Senate
11 November 1948

18th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 2831

QUESTION

POTATOES

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

– On the 28th October, Senator O’Byrne asked a question concerning the shipment of potatoes from Tasmania to relieve shortages in Sydney, and I then undertook to give consideration to the shipment of any available supplies from Tasmania.

I am now able to supply the honorable senator with the following information : -

The position in regard to the shipment of potatoes from Tasmania is that all available supplies nl grade 1 potatoes have already been lifted; the last shipment being on the River Burnett about a month ago. 1 understand that there are some supplies of undergrade potatoes in Tasmania, but I am informed that the Combined Traffic Committee has not yet received any applications for shipping space for these stocks. However, should application be made to the Traffic Committee to provide space to ship these undergrade potatoes to Sydney, I am sure a successful endeavour Wm be made to arrange shipping. In regard to the honorable senator’s suggestion that potatoes should be dehydrated in Tasmania and forwarded to Sydney, I shall pass this suggestion along to my colleague, the Minister for. Commerce and Agriculture.

page 2831

QUESTION

SHEEP

Senator O’FLAHERTY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Some time ago I asked the Minister for Trade and Customs, on behalf of a firm, whether dollars could be made available for the purpose of importing karakul sheep for the establishment of a. new fur industry, in Australia. I now ask the Minister whether investigations have been made and whether he is now able to reply to the request for the allocation of dollars?

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

– I have no definite information to- offer to the honorable senator, who has certainly shown a great deal of interest in this matter. The proposal to import karakul sheep calls for a decision from the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and I arranged a discussion between him and the Minister for the Interior. They have agreed to endeavour to obtain scientific and otheradvice to guide them in arriving at a reasonable decision. I shall advise the honorable senator as soon as I have any further information on the subject.

page 2832

QUESTION

PIG MEATS

Senator LARGE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– In view of the forecast of enormous prices for ham, will the Minister representing the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture have a statement prepared showing the situation in relation to pig meats in Australia so that we shall be in a position to judge whether or not the prices which have been foreshadowed are justified?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I undertake to bring the honorable senator’s request to the notice of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture. However, I do know that many pigs are being killed for pork, and that consequently there is a shortage of ham and other pig-meats. I shall obtain ‘from the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture ‘ a statement on the position.

page 2832

QUESTION

INCOME TAX

Senator SANDFORD:
VICTORIA

– In the Melbourne Herald of the 10th November, in a column entitled “ The Voice of the People”, appeared the following statement, written by a person who claimed to have once been, a Labour voter : -

Mr. Chifley’s advice, as seen by the secretary of the Taxpayers’ Association (Mr. Pettigrove) is “Have more children and let others pay for them “. Figures show that a man on £400 a year with a wife and three children pays £4 (ls. for Social Service tax. Why should I pay £34 10s. on £500 when I also have a wife and three children and work ‘ shiftwork? “

Will the Minister representing the Treasurer issue a statement showing that those figures aTe entirely false., as I have ascertained that a man with a wife and two children, and in receipt of £500 a year,, pays only £21 9s. in tax, and receives in child endowment alone £26 a year?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I shall make a statement on the subject on the next day of sitting. I believe that such a statement would be of value to the people generally, ‘ because obviously there are many individuals who are not fully aware of the social services to which the community is entitled. The ignorance displayed by the writer of the letter to which the honorable senator refers is not unusual.

page 2832

QUESTION

SUGAR

Senator LAMP:
TASMANIA

– Yesterday the Minister for Trade and Customs stated that the supply of sugar to Tasmania for domestic purposes was greater this year than it was last year. Tasmanian housewives, however, are still seeking an alleviation of the shortage. Grocers will sell only 2 lb. of sugar to each customer. “Will the Minister state what quantity of sugar is being sent to Tasmania for domestic purposes, and for the manufacture of goods that are re-exported, from that State?

Senator COURTICE:
ALP

– I shall provide the honorable senator with the figures that he seeks.

page 2832

PRICES CONTROL

Senator GRANT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Some months ago, a referendum was held on a proposal to confer upon the Commonwealth Parliament power to continue control of rents and prices. In a press and radio campaign, the Opposition parties in this Parliament advocated the control of prices by the State governments, which, they claimed, would result in a fall of prices. As the States now admit that they are not competent to control prices, will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel urge upon the Government early consideration of another referendum to give the people of this country an opportunity to rectify the grave mistake that they made on the last occasion.

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I shall be pleased to confer with the Prime Minister on the honorable senator’s suggestion. I am not familiar with prices throughout the Commonwealth, but I know that in New SouthWales they have increased considerably, thus contributing further to the already high cost of living.

page 2833

QUESTION

BANKING

Nationalization

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND

– In view of the Labour Government’s strong liking for referendums will the Minister for. Shipping and Fuel say whether, even at this late stage, it will refer the question of nationalization of banking to a referendum and thus avoid further legal expenses ?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is evidently very disturbed that the Privy Council has allowed the Australian Government the right to appeal to it. I consider that after the Privy Council has heard the appeal there will be no necessity to take a referendum.

Senator GRANT:

– Will the Minister for Shipping and Fuel inform the Senate if it is the policy of the Labour Government to ask the authority of the people for alterations to the Constitution affecting matters that are already provided for in the Constitution? I refer to constitutional provisions for the control of banking.

Senator ASHLEY:

– I am not fully informed on constitutional matters but if the honorable senator really desires the information and will place his question on the noticepaper I shall obtain it for him.

page 2833

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs whether, in view of the alarming reports being received from China regarding the likelihood of that country being overrun by Communist forces, the Government has received any report of the seriousness of the position from the Australian Ambassador to Nanking, who was appointed to that post when it was vacated by Professor Copland? If so, will the Minister make a statement to the Senate concerning what action has been, or is being taken by Australia, and other democracies to assist the National Government of China to resist the Communist onslaught?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health · TASMANIA · ALP

– I shall refer the honorable senator’s question to the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs and obtain the information for him at the earliest moment.

page 2833

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE

Statement by Mr.R. G. Casey.

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Shipping and Fuel seen a report in the Melbourne press to the effect that Mr. E. G. Casey, the president of the Liberal party, allegedly said that there were high officers in the Commonwealth Public Service who were prepared to sell information for foreign money? Will the Minister make investigations as to the authenticity of that report and if it is true will he ask Mr. Casey to supply evidence to substantiate his charge?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I have not seen the statement referred to but if it is correct that Mr. Casey or any other person in Australia made such a statement I think that this Parliament should have the power to compel him to bring proof of the charge.

page 2833

QUESTION

POLITICAL PASTIES

Senator SANDFORD:

– Can the Minister for Shipping and Fuel state whether any representations have been made to the Government by the Australian Country party or the Liberal party, or both, concerning the dispute between those two parties about achieving unanimity between them in preparation for the next election campaign?

Senator ASHLEY:
ALP

– I do not consider that that is a matter affecting the business of the Government.

page 2833

QUESTION

GREECE

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– In view of the troubled conditions in Greece, and Australia’s participation therein through the efforts of the Minister for External Affairs, will the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs make any statement regarding Australia’s attitude to that dispute?

Senator McKENNA:
ALP

– Some time ago the honorable senator asked me to refer to the Minister for External Affairs a request that there should be a debate in this chamber on the subject of foreign affairs. I am not yet in a position to indicate when a reply will be ready, but the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs is at the present time giving consideration to it. I am hopeful that a reply will be available to the Parliament before the present period ends, but having regard to the vast amount of business to be transacted the Parliament would have to co-operate in making Christmas a movable feast to enable all the business before it to be. disposed of in the time that remains, but thehonorable senator may rest assured that the Minister will give as early attention to the matter as possible.

Senator GRANT:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister acting for the Minister for External Affairs read the leading article in to-day’s Sydney Daily Telegraph which acquiesces in the attitude adopted by the Minister for External Affairs (Dr. Evatt) in trying to stop the unspeakable butchery that is taking place in Greece?

Senator McKENNA:

– I read newspapers in my spare time, and I have little spare time. I have not read the article to which the honorable senator has referred.

page 2834

TRADE MARKS BILL 1948

Motion (by Senator McKenna) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Trade Marks Act 1905-1936.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

page 2834

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING BILL 1948

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 10th November (vide page 2740).

Clause 19-

Section sixtyseven of the Principal Act is amended -

by inserting in paragraph (a)

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– The PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) has not yet given me a satisfactory explanation of the amendment proposed to be made under this clause to section 67 of the principal act. Under that section very onerous obligations are placed upon the licensees of commercial broadcasting stations with respect to accounting to the Minister. Paragraphs a,b, c and d of sub-section 1 of that section require such licensees to account minutely even to the extent of furnishing an audited balancesheet and trading account. It is now proposed that such returns shall be furnished in a form to the satisfaction of the hoard. I do not cavil at that; but it is also proposed to compel the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station, upon request by the board, to -

  1. make available for inspection by the board or an authorized officer such books and documents concerning the broadcasting activities of the licensee as the board specifies; and;
  2. furnish to the board such particulars with respect to the broadcasting activities of the licensee as the board specifies.

In the absence of any explanation of the inclusion of this provision we must impute sinister motives to the Government. What activities of broadcasting companies does the Minister suggest should be disclosed in their accounts? Of course, it is inevitable that intimate relationships between broadcasting stations and their clients will be revealed. Every conceivable reasonable power to exercise legitimate supervision of the activities of commercial stations is already enjoyed by the Government under section 67 of the present act. The enactment of clause 19 of the bill will enable a Minister, who may be infuriated by the political attitude of a particular broadcasting station, to require that station to reveal to his jaundiced and biased eye its intimate business relationships so that he may penalize it if he desires to do so. I see in that provision a very real danger in that commercial broadcasting stations may have to submit their legitimate transactions to a ministerial inquisition. Although it is only reasonable that a commercial broadcaster who holds a licence to broadcast from the Government should be subject to reasonable supervision, there is no justification for the introduction of such a drastic provision as clause 19. From my school-days I remember the line written by the poet Campbell -

Anil freedom shrieked as Kosciusko fell!

Shall we now have to complain -

Freedom was strangled when Chifley ruled.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

.- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) is once again imputing to the Government sinister motives which are without foundation. Under the present legislation the Postmaster-General has similar powers to those mentioned in clause 19 of the bill, but I point out to the honorable senator that those powers have never been exercised. At the same rime I assure him that as PostmasterGeneral I should not have hesitated to exercise those powers had circumstances warranted action being taken. The honorable senator is assuming that the Minister may exercise his powers without any real justification, but, of course, a similar suggestion may be made in connexion with any measure which invests a Minister with power to intervene in particular matters. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition realizes that, of course, and the contention which he has just raised is simply another “ Aunt Sally “ which he has put up to be knocked over. The proposed board is to exercise the powers which were previously exercisable by the Minister in regard to the financial activities of commercial broadcasting stations. If the proposed board is to discharge its duties effectively it is essential that it shall have power to compel holders of commercial broadcasting licences to furnish full particulars of their financial transactions. That provision will not be peculiar to the Australian Broadcasting Act. Other acts provide that representatives of the Government shall have power to examine books if necessary. For example, when I was Minister for Aircraft Production, we discovered that the Government was being debited in many instances with costs that properly should have been charged to contractors. We ordered contractors to produce their books for examination. As the result of such examinations, we recovered fully £1,000,000 of costs that were chargeable to the contractors instead of the Government. Had we not possessed that power under the National Security Act at the time, certain individuals would have charged the Government with millions of pounds for work which had not been done and for materials which had not been supplied. Clause 19 provides that the broadcasting control board shall have power to examine books of commercial stations to ascertain exactly what has been done by those stations. In my opinion, that power is necessary, especially’ in connexion with advertising.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– That is a very interesting explanation, but the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) has not explained why the additional power is to be inserted in the act. All of the powers which he said were necessary are already conferred under the Australian Broadcasting Act. For instance, it provides that the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall compile and maintain, in a recognized business or commercial form, separate accounts in respect . of his broadcasting activities, make such accounts available for inspection by the Minister or an. authorized officer, and furnish to the Minister a duly audited annual balance-sheet and profit and loss account in accordance with the prescribed form. I again emphasize that the existing act provides all the powers which the Postmaster-General has mentioned and, in addition, obliges a broadcasting station to keep such records relating to its broadcasting service as the Minister from time to time directs, and to .supply copies of those records to the Minister as required. Every conceivable provision has been made for ministerial supervision of the activities of, a broadcasting station as a commercial enterprise. Clause 19 proposes to go further than that. Without any obligation of secrecy, it will make a broadcasting station liable to lay bare its most confidential transactions with any person, firm or association with which it has business.

There is no necessity for any such provision. The reasons that have ‘been advanced by the PostmasterGeneral are not satisfactory. Each one of them can be conceded, and it can be retorted that the Government already enjoys those powers. The clause will enable the Minister to conductan inquisition into the intimate and confidential details and associations of any broadcasting concern. I ask that favorable consideration be given at least to the insertion of a provision that officers who conduct such investigations shall be bound to secrecy, as are officers who act on behalf of the Taxation Branch and other government instrumentalities. The clause contains no provision for secrecy, and, unless it be amended, any station which may fall out of favour with the government of the day may be ruined as the result of confidential records being obtained and laid bare to its competitors. That would be a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and I ask that it be not permitted.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– The officers who will conduct these investigations, will be public servants, and, therefore, bound to secrecy. It should not be assumed for a moment that they will broadcast any of the information that they may gain as the result of examinations that they make. I assume that the broadcasting control board would have good reasons for ordering an examination of records. The officers who made the examination would be responsible to the board and it would not in any circumstances, in my judgment, broadcast any information that it obtained. The board would decide upon its attitude in the light of such information. It might decide that no action should he taken, in which event that would be the end of the investigation. There would be no publicity, and nobody would suffer as the result of an investigation unless the board decided that action should be taken against a station for some breach of the law. I move -

That, in paragraph (a), after the letter (a), second occurring, the following words be inserted : - “of sub-section (1.)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 (Functions of committee).

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Nicholls:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Are there any requests?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

. - I am glad that I am not in sucha hurry as you are, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I am not in a hurry. I am endeavouring to give every honorable senator a fair opportunity to rise and express his point of view; but we cannot sit all day while somebody is endeavouring to make up his mind.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:

– After that introductory remark, I shall proceed to refer to the proposed deletion of subsection 2 of section85 of the Australian Broadcasting Act, for which this clause provides. Now, if ever, is the time when I should expect any honorable senator, who is a member of the Broadcasting Committee, and appreciates the work that that body has done, to step into the breach and say, “ This committee has done splendid work. Its powers should not be limited. If anything, they should be widened so that things will not be done hastily”. Representatives of all parties in the Parliament should have an opportunity to investigate and report to the Parliament upon any important matters affecting broadcasting so that the Parliament may be fully informed about them. It was for that reason, and to give proper status and dignity to the Broadcasting Committee, that the principal act provides in subsection 2 of section So that the Minister shallrefer to the committee any such matter which the commission or the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations requests him to refer to it. That sub-section imposes a statutory duty upon the Minister. He has no option or discretion. Under it, the Broadcasting Committee considers any matter that is referred to it, and reports back to the Parliament. Therein lies a substantial safeguard of the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and also of the rights of the commercial stations.Why is that safeguard being removed? Does the Government not trust its own statutory committee? What a slap in the eye it is to the Broadcasting Committee, which is appointed by both Houses of the Parliament, that this power is to be snatched away from it! The Government is saying in effect, ‘’ You might be independent and carry out your work honestly and fearlessly. Your reports might be inimical to the interests of our all-powerful Minister “. This measure provides therefore that matters shall no longer be referred for the independent scrutiny of the Broadcasting Committee. The Minister’s power is to be absolute. The small assurance contained in the 1942 act that the interests of the commission, of the public, and of the commercial stations, would be protected, and safeguarded from the arrogant and arbitrary exercise of ministerial power, is to be destroyed. What do the Labour champions of liberty have to say about that? Do they agree with it? Do they believe that there is no need to protect the public by having a Broadcasting Committee? Do they believe that there is no need for the Parliament to be informed by its own committee? The attitude of the Government apparently is that whatever the dictatorial Minister may say, shall be law and the public be damned.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

.- The Government’s intention is to relieve the Minister of the obligation that is placed upon him under the 1942 legislation. Clause 20 provides for the omission of sub-section 2 of section 85 of the principal act. If any person feels aggrieved, instead of writing to the Minister and the Minister then having to forward the matter to the standing committee, he will write direct to the board.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21 (State Broadcasting Advisory Committees).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– This clause repeals section 87 of the principal act, which provides for the appointment of State advisory broadcasting committees. However, there is another “ provision in the bill for the appointment of those committees, and I should like the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) to tell me what is the difference between the section that is being repealed, and the new proposed section which appears to have the very same purpose.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– The repeal of section 87 of the principal act is consequent upon the insertion in proposed new section 6 q of provisions relating to the appointment of the State broadcasting advisory committees.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22 -

Section eighty-nine of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words “ the provisions of this section” and inserting in their stead the words “this Act”;

by inserting in sub-section (1.), after the word “political” (second occurring), the words “or controversial “ : and

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

, - I move -

That paragraphs (a) and (6) be left out. with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph: - “ (n) by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section : - (1.) Subject only to this section, the Commission may determine to what extent and in what manner political speeches or any matter relating to a political or controversial subject may be broadcast from national broadcasting stations, and, subject only to this section and to Part Ia. of this Act. the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station may arrange for the broadcasting of such speeches or matter from that station.’; and”.

It is the intention of the Government that, subject only to the provisions of section S9, the commission should retain the right to determine to what extent and in what manner political speeches and controversial matter may be broadcast from the national stations. However, the licensees of commercial broadcasting stations will be subject not only to the provisions of section S9, but ako to those of Part Ia,’ under which the board is required to ensure that facilities shall be provided on an equitable basis for the broadcasting of political or controversial matter. The commission, which is a statutory body supplying programmes for all stations in the national broadcasting service, has exercised its powers under section 89 in a manner that has won general approval. The position of the commercial stations, numbering 102, which are owned by a variety of private interests, is different. There is a very real need for some co-ordination of practice, and the proposed amendment of section S9 is designed to ensure that equitable facilities shall be provided by all the commercial stations in the interests of the community.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

– Does the amendment mean that, subject to this section, any person desirous of making a political speech or one involving any controversial matter, will have to submit the contents of his speech to the commission before he will be permitted to broadcast it? Instances of speeches that might require submission are policy speeches made over the air during election campaigns or speeches on controversial matters such as temperance laws or the entertainment tax. Would such speeches have to be submitted to the commission ?

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– That would not be necessary. For the past sixteen years, the commission has acted very fairly in the allotment of free time. The commission has made a practice, which has met with general approval, of allotting free time to the Government and to the Opposition. There is no question of submitting scripts.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– ‘So that honorable senators may form an opinion of the justice or otherwise of this proviso, could the Minister give some indication as to what he means by “controversial”? That word really covers anything concerning which there are different points of view. It could be applied to matters of sport, or art, or to any criticism where there are different points of view. Is this a further attempt at regimentation, and are we going to be told what we may think as well as what we may say, and will the Minister, under the power to be conferred on him by this section, be able to confine our right of public discussion along such lines as he thinks that we, as little children, should follow, and only along such lines? I should like him to give some indication of his interpretation of “ controversial

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– Practically every subject is controversial. What would be controversial from the point of. view of the Deputy .Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) would not necessarily be controversial from mine.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Except that at present the Minister’s point of view carries overriding weight and mine doe? not.

Senator CAMERON:

– In these matters we leave it to the discretion of the members of the board to decide what should be done in the event of any matter arising which they may consider to be controversial. Members of the board would act much in the same capacity a.a judge or a magistrate of a court, and would exercise their discretion on what was controversial and what was not.

Senator GRANT:
New .South Wales

– I consider that this is the most important clause in the bill. We are supposed to be living in a state of democracy. We have an electoral aci which says that no member of Parliament shall spend more than £100 on an election campaign. We know that the Nationalist party - I like that name, which is much more explanatory of that party, which is also euphemistically called the Liberal party and which is really a tory party - can afford a lot of money to spend on radio time. A Labour politician cannot even buy time on the air from some commercial stations. If the people are to judge fairly between the rights and wrongs of political viewpoints, they can do so only if the case of each side is put fairly, and all sides are granted equal broadcasting time. We know what happened when the last referendum campaign was in progress. It was impossible to move without meeting the Opposition’s propaganda posted up on walls, and without hearing it over the air. No matter what public opinion polls said about what the man in the street thought, the truth is that the man in the street had been subject to so much propaganda from the Opposition that he did not know what he really thought of the issue involved in the referendum. The people were misled during that campaign because the Liberal party had the money to spend on propaganda. The “John. Henry Austral “ broadcasts distorts the lives of such men as Sir Henry Parkes in play form and ends up by saying, “ Vote for the Liberal party “. That is done simplybecause Mr. Casey, the “ moneybags “, has come back from Great Britain with money to spend on propagandato put the Labour Government out of office. The interests represented by the Liberal party are prepared to spend any amount of money to put the Labour Government out of office. How can we have a democracy when such people can say, for instance, “We want 2UW for three hours a week for the next month “, and they can get that time from the station? Even if the station has not the time available for them they can always get somebody else to pull out and make it available. This clause contains a principle that is the very basis of democracy. I told a story last night in this connexion.I shall now quote what Schopenhauer, the pessimistic German philosopher, said -

Though man a thinking being is defined.

Few use the great prerogative of mind.

How few think justly of the thinking few

How many never think who think they do?

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– I hope the honorable senator knows what it means.

Senator GRANT:

– I think honorable senators will agree that the story I told last night shows how we were told to think about the American elections. It has been said of that election that every one was against President Truman except the American people. The propaganda used during the American campaign was like that used in Australia during the last referendum campaign when the Opposition told the working people that if they voted “ No “ the States would be able to administer prices control. They told the people that the law of supply and demand would get to work and that prices, instead of rising, would fall. Let the people have another “go” on that matter and, in view of what they have learned by bitter experience, they would give a different verdict now. This mass stampeding policy followed by the Opposition parties at every election must be stopped. If all parties are given an equal opportunity the people will lie able to form a fair opinion. This clause will amend section 89 of the principal act so that it will read -

Subject to this Act the commission may determine to what extent and in what manner political speeches or any matter relating to a political or controversial subject may be broadcast . . .

What is wrong with that? Does Senator O’Sullivan deny that at present only the highest bidder can purchase radio time? It is a great pity that Australia has not done what was done in England where the government controls the British Broadcasting Corporation, which exists for the purpose of raising cultural levels. We have nothing like that in Australia. Under our system radio stations can imitate the voices of the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley), or of the Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley), and have them appear to make statements that they did not make at any time.I challenge Senator O’Sullivan to say that there can be a democracy when a few individuals control the radio of the country.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Is the honorable senator sore because his speech was not reported ?

Senator GRANT:

– If the capitalist press begins to report me as much as it reports the honorable senator I shall have something to worry about. If I said anything stupid about Communists or wanting the Communist party to be declared illegal, I could get all the publicity I wanted to-morrow. I may be wrong in my analysis of this clause, but to my way of thinking it is the best clause of thebill. If we are to have a democracy it can only he achieved when all parties have equal opportunity of stating their case.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– I should like an explanation of the clause. I understand that the Australian Broadcasting Commission may determine to what extent political matter would be permitted during an election campaign when the various parties are allowed time over the national network. The commission also has the right to conduct “ The Forum of the Air “ session, which is definitely political. Am I to understand that the commission will have power to determine at what time and for what duration the leaders of each of the political parties will be permitted to broadcast ?

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– The commission will be enabled to carry on as hitherto, but provision is now being made to ensure that the commercial broadcasting stations shall be subject to the control of the board in the matters referred to in the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– Proposed new sub-section 3 of section 89 of the principal act reads - (3.) Neither the Commission nor the licensee of a commercial broadcasting station shall broadcast any dramatization of any political matter which is then current or was current at any time during the last five pre- ceding years.

As I mentioned last night, therein lies a note of optimism. The Government must think that the people have short memories when it considers that a period of five years will be sufficient respite to enable them to forget the way they have been shoved around. It has been suggested that the Gibson broadcasting committee, following the precedent set by Canada-, made a recommendation along the lines of the proposal embodied in the clause. That may, or may not, be so. However, those who signed the report of that committee had no authority to speak for me; and, incidentally, none of the persons who represented the Opposition parties on it is now a member of the Parliament. My main point is that those who subscribed to such a recommendation had no idea of the degree to which this powerdrunk Government would abuse its authority. We were assured that no Labour government would attempt to foist socialization and nationalization upon the people. In 1942, I, in common with many Labour supporters, thought that the plank in the Labour party’s platform calling for the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange, was just a pious, harmless concession by the majority of the moderates in the party to a militant minority. However, times have changed. The moderates have lost their courage, whilst the militants, although never silent or particularly nonmilitant, have now become the dictators of the once moderate Labour party. 1 am quite sure that had any one known the degree to which an allegedly moderate Labour government would go, no one would have been in favour of giving any further power to a Labour government.

It is understandable that the Labour Government is very annoyed at some dramatization broadcasts now heard over the air. Government supporters claim that these broadcasts are gross misrepresentations. I assure the Senate that they are not ; they are very precise and correct representations of what has been said and done by Labour Ministers. I propose to give some examples of those broadcasts, and I should like honorable senators opposite to indicate in what respect they are offensive. I take the following extracts from a script of a “ John Henry Austral “ broadcast. It is headed “ The Brick that Dedman Dropped “. Even colleagues of the Minister for Postwar Reconstruction (Mr. Dedman) know that he has dropped a few bricks in his day. I recall the day when he expressed the fear that Australia might become a nation of “little capitalists “ because there was an urge to give the people encouragement to own their own homes. I believe that it was the same Minister who described the Government’s banking legislation as “ plucking the fowl “. I ask honorable senators opposite to say in what respect this “ John Henry Austral “ broadcast is offensive. I can quite understand these broadcasts being very hurtful to Government supporters, but that does not mean that they are offensive. Honorable senators opposite know as well as anybody that the most hurtful thing of all is the truth. I agree that supporters of the Government have been hurt by these broadcasts, but they cannot say that the broadcasts are offensive. I do not propose to dwell at length on this matter because I do not want to rub salt into the Government’? wounds. The efficacy of these broadcasts is revealed in the impression that they have made upon the people and by the fact that the Government now desires, by exercising its power arbitrarily, to suppress them. One of these broadcasts was as follows: -

Everything the Chifley Government plans for the future - nationalized hanks, nationalized airlines, nationalized industries - must increase the size of the Public Service and the cost of running it.

That is quite true -

And all the time, more and more people will be taken away from productive industry . . which means further increase in prices, an intensification of the fruitless race between prices and wages.

That is very true. Here is another good one -

Gangway for Mr. Sharkey.

Che Labour Government has made gangway for Sharkey. That statement is true and hurtful to supporters of the Government, but I should like honorable senators opposite to show in what respect it is offensive in terms of decency. The broadcast continued -

Mr. Sharkey did not wait until he returned from Malaya before beginning his attack on the White Australia policy. On the way to India, says an authoritative press report, he uttered these enlightening and encouraging words: “ If immigration regulations were relaxed it would be of great economic benefit to Australia, where there arc more jobs than can be filled. I strongly oppose the White Australia policy “.

Then “ John Henry Austral “ says -

And Mr. Sharkey, may I remind you, was travelling on a passport given by the Australian Labour Government.

will not dwell on Comrade Sharkey’s sojourn in India - although, doubtless that will make an excellent subject for a future broadcast. As I mentioned, lie returned to Malaya-. And lest you think that this had no significance, listen to this comment which he made to a reporter of the Communist paper Tribune. It was published on 12th June. 1048: “The events now taking place in Malaya remind me of the fortnight I spent in Singapore, and of the splendid people I met there belonging to both the “Malayan Communist and Progressive parties.

Here is another one -

One would think that the first concern of a «o-called Labour Government would be the proper housing of the people. But it has proved otherwise.

Because some of the present propaganda is directed against Labour, and depicts that political party in its true colours, the Government is anxious to suppress broadcasts -of political matter. However,

I point out that if matter broadcast is not factual, or is offensive, abusive, or obscene, ample remedy is provided in the present act. The real reason why the present Government is so anxious to’ prohibit the broadcast of political matter, is that the false pride of Labour has been wounded during the last few months.

Senator SHEEHAN:
Victoria

– In response to an interjection made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) in the course of the speech which I made last night I said that I was reared in a purer political age than the present. I repeat that assertion, and I regret that the honorable senator who is enlightened and has had all the advantages of life, should protest against the inclusion in the measure of a provision which is designed to protect the purity of the country’s politics. Although he claimed that the parliamentary committee which investigated the activities of broadcasting companies some years ago and furnished a report to the Parliament did not represent his views, I point out that a number of non-Labour members of the Parliament were members of that committee. The chairman, Senator Gibson, was certainly not a Labour supporter, and with all respect to his successors in the office of Postmaster-General, I do not think that any of them commanded more respect from the members of the Parliament. The report which he submitted on postal facilities, following his tour abroad, was excellent, and he considerably improved the service rendered to the community by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department. Another nonLabour member of that committee who was respected by all members of the Parliament and was well-known in Nationalist party circles, was Sir Charles Marr, who was later entrusted with the conduct of the Royal 1 tour in 1934. Mr. Price, of South Australia, an eminent educationist was another non-Labour member of that committee. Those three gentlemen represented the nonLabour parties on the committee. The present Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) and the present Minister for the Navy (Mr. Riordan), and ] believe, also Senator Amour, were member? nif that committee. The committee reported that the opponents of Labour were resorting to measures which threatened to destroy the purity of the country’s political life. During the early part of the war commercial stations broadcast matter which suggested that Hitler was behind the Australian Labour party, and that the nazis would be pleased if Labour won the election. Indeed, some of the propaganda issued by the enemies of Labour was so repulsive that certain broadcasting stations refused to broadcast it. However, because of the activities of some broadcasting stations it was decided to impose a limitation upon their activities, and the principal act was amended to provide that broadcasts of political propaganda should not be made between the date of issue of writs for an election and the election. However, the enemies of Labour are now as unscrupulous as ever, and interests which have large sums of money to spend on propaganda are desperately anxious not only to destroy the present Labour Government but also to bring the parliamentary institution into disrepute. They suggest that amongst the supporters of the Government in the Parliament there are disloyalists and other undesirable persons. That is a vicious lie, and it may well be the prelude to the inauguration of a totalitarian form of government, a development which honorable senators opposite profess to abhor. In the circumstances the Government has decided to put an end to abuse of the broadcasting facilities by amending the principal act and that is the reason for the inclusion of the clause in the bill.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

.- The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) has suggested that the reason for the introduction of this clause in the measure is that members of the Government are annoyed. As a member of the Government, I must confess that I feel some annoyance at the unscrupulous, activities of our opponents, and I am amazed at the leniency which we have displayed towards certain broadcasting stations. On a previous occasion, when a commercial broadcasting station abused its privileges, my namesake, the honorable member for Barker in the House of Representatives (Mr. Archie Cameron), who was Postmaster-General at the time, simply shut the station concerned off the air. However, when a similar case of breach of privilege of a broadcasting company was reported to me as PostmasterGeneral, I did not take precipitate action, but wrote to the broadcasting station concerned for an explanation. The broadcast item which gave rise tr. complaint in that instance was entitled. “Is Your Home Your Castle?”. A wireless licence inspector employed by the Post Office was portrayed making a call on a resident in the course of his duty. During the imaginary conversation which ensued at the house of the householder, the voice representing the inspector made the utterly false assertion that the official had the right to enter and search the premises. The procedure followed by the Post Office in the detection of unlicensed wireless receivers has been unchanged since the inception of broadcasting, and those who have occupied the office of Postmaster-General in governments of various political colour have been responsible for the activities of those officers. That particular broadcast was a classic example of how drama may be used to appeal to the emotions of the listening public, rather than to present a reasoned statement for their consideration. “When I communicated with representatives of the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting. Stations they expressed regret for that broadcast, which was made on behalf of the Liberal party.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– When was that particular broadcast made?

Senator CAMERON:

– During last August. The Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations admitted that it was an untruth, but so far as I know the Liberal party has never admitted the untruthfulness of any of its propaganda. I have received a number of letters complaining of similar broadcasts, and I had the departmental recordings placed before me. Those records disclose that the broadcasts concerning which complaints have been made were either gross exaggerations or deliberate untruths. I shall quote the last letter which I received. It was written by the Australian Arts Movement on the 6th November and is as follows: -

Dear Senator Cameron,

We desire to enter a protest against the dramatized propaganda of the John Austral series authorized by the Liberal party and enlist your support in the content matter of this letter.

We are desirous that politics does not infiltrate into the cultural or entertainment sphere. We believe that it is bad for a community to bo fed on drama which carries propaganda and that polities degrades itself when ithas to resort to employing or enlisting actors and actresses in a sordid attempt to belittle the Government.

Every leader or member of political parties should be ensured of free speech, but in a dignified and truthful manner. A party which has been so apathetic to the cultural needs of the community has lost all right to enter into dramatized political plays.

The broadcasting stations which allow these broadcasts are not saying, as in previous broadcasts, whether the views expressed are the views of the station, also the names of lice actors and actresses are not mentioned, a nd it is with the intention of fooling the public that they are the man in the street. We ask that you enforce this request for these broadcasts and the Country Quiz to itemize the casts employed.

We will support the Broadcasting Bill because we feel that some benefit will result, a nd that the broadcasting stations can no longer be allowed to exploit for profit in the manner they have done. We feel, too, that the Government should air the bill, as many people are under the impression that it is merely socializing. We have long worked for government control in such a vital avenue.

In our work which has brought us into contact with many organizations, political and otherwise, we are of the opinion that big business and the parties who represent them will not be of benefit to the workers. Their apathy to assist in any reform of education and culture is appalling. It is now up to the Government to take more interest in the cultural welfare of the nation and assist in its progress.

The children of the working class should have the equality of opportunity denied to them at present. In an industrial area like Newcastle the situation is appalling.

We have no political affiliations. We believe in the common good. In trying to keep politics out of the cultural and entertainment sphere we are voicing the opinion of many cultural organizations. We fought and won against communistic infiltration and will do the same to the Liberal party. It is hoped that the dignity of the Labour party will not let it resort to such a method.

Trusting you will give this your sympathetic consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs. C. J. Dougan, Honorary Organizer.

That letter did not come from a political party or trade union. I have received dozens of letters expressing similar sentiments. Personally, I do not consider that such broadcasts constitute dramatization. For the most part, they consist of lying misrepresentation. That is the proper description which should be applied to them. If the Liberal party proposes to continue to use the air waves for the purpose of misrepresenting government activities, as it has done up to date, the Government would be remiss if it did not take the action that it proposes to take.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– The soulful letter which was just read by the PostmasterGeneral (Senator Cameron) reminds me of some of the letters received by Dorothy Dix. They are very appropriate to the answers that are required. At this stage, and at any stage, I dissociate myself entirely from any broadcast which is not factual, and which is untruthful. I am sure that every other member of the Liberal party does so, too. It is not necessary for the Liberal party to lie about the Labour party. All we want the people to know are the facts. If the facts have been unduly exaggerated, misstated or misrepresented, I certainly offer no commendation of such broadcasts. Anything of that sort is entirely unnecessary. We have enough facts against the Labour party to sink a battleship, and I am satisfied that, if the people get to know the facts, they will do the right thing at the next election.

Senator AMOUR:
New South Wales

– As I said during my second reading speech, the day will come when the Government will have to amend this provision so as to prohibit completely the dramatization of any political matter. As Senator Sheehan said, the Broadcasting Committee considered the subject of political dramatizations when ex-Senator Gibson was chairman of the committee. I believe that, if the members of the Gibson committee were to meet to-day, they would recommend that political dramatizations should not be broadcast. Had they believed that such broadcasts would be used as the Liberal party has used them, they would have recommended a complete ban. For the sake of political advantage, the Liberal party has sponsored dramatic broadcasts falsely purporting to portray events in this Parliament. The passage of this bill will prevent the dramatization of anything that happened in the Parliament for a period of five years’ immediately preceding the date of broadcast, but I have no doubt that the broadcasting stations will continue to be used, as the newspapers are used, to spread lies and build propaganda around those lies. I have listened to Liberal party propaganda broadcasts about the “spiral of prices”. Any uninformed listener would assume from such broadcasts that the Labour party opposed the referendum proposals for the retention of prices control by the Commonwealth. He would be led to believe that the Liberal party fought against the surrender of those powers. That party and its supporters will continue to engage in such misleading propaganda. They have wealth behind them but that is all. Even in the House of Representatives, Opposition members are unable to agree amongst themselves. They are like people lost in a wilderness. All that they have to bolster them up as a political movement is money. Without money they would be helpless. Anybody who has studied the use of propaganda for political purposes in any part of the world realizes that its chief object is the destruction of democratic government. The Liberal party’s propaganda is designed to bring ridicule upon this Parliament. I warn its members that, if they continue with such tactics, they may live to see grow up in this country an “ ism “ which will not be liberalism. Liberalism is bad enough, but communism would be worse. The only aim of the Liberal party, with its wealth, is deliberately to mislead the public and foster a belief that this Government is recreant to its trust and has no thought for the welfare of the Australian peoj.de. We know, and the members of the Liberal party know, that that is not true. Nevertheless, they persist in their efforts to encourage such a belief, “f repeat that the clause is not sufficiently far-reaching. It should have been designed to prevent for ever the dramati- zation of any political matter in radio broadcasts. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) has said that he and his colleagues have enough facts against the Labour party to sink a battleship. If so, why do they need to use lying, filthy, political dramatization? They say that they have the facts. We know that they have the money. Why. therefore, do they not finance broadcasts by Senator O’Sullivan over the two major networks which they control? They should sponsor a sixty-minute session once a week for him on the Macquarie network. He could then tell the people some of the facts that he says that he has against the Labour party. The Opposition has its Harrisons, its Menzies and its McEwens. Why has it not set them up to tell the facts? It has the right to do so.

Senator Cooke:

– It has “ stooges “ to do that.

Senator AMOUR:

– That is so. Members of the Opposition have not the necessary ability, and so they find “ stooges “ to broadcast their propaganda in dramatized form for money. Of course, Judas sold out, and the actors have sold out for money - money that is handed out by the people who finance the Liberal party. I am very concerned about this aspect of broadcasting, and I should like the Government to give serious consideration to my suggestion. If it be impracticable to amend the clause at this stage, I urge it to insert an amendment when the measure is being considered in the House of Representatives so as to place a permanent ban upon dramatized political broadcasts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 (Certain licences not to be issued under Wireless Telegraphy Act).

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

– I gather that this clause will remove from the Australian Broadcasting Act the provision that the Minister administering the Wireless Telegraphy Act shall not, “ except on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting, grant licences in respect of facsimile, television or frequency modulation services “. I see in this a further diminution of the already dwindling powers of the Broadcasting Committee. I am a member of the committee, and I have previously mentioned in this chamber the fact that the Government completely ignores it in connexion with certain major matters related to broadcasting. This provision will further narrow the powers of the committee. I object to such treatment of a body which could be of great value. It is composed of Government supporters and members of the Opposition from both Houses of the Parliament and it is able to visit places and take evidence publicly. As the result of its activities it should be able to present many valuable reports and sound recommendations. It should be of great assistance to the Parliament. However, its powers are being whittled away at every possible opportunity. As a member of the committee, I feel very strongly about this, and I am sure that members of the committee who support the Government must also feel as I do.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– It is not the intention of the Government to ignore the members of the Broadcasting Committee. The committee can carry out the work that is entrusted to it. The explanation of clause 25 is that the Australian Broadcasting Act, as it will be amended by this bill, will cover also television stations and facsimile stations. It is necessary to make the proposed amendment to section 103 of the act in order to prevent conflict between its provisions and those of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. As the Broadcasting Committee has already submitted a report to the Parliament concerning frequency modulation, television and facsimile services, it is no longer necessary to retain the provisions of paragraph b of section 103 of the Australian Broadcasting Act.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

. -I see another danger in this clause. I understand that newspapers can be transmitted by facsimile services. Therefore, the effect of this clause will be to place in the hands of the Government a complete monopoly of that particular form and type of newspaper. Facsimile reproduced newspapers could contain exactly what the Minister wanted them to contain and omit anything to which the Minister objected. Therein lies the possibility of the commencement of the destruction of a free press. However much honorable senators opposite may rail against the press, I contend that Australian newspapers are of as high a standard as those of any other country. I do not suggest that the press is impeccable. It has lots of faults. It is human, because it is run by human beings, but if we lose our free press we shall be well on the road towards losing our complete personal liberty. This provision may well be the first stranglehold upon our still free press. Newspapers, of course, are subject to the law. They are bound by the law of defamation, and by the criminal code relating to the publication of blasphemous and obscene matter; but. generally speaking, our press is- equal to any in the world.

I ask the Postmaster-General to indicate to the Senate who will issue licences for television and facsimile reproduction. Under section 44 of the principal act, the granting’ of broadcasting licences is at the discretion of the Postmaster-General. Broadcasting is broadly defined as the transmission of matter intended for reception by the general public. That definition would probably cover television and facsimile reproduction; but in this amending legislation, the word “oral” is inserted. That means that licences will be classified under three headings, namely, broadcasting, television, and facsimile reproduction. I may be misreading the measure, but I do not see any provision for an authority to grant licences for television and facsimile reproduction. Proposed new section 103 merely states by whom such licences shall not be issued. If the Minister - still unidentified - is not to grant licences for television and facsimile reproduction, who will grant them?

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

– For the present, it is not the intention of the Government to grant any licences for television, frequency modulation, or facsimile reproduction. Television and facsimile reproduction in this country are still a long way off. Possibly, with changing circumstances, the Government may alter its policy, but for the time being that policy is not to grant licences for television or facsimile reproduction.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.

Schedule -

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · VICTORIA · ALP

– I move -

That, after the word “Omit”, second column, opposite “67 “, first column, the following words be inserted: - “from sub-section (1.)”.

This is a drafting amendment, the purpose of which is to avoid conflict between the provisions of section 67, sub-section 2, of the principal act and those of section 4, of sub-section 2, of the Commercial Broadcasting Stations LicenceFees Act. The latter sub-section reads -

Where a licence of a commercial broadcasting station has, with the leave of the Minister, adopted an accounting period between the twelve months ending on some day other than the thirtieth day of June, any reference in the last preceding sub-section to the thirtieth day of June shall, in relation to the licence for that station, be read as a reference to that other day.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– Again I ask the Postmaster-General (Senator Cameron) to indicate to the Senate who will be the Minister charged with the administration of this legislation ? The words “ Postmaster-General “ have been deleted, and the word “ Minister “ inserted in their stead, and I believe that the public is entitled to know who will administer this very important legislation.

Senator CAMERON:
PostmasterGeneral · Victoria · ALP

.- The PostmasterGeneral will be the Minister in charge of the act for the time being, and I believe, after the next election.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Bill read a third time.

page 2846

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill is the Commonwealth’s part of a plan which needs complementary legislation by the States. The State legislation is now being provided by the various governments. The bill is to carry out a plan for stabilizing the wheat industry, and to ensure a profitable price for wheat grown in Australia up to the end of the 1952-53 season. The details of the wheat stabilization plan are -

  1. The Commonwealth Government shall guarantee a price of 6s. 3d. a bushel f.o.r. ports, bulk basis, for wheat grown and delivered by wheatgrowers.
  2. The guaranteed price shall vary according to an index of production costs for each season starting with the 1948-49 crop.
  3. The guarantee shall apply to the wheat crop marketed through approved organizations for the period up to the end of the 1952-53 season.
  4. Approved organizations shall be the Australian Wheat Board and those organizations which are empowered by the State parliaments with authority to receive wheat and to market it as the agents of the Australian Wheat Board.
  5. The Commonwealth shall ensure the guaranteed price in respect of the export from any one season’s crop, provided that this guarantee shall not apply to the quantity of export in excess of 100,000,000 bushels.
  6. A stabilization fund shall be established by means of a tax on wheat exported to meet the guaranteed price above mentioned.
  7. The tax shall apply when the export price is higher than the guaranteed price, and shall be 50 per cent, of the difference between the two, but shall not exceed 2s. 2d. a bushel.
  8. The tax shall apply to the 1947-48 and later wheat crops.
  9. No refunds of tax from the fund shall be made apart from the 1945-46 and 1946-47 amounts already approved, except after consideration at some future date. The Commonwealth agrees that it will not hold an excessive amount in the fund, and it will consider a refund of tax to the oldest contributing pool whenever the financial prospects of the fund justify it.

Those points set out the action to be taken by the Commonwealth. Complementary action by the States is needed to ensure (a) a homeconsumption price equal to the guaranteed price; (6) the authorizing of an approved organization to receive from wheatgrowers all wheat voluntarily delivered for sale as part of an Australian pool; (c) that legislative authority exists in each State to empower the direction of wheat by the Australian Wheat Board at any time to an approved organization as defined in proposal (4) above; (d) the regulation of wheat growing on marginal areas which have been reconstructed under the plans approved for the elimination of uneconomic wheat areas, and the establishment of a committee to advise in cases where action to regulate wheat growing on marginal areas is necessary.

In the discussion with the States it was agreed also -

  1. That the States, where they desire to do so, will constitute State wheat boards composed of a majority of growers’ representatives elected by a ballet conducted by the State.
  2. That each State hoard will nominate growers’ representatives who are growers, to the central authority in accordance with the present grower representation on the Australian Wheat Board.
  3. That it will be optional for any State to act either in an advisory or an administrative capacity as decided by the State concerned.
  4. Where a State Government does not desire to create a State wheat board, the machinery of the central authority, i.e., the Australian Wheat Board, is to function.
  5. Where no State board if created, growers’ representatives to the Australian Wheat Board will be elected by a ballot of growers conducted by the State.

This plan has been discussed with the States and each of the four main wheat States submitted it to a ballot of wheatgrowers. The result was that wheatfarmers in New South Wales. Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia voted in favour of it with a big majority in each State. The plan therefore has received the support of our wheatfarmers beyond any doubt.

The troubles of the wheat industry have been before Parliament many times in the last twenty years. Most of our wheat is sold for export, and so the prosperity of the industry is very much wrapped up with international trade. The result is that our wheatgrowers have prospered when overseas prices were high, and suffered when export prices were low. During the depression wheat prices were low, and this caused so much hardship to wheatgrowers throughout Australia that a long series of relief measures was necessary. The assistance given to the growers in the 1930’s, however, did not remove the cause of the trouble. It simply helped our farmers to carry on from year to year in the hope of better times.

Before the war broke out all concerned were convinced that a permanent stabilization scheme was needed; and that wheatgrowers should be guarded against the continual risks of big variations of overseas prices. Attempts to get a satisfactory plan were made before the war, and they have been continued until the last few weeks. In spite of the general agreement on the need for a plan, it was not possible to get agreement on details earlier.

Any effective plan for dealing with wheat requires the co-operation of Commonwealth and States, and complementary Commonwealth and State legislation. The discussions through the years have been directed at an agreement on which Commonwealth and States could agree, and which would meet the desires of wheat-growers.

In 1946 legislation was passed by the Commonwealth for a wheat plan. That legislation has not been effective because the States did not pass the complementary legislation. Negotiations were continued, and in July, 1946 a suitable plan was devised. It has been approved by growers’ polls in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia and the State bills have been introduced in Victoria and South Australia. Similar action is expected soon in New South Wales and Western Australia.

The plan now presented, therefore, is the result of long and thorough consideration, and it is satisfactory to all concerned. A brief comment may be made on the different features of the plan. A guaranteed price of 6s. 3d. a bushel f.o.r. ports for bulk wheat is assured to growers. That price is based on an investigation by a competent committee of inquiry, and the price is accepted by wheat-growers as satisfactory. The price is to be varied each year according to changes in production costs. The changes will be investigated by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture. The initial price relates to the 1947-48 crop, so that the first variation will apply to the coming crop for the 1948-49 season. The guarantee runs to the end of the 1952-53 wheat season. It is intended to review it within three years, with the hope of having a continuing scheme. Wheat is to be marketed through an Australian Wheat Board, which will conduct pools on the lines familiar through the war-time marketing.

The guarantee by the Commonwealth will apply to an export quantity of up to 100,000,000 bushels each season. For wheat used in Australia a price equal to the guaranteed price will be ensured by State laws. This means that all normal crops will be covered fully, and only the additional export from a very big crop could be outside the guarantee. Growers will contribute to a stabilization fund while export prices are high. For its part the Commonwealth guarantees a good price while export prices are low. The growers’ contribution will be half the excess of the export return over the guaranteed price, but it will not be more than 2s. 2d. a bushel in any season. As the contribution starts with the 1947-4S crop there will be £15,000,000 from that crop as a start for the stabilization fund. A reasonable fund is desired, and if continuing high export prices bring too much into the fund a refund of tax will be considered. This is the principle followed in proposals placed before the Parliament this session to refund tax collected on No. 9 and No. 10 wheat pools. The States will provide for a home-consumption price equal to the guarantee, and for the wheat crops to come into the Australian pool. It should be noted that this maintains the principle that the local price will be fair all the time. Neither the grower nor the consumer will be .exploited on the local market.

This bill, together with the complementary State bills, will give Australian wheat-growers organized marketing throughout their industry. It will give them security for five years ahead against market risks, and it does so on fair terms. This security goes hand in hand with fair prices for the public, and the public is guarded against excessive prices.

The wheat plan covers the needs of the industry. It merits support because it will, with fairness to all, enable our wheat-farmers to carry on profitably in an industry which is essential in our rural economy.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’sullivan) adjourned.

page 2848

WHEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second READING

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This bill which is complementary to the Wheat Industry Stabilization Bill, imposes a charge on wheat exported. The payment will be the growers’ contribution to the Wheat Prices Stabilization Fund. The bill is very similar to the Wheat Export Charge Act of 1946. It was thought ‘ better to repeal that act than to amend it.

The idea behind the wheat stabilization plan is that growers should pay into a fund, while wheat prices are high. The fund will be used to give them a profitable price when wheat prices fall. If there is any deficiency in the fund, the Commonwealth will see that the guaranteed price is paid to them.

The payments begin with the 1947-48 crop, most of which has now been sold. That crop will give the fund a good start, because collections from it will be £15,000,000. I need hardly say that we do not expect in the future to have simultaneously another record crop, and high prices, which would give a similar amount. It does seem likely, however, that there will be another substantial payment from the 1948-49 crop soon to be harvested.

The principle of the charge has been approved by growers. Each season the growers will get the guaranteed price; then if there is any surplus from export wheat that will be shared equally by growers and the fund. A limit of 2s. 2d. a bushel is fixed for the contribution, so that the tax will not exceed that amount in any event. Taking the basic guarantee of 6s. 3d. a bushel, this means that growers will get the first 6s. 3d. a bushel from the pool. Then they share with the fund the next 4s. 4d. a bushel, or part thereof, of the export price, which means a charge of 2s. 2d. a bushel on export wheat sold at 10s. 7d. a bushel, and a correspondingly lower charge on wheat sold below 10s. 7d. Above the 103. 7d. a bushel mark growers will receive all the additional money from export wheat. This means that although the export price is now 15s: 6d. a bushel the tax on wheat sold at that price remains at the 2s. 6d. a bushel limit.

I want to make it clear that the guaranteed price is the starting point for the charge, because it will vary from season to season according to production costs. If costs rise the charge will not commence until the higher guaranteed price is reached. If they fall it will start on a lower amount. There is provision for collection of less than the 50 per cent, charge if a lower rate is prescribed. That would be one way of decreasing the charge if the fund had enough money in it to justify a reduction.

The rest of the bill deals with matters in regard to payments. Payments will practically all be made by the Australian Wheat Board from a pool, and a convenient method of payment has been provided. The board will pay amounts due every three months, and so avoid the need for a big series of small payments.

The bill is clear, and I do not consider that it has any contentious matter in it. It is necessary to carry out the wheat stabilization plan and to provide the funds for the plan.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 2849

WHEAT TAX (REPEAL AND REFUND) BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Courtice) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator COURTICE:
QueenslandMinister for Trade and Customs · ALP

– I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

The bill provides for a refund of wheat tax collected on the 1945-46 and 1946-47 wheat crops. In round figures the amount for 1945-46 was £7,000,000, and for 1946-47 it was £4,000,000. These amounts will be repaid to the Australian Wheat Board so that they can be distributed to growers in the same way as are the normal payments from wheat pools. The wheat tax has been collected in accordance with the legislation passed in 1946. A tax was imposed on wheat exported, and the purpose was to provide funds to help to meet the guarantee of a minimum price to growers. This was in accordance with the wheat stabilization plan, which was to give a guaranteed price to wheatgrowers in low-price years. The guaranteed price was contingent on a contribution by growers in highprice years for their own future security. In effect, if growers provided a reasonable fund when prices were high and they could afford it, the Commonwealth was prepared to assure them a reasonable return when export prices slumped.

It was made clear, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Chifley) announced the wheat proposals early in 1946, that the Commonwealth did not mean to have an excessively big fund. Wheatgrowers were to make a reasonable contribution, and no more than that. Now, as the result of high export prices for several seasons a reasonable fund is assured, and to prevent it from getting larger than is fair to wheatgrowers, the tax for the first two seasons should be returned. The 1946 wheat plan depended upon complementary State legislation. The legislation has not become effective in the four big wheat States. Consequently, fresh proposals have been made, and they are the subject of separate legislation this session. A record wheat crop last year and high export prices have made it possible to offer generous terms, and to assure wheatgrowers of profitable production up to the end of the 1952-53 season.

It is now certain that the wheat tax from the 1947-48 crop will bring about £15,000,000 into the Wheat Prices StabilizationFund. At the present stage that amount will be adequate, and so the decision has been reached to refund to wheatgrowers the payments from the previous two seasons. That decision was announced on behalf of the Government early this year, and this bill is intended to give it effect. Naturally, many people will ask why a refund should be made while the present tax is still being collected. On the face of it, a better arrangement would appear to be to suspend this year’s tax. or reduce it, and use the money already in the fund. That would certainly be easier, especially as the wheatgrowers concerned are practically the same group, differing only by the changes that have occurred during a couple of years. It has been decided however, that when refunds of wheat tax are practicable, the fairest method to adopt is “ first in, first out “. The growers who actually supplied the money should get back the money which is not needed. This means that the fund at any time, will be supplied from the latest groups of contributors, and they are the ones most likely to benefit from the guarantee.

There is also the advantage that the oldest contributing pool is always the one most likely to have a number of “ hard luck “ cases, mostly people who leave the industry because of sickness or disaster, and have a greater claim to special consideration. Lastly, the principle is one which the wheatgrowers approve, and as the matter affects them most their wishes should be met as far as practicable.

The wheat tax has been placed in a trust fund, and the amount has been invested. Repayment will include the interest earned by the fund. I have said that two seasons’ collections are concerned. It is intended to repay the amount for the earlier season, 1945-46, as soon as practicable, and this payment will be made before the end of the year. This will account for £7,000,000.’ The payment of the 1946-47 season tax will be made later at a convenient date which has not yet been determined. The payment is made possible by the high export prices of wheat since the war, and I feel sure that it merits the unqualified endorsement of this chamber.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 2850

SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION ASSESSMENT BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– I move -

That thu bil] be huw read a second time.

This bill to amend the Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1945-1947 has been rendered necessary by amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act which are proposed by another bill just introduced. There is a close connexion between the Income Tax Act and the Social Services Contribution Assessment Act in that the provisions cf the former are, to a large degree, adopted and applied for the purposes of assessing and collecting the social services contribution. The provisions of the Social Services Contribution Assessment Act which will be affected by this bill are those concerning the maintenance of secrecy, and the assessment of social services contribution on the undistributed profits of private companies.

As was explained in connexion with the Income Tax Assessment Bill it is necessary in the interests of governmental administration that the Commissioner of Taxation communicate essential information to the Director-General of Social Services and to the Universities Commission. Under clause 2 of this bill it is proposed correspondingly to authorize the Commissioner to communicate such information in connexion with social services contribution.

The assessment of social services contribution on the undistributed incomes of private companies is dealt with in clause 3 of the bill. The effect of this clause is to adapt and apply, for the purposes of the computation of social services contribution on the undistributed incomes of private companies, new provisions relating to private companies which have been introduced by the Income Tax Assessment Bill. These amended provisions will apply to the assessments of private companies for the current, financial year and succeeding years.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 2851

SOCIAL SERVICES CONTRIBUTION BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wale. · ALP

[5.9 J. - I move -

TJ i at the bill be now rend a second time.

This bill provides for a reduction of thu rate of social services contribution payable by persons in the lower income ranges. The reduced rate of social services contribution is in consonance with the reduction of the rates of income tax for persons in the higher income brackets. It is estimated that the cost of the proposed reduction will be approximately £S,000,000 in a full year. The present basic rate of contribution commences at 3d. in the £1 and rises on a graduated scale to lSd. in the £1 at an income of £250. Under this bill, the basic rate will commence at 3d. as at present, but the range of graduation will be lengthened so that the maximum rate of 18d. in the £1 will not apply until an income of £350 is reached. Corresponding reductions in the concessional rate of contribution are proposed, with respect to persons entitled to concessional allowances for dependants. &c. As the result of these reductions, the concessional rate will not reach the maximum of 18d. in the £1 until the income is £100 higher than at present. As a consequence of the proposed adjustments to the. basic rate and the concessional rate respectively, the incomes at which the maximum rate of 18d. in the £1 if reached will be raised to higher levels as follows : -

The bill also incorporates a new provision which is designed to effect certain economies in the costs of administration, particularly in relation to instalment tax deductions. A practice adopted last year requires that a salary or wage earner attach his group certificate or his tax stamps to his return of income. In many instances the instalment deductions closely approximate the amount payable on assessment, leaving a small balance to be paid by, or refunded to, the salary or wage earner. The new clause is designed to achieve a saving of the administrative costs involved in collecting, in refunding, and in accounting for these small balances, by providing that the amount of social services contribution be adjusted to meet the value of the group certificate or stamps, in any case where the balance required to be paid or refunded would be 2s. or less. The new arrangement is being applied to assessments based on the income of the year which ended on the 30th June, 1948, that is, assessments made in the current financial year.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 2852

WESTERN AUSTRALIA GRANT (WATER SUPPLY) BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator ASHLEY:
New South WalesMinister for Shipping and Fuel · ALP

. -I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

As the development of Western Australia is of considerable importance to the Commonwealth as a whole, the Government proposes to make a grant to the Western Australian Government towards the cost of a proposal to reticulate water from the Eastern Goldfields Water Supply Scheme to certain agricultural areas in the north-eastern portions of the State’s main mixed wheat and sheep belt which are intersected by the Trans Australian Railway, and to provide a supply from the Wellington Dam to towns along the Great Southern Railway The scheme is that referred to in the acre of the State of Western Australia known as the Agricultural Areas, Great Southern Towns and Goldfields Water Supply Act 1947.

The total cost of that part of the scheme to which the Commonwealth proposes financial assistance is £4,300,000, the Commonwealth’s assistance being limited to meeting one half of the cost of the project, with an upper limit of £2,150,000.

The scheme provides for the following: programme of works: - (a) Raise the Mundaring Weir, increasing its capacity from 4,600,000,000 gallons to 15,000,000,000 gallons; (b) raise the Wellington Dam increasing its capacity from 7,500,000,000 gallons to 38,000,000,000 gallons; (c) increase by stages the capacity of the pumping stations and mains on the gold fields water supply system to enable water to be reticulated throughout certain north eastern agricultural areas comprising approximately 4,000,000 acres; (d) construct a steel main with pumping stations from Wellington Dam over the Darling. Ranges to the Great Southern towns extending from Beverley to Katanning, and (e) construct high level storages with the necessary pumping stations and reticulation system throughout the area. The Commonwealth will not contribute to the cost of increasing the storage capacity of the Mundaring Weir and Wellington. Dam, as the State has already undertaken to meet the cost of this part of the works out of its own finances. The agricultural areas included in the scheme total approximately 4,000,000 acres, and at present carry a population of about 32,700, of whom 23,700 live in towns and 9,000 on farms. Within this area there are 23 towns, none of which has a satisfactory water supply, with the exception of those situated alongside the existing gold fields water supply main. The towns which will be serviced along the Great Southern Railway extend from Beverley to Katanning. This additional assured water supply is necessary to meet the demands on the gold fields water supply system, which already exceed its capacity; to increase primary production; to provide for the expansion and development of secondary industries; and to provide amenities by making reasonable water supplies available to farms and towns. The proposed scheme has been investigated, and a report has been furnished by an expert committee which visited the area.

It is acknowledged that the scheme will not be self-supporting, and that it will incur an annual loss of approximately £34,000, but the increased productivity and social welfare which will result from its implementation completely justifies the proposed expenditure. From a national viewpoint, it is desirable that the potentialities of the area should be developed, and the Government considers that the grant, which will be for capital purposes, and is additional to the special grants and other direct payments made to Western Australia for revenue purposes, should be approved. I commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Sullivan) adjourned.

page 2853

WAR GRATUITY APPROPRIATION BILL 1948

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Ashley) read a first time.

Senator ASHLEY:
Minister for Shipping and Fuel · New South Wales · ALP

– I move-

That the bill be now read a second time.

The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) drew attention in his budget speech to the fact that the total liability for. war gratuity is estimated at £80,000,000 and that, whilst limited payments are being made to meet special cases within the provisions of the act and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on War Gratuity, the main liability will fall due in the financial year 1950-51. It would obviously be difficult to provide, in one year, sufficient funds to meet such a large commitment, and it is wise to make provision in the current financial year and the next one to cover at least part of the liability. The bill, therefore, proposes to establish a war gratuity reserve by appropriating from Consolidated Revenue £23,420,430, and to credit that sum to an account which will be a trust account within the meaning of section 62a of the Audit Act. The proposed reserve will be established by the. following payments: (1) £1,420,430, which represents the excess of receipts over expenditure of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the last financial year ; (2) £5,000,000 from general revenue; and (3) £17,000,000, which comprises balances in excess of requirements in certain trust accounts.

The previous practice has been to appropriate for a specific purposeany surplus of a financial year. The provision in this bill for the appropriation of the surplus of last financial year is consistent with that practice, and will give effect to the undertaking given by the Treasurer to the Parliament in June last. The moneys in certain trust accounts which it is proposed to transfer to Consolidated Revenue are not directly attributable to war loan expenditure, but have accumulated from financial provision made against certain war-time risks and contingencies. The Import Procurement Suspense Account, from which it is proposed to transfer £4,000,000, was established during the period when lend-lease supplies were being received in Australia, and at that time the Government was also making extensive cash purchases abroad of supplies for military and civilian purposes. Those supplies were distributed at stabilized prices, which included an insurance loading. It is proposed to transfer £4,500,000 from the Marine War Risks Insurance Trust Account. The balances in that account represent chiefly the difference between marine war risk premiums and claims. Balances in the Overseas Shipping Trust Account, from which it is proposed to transfer £3;000,000, arose through the operation of chartered shipping during and after the recent war. It is also proposed to transfer £5,500,000 from the War Damage Fund, the purpose of which was to provide coverage to property against certain forms of damage during the war period.

In all the accounts to which I have just referred, sufficient balances are available to meet any expenditure likely to be required from those accounts, but, having regard to the origins of those balances, the Government considers it appropriate nhat the moneys involved should be applied to meeting a commitment which, in the strictest sense, arose from the war and has been carried forward from the war period. As mentioned by the Treasurer in his budget speech, the Parliament will l)e asked at a later date to amend the Audit Act to permit any future unrequired balances in trust accounts to be transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, or to the Loan Fund, as may be appropriate. 1 commend the bill to honorable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator 0’Su.i.hvan) adjourned.

page 2854

SOCIAL SERVICES CONSOLIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1948

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 28th October (vide page 2326), on motion by Senator McKenna -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– I have pleasure in supporting the measure, with the general principles of which I am in complete agreement. I shall not, therefore, impede the passage of the bill. The reclamation - if one may use the term - of those who have had the misfortune to be incapacitated by sickness, accident or hereditary influences and have become a burden upon themselves and their relatives and a charge upon the country, deserves the sympathetic consideration of all members of the community. We owe such persons a duty, not only in Christian charity but also in citizenship, to assist them to recover their proper place in society, and therefore the provisions of the measure are most commendable, [n addition, it is obvious that the national economy will benefit in some degree from work performed by pensioners, who will be enabled to make some direct contribution to the community in return for the assistance extended to them. From the speech made by the Minister for Social Services (Senator McKenna) I obtained the impression that the Government’s efforts will be directed primarily at rehabilitating those who have prospects of regaining their place in society. I urge that particular consideration be given to the claims of youthful invalids, who should be given priority over other classes. In the course of his speech the Minister stated -

Those payments, as well as rehabilitation allowances and training allowances, will nol be taken into account as “income” in deter mining the rate of any invalid or age pension payable to the spouse of a trainee.

I trust that later we shall be able to afford assistance to all those unfortunate people who are deserving of it, but, as the Minister pointed out, present shortages of material and man-power compel us to restrict the distribution of such assistance. As I have said, youth is particularly deserving of assistance, and although the general distribution of benefits must be restricted I urge that youth be given preference over age pensioners. Since the Commonwealth is to provide the money to finance the scheme, it is proper for it to establish machinery to control the expenditure of the money, and in establishing that organization it should seek the advice of the most able experts available. The reclamation of people who may be weak in body or in mind, but. who have a prospect of complete recovery to a state of useful citizenship, is receiving world-wide attention. I commend honorable senators to a document on this subject which is well worth reading. It is the report of a standing committee on the rehabilitation and resettlement of disabled persons in the United Kingdom. It was published under the aegis of the British Ministry of Labour and National Service, and it emphasizes the wisdom of having the best expert opinions available and ensuring the closest possible degree of collaboration between the Department of Health, the Department of Social Services, the Repatriation Commission and other authorities. The British committee included representatives of the Ministry of Education. the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Ministry of National Insurance, the Ministry of Pensions, and the Ministry of Health. I urge the Government to ensure that, in the administration of this bill, there shall be close co-operation between not only the Department of Health, the Department of Social Services and the Repatriation Commission but also the Departments of Education of the various States and any other bodies that are in a position to contribute to the smooth operation of this most commendable plan. The British committee recommended a scheme for the physical and mental rehabilitation of people whose disabilities are such that at present they are unsuitable for absorption, even as trainees for remedial and corrective purposes, in workshops and factories. The scheme embodies the provision of home facilities for such persons. The committee reported -

The act also permits the development of home workers’ schemes for the benefit of those whose disablement (or other circumstances) prevents their taking advantage of workshop facilities and restricts their activity to their home?. These schemes may be either for “ working on own account “ or on a contract basis, e.g.. in connexion with a British Factory. Existing arrangements by local authorities for thu organization of home workers’ schemes for blind persons will be continued, expanded and developed, and schemes for other groups will be developed as necessary.

That deserves the fullest and most favorable consideration of - the Government. T repeat that I have no wish either to impede or to delay the passage of the bill. [ conclude with the suggestion that the closest co-operation should be effected with and the utmost encouragement given to private institutions, such as hospitals, which are endeavouring to carry out rehabilitation work. The task of rehabilitating people who are suffering from a condition of invalidity must commend itself earnestly to everybody. We should take great pleasure in assisting to restore them to full and fruitful citizenship.

Question resolved in the affirmative:

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 (Conditions of grant of invalid pension).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– Will the Minister for Social Services (Senator McKenna) indicate why a residential period of twenty years is fixed in this clause as a qualification for any person who becomes incapacitated or blind while outside Australia? It seems to me to be a rather lengthy period. Some avoidable hardship might be suffered by a citizen while waiting to complete the required term of residence in Australia.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

– Normally, a person who becomes incapacitated in Australia is required to have a residential qualification of only five years. We are now considering the type of case in which incapacity occurs while the person concerned is outside Australia. If incapacity occurs merely during a temporary absence, it will be deemed to have occurred in Australia. However, occasionally, there are special cases, such as that of a man who was born here, lived here for eighteen years, then went abroad for a number of years, was disabled while overseas, and finally returned. The man I have in mind suffered disability as the result of maltreatment by the Japanese. Under the existing law the Department of Social Services was unable to grant him an invalid pension. The law as it now stands is interpreted to require twenty years of continuous residence in Australia. Broken periods of residence cannot be taken into account. There is also a doubt whether, under the existing law, the period of twenty years must be served before the incapacity occurs or afterwards. The clause which we are now considering provides plainly that the period of twenty years may befulfilled by residence in Australia either before or after incapacitation. Any period of twenty years will suffice. Itis a liberalizing clause, and it will simplify one or two other aspects of the existing legislation.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 -

Section fifty-nine of the Principal Act is amended by omitting paragraph (e) of the- definition of “widow” and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: - “ (e) a woman whose husband has been convicted of an offence and has been imprisoned for a period of not less than six months, including any period of imprisonment prior to and continuous with a period of imprisonment following upon the conviction.”.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I move -

That, in the proposed new paragraph (e) of the definition of “ widow “, before the words “has been imprisoned”, the following words bo inserted: - “is imprisoned and”.

As the clause stands, the term of imprisonment would have to be completed before the woman would become eligible for pension. The proposed amendment will merely correct a small drafting imperfection so as to make clear that such a woman will qualify for pension while the man is in prison, provided that he has been imprisoned for six months altogether.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 -

Section sixty of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (d) of sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following subparagraph : - “ (i) whose husband has been convicted of an offence and has been imprisoned for a period of not less than six months, including any period of imprisonment prior to and continuous with a period of imprisonment following upon the conviction; and”.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I move -

That, in the proposed new sub-paragraph (i), before the words “has been imprisoned”, the following words be inserted: - “is imprisoned and “.

The explanation of the amendment to clause 9, which has been accepted by the committee, also applies to this proposal. The situation is identical.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11 (Computation of value of property).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– Will the Minister give an illustration explaining the effect, of proposed new sub-section 2 of section 65 of the principal act?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– This clause, which relates to widows’ pensions, is the counterpart of clause 6, which relates to invalid and age pensions. It states -

Section sixtyfive of the Principal Actis amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections : - “(2.) Where a charge or encumbrance lawfully exists on property the value of which is disregarded under paragraph (a.) of the last preceding sub-section and the same charge or encumbrance lawfully exists on other property of the widow, the amount to be deducted under paragraph (b) of that sub-section shall be the amount which bears to the amount of the charge or encumbrance the same proportion as the value (as determined by the DirectorGeneral) of that other property bears to the value (as determined by the Director General) of all the property of the widow on which the charge or encumbrance exists.

The wording is complicated, and the intention can best be explained by stating an example.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Will it liberalize or restrict the existing provision?

Senator McKENNA:

– It will definitely liberalize the act. I shall give an example. Assume that a mortgage is taken out covering property that constitutes the home of a pensioner as well as other property that is held against the pensioner’s claim. Hitherto, it has been possible to put the whole amount of the mortgage against the home so that the amount of other property held against the pensioner was much more than it would have been otherwise. The new provision will enable the two lots of security to be examined, their values determined, and the quantum of the mortgage to be apportioned to the exempt property and the property that is held against the pensioner. It will enable the mortgage to be distributed.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– It will enable the mortgage to be apportioned in proportion to the value of the properties?

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, in proportion to the value of the two classes of property. It is a liberalizing provision. I assure the honorable senator that there is nothing in this measure that is not of a liberalizing character.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 18 agreed to.

Clause 19 (Provisions where beneficiary entitled to compensation, &c).

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

. -Will the Minister for Social Services (Senator McKenna) give an explanatory illustration of the effect of proposed subsection 5 of section 115?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– Proposed sub-section 5 covers the case of a person who is a claimant for, or a recipient of, the sickness benefit, and is also entitled to workmen’s compensation. It will be appreciated, of course, that if a person were to receive two payments in respect of the one incapacity, one from a private source and another from a governmental source, there would be duplication. Accordingly, if a sickness beneficiary is receiving, or is likely to receive, workmen’s compensation, the law provides that the amount paid by way of compensation shall be off-set against whatever payment is received by way of sickness benefit from, the Commonwealth. Proposed sub-section 5 initiates the machinery clauses which enable the DirectorGeneral of Social Services to notify the payer of workmen’s compensation that he, the Director General, is in the field with his claim. It is merely the beginning of a series of provisions which establish the machinery to ensure that the person paying compensation shall not, at the end of a period, be saddled with a liability, without having had the advantage of prior notice. This proposed new sub-section merely ensures that the person liable to pay workmen’s compensation to a sickness beneficiary, shall be given notice of the fact that the DirectorGeneral of Social Services has a claim.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– I do not see quite how the States will be affected by this provision. Are they quite satisfied with it? I gather that the import of the new sub-section is that the DirectorGeneral of Social Services may serve notice on any State which is paying workmen’s compensation, that that money must be paid to him as the representative of the Commonwealth. Have the States been consulted about the implications of this provision?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– This provision does not make new law. It has been in the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Act in a less ample form. Proposed sub-section 5 merely establishes very much better machinery which gives to the person upon whom the obligations are cast, adequate notice so that he will not be taken by surprise. There is no new principle involved. No objection has been raised by the States in the years during which this provision has operated. In Queensland, for instance, there is a State Insurance Office. My DirectorGeneral has had dealings with that office on many occasions. There, has been no objection to the principle of this law which casts obligations on State bodies or instrumentalities.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20-

Part VIII. of the Principal. Act is repealed and the following Part inserted, in its stead: - “ Past VIII. - Rehabilitation of Physically Handicapped Persons. “135a. - (1.) Subject to the next succeeding sub-section, the DirectorGeneral shall determine the persons who are eligible to receive treatment and training. “ (2.) A person shall not be eligible to receive treatment or training unless he is suffering from a physical or mental disability which -

  1. is remediable, 135s. - (1.) The DirectorGeneral may make an arrangement with an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State for the provision of treatment and training for such persons, or the persons included in such classes of persons, as are specified in the arrangement.
Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

– I move -

That, in proposed new section 135a, subsection (2.), at the end of paragraph (d) . the following words be inserted: - “except in the case of a permanently blind person, .

Proposed new section 135a deals with eligibility for treatment and training. Honorable senators will notice that one of the conditions determining eligibility for treatment is that a physical or mental disability shall be remediable. If that condition were imposed without clarification, it would debar a permanently blind person from treatment, because there is no remedy for permanent blindness. The addition of the words contained in the proposed amendment will enable permanently blind people to participate in the benefits of the scheme.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– What will be the effect of this proposed new section upon a person who has lost a limb? He may require manipulative treatment, but obviously he can never be entirely cured. His disability is not remediable, but something substantial could be done for him.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

– Something is being done under the scheme that has operated up to date, but it is contemplated that cases of the type mentioned by the honorable senator will be deemed to be remediable, to the extent that artificial limbs can be supplied. At the various in-patients’ centres that we have established in various parts of the Commonwealth, I have seen limbless men being given occupational therapy.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– Those cases are to be regarded as remediable.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes, and they will be treated as such. We have many eases of that kind.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I point out that a deaf or dumb person also suffers permanent incapacity. Like the blind person, he is deprived of one of his senses, and his employment is affected. Deafness or dumbness is not remediable and I should like to know whether provision is made for such people.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– The honorable senator will realize that the scheme is in its incipient stage. The intention is to start with two classes of persons, namely. applicants for or recipients of the invalid pension and the sickness benefit or unemployment ‘benefit. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) suggested in his secondreading speech, the scheme will eventually include all sections of the community; but a start must be made somewhere. It would be useless starting on a large scale before adequate facilities and trained staff were available. Deaf and dumb people are excluded at this stage because they do not qualify for the unemployment or sickness benefit by virtue of those disabilities alone. Also, for the purposes of the invalid pension, they are not regarded as being85 per cent, disabled. Another thought that occurs to me is that there are throughout the Commonwealth many institutions which cater for the deaf and dumb, although, undoubtedly, the facilities for those people could be improved substantially. As the scheme develops, attention will be given to other classes of the community, but, at present, its scope is limited, and no provision has been made for deaf and dumb persons. ‘ Amendment agreed to.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I move -

That, in sub-section (1.), proposed new section 135s, the words “ for the provision of “” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “under which he may provide “.

This is a formal alteration. The proposed new sub-section at present reads - (1.) The DirectorGeneral may make an arrangement with an authority of the Commonwealth or of a State for the provision of treatment. . . .

As amended, it will read - (1.) The DirectorGeneral may make an arrangement with an authority of the Commonwealth or of a. State under which he may provide treatment. . . .

Amendment agreed to.

SenatorRANKIN (Queensland) [5.59]. - Sub-section 2 of proposed new section 135 provides that training may include -

  1. medical, dental, psychiatric and hospital treatment (whether as an inpatient or an out-patient), physical! training and exercise, physiotherapy occupational therapy and prevocational training and other treatment under medical supervision.

I understand that that training is provided only for invalid pensioners. I am wondering whether age pensioners could, also be assisted by, for instance, occupational therapy, to relieve a muscular disability.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– Immediately prior to the suspension of the sitting Senator Rankin was referring to subsection 2 of proposed new section 135. She asked whether the facilities set out in paragraph a of that sub-section would be available for the treatment of an age pensioner suffering from a disability. The scheme provided for in the bill is a limited one only at the moment. We must make a start somewhere, and the scheme is limited to invalid pensioners, claimants for invalid pensions, unemployment and sickness beneficiaries, and claimants for such benefits. Under these conditions there is no room, at the moment for provision for age pensioners, and I believe that a.ll honorable senators will agree, if they study proposed new section, 135a, which refers to the determination of eligibility, that age pensioners would not fit rightly into some of the categories. For instance, by sub-section 2 c of proposed new section 135a, a person shall not be eligible to receive treatment or training unless he is suffering from a physical or mental disability which is a substantial handicap to his engaging in a suitable vocation. Age pensioners do not normally seek to engage in a vocation. Under proposed sub-section 2d it is also ‘provided that a person shall not be eligible unless his disability is remediable. Amongst the disabilities of age pensioners is age itself, and J. am afraid that even this Government, good as it is, cannot remedy that disability. I agree entirely with the honorable senator that something must be done for age pensioners, but I remind the Senate that within the next few weeks I hope to introduce into this chamber a bill to provide a national health service. Age pensioners will be covered by that service and not by the -service provided for in this ‘bill which, as I have stated, has a limited scope and is more con cerned with sufferers who can be cured so that they may return to industry and become contributors to the national revenue instead of burdens on it. I believe that the honorable senator will find my explanation satisfactory. I can assure her that, although it has not provided for them in this particular scheme, the Government has not overlooked the age pensioners.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– In proposed new section 135k there is provision for certain benefits to be made available subject to certain conditions, and there are other provisions whereby recipients will be trained. There may be instances in which persons may have to leave their homes to receive such training. Will the Minister give an assurance that the power to refuse benefits to persons who, for some reason, do not undertake training will be used judiciously? When the Government introduced a previous bill to provide unemployment relief it gave an assurance that a clause similar to this one would not be used to force people away from their homes to receive their benefits. Here a.gain we have a provision the operation of which may mean that people who are to receive training will have to leave their own homes to receive that training. I congratulate both the Minister and his officers on the great amount of intelligent work they have put into this bill, particularly the clause the Senate is at present discussing. I consider that the bill contains provisions that have long been desired by the people.

Senator McKENNA:
TasmaniaMinister for Health and Minister for Social Services · ALP

– Any requirements making it necessary for a person to leave home to receive training would be exercised with great care. It is recognized by the department administering the service that the approach to people of that kind has to be made most carefully. It is realized that it is not of the slightest use forcing medical treatment on people whose minds may not be in accord, with what is being done for them, and a major feature of the approach made by the department through the social service workers on its staff is to persuade these people to a correct understanding of any proposal for their rehabilitation. The very keynote of the problem is one of securing the willing acquiescence of the patient. The department would consider it unwise to proceed with the treatment against his will of a person who required treatment but was not in a mind to accept it, because it would doubt whether that person would really co-operate with the department in his own rehabilitation. The honorable senator may be sure that until my officers are certain that a patient is willing to co-operate in what is planned for him they shall not seek to rehabilitate him. There will be no coercion.

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

– Referring to proposed new section 135l, I ask the Minister whether any consideration has been given to the matter of providing blind people with books printed in braille. I consider that it would be very necessary for such books to be always available, and, as far as I am aware, they are mostly prepared by voluntary organizations.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– Proposed new section 135l is sufficiently wide .in its terms to enable books printed in braille to be provided, whether under the heading of medical appliances, which are dealt with in the preceding new section, or as books under this proposed section. There is no limitation upon the word “ books “, and the honorable senator may rest assured that if braille books are required for the vocational training of any of our “ clients “ they will be made available.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– Proposed new section 135k, provides that the cost of medical appliances supplied to pensioners to enable them to go into industry or a vocation is recoverable. Instances in which a person has received vocational training and has entered industry and is earning a wage that is sufficient to disqualify him from pension rights, but is yet less than the basic wage or the wage normally earned by a basic wage worker, consideration will be. given to waiving the repay ment by such persons of the cost of surgical appliances.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social (Services · Tasmania · ALP

– Perhaps the Government’s approach to this subject is conservative, but it is considered that until the department has gained some experience in these matters it is better to move cautiously. Sub-section 4 of proposed new section 135k provides that if a person is unable to make any payment during the period of his treatment or training he shall not be required to make the payment until he has commenced to engage in a vocation after the discontinuance of his training. 1 consider that such a person would bt asked to make repayments on a scale that was deemed reasonable. A man on a low wage might be asked to pay, say, about 2s. 6s. a week, or some small amount within his competence. The bil! contains no specific authority for the waiving of payment, which is a matter that would have to be done with the concurrence of the Treasurer and, ultimately, would have to be approved by the Auditor-General. A Minister cannot choose lightly to do such things. I can assure the honorable senator that the provisions of that clause will be applied very carefully, and its operation will be watched closely. The appliances referred to in this clause will very largely not be required after the periods of medical treatment and vocational training, although other medical appliance? such as artificial limbs, eyes and crutches may be permanent requisites that a man would need.

Senator O’sullivan:

– Would aids to hearing be included among such appliances ?

Senator McKENNA:

– Aids to hearing would be available if they were deemed proper appliances under this clause. They would be supplied when treatment was first undertaken.

Senator O’sullivan:

– What would be the position if a permanent hearing aid were still necessary after treatment and training had been completed ?

Senator McKENNA:

– Once the period of medical treatment and vocational training was over a person who still required an appliance pursuant to his proposed section would be under an obligation to pay. He .would be under no obligation to pay during his treatment and training. (I assure the Senate that there will be a generous approach to these matters. The Senate may be assured that ,if payments are asked for r,he conditions will be .made very easy., and that the whole position will be reviewed once the Commonwealth knows what the ultimate costs are likely to be. We shall watch the position closely in order to obtain an idea -of these costs as early as possible. It may well be that, as the scheme develops and we find what costs are involved, the whole question of repayment may be reconsidered. This bill is not the last word on the subject. I believe that the Senate will agree that it is wise not to embark too boldly on such schemes without some experience. I cannot imagine, for instance, that any one would require dentures to become efficient at work. I do not know of any one who works with his molars. There is a dental health scheme in operation in one of the States. Under chat scheme a miner was supplied with dentures. He found that they pinched just a little, and rather than go back to the dentist and perhaps lose a few days’ pay he “ accidentally “ dropped them on the coal face, put his pick through them, then asked for new dentures. We must take into consideration what happened in England following the launching of a similar scheme there. The authorities found that applications for appliances inch a3 spectacles and hearing aids exceeded the original estimate. We are watching developments in England. [ consider that the present conservative approach to the whole scheme is a wise one.

Senator MURRAY:
Tasmania

. -I should like to have the opinion of the Minister with regard to appliances other than mechanical appliances. Some time ago I raised in this chamber the question of the “seeing eye” dog. These dogs are of a particular breed. They have been trained to carry out, as well as they can, the function of leading blind persons about and have been of great assistance to such persons. An instance that I have in mind is that a blinded ex-serviceman who was provided with a dog of this breed,which became not only a great aid to himbut also a very great companion. I believe that in the United Kingdom and? America there are centres for the training of these dogs, which areallocated to blind people to -assist them tomove around without any other aid. I should like to know whether similar schemes could be organized in Australia for the benefit of blind persons.

Senator ARNOLD:
New South Wales

– Under proposed new section 1351., which deals with the provision of books, .equipment, appliances and tools of trade, the grant to be made available in respect of the training of beneficiaries is limited to £20. In some instances the .course of training might take up to three .years. Having regard to that possibility, has full consideration been given to the adequacy of the amount proposed?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health .and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

; - I doubt whether the terms of proposed new section 135k which deals with th i provision of medical appliances would be wide enough to cover the ‘facilities mentioned by Senator Murray. Extraneous aid of the type he has mentioned could be of very great use to blind persons, but the draftsman is doubtful whether the proposed new sections as drawn are sufficiently wide to permit of that being done. T shall consider whether the definition can be widened sufficiently to include a.n aid of the type mentioned by the honorable senator, if so, the measure will be amended in the House of Representatives.

In reply to Senator Arnold I point out that people who are taken into this scheme must have the expectation, or qualification, that they can be fitted for industry within a period of two years. Therefore, a period of three years would not arise. Between the completion of medical treatment and vocational training, there should not be a period longer than two years. If it is found in practice that .a larger amount than £20 is necessary, the matter can always be brought again to the Parliament, but in the meantime it can be dealt with by the Treasurer. Therefore, no practical difficulty will arise. Despite the limitation, nobody is likely to be denied really necessary equipment.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– I should like the Minister for Social Services (Senator McKenna) to deal with the point I raised in my second reading speech. As the measure contemplates the provision of aid to both ex-service personnel and civilians generally according to their respective needs, and as in some instances ex-service personnel must obtain a medical certificate before they can obtain assistance in respect of the appliances from the Repatriation Department, I should like an assurance that there will be close liaison between that department and the Department of Social Services in order to obviate undue delay, or duplication, in providing benefits under the measure.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I regret that there was not more discussion of the measure at the second-reading stage. As the debate collapsed after the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) had made his contribution to it, I did not have an opportunity to deal with the point he raised. He has urged that complete collaboration should be ensured between the departments in this field. I assure him that such collaboration has been established practically from the inception of the rehabilitation scheme. A permanent committee is charged with selecting these people and steering them through their medical treatment and vocational training. Complete collaboration is maintained between the Department of Health, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Post-war Reconstruction, the Department of Labour and National Service and all bodies that may be required to intervene at any stage of the treatment and training of beneficiaries. The problem of each beneficiary is examined right from the outset and everything that is done is done in the closest collaboration.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– I understand that in England, under the Department of Health and National Service, a special employment agency caters exclusively for the beneficiaries of legislation of this kind. Instead of having to compete with others who have been more fortunate in life than themselves a special section finds them employment to which they are adaptable. Thus, those beneficiaries do not have to compete with people who are more fortunately placed.

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– The particular aspect mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’Sullivan) ifcovered by other legislation. A part of the Re-establishment and Employment Act deals with disabled persons. Provision is made for a register of such persons.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– That applies to ex-service personnel only.

Senator McKENNA:

– No ; that legislation has application to disabled person? generally. The Department of Labour and National Service works closely in conjunction with the Department of Postwar Reconstruction in the provision of vocational training .for ex-service personnel. Although that work is primarily the responsibility of the Department of Post-war Reconstruction, the Department of Labour and National Service, as the former department’s agent carries out the whole of the vocational training work. Instead of duplicating the facilities provided by the Department of Labour and National Service, the Department of Social Services, in the last few years, has been utilizing those facilities. We have been most careful to ensure that separateauthorities should not set up facilities of their own which would not function better that those already in existence. There is no overlapping, although different authorities are looking after persons coming under different schemes.

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

– I should like to know whether any arrangement is made to follow-up trainees after they are placed in occupations. I have in mind particularly trainees who may be nerve cases. Such persons may find that the occupation which they enter may not be so satisfactory as was expected, ls there any follow-up to see whether such persons are able to carry on in the occupations in which they are placed ?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– I recognize the need for supervision of the kind mentioned by the honorable senator. That work is undertaken largely by the ladies who are our social welfare workers. “We established that particular section in the department some years ago, and recently r secured approval to expand it considerably. Under a scheme of re-organization of the department the Public Service Board has approved the appointment of approximately 30 additional social wel- - fare workers. They are the people who sort out the mental problems of the various beneficiaries, whom they follow up in order to obviate maladjustments. Thus, machinery exists for the purpose mentioned by the honorable senator. The Department of Labour and National Service has its own welfare workers who follow up its trainees. Therefore, that aspect of the work is kept well in mind.

Senator COOKE:
Western Australia

– I compliment the Minister for Social Services (Senator McKenna) upon the introduction of this measure. I intended to speak at some length at the second-reading stage, but I refrained from doing so in view of the attitude adopted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (‘Senator O’Sullivan). Proposed new section 135m provides - (1.) The Director-General may, having regard to the age and to the mental and physical capacity of a person who is a claimant for a. pension or is a pensioner, and to the facilities available to that person for suitable treatment for physical rehabilitation and suitable training for a vocation, refuse to grant a pension to that person or cancel or suspend that person’s pension, unless that person receives such treatment or training. [ should like to know whether any persons will be charged with advising the Director-General in this matter. Will the decision rest entirely with the DirectorGeneral? In what manner would a pen sioner appeal against a decision of the Director-General? Should a difference of opinion arise between the departmental medical officer and the pensioner’s private practitioner, is provision made for adjudication of the dispute by a referee? Has the department any formula in mind to deal with such cases?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– The provision to which the honorable senator h;is referred has been in the legislation since 1944, and I have not received ou«; complaint that this power has been harshly used. I think the reason for that arises from the fact that there is a medical examination by government officers in the first instance, and when necessary cases are then referred to a panel which includes medical men. Thus, if any views are expressed by the individual’s private practitioner they are taken into account by people competent to assess their value. The fact that this power has been in the legislation since 1944 and I have not had one complaint about it is a good augury for its future administration. Such cases are handled by competent people.

Senator RANKIN:
Queensland

– Reverting to the point I raised earlier, should beneficiaries be unable to adjust themselves to occupations in which they are placed and again develop sickness can they come back for further treatment?

Senator McKENNA:
Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services · Tasmania · ALP

– The honorable senator will appreciate that this is a restricted scheme. If a person’s disability on the second occasion is such as to entitle him to claim an invalid pension or to qualify for sickness, or even unemployment, benefit, he immediately comes again within the scope of the scheme. A person is not prevented from coming into the scheme twice; but in such cases, if sickness develops and it is found to be due to th” unwillingness of the person to co-operate in the course mapped out for him, that fact is taken into account by the committee.

Senator O’Sullivan:

– So long as a person’s complaint is considered to be capable of being remedied he will be treated.

Senator McKENNA:

– Yes ; but the problems of all persons should be capable of remedy within a period of two years. It is necessary to have their mental cooperation as well as providing them with physical treatment. If persons do not cooperate with the medical officers in the course mapped out for them it is not of much use persevering with them.

Senator KATZ:
Victoria

.- I compliment the Minister for Social Services (Senator McKenna) on having introduced the measure, the benefits of which will not be confined to exservicemen and their dependants. I point out that because of the excellent co-ordination which exists between the Repatriation Commission, the Department of Labour and National Service, the Department of Health and the Department of Social Services and other governmental instrumentalities it is now possible to provide vocational training and employment for patients. The Minister may be pleased to learn that, a recent meeting, of approximately 100 blind industrial workers in Victoria which I attended adopted a resolution expressing its appreciation of the efforts, made by the. Government to improve their lot.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

– Proposed new section 135e provides -

Where, the spouse of a trainee is in receipt, of, or is a claimant for, an age pension or an invalid pension under Part III. of this Act, any amount paid under the last preceding section shall be deemed not to be income for the purpose of determining1 the rate of the pension payable to the spouse.

I mentioned earlier that I consider that the Government should concentrate on assisting the youth of. the country rather than the aged. However, the provision which I have just read apparently contemplates that aged persons are to receive the same benefits as younger persons. That is right in principle when time and circumstances permit wide distribution of benefits, but because of the present difficulty in obtaining accommodation for the treatment of patients and the shortage of; skilled attendants, I think that young patients should receive preference. I should like the Minister to explain exactly why the Government proposes to insert this provision in the bill.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania Minister’ for. Health and; Minister for Social Services · ALP

.Themeasure is intended, to.’ cover1 men o.f’ 65 years of age and over’ and women of 60 years and over. It is not intended that a married woman of 60 years of age shall be deprived of an age pension merely because her husband has noi! attained the age of 65 years. Her husband also may be aged 60 years, and his wife should not be debarred from receiving an age pension merely because her husband is undergoing rehabilitatory, treatment. In some instances married men whose wives are aged 60 years or more, may be incapacitated for periods of up to nine months because of. accidents and illness,, and in fairness to. their, wives the amounts paid to them as rehabilita-tion. allowance, fares and other benefit? should not be considered in assessing the joint income of husband and. wife. The value of benefits received by a husband are not to be calculated as family income so as to deprive a wife of the age pension to which she is entitled. I agree with the view expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator O’sullivan) that the scheme should, concentrate on the improvement of youth, and in the course of the second-reading speech which I delivered I forecast that the next social service measure to be introduced would probably be one to benefit adolescents, that is, persons’ of both sexes aged from 16’ to 25 years. The present measure is: intended to apply to men of 65 years and women of 60 years, and is intended to rehabilitate for’ economic usefulness people who would become & permanent’ burden upon the Commonwealth if they did not receive special assistance.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
Deputy Leader of the Opposition · Queensland

, - I appreciate the remarks made by the Minister for .Social Services (Senator McKenna), but I repeat that in my view it is preferable under present condition* to pay to a man aged 60 years a full pension and not worry about rehabilitation training, because we should concentrate our limited resources of materials and trained, man-power on the rehabilitation, of young people. A man aged 60 year? has not, ordinarily, a very long economic life before him, whereas young people may becomeadrainonthecommunity for therestoftheirlivesiftheydonot receiveproperassistance.

SenatorMcKENNA(Tasmania - Minister for Health and Minister for Social Services) [837]. -Proposed new section135econtemplatestherare instancesofyoungmenaged,say,40 years who marry women aged . 60 years, and I donot think that itshould be necessarytoofferanyfurtherexplana- tion of that particular provision.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Standing and Sessional Orders suspended.

Report adopted.

Billreadathirdtime..

page 2865

STEVEDORING INDUSTRY BILL 1948

Debate resumed from the 9th Novem- ber (vide page 2588), on motion by Senator Ashley -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Senator O’SULLIVAN:
QueenslandDeputy Leader of the Opposition

. -The Minister for Shipping and Fuel (Senator Ashley) stated in his secondreading speech that the measure was introduced by the Government at the requestof the Premier of Western Australia,and that its purpose is to make the Stevedoring Industry Commission more representative of Western Australian interests. I agree with the proposal, and I support the bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill readat second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2865

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Ashley) agreed to -

ThattheSenateatitsrisingadjournto

Wednesdaynextat3p.m.

page 2865

PAPERS

Thefollowingpapers were pre- sented -

Defence (Transitional Provisions) Act - National Security (Industrial Property) Regulations - Orders - inventions and . designs (6).

Lands Acquisition Act - Land acquired for Commonwealth office accommodation purposes - Brisbane, Queensland.

Senate adjourned at 8.42 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 11 November 1948, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1948/19481111_senate_18_199/>.