Senate
21 October 1948

18th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. Senate
  2. 18th Parliament
  3. 1948

The President (Senator the Hon. Gordon Brown) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1938

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Trade and Customs what proportion of the sugar that was sent to Tasmania last year went to large manufacturers, such as jam and chocolate factories, and what proportion was allocated for domestic needs? Is the Minister aware that Tasmania had only 18,000 tons of sugar last year, although it received 19,000 tons in 194’3 and 21,000 tons in 1944, and so was worse off last year than under war-time rationing 1 lc the Minister aware that the crying need for sugar, both in Australia and overseas, warrants a .bigger assignment of sugargrowing areas in the future ?

Senator COURTICE:
Minister for Trade and Customs · QUEENSLAND · ALP

– I am not able to state off-hand- how supplies of sugar were distributed in Tasmania,,’ last year, but I shall obtain the information for the honorable senator as soon as possible. In answer to the other questions, I know that the figures which I supplied to the Senate yesterday are -accurate. Tasmania will receive this year. 3,000 .or 4,000 tons more sugar than it received last year. The question regarding the allocation of greater areas for sugar production in Queensland has no relation to the local supply of refined sugar. As I stated yesterday, almost half of the raw sugar produced in Australia is exported to Great Britain. The quantity of refined sugar produced in Australia each year has increased since before the war to 100,000 tons. That rate of production could not be increased even if we hnd more raw sugar. The output of refined sugar has been hampered by interruptions of work &i refineries and by transport and other difficulties which arp part of the aftermath of war. The Government believes that the refineries will he able to build up stocks if shipping and other transport arrangements are improved, and it is making every effort to achieve that end. Refining companies are also endeavouring to increase their refining capacity. The establishment of new refineries would be a lengthy process and a great deal of expensive machinery would have to he imported. I assure the honorable senator that every effort is being made to provide adequate supplies of sugar for the Australian people. Any increase of the production of raw sugar or extension of milling facilities could not improve the position. The maintenance of an adequate supply of sugar throughout the Commonwealth is most difficult, particularly when stocks have been depleted, and fruit processing is being carried out in various States. However, I assure the honorable senator that the people of Australia are getting more sugar now than they were towards the end of the rationing scheme, when many consumers . had coupons but could not buy their quota of sugar.

Senator SHEEHAN:
VICTORIA

– Frequent representations have been made to me concerning the sugar shortage in Victoria. In view of the assurance that in Queensland there is an abundant supply of raw sugar to meet the demands of Australian consumers, and of the conflicting statements that are made from time to dme regarding the reasons for the shortage in the southern States for manufacturing and household purposes, I ask the Minister for Shipping and Fuel whether he will give consideration to the setting up of a parliamentary select committee, or a royal commission, to investigate this matter thoroughly.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I agree with Sena.tor Courtice that we cannot accept without reservation the truth of the many statements that are made about the shortage of sugar. Particularly must we be careful of propaganda which appears in the press on this subject. Until a few weeks ago frequent complaints were made about the alleged inadequacy of labour at Cairns to load sugar. The Stevedoring Industry Commission arranged for labour to he transferred to that port, but within a week, wharf labourers were receiving attendance money and there was no work for them. There must be some lack of efficient management on the part of sugar interests. Undoubtedly, there is congestion at some ports occasionally but the flow of sugar to those ports is not always as continuous as it should be. Too often the blame for the sugar shortage is placed on the wharf labourers or the lack of shipping. I do not think that the shipping shortage or labour difficulties on the waterfront can be blamed. I shall be happy to bring the honorable senator’s request to the notice of the Prime Minister, so that a thorough inquiry may he. made, and the blame for the present state of affairs properly apportioned. I remind honorable senators that at some Queensland ports, loading methods have not been changed in the last 60 years. No attempt has been made by the wealthy companies to improve conditions. Whenever a. complaint is made about a shortage of sugar in any part of the Commonwealth the wharf labourers or the shipping position is blamed. I shall suggest to the Prime Minister that a thorough inquiry be made into the position.

Senator AMOUR:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– As it appears that the sugar shortage is being experienced all over Australia will the Minister, who has said that he will bring the matter before the Prime Minister, also at the same time make representations to have the sugar agreement reviewed with a view to discovering if the sugar combine cannot be compelled to make greater supplies of sugar available to the public?

Senator COURTICE:

– There is evidently a good deal of misconception in regard to sugar supplies. The sugar refineries of Australia are working to full capacity and only industrial difficulties and shipping problems are holding up supplies.

Senator Lamp:

– What are the refineries doing with the sugar?

Senator Hendrickson:

– While the sugar companies receive a subsidy they will not worry.

Senator COURTICE:

– The Minister for Shipping and Fuel has often been asked by honorable senators opposite why more coal supplies are not available in Australia. I can assure the honorable senator that what I said earlier is a fact. Sugar refining plants are working to their full capacity. The amount of sugar refined has increased by 100,000 tons a year since before the war. I do not desire to go into the reasons why some refineries have been closed because of lack of supplies of raw sugar,, but a deputation, of representatives of shipping companies in Sydney to-day may throw some light on the matter. The company which owns Baralaba, a vessel, which normally trades between Brisbane and other places, has threatened to take the ship off the run because it is losing so much money through the time taken in loading. The continuation of the production of raw sugar in one district in Queensland is threatened, because of the inability to move sugar away from, the place of manufacture. I do not wish to try to place the blame on any section of the people, but all I can say is that since the war much more sugar is being produced and wherever possible refineries are working to full capacity. If the people of Australia consume more sugar in future, the refining capacity will have to be increased. There is now a refinery in each State.

Senator MURRAY:
TASMANIA

– There is no refinery in Tasmania.

Senator COURTICE:

– It would be absurd to suggest, that there should be. Because of Tasmania’s small population a refinery there could not be operated economically. To make operation of a refinery worth while in Tasmania it would be necessary to have large quantities of sugar refined there and then brought back to the mainland, because the amount refined would be greater than Tasmania’s requirements. It would not be sound for any government to establish a refinery there.

Senator FINLAY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– How much more sugar is exported than before the war?

Senator COURTICE:

– No refined sugar is exported, but raw sugar is. The people of Australia are now using 400,000 tons of sugar annually compared with 300,000 tons before the war. That increase has been largely due to the prosperity of the country, the number of people employed who use more sugar and to the establishment of new industries such as confectionery factories. Sugar refineries are under an agreement with the Queensland and Australian Governments.

Senator LAMP:

– As the Minister for Trade and Customs has just stated that it would be uneconomical to establish u sugar refinery in Tasmania, will he ask the Queensland Government to give effect to clause 11 of the Sugar Agreement whereby that Government undertakes, if and. when requested by the Commonwealth Government to do so, to establish a sugar depot at Hobart? In asking that question I have in mind, the fear of the people in Tasmania that they will lose thousands of tons of fruit this season, as they did last year, because of the shortage of sugar.

Senator COURTICE:

– I shall be very pleased to take up the matter mentioned by the honorable senator with the Queensland Government. Indeed, I have already given consideration to the construction of additional sheds for the storage of sugar at Hobart. However, I am advised that there is ample storage space for sugar in Tasmania, and that the shortage of sugar in that State is due to the impossibility of making supplies available from the mainland. As I have already pointed out,’ stocks at refineries are low and the rate of consumption has greatly increased. Furthermore, the refinery in Sydney, which manufactures over 1,000 tons a week, has been closed down foi a period of seven weeks; That loss of production alone would seriously reduce supplies available for shipment to Tasmania.

page 1940

QUESTION

SS. BARRIGUN

Senator MURRAY:

– The Minister for Supply and Development announced on the 19th October that the first of the coal-burning cargo ships built by the Commonwealth Government, SS. Barrigun, had been sold by the Government to Mcllwraith McEachern Limited for use in the coastal trade. I ask the Minister whether the sale price was satisfactory having regard to the cost of the construction of that vessel? Does the Government intend to dispose of other government-built vessels to private enterprise? Was the Government influenced by the fact that Barrigun is a coal-burner when it disposed of that vessel?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
Minister for Supply and Development · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The price paid for Barrigun by Mcllwraith McEachern Limited was £487,000, which was quite satisfactory having regard to the cost of construction of the vessel. Another vessel, Ballar, is nearing completion and will be offered for sale to private enterprise together with two more B class ships now being built by the Government. One reason for the sale is that the Government has ordered that no ship which is more than 25 years old shall be allowed to trade on the Australian coast. Furthermore, no ships can be ordered from abroad without the permission of the Minister for Shipping and Fuel. That means that if private shipping companies are to be enabled to continue operations, they must be allowed to acquire ships constructed in Australia. The fact that Barrigun is a coal-burner did not influence the Government in its decision to sell the vessel. The fact that we can find a ready market for ships constructed in Australia means that the future of the shipbuilding industry in this country, which is uppermost in our minds, is reasonably assured.

Senator Murray:

– I am pleased to hear that.

Senator ARMSTRONG:

– Those are the main reasons why the Government disposed of Barrigun and why it intends to sell the three other ships now under construction to private enterprise. The Government has reached an arrangement with private enterprise whereby it is pre- pared to accept a price up to 25 per cent, ess than the cost of construction in order that the sale price of ships shall be competitive with that of ships constructed in Great Britain. The price received for Barrigun was considerably more than the cost of construction laid down by the Australian Shipbuilding Board. However, the Government has agreed to average the cost of construction of Barrigun and the three other ships now under construction, in order to ensure that it shall obtain a fair return for its outlay.

page 1941

QUESTION

RECALL OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS FROM OVERSEAS

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND

– Can the Leader of the Senate say whether the amazing remarks made by Senator O’Flaherty in this chamber last night, which impugn the good faith of the American authorities and assail the character of the Australian girls working for them, correctly express the views of the Government on this unfortunate affair?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I do not know to what particular remarks the honorable senator is referring, but if he will place his question on the notice-paper I shall obtain the information which he desires.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! For the information of honorable senators I point, out that the rules concerning questions asked in this chamber provide that questions must not refer to debates in thecurrent session. .Senator O’Sullivan’s question is therefore out of order.

page 1941

QUESTION

LIFE INSURANCE

Senator SHEEHAN:

– I preface a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer by stating that when a proprietary life assurance company was recently asked by one of its policy-holders to state the surrender value of a policy which he. held for £500, which also carried bonus additions of £147, the company’s official replied that the surrender value was £419. The small amount of surrender value was alleged to be due io the current year’s premium of £16 15s. not having been paid. When a receipt was produced which showed that the premium had been paid punctually on the due date, the company increased the surrender value to £426, which was an increase on its previous calculation of only £7. Had the company’s contention been correct that the current year’s premium had not been paid the policy-holder would have benefited to the amount of £9 15s. I point out that in this instance an almost contemporaneous cash payment of £16 15s. resulted in an offer by the company to increase the surrender value by only £7. Can the Minister say whether the Life Insurance Act contains any provision as to the proper amounts payable to policy-holders in respect of policies which they surrender? Is it intended to amend that act in order to protect policyholders who may be compelled by necessity to surrender their policies ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The honorable senator intimated to me that he intended to ask this question, and I had inquiries made, as the result of which I have ascertained that the Life Insurance Act 1945 provides a minimum basis for calculation of surrender values and all life assurance companies must pay surrender values at least as great as those calculated on the minimum basis mentioned in the act. In the absence of full details of the case mentioned by the honorable senator I am unable to say whether the surrender values quoted by the insurance company referred to were calculated in accordance with the act, but if particulars of the case can be furnished further inquiries will be made.

page 1942

QUESTION

TOURIST ATTRACTIONS

Senator LAMP:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Information communicate with the various State tourist authorities with a view to publicizing overseas, in cooperation with the Australian Government, the tourist attractions which Australia has to offer, because dissemination of such publicity in the United States of America and other countries in which Australia desires to earn dollars may produce good results?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
ALP

– I shall be pleased to bring the honorable senator’s suggestion to the notice of the Minister for Information, because I believe that it is important to publicize our tourist attractions overseas. An instance of the value of publicity was supplied in this chamber last night when some honorable senator referred to publicity produced by a. citizen of Connecticut, United States of America, which suggested that some area in that country produced more apples than any other in the world. Whilst we all know that that statement is erroneous, because Tasmania is the largest appleproducing area in the world, it indicates the need for us to advertise our country. We should not hide our attractions, but should err rather on the side of embellishing them.

page 1942

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– I have been informed that of the wheat-growers of Australia who voted at the recent ballots in connexion with the Commonwealth wheat stabilization plan more than 63 per cent, voted in favour of adopting the plan. Can the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture inform me whether that is correct?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I am pleased to say that as the result of the recent ballots conducted in various States, the Commonwealth’s wheat stabilization plan has been accepted by a large majority of wheat-growers in the various States.

page 1942

QUESTION

TIN

Senator LAMP:

– Can the Minister for Supply and Development say whether a Commonwealth tin dredge is still operating at Dorset Flats, Tasmania? When the available material is exhausted at Dorset Flats, will the Minister have thidredge transferred to the tested tin grounds outside Gladstone, Tasmania?

Senator ARMSTRONG:
ALP

– The tin dredge at present operating at Dorset will probably remain there for some years. However, when the field is worked out, consideration will be given to movingthe dredge to Gladstone.

page 1942

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

Senator O’BYRNE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice -

  1. Did an Australian National Airwaysaircraft recently turn back from a flight acre*;Bass Strait because an engine caught fire: if so. has a report of the details concerning this mishap been furnished to the appropriate authority in the Department of Civil Aviation ?
  2. Did the same company have min mishaps recently when its aircraft hit thiboundary fences at (<i) Western Junction aerodrome, (6) Mildura aerodrome, and (c) Fairbairn aerodrome, Canberra?
  3. ,Did an Australian National Airways aircraft recently land with its brakes on in Mascot aerodrome?
  4. If the answers to Nos. 2 and 3 are in the affirmative, were reports made to the Civil Aviation Department on these mishaps and will the Minister supply the “Senate with a report -of the investigations made into these accidents ?
  5. Are regular flying drill checks made by senior pilots of the various airlines on al) operational pilots in their service?
  6. How much flying drill time is carried out by operational pilots outside of regularoute flying time by (a) Trans-Australia Air lines, (6) Australian National Airways, and (c) Ansett Airways?
  7. Has the Minister seen a statement appealing in the Launceston Examiner of the 9ti October, 104S, by a. spokesman of the Civil Aviation Department to the effect that Strait planes may carry 2S passengers across Bas? Strait if so, is this statement correct?
Senator CAMERON:
Postmaster-General · VICTORIA · ALP

– The Minister for Civil Aviation has supplied the following answers: -

  1. No. The engine did not catch fire. The incident referred to occurred on the 11th September, 194S, when the port engine failed on a D.C.3 aircraft owned and operated by Australian National Airways and engaged on a. flight from Essendon to Tasmania. Thipropellor of the faulty engine was “ feathered “ andthe aircraft returned to Essendon. The cause of the engine failure was the failure of No. ] cylinder. Further investigation into this matter is proceeding. 2. (a) Yes. On the29th May, 1948, a D.C.3 aircraft owned and operated by Australian National Airways landed in rain, at Western Junction on a slippery surface and kidded through the boundary fence. Damage to aircraft was aslight dent at “flap” section and radio compass aerial mast damaged, (b) Yes.On the 12th December, 1947.a D.C.3 aircraft owned and operated by Australian National Airways did overrun the end of the strip at Mildura when attempting an emergency landing after the starboard engine had failed immediately after take-off. The cause of the engine failure was a blocked air bleed passage in the carburettor. (c) No. There is no record of any incident or mishap to an aircraft operated by Australian National Airways occurring at Fairbairn aerodrome, Canberra.
  2. No. On the 13th May, 1948, an accident did occur at Mascot aerodrome to an Aus- tralian National Airways aircraft in which the aircraft swung on landing and struck two boundary marker lights. As a result of the accident the captain of the aircraft was given a practical flight test by an examiner of airmen from the Department of Civil Aviation.

  3. Yes, reports were made, in all cases, to the Department of Civil Aviation, and the following is a result of the investigations made into them : -

    1. Western Junction: 29th May, 1948- (i) On the 29th May, 1948, D.C.3 aircraft VH-ANM owned and operated by Australian National Airways Proprietary Limited, ran through the fence at the end of the runway during a landing at the Civil airport, Western Junction. Launceston. (ii) Neither passengers nor crew were injured, the engine sustained negligible damage. (iii) The cause of the accident appears to have been an error of judgment and carelessness on the part of the pilot in landing down wind. (iv) Possible contributory cause was heavy rain at the time of the landing.
    2. Mildura: 12th December,1957 - (i) On the 12th December, 1947, D.C.3 aircraft VH-ABR owned and operated by Australian National Airways was damaged during an emergency landing at the airport at Mildura. (ii) No persons were injured as a result of the accident. (iii) The aircraft sustained major damage. (iv) The cause of the accident was that the pilot employed poor technique in that he overshot when carrying out an emergency single-engine landing. (v) A contributory cause of the accident was the pilot’s error of judgment in deciding not to feather the starboard airscrew after engine failure, thus preventing the aircraft from climbing to a height that would enable a normal approach to be made. (vi) Possible contributory cause was the pilot’s incorrect technique in retracting the flaps at a stage where their extension would assist in reducing the speed ofthe aircraft. (vii) The cause ofthe emergency landing was thefailure of the starboard engine due toa blocked air bleed passage in the carburettor. (viii) The cause of the blocked air bleed passage in the carburettor could not bo determined. (ix) There was no evidence to indicate that faulty maintenance was the cause of the engine failure,
    3. Mascot: 13th May, 1948 - (i) On the 13th May, 1948, D.C.3 aircraft VH-AVK, owned and operated by Australian National Airways was damaged during a landing at the Kingsford Smith Airport, Mascot, Sydney. (ii) No persons were injured as a result of the accident. (iii) The aircraft sustained substantial damage to the starboard tail plane, port flap and under-side of the centre section. (iv) Two boundary marker lights, the property of the Commonwealth, were damaged. (v) The cause of the accident was faulty technique on the part of the pilot in that he failed to correct a swing to port in time to prevent the aircraft striking boundary marker lights. (vi) A contributory cause was the poor technique employed by the co-pilot during the landing in that he allowed the aircraft to develop a swing to port.
  4. Yes. Periodical flight tests are given to all pilots employed on regular public transport services during the six months period of validity of each airline transport pilot’s licence.
  5. The periodical flight tests referred to in the previous question are conducted outside of regular route flying time. The flight test is not limited to any specific period of time, but does require that certain flying sequences bo carried out. The requirements of the test vary according to the category of licence held by an individual pilot. The holder of a first or second class airline transport pilot licence is obliged to undergo a practical flight test once every period of six months in the following subjects: - General flying, instrument flight, asymmetric flight, night flying.
  6. Yes. Some D.C.3 airliners have been modified to allow them to carry 28 passengers, but these modifications are not temporary and they have been approved by the Department of Civil Aviation. The carriage of these additional passengers must be compensated by reduction in fuel or other loading so that the maximum permissible all-up weight which is applicable to all D.C.3’s is not exceeded. This additional accommodation has been provided in D.C.3’s operated in Great Britain and the United States.
Senator FINLAY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation,upon notice -

Will the Minister supply a detailed statement setting out how the amount of pension paid to totally disabled and/or partially disabled returned ex-servicemen and women in Australia, both single and married, compares with that paid to returned ex-servicemen and women in Great Britain, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand ?
Senator CAMERON:

– The question involves a lengthy reply, and I have arranged for the honorable senator to be supplied with a detailed statement. This statement shows only the pension benefits provided under the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. It does not show other benefits to which an ex-member may be entitled under the act and regulations thereunder, such as medical treatment, transportation, surgical aids and appliances, and medical sustenance.

The statement which, with the concurrence of the Senate, I shall incorporate in *Hansard,* is as follows : - {: .page-start } page 1949 {:#debate-8} ### SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1948 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Ashley** ) on ti a first time. {:#subdebate-8-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-8-0-s0 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP -- I move- >That the bill be now read a second time. the purpose of this bill is to give .effect i.o the sales tax concessions which were foreshadowed in -the budget .speech. Those concessions include further exemptions from the tax, and also the removal of certain goods from the Third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, thereby reducing the rate thereon from 25 per cent, to 10 per cent. Particulars of the goods affected are set out' in a statement which is being circulated for the guidance of honorable senators. The most important amendment "takes ihe form of a re-expression of the existing exemption of clothing and household drapery, which has the effect of substantially enlarging its scope. At present, with the exception of certain footwear, industrial clothing and robes, the exemption is confined to clothing and drapery which were coupon goods under Rationing Order No. 27 as in force at the 13th September, 1945. The exemption was so expressed to suit the convenience of traders, because they were already obliged to classify their goods into two categories, namely, coupon goods and non-coupon goods, and it was desired, to avoid imposing upon these merchants the need for any different classification of their goods for sales tax purposes. It was realized at the time that this course of action was open to .criticism on the ground that some classes of goods which were never subject to coupons were just as worthy of sale3 tax exemptions as were certain coupon goods. Upon the cessation of rationing of clothing and household drapery, it- 'became desirable to re-express the relevant sales tax provision in terms independent of the rationing schedules. The opportunity is being taken to extend the exemption so as to include a number of classes of goods which have hitherto been taxable, such as blankets and travelling rugs, sewing thread of the kind used for domestic purposes, heavy textile fabrics and table cloths, curtains, quilts and certain other articles made of materials which were not coupon goods. Full details are to be found in the statement circulated among honorable senators. The exemption of fish paste, which commenced on the 20th September, 1947, and which, is at present confined to goods of Australian ^production, is being extended to cover imported fish paste. Since the commencement of this exemption, fish paste has been imported in considerable quantities from the United Kingdom, and it has been represented that the discrimination in respect of sales tax against fish paste so imported is a breach of the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement- Consideration has been given to complaints of difficulties of travellers in clearing their baggage through the Customs upon arrival in Australia. To lessen those difficulties, it is proposed to authorize exemption from sales tax of passengers' baggage comprising articles which are not in commercial quantities: and are not for sale or trade, and *arc* not required to be entered at the Customs House. There will be a corresponding exemption of those goods from primage duty. To give effect to an international convention exemption from sales tax is being authorized in respect of goods imported for the use of the United Nations. Action is also being taken to remove a time limit which is imposed by the existing law upon the exemption of goods imported for the use of consuls and trade commissioners. Plate, plated ware and pewter are being omitted from the Third Schedule to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, thus reducing the rate of tax thereon from 25 per cent, to 10 per cent. This action is being taken in order to remove anomalies, arising from the fact that goods made of plated ware; &c., are sold in competition with similar goods which are made of other material, and are subject to tax at the rate of 10 per cent. only. The amendment.* operate on and from the 9th September. 1948, subject to the few exceptions specified in the circulated statement. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'Sullivan)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1950 {:#debate-9} ### STATES GRANTS (TAX REIMBURESMENT) BILL 1948 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing and Sessional Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Ashley)** *read* a first time. {:#subdebate-9-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-9-0-s0 .speaker-K0W} ##### Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP -- I move - That the bill be now read a second time. The object of this bill is to amend the formula laid down in existing legislation for determining the aggregate of the tax reimbursement grants payable to the States each year under the uniform tax plan. Under the States Grants (Tax Reimbursement) Act 1946 provision was made for the aggregate tax reimbursement grant to be £40,000,000 in each of the years 1946-47 and 1947-4S. In respect of each subsequent year the legislation provided for the aggregate grant to l)e varied in accordance with a formula which takes account of (a) variations in the populations of the States since the 1st July, 1947 ; and *(b)* half the percentage increase (if any) in the level of average wages per person employed over the level of 1946-47. Early in the financial year 1947-48, however, it became clear that the State Governments would he involved in serious financial difficulties unless some increase were made in the aggregate grant of £40,000,000 specified for payment in that year under the 1946 legislation. Accordingly, amending legislation was introduced in 1947 providing for the payment of an additional £5,000,000 in 1947-48 and for an additional grant to be paid in each subsequent year to cover any deficiency between the aggregate grant as determined by the formula and the sum of £45,000,000. In this way, the formula which was due to come into operation in 194S-49 was left intact. It is now known that in the current financial year the operation of < the formula would increase the aggregate grant to £43,200,000, thus rendering necessary an additional grant of £1,SOO,000 to bring the total to £45,000,000. Under present legislation, therefore, the aggregate grant would be the same as last year. In general, the tax grant of £45,000,000 paid last year was sufficient to meet the reasonable financial needs of the States in 1947-48. After conferring with the State Premiers, however, the Commonwealth is satisfied that, even after allowing for the greater effort which the States might reasonably be expected to make from their own revenue resources - particularly in regard to the charges made by their business undertakings - some further increase in the tax reimbursement grants is necessary to assist the States to meet rising costs. It is also clear that because of changed conditions since 1946, including the effect of rising costs on State budgets, the tax reimbursement formula evolved in 1946 is not fulfilling its purpose of giving to the States a flexible tax grant which would vary with their financial needs, and so avoid the need for the States to make yearly requests to the Commonwealth for special assistance. Accordingly, it is proposed to amend the formula in a way which will not only increase the basic amount on which the formula operates, hut will also make greater allowance for the effect of movements in the level of average wages - a factor which was included originally in the formula, in order to relate the aggregate grant to trends in prices and wages. The bill provides, therefore, for the basic amount on which the formula operates to be increased from £40,000,000 to £45,000,000 and for that basic amount to be increased hy the full percentage increase in the level of average wages, instead of only half that percentage increase. The calculation of the increase in average wages will be based on the year 1945-46 instead of 1946-47 - thi* variation also resulting in a substantial additional payment this year. These amendments would increase the aggregate grant in 1948-49 to about £53.700,000 - an increase of about. £8,700,000. On present trends in population and average wages the amended formula, would bring about a further increase of about £6,000,000 next year. The effect of the tax reimbursement grant to each State in this financial year is estimated as follows: - ' The Premiers expressed their satisfaction with the proposed revision of the formula and the Commonwealth Government trusts that, if these amendments are adopted, the formula will succeed in its original purpose and enable the States to manage their own affairs, maintain their financial responsibility and avoid yearly requests to the Commonwealth for special assistance. I commend the bill to honorable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator O'SULLIVAN** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 1951 {:#debate-10} ### AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS' REPATRIATION BILL 1948 {:#subdebate-10-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from the 20th October *(vide* page 1S41), on motion by **Senator Cameron** - >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-10-0-s0 .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition -- T can hardly expect that the manner in which it has approached this subject will evoke congratulations from the Opposition or give satisfaction to the persons upon whom the measure is supposed to confer benefits. The whole administration of repatriation matters during recent years has caused much dissatisfaction among those who have had any dealings whatever with the department. Unfortunately, the department's adminis tration has given rise to bitter criticism on the part of ex-service personnel and their dependants. One reason for that is that the Government's approach to repatriation matters is entirely foreign to the spirit upon which all our repatriation legislation should be based. There, appears to be an ill-informed opinion abroad that the Government in its magnanimity is going to give a " hand-out " under this measure. That- impression may be due to the use of the word " pension ". When we were considering the .Social Services Consolidation Bill, the Minister for Social Services **(Senator McKenna)** pointed out that the word " pension " is of convenient use from the point of view of drafting, and that it does not necessarily connote any suggestion of charity, or undeserved " hand-'out " in any form. Perhaps, the frequency with which the word is used has given rise to the thought in the minds of honorable senators opposite that beneficiaries under this legislation are going to receive something for nothing. Should a man meet with an accident, say, for instance, when he is walking along a road, and he is thereby totally, or partially, incapacitated, and should the accident be due to the neglect of some other party, he is entitled to compensation, according to the degree of his injuries. If his injuries are such as to render him totally and permanently incapacitated, so much greater will be the compensation to which he will become entitled. But it is wrong to regard such compensation as a form of charity. The injured person is given compensation for the injuries he receives. It is along those lines that we should approach the provision of benefits, or allowances, to ex-service personnel. All the money in the world would not be sufficient to compensate these men adequately for shattered bodies, broken limbs and loss of sight, tortured minds or for injuries that bar them from enjoying that state of robust health which normally they would enjoy but for the sacrifices they made in defending this country in its time of peril. We should realize exactly what is implied by the words. " totally and permanently incapacitated ". They imply that ex-servicemen coming within that category are not in a position, owing to war injuries, to earn anything at all. Were they not the victims of injuries received when fighting their country's battles they would be able at least to earn the basic wage. These allowances, "when they were first introduced, were 104 per cent. in relation to the then basic wage. Since that time the percentage of the allowances to the basic wage has decreased by17½ per cent. to the disadvantage of recipients. I emphasize that during the last 25 years whilst the basic wage has increased by 46 per cent. these allowances have been increased by only 19 per cent. Some honorable senators opposite, in their folly, willprobably imply from that statementtime.I am attacking the increases of the basic wage. [ have no intention to do so.. I am simply pointing to a fact which can well be repeated, namely, that during the last 25 years, whilst the basic wage has increased by 46 per cent. these allowances have increased by only 19 per cent. and, during that period, the ratio which the allowances bear to the basic wage has decreased to the disadvantage of exservicemen by17½ per cent. As these pensions, or allowances, are being paid because the recipients are expected to live completely and adequately upon them, they should bear some relationship to the changing cost of living, because these recipients may not be in receipt of any other income whatsoever. Instead of obliging these recipients to wait until the Parliament or the Government of the day feels inclined to adjust these allowances to changes of the cost of living, means should be provided whereby such adjustments could be made automatically. Much can be said in criticism of the administration of the Repatriation Department generally. I propose to refer to the report of the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal dealing with the administration of the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act. That legislation is somewhat complicated for the avera.ge person for whose benefit it was introduced. If a person applies to a Repatriation Board for a repatriation benefit and his application is refused, his remedy is to appeal to the Repatriation Commission, and should that body reject his appeal he must then appeal to the Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. That is a round-about way of handling matters of this kind. Why oblige a person who considers himself to be entitled to an allowance to go through that circuitous procedure? The report of the tribunal to which I have referred not only deals with the period up to the 28th February last but also contains an addendum with respect to the period from that date to the 30th June last. I understand that the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Barnard)** received that report early in July. Honorable senators will recall that many questions were asked in both this chamber and the House of Representatives as to when the Minister intended to table that report. Although he received it in July, it was not tabled in the House of Representatives until the 4th October. I can understand the reluctance of the Minister to table it, because it carried with it a shocking indictment of the administration ofhis department.. The report states - >In our last annual report we observed that the provisions of Section 47 of the Act were not fully appreciated by the Eepatriation Commission and its officers. We pointed out also that proper attention by the Repatriation Commission to those provisions would have resulted in a considerable number of claims being allowed without the necessity for an appeal to this tribunal. > >Not only has no improvement since been discerned, but the position has deteriorated and is adversely affecting widows, sick and wounded ex-members of the forces and their dependants. > >The provisions of. section 47 may be sum marized as follows: - > >The Repatriation Commission, aRepat riation Board and a tribunal shall - > >Act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case and shall not be bound by technicalities or legal forms or rule? of evidence: *(b)Give* to the claimant the benefit of any doubt: > >Draw all reasonable in ferences in favourofthe claimant. (2)It shall not be necessary for the claimant to furnish proof to support hie claim. > >The onus of proving the claim to be outside the provisions of the act shall lie on the Repatriation Board and the Repatriation Commission. Those provisions which were inserted in the act by an amendment shifted the onus of proof from the claimant to the commission : theburden of showing that an applicant is not entitled to receive repatriation benefits, is cast upon the commission, instead of the applicant having to prove that his claim is sufficiently strong. The report shows clearly that notwithstanding the advice tendered to the commission by the Attorney-General, that body is not interpreting the act as it should. Indeed, the report speaks for itself. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- When was the amendment referred to made? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- In 1943. Although it was made by a Labour government, unfortunately Labour is not insisting on the amendment being carried out. The report then sets out a number of instances of ex-servicemen who have not been fairly treated, and I commend that portion to the serious consideration of all honorable senators, because it is obvious that grave injustices have been, and are being, done. I shall not weary the Senate by reading the details of them, because he who runs may read, or, as it has been expressed, "he who reads shall nin ". {: .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator Critchley: -- That is an unfair comment, because the honorable senator must be aware that there are many ex-servicemen amongst supporters of the Government. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- I am not, making any imputation against them. All I say is that no one can read this report, and particularly the details of the cases mentioned in it, without feeling the strongest indignation at the manner in which the department has been administered. The report states - >So controversial or difficult questions, either >f law or fact, which could justify the original rejection of the claims, arose in any one of these cases. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- Is the honorable senator suggesting that the Repatriation Commission is not giving the benefit of the amendment to ex-servicemen? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Yes. Indeed, that' is the principal complaint made in the report. I am not misquoting the report, which is available for all honorable senators to peruse. The report proceeds - >They were simple and straightforward, and, on the evidence before the Commission, fell fairly within the entitlement provision of the > >Act. But they were rejected out of hand by the Repatriation Commission without any reasons being assigned. I interrupt the recital of the report to emphasize that, but for the existence of the entitlement tribunal, the unfortunate ex-servicemen referred to in the report would still be denied their rights. In other words, the commission acted quite contrary to section 47, and the applicants had to go before the entitlement tribunal to receive justice. I think that that answers the honorable senator's interjection. The report then states - > *An* intelligent marshalling of the facts, and a proper application of the relevant provisions' nf the Act to those facts in the first instance would have obviated the necessity for any appeal. {: .speaker-KQH} ##### Senator Large: -- The words " in the first instance " imply that the causes of complaint arose during the regime of the anti-Labour Government which introduced the act. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- What a pathetic attempt to mislead the Senate! The Honorable senator has obviously noi read the report. The cases mentioned in the report occurred since the present Government has 'been in office. Whilst ] am only too willing to give every consideration to any sound argument advanced by honorable senators opposite, 1 do appeal to them to base their contentions on facts. {: .speaker-KQH} ##### Senator Large: -- The honorable senator used the word " original {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- The context indicates that that word was related to the particular instances mentioned in the report. The procedure which applies is that claimants appear before a hoard in the first place. If the board refuses their application, they then appeal to the commission, and if the commission refuse? their application they can appeal to War *Pensions* Entitlement Tribunal. Th, report proceeds - >The provisions of Section 47 bind the Repatriation Commission to probe the merit of every pension claim before rejecting it. In many cases, further evidence could and should have been obtained by the Commission before claim? were ever rejected. Too often the gathering of evidence favorable to a claim is left to the appellant or his representative, usually an ex-service organization, and it is produced to a Tribunal at a Tribunal appeal. If thi,evidence is substantial the Tribunal is then bound rn refer the en bp back t" the Commission for review (Section 64 (4)). In many such cases the Repatriation Commission then accepts the claim on the fresh evidence which was available and should have been obtained by the Commission itself on a proper investigation of the claim in the first instance. > >Another series of cases is quoted in support of the statements made. Before quoting details of the cases the report states - > >The following is an example of that class of case which is being rejected by Repatriation State Boards and the Repatriation Commission without any effort being made to obtain all the evidence. > >The cases mentioned in the report were rectified on appeal to the No. 1 "War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, but only after great expense had been incurred by the unfortunate applicants, whose claims should not have been rejected in the first instance. Pages 5 and 6 of the report are occupied with a recital of the details of a particular instance, and on the following page of its report the tribunal stated - > >As a result of this case, the tribunal requested the Repatriation Commission to obtain full copies of depositions of witnesses to accidents in future' cases. There was no response to this request which was repeated, and similar cases are still being received. > >Then follows an important statement of the functions of such tribunals, which I commend to the notice of all honorable senators. The statement is as follows : - > >A tribunal does not sufficiently discharge its functions simply by allowing appeals of this nature. There are considerations which must urge any responsible body to endeavour to have altered a system which leads to such injustices. First, appellants ought not to have been subjected to the trouble, delay, anxiety and distress inevitably associated with such appeals. Secondly, appellants often suffer monetary loss by reason of the provision of the act which limits the operation of a successful tribunal appeal to a period not earlier than six months prior to the date of the appeal (8.78(2)). Thirdly, an appellant may be, and often is, financially embarrassed through loss of income during 'the period of waiting for the appeal to be heard - rarely less than nine months. Finally, and perhaps more important than all, a sick and disabled exmember of the forces is deprived during the waiting .period of expert medical aid and attention which would have been available had the case been properly dealt with and determined in the first instance. > >In addition, a large number of rejected claimants do not, for some reason or another, exercise their right of appeal to the tribunal. Among these there are doubtless many deserving cases. > >These considerations, therefore, impel us once more to emphasize the necessity for proper advertence by the Repatriation Commission to the relevant provisions of the act before rejecting a claim. > >At the present time, inefficiency persist* through every stage in the handling of pension claims even up to appeals to this tribunal. The most recent of several attempts made by this tribunal to have the position rectified it evident from the correspondence which follows. > >The report then sets out a copy of the correspondence which passed between the tribunal and the Minister for Repatriation. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- How many appeal tribunals are there? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- The act provides for two such tribunals to function, but I shall explain presently how it has come about that there is only one tribunal at present. The chairman of the tribunal resigned, and the other two gentlemen who subscribed their names to the report were not re-appointed when their term of office expired. {: .speaker-232369} ##### Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The honorable senator should read the Minister's reply on that point. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- 1 shall be perfectly fair. If I overlook any facts I should like to be corrected. I am not interested in either the Minister or the tribunal, but I am interested, as I hope other honorable senators are, in giving justice to the men who are entitled to receive it. I hope that we shall discuss the subject in this chamber on that basis, and on that basis only. On the 27th February, 1948, a conference was held between representatives of the tribunal and the Repatriation Commission. The chairman of the commission did not attend but he was represented. On the following day, the chairman of the tribunal wrote to the commission pointing out that certain matters were still in dispute. There were three points of contention at the conference, and the most important of these was the refusal of the Minister to acknowledge that the onus of proof rested upon the commission. He still claimed that the onus was upon claimants. That letter written by the chairman of the tribunal on the 28th February stated: - {: type="1" start="8"} 0. On the. fundamental question of (2) above, the onus of proof, however, you joined issue, with us. 1. We pointed out in particular that appeals were not being presented at all at the hearing by any person on behalf of your Commission. You stated that you recognized no responsibility on the part of your Commission to appear before the Tribunal to lead the evidence and explain the case, and thus demon- strate in the presence of the appellant, the validity of your reasons for refusing his pension claim. You added that, in fact, your Commission had no intention of so doing. 2. From the discussion there emerged the fact that between this Tribunal and the Repatriation Commission there exists a major difference of opinion upon the law relating to onus of proof and pensions entitlement. Then followed a somewhat lengthy legal argument stating the reasons upon which the members of the tribunal based their view that the onus of proof rested upon the commission, not upon applicants. The question was first raised by the tribunal in March, 1944, when it asked the Repatriation Commission to obtain a precise legal interpretation of the amendment relating to onus of proof effected by the legislation of 1943. In March, 1946, an officer of the Attorney-General's Department wrote to the Repatriation Commission in these terms: - >I refer to your memorandum of 23rd March. 1944, No. G/907, in which a question is raised as to whether the Appeal Tribunal under the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act is hound by all the provisions of Section 47 (2) of that Act. > >I desire to inform you that with reference to the objection taken by **Mr. O'sullivan. Chairman** of the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, to a statement in the Commission's annual report to Parliament for the year ended 30th June,1943, I am directed by the Attorney-General to inform you that theAttorney-General agrees entirely with the views expressed by **Mr. O'sullivan.** {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- The Attorney-General agreed that the onus of proof rested upon the Repatriation Commission? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Yes. However, in spite of the tribunal's representations and in spite of the supporting opinion given by the Attorney-General, the commission refused to change its attitude. The letter from the AttorneyGeneral's Department continued: - >The Attorney-General points out that Section 47 of the Act requires the Appeal Tribunal - > >to give the claimant the benefit of any doubt as to the matters specified in sub-section (1.) of that section ; and > >to draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant as directed in sub-section (2.) of that section, but that the Tribunal can never be in the position of being required to dischargeany onus of proof. It is one for the Commission to discharge the onus of proof to the satifaction of the Tribunal. An independent tribunal cannot go out and seek evidence upon which it will have to adjudicate eventually. That point is dealt with later in the report. On the 28th February, 1948, the chairman of the tribunal wrote this letter to the Minister for Repatriation - >I enclose for your information copy of a letter this day forwarded to the Chairman of the Repatriation' Commission. > >The issue is whether ex-members of the forces and their dependants, in prosecuting appeals for war pensions to a Tribunal are to be given the full benefits of Section 47 (Onus of Proof) as was intended by the Parliament. > >The law requires - > >That the Tribunal should be an inde pendent body impartially judging an issue between two parties to an appeal - (a.) an appellant (the ex-member of the forces or his dependant) and (6) a respondent (the Repatriation Commission). > >That the respondent party (the Repatriation Commission) should bear the onus or burden of justifying before the Tribunal its refusal to grant a war pension entitlement. In the nature of things this onus includes a responsibility on the part of the respondent Repatriation Commission, first to prepare a proper statement of its case and then, when the appeal is being heard, to appear before the Tribunal to lead the evidence and explain that case. That is to say, the onus requires that the respondent Repatriation Commission should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tribunal (and in the presence of the appellant so as adequately to inform him as to the case he may be called upon to answer) the validity of its reasons for refusing a war pension entitlement. 4.For many years the Repatriation Commission has held, and still holds, (despite advice to the contrary from the Federal Attorney-General. **Dr. H.** V. Evatt) that the Commission curries no onus of proof at the Tribunal appeal but that Section 47 places the onus of proof on the Tribunal itself. The logical consequence of this view (if accepted), is that the Tribunal would be placed in the anomalous position of being a contending party carrying the onus of proof and, at the same time, a judge in its own cause. > >The effect in practice of the Repatriation Commission's conception of its obligations is that- (a)no statement of the Commission's case is prepared and furnished to the appellant or to the Tribunal for the purpose of the appeal; (b)norepresentativeofthecommission ever appears before the Tribunal at the hearing to carry the burden of proof. . . . > >The following tribunal offered the comments in relation to the contention by the commission that the tribunal should become virtually a party to the causes by furnishing evidence one way or another, and then should adjudicate upon them : - > >War Pension Tribunals were established in 1929 to give toex-members of the forces and their dependants an adequate and just hearing before a final authority completely independent of the Repatriation Commission. > >Strong and independent tribunals can perform a most useful community service and are in invaluable safeguard for ex-servicemen. However, it is to he regretted that the primary object of independence has not been achieved. Although these tribunals are often referred to as independent they are in point of fact not so. > >War Pension Tribunals ought to be divorced entirely from the Repatriation Department, as they are in Great Britain. British War Pensions Tribunals are completely dissociated from the Ministry of Pensions, and are placed under the jurisdiction of the Lord chancellor. > >In Australia, these tribunals are subject, in several important respects, to the Minister for Repatriation who also controls the Repatriation Commission. In practice, the Minister for Repatriation looks to the Repatriation Commission, which is the permanent executive head of his department, for advice and assistance in the administration of his portfolio. Where such advice extends to matters concerning the function and work andeven the appointment or reappointment of the personnel of an Appeal Tribunal, as conceivably it may and does, the independence of a tribunal is at once endangered. > >In such circumstances the Repatriation Commission, one of the parties to appeals before tribunals, is exercising an influence which it should not in fact possess upon theadminis- i ration of justice to ex-servicemen. > >If an Appeal Tribunal finds it necessary to c riticize the administration of the Repatriation Vet. either directly to the Minister or to the Parliament (or both), such criticism may place the Minister in the dilemma of having to choose between his " independent " tribunal on the one hand, and his chief executive, the Repatriation Commission, on the other. > >Tribunal members themselves may be placed in the invidious position of having to criticize, in the course of their duty, the administration of a department for which the tribunal's own Minister is responsible to Parliament. This position may well give rise to a conflict in the minds of tribunal members between their plain duty and their own interests, particularly where questions of their re-appointment may depend upon the favorable recommendation of the Minister for Repatriation. 1 pause there, because that commentwas rather prophetic.Mr. O'Sullivan resigned in February,1948, and the work was carried on by **Mr.** Hickey, acting as chairman, and **Mr. Dibdin,** who had been the ex-servicemen's nominee on the tribunal for a period of over twenty years. Members of the tribunal are normally appointed for terms of five years, and the practice has been to renew the appointments regularly. As I have said, **Mr. Dibdin** gave faithful and honest service as a member of the tribunal for over twenty years. **Mr. Hickey** had been the deputy chairman for many years. He surrendered a lucrative position in order to accept the appointment because he thought that he might thus serve his fellow ex-servicemen and his country better, and he gave many years of faithful and efficient service in that position. He lost an eye in "World War II. Whether this report is the reason for the Minister's failure to re-appoint those gentlemen- {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- The chairman resigned. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- Yes. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- The honorablesenator could not expect him to be re-appointed {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- No, but he was in the fortunate position ofbeing qualified for a profession to which he could turn for a livelihood. The other two gentlemen had more or less burned their boats behind them by leaving lucrative occupations many years ago in order to serve exclusively on the tribunal. The fact remains that, whether or not the services of these men were dispensed with because of the report that they presented, that action was taken after the presentation of the report. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- Has anybody been appointed in their place? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- No. Only one tribunal is functioning at present. The honorable senator's interjection is rather pertinent. I was about to point out that the staff of the commission had been increased. The Minister may claim that only one tribunal is necessary because there is less work to be done than there was previously; but, if that is so. why has the staff of the commission been increased? We are told that it has been increased because of the greater number of ex-servicemen who are entitled to benefits. The Government cannot have, it both ways. If the staff has had to he increased because of extra work, it obviously follows that there must be more work for the appeal tribunals. Those tribunals are the final arbiters which determine whether or not a pension shall be granted, and I submit that no obstruction should be placed in the way of just treatment for ex-servicemen. Honorable senators opposite may prefer to believe that the critical report of the No. 1 Tribunal is not the reason why members of it have not been re-appointed, but I submit that that is the inference that will be drawn by ex-servicemen and that, I believe, is not far from the truth. Those men are being penalized because they put their duty above self interest. No reasonable person will believe that although the general staff of the commission is increasing, there is no longer sufficient work for two appeal tribunals. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- Is that a fair criticism of the Minister? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- I think that it is, although I am sorry to say so. I can think of no reason for his refusal to renew the appointments of those men other than that he is piqued because of the strong criticism voiced in their report. And that criticism, I remind honorable senators, is merely an overflow, because, as the report indicates, representations have been made since 1944 for an amelioration of conditions. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator Nash: -- To whom? {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- To the Minister. The report states that this matter has been made public only with reluctance and only in the hope that some amelioration of conditions will be brought about. Referring to the need for an independent tribunal, the report states - >This position may well give rise to a conflict in the minds of tribunal members between their plain duty and their own interests, particularly where questions of their reappointment may depend upon the favorable recommendation of the Minister for Repatriation. This should not be. Tribunal member? are entitled to be placed in a position to perform their functions free of any inhibitions h? to possible consequences to themselves. > >Neither the Minister for Repatriation, nor the Renatriation Commission which he controls, should he in a position to exercise any influence, direct or indirect, upon a War Pen sion Tribunal. These tribunals, therefore, should be under the aegis of the Attorney General. That report covered the period the 18 July, 1947, to the 28th February, 194S. After that date the work of the No. 1 "War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal was carried on by **Mr. Dibdin, Mr. Hickey** and **Mr.** Olliffe, who submitted a supplementary report covering tinactivities of the tribunal up to the 30th June of this year. To that report, **Mr. Dibdin** and **Mr. Hickey** made an addendum which includes a letter from **Mr. Hickey** to the Minister, referring to an interview that they had had on the 15th Mardi. The letter states - >You stated that the matters raised mere).' left room for what amounted to a genuine difference of opinion between the Repatriation Commission and this Tribunal; that each war entitled to its own view, and that you had n<> present intention of altering the position. > >I replied that clearly the Repatriation Coin mission was not applying the law and that omimportant aspect of tue Commission's stand upon this matter was being maintained against an advice upon the law given by thFederal Attorney-General, **Dr. H.** V. Evatt. > >I further stated that the persistent refusal of the Repatriation Commission to apply tinlaw was causing actual injustice to ex-service men and their dependants, and I offered t< demonstrate this from actual cases at th' forthcoming Tasmanian sittings. He continued by giving details of a series of individual cases in which injustices had been inflicted because of the nonobservance of the law by the commission, contrary to the opinion of the AttorneyGeneral. The addendum concludes - >In addition to the activities of my col leagues, when writer saw you first in November, 1940, I advised you that there were aspects of entitlement work requiring rectification and you expressed your intention of contacting the Tribunal early in 1947. I saw you again in February, 1947, and, while indicating that the Tribunal was most sympathetically applying the Act to all dischargees. T requested that you meet the Tribunal with a view to investigating the whole entitlement system. I repeated that request in my letter of 7th May, 1947. In addition, and apart from lengthy correspondence on the matter, on two occasions, in December, 1946, and February, *U4S,* the Tribunal conferred with the Repatriation Commission with the same object in view. > >I do now strongly recommend that action he taken to clear up these injustices along the lines of the Tribunal's letter to you dated 28th February, 1948. > >The only remaining alternative otherwise is to place the whole position before the Parliament in the next Annual Report, fully documented and supported by actual cases, -'neil a drastic action would' have the deplorable effect of interfering with the rehabilitation of sick and wounded ex-servicemen by -baking their confidence in the administration if the Repatriation Department. > >In connexion with the Tribunal's frequent complaints regarding the preparation of Summaries of Evidence, I attach copy of letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Hobart, which illustrates that these errors and omissions are still occurring." > >So reply has been received to this letter. That shows that over the years those high-spirited men pleaded with the administrators of the Repatriation Department to remove the sources of those injustices and anomalies; but nothing has been done. The opinion of the Commonwealth Attorney-General was obtained, and in spite of his direct and unequivocal advice, the Commonwealth continued on a course which denied justice to many ex-servicemen. It delayed the granting of their rights, and put them r,o the expense of appealing to the appeal tribunals, a course which would not have been necessary had the law been observed. F urge the Government to treat this matter as a non-party issue. After all, we are all here to do what we can to remove injustices if they exist. We would have no hesitation in complimenting the Minister if his department had been faithfully administered, but when we are convinced that the department has not been faithfully administered, it is our duty - I speak of Government supporters as well as Opposition members - to ensure that some improvement shall be effected. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- We inherited all this from an anti-Labour government. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN: -- - Although honorable senators may have been led into a bad habit, if they have persisted in it for seven years, there is no hope for them in spite of the odour of sanctity which clings to them. They should take their tinsel haloes from their heads and throw them into the dust where they belong. One source of confusion has been the numerous degrees of disablement and this gives some indication of the slipshod happy-go-lucky manner in which the problem of repatriation has been approached. It would be much simpler if there were only four grades, namely, quarter, half, three-quarters and full entitlement. Not only would that have the result of eliminating thousands of these " pittance " war pensions, hut also it would save a tremendous amount of detailed work in the Repatriation Department and the Postmaster-General's Department. Under the present system, every time a small increase of war pensions if granted, the amount of work thrown upon these departments is enormous. Under the Government's proposals, a pensioner with a 20 per cent, disability will receive an increase of only ls. a week, and, after involved calculations in 24,553 cases, ii will be found that a pensioner's wife will get only an additional 5d. a week. An efficient department would have grappled long ago with problems of thai kind. In conclusion, I regret that ] cannot offer the Government any congratulations either on this measure, or the manner in which the Repatriation Department has been administered in regard to pensions. I strongly commend to all honorable .senators the recommendation that has been made by the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, namely - >The tribunal recommends that a general inquiry into the administration of the Repatriation Act, including an investigation into the matters raised in this department, be conducted by a competent authority having no association with the Repatriation Department. The latter portion of the recommendation is most important because we all know that an appeal from one repatriation board to the Repatriation Commission itself is merely an appeal from a little Caesar to a. big Caesar. Very often, it is only when an application for a pension is rejected for a second time, and the claim comes before one of the entitlement tribunals, that long-delayed justice is handed out to men who are entitled to so much consideration from this country. {: #subdebate-10-0-s1 .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia -- I support the bill, the object of which is to amend the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act 1924-1927. 1 consider that I and other honorable senators are placed at a disadvantage in following the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator O'Sullivan because wo have not had an opportunity to peruse the report of the No. 1 "War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, a copy of which I received only a few minutes ago. I notice that the report was tabled in the Senate on the 14th of this month. It contains a fund of information which will give honorable senators a greater insight than before into the ramifications of the Repatriation Department and its administration. I consider that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has aired the views of most ex-servicemen on the difficulties regarding pensions which have continued over the years; hut I do not agree with his statement that the administration of the Repatriation Department is worse to-day than it has ever been. I say, without fear of contradiction, that, despite anomalies that may exist in the administration of repatriation and in pension matters, the Government and the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Barnard)** have done an excellent job on a scale which has not been equalled since the problems of repatriation began immediately after World War I. Since 1918 there have been many instances of difficulties regarding pensions and repatriation matters generally. The rehabilitation and repatriation of exservicemen have been approached as political issues during that period, there have been few exceptions where sincerity and honesty of purpose have marked the efforts of governments and Ministers, and I pay the present Minister a tribute by saying that he is une of the exceptions. Without being asked by the Government or the La-hour party. Federal and State officials of returned soldiers' organizations have volunteered statements that Labour governments have administered repatriation better than non-Labour governments have done. The Government and the present Minister are convinced that improvements are still necessary and can be made. Matters regarding the pension rights of ex-servicemen have been somewhat clouded until recently, and I regret that I have not had an opportunity to peruse fully the tribunal's excellent report from which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has so extensively quoted, and a copy of which T received only a few minutes ago. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I received my copy only half an hour ago. {: .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY: -- I received mine only five minutes ago. In addition to containing some very valuable information the report includes some strong strictures and condemnation of the administration of the Repatriation Commission itself. I have long expressed the opinion that the onus of proving that an illness or disability is the result of war service, has for too long, been thrown upon the applicant for a pension. In very few instances, because of the passage of time, is it possible for an applicant, who is an ex-serviceman of World War I., to prove that his disability or sickness is the result of his war service. I adhere more than ever to my view, now that ex-servicemen of World War I. are, like myself, becoming old. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may appreciate what I say as. despite his venerable grey hair, he is an ex-serviceman of World War II. Who amongst us, who had even only a short period of war service in World War I.. could deny that only a lucky man could avoid being affected at some time of his life by war service? In this report the tribunal has without fear or hesitation exposed what has been happening before repatriation commissions for many years, and if the report has achieved its purpose of placing the onus of proof on the commission itself much good will accrue from it. The present bill makes provision for increases of all kinds of ex-service pensions, which is a laudable object, although it does not, perhaps, go as far as the Senate would like. I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that with the exception of the two years between 1929 and 1931. the administration of repatriation was. from its inception early in 1915 until October, 1941, solely in the hands of governments of his political colour. I think the chamber will agree that if the present Government has been remiss it has had to face a big task to rectify previous mistakes. There have been periods in the history of the Labour movement when to be a Labour supporter during a time of war was to be regarded by our opponents as disloyal, but I believe that a. different view would be held by any one who studied the statistics which show how nien from the industrial and labour movements of this country rallied ro the colours. Those ex-servicemen among honorable senators who have heard or read the statements of applicants who have been rejected by the Repatriation Commission, not only recently, but over a period of years, will recall that the applicants stated that when they appeared before the Repatriation Commission they were more afraid than they had been when appearing before an officer for trial while on active service. Their reaction was the result of the questions asked, and the treatment meted out by the commission. I am glad to say that there has been an improvement in recent years in respect of the medical officers who have the responsibility to determine whether an applicant is entitled to a pension. I repeat that any fault in the present administration of repatriation lies entirely at the door of governments of a nonLabour political hue whose policy made applicants for pensions feel that they were facing a court martial, when they went before the constituted authority to seek assistance. I say, without fear of contradiction, that wherever hardship exists or has existed among ex-service pensioners it has existed to the greatest degree among those who, during their army careers, served in the ranks. Their condition in life was always such that they had enough for only the barest necessaries of life. The Repatriation Commission,, in the allotment of the sliding scale of pensions, has in the past treated the " digger " not so well as it has treated those who had held higher military rank. Former officers in most cases have received a greater degree of financial assistance from the commission than have former privates. Is it too much to ask that the spirit of human kindness which should permeate every one of us will respond more to those unfortunate " diggers ". who have not many years to live, so that they shall obtain their full rights for the remainder of their lives? The bill makes some material improvement in the present scale of pensions. Will any honorable senator deny that since the end of World War II. the repatriation and rehabilitation of exservicemen has been made a political football? A great deal of criticism has been directed at the activities of the Repatriation Commission and the supposed inaction of the Government in effecting improvements. The lot of those who offered their very all, some in two world wars, in the defence of this country is too serious a matter to be made the football of party politics. It is sheer hypocrisy for the Opposition parties to charge the present Minister for Repatriation with gross indifference towards the welfare of ex-service personnel. That is ingratitude of the deepest dye. The Minister probably knows more than most people do about the ravages of war. He has a kindly nature. Indeed, I believe that if he could have his own way he would double the allowances of ex-service personnel. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I was referring to the Minister's head, not his heart. {: .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY: -- As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, was not really unfair in his criticism of the Repatriation Department, I regret that he should make that interjection. I have no doubt that the Minister, whatever his personal feelings may be, is guided by the facts which are placed before him as head of the department. At the same time, however, I do not believe that even the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would suggest that the Minister would silently accept advice which he believed was not supported by the facts. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I did not criticize the Minister personally. {: .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY: -- The Minister has done a good joh. Probably, exservice personnel hold him in higher esteem than they have held any of his predecessors. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- Has the honorable senator any authority for that statement ? {: .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY: -- I have many dealings with ex-service personnel, although I do not move in the same industrial and political circles as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. But even he would not question the bona fides of ex-servicemen who approach me in respect of repatriation matters. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- Does the honorable senator think that I live with the angels ? {: .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY: -- At times, one could be forgiven for believing that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition lives in a world entirely of his own. In view of the extracts I have read from the report of the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, I believe that that report has come 25 years too late. In war cemeteries throughout the length and breadth of Australia repose the mortal remains of many ex-servicemen who, probably, would still be alive had the administration of the department been more in conformity with the desires of governments responsible for repatriation legislation. It is almost impossible for the average ex-serviceman, particularly as he advances in years, to prove that his illness, or disability, is due to service in a war which ended over a quarter of a century ago. I trust that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will not find fault with me when I say that the time is long overdue when a pension should be paid to every ex-serviceman of the first world war. I hope that, should his wish for my early political demise be granted, he will at least be sufficiently charitable to support that view, and thus enable me to become entitled to a pension as an ex-serviceman of that war. The Postmaster-General **(Senator Cameron)** in his second-reading speech, said - >There will be an extension of the present arrangement for medical treatment of widows and children of deceased members, and widowed mothers of deceased unmarried members. The present arrangement places them in a position to receive medical benefits on the basis of Australian friendly societies' schemes. Whatever the intention of the Government may be, that statement is not completely in accordance with facts. I know of at least three instances in South Australia during the last four or five months when dependants of ex-service personnel presented themselves at the proper places to receive such treatment, but owing to the reception accorded them at such institutions, they were so disgusted that they departed without receiving treatment. I trust that when I deal with such matters at the committee stage the Postmaster-General will be able to inform me that considerable improvement has been effected. The PostmasterGeneral also stated - >There are possibilities of arranging for inpatient treatment at repatriation hospitals. Although at present the difficulties of staffing hospitals do not give full scope for the proposal, there are occasions, which I hope will become more frequent, when the facilities al repatriation hospitals are not fully taken up. To the degree that it is possible to make suitable arrangements for in-patient treatment of -widows, children, and widowed mothers, such treatment will be afforded, a.nd thi? scheme may be supplemented by a further arrangement with civil hospitals. > >The third general benefit is the soldiers' children education scheme, which covers assistance for the education and training of children of deceased, blinded, and. totally and permanently incapacitated members. The general plan is supervision and guidance from about the age of ten years, and assistance by way of allowances from the age of thirteen years to completion of training with an employer or graduation at a university. It will be realized that there are several stages in the education and training, and the allowances are designed according to the needs of the beneficiary at any particular stage. Assistance of that kind should be given in respect of children before they reach the age ' of ten years. I have in mind particularly the children of war widows who because of straitened circumstances, are obliged to seek employment, and, therefore cannot adequately .care for their children. Assistance of this kind should be made available in respect of children upon reaching the recognized school commencement age. I again express regret that the report of the No. 1 War Pension Entitlement Appeal Tribunal to which I have referred was not made available earlier to honorable senators. As 1 have not had an opportunity to study it adequately, I shall not refer to certain aspects of departmental administration with which I had intended to deal at this juncture. I know of many instances in which the intentions of the government of the day, regardless of party political considerations, have not been observed in the administration of the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act. Indeed, in many respects the intentions of governments under this legislation and administrative results are as far apart as the poles. I commend the Government for introducing this measure, which embodies substantial increases of benefits to ex-service personnel who are the most deserving section of the community. I trust that at the committee stage the Postmaster-General will be able to assure me that several features of departmental administration to which I shall then refer will be remedied in the near future, if steps have not already been taken to do so. 1 urge, particularly, that applicants be given greater access to the various tribunals and thus be given a greater chance to obtain justice. **Senator** RANKIN (Queensland) 5.12]. - 1. a in greatly disappointed with this measure because the increases of benefits proposed in it ave so paltry. I have in mind particularly the needs of war widows and totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. Let us recall the promises which we made to those men when they went forth to fight in defence of this country, and how they felt when they were assured that should they pay the supreme sacrifice those they left behind them would be adequately cared for by a grateful people and a grateful government. The increase of the war widows'" pension now proposed is indeed paltry. The Parliament should provide the means for the better adjusting of these allowances in relation to the present cost of living. All honorable senators are aware of the difficulties which confront war widows in caring for their children in the face of rising living costs and the increase of the costs of clothing and the necessaries of life. They are, indeed, having a difficult time. I am glad that their allowances are being increased, but [ regret that such increases will not give them the assistance which they hoped to receive. Dealing with the statement which the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Barnard)** has made available to honorable senators, f notice that; the Government has failed ro provide a domestic allowance for a widow with more than two children. I cannot understand that. To me it seems most necessary that such women should receive the same domestic allowance as is proposed to be paid to women with two children. If they have three, four, five or six children why should they be denied payment of the added allowance? It seems to me that they need it very badly, and I should like the Minister to explain the reason for the proposal. A woman who has a number of children for whom she must care cannot earn an income, and I cannot understand why she should be denied, payment of the extra domestic allowance. The bill should be amended in order to provide that all mothers shall be paid the proposed domestic allowance of 7s. 6d. a week, irrespective of the number of children which they have. Another matter which I should like the Minister to explain is the proposal that the wives and children of ex-servicemen who married after 1938 should be denied payment of the pensions and other allowances paid to the wives and children of ex-servicemen who married before 1938. 1 know that an allowance is paid to the wives of ex-servicemen who married after 1938, hut it is not proposed to increase the rate of allowance although the pension is to be increased. No endowment is paid in respect of the first child born to the wife of an ex-serviceman who married after 193S, and no educational concessions or pension will be paid in respect of that child. Amongst those who married after 193S there are probably many exservicemen of "World War L, I know of at least one case. Should there be any children of such marriages they will not receive the .benefit of the added assistance given in respect of the children of ex-servicemen who married before 193S. I urge the Government to reconsider that provision, and as an indication of the injustice which it may inflict, 1 point out that an ex-serviceman of World War I., who was Winded or seriously injured, and has gone through year? of suffering, will be deprived of extra assistance for his wife and children simply because he chose to marry after 1938." I also appeal to the Government to give special consideration to widows who lost their husbands during World War I. Most of those women are no longer young, and because of their age and state of health they are unable to earn an income. Many of them are probably unable to earn anything at all, and I urge that special consideration should he given to them. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by that splendid wai- widow, **Mrs. Vasey,** who has done, and is doing, such excellent work- {: .speaker-232369} ##### Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- And looking after herself at the same time. {: #subdebate-10-0-s2 .speaker-K28} ##### Senator RANKIN:
QUEENSLAND -- I regret very much that that interjection was made. I think that those women who awakened the Australian conscience to the needs of wai1 widows and their needs are truly great women. The war widows and their children are their responsibility, and I remind honorable senators that it was the fathers of Those children who fought for this country in its time of need. 1 am sure that honorable senators will agree with me that no child who lost a parent in the war should be at a material disadvantage in comparison with other children. Therefore, I urge that every consideration be given to the claims of war widows unci their children, because they are the survivors and dependants of those who I mid the supreme sacrifice. Turning now to the claims of totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen, I regret that the increases of their pensions proposed to be made are not larger, because I believe that a grateful people and an appreciative Government should do a lot for such men. In my opinion a committee should be appointed to inquire into and report upon the present repatriation rates with a view to making some more satisfactory adjustment of those rates to the. cost of living, which, after all, should be the principal factor in determining the rates. I urge the Government to remember what we owe to the men who fought for this country, and I appeal to it not to turn a deaf ear to the request of war widows and their children. War widows who have a number of children to maintain are deserving- of sympathetic consideration, and I particularly commend to the Government the war widows of World War I., who are no longer young and, therefore, deserve special assistance. {: #subdebate-10-0-s3 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania -- 1. support the bill, which is designed r,o amend the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act, and I deprecate many of the criticisms of the measure which have been uttered, in the course of this debate because they are based on unsound foundations. Although a great deal has been said about a report of the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, that document is largely irrelevant, as is proved by a report which appeared in the *Canberra Times* this morning. Referring to the forthcoming congress of the Returned .Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen'? Imperial League of Australia to be held in Brisbane the *Canberra Times* stated - >The report describes as outstanding the action of the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Barnard)** in ordering a more liberal interpretation of tinpensions' regulations. The criticisms uttered by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator O'Sullivan)** and **Senator Rankin** arp based on bygone happenings. When we examine the report of the No. 1 Tribunal we find that it simply recommends thai section 47 of the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act 1920-1947 be carried out. That section is as follows: - (1.) The Commission, a Board, an Appeal Tribunal and an Assessment Appeal Tribunal, in hearing, determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according tn substantial justice and the merits of the case, shall not be bound by technicalities or legal forms or rules of evidence and shall give t" the claimant, applicant or appellant the bene fit of any doubt - {: type="a" start="1"} 0. *a )* as to the existence of any fact . matter, cause or circumstance which would be favorable to tinclaimant, applicant or appellant : or ((<) as to any question whatsoever (in eluding the question whether tin incapacity from which the membeof the Forces is suffering or from which he has died was contributed to in any material degree, or waiaggravated, by the conditions of hi* war service) which arises for decision under his claim, application ot appeal. (2.) It shall not be necessary for the claimant, applicant or appellant to furnish proof to support his claim, application or appeal but the Commission, Board, Appeal Tribunal *or* Assessment Appeal Tribunal determining or deciding the claim, application or appeal shall be entitled to draw, and shall draw, from all the circumstances of the case, from the evidence furnished and from medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favouof the claimant, applicant or appellant, and in all cases whatsoever the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed. I mentioned previously, by way of interjection, that since 19:40 the question of the increase of war-service pensions has been considered by the Parliament on only two occasions, and in the long period which elapsed between the two world wars very little consideration was given to servicemen's pensions by the anti-Labour party, to which **Senator O'sullivan** belongs, and which was then in office. It is all very well for honorable senators opposite to attempt to make political capital out of the present measure, but I repeat that their criticisms are unfounded, and I point to the basic contradiction in the views expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and those of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. Discussion of the history of the Repatriation Commission is of no avail at present because the Government has already taken action to correct anomalies which formerly existed and to remove injustices. The honorable senator made a great deal of the report of the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, a copy of which he claimed to have had in his possession for half an hour before he spoke. I point out that supporters of the Government had not previously seen the report. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- When the party to which I belong is in power we shall make such reports available earlier. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- I am afraid that if we have to wait for the honorable sena-" tor's party to attain power we shall never get any reports. I consider that **Senator Critchley,** whose family made considerable sacrifices in World War I. and who is entirely sympathetic with exservicemen, put the case very well. Of course, we all feel the greatest sympathy for ex-servicemen, and particularly for widows and dependants of deceased exservicemen, but members of the Australian Labour party are concerned with the interests of all sections of society. It is our objective to improve the lot not only of those who made such a grand contribution during the war, but also of all other Australians. In regard to the report of the appeal tribunal, I simply point out that since the members of the Repatriation Commission are human they are liable at times to err. After all, no man is perfect, unless the Deputy Leader of the Opposition chooses to except himself from the general rule. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP -- The honorable senator is too modest ! {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- SenatoO'sullivan referred to the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Barnard),** who introduced this measure in the House of Representatives, as possessing a good heart but a poor head. I reply that the honorable senator's head puts me in mind of the old grey mare, "who ain't what she used to be". {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP -n. - The honorable senator would be surprised if be knew me better! {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- At all events since he joined the Liberal party, the honorable senator " ain't what he used to be". To return to the measure itself, 1 express my satisfaction at the increases proposed in it, and I am sure that the recipients will appreciate them. I have before me particulars of some of the increases of pensions which are to be granted to ex-servicemen. The special rate at present paid to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen is to be increased from £5 ls. to £5 6s. a week. A totally and permanently incapacitated exserviceman who has a wife to maintain will receive £6 10s.; one who has, in addition, a child to support will receive £6 19s.; one who has two children will receive £7 8s., together with child endowment of 10s., making a total of £7 18s. a week; one who has three children will receive £7 17s. a week, together with child endowment of £1, making a total of £8 17s. a week; and one who has four children to support will receive £8 6s. as well as child endowment of £1 10s., making a total of £9 16s. a week. **Senator O'sullivan** criticized the amount of the increases proposed, but he did not say by how much he considered that the pensions should be increased, or what limit should be placed upon the increases. Of course, we should all like to see those unfortunate men and their dependants receiving £50 a week, if that were possible, but we know that such a suggestion is fantastic. Many benefits have been provided for ex-servicemen by this Government, and the fact that their spokesmen, in the report of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League oi Australia conference, have seen fit to commend the Minister for his efforts on their behalf indicates that they are completely satisfied with his administration. I attach little importance to the arguments of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for that reason. Incapacitated members are entitled to free medical treatment, including treatment for disabilities which are not the result of war service, and those who are unable to look after themselves can claim an attendant's allowance of 24s. a week. Their children are eligible under the Soldiers' Children Education Scheme to receive allowances from the time when they reach the age of thirteen years until they complete their training with an employer or graduate at a university. Under the same scheme, school children under the age of thirteen years receive the costs of books, materials and fares. {: .speaker-232369} ##### Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Nothing of that sort was provided by anti-Labour governments for ex-servicemen of World War I. and. their children. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- No. Of course, it is easy to find fault with what was done twenty years ago. For instance, [ see faults in the Australian Constitution. It is difficult; to have anomalies remedied, but this Government is alert and active. The Minister for Repatriation pays close attention to the reports of repatriation tribunals and the views of ex-servicemen's organizations. He is carrying out his job in a very efficient manner, and I. pay tribute to him on that account. He is a personal friend of mine and I admire him very much for his fine qualities. He has great depth of character and a strong social conscience. His family made considerable sacrifices during World War II., and probably nobody is more closely in touch with the deeper needs of ex-service pensioners than he is. {: .speaker-232369} ##### Senator HARRIS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP -- He is 100 per cent, sympathetic to returned soldiers. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- Definitely. He is right behind them. He is easy to approach and he lias the. deepest sympathy for any person who has a genuine complaint to make. We are very fortunate to have a man of such sterling qualities* in that position. Repatriation is in very good hands while he is in office. I refer now in detail to some of therepatriation benefits that have been provided b.y this Government. For example, I refer to the specific case of a member with a wife, two children over sixteen years of age, and one child under sixteen years of age. He receives the basic rate of pension of £5 6s. a week, plus £1 4s. for his wife. In addition an education allowance of £2 a week is paid for the eldest child, aged eighteen years, who attends a university. The second child, aged sixteen years, has been granted an education allowance of £1 7s. a week. For the third child, aged fourteen years, the man receives a pension of 9s. a week pine an education allowance of 9s. 6d. a week. Thus, his total weekly income from repatriation benefits is £10 15s. 6d. That is a normal case. There are many ways in which ex-servicemen suffering from disabilities can obtain assistance. A totally and permanently incapacitated man. is more or less given an open cheque if he is in need. All genuine cases of distress receive the fullest sympathy of the Minister and his colleagues, and 1 am sure that further improvements will be made in the repatriation scheme assoon as finance permits. It is interesting to compare war pension rates prior to. 1941 with those which will be paid under this legislation. The general rate for 100 per cent, incapacity prior to 1941. under anti-Labour governments, was £2 2s. a. week. This bill provides a rate of £2 15s. a- week. Men in receipt of this pension are also entitled to other benefits, such as the invalid, pension and certain other 'social services. According to their degree of incapacity, they may ako engage in some form of employment in order to add to their incomes. Special rates of pension are provided for blinded men, totally and permanently incapacitated men and those who are afflicted by tuberculosis. Such men were granted only £4 a. week when the Opposition parties were in power. That rate is to he increased to £5 6s. a week. Tubercular subjects capable of engaging in only light or intermittent employment received, only £2 10s. a week prior to 1941. In future they will receive £4 a. week. The attendant's allowance for blind ex-servicemen and others suffering from spinal injuries will he increased from £1 to 24s. a week. That allowance, added to the totally and permanently incapacitated pension rate of £5 Cs. a week, makes a total income of £6 10s. a week. The rates of pension payable before 1941 to men who had suffered amputations varied from 3s. a week to £1 18s. a week. This bill will increase the rates from a minimum of 4s. 6d. a week to a maximum of £2 Ils. a week. Before 1941, a single man who was temporarily totally incapacitated was not eligible for pension. Now, he will receive £2 Ils. a week. An allowance of 18s. a week was provided before 1941 for the wife of a man suffering from 100 per cent, incapacity. That rate is to be increased to £1 4s. a week. An allowance of 7s. 6d. a week was also paid to such men for each dependent child, but this Government has now provided for a rate >f 9s. a week. We all agree that no financial payment could compensate war pensioners for their sufferings, but this Government is doing all that it can do to provide them at least with security and a reasonable degree of comfort. I regret that this debate has degenerated into a political squabble. It has been 'brought down to that level by representatives of the Opposition in this chamber and in the House of Representatives who, in my opinion, have sought merely to make political capital out of -something that should be entirely nonpolitical. Ex-servicemen themselves are the final judges in relation to repatriation, and I refer again to their commendation of the Minister for Repatriation, which, has been reported ,in the newspapers. I agree that some of the recommendations of the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals are progressive, and I am certain that the Minister and the Repatriation Commission, which consists of intelligent men, will adopt most of them. The onus of proof should rest upon the Repatriation Commission in all claims for benefits. That is a good recommendation. I do not think that applicants should be required to prove that their incapacity is the result of war service. It is ridiculous that ex-service- men should ever have been, required to produce evidence of that kind. The mere fact that a man has a medical certificate of incapacity should qualify him for compensation. The suggestion made by the No. 1 Tribunal is excellent, and I am certain that it will be adopted by the commission. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the tribunal's report was an indictment of the Repatriation Commission. That is true, in a way, but it provides no credit for him. His condemnation should be directed at anti-Labour governments, which were responsible for many of the anomalies which this Government has had to correct. It must be hurtful for the honorable senator te remember the inefficiency of the gang thai was running this country before the Labour party came into power. He is politically associated with those administrations and ought to be ashamed of their misdeeds. This Government knows what it is doing and, as long as it has the. support of the people, it will continue to improve their conditions. It places its faith in action rather than in words. The honorable senator said that the administration of the Repatriation Commission gave grave cause for dissatisfaction, but his arguments do not carry very much weight in the light of what I have said. The anomalies which he mentioned wenCreated by anti-Labour governments and they are now being rectified. We cannot always do things perfectly in the firs' instance, and our mistakes must be adjusted gradually. I am sure that, if the honorable senator has any constructive suggestions to make, the Repatriation Commission will consider them carefully and apply them. I agree with him thai all the money in. the world will not compensate our ex-servicemen for the sacrifices that they have made. {: .speaker-KQH} ##### Senator Large: -- The Opposition parties did not seem to appreciate thai when they were in power between the two world wars. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- That has been the theme of my speech. This Government at least is doing something to help our disabled ex-servicemen. Actions are better than mere words, and, therefore, this bill speaks for itself. Our economy is in a .buoyant condition to-day. I pay tribute to the artistry of our Prime Minister and Treasurer in keeping this country's affairs stable during the present dangerous period of world history. Violent upheavals have occurred in many other countries, and people who come to Australia from the other side of the globe speak in glowing terms of the condition of our economy. Out of the increased national income which has been stabilized by the long-range planning of the Prime Minister **(Mr. Chifley)** and. the progressive policy of his Government, we can provide increased financial assistance to various sections of the community. I say, therefore, that this criticism of the Repatriation Commission is not based upon present-day conditions. Our stable economy to-day makes it possible for us r.o grant concessions which hitherto have not been available to ex-servicemen and women. The Prime Minister promised luring the 1946 election campaign that as the economic condition of this country improved so would our social services scheme be expanded. It is gratifying, indeed, that citizens of this country can look forward to a rising standard of living, and. more generous social welfare measures. During the last seven years, the results of sound government have become manifest. We are on a rising tide, and as that tide flows, so will the economic circumstances of all sections of the community improve, and incapacitated ox-servicemen will, of course, receive proportionately more generous treatment. {: type="a" start="f"} 0. have much pleasure in commending this bill to the Senate. I repeat that although the sacrifices of our exservicemen are beyond monetary compensation, by completely revising this measure we are doing something that has only been attempted twice since 1920. The Government's action in bringing down this h mending legislation is most creditable. *Silting suspended from 5.^7 to 8 p.m.* **Senator HARRIS** (Western Australia) 1 8.0]. - I support the bill now before the chamber. As an ex-serviceman I naturally consider the best interests of returned soldiers, and I believe, from my experience and from comments made at branches of ex-servicemen's organizations in Western Australia., that for many years ex-servicemen have not been satisfied with their treatment. I know that they have not had as much sympathy from governments as they expected to receive. Soldiers of World War I. whoreturned to Australia physical wrecks expected to be treated like human beings,, but unfortunately no Australian government has at any time met to the full the country's obligations to exservicemen in return for the services they rendered. Ex-servicemen of World War ri, have received many more benefits than those of World War 1. There have been few increases in the rates of pensions to ex-servicemen during the last twenty years. I have examined the records and have found that in 1920 exservicemen entitled to the ordinary rate of pension received £2 a week. In 1935 they were receiving the same miserable amount. All pensions have been increased during the present Government's term of office. The Government has given more consideration to ex-servicemen than did any previous government, although therate of pension to be paid under the present bill is still not so much as I should like to see. The Government has given, some remarkable increases of pension in the few years it has been in office. In fact it has in those years increased pensions by approximately 30 per cent, above what they were in 1920. The Opposition parties were in office for nearly twenty years and in all that time did not see fit to increase the pensions of ex-servicemen. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator O'Sullivan)** has stressed the comparative ratio to the basic wage of the ex-service pension in 1920 and that paid in 1948. His party must take the blame for not increasing the payments to exservicemen during the period it held the reins of government. The present Government has endeavoured to amend the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act for the benefit of ex-servicemen. Previous governments did not give exservicementhe consideration that they should have had. I believe that the present Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Barnard)** is 10O per cent, in sympathy with the exservicemen and is doing his utmost to ensurethat our former fighting men receive what they should. Much has been said concerning pensions and benefits received by widows of men killed in World War II. It would be easy to criticize the Government hy saying that war widows should receive £5 or £6 or £10 a week, or even a figure, higher. Let us, however, consider the two different classes of war widows. There are many young widows without children who married shortly before the departure of their husbands for service overseas. They did not set up homes for themselves but continued to live with their parents, and remained in the occupations which they had followed as single girls. Those widows now receive a pension of £3 a week and some people consider that that is not sufficient. I emphasize the fact that those widows are still in the occupations they followed prior to their marriages and still reside with their relatives. The Government has been more concerned with the widows with three or four children who, I consider, should receive more consideration than childless widows. I think that the Minister when he drew up the scale of widows' pension rates took into consideration the differing circumstances affecting those two classes of widows. There is no doubt that the Government should take full cognizance of the position of war widows with children, and make available to them all the benefits possible. The increases and benefits given to war widows, and the allowances for their children, are far in excess of anything granted by any previous government and also more than were granted to the ex-servicemen and war widows of World War I. I know that after that war ex-servicemen's organizations in Western Australia were continually fighting battles with the Repatriation Department for the extension to them of many benefits, and I can assure honorable senators that it really was a battle. We did not receive half of the conditions that this Government has given to the exservicemen and war widows of World War II. In addition to pensions and allowances to war widows of World War II. their families are entitled to medical and hospital benefits equivalent to those provided for ex-service men and women with war disabilities. I should like to ask the Minister in charge of the bill whether the widows of World War I. enjoy the same benefits. I believe that they do not, and therefore I hope the Minister will give consideration to the claims of those widows even if it is twenty years behind time. Provision is also made for educational allowances and fees, fares, books, &c, and I shall quote typical instances to show how this affects the income of widows with children. The first instance I shall quote is that of a war widow with three children over sixteen years of age and two under that age. I shall not give full details of such cases because **Senator O'Byrne** has already done so. A widow with three children over sixteen years of age who would probably be bringing some money into the home, and two children under that age will receive a total benefit of £9 0s. 6d. a week. I venture to say that were her husband alive and he was an ordinary working man he would not earn a wage equivalent to that income which is £3 in excess of the basic wage. Under the measure a widow with three children under sixteen years of age will receive benefits amounting to £6 18s. a week. One need only judge the Government on its record to realize that it -has every sympathy with ex-service personnel and their dependants. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that in the seven years that the Government has been in office it has done nothing really worth while for that section of the community. I point out that when the Government assumed office in 1941 Australia was threatened with invasion, and the Government was fully occupied in the prosecution of the war. Nevertheless, before hostilities had ended the Government had to some degree improved the conditions of invalid and old-age pensioners and war pensioners. 3 have no doubt that it will continue to look after the interests of the ex-service personnel of the two world wars. When we were calling for recruits we made many promises to the men who joined up for service overseas. I can speak as an exserviceman of World War I. When we enlisted we were promised all sorts of things, but upon our return we were left to battle for ourselves. There was no such thing as a policy of full employment. Under conditions for which antiLabour goverments were responsible thousands of ex-servicemen of that war were obliged to expend the paltry gratuity made available to them and then tramp the country looking for employment. The conditions at that time were such that any man was lucky to get a job at a wage of 10s. a week and keep. Compare those conditions with the treatment of exservicemen of the recent war by the present Government. Thousands of them have taken advantage of the facilities placed at their disposal to learn trades and professions and to set up in business. This Government is honouring all the promises which the late John Curtin made to those who served in the recent war. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition criticized the Government for the " miserable manner " in which the Government is treating exservicemen. If members of the Opposition parties had had a taste of the treatment meted out by anti-Labour governments to ex-servicemen of World War I., they would not speak in that strain. Whilst the allowances being made available to ex-servicemen are not, perhaps, as great as they should be, the fact remains that the Government has increased repatriation benefits by 30 per cent, since it assumed office. Anti-Labour governments which were in office, with the exception of a few years, from 1920 to 1939, simply marked time so far as ex-service personnel were concerned. Yet, the Opposition parties have the audacity to say that this Government is not doing justice to ex-service personnel. On the contrary, it has been most generous in this respect. Indeed, a member of the Opposition in the House of Representatives implied that the Government was giving too much to exservice personnel. Of course, the Opposition parties do not agree with the Government's policy of full employment. They are displeased that to-day the average worker is able to live in reasonable comfort. I trust that the Government will accept the earliest opportunity to liberalize these benefits still further. {: #subdebate-10-0-s4 .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH:
Western Australia -- As other honorable senators who have spoken in this debate have dealt in detail with the proposals embodied in the measure, I propose to de- vote my time to replying to some of the statements made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator O'Suilivan).** He had the temerity to say that during recent years the whole administration of the Department of Repatriation had caused dissatisfaction amongst exservice personnel. I cannot understand the mentality of a member of the Parliament who. makes such an assertion when he must know that with the exception of minor increases effected in 1926, anti-Labour governments allowed repatriation benefits to remain static from 1920 until 1941 when the present Government assumed office. This Government accepted the first opportunity presented to it to improve the lot of exservicemen and their dependants. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was still further astray when he declared that the Government regards repatriation allowances as charity. That is a gratuitous insult to the Government. It has no desire to give charity in any form to any section of the community. All the benefits it has provided, have been made available on the principle of providing rewards for services rendered and with the object of improving the economic position of the people as a whole. Government supporters are as much concerned about the welfare of ex-service personnel as are members of the Opposition parties. We, on this side of the chamber, have suffered our sadness and bereavements and we know the difficulties that have to be faced by dependants and widows who have been left to the mercy of the world as the result of losing their loved ones in two world -wars. Therefore, the suggestion that the Government regards these benfits as charity is preposterous. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition also said that repatriation allowances, when they were first established, were 104 per cent, in excess- of the basic wage at that time. He said that during the last 25 years, whilst the basic wage had increased by 46 per cent., repatriation allowances had increased by only 19 per cent. He urged that these allowances be automatically adjusted to variations of the cost, of living. I submit that it would be dangerous to apply such a principle in respect of pensions, or allowances, of any kind whatever. In the past when an attempt was made to apply that principle to invalid and oldage pensions no one objected to adjustments being made to meet increases of the cost of living, hut when the cost of Hying decreased extreme pressure was brought to bear upon the Government to refrain from making a corresponding adjustment. It is practically impossible to apply that principle consistently. Consequently, the adoption of such a principle in respect of pensions and allowances of this kind would tend to make a mockery of any law which embodied it. It is far preferable to endeavour to maintain what might be termed a normal static range of pensions and allowances and to increase them when such action can he taken without disrupting' governmental finances. The natural corollary of making the rates of pension dependent upon variations in the basic wage would be that when the cost of living declines we have to penalize pensioners. f turn now to consideration of the case put forward by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator O'sullivan),** who said that the original rate of pension fixed for ex-servicemen who were totally incapacitated was 42s. a week, which was 60 per cent, of the then basic wage. Now the comparable rate is 55s., which is approximately 45 per cent, of the present basic wage. "Whether or not the honorable gentleman mentioned 19 per cent. I am not sure- {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- I said that it has deteriorated by 17 per cent. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- I thought that the honorable senator said that there had been an increase of the rate of pension by 19 per cent. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- As against an increase of 46 per cent, in the basic wage. At the present time the general pension rate for 100 per cent, incapacity is 55s. a week, which approximates to 45 per cent, of the present basic wage. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- In 1920, the special rate was SOs., which was approximately 104 per cent, of the basic wage. This measure proposes that a pension of £5 6s. a week shall be paid to totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen, which is approximately 90 per cent, of the basic wage, so that the ratio of the rate of pension to the basic wage has not deteriorated greatly. In any event, my recollection of the history of repatriation pension rates is that at no time has the Parliament ever suggested that pension rates should be fixed in relation to the basic wage. The special rate proposed for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen provides that a married man shall receive £5 6s. a week:, and his wife £1 4s. If they have one child they will receive an additional 17s. 6d. a week, so that a married couple with one child will receive £7 7s. 6d. a week. That is a substantial income, and I commend it to the consideration of honorable senators. At no time in the history of repatriation haw ex-servicemen received anything approaching that amount. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made a great deal of a report submitted by the No. ] War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, from which he read lengthy extracts. Although that report has been tabled in the Parliament, I have never seen a copy of it, nor, so far as I know, has any supporter of the Government, other than **Senator Critchley.** However, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition obtained a copy of that report this afternoon, from which he quoted extensively. I understand that there were only two copies of the report circulated, so that the honorable senator must have "got the ear " of some one- {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- After all, I am the Deputy Leader of the Opposition ! {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- I do not allege that the honorable senator obtained his copy by devious means. Nevertheless, he obtained a copy of the report before supporters of the Government, and he cer"tainly made use of it. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- As I said previously, the parliamentary Labour party is not well run. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- **Senator Critchley,** who obtained a copy of the report only a few minutes before he spoke, dealt with the report in a most capable manner, and I congratulate him on the speech which he made on such short notice. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition complained that the Repatriation 1 Commission is not giving effect to section 47 of the act, which was introduced into the act by way of amendment in 1943 at the instance of a Labour .government. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- That is what I tried to convey. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- I thought so. " In fact, I put certain queries to the honorable senator by way of interjection, and he quickly " came across " with the answers. The honorable senator alleged that the Repatriation Commission was not giving effect to the principles of section 47, which was inserted in 1943. I Jo not know whether the former chairman of the No. 1 "War Pensions Entitlement Appeal . Tribunal, a gentleman named O'sullivan, is any relative of the honorable senator- {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- He has not that privilege. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- The honorable senator admitted that that gentleman had resigned the chairmanship of the tribunal, and went on to say that the Minister for Repatriation was so piqued at the report submitted by the tribunal that the other two members of the tribunal had not been re-appointed. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I am glad the honorable senator understands that. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- I am glad to have r.he honorable senator's assurance, because [ wanted to be quite clear about that. In the history of repatriation in this country, no person has been more solicitous for the interests of ex-servicemen than has the present Minister for Repatriation **Mr. Barnard),** who has done his best at ill times- {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- I was not talking about " his best ". {: #subdebate-10-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must ease interjecting. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- The honorable senator has impugned the integrity of the Minister, in that he has adopted the criticism made of the Minister in the report submitted by the entitlement appeals tribunal. Because the report is critical YOU suggest- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! The honorable senator must address the Chair instead of directing his remarks to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition suggested that because of the criticism contained in that report the Minister for Repatriation decided that the services of two members of the No. 1 ' War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal should not be retained. The honorable senator also contended that although two such tribunals should have been functioning only one was in existence. In reply to my interjections, however, he admitted that the staff of the commission had been increased. His attack on the Minister was unjustifiable, and the premises upon which his criticism was based, namely, the contents of the report submitted by the entitlement appeal tribunal, are biased, as I shall show. The former members of the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal took advantage of their duty to submit an annual report to the Parliament to make a personal attack upon the Minister and upon the Repatriation Commission. " Although much of the matter that is in the report is true- {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- -From what i= the honorable senator quoting? {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- I am quoting from an authority. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'sullivan: -- Mention the names. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- It originated in the Repatriation Commission. {: .speaker-JZI} ##### Senator O'Sullivan: -- It. is anonymous? {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- It is not anonymous. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order ! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition must cease interjecting. He has already been given due warning, and if he does not cease I shall deal with him. {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- I am not in the habit of quoting anonymous authorities. The report is as follows: - >Although much of the matter that is in the report is tine, yet in certain placet) only pari of the truth has been included, mid not the whole truth. Tn other places where reference is made to certain things said, certain other things that were said have been omitted. As a result of this the report is in parts misleading to those who do not know all the facts and have not all the information available to them. That assertion was. made by certain people in the employ of theRepatriation Commission, and it has been made available to me to use as I think desirable in this debate. **Senator O'Sullivan** referred to a number of cases which have been placed before the appeal tribunal and which were mentioned in the report submitted by the former chairman and members of the tribunal. Sub-section 2 of section 13 of the act reads - >An Assistant Commissioner may exercise such powers and perform such duties as are conferred upon him by the regulations' or as are delegated to him in pursuance of this act. Unfortunately, some of the cases mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition were dealt with by **Mr. Assistant** Commissioner Wilkinson, as delegate of theRepatriation Commission, during a period when he was mentally ill but before the fact that he was suffering from such an illness was realized. I do not want to do any injury to **Mr. Wilkinson,** whom I do not know, but, in view of what has been said, the facts should be made known to honorable senators. The report to which I am. referring continues - >In the investigation of pension claims by a Board or the Commission by its delegate, the practice is to obtain all relevant information or evidence that is known to be available. As is well known to the Minister, in many cases there are facts or evidence which could be produced, but which are unknown to the Commission, and it therefore has no opportunity of obtaining them. That is important. ft is only after refusal of such claims by the Commission that the applicants make an attempt to make available to the Commission further information (not previously divulged) which will assist their claims. I have had a great deal of. experience with people who have made complaints and accusations, not only since I have been a member of this Parliament, but also for many years previously. People who have made serious accusations are rarely prepared to substantiate them in affidavits. From my experience, I know that many applicants do not supply complete information about their cases in thefirst instance and make all of the relevant' facts known only when they appeal against adverse decisions. This sort of thing has been used unfairly in arguments against the efficiency of the Repatriation Commission. The report continues - >Although under Section 47 (2)- "it shall not be necessary for the claimant, applicant or appellant to furnish proof to support his claim ", there is no doubt that it is most advisable and common sense for him to produce all known facts or factors which will weigh in his favour. Many appeals which are finally resolved by the production of further evidence by the member could have been resolved in his favour in the first instance, had such further evidence which it was in his power to bring forward, but which was unknown to the Board or Commission, been in fact brought forward by him. I could present many more facts onthis subject, hut I shall not weary the Senate. I shall merely establish my case. This document also states - >It is suggested here, however, that one of the main reasons why the legislature saw fit in 1929 to appoint War Pensions Appeal Tribunals was because it was foreseen that, notwithstanding all that was done to prevent it, in view of the very large number of pen sion claims that would be dealt with, such and other errors or omissions were likely to occur, and War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals were appointed to assist appellants. > >The Commission is quite clear on the pro visions of Section 47 of the Australian Sol diers' Repatriation Act. The Commission has done all it can to see that the provisions of Section *47* are carried out. That is the very opposite of what the Deputy Leader of the Oppositionhas said. In fact, the chairman of the commission received a letter of commendation from the No. 1 Tribunal inthefollowingterms : - 6th September,1946 G.F. Wootten, Esquire, Chairman, Repatriation Commission. 314 Collins-street, Melbourne. Dear General Wootten,. Receipt is acknowledged of your C.L. 352 Many thanks. If you will permit us to say so, mycolleagueand I feel that the circular focuses attention very clearly upon the implications of Section 47. and places that section in a proper perspective. The letter is signed by the chairman of the tribunal, **Mr. G.** J. J. O'Sullivan, the very man who submitted the condemnatory report which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition Las quoted. The report continues - >As regards paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 >n page 9 of tl,e report, these paragraphs are misleading as they were part of an argument *i** to what would lie one effect of Section 47 if certain premises put forward by **Mr. O'sullivan** held good. Such premises' as he put forward have been omitted altogether from the report of No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. It is to be realized that thu commission acts as an appeal body dealing with appeals which come to it from Repatriation Boards, and in the course of dealing with rneb appeals it follows that some are granted and some are disallowed. **Mr. O'Sullivan's** premises were that tile commission, when acting as an appellate body, in the action of coining to a decision adverse to the appellant " contends that the . . . appeal should not be jinn ted or allowed to the full extent claimed ": Mid that therefore the onus of proof in such use was on the commission. It was pointed jut to him that if the wording of the Section did mean what he claimed, then on exactly the -nine argument the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal would also, in coming to a decision adverse to the appellant, be an ' authority who contends that the . . . appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed"; and that on his **(Mr. O'Sullivan's)** own argument that would place iiic onus of proof on the War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. That contradicts what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has said. {: .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator Critchley: -- No wonder the honorable senator has left the chamber ! {: .speaker-JXE} ##### Senator NASH: -- It is a pity. I should have liked him to remain here until I completed the story. Apparently, the honorable gentleman hoped that his statements would pass unchallenged in the belief that other honorable senators were not *au fait* with the terms of the report. [ should like to refer to other aspects of the bill, but, having already spoken at length on one important subject, I shall defer those remarks until the bill is in the committee stage. {: #subdebate-10-0-s6 .speaker-JZH} ##### Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales -- I take part in this debate only because of an apparent misunderstanding regarding **Mr. Gerald** O'Sullivan, who was chairman of the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal, to which so many references have been made. It would seem, from propaganda that has been disseminated, that **Mr. O'Sullivan** resigned from his position after submitting to the Government the tribunal's report for 1947-48. That is not so. **Mr.** O'Sullivan sought the position of chairman of the Taxation Board of Review, which carries greater emoluments than were attached to his former post, and his application was successful. He left the war pensions tribunal with no desire to discredit this Government. I have not studied its report but I know something; about it and I am aware of some of the difficulties under which the tribunal had to work. An appellant who goes before an appeal tribunal is at liberty to take an advisor with him. For this purpose, he can secure the services of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia, which is supposed to prepare his case. However, when an ex-serviceman appears before a tribunal, he finds that medical officers are lined up before it using all sorts of obscure medical jargon. Usually he is completely bamboozled and has no chance of rebutting the medical evidence. The doctors " put it over " him. **Mr. O'Sullivan,** as a very able barrister, was able to detect what was happening but, as chairman of the No. 1 Tribunal, he could not interfere without being accused of bias. Facts like that have not been taken into account in this debate. The Opposition in the Senate and in the House of Representatives has attempted to bolster its very weak case against the Government's repatriation proposals by saying that the Government is mean. The fact is that if the Government had granted an all-round increase of fi a week to ex-servicemen and their dependants, the Opposition would still have claimed that the concession was paltry. Its accusations of lack of sympathy on the part of the Government will have little effect upon ex-servicemen. Those who are in the unfortunate position of being totally and permanently incapacitated will realize that the Government is dispensing a measure of justice that was withheld by anti-Labour governments. Anybody would imagine, after listening to members of the Opposition, that there were no totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen in Australia before the Labour party took office in 1941. The fact is that antiLabour governments gave very short shrift to those people. Mere sympathy is of no use to incapacitated ex-servicemen and it is not appreciated by them. I have been in Braithwaite convalescent home at North Sydney. I was deeply affected by the condition of many of the patients who had been twisted and maimed by war. To let them think that one is sympathetic towards them is to offend them deeply. They do not seek sympathy. They do not regard their benefits as charity. They accept what is given to them as a right, and they look upon the increases which this Government has granted to them in that light. They receive a little more in the way of pension than is provided for persons who have been maimed as the result of accidents in civil life. The Labour party has provided that men who are injured at work or when travelling to or from work may receive compensation for the duration of their disability, even though that may be for life. However, such men have to pay for medical attention and drugs. Ex-servicemen are provided with free hospital treatment and accommodation in convalescent homes and with free medicine. In addition, their pensions are at a righer rate than the payments made to an injured workman who successfully sues for compensation. I believe that most ex-servicemen resent the propaganda in which members of the Opposition parties are indulging. Some members of this chamber will recall that in 1941 there was a meeting of exservicemen members of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. At about that time, a conference of representatives of ex-servicemen's organizations was being held to discuss proposed amendments of the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act. Delegates to that conference were invited to meet the committee of parliamentarians to which I have referred. Members of that committee included the Postmaster-General **(Senator Cameron)** and the Minister for Shipping and Fuel **(Senator Ashley).** The delegates from the conference of returned soldiers included representatives of organizations of limbless, blinded, totally ' and permanently incapacitated, and tuberculous ex-servicemen. With them was a **Mr. .Brady,** a solicitor. I. do not know what position **Mr. Brady** holds in the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia to-day, but, on that occasion, he complained loudly that the proposed 20 per cent, increase of pensions was not sufficient. He was not supported by his colleagues, however, because most of them agreed that the Government was making the first real attempt to improve the conditions of disabled ex-servicemen. It insignificant that at the subsequent elections in 1943, Labour's representation 'in the Parliament was increased substantially, with the result that Labour assumed control of both houses of the Parliament for the first time for several decades. That is what the exservicemen thought of the Government's policy. If returned soldiers to-day are tempted to be swayed by the Opposition's promises of better treatment should Labour be cast from office at the next elections, they should carry their mind.back to the conditions that obtained prior to 1941, when ex-servicemen were treated most shabbily by governments formed b the United Australia, party, now known as the Liberal party. {: #subdebate-10-0-s7 .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP -- *in reply* - 1 should like to reply briefly to several statements that have been made by thiDeputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator O'Sullivan).** The honorable senator sought to create the impression that the Government was paying pensions to exservicemen only as a charity. This matter has been emphatically and convincingly dealt with by several speakers, and I wish merely to emphasize that the Government regards pensions of all kinds as a right. In fact, long before federation, the Labour movement urged acceptance of this view. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred also to the deteriorating purchasing power of money. It is true that the purchasing power of money is decreasing, but responsibility for that lies largely with the honorable senator himself, and the party of which he is a member. The Government realized long -ago the necessity to prevent inflation, but when it submitted to the people a referendum seeking control by the Commonwealth Parliament of prices and rents so that a stable economy could be maintained in this country, **Senator** O'Sullivan and his colleagues of the Liberal party opposed the proposal, and succeeded in having the. referendum defeated. The honorable senator is the champion of those who believe that they should be permitted to exploit the people of this country by charging whatever they like for their goods. They seek to be a law unto themselves. How then can the Deputy Leader of the Opposition complain in this chamber about the depreciation of the currency when, in fact, that has been brought about largely because of the efforts of his political colleagues, who believe in the perpetual recapitalization of land, machinery and buildings? I say that in passing, because the burden of **Senator O'Sullivan's** remarks was that if hie party were in office in this Parliament, action would be taken to prevent a decrease of the purchasing power of money. As I have shown, actually he has assisted this deterioration. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred also to the report of the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. I remind him that the views expressed in that report are only those of members of the tribunal. A full reply to t he charges has been made by the Minister for Repatriation. The point is that whereas thousands of cases are dealt with by the various repatriation boards and by the Repatriation Commission itself, only a few reach the appeal tribunals. The procedure is practically the same as that followed in the civil courts. All cases are dealt with by the ordinary courts, but only a few reach the appeal courts. The purpose of the appeal tribunals is to deal with applications that are rejected by the com mission. Although the view of a acase taken by an appeal tribunal may differ from that of the commission, it does not necessarily follow that the commission is wrong. Very often, when a case reaches an appeal tribunal, further evidence is offered of which the commission was unaware. **Senator O'Sullivan's** suggestion that an appeal should lie direct to an appeal tribunal instead of through the commission is not reasonable. The commission is respon sible for the administration of the act, and must consider every case on its merits. The staff of the Repatriation Department has increased because of the increased volume of work resulting from the greater number of ex-servicemen requiring assistance. However, the number of appeals is diminishing, because the provisions of the act are being liberalized and the commission will have powers which it could not exercise previously. The commission has constantly observed the principle that the onus of proof rests upon the commission, and not upon an applicant. That has been a feature of the act for many years. The procedure is set out in section 47, and is quite clear to everybody. Nevertheless the commission's interpretation of that section was challenged by the No. 1 War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal. In my opinion, the commission was right, but for some reason unknown to me, the matter was referred to the AttorneyGeneral, who held that the tribunal was right. However, the dispute in no way affected the commission's policy of observing the law which places the onus of proof on the repatriation authority. That, of course, is as it should be. Most ex-servicemen are not qualified to present their own cases as they should be presented. Therefore, in my opinion, the obligation is on the commission to prove that a claimant is not entitled to a pension. **Senator Critchley** referred to medical benefits for widows. The intention of the department is to organize a scheme for that purpose. Press reports about a month ago created the impression that that scheme was actually in operation, but that is not so. It has yet to be organized, and I believe that when it comes into operation there will be little to complain about. I am certain that the Minister, consistent with the powers that he possesses, will provide the maximum medical benefits for widows. The honorable senator also referred to the education of children. The position is that an allowance commences at thirteen years of age. That is based on the principle of paying an allowance at about the school leaving age as an inducement to a parent or guardian to permit a child to remain at school and receive higher education. To pay the allowance at an earlier age would necessitate basing the scheme on another principle. That has been considered, but it thought that the present scheme is sufficiently generous. **Senator Rankin** suggested that pension rates should be based on the higher cost of living. I have already pointed out that the party to which the honorable senator belongs has been largely responsible for that higher cost of living. It represents individuals, who, every day, do their utmost to increase prices. With **Senator O'Sullivan, Senator Rankin** opposed the Government's referendum proposals which would have enabled inflation to be resisted. The Commonwealth Parliament sought power to control prices, so that a stable economy could he maintained. Prices, of course, may be divided into two categories. First, there is the economic price, which is the true price, and then there is the monetary price, which is the inflated price. Wealthy interests in this country, which have a monopoly control of production and distribution of commodities, fix maximum prices, and the Government is powerless .to act as the result of the decision of the people on the rents and prices referendum. **Senator Rankin** was one of those who induced the people of this country to allow monopolists and others to act as a law unto themselves. As the result, prices are soaring, and now, the honorable member complains in this chamber about the higher cost of living. That is typical of the contradictory attitude of Opposition members. I trust that **.Senator Rankin** will bear what I have said in mind when she next speaks on this subject. The honorable senator referred also to the position of wives and children of ex-servicemen of World War I. The position is that there is a time limit. They are eligible if married or, in the case of children, born before the' 30th June, 1938. Governments have considered the eligibility aspect several times since 1938 and have seen no reason to alter the time limit. If the death of a member is due to war service the widow and children . are eligible for a pension. I shall now refer to **Senator O'Sullivan's** remarks regarding the tribunal that has been disbanded. The Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Barnard)** found that the tribunal was superfluous. There wa9 not sufficient work for it to do and evidently the chairman of it recognized that fact because he resigned voluntarily to take up a better position. One member of the tribunal had reached the superannuation age, so he retired. The Minister has stated in another place that he was not prepared to expend between £8,000 and £10,000 a year to pay men to do practically nothing, and I commend him for bis attitude. He is responsible to the Government, which is, in turn, responsible to the people. The Government has no right to expend money unless it is able to justify its expenditure. The case made out by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Senator O'Sullivan)** shows that he has not taken all the relevant facts into consideration. Those facts have proved conclusively to me that the Minister was justified in the action he took. As I have said, the tribunal was an .appeal authority, and appeals are now fewer than before. I trust that the bill will be passed as quickly as possible so that the benefits provided for in it may he paid to those who are so justly entitled to them. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. *In committee:* Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to. Clause 5 (Reduction of service pensions where pensioner has accumulated property). {: #subdebate-10-0-s8 .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'FLAHERTY:
South Australia -- Can the Minister inform me whether the application of this clause to service pensioners ie similar to that of a kindred clause in the Social Services Consolidation Act? That is to say. if a pensioner owned and resided in a house, would it be counted as accumulated property ? {: #subdebate-10-0-s9 .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP , - The position is that section 89 of the principal act sets out the deduction of pension when the pensioner has property. The provisions have been modified for age and invalid pensioners. Sub-section (1) of the proposed new section 89 agrees with that modification whilst sub-section (2) provides that the amount of property which may be held shall he £750 instead of £650 and the amount excluded for deductions shall *be £100 instead of £50.* {: .speaker-JYY} ##### Senator O'flaherty: -- That is not an answer to' my question. I want to know whether a house owned and lived in by an ex-service pensioner comes into the category of accumulated property. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator CAMERON: -- No. When a pensioner owns and resides in a house that house is not accounted as accumulated property for the purposes of this clause. Clause agreed to. Clause 6 agreed to. Clause 7 (Maximum amount of service pension and war pension). {: #subdebate-10-0-s10 .speaker-JSB} ##### Senator CRITCHLEY:
South Australia . -Sub-section 1 of the proposed new section 91a reads - Where, but for this section {: type="a" start="c"} 0. the rate of the service pension payable to a pensioner who is a married person andwhosespouseis not a service pensioner or a Civil pensioner would be such that the aggregate of that service pension and of the rates of any war pensions payable to them would exceed Ten pounds per fortnight, the. rate of that service pension shall be reduced by the amount of the excess. Can the Minister inform me just what is implied by the words - .. . who is a married person and whose spouse is not a service pensioner or a civil pensioner Does that mean, in the case of a pensioner who has married another pensioner and the partner, whether wife or husband, is a civil pensioner, that the excess would be deducted only from the service pension, or would it affect any other Commonwealth pension received? {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator Cameron: -- The deduction would be from the service pension. Clause agreed to. Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to. Clause10 (First Schedule), {: #subdebate-10-0-s11 .speaker-K28} ##### Senator RANKIN:
Queensland -- I understood that there was to be an increase. of 10 per cent. in the rate of pension for totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners, but we find that they are to receive a 5 per cent. increase only compared with a 10 per cent. increase granted to other pensioners. I believe that those who are disabled are in need of every consideration, and I urge that this matter of giving further assistance to them be considered by the Government. {: .speaker-L8E} ##### Senator Cameron: -- Special rate pensions come under clause 11. Clause agreed to. Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1977 {:#debate-11} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Senator Ashley)** agreed to - That the Senate, atits rising, adjourn to Wednesday next,at 3 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1977 {:#debate-12} ### PAPER The. following paper was presented.: - {:#subdebate-12-0} #### Commonwealth Public Service Act - Appointment - Deoartment of Civil Aviation - A. R. Murray Senate adjourned at 9.28 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 October 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1948/19481021_senate_18_199/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant