m that he will glean in the remainder of this financial year and the $7m that he will glean in a full financial year from increased licence fees are not adequate to meet the increased expenditure of something like $19m in a full financial year. The balance will be born by Consolidated Revenue. We suggest that all the expenditure should be borne by Consolidated Revenue until the situation has been investigated in depth. I conclude by repeating my amendment, which I hope my colleague, the Minister, will support. The amendment, which is to the motion that the Bill will be now read a second time, reads:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: “This House is of opinion that this Bill should not be further proceeded with until Joint Parliamentary Committee has inquired into and reported upon the way in which licence fees and other revenue can be used in the best interests of Australian production of television and radio programmes’.

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

– Is the amendment seconded?

Dr PATTERSON:
Dawson

– 1 second the amendment moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). The principal reason for the amendment is that the Opposition is not satisfied and is not clear as to whether the increase is justified in the interests of the Australian viewer or the Australian listening to a broadcast. We do not question the statement made by the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) that costs have increased. There is no doubt that the Commonwealth’s activities in broadcasting and television have increased. But we question whether the total amount of money paid by Australians for the right to use broadcasting and television receiving sets is being employed as effectively as it might be, no matter what criteria are adopted to make that judgment. That is the main reason for our moving the amendment. Before we can agree to these increased charges - most of the costs to which the increases have been attributed are incurred by the ABC! - we want to know whether Australians are getting value for their money.

I would have thought that this Bill would have attracted the attention of Government supporters, particularly members of the Country Party. Country areas are vitally interested in the spread of television. I do not think the increase in the combined television and broadcasting licence fee to $20 a year is justified in many rural areas of Queensland. Queensland is the most decentralised State. Because of the population distribution significant numbers of people either have no television or enjoy only very sub-standard reception. But irrespective of the quality of reception they must pay the same fee as .is paid by people elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Obviously the legislation does not provide for a differentiation on the basis of standard of reception. If you want to buy a television set you do so with the full knowledge that no matter where you live, and irrespective of the standard of reception, you must pay the same licence fee as is paid by everybody in the community, including those who live in capital cities and enjoy a wide range of alternatives and better class programmes. Instead of further penalising people who live in rural areas the Government should consider a different rate of licence fee for these people. It would not be difficult to lay down guidelines. There may be some difficulty in overlapping areas, but it should not be hard to establish guidelines so as not to penalise people who are not yet fortunate enough to enjoy good television reception.

The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), for example, represents an area - I am referring particularly to Mount Isa - which will soon have the benefit of a booster station. I suppose there are more people in that area not receiving television, or enjoying only sub-standard reception, than in any other area. Many of the areas on the fringe of my electorate of Dawson have only sub-standard reception. I refer to Clermont coming down into the Bellyando, Suttor and western areas. They receive television of sorts, but in most cases it is a pretty patchwork arrangement. One might say: Why do the people in those areas buy television sets? I submit that as these people produce export income for Australia, they should receive preferential treatment. After all, the Government does not believe in one vote one value. No doubt the Government can say that service to country areas costs the Government more per capita than does service in .the capital cities, but this is not a valid excuse. More consideration must be given to people living in country areas. They must have better reception and they deserve to be asked to pay a lower licence fee.

The Government is seeking an increase in television fees to offset the increased cost of operating the ABC. The Government implies that the standard of programme broadcast by the ABC is adequate. The stated aim of the ABC is to provide balanced television programmes, but this balance is heavily weighted against country areas. When one peruses the relevant documents one finds that only about 2% of the ABC’s total transmission time in the last 12 months was devoted to rural programmes. Rural areas are the economic backbone of this country and one is entitled to expect more than 2% of the ABC’s time to be devoted to rural programmes. I concede that the ABC gives excellent coverage to news programmes. It has an excellent reporting organisation and gives an unbiased and excellent summary of Australian and world news. I have no quarrel with its educational programmes. Its children’s sessions and its sporting programmes are very good. I congratulate the ABC for the stand it took last December in televising the Davis Cup to areas north of Brisbane. In my opinion there was nothing more ridiculous than the proposal by which people living in Queensland were not to see the Davis Cup on television. If you wanted to see the matches you had to go to Brisbane. The event was televised in Melbourne, but Melbourne is not as far from Brisbane as is Cairns, for example. I congratulate the ABC in standing up to the Queensland Lawn Tennis Association and having the Davis Cup televised to northern areas.

I stress again that according to the 36th annual report of the Commission only 2% of its time is devoted to rural programmes. There is no justice in this state of affairs when we realise that the ABC devotes about 20% of its time to what some people call the highbrow or cultural side of life - such things as classical plays, opera, classical music, concerts and symphony orchestras. I do not suggest that such programmes are not necessary, but I see no justice in the ABC devoting 20% of its time to them and only 2% to rural programmes. This situation is one reason why the ABC is losing patronage m rural areas. People listen to the ABC news, which is an excellent programme. The sports coverage is excellent, and the educational programmes and children’s shows are also excellent. But people get a Tittle sick and tired of the emphasis given to the highbrow type of programmes that are presented by the ABC.

Mr King:

– That is only your opinion.

Dr PATTERSON:

– I know it is only my opinion. I would think that if these ABC highbrow programmes were popular more instead of fewer people would watch them each year instead of watching the commercial stations. As I said before, I pay tribute to the excellent standard of the service provided by the ABC in certain fields, but there is some imbalance in the rural programmes. 1 ash the Minister to consider increasing the time devoted to rural programmes, even if it is at the expense of highbrow activity. I may be in the minority. There may be more Australians than I think who like to watch programmes depicting symphony orchestras and concerts rather than programmes which show what makes Australia tick such as her natural resources. I refer to programmes about the production of beef, wheat, wool, sugar, dairy produce and tobacco. I think as much time should be devoted to rural- programmes as to these other activities I have mentioned. I also draw the Minister’s attention to what appears to me to be an imbalance in the rural programmes themselves. I notice from perusing the annual report of the ABC that last year not one feature programme was devoted to sugar production. Sugar is one of the most important agricultural crops in Australia, particularly in northern Australia. It is the backbone of settlement in coastal Queensland. I should have thought that the ABC would have presented in perspective with other programmes, a programme on sugar production. I have no quarrel with programmes on such things as the production of mushrooms in South Australia, silver perch fingerlings in New South Wales, and bull races.

Mr Dobie:

– What are they?

Dr PATTERSON:

– If the honourable member had a look at the branding of cattle and the construction of cattle yards he would see that certain specialist activities are involved in the branding of young calves. I have no doubt that these programmes are important but I do not believe that they are more important than the entire sugar industry. I repeat that not one programme was devoted to the sugar industry. Some consideration should be given to establishing a better balance between the topics that are of interest to the various rural areas in Queensland. I have Mackay in mind, because this is the area with which I am most familiar. The regional television studio that broadcasts programmes to Mackay is situated in Rockhampton, and it is only natural that programmes of local interest to Rockhampton will hog the time. One does not blame the station for that, but I think it is about time a better balance was created. I am receiving a growing number of representations in my own area asking when the ABC is going to give the Sarina, Proserpine, Mackay and Clermont districts a little more time instead of concentrating on topics that are of interest to Rockhampton. All these districts are served by the one station. Good luck to them if they can get it. But there should be a little more balance by the ABC between the different sections of the community.

I also draw the attention of the Minister to the composition of regional advisory committees in Queensland. I am open to correction in what I am about to say concerning the central Queensland advisory committee, because I do not know two of its members. I fail to see why all the people on this committee should come from the Rockhampton area or from that city and areas just outside it. There are 15 people on the committee; they all come from this one area, despite the fact that the television service in Rockhampton embraces a very wide area. There are no representatives on the committee of the area from St Lawrence to Bo wen. I would have thought this was one of the most important segments of the central Queensland area. I ask the Minister to consider appointing somebody from this area. If the representation is to be dominated by the people living in or adjacent to Rockhampton, the committee will be somewhat biased towards that area. As 1 said before, good luck to them. But I ask the Minister to consider appointing somebody from the sugar area to this advisory committee.

Those are the main points I wanted to make. I reiterate that the Opposition does not question the Minister when he says that fees have to be increased because of the additional costs involved. That is a bookkeeping and economic consideration. We do not question that, but we do question whether the fees collected are being used as effectively as they might and as suggested by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) and myself. We question whether the viewers of ABC television are being catered for in competition with the commercial stations and whether the majority of Australians are getting the best standard of television. All these things should be considered, because the ABC is a national station and could be classed as a public utility. I can see no reason why the Commonwealth should not finance the additional costs from Consolidated Revenue. Television is one of the most important and revolutionary factors that has influenced life in this country in the last few years. We do not quarrel with the standard of the news service provided by the ABC. Its children’s shows and its science and educational programmes are excellent. As I have outlined, my main quarrel is that the rural programmes are ill balanced and lopsided. More emphasis should be placed on the activities of people and interests in rural areas - they are pretty important and form part of the national character - even if it means placing less emphasis on what I call the highbrow, cultural programmes.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– Although I do not support the terms of the amendment, I must say that I agree with a great deal of what the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) has said about what is happening and what is not happening in rural areas with regard to television, or the lack of it, and radio services. As he pointed out, my constituency involves more people who do not have television than does any other area in Australia. Perhaps there are greater expanses of country which are not served by television, but I would lay a fair shade of odds that those areas do not have the same number of people who are deprived of what is more or less regarded now as an essential element in the daily lives of our modern communities. What is most exasperating is that in my area there are certain communities on the fringe of television reception. Without becoming too parochial, may I just give a picture of the situation in the electorate of Kennedy. In stressing the difficulties in ray area I am focussing attention on similar areas throughout the Commonwealth. The second most populated area of Kennedy is Charters Towers, which receives excellent television from a very powerful station situated in Townsville. Then after going about 50 miles further west we come to a vast area in which there are many important towns and many vital communities which do not receive a television service at all - an area roughly from Townsville to Mount Isa. Then we have the area from Rockhampton to Longreach. Here we find an exasperating sort of fringe area which extends from about Duaringa to Emerald and further west again an area without television right through to the border of the Northern Territory. I must commend the Minister for approving the provision of a translator in the Blackwater area by a private company. But this poses a rather serious problem. If this private company is able to provide a translator in this area why should not the Government consider improving television services where it is practicable and where it is economic in fringe areas? I have been informed on fairly good technical authority - and I admit 1 have no technical qualifications myself - that worthwhile results might be obtained if a transmitter of reasonable capacity were installed at Clermont, which, by the way, is quite close to the area in which new coal fields are being discovered practically daily. Whenever I pick up a newspaper and see that a new coal deposit of great magnitude has been discovered I. do not bother to read the report in order to find out where the discovery has been made, because I know it would be in my electorate. This, of course, is all to the good.

One can well understand, Mr Deputy Chairman, that the people in the area feel frustrated. I believe they should receive more consideration than they are getting now. I am not going to be foolish about this matter, which 1 realise is beset with some very difficult problems. I know the Minister himself is most sympathetic towards the people in the fringe areas and appreciates their attitude to the payment of the full television licence fee. I believe they should be given some concession because, after all, they must not only buy the most powerful receiver available, they must also incur extra expense in erecting special antennae and the various other technical requirements necessary to obtain a reasonable reception. I know that the legislation requires the owner of a television set to pay the full licence fee even if he is living in the middle of the Simpson Desert, but this is poor consolation to those who pay the full fee and receive a very poor reception. I believe that people in city areas are beginning to appreciate our problems a little more than they used to, and that many of them would agree with me when I voice my protest. To those people who now enjoy the benefits of 2, 3 or 4 channels and are now clamouring for colour television I would say: ‘No colour television until a television service is provided in all areas in which such a service can reasonably be provided’. I seem to detect a better appreciation of the problems of people in remote areas, both in the Press and amongst many of our colleagues. Of course there have been many notable exceptions. Last night, for instance, we saw a most regrettable performance by a man whose outlook is so parochial that it is quite distressing. Here is a man who feels impelled to knock the rural or country areas. Surely he realises that if we want to cut the throat of this nation we can best do it by stifling the growth and development of our rural areas.

Sirring suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m. [Quorum formed]

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I thank the honourable member for the Australian Capital Territory (Mr J. R. Fraser) for drawing attention to the state of the House. Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to the place that television played in our national life and I commented on the lack of television in the areas with which I am associated. If this amenity is lacking in some of the more populated areas then honourable members can well imagine how people in the remote areas feel. These areas have little else to offer. 1 know that I would be faced with an almost impossible task in getting support for such a proposal, but I suggest that if television had been provided to the remote areas first and then gradually extended to the city areas Australia would have gone down in history as the one country that really recognised the qualities that make great nations, particularly the quality of decentralisation which is vital to the development of any nation. In central west Queensland are the vital industrial areas of Longreach, Charleville and Mount Isa. If honourable members were to calculate the national wealth that emanates from those areas they would recognise that capital investment on television in those areas would be well merited. I appreciate the tremendous economic problems involved, but far more fundamental considerations are involved, one of which is to ensure the survival of the truly Australian characteristics which exist, grow and are stimulated in inland areas.

Mr Beazley:

– Not by television.

Mr KATTER:
KENNEDY, QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– 1 must agree that certain aspects of television are not acceptable, but we should have the right to reject television. At the moment we do not have that right at all. We do not have the right to pick and chose. I turn now to radio and radio reception, and the non-existence of radio in certain areas. The people of the bland are a pretty rugged lot of individuals. I go every inch of the way with, the honourable member for Dawson when he says that residents of the inland were given far too much of the cultural in the programming of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. One aspect of the ABC programming is devoted to cultural activity - to cultural music, cultural talks and so on - but the average bushy would much prefer to listen to programmes that appeal to him. Although an element of culture is necessary, there should not be a predominance of it.

I realise that I am taking a bit of a risk in mentioning racing broadcasts. T remember that a long time ago the late Dr Evatt and Sir Robert Menzies got together and said that the ABC would not become a racing service; and this decision has been applied to the inland areas. I was amused when I was reading of a recent survey to note that one of the dignitaries of the Australian Broadcasting Commission had said that in his opinion, which was probably given from Martin Place, broadcasts to the inland should be programmed in a certain fashion. Whether we like it or not, and whether or not we approve of racing, nine out of ten people in the inland want racing broadcasts. This applies not only to men but to women. Honourable members should see the women punters. One can imagine how exasperated people are when the horses are about, to jump at Flemington and the announcer says: ‘We shall now hear Rachmaninoff’s Prelude in C Sharp Minor’. The race is run and then he says: ‘Here are the results’. This is quite frustrating and utterly stupid.

We cannot tell people what they like and what they want. If a survey were taken tomorrow it would reveal that the people want a complete racing service; so for goodness sake give it to them. They have enough to contend with and they should be given what they want. A serious fundamental principle is involved because as I tour through the inland areas of Australia, which is most of the time - I travelled 240,000 mites in my electorate during my first year in office - J get a very depressing picture. If we aggregate the number of people living in remote areas of Australia, it represents a considerable portion of the population. People do not remain in these areas unless they are playing a vital part in our national economy and national life. I ask my city cousins to go along with us and to give us support. The people in the inland areas are vital to the economic life of this nation. What does it matter if the purse strings have to be strained a little and it is uneconomic to provide these amenities?

The situation requires rethinking. These people should be given their racing broadcasts, even though such provision might not appeal to some wowsers on the Board or some people who do not approve of racing. I shall not argue the pros and cons of gambling. I draw the line at under-age people gambling, but otherwise it is up to the individual to decide whether or not he wants to gamble. I am not here to play God. For goodness sake give these people the same choice as the people in the provincial and metropolitan areas in relation to the type of broadcasts they enjoy. The should be provided with an alternative programme. They should not be forced to listen to cultural music and school broadcasts, even though they are necessary. They should have the choice of some other programme. Furthermore, we should try to get television into the areas. I ask the Minister not to give colour television to the cities until he exhausts every reasonable avenue to provide television to remote areas.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– We are discussing a Bill the purpose of which is to increase television and broadcasting licence fees from $1.7 to $20 a year. The motion we arc debating is:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Opposition has moved the following amendment:

That all words after That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof:

This Mouse is of the opinion that this Bill should not be further proceeded with until a Joint Parliamentary Committee has inquired into and reported upon the way in which licence fees and other revenue can be used in the best interests of Australian production of television and radio programmes’.

I support the amendment, which was moved by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean). The Government has taken the easy way out. It has the numbers in the House; so without giving due consideration to the real problems of television and broadcasting standards and without making any real attempt to find some alternative means of obtaining finance for the activities of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, it has adopted the easy way. The Government has said: ‘Let us move in and increase fees for broadcast listeners’ and television viewers’ licences from $17 to $20. We have an excuse. After all, !n I year we will still be providing $llm from consolidated revenue’. I am not one of those people who complain about the broadcasting and television services provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think that the Commission is doing a reasonable job. I could go into detail on some particular aspects of this question, but 1 content myself by saying that the Commission is trying to provide as broad a service as possible.

Like my friend the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) I do not like listening to symphony concerts and that type of programme, but I am not the only one in the community to be considered. There are people who enjoy listening to this type of music and this type of programme. Because I do not enjoy listening to these programmes does not mean that they should not be broadcast. The same can be said for the honourable member for Kennedy. Because he does not enjoy listening to them does not mean that they are bad and that we should listen to wild west and cowboys and Indians programmes and ‘whodunits’. I think that in the main the ABC is providing quite reasonable programmes and is attempting to do a good job.

I turn to the question of finance. The ABC is not, in the true sense, a commercial broadcasting and television service. It does not provide a service for only a particular group of people in the community. It is trying to reach various sections of the community. I want to refer to what the PostmasterGeneral (Mr Hulme) said in his second reading speech and to suggest that the easy way of just increasing fees for broadcast listeners’ and television viewers’ licences should not be taken. I do not think that the holders of these licences should be required to meet the expenditure on the items to which the Minister has referred in his speech. He has referred to the provision of services in sparsely populated country areas. Like the honourable member for Kennedy, I agree that television and broadcasting services should be provided for people in country areas. Just because they live in sparsely populated areas is no reason why people should not be provided with broadcasting and television services. At the same time, the cost of providing these services should not be met by the viewers and listeners. The Government has ways available to it of meeting the position; or should look for some. It grants tax concessions to people who live in certain remote areas of the continent. People who live in zone A or zone B are allowed to claim a tax deduction because they reside in those areas. Similarly, 1 believe that the Government should make a contribution, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, towards the cost of providing radio and television services for people who live in sparsely populated areas.

As the Minister has pointed out, it costs almost as much to establish a television station at Mount Isa as it does to establish one in Sydney. But the people who pay a fee for a television viewers’ licence should not be required to carry this additional burden. The combined broadcast listener’s and television viewer’s licence is to be increased from $17 to $20. I think people are starling to object to the payment of this fee. They did not mind when the fee was $4. It was just one of those costs that they had to pay. Now they are looking at its seriously because it is costing them such a lot. As 1 said earlier, I believe that the Government should be looking for alternative methods of raising money to provide broadcasting and television services, and I propose to enlarge on this matter later.

The Minister in his second reading speech said, in relation to the ABC:

Its educational television programmes are now received by over 4,000 schools throughout Australia. Its news coverage is the most comprehensive in Australia.

I agree with that, but why should the holders of television viewers’ licences have the responsibility of financing these educational television programmes? Why should they not be a charge on the Commonwealth Department of Education and Science? The ABC is doing a job for the Department, and it is also doing a job for the State educational systems. The Government should be contributing to the cost of providing this service as a whole. I believe that a select committee could inquire into aspects of alternative methods of financing television and broadcasting services in this country. I agree with the Minister that the ABC’s news coverage is the most comprehensive in the Commonwealth today, so I have no complaint about that. I think that this is a service which should be paid for by radio and television users.

Then the Minister dealt with Radio Australia. He said:

In addition to hs home broadcasts and those it operates in Papua-New Guinea, the ABC operates Radio Australia, which is acknowledged to be one of the finest international broadcasting services in the world.

Australian radio listeners do not listen in to Radio Australia, and Australian television viewers do not view anything on ‘Television Australia’ because there is no such television service. The Minister goes on in his speech to elaborate on the excellent work that is being carried out by Radio Australia. But I come back to the original point I made: Why should Australian holders of broadcast listeners’ licences have to bear the cost of providing the radio programme Radio Australia? That programme should be treated as being part of the activities of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Externa] Territories. These departments should make at least a very substantial contribution, if not meet the whole cost, of Radio Australia. These aspects are important.

It is alt right for the Minister to say that over 100 stations around the world broadcast selections from the programmes of Radio Australia. This indicates the breadth of the coverage. But Radio Australia is not a local or internal service, and holders of broadcast listeners’ licences should not be required to pay for it. The service is provided as part of Australia’s public relations with other countries - with people in Asia and in Europe. When I was overseas last year the first thing I did when I went to an Australian post was to ask for and read the latest bulletins that had been broadcast over Radio Australia. Radio Australia provides a service out of the country, not within it, so I believe that the Department of External Affairs and the Department of External Territories should be required to carry the whole of the cost of providing the service.

I do not propose to refer further to any other points made by the Minister. As I said earlier, I am quite happy with the radio and television services which are being provided by the ABC. I think that the ABC is trying to provide a service. But at ‘he same time, the cost of providing the additional services which are being thrust on it should be carried by the departments whose jobs the ABC is assisting to carry out. Other aspects have to be considered. Very few people like to raise the matter of advertising on national stations, but I think that in view of the increased cost of running the ABC’s radio and television services some consideration should be given to accepting a limited amount of advertising on national stations so that the cost of running them can be met by advertisers rather than completely by the listeners and viewers and by contributions from Consolidated Revenue.

As regards the question of advertising on commercial radio and television stations, the twentieth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which was handed to us only minutes before this debate commenced today, indicates that a substantial profit is being made out of advertising by commercial radio and television stations. The amount of licence fees paid by these stations is infinitesimal, almost non-existent when one considers the turnover of the companies which control them - they are, in the main, monopoly controlled - and I shall deal with that subject shortly. I will deal with that subject in a moment or two. When we look at the latest figures we find that there were 111 radio broadcasting stations operating in Australia in 1966-67, 107 of them making profits and only 4 operating at a loss. The total revenue was $27,906,543 and their net profit on those operations was $6,727,461. So approximately 25% of the total revenue was profit. In the same, year, there were 42 television stations operating. Of this number, 33 were making a profit and 9 operated at a loss. The total revenue of television stations was $66,394,178, and on this figure they made a profit of $9,581,054. All told, in both broadcasting and television, the total profit made in Australia for the year $16. 3m. So this is not a minor operation.

One has to take into consideration that in the main television stations are owned by radio and newspaper interests. Most of the shares in television companies are held by these two groups, if you like through subsidiaries which are major shareholders. I do not have time to go through the shareholders in detail but if I did honourable members would find that either radio or newspaper interests are the major shareholders in television stations in every capital city. For example, in Sydney the major shareholder in Channel 7 is the John Fairfax group, better known as the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ group. Channel 9 is owned by Australian Consolidated Press Ltd, which runs the ‘Daily Telegraph’. We can go through each of the capital cities one by one and find that the Press owns the television stations. One may find that some broadcasting station has a substantial parcel of shares in a television station. But one finds that the broadcasting stations are, in the main, owned by newspaper interests. So a vicious combine ties up the three avenues for the distribution of propaganda, news and entertainment by its control of radio, television and newspapers. They are all combined, one with the other. I have not taken out exact figures showing the extent to which newspaper and radio interests have controlling interests in television stations or newspapers in radio stations. But I think it can be generally accepted that the value of shares involved would run into a huge amount. ft is difficult to obtain information about the profits and losses of television companies, but I believe that the value of shares of television companies gives an indication. Today’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ gives the latest figures available for 50c shares as follows:

Ballarat TV. $2.03 Canberra TV, $2.70 Country TV, $2.30

The next figure is an odd one; it is an exception to the rule -

East Coast TV, 45c John Fairfax, $2.98

This concern’s television company is not listed on the stock exchange. We can only go back to the parent company, which is the one that owns the greatest number of shares. The list goes on:

Newcastle TV, $3.60

The Adelaide ‘News’, the Sydney ‘Mirror’, the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, through the ‘Newcastle Morning Herald!, and the ‘Daily Telegraph’ all hold substantial interests in Newcastle TV. The figures continue:

Northern Rivers TV. $0.65 Richmond TV, $1.45 Riverina TV, $1.45 Television Corporation, $5.20

This organisation is TCN -

TV New England, $0.99 Adelaide News, $4.10

This again is one of the major interests in radio and television in South Australia and throughout Australia -

Melbourne ‘Herald’, $6.30

This is another huge holder of shares in radio and television stations -

Brisbane TV, $2.90

This company owns a major part of station QTQ-

page 1271

QTV. $1.20

Thai figure is for 25c shares, and this company is a major shareholder in station QTQ-

page 1271

QUESTION

TVW, $6.20

This concern is in Perth and the figure 1 have quoted is for SI shares. Honourable members can clearly see just what the real position is and the value of shares held by these companies in the fields of television, radio and newspapers. So I feel that it is important for the committee to have a look at this aspect and to consider alternate methods of financing the Australian Broadcasting Commission in regard to its radio and television activities.

As I said earlier the licence fee paid by these companies is infinitesimal. It is hardly worth referring to; it is comical. When one looks at page 14 of the twentieth annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board one finds figures relating to the revenue from broadcasting and television services. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to have the table under the heading ‘Revenue from Broadcasting and Television Services’ incorporated in Hansard.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Is leave given?

Mr Hulme:

– No.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Leave is not given.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Thank you. This means that I will have to read the material. Broadcast listeners and television viewers licence fees for the year 1965-66 totalled $35,444,906. Broadcasting station licence fees for the same period were $217,560. The turnover of commercial radio stations was $27,906,545, as I mentioned earlier. On that mammoth figure, they contribute in licence fees $217,560, or .077% of their revenue. I think it is stupid, ridiculous and farcical that private commercial radio stations should contribute such a small amount. They do not own the air. They are allowed the privilege of broadcasting. From the figures I quoted a moment ago it is clear that the huge profits and the capital gains in the value of shares make the fields of newspapers, radio and television some of the most lucrative forms of investment in Australia today.

Let us move on to television licence fees for the same year. These totalled $1,620,136, or 2.4%, of the total revenue of the television stations for the year. Here, once again, it is seen that the Government is getting nothing out of these people. Here we are thinking about obtaining additional revenue. Why does the Government not have a look at this and see whether this money can be obtained in a way other than by raising licence fees? The money should be paid by those people who are best able to bear the increase, instead of the burden being put on the consumer. This Government’s policy has brought about an increase in sales tax, and will bring about increases in bus, train and ferry fares in Sydney. The Government should be looking for new ways of financing its commitments.

In the limited time available to me I must move off this subject. I want to deal very quickly with the subject of colour television. I regret that the Minister and the Government have not done something about introducing colour television into this country. The honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) said that there should be no colour television until all country centres had been served. I disagree with the honourable member. I believe that the PostmasterGeneral’s Department should be doing something about the provision of this additional service. On my visits overseas last year and this year I had the opportunity to see colour television in operation. I believe that is is a form of television which the Australian viewer is being denied and which he should be given the opportunity to view. Many people believe that they will have to discard their existing television sets if colour television is introduced. They will not have to do that. Their existing television sets will still pick up the signals and will bring in colour television in the same way as they bring in black and white television.

Mr Hulme:

– Their existing sets will not give them colour.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– That is correct. But many people believe that if colour television is introduced they will have to throw away their existing sets. I am saying that they will not have to do that. Those sets will bring colour films in black and white. I hope that the Government will do something about introducing colour television in the immediate, future, so providing this service for the people in the cities who feel that they are entitled to it. At the same time the Government has a responsibility to provide television and broadcasting services to the people in the outback areas.

I wish to deal with one other aspect of television, namely, what is happening in my own electorate. ABHN5, the national television station, provides a service for the Hunter Valley and an area almost to Kempsey to the north and almost to Tamworth to the north west. I wish to refer to several aspects of the service. It serves the sixth largest city in Australia. There are more people in the Hunter Valley than there are in the whole of Tasmania. We people of Newcastle and the Hunter Valley feel slighted in that we are not being given a fair go by the Postmaster-General’s Department. It provides nothing other than a relay service. Everything that is dished up in Sydney comes to us on relay. No programmes are originated in Newcastle,

The local news service would be without doubt the worst news service provided in any centre in Australia. The news is that which is available early in the afternoon. All news has to be sent to Sydney no later than 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Then we receive a 5-minute news service from 6.55 p.m. until just before 7 p.m., when the national news commences. This local news service covers a region that extends almost to Tamworth to the north west and almost to Kempsey in the north. It is a huge area. The number of people served is probably in the vicinity of half a million. Yet the news service is restricted to less than 5 minutes - about 4 minutes all told - by the time the introduction is given and the local news is cut off to enable the national news to start at 7 o’clock. Then, to rub salt into the wound, we do not even receive that poor service on Saturdays and Sundays. It is only a Monday to Friday service.

We do not receive a local weather report. We have to take the weather report that is provided for Sydney and the rest of New South Wales. We are told that the weather will be cold or hot or that it will be dry if it does not rain, and so on. But we do not even receive that weather report on Saturdays and Sundays. I believe that it is time the Postmaster-General’s Department gave serious consideration to the provision of a much better service for the Newcastle and Hunter Valley region, which includes the coastal area south to Gosford and north almost to Kempsey. We should be receiving local sporting programmes. Is there any reason why important football matches or other sporting events that are held in the region on Saturday afternoons should not be televised? Why do we have to watch Sydney Rugby Union matches on most Saturday afternoons? Nobody in Newcastle is interested in Sydney Rugby Union matches. The people are more interested in Newcastle sport. They want to see Newcastle sport; they do not want to see Sydney sport.

Much the same can be said about other types of programmes. No local programmes originate in Newcastle, unless a ‘This Day Tonight’ team or a ‘Four Corners’ crew comes to Newcastle and does a particular programme. [ believe that an area such as the one to which I have referred should be given a much better service. Local organisations should be given an opportunity to provide programmes. There is talent there in various fields, including the cultural field and migrant groups. Programmes in those fields would be of interest to people throughout Australia, not just to the local people.

The local commercial television station - NBN3 - is making an attempt to provide a service to the people. It has an excellent local programme called ‘Focus’ on Sunday evenings. Admittedly the programme lasts for only 15 minutes, but that is 15 minutes more than ABHN5 provides. This is important. NBN3 takes matters of local interest, people who are in the area or topical matters that are under discussion, and runs a programme on them on Sunday evenings. Why cannot ABHN5 provide a similar service for the people of this region? It could take matters that are topical or controversial at the time. The PostmasterGeneral should be giving these aspects further serious consideration.

Let me refer to the programme called ‘People’, which is shown on Channel 2 in Sydney. It is a weekly programme. Why could not a programme similar to that be provided in Newcastle? Important people who visited the city or who had an interest in it could be interviewed. Newcastle is one of the largest industrial cities in the Commonwealth today. It is one of the most important cities in the country today. At some periods it is the leading, or second or third largest, port in the Commonwealth in terms of the tonnage of goods coming in and going out. The steel industry in Newcastle is the second largest steel industry in Australia today. These are matters which are important and to which I believe the Minister should be giving due consideration.

I ask him to do certain things. Why cannot a local news service of at least 15 minutes duration be prepared in Newcastle and televised from the city itself, instead of the news having to be sent to Sydney and then relayed back? The news is put on tape and then comes back to the Newcastle area in a 5-minute programme before the national news. Why cannot cultural programmes be provided from local sources, instead of everything having to come from Sydney or Melbourne? Newcastle is just as entitled to recognition throughout the Commonwealth as is any of the capital cities. It is really a capital city in its own right. It is the capital of the sixth largest area of population - one of the most densely populated areas - in the Commonwealth today.

Sporting programmes of interest to the people of Newcastle should be provided. The people want to know what is happening in the football matches either as they are being played or soon after they are played. The local commercial television station provides a service on Saturday night. It replays at about 10.30 on Saturday night the Rugby League match that is played on the Saturday afternoon. It does the same thing on Sunday night with the Soccer match that is played on the Sunday afternoon. Why cannot the local national television station show some interest in what is happening in Newcastle? Why cannot, these services be provided? The Postmaster-General should be giving these matters serious consideration. Why cannot the local national television station provide programmes on local matters which are of interest to the people of the region - not only the people of Newcastle but also the people of Maitland, Cessnock, Tamworth and Taree. They are all major centres which are away from Newcastle and which have important items that are of interest to the people who live in them.

In conclusion let me refer very briefly to one other point. It should be recognised that Saturday afternoon is a sports afternoon, particularly in the period from I o’clock until 5 o’clock. In Newcastle we have two radio networks - 2NC and 2NA. Is there any reason why one of those networks could not cover football or cricket according to the season while the other one covered racing? I know that the fellow who is interested in racing gets a bit hot under the collar when the announcer breaks in with information on cricket, football or some other sport, and cuts out a bit of the racing programme. I also know that the Minister will say: ‘What about the fellow who likes music?’ But the fellow who likes listening to music and is interested in music and that type of thing has all the rest of the week to hear music. All I am saying is that a few hours on Saturday afternoon should be reserved completely for sporting activities on both networks.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston)Order! The honourable members time has expired.

Mr HULME:
PostmasterGeneral and Vice-President of the Execu tive Council · Petrie · LP

– The honourable member for Melbourne Port* (Mr Crean). on behalf of the Opposition, has moved an amendment, which is not acceptable to the Government. The Opposition virtually is asking that a committee such as the Vincent

Committee be established to investigate certain aspect of television and broadcasting and that in the meantime the imposition of additional licence fees for both television and radio should be delayed. If I remember correctly, the Vincent Committee report contained about seventy-nine recommendations. Some little time later 1 mentioned these recommendations to one of the members of the Committee. I said that it was impossible to accede to them. He said to me: ‘Look, if you will give us a couple I am sure this will keep the committee quiet. The things I wanted included in the report I could not get included unless I agreed to the inclusion of somebody else’s suggestions.’ If that kind of report is the result of scrutiny by a parliamentary committee, I assure the House we do not want a second committee in relation to television or radio.

The Bill seeks to increase the licence fee for TV by $2 a year and for radio by $1 a year and it is most remarkable that the Opposition is raising all kinds of objections to it. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Charles Jones), indicated the ways in which the extra money could be expended, ft is quite remarkable, it seems to me, that having incurred additional cost amounting to $l8m more than was received by way of licence fees and being able to pick up S5m of that deficit in this financial year and $7m in a full financial year, thus still carrying a deficit of Slim each financial year, we should then be asked substantially to increase the expenditure by providing sporting programmes on two stations on Saturday afternoons. Whether or not the commercial stations want to braodcast : sport does not seem to matter. I inform the honourable member for Newcastle that only two regional stations are operated by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, excluding those in the capital cities. Those stations are at. Rockhampton and Townsville. They are located there because those places had television before there was a microwave or coaxial cable which made relay facilities possible. If we have to provide regional stations to broadcast local news here, there an everywhere - and there are 39 bigh powered stations operated by the ABC - if we arc to provide 39 and perhaps 30 more, are we prepared to accept the cost and who is to meet the cost? The honourable member for Newcastle says that the public should not meet the cost.

Mr Charles Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I am talking about a service for 500,000 people.

Mr HULME:

– That is all right, but earlier in the debate the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) said that television ought to be introduced in every reasonable area. The point - I will come to this in a few moments - is that this area of television and radio is an area which provides a real field day for criticism. 1 will refer to some of the comment, perhaps seriatim, made by certain honourable members.

The first thing that the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) mentioned was the profit being made by the commercial stations. A perusal of the total revenue and total expenditure indicates a profit of $16m made by these organisations. What is overlooked by the Opposition - and it is always overlooked - is that 42£% of this money comes back to the Government by way of taxation. That Si 6m is not the final profit to the stations or the shareholders of the individual companies. Admittedly a substantial profit is left to them. We on this side of the House do not object to private enterprise making a profit. In relation to radio or television governments of a different complexion have also accepted the proposition - Japan has followed our example and has established an organisation similar to the ABC - that what is needed is a national operation as well as a commercial operation. If we want a commerical operation we cannot reject its right to earn profit.

I mentioned that television and radio are areas for criticism. Television, much more than radio, becomes an area for general debate. I think most honourable members would accept that the Bill which we are considering is a Bill to increase licence fees in order to assist in the financing of the ABC’s operations. Nevertheless I quite appreciate that under these circumstances members of the House will criticise commercial stations, the ABC, the types of programmes and the standard of those programmes. I suggest that nearly everything that has been said has been in the nature of criticism. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports made the comment that the medium lends itself to criticism. In the 5 years I have been Postmaster-General I have seldom read a daily newspaper which did not criticise some programme on television or some aspect of a television opera tion. Special journals deal in part at least with television and radio. Seldom it is that one does not read criticism rather than commendation. Many members of the public write letters to me criticising the programmes. Very seldom do I get a letter of commendation. As an example of a good programme I mention the ‘Forsyte Saga’, a serial that ran for 10, 12 or 14 evenings.

Mr Crean:

– It ran for 26 weeks.

Mr HULME:

– Yes, 26 weeks. I would have thought that most people who were discerting about art and presentation would say that this was a good programme. Yet I did not receive one letter about the Torsyte Saga’ during that period. We are entitled to take the attitude that television is an area for criticism. Members of Parliament join in this operation as well. I am coming to the conclusion that there are no experts within the field of operation of television and that all the experts are outside the area. I sometimes wonder what would be the result if we let some of the critics inside to see whether they could improve what we outside have to look at or listen to from time to time.

I know that programming is not an easy task. It is a very expensive business to produce dramatic entertainment for half an hour or an hour. It is a different matter if a politician is being interrogated for quarter of an hour or half an hour - this is not expensive - but if we are thinking in terms of edifying programmes - if I may be permitted to use that term - the cost is tremendous, regardless of whether the programme is produced in Australia or imported.

I assure the House that Australia does not have many opportunities to sell its programmes overseas. The ABC has been able to sell some, as have some of the commercial stations. We are not very experienced in the development of actors, writers and others necessary for a television production, which would enable us to produce a high standard programme such as the ‘Forsyte Saga’. We do not have the people who are capable of producing 26 episodes of a show such as that. We would have to spend a large sum of money, which is not available to the ABC. We would have to make more money available to the ABC. I do not think the public would be prepared to pay it

The same proposition applies with the commercial stations. This is not to say that no real effort has been made to develop Australian programmes. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has given a good deal of consideration to the matter. Section 323 of the twentieth annual report, which I tabled in the House this morning, states:

Section 114(1.) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942-1967 requires that licensees of commercial television stations should, as far as possible, use the services of Australians in the production and presentation of programmes. The Board has specified certain minima for the use of Australian programmes, and has been pleased to note an improvement in the extent to which the majority of stations were making use of Australian programmes, particularly in the evening viewing period when the audience is at its greatest . . . The improvement reflects compliance with the Board’s requirements for the televising of Australian programmes . . . Briefly stated, these requirements provide that the licensee of each station which has completed 3 years of operation should present for at least 50 per cent of the stations’ hours of transmission, programmes which are credited as being Australian in origin; and that between the hours of 7.00 p.m. and 9.30 p.m. each month they should present at least 12 hours of Australian programmes including two hours of Australian drama. Of the 12 hours of Australian programmes, at least eight must be televised between 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. at the rate of two hours per week. These requirements came into effect in July 1967.

If honourable members turn to page 83 of the report they will see how that policy has been implemented. A few stations are devoting less than 50% of their hours of transmission to Australian programmes, but other stations devote as much as 60% or more of their hours of transmission to Australian programmes. Many stations devote between 50% and 60% of their time to Australian programmes. The process of extending the time devoted to Australian productions is a gradual one. In 1967-68 the ABC devoted 45.68% of its hours of transmission to programmes produced by it and a further 3.51% to Australian programmes purchased locally, giving a total transmission time of more than 49% to Australian produced programmes. But if you apply to the ABC the same basis of accreditation which the Broadcasting Control Board applies to commercial stations, last year the ABC could be said to have devoted 72.5% of its transmission time to programmes of Australian production. I suggest that a real effort is being made by com mercial stations and the ABC to carry out the requirements of the Broadcasting and Television Act.

During 1967-68 the ABC produced 245 radio plays of one hour or longer duration, including twenty-five plays by Australian authors. During the same period it produced for television 132 episodes of ‘Bellbird’ and 13 of ‘Contrabandits’. This effort should indicate to honourable members that some progress is being made towards increasing Australian production of radio and television material. I do not think it is fair always to criticise television stations whenever the subject of television is being debated. A little commendation now and then for those associated with this important industry might do a lot of good. The people in the commercial side of the industry are certainly trying to make profits but are at the same time endeavouring to provide a real service for the Australian people.

The honourable member for Newcastle said that colour television should be introduced in metropolitan areas. Yesterday in a question the honourable member for Darling (Mr Clark) - a member of the Opposition - requested that colour television be not introduced into Australia until all areas had a monochrome or black and white service. A similar request was made this afternoon by the honourable member for Kennedy. Perhaps colour television has some attraction for the public at the moment, but I think many people would be less attracted if they had to find between $500 and $700 for a colour television set. If the manufacturer finds that people are not buying his sets and that he must carry them on his own inventory, I am not so sure that he will look upon the introduction of colour television as such a splendid idea after all. It is the responsibility of governments to have regard to the total economic effect of the introduction of colour television, and that economic effect has a relationship to the colour standard which is selected.

I know that many honourable members have been overseas. In America you can see one system, in Germany another and in France yet another. Perhaps the differences in the systems are not apparent when you see them separately and at intervals, but when you have seen the three systems side by side, as I did in Germany only last year, you realise that there are substantial differences in the quality of colour television. Perhaps one system will improve and another system may improve even more, but I believe that the Government has a responsibility to ensure that when colour television comes to Australia we get the best system that has been produced in the world. I believe that only under those circumstances will the people of Australia be satisfied that they have had a fair deal and have not been the victims of a confidence trick. So I see no urgency to introduce colour television. Some time ago I indicated that I would give 18 months notice to those associated with the industry before introducing colour television. A week or so ago in answer to a question asked outside the House I said that it could be even up to 3 years before any announcement was made on the subject. I will not be greatly worried if we have to wait 44 years before we get colour television because although, as the honourable member for Newcastle said, you can receive colour productions on a black and white set, people do not know today whether a film that is being televised is in colour or black and white. Probably between 30% and 50% of films now televised are in colour. These may be received on a black and white set notwithstanding that they are televised in colour. When colour television is available I expect substantial sections of the community to undertake considerable hire purchase debts in order to obtain a colour set and I believe that we should not encourage them to do so unless we know that they will obtain complete satisfaction.

I again commend the Bill to the House. I know that it increases the combined licence fee by $3 a year. Costs are rising throughout the Australian community. We are faced with rising costs in the Post Office. We are faced with rising costs in almost every aspect of government or business in the community. I still believe that the user has the responsibility of paying for the service he receives.

Honourable members may criticise the ABC in certain respects but I still believe that more than 50% of its programmes - I put it no higher than that - are acceptable to the vast majority of people. Surely we all must agree that what appeals to us as individuals may not appeal to other people. Other people arc entitled to be considered in the programmes we produce. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said that we should have more rural programmes. I would suggest that the number of people Hying in rural areas to whom television is available constitutes a small percentage of the overall population. This is not to say that city dwellers do not have some interest in rural programmes. But those who have been in television for the last 10 or 12 years, many of whom have been overseas to gain experience, are probably finally the best judges of what type of programme is most acceptable to the overall Australian population. I am sure that the Parliament and the people will accept the increased charge, which has been brought about by rising costs. They might not like the increase, but I am sure they will accept it. They would not see any virtue in the Labor Party’s suggestion to set up a parliamentary committee to kick the matter around for 6 or 12 months without coming to any definite conclusions and probably only with the result of making confusion worse confounded in the public mind.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Speaker- Hon. W. J. Aston)

AYES: 66

NOES: 31

Majority 35

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. W. J. Aston)

AYES: 66

NOES: 33

Majority 33

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Hulme) read a third time.

page 1278

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 1083), on motion by Mr Wentworth:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– 1 move:

That all words after That’ be ommitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill the House regrets that the Government has failed to:

increase pension rates sufficiently to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living;

adjust all social service benefits in each year’s Budget to meet the increased cost of living:

implement their policy of abolishing the means test as promised as long ago as 1949. and

make benefits retrospective from 1st July 1968*.

The Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) presented a sad sight as he delivered his second reading speech. Was this the same person who in the past so vigorously expounded advanced policies on social welfare? He was hardly recognisable as he quoted the same old platitudes and the same old policy under the same old system of his predecessors. He even quoted comparisons with 20 years ago which, as an economist, he knows to be false, misleading and juvenile. 1 thought, however, that there was something familiar about his reference to social services in the Soviet bloc. This was. the old campaigner on the trail of the Communists again. But 1 found it difficult to believe that it was the former rebel speaking when he said: . The Government has examined in detail many suggestions and proposals and evaluated them against the criterion of assisting those in the greatest need without penalising thrift and independence.

This was the same old moderate approach of his predecessors. In the GovernorGeneral’s Speech at the opening of the Parliament on I2th March 1968 the Gorton Government outlined what many people expected to be its approach to social services. His Excellency said:

My Government will review the field of social welfare with the object of assisting those in most need while at the same time not discouraging thrift, self helf and self reliance.

He went on to say: . . . earlier this year (he Prime Minister established a Welfare Committee of Cabinet to make a comprehensive examination of health and social welfare schemes and to suggest new approaches where desirable.

These enthralling exercises in phraseology were followed up by all kinds of statements from the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), the Minister for Social Services and other Government members on the great new era before us in this field of humanitarian endeavour. Why, I even heard the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) on 29th August 1968 suggest, in this Parliament, what the Budget proposals represented. He said: _ The trendsetting innovations in the Budget are signs of an exciting new approach to the nation’s social security programme.

Honourable members can see from the look of the honourable member that it does not take much to excite him. The honourable member believed that the Government’s proposals were an exciting new approach to social services. What a lot of rot! His enthusiastic support of these meagre proposals was re-echoed by other members on the Government side.

Whose leg does the Government think it is pulling in respect of this social programme? There is nothing new in this Budget concerning social welfare. In fact, it reeks of injustice and inhumanity. It exemplifies the same old outdated thinking. It shows no stimulating approach to those in want, and it completely ignores the poverty level to which countless thousands of Australians have been forced because of the Government’s failure to meet the challenge of rising prices and inflation and to increase social service benefits accordingly. Not one new idea is incorporated in the proposals. The Government proposes meagre increases to pensioners after a 2- year wait; many other social service benefits have remained unchanged for years; and the very minimum Is being given to this most deserving section of society. Is it any wonder that Mrs Ellis-

Mr BOSMAN:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Who wrote this?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member for St George will cease interjecting.

Mr DALY:

– Let him go, Mr Speaker; it will penetrate shortly. Mrs Ellis is the Secretary of the Australian Commonwealth Pensioners Federation. She was one of the good ladies whose friends unfortunately were kissed by the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) prior to the introduction of the Budget. In a letter that she wrote to the Right Honourable J. G. Gorton, temporary Prime Minister of Australia, on 19th August, she said:

This declaration by the Governor-General - -

She referred to the quotation I made earlier - led social service and service pensioners to expect higher pension increases in the 1968-69 Budget than in previous years. But the 75c and the $1 a week pension increases are in line with past pittances and this is confirmed by the Government’s record over recent years . . .

The Federation asks you, Sir: ‘Where is the compassion in the pittance of 75c or $1 a week for the weakest and most defenceless in the communitythe aged, sick and the widowed subsisting on $13 a week or $11.75 a week for the past 2 years? Can the pittance now allotted to them be considered as giving very special attention to their immediate needs’?’

Does the Minister think so? She continued:

Where is the compassion for the dependent wife? The pittance of $1, for which she has waited for 5 years since the last increase in 1963, makes a mockery of her cares and hardships.

Where is the compassion for the future citizens of our country - the dependent children of the civilian pensioner? For their pittance of $1 a week they have waited 7 years.

In other fields of social welfare such as health, the Budget provisions, welcome though they may be, are years overdue.

Where is the promised re-thinking of Government policy on social services? The provisions of the present Budget shows the policy of your Government remains as before - to give as little as it can, and to stave off as long as it can any cash or other social services benefits, thereby saving millions of dollars at the expense of those in most need. The ‘Government only yielding when public pressures, and the demands of the electorate can no longer be denied.

What a damning indictment of the Government’s policy and of the new Minister, who was going to revolutionise social welfare in this country, by a woman whose responsibility it is to visit the needy, to look after them and to endeavour to improve their lot. This damning indictment is made at a time when the Government has promised so much and has given so little. It is important that this woman’s words be put on record. This cry of anguish from suffering people is a fitting answer to the pious sentiments expressed by Government membes to the effect that this is a new great social welfare programme. I go so far as to say that had it not been for the rumour or threat of an election those in want would have been left to rot in their poverty by the Government. The age and invalid pensioners, the wives, the children, the sick and the needy would not have been given even the miserable morsel that has fallen from the master’s table, despite their poverty and their suffering, had it not been for the threat of an election.

The Government, as I shall show, has treated those most deserving contemptibly and without consideration for their needs. The Government deserves the condemnation of every fair minded person who believes in social justice and the right to live with dignity, decency and freedom from want. Just what does this new deal in social services represent? Is it really something out of the box? Is it a new approach, a fair and just assessment of the needs of those in want? Does it really fit into the pattern of this age of affluence and prosperity of which the Liberals boast so much? Let us look at the benefits, if we may respectfully call them such, to see whether one new idea or one new proposal is incorporated in them. Let us look to see whether the Minister for Social Services, who has been so outspoken in the past on the need for social justice for pensioners, has honoured his promises or is merely the spokesman for the outdated policy of the Government.

Firstly, let us take a look at the age and invalid pensions. They are to be increased by $1 a week, giving a maximum base rate of the grand sum of $14. What is new about this? How was the $.1 assessed? After all, pensions have not been increased since October 1966, the cost of living has risen, there have been increases in wages and, of course, General Motors-Holdens’ Pty Ltd and Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd have not exactly lost money in that time. As if this were not bad enough, we find that married pensioners - age and invalid - are to receive an increase of only 75c a week, making a total increase of SI .50. This is discrimination again against married pensioners. The permissible income, of course, is not as great for the single person. This is happening again after a 2-year delay in the granting of any benefit. What is the new thinking behind this scheme? It is the old outdated programme that the Government has adopted for years. Is this scheme, as one honourable member said, to be taken as an exciting new approach to social welfare? Is a lower rate of pension, because of marriage, and a lower rate of permissible

Income the limit to the thinking of this Government on social services? Is that the only bright thought that could be brought forward by this collection of brains on the Cabinet’s welfare committee?

Class A widows, again after waiting 2 years, are to receive an increase of Si a week. This must certainly be a $1 Cabinet. It did not think of granting anything less, except in the case of the married pensioner. Is it to be taken that the collection of brains which was incorporated in the Cabinet welfare committee could not have thought of an increase of $1.50 or $1.20 or $1.30 or $5? The increase has always been $1. There is to be an increase of SI also for each additional child after the first has been granted, but this is the first change in that that has taken place since October 1961 - a period of 7 years. Widows without children will receive an increase of 75c a week - again the first increase since October 1966. Children of pensioners will receive an increase of $1, making a payment of $2.50. This rate has not been increased since 5th October 1961 - a period of 7 years. I understood the Minister to say that social services do not stay static under this Government.

The wife’s allowance, which has remained unchanged since 3rd October 1963, is to be increased again by $1 - this magic amount - to $7. What a magnificent amount to give to a wife. Why should not the rate be the same as the pension? The rehabilitation training allowance is to be increased by $1, which is the first increase since 1955 - a period of 13 years - when it was increased by 50c. Again, the Jiving away from home allowance for unmarried trainees is to be increased by $1.50. Somebody must have made a mistake there. It is an increase of more than a dollar. That is the first increase” since 1955, when it went up by $1. The married rate is to be increased by $2. Again, that is the first increase since 1955 - or for 13 years - when it was increased by SI. This most deserving class of pensioners had to wait 13 years to get an increase. It is certainly a long time - not between drinks - between benefits for this section of society.

The Budget makes provision for one or two minor adjustments, such as special payments following the death of one partner in a marriage and provisions regarding the residential qualification for widow’s pensions where a couple reside permanently in Australia, a vocational training scheme for widows’ pensioners and the substitution of a standard for the married rate pension where the spouse of the pensioner receives unemployment or sickness benefit. These hardly represent new thinking, but are desirable changes that are a long time overdue. Let us have a look at what these increased benefits mean. This Government has the great system in social services of giving practically nothing but of making a song and dance about it as though it was giving something. I got information from the Department concerning the last benefits that I have mentioned. I asked what they were and what they meant in dollars and cents. This is what I was told in respect of the first item:

Pay standard rate pension where spouse of age or invalid pensioner is in receipt of unemployment or sickness benefit.

It costs nothing to give that. I was told that the second item was designed to:

Remove the residence qualification for widow’s pension where the woman and her husband were residing permanently in Australia when she became a ‘widow’.

That is estimated to cost $92,000 in a full year. Then I was told that the next item was designed to:

Increase rehabilitation training and living away from home allowances.

It is estimated that that will cost only $12,000 in a full year. I was also told that the training scheme for widow pensioners will cost $36,000 in a full year. I was also told that there were relatively few people involved. What a strange contribution to social welfare, to provide benefits to relatively few at a minimum of cost. Is this to be taken as the limit of the Government’s thinking on social services? Does the Government consider that these miserable and spasmodic increases of $1, or some other figure which is plucked out of the air, after a delay of 13 years in some cases, represents the be-all and end-all of social welfare? Are we to take it that action on the pious sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and his Minister for Social Services on their plans for new and enlightened thinking on social welfare is limited to a $1 increase when an election is pending, or is the Government prepared to face its responsibilities to this section of society?

I believe that the benefits incorporated in this legislation must be accepted, because it is about all that people can get from this Government, and they would not get it unless an election were pending. The Opposition considers the benefits are inadequate and insulting. They will win a few votes for a few temporary members of the Parliament who are looking at me from the opposite side of the chamber now. We believe that the Government is deserving of censure for its neglect, because we believe that this country can well afford to give reasonable pensions to its pioneers. I repeat that far from being a new programme of social welfare, this is just the very minimum to keep the pensioners quiet pending an election and that no thought whatever has been given to the needs and requirements of those who are in the most need.

Now let us look particularly at the position of age and invalid pensioners. Let us look at some of the reactions to the treatment being given to these people in spite of their plaintive cries for assistance. The Minister went on in his second reading speech to quote some figures and to make a comparison with the position in 1949. I am one of those simple people who believe that pensioners cannot live on percentages. They cannot buy butter with percentages. They cannot get on a tram and pay their fare with percentages. The landlord will not take percentages in payment for rent. Pensioners cannot buy clothes by presenting percentages instead of dollar bills. The Government must realise that people cannot live on percentages.

If honourable members opposite are interested in these matters I shall bring them up to a date on a few of them. It is not reasonable to compare pensions with the minimum or basic wage, for the simple reason that nowadays most wives have to work. Because husbands cannot earn enough money to keep their families both husbands and wives have to go to work in order to live in the economy and the society that this Government has created. We must compare the pension with the average income. At the present time the average weekly income is $65.90. In 1948- 49 it was much lower because there was a government which stabilised the economy. The present rate of pension of $13 a week represents 1.9.7% of the average weekly income. The new rate of $14 will represent 21.2% of the average weekly income. In 1948-49 the pension represented 26.2% of the average weekly income. Therefore, compared with the average weekly income, the pension has .fallen from 26.2% to 19.7%, which is a reduction of 6.5% in the purchasing power of the pension.

Is it any wonder that pensioners realise that all the comparisons given by the Government do not bear investigation, when the true comparison with the position when Labor was in office is made? I am surprised at the Minister, and I am surprised that the Bank of New South Wales did not have a couple of bad years when he was an economist with it, if he applied the same principles to its records as he did to the table which we allowed him to incorporate in Hansard. I am pleased we allowed him the privilege because it placed on record, no matter how good he might think he is with social services, that his economic background is not the very best. I do not profess to delve into facts and figures in a great way in respect of pensions because, as 1 mentioned earlier, percentages just do not buy butter, tea and sugar or pay rent. 1 stick to relevant facts that pensioners understand. I am indebted to the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) who felt moved, in view of the mis-statements made by the Minister, to give him the real facts in connection with the economic situation. I quote them now so that all will understand that the Minister was astray. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports, quite rightly, put the situation in these words:

In 1968 the recipient of a pension is not really interested in what the pension might have Seen in 1948 when he was working, but what it will purchase in 1968 when he is not working.

In 1954 the annual liability for pensions on the last day of the financial year was Si 66m. which was 1.8% of the GNP of $9,027m.

In 1967 the annual liability for pensions on the last day of the financial year was $497 m. That was 2.2% of the GNP of $22,810m.

This seems to be an increase of 23% in the share but in fact the number of recipients as a proportion of total population has increased from 5.25% to 6.5% which is an increase of 24% so that the pensioner’s share of the national cake has in fact declined and when account is taken of the fact that a higher proportion of the pensioners is on food than is the case with most incomes, ‘then the situation has deteriorated even further.

It is rather grotesque to measure the prosperity of a pension by an index of things the pensioner cannot afford to buy. The expenditure of the Social Service Department has been a fairly steady 3.3% of the GNP for 15 years but during that time the number of recipients of the principal benefit age and invalid pensions has risen from 5% of the total population to 6.6% - an increase of nearly 30%.

In 1953 expenditure on age and invalid pensions of $145m out of $285m spent by the Department or just over half.

In 1967 expenditure on age and invalid pensions has increased to $482m out of $967m which was over 60% of the total expenditure.

Expenditure on Social Services mn.il continue to rise for two reasons! - because population is rising and because prices are rising. If the proportion of recipients to total population is rising also and then merely to look at the proportion of GNP going to Social Services as the measuring rod can be most misleading.

This indicates that the Minister’s comparisons are completely astray in respect of the actual situation. I would like to know from him how this increase of $.1 was assessed and on what basis. I would like to know how the Welfare Committee of the Cabinet decided it would be paid for. As I mentioned before, the Minister compared 1949 with 1969 to emphasise what he describes as the great expenditure on social services today. This is a very shallow and juvenile approach for a man versed, as I understand, in finance. Why did he not compare 1949 with 1910? Would that not have been a better proposition? I believe that a silly argument deserves a silly answer. The fifth annual report of the Director-General of Social Services, for the year ended 30th June 1946, shows that the annual liability for pensions at 30th June 1909 was £1,624,454. In 1949, as the Minister knows, the liability had risen to the tremendous figure which he quoted and for which the Labor Government was responsible. If it is good enough for him to compare 1969 with 1949, why should I not compare 1949 with 1910 and show him that that kind of argument is false in every way and has no substance when properly investigated?

What does the additional $1 a week granted to pensioners mean? With a 40% increase in rent about 60c is left to the pensioner. Mr Askin, in New South Wales, did not take long to get his little bit of the small and meagre increase granted to pensioners by this Government. He put up the charges for practically everything from the date the pension increase commenced. This Government is not content to reduce the pension by increases in rents and fares. There are increases in sales tax. and television and radio licence fees. This leaves a net increase of about 40c, which means that the average pensioner, if he were very saving, could buy I wo hot pies and a cup of tea with his new found wealth each week. This pension increase was determined after the Cabinet Welfare Committee had investigated the situation for 6 or 7 months. This is not really bright thinking. Are we to take it that two hot pies and a cup of tea is the limit of the new social programme and thinking of the Cabinet Welfare Committee? Is this the best it can do on the eve of an election. If it is then heaven help us all when there is not an election pending. The increase of about 14c a day will hardly cover the increased costs of transport in NSW under the Liberal Government, and increased rent. A married person, of course, can starve. He receives only about 10c a day. What about the pensioners who smoke cigarettes. I do not smoke but I think the cost of a packet of cigarettes is between 34c and 40c. The average smoker would want at least one packet a day. What about the pensioner who likes to have an occasional beer? How does the pensioner get a pound of butter, which is now relatively highly priced. How can he afford to pay 60 or 70c a dozen for eggs? The primary producer who interjects would not care if the price of such products went up steeply. He would not care how pensioners would pay. Fruit and vegetables and the other commodities that are so necessary are beyond the means of pensioners. Is it any wonder that we believe that pensioners, under this Government, are looked upon as second class citizens? Under this Government they are treated as such. They are the forgotten people - the discarded pioneers of an affluent society in a prosperous and developing Australia.

I repeat that pensioners cannot live on percentages. They have to live on the income they get. Accordingly I believe the Government deserves to be condemned for the meagre increases that it has given to them. I am reminded by the publication the ‘Economist’ that in Great Britain today pensioners are to have their own retail price indices - one for the pensioner living alone and the other for the two-pensioner household. The new indices will be published quarterly, not monthly like the overall index, and will not cover housing costs. This will be the pensioners’ yardstick. It will be introduced in Great Britain, where it is realised that these problems exist. 1 am not often in agreement with the Sydney ‘Daily Telegraph’, but the other day I did read a bit of sense in an article written about the loan of $ 1,000m to Papua and New Guinea. The article stated: ‘In simple arithmetic, that’s $200m a year’. It was entitled ‘Charity Begins at home - in Australia’. I think so, too. We can well afford to make our contribution to Papua and New Guinea, but our first responsibility is to the people who live in this country. If $200m more were allocated by this Government for pensions, we could afford to give age and invalid pensioners a $5 a week rise. We could also give widows at least $4 a week more. This country can afford to help foreign nations that are in want, but let us have charity at home first. For my part, I believe that the people in this country have first call on the resources of this Government.

I want to speak now about a number of other matters in relation to social services that I think are important. I pass on from pensions, as my colleague will discuss them in more detail later. I have here a document showing variations in weekly rates of social service benefits from 1945 to 1968. It is a valuable document, for which I thank the Minister and the Department of Social Services. The Government places great credence in the claim that it has increased social service benefits. Let us have a look at that claim. I find that 2,225,768 people are in receipt of all kinds of benefits, but under this legislation only 1,022,000, or 45%, of them will benefit.

Let us have a look at how pensions and other benefits have been withheld by this Government. The year 1966 was the last occasion on which age and invalid pensions were increased. On that occasion they were increased by only $1.00 for single pensioners. The wife’s allowance has not been increased since 1963. It has remained at $6. The allowance for the first child has not been increased since 1961. The additional pension for second and subsequent children has not been increased over a similar period. Supplementary assistance has not changed since 1965. The last change before the one in 1965 was in 1958. Widows pensions have kept abreast of age and invalid pensions and have not been increased for 2 years. With reference to the funeral benefit, this Government must be egotistical enough to think that nobody will die while it is in office, because the present benefit of $20 was given in 1945.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Are these official figures?

Mr DALY:

– Yes, they are official figures given by the Department. On 1st October 1964 a special rate of funeral benefit was provided. Unemployment and sickness benefits have not been increased since 1962. They were increased after the Government had the daylights frightened out of it at an election at which it was returned with a majority of only one. An unemployed or sick person of 18 years of age still has to exist on $4.75 a week, and an adult on $8.25 a week. The number of people receiving unemployment benefit is 20,847 and the number receiving sickness benefit is 9,321. Therefore, 30,168 people are living below the breadline.

We hear a lot of talk about the pill and the effect that it has on the birth rate. I believe that the biggest birth control clinic in this country is run by this LiberalCountry Party Government in Canberra, because the maternity allowance has not been increased since 1945. It is 23 years since it has been increased. What could have a greater effect on the birth rate than people being refused the wherewithal and the assistance necessary at such a vital time as the birth of a child? The people who are arguing about the effect of the pill on the birth rate are on false ground. They should criticise this Government for restricting births by refusing to assist families. About 230,000 people benefited from this meagre assistance last year. Child endowment for the first child has not been increased since 19S0 and that for the second child has not been increased since 1964.

People in receipt of training allowances are a forgotten race. Training allowances were last increased in 1955, when they were increased by only 50c. The training allowance for an unmarried person for the full period of training is only now being increased from $3.50 to $5. It is 13 years since training allowances were last changed. The proposed increase is only a meagre $1 or $2. Yet we are told that this would be a major subject in the Government’s new social welfare programme. I thank the Minister and his Department for the excellent document to which J have been referring. With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate it in Hansard,

Those people who think that the Government parties’ programme of social service is extensive and good should read the report headed ‘Australia’s Immigration Programmes for the Period 1968 to 1973’, which was presented to the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden) by the Immigration Planning Council. The Chairman of that Council is the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox), who is a member of the Liberal Party and a great spokesman on social services. The other members of the Council include Mr Monk, Professor Borrie, Mr Christian, Sir Arthur Coles, Sir Douglas Copland, Mr carRy Mr Foulis, Mr Gerard, Sir Tasman Heyes, Professor Lewis, Mr Rich and Mr Urquhart. Most of them are people whom one would not generally see about the labor leagues. The Council investigated the effect of social service benefits on the immigration programme. At page 67 of its report it said:

In discussing the importance of social services as a factor in attracting migrants, the Committee accepted that:

although they would not deliberately weigh them, many potential migrants would take social services into account in assessing whether they would, in total, gain materially by- coming to Australia

the level and comprehensiveness of social services in some European countries, . especially Britain and other advanced industrial countries, was a potent factor against leaving those countries ‘ (c) the level of benefits in Australia, especially the existence of the means test in relation to some benefits, could give an impression that the Australian system compared unfavourably with those to which the potential migrants were accustomed

Australian pensions were not payable outside Australia

questions that probably entered into migrants’ minds would include the gap in cover between time of departure from home countries and eligibility under Australian schemes; and the residential requirement before full benefits could apply (e.g., widows’ pensions) which had much greater impact on migrants than upon Australians generally (0 migrants immediately - after - arrival frequently suffered from inability to join an appropriate benefit organisation either because of lack of knowledge of how to proceed or through lack of cash income to afford the payments involved.

While agreeing that most migrants would in fact enjoy a higher standard of living in Australia, the Committee recognised the practical difficulties of conveying this to potential migrants who had to be positively convinced that they and their families would gain from coming here.

In this situation it was necessary to he able to demonstrate that the Australian social service system would provide at least the level of protection they already enjoyed. In the Committee’s view this could not be done.

The Committee therefore expressed a strong doubt that social services in Australia could be considered as a positive factor in the attraction of migrants from Europe.

It is no wonder that we are battling to obtain migrants when we have a social welfare system as outlined in that report.

Mr Barnard:

– The Minister for Social Services probably has not read that.

Mr DALY:

– He probably has not. There are many other matters of interest in relation to the amendment that I have moved. I mentioned earlier that the Government does not review social service benefits annually, as it should. If benefits have remained constant for years, they have naturally become stagnant in relation to their purchasing power.

I am interested to ‘ know what the Government will do about implementing its policy of abolishing the means test. Let us refresh the memory of the Minister for Social Services, the former rebel who is now at the table.

Mr Barnard:

– He said a lot about this subject in other years.

Mr DALY:

– Yes, he did. He made vibrant attacks on the Government. I ask honourable members to listen to this extract from a speech that he made on 23rd September 1965:

One of the effects of the -removal of this means test is to improve the social services means test situation as a whole. I am voicing, perhaps, a little disappointment that more has not been done in this regard, but I do believe that the ground is being prepared for a -massive assault upon the means test next year by the Government and by those who support the Government. This is our policy and I am hoping that it will be further implemented.

Again I ask honourable members to listen to this interesting extract from a speech that the Minister made’ on 10th March 1966:

What are the measures which we can take? In the first place, I think we must be taking measures to remove - not at one step, but progressively - the means test on pensions which has so greatly inhibited local savings. People say: ‘Well, how can you do this? It will cost £130m’, or whatever figure they like to pick out of the air.

Honourable members will remember the honourable gentleman’s flamboyant way of saying these things. It was so nice to hear him. We thought he meant what he said. He continued:

It is true that there will be some additional expenditure, although it need not be the astronomical figure which has been flora up into fantasy by those who do not want the means lest abolished. There will, however, be a considerable outlay, but in the long run it will be more than balanced by the extra savings that will occur when the inhibiting effect of the means test is removed.

Does the Minister recall those inspiring utterances which brought us all to our feet to cheer him as one who, with us on this side of the chamber, believed in the abolition, of the means test? Let me refer now to that famous document of 1949 - the policy speech of the Liberal Party. In that policy speech Mr Menzies, as he then was, said:

During the new Parliament we will further investigate this complicated problem with a view to presenting to you at the election of 1952 a scheme for your approval. Meanwhile, existing, rates of pension will, of course, be at least maintained. We will, much more importantly, increase their true value by increasing their purchasing power.

Where is this dream of a scheme to be introduced in 1952 - 16 years ago? Is it not shameful that these things are forgotten today? The Minister, who is now at the table and who was an inspiring advocate of the abolition of the means test, is now further back than some of his predecessors - and a few of them were nothing to write home about. 1 quote from the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) in this House on 20th August. He said:

The Liberal Party now disowns its promise to abolish the means test by proclaiming that it would cost $340m. It would not be ruinous, however, to take deliberate steps to abolish the means test. It would cost $65 m to pay a full pension to all persons of 75 years and over irrespective of their means; it would cost another $l2m to pay it to ail persons of 74. These are practical steps which a Commonwealth government could take to bring Australia progressively into line with other English-speaking countries.

It would attract migrants at the same time. I mention that in order to remind the Government of how it has failed in its meaning in respect of these matters. I ask the Minister why he does not backdate the pension lo 1st July. My friends in the

Australian Country Party, who are reclining on the front bench in positions of power for a temporary period, implemented the payment of the superphosphate bounty and the benefits to primary producers on and from the day that such schemes were announced in Parliament. I do not quibble with that, but why select them in preference to the pensioners who need the aid more? Do not fell me that in these days of automation a couple of buttons cannot be pressed to implement back payments. There is never much of a problem associated with increases to judges, public servants and other people in high positions. Why should pensioners be denied the right of having the full pension from the date on which it was introduced? That is why we suggest-

Mr BOSMAN:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– What did you do in 1949?

Mr DALY:

– That is nearly 20 years ago. The honourable member is living 20 years behind the time. 1 say to honourable members opposite that the Labor Party believes that the increases should be backdated to 1st July. When this legislation is passed in another place the increases probably will be backdated to 1st July. I would not he surprised if, on the eve of the election, whenever it is held, the Government suddenly discovers, as it does with all great Labor thoughts, that this policy ought to be implemented in the interests of the people of the country. Whilst the Government backdates benefits to others it must acknowledge its responsibility to this section of the community. I do not wish to dwell further on that aspect. I have mentioned this again and again in this Parliament and I will be supported by other members on this side of the House because we believe that justice demands that the increases be backdated.

I have read the supposed new and enlightened policy of the Government in respect of social services. I place on record . my condemnation of the Cabinet subcommittee, this mighty collection of brain power - whom I know not - who, so we are told, have laboured for months examining the social welfare scheme that I have criticised today. What was the result of their labour - the same old method, the same old dollar, the same old neglect and the very minimum to the very needy. What else could one expect from those who have been selected for this task? They are in. favour of the declining value of social services. I do not know whether I quote the Bible or not, but I suggest that they laboured nobly and brought forth a mouse.

In the few minutes remaining at my disposal, having said so much about the Government, I will now say a few words in respect of Labour policy. Labour policy on social services is clear and distinct. I quote it in order that honourable members opposite might know of our belief in it and also the effect it will have on the community when implemented. When given effect it will provide the basis for a stimulating programme of social welfare for the people of this country and will rectify the injustices perpetrated over many years by those who temporarily, sit opposite. This is Labor’s policy:

The payment of Social Service benefits at the highest possible rate warranted by the respective services.

The payment of Social Service benefits to assist the needy sections of the community and thus remove gross inequalities in living standards.

The progressive, easing of the Means Test with a view to its ultimate abolition.

The Minister should agree with that. Our policy continues:

No Australian citizen should be disqualified from receiving a Social Service pension on account of the period of residence in Australia.

Australian citizens shall not cease to receive pensions because of residence abroad.

A full pension for the wife of an aged or invalid pensioner who does not qualify in her own right. The appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to keep social services under constant review.

Our parliamentary committee would have the brains to keep social services under review.

Mr Barnard:

– That is Labor policy.

Mr DALY:

– That is the official policy of the Australian Labor Party. It gives in broad outline the policy that will provide an inspired programme in the great humanitarian field of social welfare, so sadly neglected. The sins of the Government - I can see the cheerful member for Sturt ready to rise after I have finished - are many. However it may be forgiven for some of its errors. But in the sphere of social welfare it stands condemned in the eyes and the minds of all fair-minded people in this country. In this age of affluence, when the Government boasts of prosperity, when fortunes have been made by speculators and others, when the vast majority of Australians enjoy to the full all that money can buy, the Government stands idly by as almost one million Australians live in want and poverty, because of its neglect. The Government ; has turned its back on the pensioners, the widows and the families and has refused to legislate to provide justice for these people. It has neglected the great humanitarian objective of social welfare. For that .reason I have moved the amendment on behalf of the Opposition expressing .the. regret of the Parliament at the Government’s callous disregard of the needs of those in want.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

Is the amendment seconded?

Mr Barnard:

– I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.

Debate (on motion by Mr Wilson) adjourned.

page 1294

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr NIXON:
?Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– I move:

Customs Tariff Proposals (No, 18) (1968). Excise Tariff Proposals (No. 3) (1968)

The Tariff Proposals which I have just tabled relate to proposed amendments of the Customs Tariff 1966-1968, and the Excise Tariff 1921-196.7.. The amendments, which will operate from tomorrow morning, incorporate changes consequent on the adoption by the Government of two reports by the Tariff Board on:

Citric and tartaric acids, etc. and Cutlery, forks, spoons, etc. . and two reports by the - Special Advisory Authority on:

Polytetrafluoroethylene tape and Woven shirts and parts therefor of cotton and man-made fibre mixtures.

In its report on citric and tartaric acids the Board recommended protective rates of duty of 15% (General) with the Preferential rate at. the lowest level cOnsistent with international commitments for. citric and tartaric acids and certain of their, salts, and for malic acid. The Board further recommended that calcium citrate, cream of tartar and esters of citric or tartaric acid be continued to be admitted at minimum rates of duty. These duties, the Board considers, should enable the local industry to operate profitably.

I turn now to the Tariff Board report on cutlery, forks, spoons, etc. The Board has assessed the local industry’s cost disabilities against British and other European suppliers of goods comparable with local production as being about the levels of the present duties. It considered that continued assistance to local production was warranted and recommended duties on 40% (General) and 30% (Preferential). These duties differ only marginally from the present duties. The Board, however, recommended . against a specific request by the industry that duties on stainless steel goods should be substantially increased. Non-protective rates of 74% (General) and free (Preferential) have been recommended on pruning knives, beekeepers knives, butchers cleavers, paper knives and manicure appliances (other than nail files). On certain products, including cooks knives and butchers and slaughtermens knives, the duties will not be increased until a release is obtained from international obligations. The release will be negotiated without avoidable delay. In respect to the relevant New Zealand duty rates it is proposed to accord immediate duty free treatment on all goods covered by the report.

The first of the Special Advisory Authority reports I have mentioned deals with polytetrafluoroethylene tape. This tape is used mainly as a sealant in pipe jointing. The Authority found that the Australian industry has been severely damaged by import competition which has increased, mainly from Britain, by about 50% and has recommended a temporary duty of 30% ad valorem to be imposed in addition to the existing duties of 74% ad valorem (General) and Free (Preferential).

The remaining report covers the recommendations by the Special Advisory Authority in respect of woven shirts and parts therefor of man-made fibre mixtures. The Authority found that the Australian manufacturers face a threat of severe damage from import of shirts manufactured from fabrics of cotton and man-made fibres and recommended temporary additional duties of $14.50 per dozen less an amount equal to 574-% of the value for duty. This increase represents an increase in duty on imports from low cost countries but no increase on imports from relatively high cost countries.

Excise Tariff Proposals No. 3 provide for the continuing of the exemption from excise duty on stores consumed on overseas ships. Honourable members will recall that such an arrangement has operated since 1st January this year in the interests of tourist promotion. I propose to introduce into the House on a later day a Bill seeking an amendment to the excise tariff in this regard. I commend the proposals to honourable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr Daly) adjourned.

page 1295

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items Mr NIXON (Gippsland- Minister for the Interior) - Pursuant to Statute, I present reports by the Special Advisory Authority on the following subjects:

Polytetrafluoroethylene tape, and woven shirts and parts therefor, of cotton and man-made fibre mixtures.

I also present reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects:

Citric and tartaric acids, and cutlery, forks, spoons etc.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

page 1295

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed (vide page 1294).

Mr WILSON:
Sturt

– The honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly), who preceded me in the debate, is either blind or jealous that the Opposition has not had the opportunity to put into operation the policies that this Government has brought into being. I reaffirm what I said in the debate on the Budget: The trendsetting innovations in the Budget are signs of an exciting new approach to the nation’s social security programme. This Bill gives expression to some of the philosophy contained in the Budget Speech on the subject of social welfare. In his second reading speech the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) referred to the fact that the Government was maintaining its policy of devoting a fair share of our increasing productivity to welfare services. He emphasised that the Government had the twin objectives of assisting preferentially those most in need and at the same time avoiding discouragement of thrift, self help and self reliance.

There is a new philosophy towards social welfare which has been expressed in recent months by the Government. I draw the attention of the House to the speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) on the Budget, when he said:

Our aim is a social welfare structure which identifies the most needy and sees that those who have no other means are provided with enough to live on in a modest, self respecting way without requiring any other assistance from outside the pension. Our aim is to encourage all to work and to saveso that they can live at a standard above that minimum. What we want to see is that the aged needy, the ill ‘needy, those really suffering from some unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own, are adequately! provided for by the nation, but that this should be done without destroying the incentive to save and without destroying the incentive to self reliance. These goals are not easy to achieve, but we have set our hands to the plough and we will not turn back. Step by step we will achieve them.

As recently as Saturday, 14th September, the Prime Minister, in speaking of his aspirations for Australia, said at a meeting in Moorabbin, Victoria:

I hope and. believe that being more materially significant, we will also be able, if we adopt the proper approach to present a society in which freedom for the individual is maintained, perhaps more than in any other society in the world, in which racial tensions have no part, as. they have a part in too many countries in the world, in which those who are not strong enough or who have not had the opportunity to provide for themselves in their old age or in their illness will, as a matter of right, be looked after by the community as a whole, properly look after. A society in which we will have abandoned the philosophy that a pension for old age is not one which is intended to keep somebody but merely an addition to what will come from charity or a family. 1 hope we can abandon that - and indeed, I have abandoned it - so that there should be nobody provided with a pension which will- not give them at least a modest standard of living so that they do not need blankets to be provided for them in the winter, so that they at least have enough to eat and a roof over their head.

That statement is very different from the statement made in 1953 by the then Minister for Social Services, the late Mr Athol Townley, who said:

Although need has always been the criterion of this assistance it has never been regarded by any government as a sum designated to maintain a person completely but something which is supplementary to their own savings.

A similar view was expressed by the late Mr Harold Holt in 1960 when he was Treasurer.

The views expressed by the Prime Minister in his speech on the Budget and in Victoria last weekend change the old philosophy. I believe, with justification J think, that members of this House and the people of Australia, particularly the needy people, have cause to be excited by the new concepts - the new philosophy - of social welfare. We see in this Bill an application of that philosophy. In his second reading speech the Minister for Social Services, referring to the general themes on social welfare developed in the Budget, said: 1 should like to summarise three of these main themes as follows:

  1. The general maintenance of the main pension rates, indeed most of these are now set at the highest levels ever attained, not merely in terms of money values, but in terms of real purchasing power.
  2. A special effort to meet the needs of the chronically sick and the infirm aged.
  3. Preferential assistance to widows and pensioners with children.

Under this Bill pension. , rates will be increased to their highest level,’ not only in terms of money but also in terms of real value, as will be clearly seen from a perusal of the table which the Minister had incorporated in Hansard during the course of his speech.

The point should also be made that, in assessing the increase in the real value of the social welfare . provisions, account should be taken of the development and growth of what are known. as fringe benefits. A pensioner is not entirely dependent upon his pension to provide for his needs, because there are a considerable number of fringe benefits. These fringe benefits are extremely important to the pensioner. It may be true that the reduction in a fee for a television licence is an alternative method of providing a monetary benefit; but such benefits as free hospitalisation, pharmaceutical benefits and medical benefits are provided for those who may sustain a. greater need than the average. Therefore, although it can be said that the average value of the fringe benefits is of the order of $2 per week, for some pensioners this benefit is considerably greater. Indeed, although pensioners may not be drawing to the full extent on their benefits because they are blessed with good health, they live with the secure knowledge that, in the event of ill health, they will be adequately provided for.

They will be adequately provided for by means of free medical attention; they will be adequately provided for through the pensioner pharmaceutical service scheme; they will be adequately provided for by the provision of free hospitalisation in case of acute illness. As a result of legislation to be introduced by the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), they will be provided with a proper standard of care in the event of chronic illness.

The Government has recognised over the years that provision needs to be made for sustenance for and the accommodation of the aged and that they need to be provided for in the event of sickness or frailty. Although the pension itself is designed to provide an adequate standard of living without requiring the beneficiary to be dependent upon anyone else, it is important to bring into account the other measures that this Government has introduced to ensure that the fear of accommodation insecurity and the fear of insecurity arising from an inability to pay for hospital care or nursing home care are removed. Through the operation of the Aged Persons Homes Act, an increasing number of people of pensionable age are being accommodated in suitable modern accommodation and are being relieved of the fear of accommodation insecurity.

The Minister said in his second reading speech that it was his intention to have the Social Services Act reprinted in a consolidated form and to have the Act, which has been overlaid by numerous amendments, redrafted without changing the substance of it so it will be more intelligible to those who wish to study it. I hope it will not be long before that objective is achieved. I hope that the Attorney-General will have and will make available the staff to enable this important drafting work to be done. Perhaps more significant was the Minister’s statement that he proposed to have redrafted many of his Department’s booklets that are available to the public to give them information and advice about their pension entitlements. Many of those booklets are now many years out of date and are intelligible only to those who are working with them all the time. I hope that in redrafting these documents the Minister will; as he mentioned, receive many suggestions as to the manner in which these documents might be made more easily readable and intelligible to those who wish to use them. I draw the Minister’s attention to the importance of making these documents as simple as possible. Appreciating as I do the complex nature of the legislation and the need to cover all the many variations that are contained in it, nevertheless, I hope that the Minister, with his departmental officers, will be able to devise a simple form of booklet so that pensioners will be able to find out very easily what their entitlement is. Their ability to understand their entitlement should not in any way be prejudiced by the fact that relatively few people receive particular benefits in special cases.

Since my election to this Parliament I have found that many of my constituents have sought my advice about the manner in which they should calculate their pension. I believe it would be possible, as I have been able to do, to devise a pocket guide to the pension containing some form of ready reckoner so that people may calculate their own pension entitlement. I believe that in doing so it is necessary to translate the legislation into everyday language and to talk of income in terms of weekly income, because a large percentage of the population thinks of income in those terms and not in annual terms, as is provided for in the legislation. I believe that if this were done and if all property were described in a simple manner it would be possible to devise a simple form whereby people could easily read off particular pension entitlements. I also suggest that, when persons who have applied for pensions are advised of their pension entitlements, it would be helpful if they could be informed of the maximum amount they could earn without in any way affecting their eligibility to a full pension. There are many people today who wish to use their time in retirement to do some useful part time employment. It is good for them and it is good for the community. But all too often; because of its effect on their pension, they are fearful of taking such a job and of making such a contribution to the nation. I therefore suggest that it would be desirable for people to be informed, taking account of their assets, superannuation and annuity income, of the maximum amount they may earn, if they wish to work, without affecting their entitlement to a full pension. It would also be helpful to those who receive a part pension if they could be informed of the maximum amount they could earn before losing their entitlement to a pension, and hence the fringe benefits. The reasons I have advanced for supplying such advice to full pensioners applies equally to part pensioners.

I now wish to turn to the provision for widows in the legislation. I think it is most significant and most necessary that some provision be given to a widow with dependent children. This legislation will enable her base rate pension to be increased by $ 1 a week and will increase the entitlement in respect of each child by $1 a week. At the same time the legislation will set up a training scheme for widows. 1 hope that this will be the forerunner of a training scheme available to all widows, whether pensioners or not. Indeed I hope that it will be the forerunner of a scheme, available to all married women so that when and if they wish to return to the work force they may be able to do so. In this day of technological development it is quite clear that after some period of retirement from full time employment it is imperative that a woman relearn the skills she possessed at the time of leaving the work force. It is also necessary to bring those skills up to date because of the fast rate of educational obsolescence in this rapidly developing community and these rapidly changing time«.

This scheme is designed to help widows by providing them with opportunities to relearn their skills or to be trained in new skills to enable them to engage in remunerative employment and thereby supplement the incomes of their families. This, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a most commendable objective. Our aim should be to remove a deterrent presently operating against widows, one which puts them off attempting to re-enter the work force owing to a lack of skills or qualifications or even because of the length of the period without employment. In this regard I want to draw the attention of the House to my concern at some of the provisions of this training scheme.

I believe there are a number of anomalies in the provisions of the Social Services Act governing the determination of pensions for widows which may militate against the most beneficial operation of this training scheme. When tragedy befalls a family a widow may find that she is entitled to a widow’s pension because the administration of the husband’s estate is delayed for a long time and the widow is not entitled to the benefit of the estate until administration is complete. I hope the Director-General, in exercising the powers vested in him as to the granting of vocational training to those who would derive substantial benefit from it, will pay particular attention to widows who are entitled to a widow’s pension for only a short time. In assessing what is meant by ‘substantial benefit’ I hope that the Director-General will not take account of the assets the widow will receive upon the completion of the administration of her late husband’s estate, because I believe that widows who have been provided for by their husbands, in the form of insurance or by savings, against the contingency of the husband’s untimely death, should not be prejudiced in their opportunities to receive benefits under this scheme. In many instances, although their assets may preclude them from entitlement to the widow’s pension, they are not sufficient to provide them with an income comparable to that of a pensioner unless they choose to convert their assets into an annuity or to run down their savings. To give those widows the opportunity to train under this scheme would be to enable them to earn and thereby avoid the necessity of running down assets left to them.

Likewise I hope that the DirectorGeneral will not preculude from assistance under this scheme widows who happen to have the full pension and the maximum permissible income merely because after training they will be able to earn - and in doing so, of course, reduce their pension entitlements. I hope that he will not exclude them from benefit under the scheme merely because in addition to their full pension and their full permissible income they will be entitled to an allowance of $4 a week whilst undergoing training.

Thirdly, I direct attention to a particular aspect of the application of the merged means test to widow pensioners. The entitlement of a widow pensioner increases as the number of her children increases but this increase in entitlement applies only in respect of the income section of the merged means test and does not apply to the property element of that test. This is an unusual and unnecessary departure from the principle of the merged means test and works to the great prejudice of those families, particularly large families, in which the husband, through his prudence, has made adequate provision for his family, and the widow is precluded from the benefit of the provision he has made simply because it has been left in asset form and not in income form.

The most serious objection I have with regard to the operation of this training scheme is to the manner in which the means test itself operates. This means test imposes ceiling limits upon the income a widow may receive. The Minister talked of the lack of skills deterring widow pensioners from attempting to re-enter the work force. I believe that the most serious deterrent to a widow who considers re-entering the work force to supplement her income is the iniquitious means test. A widow with one child may not have an income in excess of $13 a week without having her pension reduced. For every dollar a week she earns above $13 her pension is reduced by a dollar. Strangely, and I believe rather absurdly, a widow with five children may receive an income of $25 a week without affecting her entitlement to pension. Provided her assets do not exceed $4,500, plus a house and a motor car, she may take a job and earn $25 a week. But if she earns more than this her pension is reduced by $1 for every dollar she earns.

I believe that this is the greatest possible discouragement to a widow. If she improves her family position by taking a job which deprives her of pension entitlement she loses the entitlement to fringe benefits, and one of the greatest fears of the non-pensioner widow with a. large or young family is the fear of serious or prolonged sickness among her children without the assistance which is available to her as a widow pensioner. I ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, through you: Will the training be available to a widow with a large family? The widow may want the training for only a certain period in order to gain the benefit of the $4 a week allowance. I believe that that widow with a large family or with young children should be encouraged to stay at home. Is it in the best interests of the children that through economic pressure the mother of a large family or a family of young children should be forced to work? 1 ask: Will training be available to those left assets as yet unadministered? What are the criteria that will be used in determining what is substantial benefit to the widow? Will the care of the children be taken into account? I believe that every widow under the age of age pension eligibility, whether a pensioner or not, should receive vocational training or have it available to her. This would enable her, when it is in the best interests of her family, to re-enter the work force and supplement the family income.

In order to remove the anomalies which now exist I again urge the Government to abolish the means test so far as it affects the de jure widow. The absence of a homebound allowance payable to de jure widows with young or numerous children and the maintenance of the present means test in determining their pension entitlement operate as legacies of poverty for widows and children of those young family men whose untimely death has been caused by the unconquered enemy of the war being waged on the roads, by the unconquered enemy of disease and by the other unconquered enemies which continue to rob too many young Australian husbands and fathers of their normal life span.

I urge the Government to abolish the means test for de jure widows with dependent children. If this cannot be done at once I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the introduction, to determine their pension entitlement, of a test similar to that available to those working in sheltered workshops so that they may not be deterred from entering the work force if, in the interests of their children, it is beneficial that they do so.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– I support the amendment which was so well presented to the House by the Honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly). In a not very exciting speech the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) claimed that pensioners were adequately provided for and that they bad an adequate standard of living. Apparently the words of the honourable member for Grayndler, when he said that pensioners cannot live on percentages, failed to sink in. Pensioners who are living in poverty will be pleased to have the assurance of the honourable member for Sturt that they are adequately provided for. Of course, the facts are that this Government, supported by the honourable member for Sturt, adopts an attitude of almost callous disregard for age, invalid and other pensioners. Those with the greatest needs and the smallest means are no better off financially at present than they were 2 years ago. The last increase in the pension rates was contained in the Budget of 1966, 2 years ago.

The increase of $1 for single pensioners and 75c each for married pensioners merely restores to the pensioner the loss in purchasing power which has occurred in the intervening 2 years. A perusal of the consumer price index shows that quarter by quarter that index, which measures increases in the cost of living, has continued to rise from 1966. In June 1966 the figure was 136.5. The latest figure given by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) in his second reading speech was for June 1968; it was 144.6. From the time that the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) announced these miserable increases in the Budget their purchasing power commenced to drop, because in the very same speech he announced an increase of 2i% in sales tax on a specified range of items. As a result of our investigations we know that it is almost impossible to assess how the sales tax is to be offset without putting up the prices of low cost items beyond all proportion. Manufacturers have said that the minimum increase on items costing less than 10c would be 10%, despite a sales tax increase of 24%. The increase in the sales tax took effect from 14th August, the day ‘ after the Budget speech, whereas these increases in pensions will not take place until, I understand, 10th October. Honourable members can see that in this period of creeping inflation the increase in pension, together with the rest of the pension, starts to decrease in purchasing power before it is actually received by the pensioner. The earliest the lost purchasing power will be restored will be in the 1969 Budget, but if the Government runs true to form it could he the 1970 Budget. 1 repeat what I said earlier: This Government shows a callous disregard for those with the greatest needs and the smallest means.

The Treasurer and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Bury) have the happy knack of using average weekly earnings as a measuring rod to show how real wages have increased. I suggest that if average weekly earnings are to be used to measure the value of wages, surely the same measuring rod can be used to measure the purchasing power of the ‘ pension. As has been pointed out by the honourable member for Grayndler, in 1949, under a Labor Government, the age pension was equal to 26.9% of the average weekly earnings. In 1955, under a Liberal Government, the percentage dropped to 19.6%. In 1963 the pension rose to 21.1% of the average weekly earnings. That was the last year when all pensions were at the same rate. In 1966 the standard rate pension dropped to 20.8% of the average weekly earnings but the married rate dropped to 19.1%. The average weekly earnings in September 1967 were $63.40j and the standard rate pension dropped to. a new low of 20.5% and the married rate to an all-time low of 18.5% of the average ‘ weekly earnings. As was mentioned by the honourable member for Grayndler, the average weekly earnings at the end of last, year were $66. This is the last comparable figure that seems to be available. The standard rate pension is now equal to 21.21% of the average weekly earnings and the married rate 18.93%. While the standard rate pension is a higher percentage of the average weekly earnings than in 1966, the married rate is lower. The. pension, as a percentage of the average weekly earnings, is still lower than it was under a Labor Government in 1949.

The Minister for Social Services spoke very strongly about reforms in social service benefits when he was a back bench member. It is to be regretted that his performance, as has been pointed out by the honourable member for Grayndler, is not in line with his promises. The sting was taken out of him when he was appointed to the Ministry. It is also to be regretted that the wife of an invalid pensioner who has not reached the age of 60 years has received an increase of only $1 a week, making her allowance $7. It means that this couple, unless the wife can find a job, will have to live on a pittance of $21 a week. Labor’s policy provides for a wife in such circumstances to get the full pension. Before he became the Minister for Social Services, the honourable member for Mackellar took every opportunity in this House to advocate the abolition of the means test. His speech of 17th September 1963, reported on page 1034 of Hansard, reveals his attitude when he was a back bench member. In view of his advocacy of this much needed reform one would have thought that some move in that direction would have been contained in this Budget. 1 should point out that in 1954 a single pensioner received a pension of S7 a week and the allowable income was S7. A married couple received a combined pension of $14 and their allowable income was $14. The pension is now $14 for the single pensioner and the allowable income is $10. So the allowable income has dropped from 100% in 1954 to 71.4% now. The pension for a married couple is now $25 and the allowable income is $17 -a drop from 100% to 68%. This is happening under a Minister who has said that the means test should be abolished.

About 2 years ago the Government made quite a song when it increased the allowable income to $10 for a single pensioner and $17 for a married couple. It was the first increase in the allowable income since 1954, and it did not represent the same value in purchasing power as did the amount of $7 in the allowable income in 1954. Due to the increased cost of living in the last 2 years the value of the allowable income, in terms of purchasing power, has been further reduced, as I have already shown to the House. The Australian Labor Party has a definite policy in regard to the abolition of the means test. We believe it is a practicable proposition to be carried out during the life of two Parliaments. We intend to get our economic planning committee to cost the proposition and to outline a working programme to achieve this end. We believe in justice to the retired. These people are suffering at a time when the standard of living of the community is supposed to be progressing.

The abolition of the means test would assist the many thousands of loyal public servants who have compulsorily paid heavy amounts into superannuation funds. These people are paying twice. They have had to contribute to the National Welfare Fund by way of taxation, and because of the means test they cannot draw from that fund.

In addition, they have been compelled to take out units in superannuation funds in accordance with their salary scale. There is a lot of talk about shortages in the work force, but here is a source of labour, much of which is skilled, which is available and willing. The benefit of this labour force to the Australian economy would offset the cost to the Government. With the easing or abolition of the means test these people could earn money. Consequently, they would pay taxation and, as was pointed out by the Minister himself when he was a backbencher, in the speech to which I have referred, the administrative costs of the Department of Social Services would be considerably reduced.

The means test is a most frustrating and annoying factor with which retired people are faced. It makes a mockery of thrift and it denies age pensions to those who save during their working life. The abolition of the means test is not- an impossible objective, as the Minister knows, because since 1958 age pensions have been paid in New Zealand to all over the age of 65 years, irrespective of their income or assets. In Canada there is no means’ test for people over the age of 70 years.- In the United Kingdom there is no means test for men over the age of 70 years and for women over the age of 65 years. I should point out that every member of this Parliament has been guilty of advising people who are reaching the retiring age how to reduce their assets in order to qualify for the age pension. On the advice of’ members, many people purchase tickets to :gd to the United Kingdom before they apply for the pension. Consequently, money that could be spent in Australia is spent in other countries. Assets are dissipated needlessly . so that people may qualify for a pension, but this action is forced upon them by the means test. It is- psychologically. :bad,- because it does not encourage thrift;

To quite a number of people it is humiliating to have to go before an officer of the Department of Social Services and submit themselves to all sorts, of questions about their private affairs. I. am not suggesting that the officers are pot co-operative - they are very good officers - but, still, it is humiliating to the people who have to go before them and produce all the information that is required for a decision as to whether or not they are entitled to a pension. It is assumed that the poor will try to cheat, and consequently people are subjected to all sorts of embarrassing questions. The abolition of the means test would remove this embarrassment and . would relieve the Government of the tremendous cost of conducting these investigations.

I should point out, too, that the pension should not be considered as a handout. It is the right of those people who have contributed throughout their working lives that they should receive something in return. The pension is no more a handout than is the grant that may be given, to a professor for scientific research. It is no more a handout than what a farmer receives as a subsidy for wheat production or what a dairy farmer receives as his share of the $26m dairy subsidy or what the cotton grower receives as a share of the $4m cotton bounty.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Or what the oil companies receive. .

Mr WEBB:

– Yes.’ Quite a number of illustrations could be given. In his second reading speech the Minister referred to the expenditure from the National Welfare Fund on items under the Social Services Act. He pointed out that the amount rose from $149m in 1948-49 to almost $793m in 1967-68, and that the estimate for 1968-69 is $856m. I do not know what he was trying to prove, but if we take the figures as a proportion of the gross national product we find that the amount spent on social services in 1949 was 3.4% of the gross national product. In 1965, under this Government, it was 3.6%, and it was the same percentage in 1966. The Minister said that expenditure from the National Welfare Fund on items under the Social Services Act was, as I said, S793m in 1967-68, which was 3.3% of the gross national product. The estimate for 1968-69 is $856m, so it looks as though it will remain at about 3.3% of the gross national product. This clearly indicates that the Government today is paying out in social service benefits about the same percentage of the gross national product as did the Chifley Government oF 1949.

But there is a very important factor to bear in mind. In 1949 Australia’s population was 7.8 million. In 1967 it was 11.8 million. At present it is 11.9 million. This means that the percentages in the age groups have been disturbed. At page 34 of the twenty-seventh report of the DirectorGeneral of Social Services, which the Minister presented to the Parliament yesterday, it is pointed out that in 1948 the percentage of age pensioners in the population was 3.93%. In 1949 it was 4.06%, but in June 1968, it was 5.66%. This means that the amount spent on age pensions in 1968 as compared with 1949 was spent over approximately 41% more pensioners. In other words, where the Labor Government of 1949 was supporting 8 pensioners, in 1968 this Government is supporting 11. Consequently, the Government is spending more in total on pensioners, but that does not mean that the individual pensioner is in any better financial position, as has been clearly illustrated by the honourable member for Grayndler.

The same argument applies to child endowment. At page 41 of the report to which I have referred it is pointed out that in 1949 the number of endowed children was 1,105,299. The number had increased to 3,717,078 in 1968, an increase of about 3i times. The amount spent on child endowment has increased from $57.4m in 1949 to $182.8m in 1968. On the Minister’s own figures, the consumer price index has jumped from 64 in 1949 to 144.6 in June 1968. If we look at the last column of the report we see that the average annual rate paid to endowed families has increased from $90,796 to $108,239. Obviously more money is being spent on child endowment, but the recipients are getting less in actual purchasing power. In fact, child endowment has not kept pace with the increased cost of living.

Every recipient of social service benefits has been short changed since this Government assumed office. Increases in social service benefits have not kept pace with price increases. Benefits are always dragging behind costs. As a result of inflation over the years, taxpayers have passed into the higher income tax groups, and although they get less in real wages in their pay packets the Government takes more in taxation and gives them less in return. For some years now the people have been the victim of a thimble and pea trick. They have been giving good money for bad. They have been contributing to the National Welfare Fund in the form of taxation and getting shrunken benefits in return.

The value of the dollar has shrunk to about 30c as compared with 1949. The people are losing in two ways. The value of social service benefits has been clipped just as though an extra tax had been imposed on the people. Also, they have moved into higher income tax ranges without getting any more purchasing power in their pay packets. Considering that the Minister made his comparisons with 1949, he can hardly object if we do the same. In 1949 a man, wife and two children on the minimum wage paid $1.60 a year in income tax. A man with the same family on the minimum wage now pays $1.75 per week, or $91 per year. So he pays more in income tax in a week than the 1949 family in similar circumstances paid in a year. In 1949 child endowment paid to a family with three children represented 11.5% of average male weekly earnings. Three children, of course, is close to the average family. The family with three children now gets $3 in child endowment and average male earnings are over $60 a week. So the child endowment represents less than 5% of the average male earnings at present. Therefore, the rate has fallen from 11.5% in 1949 to about 5% at the moment. A comparison with the minimum wage also shows how the value of child endowment has dropped over the years. Tn 1948, with a minimum wage of $11.60, a family with five children received $4 a week in child endowment. The same size family now receives $6.75 but the minimum wage now is $37.55. To retain the same relationship, the child endowment should now be over $12 for a family with five children.

Let us see how other benefits have shrunk in value. The funeral benefit for pensioners is $40 where a pensioner is responsible for funeral costs of a spouse, a child or another pensioner. In other cases the funeral allowance is $20 - a figure that was fixed by the Curtin Government in 1943. It has not altered for 24 years. In 1943 the minimum wage was $9.60. To maintain the same relative value the funeral benefit should be more than trebled. It should be around $70. Let us look at maternity allowances.

The existing rates were set by the Curtin Government in 1945. They range from S30 to S35. To give the same benefit in purchasing power the rates should be trebled. From the inception of the maternity allowance in 1912 until this Government came into office, the allowance would always pay the expenses associated with the birth of a child. That is not so today. Consequently married couples are putting off having children. Both parents have to go to work in most cases to get their home together before having a child.

Let us have a look at unemployment and sickness benefits. These have not been adjusted since 1.962, 6 years, ago. The breadwinner still receives $8.25 if he is unemployed or sick. The spouse receives S6 and the child receives $1.50. This makes a total of $15.75 for the family to live on while the breadwinner is unemployed or sick. Is this a reasonable amount? Why was this rate not adjusted? Yet the Minister talks so glibly about the value pf social service benefits and what this Government has done about, them. The Minister claimed that Australia’s welfare services , are among the highest in the world. A publication of the International Labour Organisation called ‘The Cost of Social Security’ shows that of the sixteen comparable countries - and the figures are for 1963 - Australia comes a bad last. For instance, as a percentage of gross national product, Austria expends 15.9%; Belgium 13.8%; Canada 9.8%; Denmark 11.9%; Finland 9.5%; France 14.6%; Iceland 7.2%; Ireland 9.1%; Italy 12.8%; Luxembourg 14.8%; the Netherlands 12.7%; New Zealand 11.9%; Norway 10.6%; Sweden 13.5%; the United Kingdom 11.2%; and Australia is a bad last in the group of countries 1 have read out, with 8%’. These figures include expenditure by the States and by other public authorities. The Minister said also that our pension rates compared more than favourably with those of practically all non-contributory schemes. We may not have a contributory scheme in the real sense of the word, but the people are certainly paying for it by means of high taxation. They are not getting it for nothing. Without doubt, recipients of social service benefits have . been short changed by this Government. That is why 1 strongly support the amendment of the honourable member for Grayndler, who moved:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: ‘whilst not opposing the provisions of the Bill the House regrets that the Government has failed to:

increase pension rates sufficiently to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonstandard of living;

adjust all social service benefits in each year’s budget to meet the increased cost of living;

implement their policy of abolishing the means test as promised as long ago as 1949, and

make benefits retrospective from 1st July 1968’.

J have much pleasure in supporting the amendment and 1 recommend it for the consideration of the House.

Mr BOSMAN:
St George

– For nigh on 19 years the. people of Australia have listened to proceedings in this Parliament with great’ interest as the situation of the Australian Labor Party and the Opposition has deteriorated in a variety of fields. The principle example is its so called renowned position in social services - the concern of the so called workers party for social services over many years. It was a fascinating exercise to sit. here this afternoon and hear, for the first time ever, since I have been here at least, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) change his tune. We have listened to the repetition of the same old story for many years. I think the honourable member for Hume (Mr Pettitt) interjected at a very early stage in the honourable gentleman’s speech and said that he must almost be able to recite his speech by now, after 19 years of leading for the Opposition on social services. I am not surprised that members of the Opposition have been forced to change their tune because obviously their policies have been devastated over the years. Of course, Labor’s record when in office from 1941 to 1949 is a living indictment of them. It is the monkey on their back which they cannot get rid of. The honourable member for Grayndler. as I have described him before, is one of the forty thieves. There are not many of them left from 1949. But he was one of the forty thieves in 1949. He has not the political courage to confess to this House, and therefore the people of

Australia, the contemptuous manner in which he and his leader, the late Ben Chifley, and other members of the Labor Government treated people when it was in office. As the former member for Sturt said often in this House, the Labor Party is a different group in power to what it is when in opposition. This is the same old story being repeated over and over again.

It is interesting that the honourable member for Grayndler has at last buckled and sought assistance from the honourable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Crean) in producing some financial dialogue in an attempt to avoid the devastating and true argument that this Government has belaboured them with for years. For 19 years this House has been a sounding board for a disgruntled, discursive and disaffected Opposition. All honourable members opposite can ever do is laud their memories and be dismayed by their failures. It would be a fascinating exercise, though is it beyond us, to view the reactions of the mind of the honourable member for Grayndler, and perhaps even that of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), if ever that is possible, and the minds of those members of the Labor Party who on infrequent occasions address themselves to the question of social services and the needs of the less privileged in the community, to the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). I pay the Minister this compliment: 1 believe that he has brought all the value of some 20 years on the back bench to the presentation of this Bill. Most of the shortcomings in presentation of Bills which he has observed in that time he has endeavoured to eliminate from this Bill. As a result, I am pleased to say, we have in respect of this Bill a second reading speech of great substance. This in turn is supported by two documents - one called ‘Developments in Social Services 1949-1968’ and the other called ‘Facts and Figures on Social Services’. The best suggestion that I can make to the people of Australia, particularly the organisations associated with pensioners including age pensioners and widows, is to ensure that their federal member, whether he be on the Government side of the House or on the Labor side, supplies them with a set of these documents. I believe that these documents are a necessary part of the material of any pensioner organisation.

Here we have for the first time documents which are in a very readable and very concise yet very distinctive form and from which members of these organisations will be able to see the true story of what has happened in the field of social services in this country over almost three decades. These organisations should see that honourable members opposite do not hide these documents in their offices and that they supply a set to each pensioner organisation in their electorates. I believe that these documents will be an extremely valuable part of the accoutrements of any pensioner organisation and a handbook or guide on the social services policy of this Government.

Two salient points have emerged from the discourses that I have heard over the period of 5 years that I have been in this chamber. Things seem to fall into two categories - what the Labor Party did not do between 1941 and 1949 and what it has not done since. Contrary to the argument submitted by the Opposition, the record of this Government in the field of social services outstrips that of the Labor Party in practice, although it may not do so in verbosity. I invite honourable members to reflect on some of the established facts which can be extracted from the written record-

Mr Cope:

– Don’t be ridiculous.

Mr BOSMAN:

– I realise that it really hurts the honourable member for Watson when he reflects on the opportunities that the Labor Party had but did not take. I invite honourable members to reflect on some of the established facts which can be extracted from the written record but which the honourable member for Grayndler has endeavoured to present in a totally different form on this occasion. What the pensioner wants to know is what the buying power of his pension is. Between 1941 and 1949 the Labor Party established a base pension of $4.25 for a single person. Today that pension is $14. That means that 220% more in terms of money value is being paid by this Government. Allowing for the loss of money value which the Minister for Social Services, who is not avoiding the situation at all, has presented in terms of factual evidence, today’s pension represents 50% more purchasing power than did that paid by the Labor Party in 1949.

Mr Cope:

– What rot!

Mr BOSMAN:

– Let the honourable member check the record. Let the people have a look at the record. As 1 have said before, the Labor Party in Opposition today is a totally different organisation from what it was in 1949. Let me remind the House of the facts in relation to what members of the Labor Party did not do in 1949, when they were so arrogant and were riding the high horse even in an election year, and the way they treated the people.

I remind the House that the honourable member for Grayndler was one of the people who supported the government of that day. What did they give the pensioner in the 1949 Budget? There was not a thing for the pensioner and not a thing for the widow. All they could manage at that time was an increase of 40c for the dependants of pensioners. An amount of 40c, or 6c a day, was all they could offer in 1949. Yet the honourable member for Grayndler, who participated in that operation, has the audacity to stand up here and criticise this Government for what it has put. forward in the field of social services. As the record shows, the people have used their own judgment in this regard. So it may be superfluous for me to state these facts.

One thing that 1 noticed particularly today was that the honourable member for Grayndler and the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) avoided mentioning what has been done for civilian widows. There was not one mention of that. T can understand why they avoided mentioning it. It is because they are ashamed of their record and of what the Labor Party did not do for civilian widows before 1949.

Mr Cope:

– Why does the- honourable member not go back to the Apex Club?

Mr BOSMAN:

– I suggest that the honourable member listen to some of these figures.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I ask the honourable member for Watson to curb his youthful exuberance.

Mr BOSMAN:

– The hypocrisy of members of the Opposition has to be seen to be believed. The class A widow with three children - this is the family unit that is established for widows pension purposes - in 1949 received a miserable $6.75. That was all that the Labor Party could scraup or get together to give to a widow with three children in 1949. 1 leave that to the judgment of the House and the people of Australia. Today such a widow can receive 530.50. She can do that by receiving the widows pension of $14, the mothers allow:ance of $4, allowances for the three children of $7.50 and child endowment of $3, making a total of $28.50. Then supplementary assistance can send what she receives up to $30.50. What was the permissible income that this famous workers party provided in 1949? It was the magnificent sum of $3.50. That was a magnificent gesture to the widows of those days! Let us also remember the limitation that the Labor Party put on widows in respect of property. With the passage of last year’s Social Services Bill, the situation now is that a widow with three children can earn $19 a week. So under this Government she has a potential income of $49.50.

There are several other valuable facets of the Bill that is now before us, for which I commend the Minister and the Government. One is the degree of positive thinking on this subject. It revolves around the fact that a widow is able to receive an income of $49.50 and also around the recognition of the need for extra benefits for children. These benefits - have been increased by $1 a week for each dependent child, in addition to the other $1. This means that a class A widow with three children - this recognised Australian family unit - will receive an extra $4 a week. I do not believe that at any time the Labor Party could have imagined such an increase, let alone put it into operation.

The next point to which I wish to refer relates to the field of rehabilitation, to which the Minister has addressed himself on this occasion. I refer to the positive thinking that is shown in the proposition that the local Director of Social Services is to be given the discretion to permit a widow who is seeking rehabilitation training to receive an extra $4 a week without any effect under the means test or the permissible income provisions. This gives her the possibility of receiving up to $34.50 a week without having any effect on her income. It also puts her in a position in which she can receive $53.50 a week. This is the type of thinking that is required in regard to s widows. I have a particular reason for saying that. No doubt, this is one of the premises on which the Minister has introduced this legislation. 1 have often used a term here - 1 may have been misunderstood - that the civilian widow can be a potentially dangerous person in the community. I say that in a somewhat metaphorical term: She has the control and responsibility of 1, 2, 3, 4 or any number of children after that. After the husband has died she has the responsibility of rearing her children. Unless she is given some guidance or some leadership in this regard the chances of her not being able to fulfil the role of both parents are extremely ominous indeed. It is legislation of the type introduced by the Minister and the assistance given by lay bodies in the community that offer counsel to help women in this position’ which are so beneficial. Let us acknowledge the fact that in our society we generally accept that the husband looks after all the outward household commitments, legal responsibilities and civic responsibilities. That is part of our way of life. The wife is not trained or fitted for these responsibilities after- his death. As a result considerable difficulties crop up, not the least of which is the psychological effect upon the widow and children. The assistance given by lay groups in this regard is extremely beneficial.

Statutory authority finds it very difficult to fill this responsibility. There are some wonderful welfare workers under statutory authority - both at Federal and State level - and in the social work field who are trying to fill the gap. The problem that they face is a mountainous one. It calls upon many people in the community to contribute in their own humble way the day to day experience of running a household. In this regard I commend the intention of many men in the community who have taken the opportunity to fill this role. Added leadership is given by the statutory authority, the Government, when it introduces rehabilitation training, ensures that the widow is not penalised and ensures that she can see the future reward. I commend the Minister for his positive thinking in this regard. I hope he keeps the psychological fact in mind. I believe the time must come when the Government must recognise the need to provide an educational allowance for the children of widows, in addition to its present positive thinking. I believe that that day will come. 1 hope that it is sooner rather than later. I believe that the Government recognises this principle. It has recognised it before. The Government has applied the principle in the repatriation sphere. Even in the Budget the Government has increased its responsibility in this regard. I commend this to the Minister in the hope that he might consider it.

I do have some figures here in relation to an educational allowance. If a nominal amount was paid to the children of civilian widows in certain categories - the 5 to 12 category, the 13 to 15 category and the 16 to 20 category - on the basis of SOc for the first category, $1 for the second and probably $2, $3 or $4 for the third, the Government would be required to find an additional $4m. The value of providing an education allowance would be to help the children to take their place in our community without the inhibitions which no doubt many of them have due to the psychological problems associated with this type of family. They would not have to ask a teacher to be exempted from sports fees and other union type fees that are payable in school institutions today. The circumstances of a family without a father promote and develop a psychological inhibition in the child. He does not have the same opportunity as the average child in the community has.

To the Minister at the table I extend my compliments upon the presentation of the documentary evidence that supports the Bill. 1 am delighted to know that at the earliest possible moment he intends to tidy up the Bill in its present form. 1 believe that the Minister and the Government - contrary to what has been said by the honourable member for Grayndler, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) and as no doubt will be said by the honourable member for Watson (Mr Cope) and other honourable members opposite who will try to belabour for the rest of the evening what has not been done - should be commended. I would like to know what the honourable member for Grayndler and the honourable member for Stirling would do if they were in office. They should state their case here and let the people of Australia know what they are prepared to do. When they state what they intend to do they should tell the people where they intend to obtain the money. That is the kind of factual evidence that we want from honourable members on the other side - not just a labouring of the point. We want constructive criticisms of our policies. Until such time as we get that we will not take notice of honourable members opposite.

Mr COPE:
Watson

– The honourable member for St George (Mr Bosman), who just resumed his seat, spoke about repetition by honourable members on this side of the House in regard to social service legislation. That is perfectly true. Each time the honourable member has spoken in the House he has spoken of what the Chifley Government paid. I issue a challenge to him. Would he be prepared to give a statement to his local newspaper that the age pension is sufficient to live on? I will give $100 to any charity that he nominates if he is willing to make a statement to his local papers that the pension is sufficient and adequate to live on.

Mr Webb:

– The honourable member for Sturt said it in the House.

Mr COPE:

– Let the honourable member for St George say, in his electorate to the local Press, that the pension is adequate to live on. I doubt whether any honourable member opposite would accept the challenge to rise in his place and say that the age or invalid pension is adequate to live on. It is quite beside the point to go back 19 years and refer to what was paid by the Chifley Government, or if you go back futher, what was paid by the Menzies Government in 1941 or by the Lyons Government previous to that or by the Scullin Government or by the Bruce-Page Government. There are two points at issue. Firstly, is the pension adequate to exist on? Secondly, can the economy afford to pay more? 1 will see the honourable member for St George outside to see if he is willing to accept my challenge. I will donate $100 to any charity if he is willing to make a statement to his local newspapers that in his opinion the pension is adequate to live on. I will bet he does not accept the challenge.

The legislation provides; inter alia, an increase of $1 a week in the single age and invalid pension and $1.50 in the combined married rate. When these increases were announced on 13th August last in the Budget the document was labelled by some people, including the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and the Treasurer (Mr McMahon), as a social welfare budget. Conversely the paltry increases display a callous disregard of the real and immediate needs for the Pensioner. The increase is not an improvement in the pension. It represents only a catching up with the increased cost of living that has occurred since the last adjustment, which became operative 2 years ago, prior to the 1966 election.

Let us examine the position in detail. In 1966 the single pension stood at $13 and the combined married rate at $23.50, as it stands today. The Commonwealth Statistician has indicated a spiral of 7% in living costs in the past 2 years which, incidentally, has been absorbed in the pension. A little simple arithmetic would show that 7% of $13 is 91c and that 7% of the combined married rate of $23.50 is $1.64. In effect this means that the single pensioner is 9c a week better off and the married pensioner couple 14c a week worse off than in 1966. I hasten to point out that the increases provided in this Bill will of necessity go to meet increases in living costs which will most certainly occur before pensions are again adjusted - probably in 2 years time. This situation has prompted the Secretary of the Commonwealth Pensioners Association to state:

It was a testing time for both the Prime Minister, Mr Gorton, and the Minister for Social Services, Mr Wentworth. They failed miserably and did not live tip to their promises.

That statement is a condemnation of the Government and gives the lie direct to the claim that this is social welfare legislation. It is interesting to note the words of the Prime Minister uttered a few days prior to the Liberal Party ballot for the leadership of the Party. He said:

If I was able to frame the nation’s future policies I would aim at a society which would remove burdens and fear from those in dire need.

Similar words were used in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech in March this year enunciating the Government’s policy. They were:

My Government will review the field of social welfare with the object of assisting those in most need while at the same time not discouraging thrift, self help and self reliance.

Those eloquent words have proved to be empty and meaningless, as is illustrated by the paltry increases included in this legislation. Having regard to the prevailing inflated prices for essential commodities such as meat, groceries, butter, milk, vegetables, fruit, clothing, footwear and rent it is beyond my comprehension how the pensioner lives. His existence is certainly not in keeping with the average standard of living, particularly when we remember that more than 80% of pensioners have no supplementary income. By force of circumstances some pensioners are patronising pet food shops and are purchasing horse meat for consumption. They are forced to do this because prices in butchers’ shops are beyond their means. .

I recently read with a great deal of dismay that the New South Wales Askin Liberal Government ‘ proposes to increase the rentals charged for aged persons’ housing units. The budget to be introduced next week by the Premier of New South Wales will provide for increased bus and train fares. These increases will have to be paid by pensioners, resulting in their losing portion of the inadequate increase provided in this legislation.

I refer now to the class .B widow’s pension. Approximately 40,000 women now receive this benefit. Under this legislation the pension will be increased by 75c a week from $11.75. to $12.50. This rate is an example of a grave inconsistency in the field of social services. The Government claims that single age and invalid pensioners are in more needy circumstances than are married pensioner couples. Under this legislation a single pensioner will receive $14 a week compared with the pension of $12.50 a week paid to each party of a married pensioner couple. -The difference between the two rates is $1.50 a week. Yet the Government will pay to a class B widow only the amount payable to each party of a married pensioner couple. This is a nonsensical situation.. The living expenses of class B widows are similar to those of single pensioners. The same prices are charged to all sections of the community for essential foodstuffs, clothing, footwear and rent.

Under this legislation- the pensioner’s wife’s allowance is to be increased by $1 from $6 to $7 a week. The total amount received by a pensioner in single pension and wife’s allowance Will be $21 a week. This is a totally insufficient amount. Tt is $4 a week less than the combined married pensioner rate. The inadequacy of the rate imposes a particular hardship on an invalid pensioner whose wife is many years younger than 60 and so cannot qualify for some time for a full pension. In many cases she is unable to work in order to supplement the joint income because of the necessity to care for an invalid husband. Only a Labor government would correct these anomalies and inequities by abolishing discrimination against married pensioner couples, class B widows and recipients of the wife’s allowance. A Labor government would create a base rate pension which would apply to all recipients of social service benefits.

When we turn to the unemployment and sickness benefit we find one of the most scandalous and inhuman situations ever created by a government. The benefit has not been adjusted for 7 years, notwithstanding a continual spiral in prices over that period. The rates are $8.25 for a single adult and $14.25 for a married man. with an allowance of $1.50 for each child under 16 years of age. This legislation does not change the rate, which was last adjusted in 1961. The Department of Labour and National Service is fully aware that thousands of people in receipt of the unemployment benefit are virtually permanently unemployed because of some chronic ailment, yet they do not qualify for the invalid pension because they are not deemed to be 85% permanently incapacitated. Such people, particularly if they are unskilled, are able to do only light work, and very little of this is available.

To illustrate the paltry nature of the unemployment and sickness benefit I shall cite two cases with which I dealt recently. The first concerns a man who sought my assistance to obtain an unemployment benefit cheque which had not arrived in the post on the day it was expected. He explained the circumstances of his case to me. He was 63 years of age and unskilled. He weighed about 1 stone. He was about 5 feet tall. He suffered from bronchitis and has no chance in the world of obtaining employment. Yet he is asked to exist on $8.25 a week, out of which he pays $6 a week for a room in a lodging house in Redfern Street, Redfern. The second case concerns a married woman, aged between 40 and 45 years, with six children ranging in age from 44 years to 14 years. Her husband had suffered a stroke. She sought my assistance to expedite a claim which her husband had lodged for an invalid pension. Medical advice is that her husband will never work again. In the meantime she, her husband and her six children have to exist on $23.25 a week sickness benefit. And still this Government talks about social welfare legislation. What rubbish.

Let us examine child endowment and the maternity allowance. There has been no increase in endowment for the first child for 18 years and none for the second child for 20 years. It is interesting to note that before his elevation to ministerial status the Minister for Social Services spoke in this Parliament, and contributed articles to newspapers, expressing alarm at the declining birthrate. Is it any wonder that the birthrate is declining in view of the fact that the Government does little or nothing adequately to assist families in the lower income group as an encouragement to bring children into the world? Thousands of parents are keen to increase the size of their families, but due to economic circumstances they find it impossible to do so. The maternity allowance has remained unaltered for 25 years, except for a minor adjustment in 1947, notwithstanding that pre-natal and hospital costs have increased by more than 400% during that time. The cost of special foods and care prescribed by baby health centres exceeds $4 a week. Vet the Government pays only a miserly SOc towards the cost of a mother having her first child.

In conclusion I propose to deal with the permissible income section of the means test, which is applicable mainly to superannuitants. It is important to note that prior to their elevation to the Ministry the Minister for Social Services and his predecessor, the’ Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair), were ardent advocates of the abolition of the means test, yet an analysis will show that the position has not improved since their elevation. Rather has it deteriorated, as I shall demonstrate. In 1954 the single pension was $7 and permissible income for the single rate pensioner was $7. The combined married pensioner rate was $14 and the permissible income was $14. The permissible income in respect of both pensions was equal to 100% of the pension. In 1967, after 13 long years, the amount of permissible income was adjusted. The position then was that the single pensioner received $13 a week. The permissible income was $10 a week or 77% of the pension. The combined married pensioner rate was $23.50 a week. Permissible income in that case was $17 a week, or 72.3% of the combined pension. I should point out that if the base rate had been maintained without discrimination against the married pensioner couple, the permissible income of such a couple would have represented 65.4% of the combined pension.

Under this legislation the single pensioner will receive $14 a week. Permissible income will be $10 a week, representing 71.4% of the pension. The pension payable to a married pensioner couple will be $25 a week. Permissible income will amount to $17 a week, representing 68% of the combined pension. 1 point out again that if there had been no discrimination against the married pensioner couple, permissible income in this case would now- represent only 60.7% of the combined pension. So it will be seen that far from liberalising the means test this Government has allowed it to deteriorate in terms of real value. This situation is most unjust to wage and salary earners who are paying into superannuation funds, particularly Commonwealth and State public servants. We all recall me glittering utterances of Sir Robert Menzies in 1949 when he said: ‘I will establish a committee to inquire into the abolition of the means test*. No such inquiry was instituted, despite the fact that Liberal-Country Party governments have had ample opportunity to institute one over the past 19 years.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m.

Mr KATTER:
Kennedy

– I rise to make a few comments of a rather specialised nature on the subject of social services, with particular reference to pensioners. Before doing so I would like to make a few realistic comments about the new Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth). I have heard our friends on the other side of the House make various comments about the tiger that has been tamed, but 1 think we who know him would consider it a rather stiff task to tame him in any way at all. I am convinced, just as everyone who follows the old axiom ‘To thine own self be true’, and who is honest with himself must be convinced, that there could not be any change in the attitude of W. C. Wentworth IV. .

I would then like to pass - and perhaps I am a little mixed up in my seniority - to the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). He made it very clear that he was going to be concerned specifically with the welfare of the working people of this nation, particularly those who are under-privileged and not as able to help themselves as other people are. Let us be realistic about this. Even 1 am beginning to learn that in this chamber certain members must act. a charade and adopt certain attitudes, but everyone knows that in most cases these, are not sincere. I suppose if we were on the other side of the House we also would be doing this. But I saw the Prime Minister in Mount Isa recently. He alighted from his aircraft with an official party, and he could not get away quickly enough to mix with the crowd. This was not electioneering. Here was a man who obviously liked people and wanted to get among them. It is a strange thing that if one likes people genuinely and is not a political hnmbug, this liking of people will bounce right back - and it is a warm sensation.

Now let me get on to the subject of pensioners. I think we all agree that it must take almost inexplicable ability in managing and book-keeping to live on the present pension. I do not think there would be anyone in this House who would not like to see the pension doubled. Even if it were I think the pensioners would be having a struggle. Throughout this nation are many elderly people, lonely people, who are endeavouring to get a slightly better cut of meat or a little more milk, who are endeavouring to balance their budgets to obtain the very necessities for survival. We know that this is the case ,even with people who live in the provincial and metropolitan areas, who have their senior citizens’ clubs, who have magnificent organisations like the Blue Nursing Service and the St Vincent de Paul Society and other church organisations, who have their Rotary Clubs, Apex

Clubs and Lions Clubs. I have full admiration for the members of these organisations who work to make the lot of the elderly people a little more acceptable. But if this is the position of pensioners in the cities, then just what sort of situation do the pensioners in the remote areas of this nation find themselves, not only occasionally, but in a most extreme degree emotionally?

Let me illustrate this a little. Consider the station worker, the man who has worked on a particular property all his life. Me has become almost a member of the family and does not have to think for himself. Inevitably he reaches a stage at which he has to hang up his spurs. He comes into town and is bewildered. If he is a married man, he and his wife are floundering around for a start looking for somewhere to live. They do not have the organisations that are available to assist pensioners in the cities. They have additional financial . burdens. They are displaced persons, if I may use that description, and they have the emotional problem of suddenly being set down in a strange environment.

I mention all this because I want to request the Minister most earnestly to look into the matter. If the Government makes provision for zone allowances, for instance, for western allowances and northern allowances, are the pensioners in the remote areas, who do not receive such concessions, expected to perform some kind of economic miracle? In Mount Isa at present the problem of increasing costs is becoming rather acute. The cost of living is fairly high because of freight charges and other considerations which increase the cost of many commodities. I have to address the Trades and Labour Council in Mount Isa on this subject in the near future, and we have to nut out some way of approaching this very difficult problem. If the men who are working in Mount Isa and earning something better than the basic wage are finding it necessary/ to budget their wages in order to exist, then what is the situation with the pensioner? If the problem exists for the ordinary wage earner, how much more is it accentuated for the pensioner? He has to meet the same costs. For instance he has to pay 18c for a bottle of milk. Just how is he to cope with the situation?

This brings me to our general attitude towards elderly people. We are a wonderful nation. Quite frankly I do not think anyone who lives or was bom in this country would select any other country to live in or to be born in. But as in most advanced countries of the world today there seems to be a disregard for the feelings and the emotional reactions of elderly people. It is not a complete disregard by any means, but we do seem to have lost the old-fashioned concern for Mum and Dad when they are getting on a bit. Let us face up to this and be perfectly honest about it. It is high time we had a sort of emotional stocktaking and that we examined our attitudes, because this growing old is a pretty lonely sort of process, and, as I have said, it is much more lonely and more difficult for the people in remote areas.

There are many ways in which these people could be assisted, and I think the Federal Government should co-operate in providing this assistance. After all, I suppose we could sidestep almost any issue by saying: ‘This is a State matter.’ But this is a coward’s castle kind of attitude, because the States can only go so far. I suppose I had better not enlarge too much on that subject at the present time. But I believe that one way in which we could assist these pensioners is by giving them concessional rates for driving licences. A pensioner is quite entitled to continue to drive a motor car, and perhaps in fact he needs a car a good deal more as he gets on in years. But he would find it pretty difficult to meet the costs of .driving one of these infernal machines these days, and I think this is one department that could be closely examined and that we should be able to give some relief to a pensioner who is still running his motor car.

Something has been done for them in regard to radio licences. I would not be sure of this, but I suppose the Nelson eye is cast on pensioners who do not have licences. I have never heard of a pensioner being prosecuted for being without a licence, and I certainly hope that this never happens. But I believe pensioners should be assisted in respect of the amenities they have in their homes, because in remote areas particularly they have not many places to go, if they have anywhere at all to go.

I have heard on occasions comments such as: ‘Why make a speech about pensioners when there are no pensioners in inland areas anyway?’ This of course is quite wrong. As a matter of fact in my electorate there is a town in which there are many pensioners. I refer to Charters Towers, where we can see an excellent example of how elderly people should be looked after. In that town there is an establishment called the Eventide Home, where elderly people enjoy community living without an institutional atmosphere. I think this is the answer to the problem. We should establish and encourage other people to establish institutions that do not look like institutions, which are warm and in which there is an atmosphere that makes the people living there feel that they are wanted, that they have not just been set aside, that they are not simply a burden because they have committed the mortal sin of growing old,

I have been to some of the old fashioned countries but have returned to Australia glad to be home. However, in respect of elderly people, it would be well to examine some of the warmth and emotion that’ still exists in family circles in those countries.. We have money, amenities and a favoured way of life and we tend to grow away from our elders. This is a great national sin. All pensioners have difficulties but I would say that if a western allowance is regarded as being necessary for the ordinary wage earner in remote areas it is high time we provided the same for pensioners. I appeal to the Minister to examine this aspect. I have never been convinced by replies I have received from previous Ministers for Social Services on this subject. Possibly they have been obliged, because of financial circumstances and the attitude of the Cabinet, to supply an answer that has almost closed the door. I believe , that the present Minister is the man to open the door. Pensioners in remote areas have a burden of extra commitments. Not only do they have additional charges for clothing, food and almost everything else but their charges are increased the further they live from the coastal areas. I again stress the emotional factor. If a -pensioner takes ill and has to see a specialist that ‘ pensioner has to be uprooted. If an elderly woman has to go to the city her fares are paid but not her accommodation charges. Her meals are not paid. Nothing compensates for the fact that she is an old lady in a strange city. These are realities that are happening every day. We must examine this problem.

I conclude on the note- I intend to conclude most of my speeches on this note - that if we are to appreciate these realities we must have a ministry of decentralisation, with a Minister whose job’ it is to examine every facet of living in remote areas. If our remote areas are allowed to die then this nation will die. Nothing is surer. Officers should examine the situation and report back to the Minister, giving him on the spot information. This sort of thing is being done elsewhere; let us do it in Australia. I beg the Minister to examine, in a specialised manner, the problems of pensioners who live in far away places.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

– We are debating the motion that the Social Services Bill 1968 be now read - a second time, to which the honourable member for. Grayndler (Mr Daly), .on, behalf of the Opposition, has moved the following amendment: .

That all - words after ‘That’’ be omitted with a view to inserting the following -words in place thereof: ‘whilst ‘ not opposing the provisions ‘of the Bill the ‘ House regrets that’ the Government has” failed to: ‘(1) increase pension rates sufficiently to enable pensioners to maintain a reasonable standard of living;

  1. adjust all social service benefits in each year’s Budget to ‘ meet the increased cost of living;
  2. implement their policy of abolishing the means test as’ promised as long ago as 1949, and
  3. make benefits retrospective from 1st July 1968’.

As a member of the Opposition, I fully, support, the amendment. . I should like to refer to the Minister for ^Social Services (Mr Wentworth). I want to . be fair; so I would prefer him to be awake to hear what I say. The Minister said a Jot on behalf of social service recipients,., when he was a back bench member, , and.., since he has become a Minister he. has. shown much dedication and has worked hard in a thankless job. His is one job that. I would not like. It is full of human problems from end to end. He has a family of 1 million people, who are sharing in social service benefits. No matter what government is in power, despite our best endeavours gaps and anomalies will remain in the legislation. Since the Australian Labor Party was in government in 1949 many anomalies have been wiped out of the legislation, but if the Government had not done this it would not be worthy of being in office. It is 19 years since Labor was in office, and if something constructive had not been done for the vast family of social service beneficiaries since then the Government would have deserved the absolute censure of everybody in Australia. Although many of the anomalies have been corrected - some are corrected by this legislation - many have been allowed to fester for years without attention. However, the Minister has tackled some of the anomalies and, as 1 said, seeks to correct some in this Bill. Let us be fair about this, because we have sufficient of the Government’s general attitude to legislation to criticise, particularly social service legislation. One good aspect of this legislation was mentioned by the Minister in his second reading speech when he said:

Under the proposal, on the death of a married pensioner - and I use the word ‘pensioner’ to include a wife receiving a wife’s allowance - the surviving pensioner will receive the equivalent of the two pensions or pension and allowance that would have been payable if the spouse had not died.

This arrangement is to continue for 3 months after the death of a married pensioner. Every honourable member is dealing with pensioners’ problems every day - in bis office or in his electorate.

Mr James:

– That proposal is similar to the provisions in the New Zealand legislation.

Mr DUTHIE:
WILMOT, TASMANIA · ALP

– Yes. It is a big improvement on our current legislation.. If a pensioner has been Irving on a double pension and then suddenly bis spouse dies and he is forced back to riving on the single rate pension, it is a big shock to him. The proposal to continue the double. pension for 3 months is excellent. The single rate pension, of course, is higher than the married rate pension. The Opposition never approved of the discrimination between , a single and a married pensioner. Under the present Budget proposals a single pensioner will receive $7 a fortnight more than a married pensioner. The gap between these two rates is widening.

There seems to be a mania for increasing pension rates by $1 a week. The decision to increase pension rates ‘by $1 a week is not based on economic findings nor has it been determined as a result of research; it is simply a figure plucked out of the air. The Government says that there will be a SI a week increase, and it is $1 - no more, no less. After a period of 2 years this is a cynical and inadequate increase; the cost of living has risen so much in the last 2 years that the $1 a week increase now proposed is actually an insult. The increase goes a little way towards meeting cost of living increases in the last 2 years, but it has no hope of coping with cost of living increases during the next 2 years. My colleague, the honourable member for Watson (Mr Cope), who is an expert on social service legislation, described this aspect in his speech just before the suspension of the sitting this evening. The point is that pension rises will always be 2 years behind increases in the cost of living.

There is another very serious blind spot in this vast and complex field of social services. A lot of fringe benefits have been introduced in recent years which are all to the good, but one blind spot still remains. The honourable member for Watson briefly referred to it and I have referred to it on several occasions in the last 2 years. I refer to those thousands of unfortunate people who are not suffering enough disability to get an invalid pension but whose health is too uncertain for them to hold a job, even a temporary one. These people, in the view of the doctor, may have a 60%, 70% or 80% disability, but they will not get an invalid pension until they are 85% incapacitated. They are in a crucifying, frustrating, crippling and disheartening no-man’s land. They are forced to seek sickness or unemployment benefit. They are living in a completely uncertain and insecure world.

No employer will risk taking these unfortunate people on to the pay roll. They are forced to wander from employer to employer seeking work, knowing that they have no hope of getting it because of their disability. I call them the army of the unwanted in this land today. Each week they have to fill in a form, setting out from whom and where they have sought work. Their unemployment benefits are suspended unless they fill out this form. It is a cruel world of failure and despair for them. They are living in a wilderness of loneliness, inactivity and hopelessness. They are slowly being destroyed. Month after month and” year after year these people walk into my office but 1 am not able to provide an answer to their problem. This system is leading to a slow death of hope and perhaps even of their future.

The answer to this problem is the provision of a special allowance at the same level as is paid to an invalid pensioner. A person in this category may not get all the benefits that an invalid pensioner would receive, but at least he would get the same rate as an invalid pensioner receives. Do honourable members know what this person receives now, after all this wandering in looking for work and after filling in all these forms? He gets the princely sum of $8.25 per week on which to live. He has to pay his rent. The honourable member for Watson referred to the case of the man who received $8.25 unemployment benefit but had to pay $6 in rent. How could he live on $2.25 a week? This is the tragedy of these unwanted people. This is the blind spot in our social service legislation.

I have raised this glaring blind spot on several occasions in this place. The previous Minister for Social Services, the present Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Sinclair), analysed my suggestion, and I appreciate that very much. He told me that doctors would be instructed to consider this question when they were examining people to see whether they qualified for the invalid pension. I know of three or four cases where persons have received an invalid pension although a few years ago they would not have been eligible to receive one. The doctor concerned understood the person’s condition and position. In the view of the doctor the person may have had a disability of only 75%, but he decided to recommend that the person should receive the invalid pension, and I say good luck to him. But it is a pity that a lot more doctors were not prepared to exercise a little more elasticity regarding people whose disability is assessed at between 75% and 85%. No man can work with a disability of 75%, but with that degree of disability he cannot get the invalid pension either.

Mr James:

– Common sense should prevail.

Mr DUTHIE:

– As my colleague the honourable member for Hunter says, common sense should prevail. I think that this instruction has gone out to doctors from the previous Minister for Social Services, and 1 hope it has gone to all doctors throughout Australia who examine applicants for the invalid pension. But the problem is still not entirely solved. These people should receive a special allowance. An 85% incapacity is very high. Anyone who is 70% or 75% incapacitated cannot get the invalid pension and he cannot work, so he is forced to seek unemployment benefit which could go on even for 2 years. He has to live this tragic life of insecurity and sheer unadulterated poverty.

I do not want to speak for long on this subject because my colleagues have done an excellent job in analysing these problems, but I want to refer to two or three other points. The shockingly low rate of unemployment benefit should be condemned by everybody who has an understanding of the cost of living today. How are people expected to live on $8.25 a week? In searching for work these people have to travel by bus or tram, as the case may be, and they have to travel by bus if they live 20 or 30 miles out in the country. Every day they have to search for work which they will never get because of their disability or because work is in any case hard to obtain in some areas. I think that the rate of unemployment benefit should be considered and that it should be increased to at least $12 or $15 a week, if not more. It is outrageous for the Government to say that it has solved all problems concerning social service recipients if it does not do something towards increasing this very low rate of unemployment benefit.

Finally, in my opinion the only ultimate answer to our social service problems is the establishment of a national superannuation fund, such as the one in New Zealand. The means test would be abolished overnight. The taxpayer will pay so much in the $1 a week into a special fund from which all social service benefits could be met. Benefits could be paid to people whether they receive $10,000 a year or $1,000 a year. People would have earned these benefits because they would have contributed week by week to a central fund. This would remove all the anomalies which have been created by the various amendments which have been made to the social services legislation. Everyone would receive a pension as a right. The moment a person reached a certain age or a certain level of disability he would be able to receive a pension. Short of the complete abolition of the means test the establishment of a national superannuation fund is the most business like and proper approach that can be made to this question. I should like to congratulate the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) who showed his Labor training in his speech tonight on this Social Services Bill.

Mr DEVINE:
East Sydney

– 1 wish to enter this debate because, although the social services legislation that is before the House tonight hands out a few paltry dollars to the people in need, personally I believe that it is totally inadequate for people whose only incomes are derived from social service benefits. We know that 82% of pensioners in Australia today have no income other than what they receive in social service benefits or in other handouts from the Government. Every year in this Parliament social service legislation is introduced which provides for a particular matter. To me, the question of social services is becoming a political football. I would like to see it taken out of the hands of the Parliament and handed over to a central committee or board that could look after the amounts of money that are required to care for the aged and the infirm. Then we in this Parliament would not be using social services as a political football every year.

Most countries are confronted with the same problem that we have in Australia, that is, looking after the aged. Many countries have better social service schemes than we have in Australia, and I believe that this is because of the Australian Government’s failure to plan properly for social service benefits. Every year there is a little handout which is given as a bit of bait to try to please some sections of the people who are in receipt of social service benefits. This is not right. The Government ought to at least present a specific plan to the people and say: ‘This is what we are going to achieve.’ But unfortunately we have a government that has been in power since 1949, and irrespective of what it says about what it has achieved, I still feel that its assistance has been very far below what is required for these unfortunate people. As I stated, this situation has arisen only because the Government has refused to implement a properly planned scheme. 01 course, the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentwortb), who introduced this legislation, came in to this chamber with his usual speech and told us that our non-contributory scheme is equal to that of any other country. Of course, he made his usual little innuendoes against the Communist bloc and the Soviet bloc people who have said that they have better social service benefits than we have. The Minister cannot ever come into the Parliament without raising this old bogy. Every time we put forward the suggestion that social services in other countries are better than ours, the Minister attacks those countries. Irrespective of the political colour of those countries, 1 am one of those who believe that if there is something that we can learn from schemes in those countries, we should copy them and put them into operation in Australia so that our people can benefit. 1 do not think that we should use this as an excuse to attack those countries.

The main theme out of all this, I believe, is the need to see that social justice and economic security are given to our people. We want decent social services that will remove the great inequalities of living standards for people in unfortunate circumstances. Medical science has added age to life; now it is our responsibility to add life to age. We have to do this by making sure that people have decent places in which to live. In my humble opinion, if we could give most of the social service recipients living in Australia today decent housing at adequate rents, we could overcome a great many of their problems. Unfortunately we have a government in charge of the country at present which does nothing about providing homes for the aged and others who have no income other than their social service benefits. Under Labor Governments a special grant was given by the Commonwealth for the construction of homes, particularly for aged persons. Of course, this grant was abolished by this Government in 1954. While I am aware that $2 is given for every $1 under the Aged Persons Homes Act, 1 believe that the Government throws the responsibility on other sections of the community who have to raise certain portions of money so that they can qualify for the grant from the Commonwealth. In electorates such as the one I represent, and in many other areas in many of the major cities, there are very few people who benefit as a result of these grants. No doubt this is caused by the cost of property in these areas. Organisations cannot afford to purchase land on which to build aged persons homes. If we look at the figures that have been given by the Minister, it can be seen that the number of organisations making application for finance has fallen. This is clear because the amount of money involved is decreasing. This gives an indication that many of these organisations are finding it hard to raise money in order to build aged persons homes. This is unfortunate, because it is the people who live in such homes cannot afford-

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. W. J. Aston)Order! I think the honourable member is getting a little wide of the Bill before the House.

Mr DEVINE:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Very good; Mr Speaker. This all relates to social services and the Department administered by the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The content of this Bill does not cover aged persons homes. I suggest to the honourable member that he is getting wide of the scope of the Bill.

Mr DEVINE:

– The Minister referred to it in his speech. But if you so rule, Mr Speaker, I will abide by your decision. So much for aged persons homes. I would now like to pass on to what I feel is the most important part of the legislation. I am one of those who believe, the same as the previous- speaker-

Mr SPEAKER:

– I apologise to the honourable member for East Sydney. There is a reference in the second reading speech to the cost of making money available for aged persons homes.

Mr DEVINE:

– I am grateful for your apology, Mr Speaker, which I accept. I would now like to make a few comments on the need for a national superannuation fund because I firmly believe that if we are to give economic justice to the majority of people when they retire from work, we must have such a fund. While we can discuss whether such a fund should be contributory or non-contributory, I believe there are many sections of the community today that would be quite prepared to pay into a contributory scheme provided they knew that when they did retire they would receive an adequate pension upon which to live. They want to be assured that they will have provision for all the necessities of life and that they will be able to live decently on the same standard as other sections of the community. While this was part of the Government’s policy when it was elected back in 1949, it has done nothing towards establishing a national superannuation scheme. I feel that nothing has been done because people outside the Parliament who control a great deal of finance and who contribute to the Government’s party funds will not allow the Government to oppose them. Of course, 1 refer to the insurance companies, which believe that if such a scheme were adopted a lot of business would be taken away from them. I believe that it is because of this attitude that the Government has been frightened to implement a national superannuation scheme. As I have stated, I believe there are many people in Australia who would be quite prepared to pay into such a scheme.

Look at the history of hospital and medical funds. While I disagree with the level of benefits received from these funds, I believe that people will pay into schemes if they can be sure they will get some benefit back. Many people pay into medical and hospital funds and never receive any benefit. For example, many people fall out of the schemes because they get out of work. Others leave the scheme because they cannot afford to keep up their payments. When a person leaves a fund, he does not receive any compensation or return for the money which he has paid in. I believe that we ought to at least be doing something to establish a national superannuation fund. If we look at countries such as Canada, Israel, Sweden and New Zealand where such funds are in operation, we find that people receive adequate pensions as a result of contributory schemes. These schemes are adequate compared with the cost of living in those countries. Czechoslovakia, which has been in the news lately, also has a good scheme. Time does not permit me to read out the details of those schemes tonight. But members of the Parliament should take a little time to have a look at the schemes that operate in the countries I have mentioned. If they do that they will find that the schemes are good ones and that the majority of the people in the community would benefit from the adoption of such a scheme in Australia.

In the small countries in which these schemes operate, such as Israel, the people contribute to them and on retirement receive a decent and adequate pension that keeps them above the poverty line. We will have to adopt such a scheme in Australia, because there is no doubt in my mind that more and more people are living below the poverty line. They do not receive sufficient income and therefore are living on the bare necessities of life. We know that widows with young children are trying to educate them and to give them the same standard of living as is enjoyed by the children around them whose fathers and mothers are working. Some of these unfortunate widows can afford only the bare necessities of life, and their, children are suffering as a result of. that. I honestly believe that this is one section of the community which should be receiving more than it is receiving from the Government at the present time.

I am one of those people who have always believed that a great deal of poverty exists in Australia. But, of course, the Government is reluctant to accept that position. When we look at the reports of some of the surveys that have been carried out in Australia we see that they have proved that sections of the community are living in poverty. I know of many people in my own electorate who are living in poverty. For instance, there are pensioners who are receiving the handout from the Department of Social Services, who pay a minimum of $10 a week for the rental of accommodation and inadequate cooking facilities and who then have to pay for the operations of radiators, if they have them, and radios or television sets out of their pension. There are many other sections of the community in similar circumstances. For example, there are people who because of their illnesses have to have special diets. One can imagine the amount of attention that such people can receive with, the money that they receive from the Department of Social Services.

I am aware that there .will be an increase in the wife’s allowance, but I believe that it is totally inadequate. When a man is sick and is receiving an invalid pension or when he qualifies for an age pension, his wife, irrespective of her age, should receive the maximum pension. Whilst I realise that on this occasion there will be an increase of $1 in the wife’s allowance, I have always maintained that the Government is getting something on the cheap. Many of these wives have to act as nurses and look after their husbands. This Government gives them only the wife’s allowance of $7 a week. That is an injustice. The Government should give them the same amount as it gives an age pensioner. There should be no second class citizens in Australia. 1 maintain that everybody should be treated on an equal footing. Everybody should be given the maximum possible standard of living. When the Government makes second class citizens out of the wives of men who are in receipt of a pension, I believe that it is a gross injustice.

This legislation will be passed by this chamber tonight. It is not the intention of the Labor Party to delay it. We want to ensure that the people concerned receive these rises as quickly as possible. We know that they are looking forward to receiving them, despite the fact that in my opinion they are only a measly handout compared with the amount of money that is involved in buying the Fill aircraft and the amount of money that has been spent on the war in Vietnam, which we cannot, win. I. would rather see that money being spent in the community for the benefit of the recipients of social services benefits or for the building of hospitals for the aged.

That is another great problem in the community today. Many doctors - find it extremely difficult - almost impossible - to get bedridden aged persons into hospital. There just are not enough hospitals for the aged or people who are prepared to look after the aged. A lot of money has to be found to pay the charges of some of the hospitals that are available. These payments become a burden on the sons and daughters of aged people. Because their mother or father has to go into one of these private nursing homes, the sons and daughters have to find extra money for their’ care and welfare. This imposes a burden on many young families, especially if they are trying to pay off a home and to educate their children while maintaining a fair standard of living.

I believe that there are many anomalies in the field of social services. As far as I am concerned, this Government has not done enough. I do not think it has done enough planning over the years. I do not know whether it is the intention of the present Minister for Social Services to come up with some concrete plan in the near future. I believe that it is about time he gave considerable .thought to the ultimate for the people of this country, namely, the achievement of a decent standard of living by the implementation of a national superannuation scheme.

Mr FOX:
Henty

– As I was not able to speak during the Budget debate I take this opportunity to pass judgment on the social services proposals outlined in the Budget and implemented in this Bill. Payments from the National Welfare Fund this year will represent an increase of more than $85m over last year’s payments. That is a very substantial increase for a single year.

Opposition speakers are continually complaining that members of the Government parties make comparisons with what a Labor government paid to pensioners 19 years ago; but they have only themselves to blame. They make irrational and extravagant statements about the rates of various social service benefits that are paid by this Government. In the main their statements are not only extravagant but completely untrue. For example, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Daly) said: ‘This Social Services Bill reeks of injustice and inhumanity. Not one new idea is incorporated in the proposals. The increases in pension rates do not meet the increases in prices’. He says similar things every year, and he has never yet been right. The last increase in the general rate of age and invalid pensions was made in 1966. In the 2-year period from 30th June 1966 to 30th June this year the consumer price index, as published by the Commonwealth Statistician, moved from 136.5 to 144.6 - an increase of 6.1%.

Let me point out some of the changes in benefits made in this Budget. The single rate age pension is increased by $1, which is equivalent to a 7.7% increase on the previous rate. The additional pension of $1.50 for married couples represents an increase of 6.4%, The new rates for the children of widows and age and invalid pensioners represent an increase of 66.6%. Class B widows pensions are increased by 6.4%. The wife’s allowance, to which the honourable member for East Sydney (Mr Devine) referred and which is paid to the non-pensioner wife of an age or invalid pensioner, is increased by 16.6%. The honourable member for East Sydney said that he objected to the Government making second class citizens of the wives of pensioners. The Labor Party paid them $2.40. It made them second class citizens. It did not pay them the single rate pension, yet it criticises this Government for what it does. The rehabilitation training allowance is increased by 33.3%. I could quote many more instances of a similar pattern.

The honourable member for Grayndler says that pensioners cannot live on percentages. I agree. But when he states that our social service benefits reek of injustice and inhumanity he is condemning his own party, because when it was in government its attitude towards the less fortunate members of our society was miserly in the extreme. But the Labor Party always has had two standards - one when in government and another when in opposition. Pensioners certainly cannot live on percentages, but I hope that they will not be deluded into thinking that they would get a better deal from a Labor government, because nothing is further from the truth.

Labor speakers continually state that the increases provided by this Government do not keep up with price increases. I direct their attention to a table that is published on page 1078 of Hansard of Tuesday, 17th September. In this the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) showed the rates paid to certain pensioners in 1949 by the last Labor Government - and it may well be the last Labor Government - and he compared those rates with what they would be today if the pension rates had increased by the same percentage as prices have increased. Again I quote the Commonwealth Statistician as shown in the consumer price index.

I quote five of the figures from the table submitted by the Minister. A single pensioner with supplementary assistance would be receiving $9.60 per week under Labor. Under the present proposals he will receive $16 per week. I am not talking percentages.

I am talking $6.40 per week. A married pensioner couple would be receiving $19.20 per week. Instead they will receive $25 per week. A pensioner whose wife is not a pensioner - as was referred to by the honourable member for East Sydney - and who qualifies for supplementary assistance will receive $23 per week instead of only $15.02 per week which he would have received bad we increased the pension at the same rate as prices increased. A widow with supplementary assistance and one child will receive $22.50 per week instead of only $10.73 per week. A widow with four dependent children, in the same circumstances, will receive $30 per week, instead of only $10.73 per week, which a Labor government would have paid her. In addition pensioners receive the benefits of the pensioner medical service which they did not receive under a Labor government, and which provides them with free medicine, free hospitalisation and free medical treatment by a doctor of their own choice. .Yet Labor speakers say that increases in rates have not kept up with increases in prices. This is utter rubbish.

The honourable member for Grayndler referred to the pension increases as miserable morsels which have fallen from the masters’ tables. He dared to refer critically to the pension paid by the Government to class A widows. He dared to criticise the rates of allowances paid for children. Labor paid a class A widow $4.75 per week. This is all she received if she had one child. The Government will pay her $20 per week. The last Labor Government paid a widow with four dependent children $4.75 per week. The Government will pay her $28 per week plus another $2 per week if she is paying rent. Labor cancelled her miserable pension of $4.75 per week if her additional property exceeded $2,000. Today she does not lose her pension entitlement altogether until her additional property - and the value of her house is not counted as additional property - exceeds $17,000.

Mr Daly:

– That was 20 years ago.

Mr FOX:

– I am talking in terms of money. The honourable member knows very well that the value of money has not changed to that extent. I do not know whether the. honourable member does not know or whether he is just pretending, but he is not fooling the Australian people. The honourable member criticised the amount of the allowance we will pay for the children of pensioners. The rate will be $1.50 per week for each child. Labor allowed 50c per week for the first child, which was included in the amount of $4.75 per week paid to a class A widow, and allowed nothing at all for additional children - even if she happened to have eight. She received nothing from a Labor government but will receive $12 per week from this Government. Yet the honourable member had the audacity to say that the Government’s allowance rates for children was the best method of birth control of which he knows. If that is the standard it is a wonder that under a Labor government people bothered to have children at all. Payment of child endowment was stopped when a child attained its sixteenth birthday. Today endowment is paid to full time students - and children have many more opportunities to remain .at school under the Government’s generous scholarship scheme - until the student attains the age of 21 years.

The honourable member for Grayndler - and if I appear to be singling him out it is because he is the spokesman of the Labor Party on social services-^- stated that the Government’s policy was that wives had to go to work. It may be news to him, but there is a greater percentage of working wives in the United Kingdom than there is in Australia.’ That country is blessed, or should I say unfortunate enough, to be ruled by a Labour government. He stated that there was not one new idea incorporated in the proposals. This is another false statement. Under the provisions of the Bill when one of a married pensioner couple dies the survivor will be paid for 12 weeks at the married rate - that is as’ though the spouse were still living. This is in order to help the survivor to adjust himself or herself to changed circumstances. Under this Government the survivor will receive $1.50 per week more than half of the married rate. The honourable member for Grayndler said that the Bill contained no new ideas. Another new idea’’ is the introduction of vocational guidance for widow pensioners who desire to work. This will enable them to increase their earning capacity. The Government permits them to earn a great deal more than did the last

Labor Government. For example, a widow with four dependent children is permitted to earn $19 per week before her pension is reduced. Labor reduced it when her earnings exceeded $3 per week. Yet Opposition speakers have the effrontery to say that our social service scheme is unjust and inhuman. 1 am sure that they will not fool the Australian people, although undoubtedly they hope to do so.

Mr Devine:

– You are just like Rip van Winkle.

Mr FOX:

– It is a pity we cannot go back into the past and look at Labor’s miserable record. Labor speakers have criticised us for paying sickness and unemployment benefits only to persons over the age of 16 years. They did the same. They have criticised us for not backdating pension increases to 1st July. When in office they did the same, for exactly the same reason - the great amount of work involved. Today there are nearly three times as many persons in receipt of social service benefits as there were under Labor. They paid an unemployed man with; four children $5 per week, whereas we will pay him $20.25 per week. Under Labor if he were unfortunate enough in bis economic circumstances to have more than one child he received nothing extra for any of his additional children, whereas the Government pays him $1.50 per week for each child. I think I have spent enough time showing the falsity of Labor statements.

Mr Devine:

– Bear, hear!

Mr FOX:

– The honourable member does not like my speech, but he can read it tomorrow in Hansard. I have spent enough time showing the falsity of Labor supporters’ statements and the worthlessness of their promises. I now quote two ways in which I believe our present scheme can be improved. The Government is well aware of the views which I hold regarding flat rate increases in pension rates or across’ the board increases irrespective of the degree of need. I believe that this is taking the easy way out and that pensions ought be be based on need. I believe that the rate of invalid pension ought to be based on the degree of incapacity. I have never seen the logic of tying the invalid pension rate to the age pension rate.

The principle is even more absurd when applied to dependent wives. Some wives of age pensioners may go to work if they wish. The wives of very few invalid pensioners would be able to work, because, I imagine, most of them would be busy at home caring for their husbands. For this reason they ought to receive a higher pension that the wives of age pensioners. I realise that this is a departure from a present principle and that it will involve a great deal of work. I do not believe that that reason alone ought to prevent the Government from giving it deep consideration with a view to implementing such a scheme at the first available able opportunity. There is no doubt that the payment of across the board increases makes it easier to achieve the progressive elimination of the means test. In spite of what Opposition speakers have’ had to ‘say about this subject it is a fact that every increase in pension rates brings the removal of the means test one step nearer. It causes more people to become eligible’ to receive some portion of the age pension. In 1949 there were approximately 325.000 age pensioners. Today there are more than 680,000, which is more than double the number 19 years ago, when the average age of our population has been steadily falling and during a period when our population increased by approximately 50%. This is proof positive that the means test is being continually eased.

The record of the Government in the field of social services has been magnificent. It has introduced a great many new benefits and effected many improvements. I want to name only a few. There is the pensioner medical service, to which I have referred; we have concluded a reciprocal agreement with the Governments of the United Kingdom and New Zealand to enable people from those countries to be eligible to receive pensions in this country and vice versa; we have removed the means test for blind pensioners; and we were the first Government to pay social service benefits to Aboriginals. We introduced the aged persons homes scheme. Up to 30th June this year 1,658 applications for the Commonwealth subsidy under the scheme have been approved and $80m has been expended to provide accommodation for almost 30.000 people. We introduced the payment of supplementary assistance to certain pensioners paying rent. We introduced the mother’s allowance for class A widows. We introduced the payment of a guardian’s allowance to pensioners with children in their care. We introduced the income tax age allowance for persons of pensionable age who do not receive a pension. All of these measures - I have named but a few - add up to a truly magnificent record in the field pt social services. For all the reasons that I have referred to I oppose the amendment and I support the Bill.

Question put:

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

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr L. L. Bosnian)

AYES: 62

NOES: 31

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Wentworth) read a third time.

Majority 31

page 1321

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment:

Repatriation Bill 1968.

Seamen’s War Pension and Allowances Bill 1968.

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1968-69 In Committee

Consideration resumed from 18 September (vide page 1238).

Second Schedule.

Department of Health

Proposed expenditure, $24,939,000.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– There are several issues in relation to health which should be faced by the Federal Government I propose to deal with two or three of these in the time available to me. The first relates to the ethics of organ transplants. The newspapers have made some shocking statements about body snatching by transplant surgeons. These statements on the whole have not helped to reassure the public. In the ‘South African Medical Journal’ of 30th December 1967 Dr Barnard and his colleagues made it clear that the first heart donor had no reflexes or breathing movements; that artificial breathing had been stopped for 12 minutes; and that all heart muscle movements had stopped, as shown by an electrocardiogram, for 5 minutes before the transplantation began. The recent medical congress held in

Sydney added further safeguards by declaring that the surgeon should not be the doctor who declares life extinct and that preferably the electrical activity of the brain should be shown to have stopped. Dr Barnard’s carefully published account of the first heart transplant is surely an equally sound safeguard against body snatching. He indicated that a further. 40 minutes were taken to remove the donor’s heart, which was kept alive by cooling and artificial circulation. The United Kingdom has considered revising the law to take care, of these problems.

The editor of the ‘Medical Journal of Australia’ on 4th May this year states that any such laws depend on public awareness and support. These are some of the points that the public must consider: Firstly, doctors are bound by the rule ‘Thou shalt not kill but needst not strive officiously to keep alive’; secondly, with the help of electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms, in the case of a recently healthy corpse it is becoming possible to decide with virtual certainty that if is beyond revival; thirdly, the only doctors likely to be involved in such decisions for at least a decade will be in highly organised specialist teams where they will be under the searing light of the top specialists in medical teaching and research centres. By the time this decade has passed many alternatives will be in common use and transplants will be going out of fashion. For instance, plastic hearts and mechanical aids to assist failing hearts are being developed. The heart is the organ above all others which has to be removed in a hurry; so the problem is most acute.

There have been transplants for many years with other organs, particularly kidneys. These have prolonged life for many years, and there will be an increasing demand for this type of transplant. One of the big issues that will arise here is not so much the ethics of deciding whether the donor is dead - a kidney can survive for a long period - as the ethics of deciding which patient shall get the kidney and which one shall not. This does not apply only to the problem of transplants; it applies to any complicated and expensive procedure. This again will increasingly become the concern of this Government and this Parliament. At the proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine in November last a Dr Kerr discussed the cost of staying alive and brought forward some interesting points. He said that if we take only people below, the age of 54 years - ‘that probably would exclude half of the people in this chamber - the direct cost of providing artificial kidney treatments for those who could be helped would be $60m per year, and that in addition it might take 10,000 staff to look after them and to train them in the use of the artificial kidney. He estimated the number of patients involved to be 23,000. Assuming that the staff salaries averaged $3,800 per annum, the yearly cost for all these people under 54 years of age who could benefit by this complicated .treatment would be $92m or $4,000 per head per year. In other words, the treatment would cost more than the salary of one of the staff employed on that treatment. He. concluded that this would require selection of a few from many candidates for treatment. But I do not think that we have to accept this conclusion without question. Does not Australia already maintain armies much larger than this group of 23,000 kidney cripples? Do the soldiers produce more than the kidney cripples? And does it not take 5 to 10 men in industry at home to keep one modern soldier in the field? So Australia could withstand this economic strain for the whole world by reducing some of her military forces. Which is more calculated to help humanity? This must be faced up to.

There is a law of diminishing returns in health expenditure, because the sicker the patient and the longer the sickness the more it will cost in general to give him top grade treatment and the less he will be able to contribute to that cost. The Government is beginning to listen to its conscience when it thinks of this problem. It plunged into a half baked insurance scheme which gives the best cover to the least smitten and the worst cover to those least able to pay the premiums. The Government has tried half-heartedly to plug some of the gaps with its special fund, but its essential failure has been well covered in the speech on the Budget delivered by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam). I raised a typical case in several letters to the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes). He has finally become bogged down in red tape and has decided to do nothing about it. I refer to the case of a white collar executive in a town in my electorate. As an emergency measure he had a grave multiple operation lasting over 5 hours, and it was followed by weeks of convalescence and specialised care. Two components of this operation each attract the maximum surgical benefit. The National Health Act 1953-65 provides in part III, section 16, that the full benefit is payable on the dearest component of a multiple operation, half the benefit on the next dearest component, and a quarter of the benefit on other components. This is the principle followed by most doctors in their charges. But here the Act shows that it is dominated by the profit motive of insurance companies and not by community responsibility to the sick, because it cynically puts a limit of $60 on composite operations. That is the maximum Commonwealth benefit no matter how many operations you have at one sitting, no matter how many hours they last and no matter how many months you are having specialist care to get over them. Not on a trivial illness but on this serious illness this ceiling of $60 is applied. The result is that the patient has to meet most of the cost from his own pocket

Now I want to refer to the law of increasing returns, for it applies just as surely to health expenditure as does the law of diminishing returns. For example, the annual expenditure on tuberculosis has become less every year for the past 10 years. Tuberculosis hospitals are closing down or are being turned over to other uses. Why is this so? Is it because of the new drugs or earlier diagnosis before treatment? It is in part. But I think that most authorities, public or private, on tuberculosis will agree that the main single factor in producing control of this very resistant refractory scourge has been better nutrition and better social services.

The social service provisions for a TB pension are a model of what all pensions ought to be, and this is largely due to the initiative of one man, Dr Wunderly who was the Director of the Division of Tuberculosis in the Commonwealth Health Department. Dr Wunderly was a very dedicated and humane man, and one gifted with the power of persuasion which induced the Government of the day to remove all the burden of fear and poverty from the TB sufferer. He persuaded the Government that the worry and concern of the sufferer for his dependants was frustrating the whole aim of the treatment of tuberculosis, which treatment is simply rest. A man must rest both in his body and his mind, and he will not succeed in this unless all worry about his dependants is taken away during his illness. It is to the enlightenment and the foresight of that man perhaps more than any other that we owe the phenomenal improvement in the treatment of tuberculosis.

I submit to the Minister and to this Parliament that until we accept this concept of attack on every scourge in the community we will be opting for the law of diminishing returns in our attack on public health problems instead of spending that little more which brings us back to the law of increasing returns. This brings us back to the principle that applies in so many fields and that we on this side of the House have urged the Government to recognise; that is there are some things for which you have to pay a little more if you start to skimp on expenses. In most cases this applies to health. As with advertising, it does not cost, it pays to spend money on those things which the community needs.

I point to one of these scourges which has been relatively neglected by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth grants for mental health institutions have risen between 1959-60 and 1967-68 from $2,295 to $4,243. They have not even doubled over a period of 8 years. We know that mental illness is not something that is declining or decreasing, but we also know it is something that is getting increasingly beyond the capacity of the States. It is just one of the many problems in health that ought to be increasingly the responsibility of the Federal Government. The Commonwealth should be taking over responsibility at a far greater rate than is demonstrated by these figures. Some new benefits have been announced by the Minister but these benefits are mainly concerned with hospitals and they do very little to overcome the terrific lag that has built up.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Hon. W. C. Haworth) - Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr JESSOP:
Grey

– I have listened to the honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) and I heard him conduct a very interesting dissertation 21582/68-^r- <[47] on the transplant of organs and so on. Eventually he got around to the estimates and he was a little bit critical of our voluntary health scheme. I always like to compare the health scheme in Australia to that which exists in the United Kingdom. Here is a classic example of the way services have to be pruned to avoid further taxation. Not one new hospital has been built in the United Kingdom for 22 years. The equipment in all the hospitals is sadly lacking, and hundreds of thousands of people have to wait for surgical treatment for up to 3 years.

Honourable members opposite, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam), seem to take a special delight in discordant criticism of the Government’s health policy. I suppose this is pretty true to form. You will find them, Mr Deputy Chairman, discordant on virtually any subject you care to choose. Of course health is a readily available political football which can be kicked around with a few generalisations and unco-ordinated scrimages.

It is interesting to note, however, that invariably when criticisms are made of the scheme, rational or otherwise, concise or at random, these criticisms - with the exception of those uttered by doctrinaire socialists - are concerned with services provided or not provided by the scheme, rather than the principles governing their provision.

I am utterly committed to the belief that the best possible future for our national health scheme lies in an amalgam of private and Government responsibility. I do not believe that in this affluent society of ours a national health scheme worthy of the name should fail to provide adequately for those unable to contribute to the maintenance of their own welfare. It is for this reason that I am pleased to speak in support of these estimates.

The new health benefits announced in the Budget are clearly the most formidable advance made in the time that I have been in this place, and, indeed, I believe they represent the greatest improvement to the national health scheme in many years. Furthermore, I see the promise of the Governor-General’s Speech fulfilled, I see the resolve of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) transformed into action and I see the way clearly pointed towards a pattern of co-ordinated development in the future. These estimates are the first results of the

Cabinet committee’s review of the nation’s welfare needs. The priority of needs hasbeen well aligned. Proper provision hasnow been made for those people with chronic, long-term and pre-existing illnesses.

I would like to refer briefly to the aspect of the estimates that concerns the introduction of additional benefits for those afflicted with long-continuing illnesses. I feel that this has filled a longstanding gap in our health services. One of the main hazards in the life of an elderly person is the fear of illness and the consequent long periods in hospital that this would cause. This anxiety has now been relieved as the estimates provide for an insured patient who has been experiencing chronic pre-existing or long-term illness to receive the full amount of benefits according to the fund table of the insured, including the Commonwealth hospital benefit, regardless of the duration of hospital treatment. Not only has this increased benefit been included; a supplementary benefit has also been approved payable to a recognised nursing home for those requiring intensive nursing care, again regardless of the length of stay in the home. So it can be seen that the pensioners will benefit considerably from these added inclusions not only financially but also psychologically because of the relief from their minds of the fear of long terms in hospital.

It is also encouraging for people to know that the Commonwealth Government is consulting the State governments on the question of nursing services and how existing services can be extended so that patients can receive treatment in their own homes. This is another important aspect of the health service that is receiving overdue attention. The people who need this treatment, particularly the frail aged citizens of our community, are far happier in their own homes, and the psychological effect of being with their relatives in their own environment will prove to be a great comfort to all concerned. It is pleasing to see that the Government is now directing its attention to the comprehensive endeavour of providing for the care and maintenance of the people’s health in the environment most suited to their needs, and I hope that details will soon be worked out so that this home nursing addition can be made to the health service at the earliest possible time.

The States make much political capital of the pressure on their hospital services. These estimates will ease that pressure, for I am sure that the new nursing home benefit will encourage the building of more nursing homes of better standards and that consequently the demand for hospital beds will lessen. An extension of such domiciliary services as Meals on Wheels and home nursing, which the States can achieve in conjunction with the Commonwealth, can further ease that demand. Meanwhile, we await a report from the Nimmo committee. I would not presume to predict its findings but I believe that a lot of people who in past months have been making bland generalisations about this nation’s health needs will be in for a shock. I think they will see from the findings that many of their criticisms are not justified and that those which are justified can be rectified easily within the context of a voluntary health insurance scheme.

I was pleased to see that additional money has been granted to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. An increase of $70,000 has been made available, bringing the total contribution to $350,000 per year. Of this, $180,000 will be for operational costs. Furthermore, $390,000 has been set aside to meet the cost of modernising the twelve radio-controlled bases. I believe that the Commonwealth Government should provide substantially more money to the RFDS for this essential health service. In order to function properly, the organisation is forced to rely on public generosity. I feel strongly that general operational costs should be the complete responsibility of this Government and that any public donations should be directed to providing added amenities at RFDS outposts.

In my electorate, the flying doctor has to cover an area of almost 200,000 square miles. He has recently taken over the work formerly handled by the Bush Church Aid Society based at Ceduna. He serves Commonwealth railway employees along the Trans-Australian Railway and visits Cook and Kingoonya to conduct regular clinics for these people. He travels to the Coober Pedy and Andamooka opal fields. More than 1,000 people live in each town. He also provides a medical service to Oodnadatta and Marree, where the majority of the people are Commonwealth employees. The outback stations in the northern part of the State also rely on him for their medical attention. He has indicated that he wishes to leave shortly. It is not easy to attract a doctor to perform this arduous work which requires dedication over and above that of the average doctor. I think that it is the Commonwealth Government’s responsibility to provide an adequate service for Commonwealth employees working in such remote areas, and I suggest to the Minister that he should at least consider making available an annual amount to guarantee a substantial salary to a prospective flying doctor. This would greatly assist in having such a position permanently filled and it would relieve the RFDS of a great deal of anxiety.

There is an urgent need in the community to provide a spectacles service for pensioners. I realise that a limited service is available at large government hospitals in the cities but this is not answering the demand of the 90% of pensioners who need spectacles. There are long waiting lists, and country people particularly are heavily penalised in this respect. Is the Minister aware that members of the Australian Optometrical Association have attempted to fill this need? For more than 10 years this profession has recognised the need to provide such a service and its members have been treating many thousands of pensioners each year at a special rate, without any government subsidy, thereby attempting to fulfil a need that is clearly a government responsibility. I ask the Minister to consider very carefully ways and means to subsidise the optometrists’ scheme and so enable them to continue this worthy service, which could then be improved substantially to give additional relief. I believe that with the combined ingenuity of the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) something could be done in this direction. I hope that, as a result of the Nimmo committee’s inquiry, a plan will evolve whereby all paramedical services eventually will be brought under the national health scheme, because I believe that no scheme is complete without adequate provision for dental, optometrical and physiotherapy benefits.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

– The present national health plan, no matter what we may say in its support, is totally unsuitable as a means of providing even the basic health requirements of Australian families.

Health insurance, as it presently exists, is extremely costly. It is an inefficient means of collecting and distributing money for health services. The Government continues to support this situation, because it would require an admission of failure or partial failure for it to introduce a new scheme. Even those persons who are supplied with a pensioner medical card have far less than an adequate opportunity to obtain for themselves necessary treatment and care. If a pensioner finds it necessary or is instructed by his doctor to seek specialist treatment that the doctor thinks is necessary and he has to enter a private hospital, even for a limited period, that pensioner either has to be able to pay for the treatment out of his own pocket or he must be a member of a hospital benefits scheme and be contributing at a rate sufficient to be remunerated for the cost

Dr Forbes:

– Or he may go to a public hospital.

Mr SCHOLES:

– If the Minister had been listening he would have heard me say that his doctor considered it was necessary for him to enter a private hospital to have some type of treatment that could not be adequately provided in a public bed in a public hospital. If he goes to a public hospital and gets a public bed, quite obviously he is not getting the treatment that his doctor requires him to get. I know of one case - I have corresponded with the Minister for Health about it - in which an asthmatic patient was having considerable difficulty. His doctor advised him that he should be admitted to a private hospital and that he also should have some specialised psychiatric treatment. The cost of the treatment to this person was in excess of $90. According to the Minister’s own statements there is no way by which the Commonwealth can recompense even that part of the cost which would be equal to the cost of a public hospital bed had the man occupied it. I do not know whether a person, for economic reasons, should be required to override the dictates or recommendations of his doctor; but most definitely a pensioner must do this, because no pensioner, unless he is cheating, can afford to meet the cost of any type of treatment that is not covered by his card. I suggest that there are extremely few pensioners who could afford to contribute to a hospital benefits fund at a rate sufficient to ensure receiving benefits to cover such contingencies, rare as they may be. There are other glaring weaknesses in the present scheme which cannot be cured because of the basic requirement of the scheme that all persons shall contribute equally to it. But all people are not able to contribute equally to this scheme. It is purely a matter of dollars and cents. If a person’s income is low he will not give urgent attention to health insurance when he feels healthy and when it is necessary to make a choice between making regular payments of $1.50 a week for health insurance or buying new shoes or clothes for the children - items always being needed in any family. Things which are easily put off are put off. People happen to be human, and they do this sort of thing when they are short of money.

The problem arises when someone in the family gets sick, especially if it happens to be the breadwinner, and the family is not adequately covered by health insurance. Approximately 80% of Australian families are not adequately covered, and many are not covered at all. These people are not in a position to make contributions to a health insurance scheme, so equally they are not in a position to meet the cost of hospitalisation. So we have the dog chasing its tail. In Victoria the State Government has said that hospitals must collect 97% of their fees. So debt collectors go around trying to inveigle people into paying them money to meet hospital charges which these people just cannot afford. It is an impossible situation. It is not good.

If we are to have a national health scheme and if hospitals are to form, as they should form, the basis of health treatment in the community, then the scheme must be based on the ability of people in the community to meet such charges as may be required to provide them with the necessary treatment at any given time. A health service is not like any other form of service. When you are healthy a health service is not very costly and it is of little value - most people treat it that way, anyway - but immediately you are sick you need treatment and you should be able to obtain that treatment without fear of economic ruin or without fear that your doctor will walk up to you in the surgery and say: ‘You have not paid for the last five visits so you are not going to be treated here today’. This does happen. Unfortunately, like everyone else doctors must collect their fees. They are operating a business and they are not in a position to carry on their books large numbers of people who ow: them money.

But what happens to people who cannot afford to pay? They are the people about whom I am concerned. More importantly. I am concerned about their children. If the breadwinner in a family has a major heart attack it is possible he will be laid up for anything from 10 to 12 weeks. A constituent of mine was too sick to have visitors, but every Monday morning on his tray in hospital was the Bill for the previous week. He was in a private ward which was costing about $110 or $112 a week. He was in hospital for 9 weeks, so it cost him approximately $1,000. That is more than an av->-age working man, even if he is on a good wage, could save in 5 years. If that man is not adequately covered, if he has covered himself for insurance only to what he believes is the limit of his capacity to pay weekly, then he is in an economically disastrous position, because not only has he to pay the hospital bill but he has lost at least 10 weeks work. In addition, he is likely to lose his employment for the rest of his life because, due to the terms of workers compensation legislation and other legislation insurance companies are not prepared to cover, except at very high rates, persons who have suffered from heart attacks. So these people become unemployable; they cannot get a job because no-one will take a risk with them. So a man who has incurred extremely high hospital costs has no way of meeting them. The next thing is that his wife and children suffer.

I do not think that anyone working for wages who has been in the position of having to keep up payments to hospital benefit funds over a long period could ever say that this scheme is satisfactory. It is far from satisfactory. For instance, it does not allow hospital benefit fund reserves to be spent on improving our health services.

In my electorate, at Geelong, we have two particular institutions: Grace McKellar House, which is for aged persons, and the Geelong Hospital. Both institutions are in need of capital works. The Geelong Hospital has been there since 1923. A new structure is urgently needed. Some years ago a public appeal was held in Geelong and about $500,000 was raised in order to provide part of the cost of a new hospital, which was estimated to cost S7m. The new hospital was to have been commenced early this year. The State Government, for reasons known only to itself, now is not prepared to provide the finance. The work has been put off, but for how long it has been put off I do not know.

Last year Grace McKellar House had a rather interesting experience. It wanted to construct another 30-bed ward in order to provide care for elderly people. The Hospitals and Charities Commission decided that it would not accept a bungalow type structure. It wanted a radial ward, which was the new thing. By the time the new plans had been prepared the year’s allocation of funds had been exhausted. Consideration of the application was delayed and the ward was not constructed. There are 170 urgent cases in Geelong awaiting admission to Grace McKellar House. These people are desperately in need of geriatric treatment. But for the delay in the construction of the new ward, 30 of them would have been admitted this year. But now construction is one year behind and the Grace McKellar House’s ability to cope with requirements will always be one year behind, because of the shortage of money. If the reserve funds of the Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association were available to be invested in these two institutions, whether directly or through the Hospital and Charities Commission or some other agency, it is possible that these 170 people awaiting admission to Grace McKellar House could have been admitted. It is also possible that a good percentage of the money required to modernise an excellent hospital which is working under difficulties could have been provided.

It costs too much money to administer the present health insurance scheme. Most likely it is very easily administered from the Government’s point of view because, in the main, the responsibility for the collection and payment of moneys is not with the Government; it is with private organisations. At present it costs approximately 10% of the money collected to make the collection. The money could be collected through Commonwealth agencies - if they were as efficient as the Taxation Branch, and there is no reason why they should not be so - at a cost of approximately H% of the funds collected. The money thus saved would be available for improvement of services.

Finally, I believe that health is not a privilege and that treatment is not a privilege. They are a right in an affluent society. Every person whom we allow to be taken out of gainful employment because he is unable to afford the treatment which he requires is an economic loss to this country. Every penny spent in getting a person back to work as quickly as possible is money well spent, and the denial of dollars for this purpose is a wasteful and foolish denial.

Mr WILSON:
Stmt

– I rise to speak on the estimates for the Department of Health and to compliment the Government on the approach it has adopted towards the provision of nursing home care. One might well ask what is a nursing home, because the character and role of nursing homes have changed over the years. There was a time when our large public hospitals had many of their beds occupied by people whose ailment might be properly described as chronic. As modern medical science has helped the medical profession and the hospitals to improve the standards of their care, it has been able to reduce the time that people spend in hospitals. More and more the public hospitals have come to deal solely with cases that may be described as acute. So the burden on those institutions known as nursing homes has been increased and they have more and more had to take a greater responsibility in the care of the chronically sick. The provision for nursing homes is a proper allocation of economic resources, because there is no doubt that those people whose illness is such that it has become chronic need less of the sophisticated type of equipment, care and treatment that is available in a public general hospital.

Bearing in mind this changed concept of the role of a nursing home, we must now look at what has been undertaken by the nation in the care of the needy who are acutely sick. Pensioners have been provided with free hospital care in public hospitals and so have been relieved of the fear that arises in the event of the possibility of acute illness. But many thousands of pensioners have, in recent years, been suffering under great strain and fear in relation to what they would do in the event of their being afflicted by a chronic illness. These people are unable, with the resources available to them, from either the pension or their private resources, to provide themselves with a proper and reasonable standard of nursing home care. The introduction of the supplementary nursing home benefit recognises that more than one type of case that is cared for in nursing homes. It recognises that there is a group of patients who may be described as intensive nursing cases and who need greater attention. The cost of nursing them is accordingly that much higher. This supplementary benefit will go a long way towards relieving from the fear of chronic illness the many thousands of pensioners who were formerly fearful. We can interpret from the Budget and the ministerial speeches given in support of it that it is the purpose of the Government to provide care for people at a standard which is satisfactory and desirable, at a cost to them not greater than their resources can meet, and without leaving them dependent on relations and friends - or on charity. Therefore, I urge the Government to keep under constant review the adequacy of the nursing home benefit for intensive nursing cases.

I also ask the Government to look into the question of the adequacy of the benefit now paid for light case nursing cases to ensure that the pension and supplementary assistance can enable the provision of an adequate minimum standard of nursing care and accommodation. Without this, people suffering from chronic illness are forced to reduce their standard of living and seek accommodation in places unlicensed as nursing homes, in which they would receive care and accommodation quite unsuited to their needs. This benefit should assist in filling any gaps that may exist in the availability of nursing home beds. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of nursing home beds, which bears out the point I have made that there is a changing role for nursing homes. The number of nursing home beds available has increased at a considerably faster rate than the number of beds available in public hospitals. One of the reasons for this is the transfer to nursing homes of the responsibility for caring for the chronically sick. There is a place for the privately run nursing home. It is important, in working out an adequate nursing home benefit to supplement the pension entitlements, that it be adequate to enable these nursing homes to be run in such a way that they may provide a proper standard of care and accommodation. Many of these nursing homes are run by dedicated and devoted people and it is only right that such people should receive a proper reward for their efforts. A more realistic approach to the determination of the rates of nursing home benefit should encourage the proprietors of private nursing homes to extend the accommodation they now have, and in those cases where it is necessary, to improve the standard.

There is also a great potential for the building of further nursing homes under the Aged Persons Homes Act, and the additional benefits now to be payable should assist those organisations which have been seeking to provide this type of care for the occupants of their self contained flats and for people generally. The standard of accommodation in nursing homes varies from area to area and from home to home. Credit is due to the boards of municipalities charged with the responsibility for maintaining and raising standards. They are faced with difficult problems because, while the benefits available have been- inadequate, they have been confronted with the problem of delicensing unsatisfactory premises and forcing people who are sick and ailing, and unable to pay for a higher standard of accommodation, out into the streets or, alternatively, into low standard accommodation.

I now wish to turn to another question. Prevention is always better than cure. I believe that the Government has tackled the question of prevention. It proposes to take up with the States the provision of comprehensive home care services. This is a step which I believe will be greatly appreciated by the Australian people. It is the wish of every citizen to remain in his or her home as long as is possible, and we should give every support to those who endeavour to enable people to achieve this end. But at present there is a considerable lack of coordination between those providing these services. I hope that when the Minister is negotiating with the State governments he will bear in mind the need to provide home care through the help of social workers and almoners, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, home nursing organisations, groups that provide meals on wheels, domestic services, home help organisations, old people’s welfare groups, and pensioners leagues and associations. 1 also hope that he will ensure that the whole ambit of these ancillary services is co-ordinated and taken into account.

I emphasise particularly what I believe to be an important aspect, namely, providing and supporting health in the home campaigns. With proper education and proper advice and assistance when needed, much home nursing can be done by the ordinary citizen or by the citizen’s neighbour who is only too willing to assist if given the right encouragement, the proper advice and the information that will enable him to know the limits of his capacity to assist the ailing or sick person. This is particularly important in the large areas of flats built under the aged persons homes scheme, in which there are many people who are in good health and who would be only toohappy to help in the provision of care for their neighbours. In my own electorate there has been a great response to a programme of teaching health in the home. People are anxious to assist their neighbours now that they are equipped with the information provided to them by a very important international organisation that is sponsoring this scheme.

Therefore, 1 urge the Minister, when negotiating with the States on this matter, to recognise the need for comprehensive home care and a co-ordinated programme. T congratulate the Government on these two important steps that it is taking in the Budget - the provision of greater benefits on a different basis for the chronically sick and the recognition of the need to provide services to enable people to live in their homes, although ailing, for as long as they possibly can.

Dr PATTERSON (Dawson) LI 0.3] - I wish to speak only very briefly on the estimates for the Department of Health. I pay a tribute to the quarantine officials of the Department who 1 believe are doing an excellent quarantine job in relation to the possible introduction of exotic diseases into Australia. This subject is of paramount importance. I have always believed that the introduction into Australia of such exotic diseases as foot and mouth, blue tongue, rinderpest, rabies, and others as serious as those, would have greater economic effects on this nation than, sticking strictly to economics, the Vietnam war. I am speaking in terms of the disaster that could be caused by the introduction and spread of any one or more of these diseases in Australia.

Consequently, there is a need for the quarantine work and the work of the veterinarians in the Commonwealth and the States to step up their activities. I believe that Australia is living on borrowed time with respect to the introduction of one of these diseases. Foot and mouth disease occurs in the majority of countries, either enzootic or epizootic, as in most countries. Most countries have had one or more experience of it. I think it is close to 100 years since Australia had an experience of it. We were lucky. We were able to catch it at that time.

Although Australia adopts perhaps the most rigorous quarantine regulations in the world with respect to the introduction of exotic diseases, I believe that the money allocated by the Federal Government in respect of this problem is not enough. I admit that it is quite easy for me to stand up in Opposition and say that it is not enough, but I sincerely believe that it is not. The magnitude of this potential problem is such that the threat of the introduction of an exotic disease, such as foot and mouth, rinderpest or rabies, has to be regarded as of extreme importance. Actually we should be conducting what virtually amounts to a defence operation. We in this country would have no hesitation in spending millions of dollars if we thought a potential invader was coming.

Does anybody ever think of what might happen if a potential enemy of ours decided to fly an aircraft across northern Australia from east to west and to drop some virus. The economy of this country, in terms of its export income, would come to a standstill. If the virus were foot and mouth it would affect not only our meat products but also our woollen products, because the virus of foot and mouth can be conveyed just as easily on wool as it can on meat products. That is just an example. It might be said that it is an extreme example. But the point is that if this or any other virus of these diseases were introduced into the remote parts of northern Australia, where there are buffaloes and plenty of other wild, cloven hoofed animals which could carry this disease or these diseases, we would have a very serious problem in trying to eradicate them. Northern Australia is not like England or the United States. If foot and mouth got into Cape York Peninsula, the Top End of the Northern Territory and the east and west Kimberley areas, it would be a very difficult, if not impossible in the short term, task to eradicate it. Australia cannot afford the luxury of complacency with respect- to the potential problem posed by diseases such as these. I repeat that this country should be geared to meet the enemy, which is the enemy of disease.

No doubt the Commonwealth and State veterinary departments or departments of agriculture and stock have this problem in mind. But from my experience of the north I do not believe that it is sufficiently in mind. In the last 6 months we have seen the blatant intrusion of foreign vessels into the 12-mile limit and the 3-mile limit. We have seen some mixing of Australian and foreign ships, with people handing over prawns from one ship to another, thus infringing the law. The people who live in the north know that this is happening a lot. We have seen illegal landings on the. inside fringe of the Great Barrier Reef. We do not know what sort of cargo these foreign fishing fleets carry, in terms of provisions in the form of meat, tinned foods or whatever they might be. I am not saying that the Commonwealth and the States are not mindful of this problem. I am fully mindful of the fact that they are very conscious of the threat and the problem. What I am saying is that, in terms, of priorities, more money should be made .available to the States and to Commonwealth authorities in order to build up greater defences against the possible threat of these diseases.

It does not matter whether it costs us millions of dollars to form an army of veterinarians and quarantine officials who will rigorously patrol our northern and other coastlines. In terms of what we could lose, that would be chicken feed. Australia, with 170 million sheep, 20 million beef and dairy cattle and 2 million pigs, is the most vulnerable country in the world at the present time to the introduction of these diseases. I conclude by repeating that the activities of veterinarians and quarantine officials and the provision of facilities have to be stepped up. The type of farce that we have been having in Queensland over who will pay for incinerators in ports has to be stopped. More funds have to be devoted to this subject and more action has to be taken in preparing for the potential introduction of these diseases. I believe that we should prepare to meet and eradicate them and allot to the campaign no less a priority than if we were meeting the potential threat of an enemy invader. This is an enemy disease which, economically, could cause just as great chaos in this country as if we were being invaded because the health, wealth and* economic life blood of the country depend on export income and, to a very large degree, on our livestock production. Every person associated, either directly or indirectly, with the land knows how serious and worrying the threat of these diseases is. I think that we in Australia, although conscious of the threat, are inclined to be a little complacent. More funds and more action should be devoted to solving the problem.

Mr CALDER:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Before commencing my remarks on the estimates for the Department of Health I would like to point out that only one member of the Opposition is in the chamber. The honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson) said, very correctly, that foot and mouth and exotic diseases could be introduced, through the north, into Australia. The theme for the Northern Territory section of the Estimates this year has been an expansion of activities, detailed planning for the development of the inland hospitals at Katherine and Tennant Creek and major extensions to the Alice Springs hospital, although I must say that the plans for the Alice Springs hospital have been in the course of preparation for some years. I notice that there will be major extensions to the hospital. I thought the idea was that a new hospital would be built there. No doubt the Government’s plan is to create a complete hospital from what is there now.

Government planning with regard to health is moving forward in the Gove area. I was fortunate enough to be with the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), who is sitting at the table, when he selected the site for the establishment of a complete hospital in the Gove area. Infant health, dental, district and public nursing services and also an aerial base have been built 400 miles out of town - in the Gove Peninsula. The Government has continued the development of health services in the Northern Territory. A new dental clinic, with ten surgeries, is under construction in Darwin. At the leprosarium on East Arm a new swimming pool is being constructed to assist with hydrotherapy facilities.

When the Minister and I were at Katherine the sisters were complaining bitterly about having no quarters. I notice that provision is made for a mobile ward and sisters quarters at the Katherine hospital. A further two wards of the Darwin Hospital will be remodelled and air conditioned. This is apart from the complete new wing which was opened only last year. New laundry facilities have been installed at Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and the East Arm hospital. The sisters quarters and the professional officers quarters at Alice Springs will be air conditioned. Changes in the Northern Territory health service have been implemented, including a new district office and health centre at Alice Springs. New hospitals have been built recently at Angururgu Mission on Groote Eylandt. I visited the new hospital at Bamyili Mission only recently. The Government is to be complimented on the establishment of this hospital and for keeping up with the expansion that is taking place. I must say that we need to work very hard to keep ahead of it with the population of Darwin increasing at a rate of over 9% each year.

I notice that in the estimates this year a considerable increase is provided for in the amount appropriated for the Royal Flying Doctor Service. This organisation carries out a very essential part of the work connected with health services in the Northern Territory. The aerial medical service operated by the Department of Health itself now uses 5, 6 or probably even 7 Dove aircraft. I may be wrong as to the actual number of aircraft but last year 317,000 miles were covered by Government medical flights throughout the Territory. This is quite apart from the distance covered by the Flying Doctor Service. Patients are brought in to medical centres at Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs - not so much Darwin - by the existing airline, Con.nellan Airways Ltd which carries medical passengers as the aircraft come to town, thereby carrying them one way at far less cost to the Government than otherwise would be the case.

There are some problems connected with the Northern Territory which are ever present in a fast developing community that is so far away from the major centres of population. There is always a shortage of doctors. For instance, until recently only one medical officer has been at Tennant Creek. I think the Department was lucky enough to find a husband and wife, both of whom were medical practitioners, for Tennant Creek. But following their departure, only ne doctor is resident at Tennant Creek. It is a mining community which has outlying mines as far as 40 miles away. On one occasion - this could occur quite often - the doctor was at a mine away from the town. He. was. 500 feet to 600 feet underground carrying out an emergency operation. He was away from the hospital. Tennant Creek is a place where violent road accidents are liable to occur. In fact, almost anything can happen at any moment. So, I stress the urgency of having at. least two doctors at places like Tennant Creek.

Whilst speaking of this sort of thing, 1 move further up the road to small townships such as Elliott and Newcastle Waters. A definite shortage of nursing or medical assistance exists in areas such as these. The townships would be some 200 miles south of Katherine by air and about 250 miles north of Tennant Creek which would be the location of their nearest source of medical assistance. No medical aeroplanes are at either place at the moment. I ask the Minister to look at this matter a!50. There is a school as well as a population centre in Elliott and Newcastle Waters. Possibly a nursing sister could be sent to places such as these and, even, a mobile ambulance. I notice in the estimates that provision is made for another 6 motor vehicles to be added to the ambulance fleet, Possibly they may be used in this direction. They are most necessary anyhow.

Having dealt with the shortage of doctors, I turn to the same old problem which comes up over and over again. I refer to the shortage of dentists. Everywhere you go in the Northern Territory, possibly everywhere you go in Australia, the shortage of dentists is apparent. There is a shortage in Darwin and in Alice Springs. I think that currently a dentist could be travelling between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek. These places are definitely in need of more dental assistance. I have received a letter from a church organisation and another from the Country Women’s Association in Tennant Creek. In Alice Springs a woman waited for 6 months for dental treatment. She had to go a long way to the south for treatment. The CWA complains that there is no resident dentist in Tennant Creek.

I am not criticising the Department about this. I know it is very hard to get dentists even down here, or anywhere else. But perhaps we could provide dentists with fully equipped caravans and have them travel through the country on a kind of working holiday. We have to get dentists out into the country somehow. A dentist in private practice out there would make a fortune. I think there was at least one dentist in Darwin a few years ago, and he was doing very well. There may be two or three there at the moment, but there is no dentist in Alice Springs. Possibly we could introduce some scheme to attract dentists to enter private practice in the Northern Territory. An Opposition member mentioned today the scheme in New Zealand. We could do what they do there and employ dental therapists on a 2-year course. Such a scheme might be of some assistance. After all, people in the Northern Territory are a long way from the cities and cannot just ring up and make an appointment for dental treatment. There is also a shortage of radiologists and radiographers in the Northern Territory. This shortage is probably Australia- wide. ‘ It is very important to have people who can take and read X-rays. You cannot expect a general practitioner at, say, Katherine to be able to give a really good diagnosis from studying an X-ray. Once again, this shortage could possibly be overcome by allowing people to practise privately whilst working for the Government.

Finally, I would like to mention another most urgent problem in the Northern Territory. I have found, and other men sitting on the bench up there having to sentence people for various reasons have found, that there is no provision in the law of -the Territory for people who are slightly mentally deranged, or alcoholics or youths needing psychiatric treatment, to have the required treatment. Bad cases can be sent south, but there is only one place at the moment where such unfortunate people can go, whether they are juniors or grown up, whether they are alcoholics or are only lightly deranged. We have to send them to jail. There is no provision in the law to do anything else. I think I am backed up in this by Mr Tony Greatorex a Member of the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory, who sits on the bench. He is faced with this problem. The local judge has mentioned the same thing. I ask the Minister to look at this fairly hard. It would be of great help to us all in the Territory to have provision in the law for the treatment of the people I have mentioned. In closing, I would like to say that I realise that the Government is moving ahead in the Northern Territory and that the Minister has shown a tremendous interest. I think he is doing a great job. I think more work should be done on silicosis. It seems to me that it is necessary for a very thorough examination to be made of the ordinance regarding this disease.

Dr GIBBS:
Bowman

– My mind has been filled with many memories by the speech of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). Twenty or more years ago it was my privilege to work in the Northern Territory medical service. At that time I had very many rich and rewarding experiences. In those days the facilities and living conditions of the staff of the medical service were very primitive indeed. I pay a tribute to the enormous benefits and improvements which have accrued in the Northern Territory medical service in recent years. As my mind is filled with memoriesI want to pay a tribute to one of the men who performed wonderful service in those days, and who still does. I refer to Mr Jack Slade, a pilot for the Northern Territory medical service. In those days we flew in an old de Havilland Dragon’. Mr Slade was a consummately skilful pilot. In his long years of service he has subjected himself to many serious risks to his life.

I will relate an anecdote to indicate the sort of work that he did and perhaps still does. I was travelling along the north-south road. Apparently Mr Slade knew I was there. I was signalled in one night because a person had broken his leg at Pine Creek, a small town about 160 miles south of Darwin.

Mr Cleaver:

– And a good spot too.

Dr GIBBS:

– That may be so. That night Mr Slade landed his aircraft on the very small airstrip there, by the light of primitive flares. He assisted me to give an anaesthetic to the man with a broken leg, in the bar of the Pine Creek hotel. The fracture was reduced. Mr Slade then took off again under very dangerous and primitive conditions to fly the patient back to the Darwin Hospital for subsequent treatment. 1 want to place on record my tribute to the magnificent work that Mr Slade has done and is doing.

There is no time to make a thorough survey of the estimates for the Department of Health. 1 will focus my attention on one or two items. First I wish to state quite clearly my belief that there is no fundamental weakness in the national health scheme as it exists. There are weaknesses; serious weaknesses have appeared, but in my view, without fundamentally altering the concept, these can be corrected permanently to provide the best health service in the world. It is my belief that even now, apart from a few details which relate especially to the hospital provisions, the scheme is second to none in the world.

I believe that in this country insufficient attention is given to the problems of environmental medicine which are becoming increasingly important as our living conditions become more overcrowded. These problems are becoming very serious as new techniques are used in industry, more water is used throughout the country and the dangers of air pollution, water pollution and the contamination of foodstuffs in various ways increase. They could represent a very serious menance to health. The time is more than ripe for more attention to be given to environmental medicine. I feel very strongly that environmental medicine, public health and preventive medicine should not be the responsibilities solely, as previously, of State and local authorities. There should be an overriding Federal responsibility, because in my opinion the country has failed to take effective action to deal with a number of diseases. The most important one at the moment - the one which springs most readily to mind - is infectious hepatitis.

This disease presents a continuing problem in Australia. It is a very disabling disease and is increasing in incidence. Infectious hepatitis is a serious condition and not enough work is being done to control it. The same could be said of veneral disease. Without centralised knowledge of which diseases are occurring and where they are occurring, we are unable to take sufficiently effective action to control them. So I suggest that the control and treatment of diseases of the kind to which I have referred, which are rapidly becoming more serious, should be supervised at the Federal level.

Our bill for drugs supplied under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is increasing every year and constitutes a very heavy drain on the economy. This fact cannot be denied. There is no doubt that by the provision of these drugs we reap the benefit of shortened periods of illness or incapacity and a reduced drain on the work force. These are benefits which accrue from the use of modern drugs, which are so expensive, but nevertheless I believe that their use means that a disproportionate amount of money is drained from the Federal Treasury - money that could be spent to advantage on other aspects of health or social welfare. This is a matter that merits investigation. The cost of drugs is a serious matter in any family, particularly a family with a number of children. It can result in hardship in some cases. It Ls time that we looked at the problem of the cost of drugs - not only the cost to the nation as a whole but also the cost to the individual. This cost can be mitigated in a number of ways. Firstly, I believe that life saving and essential drugs should be made available by the Commonwealth free of charge. The doctor attending the patient would have to certify that the drugs used are essential or life saving drugs. By essential drugs I mean drugs which are necessary because of a disturbance of the metabolic functions of the body. Life saving drugs are self explanatory. There is every reason why drugs of these kinds could be made available free to patients. Their cost could be subsidised in full by the Commonwealth.

There is a large body of drugs which need not be so heavily subsidised by the Commonwealth. There could be two other categories of drugs - very important drugs and other prescribed drugs. If the Commonwealth were to subsidise important drugs to the extent of 50% of their cost and other prescribed drugs to the extent of 25% of their cost, the drain on the public purse would be much less than it is now. I recommend that these things be done, but I do not suggest that they be done without at the same time introducing a voluntary insurance scheme. I envisage any such scheme being operated by the health funds which presently provide general medical benefits. I suggest that these people could institute an insurance scheme by which the family could insure itself against the expenditure of money on very expensive drugs. 1 believe that such a scheme could be operated with a very small individual premium. I believe that the individual would amply insure himself for 10c or 15c a week and that a family, on a slightly concessional basis, could insure itself for twice this amount, that is to say 20c or 30c a week. 1 believe that it is within the competence of most families in this country to afford this amount. It is less than the cost of a packet of a cigarettes which only serves to cause a deterioration in the health of the individual smoking them. If it came to a competition between the two, they could forego less than a packet of cigarettes each week to insure themselves against what could be a serious expenditure. I envisage also - this is a matter which I hope to take up on some other occasion - that those who are unable to insure themselves because of their low economic level could receive Commonwealth assistance. Naturally pensioners would obtain their pharmaceuticals as they do now. Those not in receipt of a pension but who are reasonably indigent could have their insurance paid for them by the Federal Government. I see that my voluntarily allotted time has expired, so I propose to refer to these matters later.

Mr CLEAVER:
Swan

– Speaking on the estimates for the Department of Health at this stage gives me the opportunity first of all to refer to the form in which the Budget papers are now coming to members of the Committee. I refer with appreciation to the improvement over the years, for as 1 turn to the Health estimates tonight I find that at the back of the document known as ‘Estimates of Receipts and

Summary of Estimated Expenditure’ there is the finest index that we have ever had since I have been a member of the House. Providing, that the item that I am seeking is actually referred to by way of revenue or expenditure, it is to be found in this index. The columns indicate where I might search in any of the accompanying documents to find that which I seek, providing it is there as an expression, a heading or a vote. So in the first column the document itself is indexed. In the second column I am referred to Appropriation Bill (No. 1), which now is being used, very sensibly, not to duplicate figures which before we would find in several places. The estimates for the Consolidated Revenue Fund are now found only in the Apropriation Bill. The indexing in this way will help every member of the House. Likewise, when it comes to the special expenditure or capital expenditure covered by Appropriation Bill (No. 2), column 3 attends to this.

So I, for one, would add my word of praise to the officers of the Treasury, whose responsibility it is, primarily, to see thai we get improved documents. I think we can say also that the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, which over the years has made a contribution in this way, might have had some slight influence in getting these Estimates a little more clearly before us. Some of my colleagues have been concerned, so they tell me, about the salaries and allowances detail. So as I prepared myself for the Estimates debate tonight I checked carefully all these documents. I want to refer with appreciation to table 16 which now consolidates the salaries and allowances for all departments under their various heads. I am open to be checked on this but personally I am much more encouraged to draw from the information as it is now presented than I was before. For example, I find it helpful to have the salaries of officers of the Department of Health set out in divisions - First Division, Second division, Third Division, Fourth Divison, casual and temporary employees and allowances. These are all better presented. Furthermore in all departments, as in the Department of Health, the functional aspects of the employment of staff are cataered for for the first time. This sectional portion of Table 16 should not be passed by without comment.

In looking at the personnel of the Department of Health I notice, probably due to the addition of automatic data processing, that there has been a reduction in the personnel of the pharmaceutical benefits section. One would hope that with the introduction of automatic data processing we would see eventually, and not necessarily immediately, a reduction in the number of personnel required in the Department. This is one of the aspects of automatic data processing at which we have every right to look in the hope that it will be not only a means of improving efficiency but also of saving man power. I note the reduction of 15 in the staff of the pharmaceutical benefits section and I trust that this is related to the use of automatic data processing.

I turn now to the Appropriation Bill and I note that for the Department of Health there are several items of expenditure from Consolidated Revenue Fund that should be mentioned. Since I have been a member of the Parliament and a member of the Public Accounts Committee I have been interested in the provision of funds for national fitness. I note that there is a slight increase in the extimated expenditure for this year. This is linked of course, with the service that is supplied traditionally through the State National Fitness Councils. In the last 12 months or so emphasis has been placed on the fitness campaign. It is pleasing to note the helpful publicity that has been given to the fitness campaign. More and more people are jogging, attending to daily exercises or watching their diet. In some indirect way, if not directly, we hope that the national fitness campaign will bring about an improvement in the health, longevity and activity of many people throughout the Commonwealth, f do not think that $1 of this particular vote will be wasted in any way.

Provision is made for grants in aid to the Lady Gowrie child centres. I hope - and I have said this to the Minister before - that money spent so long ago to place Lady Gowrie child centres in every capital city is not looked upon as the last expenditure under this particular head. The centre in my electorate - and it is the centre that represents the contribution by the Commonwealth to Western Australia - needs to be reconstructed. It is in an ideal situation.

When it was built it was an admirable structure but while it has been reasonably maintained it would be far better if it were rebuilt along modern lines. I hope that these grants in aid might be increased substantially in the future.

At a later date the Public Accounts Committee will present a report dealing with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Tt will, I trust, have a definite impact on the contributions to that organisation. These contributions appear in the Estimates in two forms - payments under section 8 of that statutory authority’s Act and also an advance for research under section 19. Tonight is not the opportune time for me to speak in detail on this subject but I hope that when the comprehensive report is presented it will receive from the Department the consideration that is due to it. Let us hope that we might see quite a transformation in the way of financing this important statutory authority. In the estimates of receipts appearing on page 9 of the document is an item that I feel is worthy of comment, for in the House only this week the Minister for . the Interior (Mr Nixon) was talking about residents of the Australian Capital Territory being not unduly subsidised. I think it is worthwhile to note that the revenue from health services under the Department of Health’ is down mis year by some $41,000. One would think that with the increased services and the increased population in the ACT it would be reasonable to expect the revenue received by the Department of Health to be not reduced but rather to be the’ reverse. I draw attention to this and hope that it does not raise a point which would contradict the Minister for the Interior.

I note that in my own State and in one other State there was an unfortunate reversal in the decline in the reporting of tuberculosis. I and, I believe, all members of the community would justify the increased provision to be made in this regard. I may have an opportunity later to refer further to this matter. The estimates also attracted my attention when I saw that grants to the States in respect of mental health institutions were up by $1.3m. Some States, in the early stages of the Commonwealth contribution, did not draw fully the amounts of money allocated to them. I hope that this is being reversed and I for one would firmly support this provision of an extra $1.3m.

The figure for nursing home benefits to which my colleague the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson) referred earlier tonight is up by $6m. This, I imagine, reflects the very generous increase in the per patient per day allowance which was announced by the Minister in his speech in relation to the Budget announcement and also in his rather comprehensive Press release of 14th August. In all, the provision for health benefits is up by some $23m in special appropriations alone and this, I think, is a matter for commendation of the. . Government.

In the time that remains, let me refer quickly to my appreciation of the statement in relation to nursing homes wherein the Minister said that as the intensive care supplementary assistance is provided the benefit will rise from $2 per patient per day in nursing homes to $5 per patient per day where intensive care can be established. He said that this will have an influence in raising ‘ standards and it is on that point that I want to make a special plea.

I ask the Minister and the officers of -, the Department to try to establish a clear statement of these standards, because I feel , that private enterprise, quite correctly, expects a government to define clearly its requirements. I believe that architects, administrators and matrons of these special nursing homes deplore the arbitrary inspections by officers, the delayed issue of licences, and anything that falls into this category. I believe that a government owes it to those, people who are trying to establish, something that is first class to have a clearly defined standard, so that it is a matter of reaching that standard and knowing then that the authority to operate should follow automatically. I would hope that predetermined standards, therefore, will receive the attention of all concerned. When, some months ago, we supported the Government when the provision of hearing aids for pensioners was introduced, some of us were very keen to know just how the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories finance was actually presented in the Estimates. So on this occasion I turned to the revenue items, and in this excellent index which I have mentioned I could find no reference at all to the Commonwealth Acoustic Laboratories. I can only assume that the revenue received by the Department from the SIO hiring charge for each hearing aid supplied to a pensioner would be reflected in the miscellaneous item of some $210,000 that is shown in the Estimates. I should like that to be confirmed.

Regarding expenditure, I can only assume that, again, the cost of the Acoustic Laboratories may be found under the miscellaneous heading which is not less than $4. 73m. But there is no presentation of this to the Committee or to the Parliament, and this 1 deplore, particularly when interest was demonstrated to the Minister and to the officials of his Department. We showed that we were particularly keen to know what is to be the cost under a scheme which many people might call a socialised scheme of providing hearing aids for these needy people. In the 3 months ended 30th June 1,190 pensioners were tested and 978 were issued with hearing aids. I am anxious to know where I can find the cost of this service. I believe that there should be an indication of the cost of a -test, as well as of the average cost of. the hearing aid supplied. I hope that having indicated an interest in this direction previously, and having pointed out that this Parliament is entitled to know what a new scheme is to cost, the presentation of these figures may be improved on the next occasion.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– I thank honourable members for their contributions to this debate and, as the hour is late, say to them simply that I will give- the most earnest attention to the constructive suggestions which they have made.

Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.S4 p.m.

page 1338

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Education: Teachers and Teacher Training (Question No. 278)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How long are the courses of teacher training in each State and Territory?
  2. Which States have established or propose to establish Boards of Teachers Education?
  3. Can he say how many (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers (i) joined and (ii) left Government schools in each State and Territory since the Martin Report?
  4. Can he also say bowmany (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers (i) were teaching in Government schools in the years1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967 and (ii) are estimated to be available in Government schools in each’ subsequent year up to and including. 1975?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: 1. (a) The duration of teacher training courses varies from State to State and according to the nature of the course undertaken. I understand that the position is as follows:

page 1338

NEW SOUTH WALES

page 1338

VICTORIA

page 1338

QUEENSLAND

page 1338

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

page 1338

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

page 1339

TASMANIA

Source: State Departments of Education.

Australian Military Forces in Malaysia (Question No. 369)

Mr O’Connor:
DALLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice:

  1. What is the total monetary cost of maintaining our military forces in Malaysia?
  2. What is the current annual cost?
Mr Fairhall:
Minister for Defence · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

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

  1. The total monetary cost of maintaining our military forces in Malaysia to 30th June 1968 is:
  1. The estimated cost for 1968-69 is:

The capital costs are for works services for the RAAF at Butterworth and Penang and for the Army at Terendak. The maintenance costs are the excess over normal costs that would be incurred if the Forces were operating in Australia.

Universities: Research Contracts (Question No. 395)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Do any Australian universities have research contracts with (a) Commonwealth departments or authorities, (b) State governments or authorities, (c) overseas governmentsor (d) companies?
  2. If so, what was the date of any such contract and the subject of the research?
  3. Has the result of any such research been published and in what circumstances is a university free to publish it?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

My Department has embarked on the very onerous task of collecting information about the many and varied circumstances in which research activities are supported in Australia. However at present I am not in a position to provide details in the form requested by the honourable member.

Education (Question No. 434)

Mr Hayden:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Is he able to say what is the percentage of the total number of (a) males, (b) females and (c) males and females, in the 15 year to 19 year age group who receive full-time education in Australia, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, West Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Yugoslavia?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Some years ago an international body, the Organisation for Economic. Co-operation and Development (O.E.C.D.), obtained by means of a surveysome statistics which showed the percentage of the 15-19 years age-group engaged in full-time education about the year 1958 in those countries to which the honourable member refers, other . than Australia. These percentage figures were as follows:

No male, female division was provided. The authors of this study pointed out at the time that the figures were not always strictly comparable between countries, and that students in some countries who appear as full-time students may be counted as part-time students in other countries and vice versa.

In 1962 Professor P. H. Karmel, then Professor of Economics at the University of Adelaide, attempted to compile an Australian figure for 1958 which could be ranked with these O.E.C.D. statistics. Using school and university enrolments, be arrived at a figure of 20.3% for Australia. But this, of course, excludes all full-time tertiary students other than those at universities, among them teacher trainees, diploma students at technical institutions, and tertiary students in a. wide variety of optometry, theology, art, music, agriculture and other courses, as well as full-time students in technician and trade courses, accountancy and business college students and nursing trainees. These people are not drop-outs from the Australian system of education and their omission seriously affects the validity of this Australian figure. Another factor is that statistics such as these show nothing of the long-established Australian practice of parttime further education.

A basic difficulty in obtaining statistical data about a certain age-group is that, while the ages of students enrolled at schools and universities are recorded and published, this is. not the general practice in respect of students in the other tertiary areas.

My Department estimates that the number of full-time students aged 15 to 19 years who are studying in schools, universities, teachers colleges and colleges of advanced education represents about 36% of all the 15 to 19 year olds in the Australian population, or something like 40% of the boys and one third of the girls. In addition, there is an unknown number of full-time students of this age group in the other kinds of study and training I have mentioned.

No later O.E.C.D. figures for the other countries have come to my notice and these are not . among the statistics which are published regularly by other international organisations such as Unesco.

Tertiary Education (Question No. 435)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Is he able to say what percentage of the total number of adult- (a) males, (b) females and (c) males and females have (i) received and (ii) are undergoing tertiary education in Australia, the United Stales of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, West Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark and Yugoslavia?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

The 1966 Census of the Australian population showed that 215,371 males and 171,711 females possessed a tertiary qualification. The great majority of these people would be adults and these figures represent 6.24% and 3.38% respectively of adult males and adult females, and 4.81% of all adults.

I am not aware of any similar statistics for the other countries mentioned.

As for the number of adults undergoing tertiary education, this information is publicly available on an Australia-wide basis for universities only, and to the best of my knowledge is not readilyavailable for the other countries in question.

Students aged 21 years or older at Australian universities in 1967 represented 0.7% of all Australian adults.

It is proposed to collect information of this sort for colleges of advanced education also.

Education: Grants to States (Question No. 437)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Will the Government consider making emergency grants to the State governments so that those governments may make increased allocations necessary to meet the immediate needs of their education systems?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

The Commonwealth pays each year to the States greatly increasing general financial assistance grants, which are an important source of revenue for State expenditure on education. In addition the Commonwealth makes available for special education purposes in each State amounts which have grown more than threefold in recent years. The Commonwealth will continue giving such assistance to the extent allowed by Commonwealth financial resources and by the many competing demands on those resources.

Education Administration Courses (Question No. 439)

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Will his Government provide the necessary finance for scholarships which would admit educational administrators, inspectors, heads of schools and colleges, and intending heads of schools and colleges to education administration courses?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

Ana’ sis of the particular needs for further study of the categories of senior persons mentioned by the honourable member and of the provision for such study already available to them suggests that the awarding of scholarships for this purpose is neither necessary nor altogether appropriate.

Education (Question No. 440)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Will the Government institute, as a matter of priority and national need in education, research leading to the production of a report on the need for education concerning the totality of relationships between the sexes?

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

State education authorities have shown themselves aware of education requirements in the matter of relationships between the sexes, and are not lacking in advice from within their respective .Education departments and their other social and welfare services. The Commonwealth does not see the need therefore to initiate an inquiry of the kind suggested.

Commonwealth Superior Court (Question No. 567)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

What progress has been made in establishing the new Commonwealth Superior Court since his statement on 18th May 1967?

Mr Bowen:
LP

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

A draft Bill for an Act setting up the Commonwealth Superior Court’ is in course of preparation. Every endeavour will be made to have the Bill ready for introduction in this session. If this proves practicable, it may be found necessary to let the Bill then stand over until the next session, to give interested bodies and persons opportunity to consider, and make representations concerning, the provisions of the Bill. At an appropriate stage it will be necessary to introduce quite a number of other Bills to amend particular provisions vesting jurisdiction in Federal Courts.

Department of Supply: Director of Antarctic Division (Question No. 586)

Mr Whitlam:

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

For how long and for what reason has the position of director of the Antarctic Division been left vacant?

Mr Fairhall:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has provided the following information:

The position of Director, Antarctic Division, became permanently vacant on 1.8th May 1966 when Dr P. G. Law resigned. At that lime consideration was being given as to whether the Division was appropriately placed with the Department of External Affairs because of the scientific and technological nature of the function undertaken by the Division. Subsequently, the decision was taken to transfer the Division to my Department as from 1st May 1968 and my Department is at present analysing the future activities and organisation structure required. Until this task has been finalised, it is not desirable to fill the position of Director on a permanent basis. It has been occupied on an acting basis, of course, since Dr Law resigned.

Flags for Schools (Question No. 605)

Mr Daly:

asked the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many Australian national flags have been presented to date to (a) schools and (b) youth organisations in (i) each State and (ii) Australia?
  2. What was the total cost?
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

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

As part of the Commonwealth Jubilee celebrations in 1951, the Commonwealth provided each Australian school with an Australian National Flag. Subsequently provision was made to provide flags for new schools and, more recently, arrangements were made to present flags to new schools, to replace flags which had been presented to schools and which had become unserviceable, and also to provide flags for youth organisations.

The detailed records in relation to distribution of flags to schools and youth organisations have been maintained only since 1963.

The numbers of Australian National Flags presented from 1963 to dale to schools and youth organisations is set out below:

Apart from the Jubilee issue in 1951, for which separate records in respect of each flag expenditure are not available, the expenditure on flags from 1st July 1952 to 30th June 1962 amounted to $22,510.

From 1st July 1962 to 30th June 1968 expenditure on flags has been $95,517. Of this amount $29,111 have been expended on flags for distribution in the Northern Territory and Australian External Territories, $62,481 has been spent on flags for distributionto schools and youth organisations, and flags to the value of $3,925 are held in stock.

Civil Aviation: Pilot Retrenchment (Question No. 607)

Mr Devine:

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. What number of pilots has been retrenched by (a) Trans-Australia Airlines; and (b) AnsettANA in the past six months?
  2. What was the reason for any retrenchment?
Mr Swartz:
Minister for Civil Aviation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

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

No pilot retrenchments have been effected by either Trans-Australia Airlines or Ansett-ANA in the past six months.

Security Council (Question No. 629)

Mr Killen:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

Is he able to say whether, if a member of the Security Council makes a reference of a dispute or situation to the Security Council under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations, that that country is prevented by Article 27 of the Charter from voting in the Security Council on the dispute or situation?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

Article 27 of the Charter of the United Nations reads as follows:

  1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
  2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
  3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of seven members including the concurring votes of the permanent members, provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

International Court of Justice (Question No. 652)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Is it a fact that Article 38’ of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides inter alia that the Court shall apply the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

Yes. Article 38 states that the Court shall apply inter alia ‘the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations’.

Training of Tanzanian Army (Question No. 700)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has he received reports concerning the training of the Tanzanian Army?
  2. If so, will he make , them public?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s question’s are as follows:

  1. My Department has received from the Australian High Commission at Dar-es-Salaam the reports a diplomatic mission would normally send on such a subject.
  2. These reports are classified documents.

Australian Delegation to Rhodesia (Question No. 728)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Government given any consideration to sending an all-party delegation to Rhodesia? If not, why not?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

It is not considered that this would be an appropriate time for a delegation to visit Rhodesia.

Rhodesia (Question No. 734)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

Has he made any inquiries as to the basis on which the Nigerian editor-in-chief of the Lagos Daily Times, Mr Enahoro, asserted in 1966 that the overseas picture of Rhodesia as a grim, tense police state was a massive fraud?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

The Government has kept itself informed on the situation in Rhodesia, and has not made inquiries specifically directed to the statement referred to by the honourable member.

Financial Aid to Indonesia (Question No. 7S3)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Which countries have contributed financial aid to Indonesia last year and this?
  2. What has been the amount and form of the aid which each has contributed?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are shown in the following two tables:

War Service Homes (Question No. 420)

Mr Whitlam:

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

  1. Now that the applications to the War Service Homes Division by returned servicemen are declining, has consideration been given to making the facilities and skills of the Division available to other persons within the Commonwealth’s constitutional responsibility, such as (a) migrants, (b) recipients of social service benefits, (c) residents of the territories, (d) employees on Commonwealth projects, (e) public servants and (f) serving members of the forces?
  2. If so, on what dates and with what results?
Mr Bury:
LP

– The Minister for Housing has supplied the following answer to the honourable member’s questions:

The War Service Homes Division (previously the War Service Homes Commission) was an organisation specially set up to provide homes for eligible ex-servicemen and women under the War Service Homes Act However, upon the establishment of the Commonwealth Department of Housing the staff of the War Service Homes Division was integrated into the Department of Housing and is now employed, as necessary, in discharging the total range of Departmental functions and responsibilities. Although the number of applications for assistance under the War Service Homes Scheme is declining the number of new loans granted continues to exceed the number of discharges of liability and as loans are granted for periods up to SO years there will be a substantial staffing requirement for the administration of the Scheme, for a considerable number of years to some.

Shipping (Question No. 529)

Mr Hansen:

asked the Minister for Ship ping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. How many ships are under construction or on order (a) in Australia and (b) overseas for the Australian National Line and other Australian owners?
  2. What is the tonnage of these ships?
  3. Who are the builders?
  4. When did the Government approve the orders?
  5. What is the estimated date of completion in each case?
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The . answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

The following is a list of vessels under construction or on order, through the Australian Shipbuilding Board, in Australian yards for Australian owners:

In addition to the above twenty-six vessels a number of smaller vessels are also under construction at various yards in Australia. To my knowledge only one trading vessel at present is on order or under construction overseas for an Australian owner. This is an 1 1,000 dwt roll-on/roll-off vessel for the Australian National Line which is under construction at Kawasaki Dockyard, Japan. It is due to be completed in August 1969. Approval to purchase this vessel was given on 15 April 1968.

Rhodesia (Question No. 625)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Who was the last Australian Minister to visit Rhodesia?
  2. When was the visit made and for what duration?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. To the best of my knowledge, no Federal Minister has visited Rhodesia during the last ten years. Australian diplomatic respesentatives in South Africa frequently visited it until the unilateral declaration of independence.
  2. See above.

International Law (Question No. 631)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External.

Affairs, upon notice:

What criteria does the Government use to determine the existence of a State in international law?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

The question of the presence of the normal requirements of statehood would be examined. However, recognition, as the sovereign act. by which the existence of a State at international law is acknowledged, is finally a matter for decision by the Government in each particular case.

Rhodesia (Question No. 632)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

Does the Government regard Rhodesia as a State in international law?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

No.

Rhodesia (Question No. 633)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

If the Government does not regard Rhodesia as a State in international law, does this mean that the Government regards Rhodesia as a territory under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

The view of the Government is that the basic responsibility constitutionally for Rhodesia rests with the United Kingdom.

International Court of Justice (Question No. 653)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does the Australian Government qualify in any way the provisions of Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice?
  2. If so, in what respect?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable members questions are as follows:

  1. Australia has not registered any reservation to Article 38.
  2. See answer to 1 above.

Audi Alteram Partem Rule (Question No. 654)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government as a signatory to the Statute of the International Court of Justice contend that the audi alteram partem rule is a general principle of law in Australia?
  2. If not, why not?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable members questions are as follows:

  1. The audi alteram partem rule is recognised by Australian legal systems and in that sense it is a general principle of law in Australia. But in any particular case the question has to be established who is a party.
  2. See answer to 1 above.

Audi Alteram Partem Rule (Question No. 655)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does the Government consider that, in the settlement of international disputes, the audi alteram partem rule should be rejected?
  2. If so, why?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. No. See also the answer to Question No. 654.
  2. See answer to 1 above.

Rhodesia: Executions (Question No. 675)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say if any executions were carried out in Rhodesia this year?
  2. If so, can he say if the executions related to murders perpetrated with a petrol bomb and with a tomahawk?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s question are as follows:

  1. Yes. Three persons were hanged on 6th March 1968 and two more were hanged on 11th March 1968.
  2. Two of those hanged on 6th March had been convicted of killing a white farmer with a petrol bomb, and the third had been convicted of the murder of a tribal chief. Their sentence had been commuted by Her Majesty the Queen to life imprisonment, but the Rhodesian authorities nevertheless executed them. The two hanged on 11th March had been condemned for the murder of a sub-chief.

Burundi: Executions (Question No. 677)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External .Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say if thirty-four people were executed in Bujumbura Burundi in October 1965?
  2. If so, can he say what crimes were committed by those executed, and is he aware of any Security Council resolution in relation to the executions?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s question are as follows:

  1. Yes. Thirty-four persons were executed in Bujumbura Burundi in October 1965.
  2. The persons executed were staled to be implicated in an abortive coup designed to overthrow the dynasty and form a republic. The Mwami (King) escaped but the Prime Minister was seriously wounded in an attempted assassination. The Security Council did not take the matter under consideration.

Congo: Executions (Question No. 679)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for Exter.Affairs, upon notice: .1. Is he able to say if four former Cabinet Ministers were hanged in the main square of Leopoldville in the Congo on 2nd June 1966?

  1. If so, can he confirm whether President Mobutu declared 2nd June 1966 a public holiday to mark the hangings and whether a military court took 90 minutes to try those sentenced to death?
  2. Can he say what crimes were alleged to have been committed by those executed?
  3. Is he aware of any Security Council resolution in relation to the executions?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Those executed were alleged to have been plotting to kill the President and government leaders and to overthrow the military regime of President Mobutu.
  4. The Security Council did not consider any question relating to these executions.

Security Council: Executions (Question No. 680)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say if nine people were executed in the Soviet Union on 4th May 1964 for ‘economic crimes’?
  2. Is he aware of any Security Council resolution in relation to the executions?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. 1 have no reliable information on the alleged executions to which the honourable member refers. In 1961 the death sentence was extended to cover certain economic crimes. According to reports in the Russian press, more than 140 death sentences for such crimes have been passed since then. However, no announcements have been made that the sentences were actually carried out.
  2. The Security Council has not considered any question relating to executions by the Soviet Union for economic crimes.

Rwanda and Burundi (Question No. 686)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What reports has he received concerning fighting between Rwanda and Burundi?
  2. When did the fighting commence and how many casualties have occurred?
  3. Is he aware of any determination made by the Security Council that the situation between Rwanda and Burundi is (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  4. Has the Australian Government concluded that the situation between Rwanda and Burundi is (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  5. Has any member of the United Nations called for the application of sanctions in respect of Rwanda and Burundi?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. I have received reports from the Australian High Commission at Dar-es-Salaam of fighting between Rwanda and Burundi. It followed the incursions of political refugees entering their country of origin from their country of refuse.
  2. First reports of these clashes date from December 1963. Estimates of casualties vary within the wide limits of 2,000 and 18,000. The most reliable is probably 12,000.
  3. The Security Council has not made any determination regarding the situation between Rwanda and Burundi.
  4. No.
  5. No

Security Council: Chad (Question No. 687)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he say if fighting has broken out this year in Chad? If so, what are the estimates, of casualties.
  2. Has the Security Council made a determination that the situation- in Chad is (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  3. Has the Australian Government concluded that the situation in Chad is (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  4. Has any member of the United Nations called for the application of sanctions in respect of Chad?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourmember’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes. No reports have been issued regarding casualties.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. No.

Security Council: Congo (Question No. 688)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say if, on or about 30th August 1968, members of the Congo Brazzaville Army crossed into Congo Kinshasa and attacked members of a Youth League killing approximately 300 young boys?
  2. Has the Security Council made a determination that the situation in Congo Kinshasa is (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  3. Has the Australian Government concluded that the situation in Congo Kinshasa is (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  4. Has any member of the United Nations called for the application of sanctions in respect of Congo Kinshasa?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. The incident to which the honourable member refers was a conflict between the Army and elements of the Cuban-trained Youth League within

Congo (Brazzaville) itself. There was no conflict between Congo (Brazzaville) and Congo (Kinshasa). The press reported at the time that there were about 300 killed.

  1. No.
  2. No.
  3. No.

Tanzania (Question No. 698)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

What reports have reached him since 1967 concerning the number of Chinese Communists entering Tanzania?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

Specialists and technicians provided by Communist China have, at the request of the Government of Tanzania, been present. in Tanzania in a’ variety of capacities. At the end of 1967 the total number in Tanzania was about 700. Since then about 300 Chinese have entered in connection with the construction of the Tanzam Railway.

Missile Sites in Tanzania (Question No. 702)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice: “

  1. Has. he any information - concerning the installation of missile sites in Tanzania by Communist Chinese technicians?
  2. If so, what is that information?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. The claim that a Communist Chinese missile complex had been installed in .Tanzania appears to have originated in an article published in a London Sunday newspaper in February 1968. The Australian Government has’ received no information which would substantiate this report.
  2. See answer to 1 above.

Zanzibar (Question No. 704) - Mr Killen asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Does he have any information concerning rioting in Zanzibar following -independence?
  2. Ii so, what is the information concerning the number of casualties?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. Zanzibar became independent in December 1963. In January 1964 the new government, which bad a strong Arab basis, was overthrown, and a People’s Republic was proclaimed. The brief revolt was accompanied by disturbances. Subsequently Zanzibar became part of Tanzania.
  2. In 1964 a number of Arab residents in Zanzibar were killed, estimates ranging from 1,000 to 6,000.

Zanzibar (Question No. 706)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

Did any reports reach him in 1964 concerning the killing of Arab Zanzibaris in Zanzibar? If so, what were the estimates of deaths made in the reports?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

See the answer to Question No. 704.

Tanzania and Zambia (Question No. 709)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

Is he able to say whether terrorists are trained in Tanzania and Zambia and, equipped with Soviet and Communist Chinese arms, have crossed into Rhodesian territory?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

In the last 18 months, there have been a number of incursions into Rhodesian territory by bands of armed guerillas entering from Zambia. Contradictory statements have been made about the origin and training of these guerillas and the source of arms supply and we do not have independent information that would enable us to confirm or deny the allegations implicit in the question.

Security Council : Zambia (Question No. 710)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he say if the Security. Council determined that the situation in Zambia in 1964 was (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  2. Did the Australian Government conclude in 1964 that the situation in Zambia was (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  3. Did any member of the United Nations call for the application of sanctions in respect to Zambia?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. The Security Council did not in 1964 consider the situation in Zambia.
  2. No.
  3. No.

Security Council : Central African Republic (Question No. 713)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say if there was any military conflict in the Central African Republic in 1966? If so, can he say what casualties occurred?
  2. Can he say if the Security Council in 1966 determined that the situation in the Central African republic was (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  3. Did the Australian Government in 1966 conclude that the situation in the Central African Republic was (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of agression?
  4. Did any member of the United Nations call for the application of sanctions to the Central African Republic?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. In January 1966 there was a military coup d’etat in the Central African Republic when President Dacko’s Government and the Assembly were dismissed and a mixed military-civilian Government was established. Casualties which were accidental were estimated to be less than ten.
  2. The Security Council did not consider any question related to the Central African Republic in 1966.
  3. No.
  4. No.

Security Council: Cameroun (Question No. 716)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say if there was any military conflict in Cameroun in 1964? If so, can he soy what casualties occurred?
  2. Can he say if the Security Council in 1964 determined that the situation in Cameroun was (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  3. Did the Australian Government in 1964 conclude that the situation in Cameroun was (a) a threat to the peace, (b) a breach of the peace or (c) an act of aggression?
  4. Did any member of the United Nations call for the application of sanctions in respect of Cameroun?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as (follows:

  1. During 1964 there was a lot of terrorism in the Bamileke area and there were some incidents associated with the elections in April. I have no information on the number of casualties.
  2. The Security Council did not consider any question related to Cameroun in 1964.
  3. No.
  4. No.

Kenya (Question No. 718)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was his. attention drawn to a statement in December 1966 by Dr Mungai, the Defence

Minister of Kenya, that the civilian death-roll in the north eastern region of Kenya caused by terrorists was well over 5,500 including men, women and children?

  1. If so, did he instruct Australia’s representatives at the United Nations to protest at the appalling loss of life?
  2. Is he aware of any action taken by the United Nations on Dr Mungai’s statement?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. Dr Mungai made a statement on the subject on 1st December 1966, but it did not contain any details of casualties. A statement by Dr Munga on 20th April 1967 gave figures for civilian casualties since the beginning of the conflict in November 1963 as SOO killed, 300 wounded and about 150 abducted.
  2. No.
  3. No.

Africa: Heads of Government (Question No. 719)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he say how many (a) heads of government and (b) governments have been removed from office in Africa in the last 10 years by means other than elections?
  2. What were the countries concerned, who were the heads of government, and what were the means of removal employed?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows: 1. (a) Twenty-three, apart from resignations and deaths by accident or natural causes; (b) Twentyone.

  1. Sudan - In November 1958 Prime Minister

Abdullah Khalil was overthrown by a military coup led by Lieutenant-General Ibrahim Abboud, Commander-in-Chief of the Sudan Army. Abboud’s regime collapsed in 1964 on surrendering power after popular demonstrations.

Central African Republic- In January 1966 President Dacko was seized in a military coup d’etat. A new government was formed by Colonel Bokassa.

Congo (Kinshasa)- In i960 there was a general collapse in central authority which led to Lumumba’s downfall. In October 1965 the Congolese government led by Moise Tshombe was dismissed by President Kasavubu. M. Evariste Kimba was charged with the formation of a ‘Government of National Union’. In November 1965, an Army Corps led by the CommanderinChief of the Congolese Army, General Joseph Mobutu, deposed President Kasavubu in a bloodless coup and assumed the powers of Head of State.

Burundi - Prince Louis Rwagasore. Prime Minister of Urundi, was assassinated in October 1961. In January 1965 the Prime Minister, M. Ngendandumwe, was assassinated 9 hours after forming a new government

Togo - In January 1963 President Olympic was assassinated in an Army coup d’etat. In January 1966 President Grunitsky of Togo was deposed in a bloodless coup by armed forces led by Colonel Eyadema

Dahomey - In October 1963 President Maga resigned following demonstrations. A provisional government under Colonel Soglo was formed, later replaced by a civilian government. In November 1965 the Chief of Staff of the Dahomey Army, General Christophe Soglo, deposed President Apithy and the Prime Minister, M. Ahomadegbe and called on the President of the National Assembly, M. Congacou Tahirou, to form a government. In December 1967 President Soglo was deposed by a military coup and the new leader was Major Koundcte.

Zanzibar - A revolution in January 1964 brought about the overthrow of the Sultan and his government. A republican regime was formed with Sheikh Abeid Karume as President.

Gabon - In February 1964 a coup d’etat temporarily deposed President Mba. The situation was reversed when French troops came to his aid.

Sierra Leone - In March 1967 a military coup arrested the . Prime Minister, Sir Albert Margai, and the leader of the opposition, Mr Stevens, and the Army Commander, Brigadier Lansa. A military regime was formed under Colonel Andrew Juxon-Smith In April 1968 the military government was overthrown by a mutiny of noncommissioned officers and other ranks.

Uganda- In February 1966 the Prime Minister, Milton Obote, dissolved Cabinet and give himself supreme powers.

Algeria - In June 1965 Mr Ben Bella was overthrown by Colonel Houari Boumedienne in a military coup.

Upper Volta - In January 1966 President Yameogo was deposed in a military coup d’etat. A new government was formed by Lieutenant-Colonel Lamizana

Nigeria- In January 1966 Sir Ababakar Tafawa Balewa was killed in an attempted coup d’etat. In July 1966 Northern Army officers took control of government except in the Ibo-dominated Eastern Nigeria. LieutenantColonel Yakubu Gowon took over as Head of the Federal Military Government.

Ghana - In February 1966 President Nkrumah was overthrown in a military coup.

African States (Question No. 720)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

What countries in Africa does the Australian Government regard as being one-party States?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

Any classification of countries as ‘one-party States’ would be open to dispute, because it would depend on such things as the form of government, the role of political parties, and the definition of party. For the same reasons, the significance of any such arbitrary classification would be open to dispute.

Ethiopia (Question No. 721)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say if the constitutional adviser to the Emperor Haile Selassie is a Mr D. Paradis?
  2. If so, has his attention been drawn to a statement made by Mr Paradis in 1965 that the constitutional position in Ethiopia was moving towards the position which obtained in England under the Tu dors?
  3. Is he aware of any statement made this year by Mr Paradis on the constitutional position of Ethiopia?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. Mr Don Paradis is employed in the office of the Prime Minister of Ethiopia. He does not have the title of constitutional adviser to the Emperor.
  2. I am not aware of any published statement by Mr Paradis on the constitutional position of Ethiopia.
  3. No.

Rhodesia (Question No. 726)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Was the statement of the Council of Chiefs in Rhodesia,issued in November 1966, in relation to the British Government’s attitude towards Rhodesia, drawn to the attention of the Government?
  2. If so, did the Australian Government consider the view offered by the Chiefs that they did not accept the claim by the British Prime Minister that he had continuing responsibility and authority for and over their people?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

– The answerto the honourable member’s questions is as follows:

This statement has been considered and taken into account during the formulation of Government policy on Rhodesian questions.

United Nations (Question No. 729)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What members of the United Nations arc in arrears in payment of their financial contributions to the United Nations?
  2. How many of these nations have voted in the General Assembly since being in arrears with their financial contributions?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. In answering this question 1 define ‘arrcars’ to cover the provisions of Article 19 of the Charier, which says that a member which is in arrears in the payment of its financial contributions to the Organisation shall have no vote in the General Assembly if the amount of its arrears equals or exceeds the amount of the contributions due from it for the preceding two full years. As at 17th September 1968, Haiti and the Dominican Republic were considered to be in arrears for such an amount.
  2. Haiti and the Dominican Republic have not voted in the General Assembly since being in arrears to the extent indicated in paragraph1.

Australian Administration of Papua and New Guinea (Question No. 732)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

What members of the United Nations have criticised Australian administration in Papua and New Guinea?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, various bodies are required to consider or scrutinise matters falling within the Chapters of the Charter dealing with non-self -governing and trust territories. Some of this criticism is helpful and constructive, but some is hostile. In recent years representatives of the Soviet Union, Bulgaria. Poland, Tanzania, Liberia, Ethiopia, Zambia, Guinea, Ghana, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, the United Arab Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Republic of China, India and Yugoslavia have expressly criticised certain aspects of Australian administration of the Territory. But not all of the criticism should be regarded as hostile. The Australian Government has always been willing to deal with criticism on its merits, and it has effectively met the critical comments of other representatives.

Rhodesia (Question No. 735)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External

Affairs, upon notice:

Can he say how many Africans from Malawi are working in Rhodesia?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

There are approximately 140,000 Africans from Malawi (other than persons of European or Asian origin) working in Rhodesia.

Movements of British Warships (Question No. 737)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Can he say how many British warships have, in the last two years, been stationed off the Port of mli/.

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

It would not be proper for me to divulge any information 1 may have regarding the movements of the military forces of a friendly nation.

International Conventions (Question No. 382)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice: 1. (a) To what conventions drafted or reviewed at international conferences at which Australia was represented since his answer to me on 3rd October 1967 (Hansard, page 1631) could Australia become a party, (b) Where, when and under what auspices were the conventions drafted or reviewed, (c) Which were supported and which were opposed by Australia, (d) Which have entered into force, (e) To which has Australia already (i) become a party and (ii) decided not to become a party?

  1. What further developments have taken place in relation to the conventions referred to in my questions which he answered on 12th October 1965 (Hansard, page 1722), 27th October 1966 (Hansard, page 2366) and 3rd October 1967 (Hansard, page 1631)?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e). The following conventions were drafted or reviewed at conferences at which Australia was represented:

    1. Geneva (1967) Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

This Protocol was drawn up at the 1964- 1967 Trade Conference (Kennedy Round) at Geneva …- was adopted on 30th June 1967. Australia supported the adoption of the Protocol and has become a party to it by signature. The Protocol entered into force on 1st January 1968.

  1. Fourth Proces Verbal extending the Declaration on the Provisional Accession of Tunisia to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

This Proces Verbal was drawn up at the Twenty-fourth Session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on 14th November 1967. Australia supported the adoption of the Proces Verbal and has become a party to it by signature. The Proces Verbal entered into force on 18th December 1967.

  1. Third Proces Verbal extending the Declaration on the Provisional Accession of the United Arab Republic to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

This Proces Verbal was drawn up at the Twenty-fourth Session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade on 14th November 1967. Australia supported the adoption of the Proces Verbal and has become a party to it by signature. The Proces Verbal entered into force on 27th December 1967.

  1. Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space.

This Agreement was approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1967. Australia supported the commendation of the Agreement and has signed it.

The question of Australia’s becoming a party to the Agreement is under consideration. The Agreement has not yet- entered into force.

  1. International Coffee Agreement 1968.

This Agreement was approved by the International Coffee Council in February 1968. Australia supported the adoption of the Agreement. The question of Australia’s becoming a party to the Agreement is under active consideration. The Agreement has not yet entered into force.

  1. International Coffee Agreement 1968.

This Agreement was approved by the International Coffee Council in February 1968. Australia supported the adoption of the Agreement. The question of Australia’s becoming a party to the Agreement is under active consideration. The Agreement has not yet entered into force.

  1. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Tin’s Treaty was commended by the General Assembly of the United Nations in June 1968. Australia supported the commendation of the Treaty. The question of Australia’s becoming a party to the Treaty is under consideration. The Treaty has not yet entered into force.

  1. Agreement for the Establishment of a Cultural and Social Centre for the Asian and Pacific Region.

This Agreement was adopted by the Third Ministerial Meeting of the Asian and Pacific Council of 1st August 1968. Australia supported the adoption of the Agreement and has become a party to it by signature. The Agreement entered into force on 1st August 1968.

  1. Customs Convention on the Temporary Importation of Scientific Equipment.

This Convention was drawn up by the Customs Co-operation Council in consultation with the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization in June 1968. Australia supported the adoption of the Convention. The question of Australia’s becoming a party to the Convention is under active consideration. The Convention has not yet entered into force.

In addition to the conventions listed in my answer of 3rd October 1967, one other convention drawn up since October 1966 should be included:

  1. WHO Nomenclature Regulations 1967. These Regulations were adopted at the Twentieth World Health Assembly at Geneva on 22nd May 1967. Australia supported the adoption of the Regulations and has notified the World Health Organization that the Regulations are acceptable. The Regulations became binding on 1st January 1968.
  2. In relation to the conventions to which the honourable member’s question refers, the following developments have taken place:

  3. the undermentioned conventions entered into force on the dates shown:

    1. Protocol relation to the Status of Refugees -4th October 1967.
  4. Protocol extending the Arrangement regarding International Trade in Cotton Textiles 1962- 1st October 1967.
  5. Treaty on the Principles governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies- 10th October 1967.
  6. ILO Convention No. 123 - Minimum Age (Underground Work), 1 965- 1 0th November 1967.
  7. ILO Convention No. 124 - Medical Examination of Young Persons (Underground Work), 1965- 13th December 1967.
  8. Amendment to Article 109 of the Charier of the United Nations- 12th June 1968.
  9. International Grains Arrangement 1967 with Two Legal Instruments: a Wheat Trade Convention and a Food Aid Convention - 1st July 1968.
  10. International Convention on Load Lines 1966- 21st July 1968.

In addition to those conventions listed in 2 (a) of my answer of 3rd October 1967, the following conventions have entered into force or. the dates shown:

  1. Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States- 14th October 1966.
  2. Convention for the Facilitation of Maritime Travel and Transport - 5th March 1967.
  3. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and Optional Protocols- 19th March 1967.

The date of entry into force of Convention No. 18 in the list contained in pages 3059-3063 of Hansard (16th and 17th November 1964) should be 29th August 1962 and not 2nd July 1961.

  1. Australia has become a party to the following conventions:
  2. Protocol extending the Arrangement re garding International Trade in Cotton Textiles 1962 - Australia’s Instrument of

Acceptance was deposited on 30th September 1967 and the Protocol entered into force for Australia on 1st October 1967.

  1. Treaty on the Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies - Australia’s Instrument of Ratification was deposited on 10th October 1967 and the Treaty entered into force for Australia on that date.
  2. International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea 1960 - Australia’s Instrument of Acceptance of this Convention was deposited on 20th December 1967 and the Convention entered into force for Australia on 20th March 1968.
  3. Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and Optional Protocol thereto concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes - Australia’s Instrument of Ratification of the Convention and Instrument of Accession to the Protocol were deposited on 26th January 1968. The Convention and the Protocol entered into force for Australia on 25th February 1968.
  4. International Grants Arrangement 1967 with Two Legal Instruments: a Wheat Trade Convention and a Food Aid Convention - Australia’s Instrument of Ratification was deposited on 25th March1968 and the Arrangement entered into force for Australia on 1st July 1968.

  5. International Convention on Load Lines I966 -Australia’s Instrument of Acceptance was deposited on 29th July 1968 and the Convention will enter into force for Australia on 29th October 1968.

    1. Action is being taken on the following conventions:
  6. Conventionon the Status of Refugees 1951 - The reservations in respect of Articles 17, 18, 19, 26 and 32 made by Australia at the time of accession to this Convention were withdrawn on 1st December 1967.
  7. Convention on the International Hydrographic Organisation - The Government has announced its intention to ratify this Convention and the text of the Convention is at present lying on the tables of both Houses of Parliament in accordance with standard procedure.
  8. Universal Copyright Convention 1952 - The Copyright Act 1968, which will enable Australia to accede to this Convention and the Protocols associated with it, is to come into force when the necessary regulations have been made. These regulations arc being prepared. ‘
  9. Brussels revision (1948) of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works - Australia will be able to accede to this revision when the Copyright Act 1968 comes into force.
  10. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property as revised at Lisbon in 1958 and at Stockholm in 1967- The States have been requested, through the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and Stale Attorneys-General, to enact legislation to prohibit false or misleading trade descriptions with a view to giving effect to the Lisbon revision. The Patents Bill 1968 contains provisions necessary to give effect to the further amendment to the Convention made at Stockholm.
  11. European Convention on Customs Treatment of Pallets used in International Transport 1960- Legislation is being prepared to enable Australia to accede to this Convention.

In relation to the International Labour Organisation Conventions, I refer the honourable member to the answer provided by the Minister for Labour and National Service to bis question No. 389 (Hansard, page 535, 22nd August 1968).

  1. The undermentioned countries have become parties to the following conventions listed on pages 3059-3063 of Hansard (16th and 17th November 1964):

    1. Nigeria.
    2. Nigeria.
    3. Niger.
    4. Paraguay.
    5. Paraguay.
    6. Iran.
    7. Israel, Romania.
    8. Denmark, Finland. .
    9. Denmark, Romania. . .
    10. United Kingdom.
    11. Israel, Portugal.
    12. Poland.
    13. Indonesia.
    14. Australia, Bulgaria, Jamaica, Mauritania, Maldive Islands, Nicaragua, South Africa.
    15. Portugal.
    16. Federal Republic of Germany, Ireland, Jordan, Malagasy Republic, Philippines.

Although in my answer of 3rd October 1967it was stated that Australia had become a party to conventions Nos 13, 14 and 25, Australia was inadvertently omitted from the list of new parties to these conventions. In addition, it has been ascertained that the under-mentioned countries should have been included in the lists of parties to the following conventions.

  1. Malagasy Republic.
  2. Cameroon, Guyana, Malagasy Republic, Togo.
  3. Cameroon, Guyana, Malagasy Republic, Nigeria, Togo.
  4. Finland.
  5. Malta, Trinidad and Tobago.
  6. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guyana, Malagasy Republic, Singapore.
  7. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malagasy Republic, Morocco.
  8. Malagasy Republic.

Aboriginals (Question No. 446)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

Would the Government undertake to provide the finance for, and administration of, a plan to help Aboriginal people in all parts of Australia to attain full citizenship by providing education at all levels, including adult education, vocational training, pre-school training and scholarships, by providing hostels and adequate housing, etc., and by investigating all factors, with a view to eliminating such factors, that contribute to large numbers of Aboriginals forming economically underprivileged groups?

Mr Wentworth:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer . to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Commonwealth Nationality and Citizenship Act 1948-1967 makes no distinction between Aboriginals and other persons.

Assistance to the States in those areas specified by the right honourable Prime Minister on 12th July - health, housing and education - the establishment of a Capital Fund and the allocation of $10,000,000 in the Budget to finance these projects, provide the framework of such a plan as the honourable member advocates.

Consultation with relevant Commonwealth Departments through the Office of Aboriginal Affairs is aimed at giving this framework national proportions.

Australian Council for the Arts (Question No. 506)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What is the salary range of the first executive officer of the Australian Council for the Arts?
  2. In determining this salary range was information sought, for comparative purposes, regarding the salary ranges of top executive posts associated with other cultural organisations in the country, for instance, the general manager of the Sydney Opera House?
  3. If so, was the salary range determined for the first executive officer of the Australian Council for the Arts fixed at a higher figure than those applying to other posts?
  4. If a higher salary range was not fixed for the first executive officer of the Australian Council for the Arts, is this an indication that this officer, who is charged with a national responsibility of promoting effectively the cultural affairs of this country, occupies a less demanding and less skilful post than other officials who may have obligations to a single cultural establishment and a limited field of duties?
Mr Gorton:
LP

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

  1. The invitation of applications for the position of executive officer, Australian Council for the Arts, provided for a salary up to $8,500 per annum.
  2. This salary had regard to salaries paid to various executive positions in other cultural organisations, and to other positions provided within the Commonwealth Service as executive officer to other councils, and to the qualifications and experience required for the position. 3 and 4. The salary is higher than some executive posts and lower than others.

Immigration (Question No. 534)

Mr O’Connor:

asked the Minister for

Immigration, upon notice:

  1. What was the. total number of persons who were naturalised during the 10-year period which ended on 30th June 1968?
  2. What were the countries of origin of these persons, and how many came from each country?
Mr Snedden:
LP

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

  1. Four hundred and sixteen thousand and forty-nine.
  2. The nationality of these persons immediately prior to naturalisation was as follows:

Ministers Conference on Aboriginals (Question No. 582)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister-in-

Charge of Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

What requests or suggestions were made at the Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers on Aboriginals in Melbourne in July for legislative or administrative action by (a) the Commonwealth (b) the Territories and (c) the States?

Mr Wentworth:
LP

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

Because the proceedings of the Conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers were confidential it would not be proper for me to be particular in my account of them. I am, however, at liberty to say that discussion centred more around the social welfare of Aboriginals than proposed legislative or administrative action.

International Affairs: Electoral (Question No. 646)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Can he say when the last general elections were held in Algeria, Hungary, Pakistan, Paraguay, Senegal. Ethiopia, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zambia, Congo (Brazzaville), Chad, Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Malagasy and Central African Republic?
  2. It so, what were the names of the political parties which contested the elections and what franchise qualifications were required?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. Algeria, September 1964; Hungary, March 1967; Pakistan, March 1965; Paraguay, February 1968; Senegal, February 1968; Ethiopia, June 1965; Rwanda, October 1965; Tanzania, September 1965; Zambia, January 1964; Congo (Brazzaville), December 1963; Chad, December 1964; Ghana, June 1965; Liberia, May 1967; Sierra Leone, March 1967; Malagasy, August 1965; Central African Republic, March 1964.
  2. Algeria: National Liberation Front.

Universal suffrage.

Hungary: The Patriotic People’s Front.

Universal suffrage.

Pakistan: The Muslim League and the

Combined Opposition Parties comprising the National - Awami League, the Awami League, . Jamaat-e-Islam, Nizam-e-Islam and the Council Muslim League, the National Democratic Front.

Universal suffrage.

Paraguay: . Colorado, Radical-Liberal,

Febrerisha. Liberal, ChristianDemocratic.

Universal suffrage.

Senegal: President’s Party.

Universal suffrage.

Ethiopia:. No political parties.

Universal suffrage.

Rwanda: Pharmehutu Party.

Universalsuffrage.

Tanzania: Tanganyika African National Union (TANU). Universal suffrage.

Zambia: United National Independent Party, African National Congress and National Progressive.

Universal suffrage.

Congo: Mouvement Nationale de la (Brazzaville) Revolution.

Universal suffrage.

Chad: Parti Progressiste Tohadien.

Universal suffrage.

Ghana: Convention People’s Party.

Universal suffrage.

Liberia: True Whig Party.

Possession of real estate and negroid blood. ‘Real estate’ includes a hut on which hut tax is paid.

Sierra Leone: Sierra Leone People’s Party, All People’s Congress.

Universal suffrage.

Malagasy: Parti Social Democratic and Akaton’ny Kongresini Fahaleevantenan Madagasikara.

Universal suffrage.

Central President’s single list.

African Universal suffrage.

Republic:

United Nations Committee on Colonialism (Question No. 733)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is the Soviet Union a member of the United Nations Committee on Colonialism?
  2. How much has Australia contributed financially to the Committee since it was established?
  3. What does the Australian Government understand by the term ‘Colonialism’?
  4. Has. the United Nations Committee on Colonialism at any lime made any inquiries concerning territory claimed by the Soviet Union to be within its jurisdiction?
Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

  1. The Soviet Union is a member of the United Nations Committee called ‘The Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples’. This Committee is variously referred to as the ‘Committee on Colonialism’,. ‘the Committee of Twentyfour’, and ‘the Committee on Decolonisation’.
  2. Some costs of the Committee, such as travel, accommodation, and the like are shown separately in the regular annual budget of the United Nations. These costs, . since its inception, amount to a total of$US1 56,580. On the basis of a pro-rata of Australia’s contributions to the budget over the same period, it might be said that Australia contributed$US2,536 to the expenses of the Committee. It is not possible to apportion costs of servicing by the Secretariat.
  3. ‘Colonialism’ has become a propagandist term which is used by many members of the United Nations in a way which defies precise definition. It is not considered applicable in its modern usage to Australian territories which are best described in the language of the Charter, namely as’non-selfgoverning’ or ‘trust’ territories,
  4. No.

Movements of British Warships (Question No. 738)

Mr Killen:

asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

Is he able to say whether British warships stationed off the Port of Biera in the last 2 years have used port facilities in South Africa for refuelling and re-victualling purposes?

Mr Hasluck:
LP

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

It would not be proper for me to divulge any information 1 may have regarding such movements of the military forces of a friendly nation.

Fire Fighting Procedures (Question No. 355)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What changes have been made in the procedures and equipment for fighting and preventing fires in Commonwealth establishments since the fire in the Melbourne Mail Exchange in November 1967?
  2. What steps have been taken to co-ordinate fire fighting and prevention procedures and equipment between Commonwealth, State and local government authorities since the failures exposed by the fire in the Townsville bulk sugar terminal in May 1963?
  3. What other major fires have broken out in Commonwealth establishments or have required Commonwealth assistance in the last five years?
  4. Has consideration been given to establishing a fire training institute comparable to the Australian Police College at North Head or the Civil Defence School at Mount Macedon?
Mr Gorton:
LP

– In answer to the honourable member’s questions, the Minister for Works has provided the following information:

  1. The Commonwealth Fire Board does not contemplate any changes in the general pattern of its recommendations relative to fire protection procedures or equipment.
  2. Fire fighting is mainly a State function, except in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, where the fire brigades are under the Department of the Interior. In the States, the Commonwealth has fire brigades, generally of a small size, at some aerodromes and some Army, Navy and Supply establishments. Arrangements exist for co-operation between the Commonwealth and States.

Following the Townsville fire, the Commonwealth Experimental Building Station and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, at the request of the Colonial Sugar Refining Company, participated with it in a programme of research into the spread of fire and procedure for extinguishing fire in sugar storages.

In the case of the fire at the Townsville Bulk Sugar Storage, the diversity of fire hose couplings of various fire brigades in Queensland hindered assistance to the Townsville Fire Brigade. Queensland has now taken action to standardise the couplings used by brigades under its control throughout the State, and so far as possible the Commonwealth is conforming. Due to the standardisation in the Services some of their equipment will have the British Instantaneous coupling, but adaptors can be carried on Service and civil fire brigade vehicles in localities where this situation exists.

Prior to this Townsville fire, the Commonwealth Fire Board had, with the assistance of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, Melbourne, commenced development of a universal adaptor for joining hoses having different coupling threads. Tests by fire brigades have now shown that the latest development of this adaptor should be satisfactory for joining couplings used in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and by most brigades in Tasmania.

  1. During the past 5 years, only two fires other than the Mail Exchange fire caused damage in excess of $100,000 to Commonwealth property.

Major assistance by the Commonwealth has been the provision of Army equipment and personnel for bush fire fighting. On many occasions, various Commonwealth fire crews have assisted at fires in private property near their bases.

  1. The Commonwealth Fire Board has not given consideration to the establishment of a fire training Institute.

National Conferences organised by the Australian Fire Protection Association, and special schools and courses arranged by various Authorities and Departments, both State and Commonwealth, supplement the regular training by Fire Brigades.

In answer to the honourable member’s question, the Postmaster-General has provided the following information:

No changes in procedures or equipment for fighting or preventing fires have been made in the Postmaster-General’s Department since the Melbourne Mail Exchange fire in 1967. The Department has, however, used the ramifications of the fire as a means of stimulating the fire consciousness of its staff.

The Department adopted a policy of installing sprinklers at all mail exchanges, following a Commonwealth Fire Board recommendation in regard to the Redfern Mail Exchange, Sydney. Sprinklers have been installed in Adelaide and Sydney and are programmed for installation at the Brisbane and Melbourne Mail Exchanges during ! Q6R-69. They will also be invito! in ‘he Per, h Mail Exchange. the design of which is currently being developed.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 19 September 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1968/19680919_reps_26_hor60/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant