Senate
1 May 1968

26th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 687

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Petition

Senator POYSER presented a petition from certain persons in the district of Shelford in the State of Victoria praying that the Parliament remove the financial hardship of a minority of persons in rural areas caused by the current means of financing the alteration from manual to rural automatic telephone exchanges.

Petition received and read.

page 687

QUESTION

WATER RESOURCES

Senator COHEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to (he Minister representing the Minister for National Development, or other appropriate Minister. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to Press reports that supplies of good quality water have been found in central Australia in the vicinity of Alice Springs? One report states that the quantity of water has been assessed in terms of thousands of millions of acre feet, sufficient to support an irrigation area of 105 million acres for 100 years. In view of the critical importance of water in Australia’s development, and of the reported interest of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the find, will the Minister make an early statement on this matter in the Senate?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I noticed the Press report on this subject with considerable interest. One of the significant points in the report is the statement that closely adjacent to these large underground water reserves there is a quantity of carbohydrogen which could provide a source of fuel for the promotion of large irrigation projects. I am sure the Minister for National Development will be keenly interested in the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and I shall obtain a detailed answer for him.

page 687

QUESTION

CHOWILLA DAM

Senator MATTNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address two questions to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, and, with your permission, Mr President, I propose to utter three sentences by way of preface.

Some time ago in a debate in the Senate on the Chowilla Dam project, a former Minister representing the Minister for National Development made these statements:

The River Murray Commission is urgently reviewing the existing and potential storages in the Murray Basin.

It is also giving particular regard to the problem of salinity, and it is engaging the well known Australian consultants, Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, in conjunction with Hunting Technical Services Ltd of the United Kingdom, to carry out a comprehensive study on salinity in the River Murray.

I now ask the Minister: Have these consultant firms reported their findings to the River Murray Commission and, if so, will the Minister make their reports available to the Senate? What steps are being taken to prevent highly saline water, particularly seepage, from re-entering the River Murray.

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I can advise the honourable senator that the River Murray Commission did engage the expert consultants to whom he referred to advise it on problems relating to salinity in the River Murray. A final report is to be made to the Commission on or before 30th June 1969. The consultants submitted two interim reports, one on 1st March 1968 and another on 7th March 1968, on these matters, but those reports have to be considered by the River Murray Commission before they can be made available to the Government. As to the honourable senator’s other question about steps being taken to reduce salinity, I understand that an amount of money has been made available by the Government, through the Minister for National Development, for the taking of steps to prevent the entry into the River Murray of saline water. 1 understand that the cost will exceed $3m.

page 687

QUESTION

MONASH UNIVERSITY

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Has the Minister read the report of the mock crucifixion staged at Monash University on the Thursday of Easter week, features of which were stated to be the emptying of a chamber pot over the head of a student representing Christ on the cross and the shouting by another student of the words: The only good Jew is a dead Jew, even if he is Jesus Christ’? Has the Minister read the statement by Dr Woods, the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, in his ‘Pastoral

Letter’, that this demonstration was blasphemous and revolting? Does the Minister agree with the Archbishop’s view, and does he also agree that the Australian community, which contributes millions of dollars to Monash University, is entitled to expect that the campus be not used for blasphemy and gross insult to the Christian and Jewish faiths? Will the Minister ask the authorities at Monash whether they and/ or the Students Representative Council have taken any action and, if so, what action?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

Mr President, I wish to inform the honourable senator that the article in the newspaper to which he refers has been brought to my attention. I have seen also the reference made to that article by Dr Woods in his ‘Pastoral Letter’ in which he describes the demonstration as blasphemous and revolting. In answer to the question that the honourable senator asks me. I want to tell him that upon the information of that article and in my opinion the description that Dr Woods gave to the demonstration is completely confirmed. That is to say, I regard the demonstration as reported in the Press as grossly profane and revolting to the conscience of the people of a Christian country.

In reply to his question as to whether I shall communicate with the authorities of Monash University, I ask the honourable senator to recognise that I represent in this place for Senatorial purposes the Minister for Education and Science. But I will convey the honourable senator’s suggestion to my colleague in another place, Mr Malcolm Fraser, and communicate to him the viewpoint that I myself get great satisfaction from the news that the Premier of Victoria, Sir Henry Bolte, is having this incident examined from the point of view of contravention of the law.

page 688

QUESTION

HOSPITAL PLANNING

Senator DITTMER:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health a question. Will the Federal Government in cooperation with State Governments establish an advisory hospital planning committee because many of the hospitals in Australia are in urgent need of reconditioning or rebuilding and because few architects in Australia are specialists in modern hospital architecture or are familiar with the trends and requirements of modern medical practice?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I will convey the remarks of the honourable senator to my colleague, the Minister for Health.

page 688

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY DRAFTSMEN

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral been drawn to the report of yesterday’s meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts wherein the Parliamentary Draftsman in giving evidence said that there had not been a full staff in the parliamentary drafting division of the Attorney-General’s Department in living memory and that at the moment the division was 5 professional staff short in an establishment of 22? Will the Minister discuss with the Attorney-General the urgency of the matter of bringing up to full strength such staff immediately? Can a long term plan be evolved for attracting and training suitable officers?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– My attention has been drawn to the newspaper report of what the Parliamentary Draftsman said to the Public Accounts Committee yesterday. That evidence corresponds with information that has been given to us previously to the effect that the parliamentary draftsmen’s section is short of 5 professional officers in an establishment of 22. I certainly will accept my colleague’s suggestion and discuss with the Attorney-General the urgent need to bring this branch up to full strength. I am very interested in my colleague’s suggestion that a long term plan be evolved so that we. can ensure that this level of legal work, namely t’he drafting section, will attract’ as permanent officers highly competent recruits so that the work of Parliament shall be assisted by having a sufficiency of draftsmen ‘ and not impeded by lack of them.

page 688

QUESTION

SNOWY MOUNTAINS AUTHORITY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. In view of the announcement made by the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric- Authority that there will be an alteration in the original plan and that the construction of the remaining electricity generating stations in the Snowy Mountains scheme will not now he proceeded with, will t’he Minister inform the Senate whether this decision has been made in the light of reports that there is a possibility of a nuclear power generating station being erected in the Australian Capital Territory? If this is so, how far have the plans for this project developed?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The report has nothing to do with the erection of a nuclear power station in the Australian Capital Territory. The recommendation by Mr Dann, the head of the Snowy Mountains Authority, to the Minister was that these works should not be carried out because they were uneconomic in the present circumstances.

page 689

QUESTION

TOBACCO

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry give the Senate an outline of the current situation in regard to the state of the Queensland tobacco industry? More particularly, can he inform the Senate of the details of the recent Mareeba first series auction sales?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– As the Senate will know, there is an Australian tobacco stabilisation scheme which operates by agreement between the Commonwealth and the States of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. That came into effect as from 1965 and is the subject of Commonwealth legislation and complementary legislation in the States concerned. It is a fact that the scheme will terminate on 31st December 1968. The broad concept of the scheme was to support and encourage an efficient industry for the growers and ensure a reasonable market price for their product.

I am happy to be able to say that negotiations have taken place and it has been agreed that the stabilisation scheme will be extended for a further 5 years from December of this year, with a quota for the 1969 season of 28,500,000 lb, which is an increase of 2,500,000 lb on the 1968 figure. I am happy to be able to report to the Senate that the Mareeba sales which were completed on 10th April of this year were most, satisfactory. An average price of 123c per lb was obtained. That was the highest average price obtained since 1955, and all leaf at the sales was cleared, in 1955, of course, the existing stabilisation scheme had not been worked out. The sales this year have been most heartening and I am sure that everybody will be delighted to know that the stabilisation scheme will be continued for a further period.

page 689

QUESTION

TRANSPORT OF ARMY PERSONNEL

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Did the Government pay the fare from Vietnam to Australia of the newly acquired wife of a national serviceman from New South Wales? If so, what Government department advanced the fare? Did the Government pay the fare from Austria to South Australia of a child, the reason for the trip being that a family named Laurence in South Australia decided to adopt a girl and preferred an unknown child from Austria? If so, what department advanced the fare? Did the Department of the Army refuse to pay the fare from Vietnam to Austrafia of national serviceman Private I. G. Carter to attend his mother’s funeral? Does the Government consider financial assistance to enable a young wife to be reunited with her husband or to satisfy the whim of a couple who wished to adopt a child from a far away country more important than assisting a young conscript soldier, risking his life for what we are told is Australia’s defence, to attend a funeral and pay his last respects to a beloved mother? Or is it Government policy to give such assistance to foreigners while refusing it to Australians?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The honourable senator has asked a series of questions and, if I may be permitted to say so, has added a lot of his own comment. I should like the question to be put on notice so that a factual answer can be supplied.

page 689

QUESTION

QUARANTINE

page 690

QUESTION

MEDICAL BENEFITS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister say whether, in preparing the Budget, the Government will investigate the urgent need to allow claims on hospital and medical benefit funds by persons treated by qualified chiropractors? Is the Minister aware that chiropractors and chiropodists are registered under legislation in several Australian States and that patients are recommended by leading insurance companies to seek treatment? In these circumstances does the Minister agree that people treated by these practitioners should be able to claim benefits from medical and hospital benefit funds?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I am not sure whether I heard the honourable senator correctly, but he seemed to make two separate points - one in connection with chiropractors and another with chiropodists. In answer to his question as to whether these matters will be considered in the preparation of the Budget, I must say first of all that any such con sideration would be a matter of policy. I am certain, however, that the Minister for Health will, as he has done before, give deep consideration to all matters connected with the welfare of the people that come within the ambit of his portfolio.

page 690

QUESTION

DEVALUATION

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Consequent upon the devaluation of the £1 sterling last November the Government stated that it would initiate full inquiries to enable formulation of specific proposals concerning compensation for industries directly affected. I ask whether the devaluation reporting committees have yet submitted recommendations to the Government in these matters.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I thought I had replied to a similar question, but I may not be correct in thinking that. A report has been received regarding some of the primary industries and action is being taken in accordance with the recommendations made by the inquiring committee. This applies to wheat. I understand that inquiries will soon be made in regard to the other primary industries concerned.

page 690

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to a statement attributed to the Premier of New South Wales that the New South Wales Government will be forced to consider imposing heavier State taxation unless it receives a fairer deal from the Commonwealth? Has the Minister seen a comment by the Premier of New South Wales that State Treasurers at the last Australian Loan Council meeting were made by the Commonwealth to feel ashamed for asking for more funds because they were told that the economy would not be able to stand an increase? Will the Minister agree that on a population basis New South Wales certainly is not receiving a fair share of Commonwealth revenue and that unless something is done in the near future the proper development of the State will be seriously impeded? Will the Minister, being a senator from New South Wales, do all he can to ensure that the State’s economic needs are brought to the attention of the Commonwealth Government?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The question of financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States has been with us for many years. I digress for one moment to recall that in 1950, when 1 first became a member of the New South Wales Parliament, 1 gave as my maiden speech what I thought to be a stirring address on financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. I do not concede that New South Wales in recent times has been singled out for disadvantageous treatment. At the meeting of the Loan Council and the Premiers Conference last year considerable changes were made, to the advantage of New South Wales. I do not mind the honourable senator asking me that question, but I think he recognises, as do all honourable senators, that financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States receive a degree of publicity about this time every year. Similarly, when Budget time approaches, honourable senators ask questions about the Budget. It is correct for the Premier of New South Wales to advocate strongly the cause of New South Wales. 1 have noticed that Sir Henry Bolte in Victoria has been acting in the same way. However, these matters are dealt with on a formula basis at a conference attended by the Prime Minister, senior Commonwealth Ministers and State Premiers. I am quite satisfied that justice will be done.

page 691

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– ls the Minister representing the Postmaster-General aware of considerable dissatisfaction in Perth because of the length of time usually taken to obtain an answer by telephone users who dial the telephone numbers which have to be dialled when making country and interstate trunk calls? Why does it take so long to obtain an answer? Can something be done to improve the situation?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– This matter obviously is of great interest to the people of Perth, as the honourable senator senator has suggested. The best action I can take is to place the honourable senator’s question before the PostmasterGeneral1 and obtain a reply for him.

page 691

QUESTION

BUILDING REGULATIONS

Senator LAUGHT:

– Can the Minister for Works give any indication of the progress that has been made with the task of evolving a uniform system of building regulations throughout Australian States and Territories?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In answering the honourable senator’s question, first let me acknowledge the debt that I feel to him in maintaining a continuing interest in this subject on which he asked me a question about a month ago. I am happy to be able to inform him that the first report of the committee dealing with this matter has been submitted to the constituent authorities, including the Director-General of the Department of Works, advising that the committee has already taken steps to accelerate its work by now sitting for 3 days at a time instead of 1 day, and the appointment, through the Department of Works, of a special officer whose continuing duty it is to be the secretary of the committee. The committee has also provided a position for an architect who will be the consultant to it. An appointment to this position was made recently.

The committee has decided that the structure of its work should be divided into some 59 different sections to provide a complete code of standards for the building industry. It must be understood that to traverse the 59 different sections of the structure is going to be a very lengthy process. Progress has been made with regard to the first section, fire safety and fire systems, to a degree where completion of the work is foreseeable. Work also has been done on the next section, lighting and standards of lighting. There ends the history of achievement. It is not a very encouraging position, but if we all maintain the interest which my colleague has prompted the Senate to maintain I am sure it will be of great help to this committee. The committee will also be encouraged if it knows that it will receive co-operation in completing the job.

page 691

QUESTION

TOY IMPORTS

Senator TANGNEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise whether he is aware that a number of toy guns are being imported from Hong Kong into Australia and are for sale at a retail price of 15c. Is he aware that these guns are capable of inflicting serious injury when fired from distances up to 9 feet? Because of the low cost, which makes these dangerous toys readily available, and because they resemble real weapons, making them most attractive to children, will the Minister have an examination made by his Department to see that such toys are not being imported without due regard for the safety of the children who use them?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I am aware that cheap toys are being imported for our children from low cost countries but I am not aware of the danger that these weapons may present. I will have the matter examined. If there are any dangerous toys coming into Australia I will ensure the safely of our children.

page 692

QUESTION

COLOUR TELEVISION

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– 1 address my question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. In view of the answer given yesterday by the Minister concerning plans for the introduction of colour television in Australia, I ask her whether she will request the Postmaster-General to do all in his power to see that black and white television is made available to those Australians who do not now enjoy this service before the resources of his Department are used to introduce colour television.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I shall certainly convey to the PostmasterGeneral the sentiments expressed by the honourable senator.

page 692

QUESTION

BEACH EROSION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. By way of preface 1 refer to my remarks during the debate on the motion for the adjournment last night seeking some. Commonwealth action to parallel State and municipal efforts to combat beach erosion and to the Minister’s subsequent reply. My question is: If we accept his thesis that State and municipal bodies can approach the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and other Commonwealth authorities for technical advice, will the Minister indicate the attitude of the Government to my request regarding avenues of external1 technical advice in this field? Would our embassy in Washington obtain from the United States Army Corps of Engineers Beach Erosion Board details of reclamation techniques used successfully at Redondo Beach, California, and also samples of the type of sea grass used and developed by the North Carolina State University and convey such results and information to interested State, municipal and shire authorities?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator’s question will go on the notice paper.

page 692

QUESTION

WAR SERVICE HOMES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Housing advise the Parliament whether there is any possibility of war service homes loans being increased in the immediate future? I refer to the maximum amounts of the loans.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– This matter is under review.

page 692

QUESTION

TASMANIAN SHIPPING SERVICES

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is there any truth in the report which I understand appears in today’s Tasmanian Press that the Minister, for Shipping and Transport has offered the Sydney-Tasmania cargo passenger ferry ship the ‘Empress of Australia’ to New Zealand? What are the details of the terms and conditions of this offer? Can we have an early statement from the Minister clarifying the matter, in view of the continuing serious and longstanding shortage of adequate shipping to transport cargo into and out of Tasmania?

Senator SCOTT:
LP

– I am not aware of any of the points that the honourable senator raised concerning the selling of the ship the ‘Empress of Australia’ to the New Zealand Government or to the New Zealand people. I shall ask the Minister for Shipping and Transport to supply an answer to the question asked by the honourable senator and I shall give it to him.

page 692

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator McMANUS:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Repatriation. In view of the disastrous effect that the devaluation of the £1 sterling has had on war disability pensions of United Kingdom ex-servicemen resident in Australia, can the Minister advise of any prospect of these pensioners being compensated for their loss by increased rates through Australian or United Kingdom action?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– As the honourable senator would know, the Repatriation Department in Australia acts only as the agent in respect of ex-servicemen who are receiving repatriation benefits or entitlements from the United Kingdom Government. Consequently, any decision in this matter must be made by the United Kingdom Government. If it informs us that these pensions are to be increased, we will increase them. At the moment I cannot give the honourable senator any further information. If I am able to get additional information for him as to what the United Kingdom Government intends to do I shall let him have it.

page 693

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Commonwealth Government wish to encourage part time study by students in various institutions, colleges and universities throughout Australia? Is the Minister aware that there exists no deductibility, for income tax purposes, of educational expenses incurred by part time students? So as to encourage a wider acceptance of part time study, will the Minister request that consideration be given to an alteration of the Income Tax Act in order to allow deductibility of expenses incurred by part time students in gaining professional qualifications?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I am sure that we would all be as one in our desire to encourage, part time study wherever it is undertaken. The question as to whether the Government, through the Treasurer, should make some additional concession in relation to deductibility is a matter that I would have to refer to the Treasurer. Therefore r ask the honourable senator to place the question on notice.

page 693

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO INDIA

Senator McMANUS:

– I desire to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who represents here the

Minister for External Affairs, or of the Minister who represents the Treasurer, whichever is the appropriate Minister. In view of reports of renewed famine in India will the Government consider further gifts of foodstuffs to India and assistance in their transport, and in particular gifts of milk, either as a Government or through philanthropic agencies, such as the Milk for India body which has been functioning successfully in Melbourne?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I should like to be able to give a comprehensive answer to the honourable senator’s question because, as we all know, Australia has given assistance to lesser developed countries and to countries which have been affected by famine in quite a dramatic way. I would not want to give a short answer so I will endeavour to be in a position tomorrow to give a complete answer which will indicate clearly the tremendous help that Australia has given in the past. In addition, I should like to refer in depth to the famine situation in India because, as I understand it, some provinces enjoy bountiful seasons while others suffer a high degree of famine. I hope to be able to give a complete answer to the question tomorrow.

page 693

QUESTION

ORGAN TRANSPLANT OPERATIONS

Senator COHEN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In view of the current public discussion of the medical and legal aspects of organ transplant operations and the obvious public interest in achieving clarification of some of the important issues of principle that are involved, I ask the Minister whether this matter is being, or is to be, discussed at the level of Commonwealth and State Health Ministers. Is advice being sought on any of the legal questions, including the possibility of appropriate legislation? Has consideration been given to the advisability of asking the National Health and Medical Research Council to study the problem and report on ways of achieving the best results from the research and professional effort committed to this important work?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– I suppose one could call this a wonderful subject. T am sure that all Ministers for Health have given it close consideration but

I do not know whether the aspects raised by the honourable senator have been discussed by Commonwealth and State Ministers for Health. I shall obtain the necessary information for him. I shall also obtain information on the research aspect.

page 694

QUESTION

DECENTRALISATION

Senator GAIR:
QUEENSLAND

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister when I may expect a reply to question No. 68 standing in my name, notice of which was given on 1 4th March, 7 weeks ago. It is a simple question in these terms: 1, ls ii a fact that the Commonwealth Decentralisation Committee has not .met since March 19657

  1. Docs the Government intend to release any reports on the progress or findings of this Committee?

Surely it should not take 7 weeks to reply to such a simple question.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– 1 will make inquiries and as soon as a reply is available I will forward it to the honourable senator.

page 694

QUESTION

APPLES

Senator LAUCKE:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that a number of apple growers in South Australia who have large consignments of apples in ships trapped in the Suez Canal are suffering financial embarrassment as a result of the continuing lack of clarification of the insurance position? Has the Minister any new information on this matter?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The last information I received from the Department of Primary Industry was to the effect that it appeared that a satisfactory agreement would be reached with one firm on the matter of insurance. As to the remainder of the question, the matter is still under consideration by the insurers and the insured.

page 694

QUESTION

BEACH EROSION

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I understand that the Leader of the Government in the Senate has some information in reply to the question with regard to beach erosion which I asked earlier and which you, Mr President, directed should be put on the notice paper.

The PRESIDENT:

– I misunderstood the honourable senator’s question when he asked it previously.

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– To complete the picture, I point out that in the adjournment debate last night Senator Mulvihill put a case for Commonwealth intervention in relation to beach erosion. During the intervening period I have made some inquiries through the Department of National Development and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The Department of National Development takes the same attitude as it took in replying to a previous question, namely, that this is clearly a matter for the respective State governments. The only research that the CSIRO has done in regard to beach erosion has been to put trace elements into beach sands in order to trace where the sands have been eroded to.

The honourable senator asked about research that is being done in the United States of America. It does not necessarily follow that because research is being done in the United States or some special areas by bodies such as the Corps of Engineers the information on that research has to come through the Commonwealth. It is perfectly competent for the State authorities to make their representations direct to people in those areas in an endeavour to obtain some helpful information. Some information is available in the Army library in Australia. It has come from the United States. I suggest that it would be open to the State authorities to write to the Department of the Army to see whether they can obtain access to that information, too.

page 694

QUESTION

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE

(Question No. 47)

Senator MURPHY:
through Senator Cohen

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

  1. What steps have been taken to prevent entry of foot and mouth disease to (a) mainland Australia and Tasmania and (b) Papua and New Guinea?
  2. What procedures exist to contain and eradicate any outbreak of foot and month disease in (a) mainland Australia and Tasmania and (b) Papua and New Guinea?
  3. What provision is there for compensation for cattle destroyed because of an outbreak or suspected outbreak?
Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply:

  1. Australia has very stringent restrictions designed to prevent the entry of foot and mouth disease and other exotic diseases of livestock. For instance, in regard to foot and mouth disease there is a complete prohibition on the importation from anywhere in the world of all livestock species susceptible to the disease. Furthermore, all raw animal products and items which may have been in contact with animals are subject to quarantine control. These provisions are under continual review. Bach year a conference is held of Chief Quarantine Officers (Animals) representing all States, the Northern Territory and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea. In this way the animal quarantine restrictions and requirements of Papua and New Guinea are kept in line with those of mainland Australia and Tasmania.
  2. In1952 the Special Foot and Mouth Disease Committee was established, comprising the veterinary officers of the Commonwealth, the States, the Northern Territory and the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, to design appropriate procedures to contain and eradicate any outbreak in Australia of foot and mouth disease. The terms of reference of this Committee were widened in 1964 to include other diseases and the name was changed to the Exotic Diseases Committee.

This Committee carefully considers and reviews from time to time the plans prepared by all the States and Territories, including Papua and New Guinea, to deal with any possible outbreak of foot and mouth disease, having regard to the pattern of animal diseases in other countries and to changes in technical knowledge. The Committee will meet again later this year to reconsider these plans in the light of the experience gained by the Australian veterinarians who visited Great Britain during the recent foot and mouth disease outbreak and assisted with the disease control measures.

  1. Under the terms of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States, in the event of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Australia the Commonwealth will contribute half the costs of eradication, including compensation for animals destroyed. The balance will be contributed jointly by all States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, in agreed proportions based on the numbers of livestock in the respective States and Territories.

page 695

QUESTION

MIGRANT HOSTELS

(Question No. 126)

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. How many blocks of flats have been purchased in Victoria by the Commonwealth Government or Commonwealth Hostels Ltd for the housing of migrants?
  2. If properties have been purchased, where are they located and how many, if any, migrant families are already in occupancy of these flats?
  3. What are the tariffs charged for these flats?
  4. What is the maximum period of occupancy permitted by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Housing, who is responsible for the provision and the management of transitional accommodation for migrants inflats, has provided the following answers:

  1. None. 2, 3 and 4. The Commonwealth Government introduced an experimental scheme to provide a limited number of transitional self-contained flats for newly arrived migrant families. The experiment in Victoria will consist of 100 flats. Tenders are shortly to be called for the construction of eighteen flats at East Preston and twelve at Maidstone. The Victorian Housing Commission has designed the flats for the Commonwealth and will supervise their construction. The maximum period of occupancy available to the migrants will be 6 months.

page 695

QUESTION

MIGRANT HOSTELS

(Question No. 127)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. What is the nature of improvements made to Commonwealth migrant hostels in the Suite of Victoria?
  2. At which hostels have improvements been completed or are improvements in the course of completion?
  3. Will all units in Commonwealth migrant hostels in the State of Victoria be provided with internal hot and cold water? If so, when is it anticipated that this work will be completed in all hostels?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answers: 1 and 2. The nature of improvements being made in migrant hostels in Victoria and the hostels involved are:

  1. The progressive replacement of Nissen huts and other temporary accommodation buildings on Commonwealth-owned sites with masonry buildings providing modern family quarters and facilities. This construction programme commenced in the 1965-66 financial year and, to date, new accommodation blocks have been completed at Altona Hostel, 85 beds, and Nunawading Hostel, 200 beds. New blocks at Maribyrnong Hostel providing for500 beds are scheduled ‘for completion in December 1968.

Tenders for the new 1,000 bed hostel at Springvale are expected to be invited in July 1968.

  1. Major improvements either completed at other hostels or in course of completion are:
  2. Replacement or renovation of toilet/ ablution blocks and laundry facilities - Broadmeadows, Units 1 and 4, Fisherman’s Bend, Holmesglen, Nunawading, Norlane, Preston.

    1. Installation of wash basins, with cold water reticulation, in family quarters and construction of covered ways linking accommodation buildings to central facilities - Broadmeadows, Units 1 and 4, Fisherman’s Bend, Norlane, Nunawading, Preston.
    2. Increased living space in smaller Nissen buildings - Norlane and Preston.
    3. Insulation and sound-proofing of diningroom ceilings - Broadmeadows, Unit 1, Fisherman’s Bend. Holmesglen, Maribyrnong, Norlane. Nunawading, Preston.
    1. Internal hot and cold water has been provided in ail new accommodation described in (a) above and will be included in all future new blocks. Internal cold water installations only are being installed at other hostels and have been completed at Broadmeadows, Units1 and 4, and Nunawading. and are expected to be completed at Fisherman’s Bend, Norlane and Preston by 30th June 1968.

page 696

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

(Question No. 141)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

  1. How many pensions were being paid as at 29 February 1968, in relationto members of the forces who have served in Vietnam? 2.How many women, widowed asa result of their husbands’ death either in Vietnam or as a result of wounds sustained in Vietnam are being paid pensions?
  2. What types of pension are being paid’ under I above?
  3. Mow many children arc in receipt of pensionsas a result of the death of their fathers either whilst engaged in Vietnam or as a result of injuries or wounds sustained while on service in Vietnam?
Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– The answer to questions1 to 4 are:

At 31st March 1968, 1,698 pensions were being paid in consequence of Vietnam service.

Details are as follows:

page 696

QUESTION

RESEARCH

(Question No. 152)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Will the Minister examine the possibility of making available at least $30,000 annually to the Queensland University Department of Entomology for the purpose of assisting at a higher level the work currently being carried out by Dr E. J. Reye on midge (sandfly) control in Queensland?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Government, on the recommendation of the Australian Research Grants Committee, makes available money for research projects in universities and elsewhere. Any proposal for special Commonwealth assistance for a project such as that of Dr Reye’s is a matter for the Australian Research Grants Committee.

page 696

QUESTION

CHARTER FLIGHTS

(Question No. 155)

Senator DEVITT:

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

  1. How many requests have been made for charter flights by groups as specified in the International Air Transport Association Resolution 045 concerning contributory group charters?
  2. How many flights have left Australia under this reduced fare scheme?
  3. Has experience of the operation of the scheme to date indicated any need to change the rules or procedure as the Minister promisedto do. should this be found to be necessary, to make the scheme more readily workable?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) ( present the answer which has been supplied by the Minister for Civil Aviation. It is as follows:

  1. The Department of Civil Aviation does not require airlines to inform it of the requests made by groups which have as their objective the arrangement of international contributory group charterflights but it understands that a substantial number of requests have been received especially since the beginning of the year. Departmental records cover the number of actual applications made to the Department as a first step by airlines seeking approval to operate such charter flights. Since the revised charter policy entered into effect in November 1967, four such applications have been made to the Department and all have been approved.
  2. Since November 1967, two contributory group charter flights have operated out of Australia and one into Australia. A fourth flight will operate out of. Australia in May. Return flights have been authorised in all four cases.
  3. Experience with the operation of the scheme to date has not revealed the need for any modification to the basic rules of the revised policy on contributory group charterflights, but it is being kept under constant review to determine whether, and when, any changes may be desirable.

page 697

QUESTION

EDUCATION GRANTS TO VICTORIA

(Question No. 166)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. What was the maximum grant availableto the State of Victoria for the year 1967 under the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1967 for (a) capital works and (b) recurrent expenditure?
  2. Has the Victorian Government claimed the full amounts available? If not, what amounts has it claimed?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for

Education and Science has supplied the following answer:

  1. The Schedules to the Stales Grunts (Advanced Education) Acts 1967 set out the maximum Commonwealth grants to colleges. For recurrent expenditure these limits are set for each year of the triennium but with the capital grants the only limit is that set for the triennium as a whole.

    1. No maximum grant was sot for capital grants for the year 1967 although the total Commonwealth grant over the 1967-69 triennium is $6,312,000.
    2. $2,604,160.
  2. By 31 December 1967 Victoria had been advanced $547,500 to meet capital expenditure in colleges of advanced education and $1,953,120 for recurrent expenditure. The State is entitled to claim more from the Commonwealth as recurrent grants. The precise amount will not be known until the State has completed an examination of college accounts, but it is expected to be the maximum grant available for 1967 or a sum not significantly below the authorised maximum.

page 697

QUESTION

MATURE AGE SCHOLARSHIPS

(Question No. 167)

Senator POYSER:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. How many Mature Age Scholarships were awarded in each of the Australian States this year?
  2. How many applicants for these scholarships were there in each of the Australian States this year?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has supplied the following answer:

  1. The following number of scholarships have been offered in each State:
  1. The number of applications received is given in the following table:

I would also draw the honourable senator’s attention to the reply given by the Minister for Education and Science to Question No. 1 1 asked by the honourable member for Lang in the House of Representatives.

page 697

QUESTION

STUDY OF ASIAN LANGUAGES

(Question No. 176)

Senator ORMONDE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

Has the New South Wales Education Department’s scheme to confine the study of Asian languages to the final 2 years of high school proved a failure? If so, will the Minister inquire into the reasons for the failure?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has supplied the following answer:

Questions seeking information on matters which are the responsibility of State Ministers for Education, and therefore not matters as to which the Commonwealth Minister is responsible to the Parliament, should be addressed to the relevant Ministers in State parliaments.

page 697

QUESTION

AIR-CONDITIONING IN SCHOOLS

(Question No. 177)

Senator ORMONDE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

  1. Were the overall results of examinations in New South Wales, for 1967, of children accommodated in emergency school rooms, which were not air-conditioned, on the whole 15% lower than those obtained by children housed in modern airconditioned rooms?
  2. Does the Minister consider that the need to extend air-conditioning in Australian schools is urgent?
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Education and Science has supplied the following answers:

  1. Questions seeking information on matters which are the responsibility of State Ministers for Education, and therefore not matters as to which the Commonwealth Minister isresponsible to the Parliament, should be addressed to the relevant Ministers in the State Parliament.
  2. For the reasons set out in 1., I can refer only to the position in Commonwealth Government schools. Air-conditioning has been provided as considered necessary in these schools within Commonwealth mainland territories but the universal provision of air-conditioning is not felt to be urgent.

page 698

QUESTION

RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

(Question No. 182)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Repatriation, upon notice:

Will the Minister recommend to the Government a scale of loans and/or grants, in keeping with present day costs, which will be sufficient to enable discharged national servicemen to establish themselves on the land or in business undertakings in those cases where ex-servicemen qualify for such loans or grants?

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– I now provide the following answer:

The amounts of re-establishment loans for discharged national servicemen take account of present day costs. The amounts are up to $6,000 for agricultural loans and up to $3,000 for business loans. By comparison, the maximum amounts after the 1939-45 War, as adjusted in 1951, were:

In accordance with general Government practice the amounts will be kept under review.

Agricultural loans arc administered by my colleague the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 698

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL INSPECTORS

(Question No. 183)

Senator MURPHY:
through Senator Cohen

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

How many inspectors, appointed under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-1967, are there in each of the States and Territories?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Minister for Labour and National Service has supplied the following answer:

Thirty-five officers of my Department have been appointed inspectors under section 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. They are distributed as follows:

Six other officers of my Department are authorised under section 125 to perform the duties of Inspectors - one in the Australian Capital Territory, one in Western Australia, two in the Northern Territory and two at the Department’s central office. Moreover, by arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States of New South Wales, Western Australia and Tasmania, inspectors in Labour Departments of those States are authorised under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to carry out the duties of Commonwealth inspectors.

page 698

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

(Question No. 187)

Senator GAIR:

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

  1. Was the Postmaster-General (Mr Hulme) a member of a committee of three which drafted the submissions presented by the Liberal Party to the Distribution Commissioners in Queensland?
  2. Would these submissions, if implemented, result in the Postmaster-General’s own seat of Petrie becoming a relatively safe Liberal Party seat?
  3. Is one of the three commissioners examining these submissions the Queensland Director of the Department administered by the PostmasterGeneral?
  4. Is it a fact that, whilst a number of departmental heads have been appointed as Commissioner, Queensland is the only State where a Director of Posts and Telegraphs has been appointed as a commissioner?
  5. If so. will members of the public, who expect the redistribution to be impartial, wonder whether there has been any undue influence exerted on a member of the Queensland group of Commissioners?
  6. Is it desirable for the Public Service head of a department to be appointed an electoral boundary commissioner for the State where his ministerial head resides?
  7. Isthis situation in Queensland intolerable when one has regard for the fact that the ministerial head, in this case, had a hand in the construction of submissions to the commission?
Senator SCOTT:
LP

– The Minister for the Interior has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. I am informed that the Postmaster-General was a member of a committee of eight persons appointed by the executive of the Liberal Party in Queensland.
  2. I do not propose to forecast the result of an election based on the submissions made to the distribution commissioners by a political party.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes. but on many previous occasions Direc tors of Posts and Telegraphs have been appointed. In the case of Queensland this has applied in respect of two of the last three commissions.
  5. 6 and 7. The distribution commissioners were appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Government. There is nothing unusual or significant about the appointment of any particular distribution commissioner.

page 699

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

(Question No. 59)

Senator BULL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Because the railways in New South Wales and Victoria are unable to cope with the movement of starving stock at concessional rates to northern parts of New South Wales, where agistment is available, will the Government consider providing a subsidy to road transport operators on a dollar for dollar basis, thus substantially assistingto save valuable stock in drought stricken areas?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

One of the ways by which assistance is given by the Commonwealth to the States in their efforts to alleviate the effects of the drought is in the subsidisation of rail movements of starving stock to agistment. In addition, following representations by the Victorian Government, the Commonwealth agreed, with effect from 1st October 1967, to meet the cost of subsidising the road transport costs of the movement of starving Victorian stock to agistment where rail transport was unavailable or impracticable.

The Commonwealth Government recently received a request from the Government of New South Wales that it meet the cost of a subsidy on the transport of starving New South Wales stock by road when rail transport is unavailable or impracticable. My government has informed the Government of New South Wales that the Commonwealth accedes to the request.

The present position is therefore that the Commonwealth is meeting the cost of subsidy in the circumstances outlined on stock travelling to agistment in New South Wales from both Victoria and other parts of New South Wales.

The terms of these subsidy arrangements arc determined by the States but broadly they provide for 50% of the transport cost to be met by the State (which is, in turn, fully reimbursed by the Commonwealth) subject to the farmer meeting the full cost of transport for a certain minimum distance.

page 699

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING VENTURES IN SINGAPORE

(Question No. 86)

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and

Industry, upon notice:

  1. Has the Department of Trade and Industry appealed to Australian businessmen to undertake joint manufacturing ventures in Singapore?
  2. Is the Department sponsoring any groups of joint ventures in Singapore?
  3. In view of the value of the market in Singapore and the manner in which a number of supplier nations have increased their pressure following devaluation, will the Minister consider giving urgent assistance so that joint manufacturing ventures may be established quickly?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following answers:

  1. The Government docs wish to encourage Australian businessmen to invest in the developing countries - including Singapore - to preserve or expand markets they have developed there. As part of this policy the Government offers insurance through the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, against such non-commercial risks as expropriation, exchange transfer difficulties, disturbances, etc. which often inhibit the businessmen contemplating investment overseas.
  2. A number of Australian firms have already set up manufacturing activities in Singapore. Investments have been made in such fields as stockfood, batteries, plasterboard, inks, asbestos products, glass containers, polishes, plastic products, milk products, veneers, steel reinforcing bars, ceramics, bricks, drugs, essences, detergents and stationery.
  3. The Department of Trade and Industry is making every effort to bring suitable investment opportunities to the notice of Australian firms.

However, the Department does not sponsor investments or joint ventures in Singapore or any other country. The final judgment as to whether to invest overseas or not is a commercial decision of the private Australian businessman.

page 699

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMIC AID TO SOUTH KOREA

(Question No. 150)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

What economic aid has Australia given to South Korea in the past 3 years?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Acting Minister for External Affairs has furnished the following reply:

Australia’s economic aid to the Republic of Korea during the 3 years ended 30th June 1967, comprised the training of Koreans in Australia, the provision of Australian expert services in Korea and the provision of Australian technical equipment to a vocational high school in Seoul. The cost of this aid in each of the years referred to was as follows:

It is expected that our economic aid to Korea will show an increase in the current and next financial years as a result of a recent decision to supply a harbour dredge for the port of Inchon.

page 700

QUESTION

SERVICES CANTEENS TRUST FUND AWARDS

(Question No. 157)

Senator KEEFFE:

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

Is the qualifying amount for maximum adjusted family income for an award under the Services Canteens Trust Fund only $900 where the exserviceman is in employment? If so, will the Government initiate appropriate action to cause the minimum sum to be increased because of present day inflation?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The maximum adjusted family income up to which educational assistance may be granted from the Services Canteens Trust Fund is $1,100 per annum in the case of orphans and children in families where there are exceptional circumstances, which include some cases where the ex-serviceman is in employment. In other cases the maximum permissible adjusted family income is $900 per annum. The adjusted family income is determined by deducting from the gross income of the family for the year 10% for each dependant or $240 for each dependant if the income is $2,400 or more. This condition has been imposed by the Fund Trustees because of the limited funds available and is one of the means of enabling help to be given within the Fund’s resources to those in the greatest need of it. The authority to determine the conditions under which assistance may be granted from the Services Canteens Trust Fund is vested in the Trustees of the Fund by the Services Trust Funds Act.

page 700

REPATRIATION

Formal Motion for Adjournment

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator

Drake-Brockman) - The President has received from Senator Keeffe an intimation that he desires to move the adjournment of the Senate for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgency, namely:

The Government’s permitting repatriation benefits to fall to their lowest value in history.

Is the proposed motion supported? (More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) -

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

formally move:

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 11.15 a.m.

At the outsetI wish to make it clear that my remarks will apply to all repatriation benefits including payments for total and permanent incapacity, payments for total and temporary incapacity, payments to war widows, wives’ allowances, family allowances, and many fringe benefits that ought to be the right of every ex-serviceman and his dependants. This Government has developed an altitude bordering on hypocrisy in its treatment of ex-servicemen. I shall quote from a speech by the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) at the first South East Asian and South West Pacific Veterans’ Conference from 11th to 26th April 1967, about a year ago. A: this conference, which was opened by the Governor-General at the Playhouse Theatre, in Canberra, on 12th April, the Minister said:

The Australian system of repatriation is based generally on the thought that those who are disabled in war or those who suffer because their family providers are disabled or killed, must be compensated and looked after by the community on whose behalf the war service was undertaken.

As I proceed with this debate I shall prove conclusively that the Government has failed to act in conformity with this principle in its dealings with these unfortunate people. The Minister continued:

Specifically we set out to give a fighting man the security of knowing in advance that his commitment to its service is appreciated by his’ country, and that he himself or his dependants, if it becomes necessary, will have financial help and medical care from the Government. Second, we set out to make the type of care provided by the community properly meet the needs which the veteran encounters because of the fact of his war caused disablement. Thus we place great emphasis on medical treatment and hospitalisation, if it is necessary, because it is thought to be important to attempt first of all to restore a disabled man as quickly as possible to a normal state of life.

I pause to remind the Government that in last year’s Budget debate the Opposition endeavoured to force this Government into providing medical services for Boer War veterans and ex-servicemen of World War I. However, the Government has steadfastly refused to provide this medical service for these veterans. In Queensland only five or six Boer War veterans are left. The Government has not looked after this group of men. The Boer War veterans had their last get-together at the recent Anzac Day ceremony in Sydney. The Government has refused to meet the needs of this handful of men remaining from that war. The ranks of the First World War veterans are also dwindling with the passage of time. The Government continues to neglect the plight of these two groups of men. The Minister continued:

To the extent that the best available medical treatment cannot provide this complete restoration then we try to make the medical rehabilitation of the veteran as complete as possible. Despite this there aru still many cases of disablement which cannot bc completely cured and which therefore inhibit or reduce, or sometimes completely prevent, the veteran’s capacity to earn and support himself and his family.

This is where we attempt by way of war pension, and a wide range of monetary allowances for both the veteran himself and his dependants to compensate for the loss which his war caused disablement has brought to him.

Generally therefore we set out to give the serving man security of mind, to restore him as far as possible to a normal life, and to provide him with financial support to make up for what he can no longer provide for himself. You may be interested in some details of our endeavour- in these ways and 1 shall therefore mention some of the features of the Australian system which could be of interest to you all.

Had the Minister’s remarks been given wide publicity in the Australian Press, every ex-serviceman would have criticised him and his Department. However, his speech was made to people from other countries. There is no doubt that the Minister for Repatriation had this in mind when he addressed the conference. Many years ago the principle was established that permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen should receive a weekly sum that was fairly close to the minimum wage. Reading through the reports of the Repatriation Commission, which are well produced–

Senator Poyser:

– The Minister pats himself and the Government on the back from the first page to the last.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is so. In some cases the statistics are m doubt, having been glossed over to present a rosy picture. The reports for 1964-65, 1965-66 and 1966-67 remind mc of what the Government says every year when the Budget is brought down: ‘We have it under review’. A little while ago the Minister, answering a question in this chamber, said that the Government continually had another matter in relation to repatriation benefits under review; but he then dismissed the point about agricultural loans, which are very important indeed, saying that they were the responsibility of his colleague the Minister for Primary Industry. I shall refer to that in a few moments if time permits. Let me point out some figures. In 1920 the pension for totally incapacitated ex-servicemen was approximately 103% of the basic wage. In 1943 it was about the same as the basic wage. In 1949-50, the year in which the Labor Government went out of office after building up a great programme of rehabilitation and repatriation benefits, it was 101% of the minimum wage. Since then on the average repatriation pensions have dropped annually by more than 1% so that today the full pension for the totally disabled digger is now only 81% of the mintmum wage, a reduction of about 20%. I shall deal with the other rates of pension in a moment. Let me point out that in 1949, when the Liberal-Australian Country Party Government attained office, the Leader of that Government (Sir Robert Menzies) said on behalf of the Government parties that he would restore value to the £1. He did not do it for the digger, who today is receiving comparatively less than he got when the Liberal-Country Party Government came into office.

In 1950 that Government conducted an inquiry. Government supporters have made all sorts of statements about what they will do for returned soldiers but in the event those statements have proved to be lies. The general rate - the disability rate - has decreased even further, as is clear when it is studied as a percentage of the minimum wage. In 1920 it was about 54% of the minimum- wage; in 1943 it had decreased to 52%; at the end of 1949 it had further marginally decreased to 51%; now in 1968 it is 32% of the minimum wage. In other words, it has dropped by 40% since the review was made in 1950. This has happened although the Government that said it would restore value to the £1 has remained in office. In modern terms, it could be said that tha Government promised to restore value to the $1 .

Just prior to the Senate elections of 1967 the Returned Services League took the very drastic step of issuing about 500,000 pamphlets to enlighten the Australian public on the shortcomings of the Commonwealth Government. 1 wish to quote now a report of a statement made by Mr A. G. W. Keys, National Secretary of the RSL, which appeared in the ‘Canberra Times’ of 4th December 1967. The report states:

Mr Keys said that the pamphlets were distributed throughout Australia just before the Senate election. Mr Keys told the Monaro and Far South Coast district council meeting of the RSL on Saturday that the League had been criticised for breaching its non-partisan attitude to party politics in distributing pamphlets hostile to the Government. ‘This should be strongly and categorically rejected; distribution of the pamphlets would have taken place regardless of whether the Senate election was in the offing’, Mr Keys said. ‘The League docs not decide vital matters of this kind on a basis of where the opposing political parties stand on the issue. Thus, while we support Australia’s presence in Vietnam, on the question of repatriation and the value of war pensions we have the strong support of the Opposition and the indifference of the Government.’

That is a statement made only a few months ago by the National Secretary of the RSL, a very large ex-service organisation. The report continued:

M,r Keys said that the League believed three major questions affecting the RSL needed urgent attention:

Increases in the value of war pensions and allowances. Changes in Government methods of introducing legislation to amend matters affecting the RSL.

Increases in the value of individual war service home loans above the present limit of $7,000. Mr Keys said that war pensions and allowances had now reached their lowest level on record.

That is support for the figures I cited to honourable senators a few moments ago. The report continued:

Mr Keys said: ‘The pension for total and permanent incapacity has this year dropped to only 81% of the new minimum wage. Also the average serviceman would undoubtedly be able to earn more than the minimum worker’s wage; which means a fairer comparison is between the pension rate and the average weekly earnings of each male worker. The latest figure for these average weekly earnings is $62.30, or more than double the special rate of the totally and permanently incapacitated pension.’ Between 1960 and 1967 the basic wage had increased by 37%; the TPI pension had increased by only 20%. Mr Keys said the Government frequently replied to the League’s protests by pointing to ‘other budgetary responsibilities’, meaning defence and development expenditure, which were both increasing. ‘Australia’s pensioners are paying for the additional expenditure needed for the security and growth of the country’, he said.

Ever since I entered the Senate the Minister for Repatriation has regularly made excuses, about three or four times each year. In doing so he has endeavoured to get the Government off the hook. Last year minimal increases were made in the allowances to war orphans. They were so small as to be hardly worth worrying about. In the previous year marginal increases were made to repatriation pensions for wives. The excuse that is always used is that the Government has no money. But when it wants to wage war, as it is doing now in its unofficial private show in Vietnam, it will bleed the country dry to find the necessary money. But money cannot be found for the people who have been afflicted by war.

Cases have been made out against the Government’s policy on repatriation by ali reputable ex-service organisations of this country. I wish now to quote from a publication made available to members of this Parliament by the Commonwealth Council of the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers Association of Australia. I will quote one point which I think is worth having recorded in Hansard. It states:

Originally war pensions were based on the extent that accepted Service disabilities would affect the earning capacity of a man if he were an unskilled worker. This resulted in pension rates being related to the wages of the common labour and the cost of living at that time. This conception carried through the War Pensions Act of 1914.-

After all, it cannot fairly be said that the Minister does not know what went on in 1914. If he wishes to do his homework properly he can read back over the reports and ascertain the facts. He can establish where the principle was lost. It was lost by this Government. The statement went on: the first Repatriation Act of 1917 and the consolidation of both Acts in 1920. Thus the TPI rate was fixed at £4, a margin of 9s above the federal basic wage. Other factors considered in arriving at the rate of pension were:

  1. the total loss of earning power over the best years of life
  2. a shortened expectation of life, and
  3. the total impact of being classified TPI and inability to lead a normal life.

The statement goes on to set out variations in the pensions, to which I have already referred. The Association asked that the special rate war pension be increased, that the repatriation pension payable to the wives of TPI pensioners be increased, that the wives of all TPI pensioners be granted free medical benefits, that the repatriation funeral grant towards the burial of TPI pensioners be increased from $50 to $100 - that is consistent with the policy of the Australian Labor Party - and that all TPI pensioners in receipt of a monthly recreational transport allowance of $10 be granted the current maximum rate of $20.

The Australian Legion of Ex-Servicemen and Women also made a plea which is included in a report of its Queensland Secretary. The report stated:

In a Repatriation Newsletter dated 25th October 1967. the Repatriation Minister, the Honourable G. C. McKellar, gives a note of warning to ex-service associations. He said, ‘It is now 22 years since the end of the Second World War. It is therefore more important than in the early postwar days to keep before the Australian people their obligations to those who suffered in war. Proportionately, fewer people now have direct experience of a world war. You may be surprised to know that nearly 60% of people in the Australian work force are under 40 years of agc. This illustrates the need to keep before the Australian people the continuing obligation to care for incapacitated veterans.” These words of warning by the Repatriation Minister should be heeded by all ex-servicemen and women.

Although the Minister said that, he did not carry his statement into effect because he is not at all interested in what happens to returned servicemen.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! The honourable senator is out of order in making statements of that character.

Senator KEEFFE:

– If I have made a statement that is personally offensive to the Minister I will withdraw it. The Federated TB Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Association of Australia wrote to the Minister for Repatriation seeking assistance for people suffering from tuberculosis, but nothing has happened as a result. The Association seeks to have the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act amended. Its letter of 30th January 1968, which was sent to all members of this Parliament, stated:

The Federation wishes to present for your consideration a matter of utmost importance to those Service personnel who are at present fighting in foreign lands, with a request for your support in endeavouring to change the Government’s policy in this regard.

For some years now the Federation has recognised that the special provisions of Section 37, sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of the principal act would bc continued only in-so-far as members of the forces covered by that were concerned.

The letter then went on in detail. The second last paragraph stated:

On the 3rd August last, the Minister for Repatriation told a deputation of the Association’s Executive that Government policy not to grant the request would not be changed at that point of time.

Every time we ask for something in this chamber or in the other place we are told that the matter is under review, is going to be reviewed, or is one of policy, or we are told that the request will not be granted at this point of time. There is never any suggestion that we are not going to get anything but that is what it boils down to eventually. We do not get anything. I want to quote from a statement made in a debate in this chamber last year when the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Murphy) endeavoured to have set up a select committee of the Senate to inquire into and report upon all aspects of repatriation and, in particular, to examine all Acts and regulations concerning repatriation and recommend amendments thereto which, in the opinion of the committee, ought to be made. The rest of the resolution moved at that time by the Leader of the Opposition set out the manner in which the committee ought to be set up. The Minister for Repatriation spoke on that occasion and his remarks appear at page 1426 of Hansard. This just goes to show that people cannot make public statements without having them quoted back to them. The Minister said:

Opportunities for review of repatriation matters by this Parliament-

He was opposing the establishment of a select committee to look into the scandals of his Department. have been presented for the last seventeen years.

It is true that opportunities have been presented but nothing has been done about this matter. The disability pension has dropped by 40% and the total pension has dropped by over 20%. This is the way the Government has treated the Australian diggers. While they are at war they are heroes but when they return home the Government does not want them. The Government treats them in the same way as it treats the age pensioners of Australia. The Minister continued:

The fact is that Parliament itself has extensive opportunities for the review of repatriation legislation and administration. Each year for seventeen years an amending Repatriation Bill has been introduced.

What a joke this has been over the last 2 or 3 years. Repatriation increases have not cost the Government more than a few hundred thousand dollars; yet it has increased its war expenditure by tens of millions of dollars in each Budget. Then the Minister said:

On the occasion of the debate on those Bills there have been the normal opportunities for wide ranging discussion. I feel that in most instances these opportunities have been availed of. In addition, the debate on the estimates of the Repatriation Department provides further opportunity for discussion.

When we direct questions on repatriation matters to the Minister during the debate on the Estimates we do not even get proper replies. Sometimes we do not get replies at all. The Minister continued:

In short, in every year Parliament has had the chance to consider repatriation principles, legislation and administration. As well, the ordinary course of parliamentary business gives other opportunities to raise repatriation matters.

That is all the freedom we do have - to raise points about repatriation. T now want to quote from the policy of the Australian Labor Party. I feel thai it ought to be taken into consideration by the Government if it has any humane feelings in respect of those people who have suffered physically and those who have lost their breadwinners as a result of involvement in the current Vietnam conflict or any of the previous wars in which Australia has taken part. The Labor Parly policy on repatriation states:

  1. Liberal treatment to be extended to all soldiers disabled as a result of war service and to their dependants. Creation of an Independant Appeal Board to finally decide all appeals relating to pensions.
  2. Sympathetic administration of repatriation in relation to the valuation and terms and conditions of occupancy of farm properties and homes provided for returned soldiers and their dependants.
  3. Cancer patients to receive repatriation benefits whether the cancer is war caused or not.

We have asked the Government year after year to give consideration to providing full medical and pension entitlements to that small number of ex-servicemen who suffer from cancer, or to the dependants of those who die each year in Australia.

Senator Hendrickson:

– Why will the Government not do this?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Government will not do this because of the inhumanity it shows towards people who bear the stigma of being ex-servicemen. The Labor Party policy continues:

  1. The Totally and Permanently Invalid Pension to be raised to not less than the adult minimum wage as determined by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

That is our policy. When the Labor Party has the opportunity to govern this country this is the way we will deal with repatriation matters. But while we are the Opposition we are going to force the Government to do these things. The ex-servicemen of this country will force it to do so because they are right behind the Labor Parly on this aspect of our policy. I can see my friend Senator Mattner laughing his head off as he lays back in ease on the Senate benches.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order!

I suggest that the honourable senator carry on with his speech.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Why cannot something be done here? People on the Government side ought to be taking these things seriously. It is no laughing matter. The war pensions-

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Do you rise to order, Senator Wright?

Senator Wright:

– I rise to order. Mr Deputy President. I submit that there appears to be an offensive imputation when the honourable senator refers to Senator Mattner as laying back at his ease when all honourable senators know that Senator Mattner is suffering very severely from an injury to his leg.

Senator Hendrickson:

– What is the point of order?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The Chair will adjudicate.

Senator Wright:

Senator Mattner is one of the most distinguished soldiers of this country. Therefore the imputation that he, of all others, is disinterested in the debate and is lying at his ease is an offensive remark to us all.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I remind you, Senator Wright, that when the remark was passed I called Senator Keeffe to order.

Senator Mattner:

Mr Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Is the honourable senator raising a point of order?

Senator Mattner:

– Yes. The remark that I was sitting back laughing is most offensive to me, coming from that source, and I ask that itbe withdrawn. It is one of the filthiest remarks I have ever heard in this chamber.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! I do not uphold the point of order. I call Senator Keeffe.

Senator Mattner:

-I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I cast no reflections on Senator Maimer’s war history. It is a grand and glorious one. I cast no reflections at all in that regard. I know the honourable senator has been ill. I understood he had completely recovered. If he is still ill I suggest that he approach the Opposition Whip and a pair will be granted to him.

Senator Mattner:

Mr Deputy President, I say that the remark that I was sitting back and laughing is offensive to me. I ask for a withdrawal.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Just because the honourable senator asks for the remark to be withdrawn does not mean that it has to be withdrawn. The attention of the Chair was drawn to the remark at the time that it was made. I called Senator Keeffe to order. Senator Keeffe may now continue.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I will proceed with the Labor Party’s policy regarding repatriation:

  1. War pensions, including the general and special rate, and family allowances, shall not be taken into consideration as income for the payment of service pensions or corresponding social service pensions. This proposal to be implemented within 3 years with substantial relief being granted in the first year.
  2. War pensions paid to dependant children shall be continued up to the completion of fulltime education.
  3. Free medical and hospital treatment for all ex-servicemen of the Boer War and the First World War will be implementedin the first year of a Labor Government.

This Government has dickered around for the last 4 or 5 years in which repeated requests have been made and has refused them. I have known a repatriation bill to be amended in this chamber, sent to the House of Representatives, brought back here and defeated because some Government senators changed their minds. The Labor Party policy continues:

  1. Funeral benefit to be raised to at least $100.
  2. War Widows’ pensions to be restored to not less than the 1949 value.

I made representations some little time ago in this chamber to have a full-time repatriation officer established in my home city of Townsville. But the Minister for Repatriation intervened. I criticised him at the time and I criticise him again now. He wrote a letter to me and sent copies of previous correspondence. Obviously the matter had not again been properly investigated. Townsville is 1,000 miles north of the capital city of Queensland. I know that a limited number of repatriation officers are located in provincial cities. 1 know that there are only a few such officers throughout Australia but I think that Townsville had a special case. The Minister was very critical because I had made the submission. His criticism appears in Hansard of 27 th March last at page 361. The Minister then presented some figures concerning interviews held by officers which I say with all due respect gave a distorted picture, because there are many occasions on which these repatriation officers cannot be seen during their limited number of visits to my home city of Townsville. Frequently this results in people being involved in a good deal of expenditure in making application for repatriation benefits or in presenting their cases.

My time is running out. I shall now sum up. The terms of the motion are very relevant because the Government has permitted repatriation benefits to fall to their lowest value in history. I submit I have proved this conclusively by the figures which I have presented. These figures are authoritative and they are being used by every ex-servicemen’s organisation in this country. There is a case for this Government to adopt a humane attitude. If honourable senators care to examine the figures which have been supplied to me by the Minister for Repatriation today in answer to two questions they will see that this inhumanity is being perpetuated on the youngsters who are coming back disabled from Vietnam, on the widows of men killed in Vietnam and on the kids who have been orphaned as a result of our intervention in this war. I suggest that the Government should take a very serious look at this question and that it should not always say that the matter is under review or that it is investigating the matter. The Government should do something and it should do it immediately.

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

– Ai the outset I want to state very definitely that I do not accept the strictures levelled at the Government regarding repatriation, nor do I go along with the suggestion that has been made by the spokesman for the Opposition. Once again the Opposition’s submission has dealt almost solely with the financial compensation that is paid by way of repatriation, but this is only part of the story.

Senator Poyser:

– ft is a very important part.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– 1 admit that it is a very important part of the story. 1 point out that I paid the Opposition’s spokesman the courtesy of hearing him in silence. 1 do not care whether the honourable senator hears me in silence, but if he interjects he should be prepared lo take what is coming to him. Apparently Senator Keeffe is concerned only with the monetary compensation that is paid to these men. Are w? just to make monetary payments to people who are entitled to them on account of war service and let it go at that, or are we to provide medical services and treatment and hospitals and other buildings which are so necessary for the care of these people? ls not this something to be taken into consideration? Has the Government failed on this score? Of course, the answer is that it has not failed. It has improved these benefits and facilities and is continuing to improve them year after year. What is more, in spite of what the Opposition might do or say, we will continue to improve these benefits and facilities. We will steadily try to improve repatriation benefits and facilities which are due to people who are in need of them. We dj this without any prompting from anybody.

There have been very few years when we have not seen a general increase granted in the pensions of those who need them. Last year was an exception, when very small increases were granted to a limited class of pensioners. That was the first occasion for many years when we have not seen general increases granted to repatriation pensioners. So it is pure rot to say that the Government has fallen down on its job of looking after those men who have suffered in the service of their country. It is the policy of the Government and the Department, and it is my policy, to see that we bring about continual improvements in repatriation facilities.

Honourable senators may have heard me refer to this matter only 2 or 3 weeks ago, but as we have an audience listening over the air this afternoon I shall repeat what I said on the occasion in question. About 3 or 4 weeks ago I went to Adelaide and opened a new artificial limb factory in that city. It is the most modern in Australia. Shortly after that I went to Melbourne and opened two 32-bed psychiatric wards at Bundoora. These are splendid buildings in a very good setting. Last week I went to Perth and opened a new psychiatric centre. Again a splendid building, erected in a very nice setting at a cost of more than $100,000. Shortly I will be travelling to Brisbane to open a new artificial limb factory. I expect that it will vie wilh the factory in Adelaide.

Senator Keeffe:

– It is about time. The old artificial limb factory is worn out.

Senator McKELLAR:

– It is not often that I agree with Senator Keeffe, but on this occasion I agree with him wholeheartedly. Later I will be opening another building at the Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital in Brisbane. Last year 1 had the opportunity to open a building at Callan Park in New South Wales. Here again a very modern building was constructed for the people who needed it. Some of the old wards in the hospital in Tasmania badly need replacing,, but the hospital itself is not in too bad a condition. We have this matter on the stocks and we hope to bc able to do something regarding it very shortly. The Repatriation Commission in Tasmania will shortly be moving into new premises. This bears out what I have said to honourable senators all along, that continual improvements are being made in repatriation benefits and facilities.

As regards medical attention in our repatriation hospitals, as a layman I cannot make up my mind which hospital provides the best medical services, because the patients in them tell me that they could not get better treatment in any other hospital. I invite every member of the

Senate to go along and inspect these hospitals. They would be welcome. They need not believe what I am telling them. They can go along and see for themselves, and 1 am sure they will receive the same reactions as I did. There is a spirit of dedication not. only from the doctors and the elderly nurses but also from the younger nurses. I think that this is one of the reasons for the excellent results thai we achieve with the patients treated in our repatriation hospitals.

Another aspect of repatriation which does not receive a lot of publicity is the education service which we provide for children of deceased soldiers. There are about 8,500 children participating in this education service at the present time. They are spread throughout Australia. A great number of children who have received their education through the Repatriation Department have reached quite high positions in Australia. This fact affords every one of us a lot of satisfaction. The first women judge in Australia was educated under this scheme. Members of parliament, ministers of religion and many other prominent members of society have also received their education in this way. Indeed, one of these people is not very far from here at the moment. One hears very little about this education service, but it is one of the repatriation facilities which we provide.

Last year the Government came under intense criticism because it did not see fit to increase pensions. When I was in Brisbane I met representatives of the Blinded Soldier Association (Queensland). They pointed out to me that because of their disabilities very often food was spilt on their clothes, not by themselves but by other people handling the food. They asked me whether something could bc done in the way of providing a clothing allowance. It was not a matter of very great moment, and I agreed to their request. After I had agreed to it I received a letter of very severe criticism. It stated that I was only trying to bribe these people and that it was one of the most disgusting acts which the writer of the letter had ever seen. This is the type of thing with which we are faced.

While I am speaking of letters, only a few weeks ago I took the occasion in this Senate to read out a letter of appreciation which I had received. 1 think it was only last week that I received five such letters on one day. The point I make is, that from time to time people write to me on behalf of relatives who have had the benefit of the treatment, we are able to provide for them and on their own behalf. There is no compulsion or even a suggestion that they should write those letters but they do write them and they are some form of compensation for the great deal of ill-informed criticism levelled at us by people who should know better but apparently do not.

The overriding reason why the Government did not increase pensions last year was that it felt that the stability and the defence of this country had to take priority. A little while ago we were told that we could find millions of dollars to spend on our defence. What is the use of providing very good repatriation benefits for our returned servicemen if we cannot hold this country for them? It is the first duty of any government to ensure that the country it governs is defended. This Government will always have that in mind.

It was said that we are not doing enough for our servicemen in Vietnam. Here again I thought that if our critics had been fair they would have mentioned in their advertisement criticising the Government’s proposal the intention to make defence forces retirement benefits available in addition to the repatriation benefits. Honourable senators will recall that some time ago Senator Keeffe asked me a question about the insurance scheme that I had said I intended to promote. I informed him then that the Government had decided that instead of establishing an insurance scheme it would allow national servicemen who had been to Vietnam to join the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund from which they previously had been excluded. That step had not been envisaged earlier, the normal practice being that anyone admitted to the Fund had to be in the Services for something like 3 years. Furthermore, the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) made it quite clear that any entitlements from the Defence Forces Retirement Benefit Fund would be made retrospective to the date of enlistment.

I also told the Senate that the legislation to give effect to the proposal would be brought down during this sessional period. Unless something unforeseen occurs there will be no change in the plan. As I have said before, the proposal has the effect of giving a national serviceman who is totally and permanently incapacitated after service in Vietnam approximately the same amount as he would receive in repatriation benefits.

Senator Dittmer:

– They claim that it is not adequate.

Senator McKELLAR:

– Of course they claim that it is not adequate but, after all, money cannot compensate a man for the loss of his sight or for the loss of a limb. Let us face that fact. However, I can assure the honourable senator that returned servicemen from the First World War and the Second World War who fall into that category believe that this is not bad treatment because they will get something in addition to their normal, repatriation benefits.

Senator Dittmer:

– Does not the Minister think it is preferable-

Senator MCKELLAR:

– The honourable senator can ask me questions at question time if he wishes to do so. Mention has been made of the loan of $6,000 which the Government will make available to returned servicemen who wish to go on the land, and the loan of $3,000 which the Government will make available to those who wish to set themselves up in business. Those loans will carry a low rate of interest and will be repayable over a long term. 1 know they are proving beneficial to those who have had need of them to date.

I point out that the Government’s loan to assist those who wish to go on the land is not a war service land settlement scheme by any means. There has been a suggestion that a land settlement scheme similar to that established after the First World War and the Second World War should have been embarked upon. I have stated the reasons previously why the Government did not follow that course but I will repeat them now. National servicemen serve for 2 years. They know that before they are called up. On the other hand, young men joined the Services in the First World War and the Second World War without knowing whether they would be serving for 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. That is the main reason why the Government thought it would be better to have the loan scheme rather than the land settlement scheme.

Let me return to the matter of our treatment of ex-servicemen. We have on our lists some 5,000 doctors who are prepared to make their services available in our hospitals throughout Australia. I point out that those doctors are not permanently employed by the Repatriation Department. We endeavour to get, and I think we do get, the top men in their spheres to provide medical services for those who need them. There are young doctors, particularly in Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales, who are anxious to join the staff at our hospitals because of the experience that they gain in them. Something like 3,000 beds in our hospitals throughout Australia are occupied on any given day.

No doubt honourable senators have heard me say on other occasions that we pay as much in repatriation benefits to as many ex-servicemen as does the United Kingdom, so when people try to tell me that our repatriation system is a disgrace and that we should be doing this and that, let me remind them of what is happening in other countries. I claim, not because I happen to be the Minister for Repatriation, that our repatriation scheme is one of the best in the world.

Senator Poke:

– But our ex-servicemen do not live in other parts of the world. They live in Australia.

Senator McKELLAR:

– Never mind about that. We are living in the best conditions in the best country in the world. I think the honourable senator has sufficient intelligence to know that. I take great exception to the statement that statistics put out by the Repatriation Department are slanted. They are nothing of the kind. The statement is a complete fabrication and there is not one iota of evidence to sustain it.

I mentioned earlier our artificial limb factories. To the end of June last year some 631,800 artificial limbs and appliances were provided, not only for repatriation patients but for other patients as well. There was criticism of the fact that we had not seen fit to accept automatically cases of tuberculosis as a result of service in the present conflict. The fact is that we have not had any cases of tuberculosis.

Senator Dittmer:

– T told the Minister there would not be many. That is why I asked him-

Senator MCKELLAR:

– Like myself, the honourable senator is right sometimes. I suppose Senator Dittmer would know as well as I do that there have not been any cases of tuberculosis simply because the precautions being taken against our servicemen contracting the disease are far better then they were previously. I understand a pretty rigid check is kept on them while they are serving in the Vietnam area where tuberculosis is fairly prevalent. However, if they do happen to contract the disease they will be eligible for the benefits that apply.

I also took exception in silence to the suggestion that something should be done about scandals in the Repatriation Department. That is a complete fabrication and there is not one iota of evidence to support it. When charges of that nature are made f believe they show how weak is the Opposition’s case; it has to fall so low as to make them.

Senator Keeffe:

– No-one is reflecting on the officers, of the Department.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– -The honourable senator’s words were that there were scandals in the Repatriation Department and I challenge him to deny that.

Senator Marriott:

– He does not know what he said.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– No. What is more, he does not understand. 1 refute the suggestion that, returned soldiers are not wanted by the Repatriation Department or by the Government. That suggestion is almost, too low even to mention, but I refute it. Then we heard the statement that it was unfortunate for those who wore the returned soldiers’ stigma. Let the honourable senator deny having said that, if he can. I am sure the returned soldiers will be pleased with his remarks! 1 wish to give a little more detail, although I propose to leave it to my colleagues who will follow me in this debate to give some of the facts and figures that I have not time to give. At present a married totally and permanently incapacitated or TPI pensioner with two children receives $37.30 a week in war pension. Subject to means he may also receive service pension of up to $16.45, giving a total family pension income of $53.75 a week. The fact that a married TPI pensioner can receive the service pension supplement leads me to a further point. In making any assessment of repatriation pension rates one must give due weight to the changes which the Government has brought about in the conditions which apply to the receipt of pensions.

For example, in 1955 the Government, in accordance with its policy of providing additional assistance where the need is greatest - that has always been my policy - removed the ceilings laid down in the Repatriation Act on the amounts that a war pensioner could receive by way of war, service and civil pensions. In 1949-50 a special rate pensioner and his wife could receive war pension only, totalling between them $13 a week. Today, subject to the means test, the total payment to a special rate pensioner and his wife by way of war and service pension is $41.76 a week - an increase of 221% compared with the increase of 110% in the consumer price index. So much for the figures that are quoted so glibly so often. In 1949-50, under the ceiling maintained by the previous Government, a general rate pensioner could, subject to the means test, receive the maximum weekly payment of war and service pension of $6.25.

Senator Keeffe:

– He could get fat on that.

Senator MCKELLAR:

– That was under the previous Government. The maximum payment has been increased to $23 a week, comprising war pension of $12 and the part service pension of $11 - an increase of 268% on the 1949-50 level.

In addition to pensions there are additional allowances according to the severity or type of disablement. For example, there is an attendant’s allowance of $6.50 or $10.50 a week and a recreation transport allowance of $1n or $20 a month, depending on the category. The Senate may be interested to know that repatriation expenditure on pensions has increased in- what I consider to be a dramatic way since 1949-50. The expenditure on war pensions and allowances in that year was $41m, compared with an estimated expenditure of $165m in 1967-68. Service pension payments have risen in the same, time from $2.8m to $32m.

Senator Keeffe:

-Those are slanted figures.

Senator McKELLAR:

– The honourable senator is like the fellow who, when the umpire gives a decision for him, says that the umpire is very good, but when the umpire rules against him says that the umpire should not be umpiring. The honourable senator’s criticism leaves me cold because it does not come from one-

Senator Keeffe:

– What are you upset about?

Senator McKELLAR:

– I am not upset at all. While the Labor Party has the honourable senator for its spokesman, the present Government will remain in office. 1 strongly refute any suggestion that the Government is not playing its part in the repatriation field. 1 am sure that we will be able to increase what we are doing. That is the Government’s aim and it is my aim.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I suggest that the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) has not answered the case put by Senator Keeffe. Basically this is a campaign by the Opposition and also by the ex-service organisations to restore the relative value of pensions. The Minister has not answered that case at all. He has spoken with two voices. On other occasions and in other places he has supported the aims of the ex-service organisations.

Senator McKellar:

– I still support them.

Senator BISHOP:

– Of course he has. In May last year, when we put before the Senate the proposition that a select committee should be appointed to consider all repatriation matters, the Minister said:

I hope that when the next Budget is introduced we will have even wider grounds of agreement. lt is my desire that we pay the pensions to which these people are entitled. We know that the value of the pensions has been eroded by the high cost of living.

Elsewhere, on 29th June he said that he thought that the value of pensions should be restored. So the position is that either the Minister is not doing the best he can in the representations that he makes or the Government has failed to take notice of his strong representations. If he is satisfied personally that ex-service men and women have a case for having the value of pensions restored, he has not told us why his views have not been accepted by the Government.

A consistent campaign has been waged in this chamber over many years. In recent years this is the third occasion on which the Opposition has put before the Government a specific plea that it take urgent action to restore the relative value of repatriation pensions.

Senator McKellar:

– If the honourable senator had listened to my speech he would have heard me give the reasons-

Senator BISHOP:

– The Minister, at the beginning of his speech, said that monetary compensation was not the only thing. If he agrees with Senator Keeffe’s argument that the value of pensions should be restored, he has not told the Senate why his representations have been unsuccessful. AH he has told the Senate is that when the Budget provisions were made it was necessary to allocate funds to other items wilh higher priority.

We say that this is a very urgent matter. The Minister has gone before returned servicemen’s organisations and argued that there should be a restoration of standards. We want to know what he intends to do about that. That is the real issue. In a debate such as this it is not of much use to tell us all about the incidental repatriation benefits. We know about some of those because each of us deals with repatriation matters almost every day of the week. The Minister knows as well as I do that when he mentions the benefits given to totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners he does not tell us about the difficulties that ex-servicemen have to undergo in order to obtain those benefits.

We have quoted figures which are included in Repatriation Commission reports and which show that thousands of exservicemen cannot obtain pensions through the tribunals because in many cases their own records are not available. As the Minister himself has often said in the past, much of the information that should have been recorded on a serviceman’s record was not so recorded. So, when an exserviceman does not have the records that the medical men want to support his application, he does not receive benefits and he has to approach the Minister who, it seems to me, cannot take action. Many representations are made to him, but the exserviceman has to find medical records or witnesses to circumstances that existed many years ago. We are saying that the priorities demand that the people who fought in the wars be given the adequate standards to which they are entitled.

As we have mentioned before, it is now about 25 years since proper consideration was given to repatriation matters by an all-party committee of this Parliament. The year 1943 was the last time all the Repatriation Acts and benefits were investigated properly and standards reformed and brought up to date. Since then this Government has refused to consider any move to have such a review made. The Minister says that there is a continuing review. What is the continuing review to which he refers? His statement is no different from the statements made by previous Ministers for Repatriation. He says that the method of review is that the ex-servicemen’s organisations come before the Government and put their pleas, and then the Government considers those requests or hands them on to its party committee. Then, when the Budget arrangements are being made, if something can be provided for them out of available funds, it is given to them. That is not a proper type of review. There ought to be a review similar to those carried out in J 920 and 1950. What we are putting to the Government and what the RSL and other organisations have put to it is that, just as, after the review by the Menzies Government in 1950, the relativity of exservice pensions to the basic wage was restored, so should it be restored today. The RSL and other organisations feel so keenly about this that, for the first time that I can remember, they made this a strong issue during a Senate election campaign in the hope of impressing the Government with the urgency of their need. But the message does not seem to have been brought home to the Government.

We ask the Government why it cannot grant the requested increases in pensions to the people about whom its members are always talking and to whom they are always paying compliments. The various improvements that have been granted in repatriation benefits are so small as to be only incidental. The Minister has mentioned certain figures in an endeavour to have us believe that a great number of people enjoy these benefits. Those who do enjoy them are the comparative few who have been able to get through the network of bureaucracy. We are concerned about the great number of particular cases about which we all know.

We are concerned about the people who have suffered disabilities but whose records do not show, for example, that they suffered from gunshot wounds. Many others are unable to support their applications by the evidence of witnesses as to what took place at the time. These people have Buckley’s chance of getting just recognition of their experiences in the war.

When it comes to more sophisticated complaints such as nervous conditions, I suggest a man has almost no chance at all of receiving any benefit if his record does not contain direct reference to his complaint. I submit that on the grounds put forward by the Opposition, it is obvious that the review that we have requested ought to be held. We have made this request on many occasions, but the Government has always rejected it. When we put the proposition forward in May of last year, only one Government supporter - lie is now a Minister - supported us. What we requested obviously had great merit because the course we have suggested has been followed in the past. There have been early reviews by all party committees and if a similar review were carried out now all interested parties could state their cases. The type of review about which the Minister speaks is of no use whatever. It contains no machinery for the automatic processing of pension increases. Indeed, pension increases have always depended upon arbitrary decisions. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, T can only assume that requests made of the Government by the RSL and other organisations have not been supported by the Liberal Party’s ex-servicemen’s committee.

We now have the situation in which the Minister says that these things ought to be done but when we ask why they are not done he says: ‘There are other things than the monetary benefits to which you refer.’ The basic requirements of food and clothing are the essential needs of every person, but they are more essential to the person who either cannot work or can work only part time.

It has been said by the Government on many occasions that the question of pensions for ex-servicemen should not be related to social services, that these men should be compensated for the service they have given to the nation. What sort of compensation is it when, after having raised the matter on three occasions in the Senate within J2 months, no improvement is granted? 1 remind honourable senators also that the most important ex-service organisations in the country have made direct protests to the Government. The South Australian branch of the RSL says there is crisis in conditions for ex-service pensioners. In June last year twenty-six ex-service organisations and the Limbless Soldiers Association in South Australia held a general protest meeting and passed on resolutions of protest to the then Prime Minister. The National Congress of the RSL has also protested. Senator Keeffe has mentioned the fact that Mr Keys, a member of the executive body of the RSL in Canberra, has also made representations supporting the demand for a review by a Senate select committee.

I say to the Minister for Repatriation that the main thing we want to know is why repatriation benefits are not increased in the way we have suggested. Senator Keeffe has given figures which disclose that in 1920 the special rate TPI pension represented 103% of the then basic wage. In 1943 it matched the basic wage and in 1950 it represented 100% of the basic wage, but in the 17 years that have passed since the last general review of payments and allowances, the special rate pension has dropped lo 81% of the general wage. And this is the general trend in the monetary standard of till repatriation benefits. I suggest that we have made tin excellent case for the requested review, lt has been said on many occasions when the Budget has been under review that the Government cannot afford to give any more. The excuse offered sometimes has been our defence commitments. I remind the Senate that this Government has bungled in ordering the FI 1 1 aircraft. The cost now is $63ni higher than was originally stated. We have the Minister’s own word for that. Why, that amount would more than meet the cost of free hospitalisation for the veterans of the Boer War and the First World War.

Senator McKellar:

– That is not so.

Senator BISHOP:

– It is so. The Minister slated that $10m would be the cost of the free hospitalisation. Even on the current estimate, the cost of the Fill is up by $63m over the original price, and this is lor an aircraft which, at this stage, seems to be quite unsatisfactory and inefficient. We argue that priority must be given to the needs of persons and especially of persons who serve in a war because, as I have said in this chamber many times, no man can serve as a member of the Forces at home, let alone in theatres of war, without being affected by that service. The Repatriation Act as it stands at present does not provide for the proper compensation of disabled exservicemen. Having recruited and conscripted men to fight in wars, the Government should be the first to establish the standards of compensation which we request.

Senator HENTY:
Tasmania

– lt is simple for the Opposition, which has no responsibility and which has no opportunity of doing what it proposes until it becomes a government, to advocate increases in one particular avenue of expenditure. The Opposition fails, of course, to do what the Government does. The Government gives consideration to the whole range of urgent expenditures and allocates available funds’ over the complete spectrum. This is done on every occasion on which a Budget is framed. Every year since it attained office in 1949. this Government has examined the funds it has available for expenditure on the wide spectrum of repatriation and other benefits for which it is responsible and allocates available funds accordingly, lt has consistently given thorough consideration to the representations that have been made by the various organisations representing totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners and other ex-servicemen. The RSL is the one body that does have direct access to the Cabinet of this country arid those who lead that organisation are responsible men.

At some RSL meetings I have heard criticism of the cases put up and the way in which they have been put up by the RSL leaders and I have always attacked that criticism because these men come to the Government with a high sense of responsibility. They appreciate that it is their job to get the best they possibly can for the people whom they represent. If they did not, they would not continue to hold the positions that they do. These men realise also that the Government owes a duty to the nation as a whole. They know also that ever since 1949 this Government has given the most favourable consideration it possibly could to repatriation benefits and has increased them wherever that has been possible. That this is so is supported by the increases that have been granted since the Labor Party left the scene of government away back in 1949. And if the members of the Labor Party go on as they have been carrying on in the last day or two, sharpening their knives and sticking them into the back of their leader, it will be another 20 years before they will be the Government. The important point to appreciate is that the Opposition is not in a position to implement anything. The Labor Party can not implement anything. Before it can do so, it must get into government. Opposition senators talk about the last Senate election but aW the Labor Party did in that election was to lose a seat and, in effect, bring in two more Democratic Labor Party senators. If that is victory for the Labor Party, I will go home.

I have some relevant and appropriate figures which should be quoted during this debate in order to put the matter in proper perspective. 1 propose to do this. The total and permanent incapacity rate of pension is now $30.50 per week compared with $10.60 per week in 1949. This represents an increase of 188% since the Labor Party went out of office in 1949. It is all very well for the Labor Party to raise this sort of matter before a Budget is presented. The Opposition knows that it will not be in government when the next Budget is introduced. But it is seeking to get what kudos it can and it will dredge up anything in an endeavour to do so. It hopes that it will be able to say that this matter was brought before the Government by the Opposition prior to the presentation of the Budget and that therefore it should receive credit for any benefits in that Budget. Nobody can do this. This Government has the duty of presenting the Budget and deciding what it will contain. I have already given the Senate the increase in the TPI pension. This was 188% since 1949. The increase in the 100% general pension-

Senator O’Byrne:

– Those are false comparisons.

Senator HENTY:

– They are true. If the honourable senator is trying to tell me that the difference between $10.60 per week and $30.50 per week is not 188%, I shall go home and do some more arithmetic. The 100% general rate pension, now $12 per week, has increased by 118% since 1949. The war widows pension, now $13 per week, has increased 117% in the same period. The war widows’ pension and domestic allowance, which are now $20 per week, in conjunction have been increased by 196%. It is interesting to note that 96% of war widows draw this allowance, which is in addition to their pension. This is at a time when the cost of living has increased by 110% since 1949. In other words, repatriation pensions have been increased by between 1 18% and 196% since the Australian Labor Party went out of office in 1949 while, during the same time, the cost of living has risen by 1 1 0% . .

Sir, I say that this is a record of which any government can be proud. Yet not one member belonging to any Party in the Senate would not want, if it was possible to do so with a full sense of responsibility - not the sense of responsibility- of the Opposition which has no responsibility - to increase repatriation pensions. Of course everyone would. But’ this matter must be approached with a proper sense or responsibility. It is all very nice to be able to say that the additional benefits that have been granted do not count much. Let me remind honourable senators that in 1950 this Government introduced a gratuity which today is worth $676 to any war widow who remarries. This gratuity that the war widow now receives never existed when the Labor Party was in government. It was introduced by this Government in 1950. The war widow who remarries gets 52 instalments of a pension of $13 a week. In other words, she receives a cheque for $676. This benefit never existed during the period of office of the Labor Government.

  1. turn to the additional pension for widowed mothers. This was $4.25 per week in 1949 when the Labor. Party was in office. Today it is $13 per week, an increase of $8.75 per week. The next example is an interesting one. Expenses paid to appellants in 1949 were 90c per day. These people now receive $6.8Q per day in expenses. The subsistence allowance today is $7.70. During the time of the Labor Government it was $1.20. These benefits are additional to the rates of pension that I have quoted. These figures cannot be denied. The additional benefits - make no mistake about this - are of value to those people who receive them. I wish to reply to one point which has been overlooked. There has been talk concerning repatriation benefits that everybody concerned in the 1914-18 war, and the Boer War veterans are chucked in for good measure, should receive certain benefits-
Senator O’Byrne:

– And hospitalisation.

Senator HENTY:

– Yes, for hospitalisation. This benefit is denied only to those who do not qualify because of the means test, lt is denied to those who have sufficient money outside their pension to bear this cost. If any more money is to be found foi: repatriation purposes, I say that it should go to those who have no income in addition to their pension. They should get it. The money should not be used to provide benefits for people who are at present excluded only because they have so much money that they do not qualify for these benefits under the means test. What the Opposition is putting forward is that funds should be taken from the taxpayers’ money not to give additional benefits to those who are entitled to them and who have no other form of income, but to those people who arc excluded from these benefits already because of the means test. These people have sufficient funds outside their pension and this is why they are excluded from receiving these benefits. As far as I am concerned, while I am in this place - it will not be very much longer for mc - .1 will stand here as I have always done and say that if any additional money is available it should go to those who need it and not go to those who have an income outside their pension and who therefore are not in the needy class.

This is what I say in answer to the question raised by Senator Keeffe. It is a matter which has been raised before. He makes an easy, emotional claim when he says that we should give full hospitalisation to the 1914-18 diggers. If they have an independent income, why should we provide this benefit? To my mind if this money is to be expended in this direction it should be expended, not as the Labor Party is advocating among those who do not qualify, but on those who have a far greater need because they have not an independent income. I would have thought that the last thing that Senator Keeffe and his cohorts in the Opposition would be advocating was that increased benefits should be granted to people who have private incomes. 1 thought that they were absolutely opposed to the capitalistic system. I thought that they were keen supporters of the Socialist. I understood that the number of knivesinthebackoftheirleader was increased from fifteen to thirty-two in favour of a Socialist who makes no bones about what he supports. I thought that they were his supporters. The last thing that I thought Senator Keeffe would advocate was an increased benefit for people who have private incomes. This is like the suggested abolition of the means test. I stand flatly against the abolition of the means test and I always will stand flatly against its abolition. Those who have a private income should pay to help those who do not have the money and are in need. I am completely opposed to the abolition of the means test. 1 have a great many statistics which are well worthy of consideration in this context, but I shall not use them. I wish to give more members of the Opposition the opportunity to put their case while the proceedings are being broadcast because the more of them who do so the better it will be for the Government, I am sure. The Opposition cannot continue to indulge in these diversionary tactics. Opposition members hope to get away from a discussion in this Senate of the performances that have gone on in the Australian Labor Party in the last day or two. It is interesting, when one reads in the Press of the recent voting in the leadership struggle in the Labor Party, to note that the elected leader had a majority of only six. The number of knives for his opponents had increased from fifteen to thirty-two. On 30th June of this year four good old Labor senators will retire. I understand that in the change the new senators may not be of the same thought as those who are retiring. This will be a rather interesting situation. While the political assassination of the Leader of the Australian Labor Party continues to take place, the Labor Party will never be in a position to implement any proposal. Honourable senators opposite will always be in Opposition. This Government which has been in office since 1949 has a record of improvement in repatriation benefits which would be a credit to any responsible government. lt will continue to be in office and it will consider the subject year by year, in the light of the funds available and the cases put up by the magnificent leaders of the ex-servicemen. A proper, balanced, responsible decision will be given by the Government, which is likely to continue in office for the next 20 years while members of the Opposition are going on with their present antics.

Senator DRURY:
South Australia

– I believe thai repatriation is one of the most important matters to come before the Federal Parliament. To hear Senator Henty one would think it was just something on which to base a tirade against the Australian Labor Party. For the life of me I do not know what the distribution of voles within the Labor Party has to do with repatriation. This is entirely a matter for the Labor Parly itself, and the honourable senator does not show evidence of a great deal of thought when he brings this type of thing into a debate such as this. Reference has been made lo what happened in 1949 and what is happening at the present time. I do not think that this argument needs answering; history itself answers it. In 1949 the Labor Government went out of office. From 1945 until 1949 it was doing a great job in rehabilitating people who were being discharged from the forces. The national income at that time was not as great as it is at present. One cannot make valid comparisons between what was paid in 1949 and what is paid at the present time.

Let us look at what happens when a totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner receives an increase in his pension. If his wife is in receipt of social service benefits the increase that the TPI pensioner gets is immediately deducted from his wife’s pension. One might say that this has nothing to do with the Repatriation Act but is entirely a matter within the operations of the Social Services Act. But when we give a TPI pensioner an increase in his pension why do we not in fact give it to him? Why do we give it with one hand and take it away with the other? This is something that the Government should consider. It should consult with the Department of Social Services to see whether this can be overcome.

Why should the TPI pensioner be penalised? Why is he getting a pension? He is getting it because he is disabled on account of war service. He is entitled to anything that he gets and he should in no way be penalised, nor should his wife be penalised because his pension rate is increased.

Senator McKellar stated what a TPI pensioner receives and what he would receive if his wife, in addition, was receiving social service benefits, but this is no more than an ordinary pensioner couple receive at the present time. I feel that married pensioners in the social services field are still not getting enough. My point is that the TPI pensioner is penalised each time his pension is increased. Senator McKellar spoke about repatriation pensions as being only a small part of the repatriation programme. This is true. Repatriation deals with hospitalisation and other entitlements and benefits that ex-servicemen receive, but only because they suffer from war caused disabilities. They are entitled to all of the benefits that they can possibly get. As Senator Keeffe said, in time of war money can be found for fighting the war. We know that this is essential. We must defend this country, but in peace time why cannot such money be found for increasing the benefits payable to TPI and other pensioners, particularly other ex-service pensioners? I do not wish to refer back to 1949 but I should like to refer to what was said in April 1964 by the former Minister for Repatriation, Mr R. W. Swartz, to the annual conference of the Central District of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, in Rockhampton, hecause 1 believe that this sums up the position in Australia so far as TPI and other service pensioners are concerned. The report reads:

The Minister for Repatriation, Mr R. W. Swartz, emphasised that now was the time for reassessing just what lay in the f Mure for the ex-servicemen, particularly those who were in receipt of sonic form of assistance from the Repatriation Department. Mr Swartz said the days of war, of comradeship and of suffering, remained very close lo ex-servicemen. But it had to be remembered that those days were but a dim memory in the minds of hundreds of thousands of the younger Australian voters.

I feel that they are a dim memory in the minds of some of the older voters also. The report continues:

To many, many more, who were not born or not in the country, all they know of war are the -.lories they read or hear, or walch on television. This fact was one which must bc faced by both the RSL and other responsible ex-service bodies as well as the Repatriation Department itself.

Mr Swartz said: ‘lt is an inescapable fact that for the next decade and more Repatriation will be spending more and more money on a dwindling segment of the population. Ex-servicemen, like everyone else, grow older. As they grow older they become more prone to illness and to aggravated results of old wounds and other disabilities. I believe most sincerely that it is up to us all to keep continuously before the minds of the public that the mcn and women receiving pensions or treatment from Repatriation are doing so because they did sacrifice their health in their country’s interests. Repatriation is not a charity. These men and women are fully entitled to what they receive and there is a moral obligation on the general public to see that they receive nothing but the best.’

This is all that the Australian Labor Parly is asking the Government to do. Give these people the best that can be given to them. I believe that under the present Repatriation Act this is not being done. It is true that from time to time increases in pensions and other benefits and amenities have been given to ex-service pensioners, but more should be done and could be done if the Goverment only set its mind to it and looked into the matter thoroughly. Mr Swartz continued: 1 have full faith in the integrity of the average Australians. They have never shirked responsibility and I am sure that they will continue to make certain that the veterans of their country’s wars are well looked after. At the same time, League members will realise that the fact that our country is prosperous, that the amenities that most of us now enjoy, could not exist were if not for the fact that older generations were prepared to give their lives to maintain our national identity.

From time to time the Government has reminded us that Australia is an affluent society and that we have great natural resources to exploit. In these circumstances, why should ex-servicemen who made this affluent society possibly not gain something from the natural resources of this country by way of better pensions? The article continues:

Australia’s present stability is based firmly on the fact that our country is independent and beholden to no one. It would not have been so but for the millions of Australians who volunteered for service overseas in both World Wars and in Korea.

There is bound to be a separation of interest between various generations, none of us think precisely as did our fathers. We must all, then, work together to keep the needs of the exserviceman before the eyes of the general public, and particularly before the eyes of the younger members of the community.

This is what the Australian Labor Party sets out to do. We believe that repatriation benefits should be kept continually before the public and that something should be done to help ex-servicemen. I might add that the article from which I have quoted is in the June 1964 issue of ‘Chin Up’, a magazine published by the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers’ Association of Victoria. Honourable senators should study that article carefully, for it sums up the situation of the ex-serviceman pensioner today.

The Repatriation Act still contains anomalies although it has been amended from time to time. At times we of the Opposition have, with the help of some Government members, succeeded in having amendments carried. Though we have had some measure of success, many more anomalies in the Act should be corrected. One might reasonably ask many questions. One is whether the Government is giving the ex-servicemen the fair deal to which be is entitled. The Government should study the position closely and revise it. It would have been a good idea, and a way of giving the ex-serviceman a fair go, if last year senators on the Government side had encouraged and supported the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into all aspects of repatriation. I have much pleasure in supporting the proposal advanced by Senator Keeffe this afternoon.

Senator MARRIOTT:
Tasmania

– It is indeed a change and a pleasure to follow in debate Senator Drury, who has calmly, reasonably and sincerely made a plea to the Government for full consideration of repatriation benefits. I am sure that not one senator would be opposed to this. We all hope that the Government will from year to year, of its own volition and in the discharge of its responsibilities, provide the best it can by way of monetary and other benefits for ex-servicemen and the dependants of deceased ex-servicemen. However, the proposal before the Senate is indicative of the confused thinking of members of the Labor Party. In wanting us to debate the allegation that the Government has permitted repatriation benefits to fall to their lowest value in history, they are asking us to debate something that is not factual.

Senator Keeffe, who is the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, has put in writing something that is contrary to the truth. He knows that he is mouthing an untruth in making the statement that the Government has permitted repatriation benefits to fall to their lowest value in history.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I stated that the motion now before the Senate, moved by Senator Keeffe who is Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, contains a false statement. I believe it is false in that it alleges clearly that repatriation benefits have been permitted by this Government lo fall to their lowest level. I repeat that the statement contained in the motion is not true. Any critic of the Government can juggle figures in respect of the cost of living, but however figures are used to arrive at the present value of the $1 as compared with the value of the £1 in 1949 - and we have to hark back to 1949 to compare the actions of this Government with those of its predecessor - the truth will out. The truth is that repatriation benefits are today at a higher level than they have been before. 1 remind honourable senators that the words used in the motion are repatriation benefits’ and no reference is made to actual pension payments.

The facts, which are clearly available, prove that the Government throughout its long period of office has given constant attention to reviewing all aspects of repatriation legislation where it believes it can give, on behalf of the taxpayers, more benefits to those people covered by the repatriation legislation. Firstly, there have been real money increases. Secondly, it cannot but be admitted that in the term of this Government’s rule many new forms of benefits have been introduced that never previously were heard or thought of. Thirdly, the scope and generosity of many fringe benefits have been widened. All senators are aware that legislation is pending in the Senate which will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt not only that the Government is always reviewing the situation, but also that servicemen now serving Australia will be given greatly increased benefits as their repatriation rights at the conclusion of their service.

In the time allotted to me tonight I do not intend to deal in any respect with details. Beneficiaries of repatriation allowances are aware of the details. I cannot say, and I do not think anyone in this Parliament could say honestly, that beneficiaries under repatriation legislation receive all that we would like them to receive in order to enjoy fully lives that have been altered because of their service, or because of the service of their lost ones in time of war. However, I do not believe that the harsh criticism we have heard today is fair or warranted. I do not believe it is wise, in any sense of the word, for members of the Opposition to indulge in exaggerated criticism at this time of the year when the Government has the responsibility to start preparing the Budget for the following financial year.

Senator Keeffe:

– The Government did not grant proper increases last year or the year before that.

Senator MARRIOTT:

– This Government has brought in a Budget in every year of its term of office. Every year it has been recognised by the Australian electors that the Government does to the best of its ability - whether it does so absolutely correctly is a matter of opinion - review fully all forms of benefits and payments to people in Australia. I believe that at this time of the year we should keep in mind three very important factors. Firstly, in the last financial year repatriation cost the taxpayers of Australia $265,344,000. Secondly, a government has the responsibility to look after many aspects that have a very intimate association with the lives and welfare of the people. Thirdly, consideration must be given to the effects on the economy, and to the development and defence of this country. A government must take all those factors into consideration. It is not an easy responsibility to shoulder. The Opposition has no responsibility in that regard whatever. The motion before the Senate and the speeches we have heard in this debate from honourable senators opposite show that at least some of them have little realisation of the facts and of their significance.

A government has the responsibility of social welfare, lt is a truism of government responsibility that social welfare and repatriation benefits are linked and can never be torn asunder. They will always be linked. When an increase is granted in one field there must be some sort of increase in another field. So great are the payments and so wide are the benefits that flow from the Government to the people that any increase is a serious cost to revenue. That revenue comes only from the people we represent in this Parliament. The taxpayers must find the money and that is ever in the mind of the Government. However, this point seems to be forgotten by the Opposition, and particularly by its members who do not remember their own party’s time of office, because it was so long ago.

Unfair criticism, in my belief, has been made of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar). At times we have heard such criticism of other Ministers for Repatriation. When the history is written showing what the Australian people did for the servicemen who represented us in war, I sincerely believe that the names of Senator Sir Walter Cooper, Mr Reg Swartz who is now Minister for Civil Aviation, and Senator McKellar, the present Minister for Repatriation, will be mentioned as men who have represented the cause of exservicemen and their dependants with great feeling and with great benefit to the people they have served.

My memory is long enough to recall what happened to the last two Ministers for Repatriation in Labor governments. They both lost their seats when next they stood for re-election. Some honourable senators will recall that in ‘Smith’s Weekly’, a prominent newspaper of other days, this sentence appeared: ‘Whom Caucus wishes to destroy it first makes Minister for Repatriation’. The basis of that statement was that in the immediate post-war years servicemen returning to their homeland after hearing all the promises made to them and their dependants, and the dependants of those servicemen who did not come back, felt that they were not getting a fair deal from the government in power. The result was that in the elections of 1946 and 1949 both the gentlemen who had been Labor Ministers for Repatriation lost their seats. It ill becomes the present Opposition to indulge in such harsh and bitter criticisms and make such allegations against this Government. J will never deny the right of the Opposition, or any senator, to stand in this place and say that the Government should do more, particularly on matters such as repatriation or social welfare. But I feel that at a time when we know that the Government is preparing its Budget the Opposition could serve the Australian people, and the ex-service men and women whom they claim to represent, far better and with more sincerity by putting forward some constructive suggestions, and naming some particular points about repatriation benefits which they consider the Government should and could give added help. I believe this would be acceptable to the Government and would be considered by it.

The Government gives its ear and attention to the Federal Executive of the Returned Services League. The Government has set up a backbenchers committee of ex-servicemen. In this committee, we consider legislation and make recommendations to the Minister for Repatriation throughout the year, but particularly at this time of the year. In a few weeks time, at our invitation, members of the RSL Federal Executive will assemble in Canberra and meet members of our ex-servicemen’s committee. Whether one of those members of the Federal Executive will bring the promised birch, I do not know. But I am a member of the RSL. I am an ex-servicemen. I. am willing to stand here - or stand in front of any RSL body - and say I believe this Government has cause for gratification because of its attitude to repatriation benefits and beneficiaries under our repatriation legislation. I believe the matter before the Senate now will not receive the plaudits of the crowd because it is an untrue statement.

Senator MCCLELLAND:
New South Wales

Senator Marriott, during the course of his speech, suggested that we of the Opposition should come forward with some constructive suggestions for the Government as to the manner in which the repatriation system might be improved. I point out to the honourable senator that only last year, and, indeed the year before, we on this side of the chamber moved in this chamber for the appointment of an allparty Senate select committee to inquire publicly into and report upon the system of repatriation in Australia; to compare it. with other repatriation systems throughout the world; to invite evidence from interested persons; and, as a result of discussion and deliberation to work out a proper, efficient and more up to date system than the one implemented by this Government. Of course, the records of this chamber show that time after time, year after year, this Government rejected the appointment of such a committee.

Now, because our pleas on behalf of ex-servicemen have been ignored constantly by this Government, we of the Labor movement, by raising the subject of repatriation as a matter of urgency, are supporting the claims made by the various ex-service organisations throughout Australia that this Government has allowed repatriation benefits to reach their lowest level in history. We raise the subject at this point in time because we know that in the very near future the Government will begin to draw up its plans for the forthcoming Budget. In years gone by, the economic needs, the living standards, and the wants and requirements of Australian exservicemen who are repatriation beneficiaries have been completely ignored by this Government. We wish to ensure that the Government is made well aware of their needs and requirements in advance of the presentation of the Budget to this Parliament. We raise the matter because, as my colleagues have said, we assert that Australian ex-servicemen who are in receipt of repatriation benefits, and those who quite legitimately feel they should be in receipt of repatriation benefits but who have not been able to qualify for them, are being denied a fair share of this nation’s wealth. We have raised the matter because although these people served this country in time of national emergency, in time of war - this Government appears to be completely oblivious of their real living needs.

It is all very well for the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar), who sits in this chamber, to talk about the medical and hospital attention that is provided for war pensioners. It is all very well for him to tell us how improvements have been made generally in repatriation facilities. But surely it is the duty and responsibility of the Government to ensure that the best medical care, hospital attention, equipment and all the other facilities are provided for the men who have been wounded in the defence of this country. But in rugby league parlance, in true scrum half fashion, the Minister has tried to work the blind side this evening rather than come out into the open and meet the attack made by the Opposition on the Government for its failure to face up to the real living standards and needs of Australian repatriation pensioners generally.

War pensions should be regarded as being some measure of compensation for deprivation and suffering in the service and defence of this country. The scale laid down for a particular handicap, injury, ailment, affliction or disease should be measured on today’s living standards and not on some figure plucked out of the air, as it were, and of which it is said: ‘Well, that might satisfy them for the time being.’ The fact is that civilian courts, supreme courts, district courts and workers’ compensation commissions, over a period of years - and especially in the last decade - have uplifted the standards of compensation or awards. When one compares the improvements that have taken place in the civilian jurisdiction with the dormant situation which has existed so far as repatriation pensions are concerned, one must readily agree immediately with the Returned Services League that the present levels of war pensions are a disgrace to the Australian Government and in fact represent a betrayal of those who have suffered in war.

Unfortunately, for many of those people in receipt of pensions, the situation is a critical one so far as their living standards are concerned. Obviously the problem of those people will be an annually recurring one while this Government is in office. In 1966 Mr Osmond, the New South Wales Secretary of the Returned Services League, wrote to all members of the Federal Parliament about repatriation and the 1966 Budget. Among other things in his letter, he said:

The New South Wales Branch of the Returned Services League, representative of over 113.000 members resident in this State, adds its fullest support to the strong protests that have been voiced by the National President, Sir Arthur Lee, and National Executive at the paucity of Repatriation provisions in the 1966 Federal Budget. Exservicemen in New South Wales are most disappointed that the Government has not provided for adequate adjustment of war pension rates. Accordingly, we write to ask for your support of the request that has been made to the Prime Minister for the introduction of a Supplementary Budget to correct the fall in value of war pensions in relation to the Commonwealth Basic Wage.

Mr Osmond continued:

The Prime Minister and Cabinet have been presented with facts indicating the decline in General Kate pension values to even lower than those that existed in 1949. . . .

The Secretary then set out the pension rates. He continued:

Whilst the League is conscious of the fact that the men and women who have suffered disability us a result of their war service are rinding it more and more difficult to combat the steady trend of rising prices and falling values, the League is also concerned that members of our Forces al present engaged in active service in Vietnam and other theatres, who may as a result of the present conflict be totally incapacitated, will be asked to spend the rest of their lives on a weekly compensation that is less than the Commonwealth basic wage.

Then the Secretary slates quite emphatically: lt is a matter of gravest concern that these mcn and their dependants should be called on to accept the responsibility which in all fairness should be borne more equally by the population at large.

One cannot cavil at the suggestions made by Mr Osmond in that letter in 1966.

One would think the Government would say that this is a fair assessment and a true setting out of the actual position in 1966. But very little, if anything, has been done by this Government to ameliorate the conditions complained of at that time. The Minister for Repatriation said this afternoon, as he did some time last month, that the Australian system, in his opinion, was one of the best in the world. On 8th November 1967, in this chamber, 1 drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that the RSL had published a pamphlet which stated that the present levels of war pensions were a disgrace to the Government and a betrayal of those who had suffered in war. I asked the Minister whether he agreed that in the 17 years this Government had then been in office it had allowed war pensions to deteriorate to the extent that the total and permanent incapacity war pension was equal to only 81% of the minimum wage and that the highest payment for partial disablement was equal to only 32% of that wage.

I suggest it is a scandalous state of affairs that the Government, as a result of the policy it has pursued over more than 17 years, now finds itself giving out TPI pensions which are equivalent to only 81% of the minimum wage and pensions which, in the case of partial disablement, are equal to only 32% of that wage. The Minister in reply gave, as he did this afternoon, a long dissertation as to the manner in which hospital facilities were being improved, medical care was being provided and more facilities were being made available for sick and wounded ex-servicemen. He concluded by saying that, none the less, the Australian system was one of the best in the work!. Apparently at that time he was - and 1 assume is now - in conflict with one of his colleagues, Senator Wright, who is now in the Ministry, because during the course of the Address-in-Reply debate in this chamber on 1st March 1967 the honourable senator from Tasmania who is now Minister for Works (Senator Wright), gave a well researched speech on the history of repatriation in Australia, in which the gravamen of his complaint was that Australian ex-servicemen certainly were not getting a fair go so far as standards were concerned. Whilst the Minister for Repatriation in 1967 and again today said that the Australian system is one of the best in the world, in March 1967 the present Minister for Works said:

But the comparison becomes pathetic when you compare the situation with that in the allied army of the United States of America.

Senator Wright:

– It is only fair to say, is it not, that in the following Budget the Government put forward a proposal which as to Vietnam-

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– If Senator Wright is satisfied with the proposal regarding Vietnam veterans which the Government put forward last financial year, then I must say I thought there was more to him, because I do not think that the young boys who are being conscripted to fight in this horrible war, in which nearly one half of the Australian community does not believe, are getting a fair go as regards repatriation benefits, bearing in mind today’s standards. If the honourable senator thinks that $6,000 is sufficient to assist a young man to establish himself on a farm or that $3,000 is sufficient to establish him in a business, after he has served 2 years in the jungles of Vietnam, then I for one certainly do not agree with him, and I am sure that each of my colleagues thinks likewise.

Senator Wright:

– I was suggesting to you that it was only fair to say that in last year’s Budget the pension for that person was doubled.

Senator MCCLELLAND:

– I have only another 4 or 5 minutes to go, and the Minister can speak after me. I am suggesting that the little improvement in pensions that was made in the last Budget certainly was nol sufficient for the Opposition or for the Returned Services League. Because of Government and Ministerial apathy and neglect the ex-servicemen’s organisations at long last are welding themselves together in order to fight for the rights of their members. In Canberra on 26th March last - only last month - the first joint conference of ex-servicemen’s organisations was held. There were representatives from the war widows, air and naval associations, disabled, limbless and blinded ex-servicemen and the Rats of Tobruk. They complained that insufficient pension was being given by this Government to meet the needs of Australian ex-servicemen. A report in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ of that meeting stated:

Officers of twelve ex-service organisations, representing more than 1 million Australians, today made a strong protest on war pensions to the Prime Minister, Mr Gorton.

In a motion approved by unanimous vote they told him that the Federal Government had not honoured its obligation to ex-servicemen and women.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Western Australia

Senator McClelland has followed the line of the previous speakers on the Opposition side in suggesting to the Australian people that this Government is not interested in the pensions of people who come within the Repatriation Act. From the time of the introduction of the joint Repatriation Act in 1920 up to the present, the Australian Labor Party has been in office for a period of 11 or 12 years. In fact, it has been in office for only 16 years since Federation.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It has made its impact.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Later on I will deal with the question of the impact that the Labor Party has made on the Repatriation Act. Tonight we are discussing an urgency motion which was proposed by the Federal President of the Australian Labor Party, Senator Keeffe, in which he stated that the Government has permitted repatriation benefits to fall to their lowest value in history. The Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) in answering Senator Keeffe said, first, that war pensions were designed to compensate ex-service men and women for incapacity due to their war service and to compensate the dependants of those who died as a result of war service. Senator Keeffe referred to a speech made by the present Minister for Civil Aviation, and former Minister for Repatriation (Mr Swartz). He said that the Minister stated that the Government was trying to give financial support and provide some things which the pensioner cannot provide himself.

Senator Keeffe:

– I never quoted from a speech by Mr Swartz.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Then I retract that statement. None of us can say that it is an easy matter to fix repatriation levels. I think that all of us in this chamber would try to give every possible benefit to the men who went through so much in the wars in which they fought. We all remember that when the lads were going away to the 1939-45 war this country promised to give them all sorts of things. I think that each and every one of us in this chamber now who returned from that war has played his part in ex-servicemen’s organisations in endeavouring to do something for these people. Many of us, as secretaries and presidents of ex-servicemen’s organisations have gone to state conferences of the Returned Services League and proposed motions calling for the Government to raise pensions and to provide other fringe benefits in order to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and help too the dependants of those who paid the supreme sacrifice. We have done that in the past and we will continue to do it within both the ex-service organisations and this Parliament. We will never be completely satisfied with what the Government does but I think it is only fair to say that the Government is doing a very good job. I agree with the Minister that the repatriation benefits of this country are second to none in the world. I hope they continue to hold their place.

Much has been said about our economy. There is no doubt that this country is going through a period of great development. We are opening up tremendous mineral resources but that is not the answer to our problems. Only the other day I saw that we were earning a higher percentage of profit from our minerals in 1913 than we are now.

Senator Poyser:

– That is because the Government has given them all to overseas countries.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Never mind about that. We have the job in front of us. We may be earning great amounts from our exports but we are dependent on machinery and materials from overseas to keep our industries going. Those things are costing us more than we are earning at present and for that reason we have to cut our repatriation and social services cloth accordingly. The Government has been able to do that each year with the assistance of the Federal Executive of the RSL and the sub-committee of Cabinet.

Much has been made of the fact that repatriation benefits do not equal the basic wage but the Opposition simply wipes off the fringe benefits that flow to repatriation pensioners and says nothing about them. They must be taken into account. Nothing has been said by the Opposition about what the States are doing to help ex-servicemen. Do not tell1 me that that has nothing to do with the Commonwealth, lt has everything to do with the Commonwealth and everything to do with the taxpayers because the money must come in the first instance from the pockets of the taxpayers.

Senator Devitt:

– And they should be jolly pleased to pay for repatriation benefits too.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Of course they should. Taking into account the fringe benefits, the pensioners are paid very nearly the basic wage. Let me mention some of the ways in which State governments and local government authorities are helping the repatriation pensioners.

Senator Keeffe:

– But the Government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the Fills and so far three have been lost in Vietnam.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That has nothing to do with it. That was the standard of the honourable senators speech today; he brought in everything in an endeavour to build up his case that this Government was doing nothing to aid persons in receipt of repatriation benefits, but he knows as well as I do that that is not the case. Last year in company with the Western Australian Deputy Commissioner for Repatriation I represented the Minister at the State conference of the RSL in Perth. At question time representatives from the various State branches asked the Deputy Commissioner why this and that were not being done. In almost every case he was able to say that this and that were being done. The position was that the delegates representing the RSL branches just did not know that the pensioners were entitled to this and that assistance.

Senator Devitt:

– Whose fault is thai? The matter of public relations is one for the Government.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I think the RSL is partly to blame for it.

Senator Devitt:

– The Government has an obligation, too.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Exservice organisations should equip themselves to inform their members. They have paid staff and they should know what is going on. Perhaps they do inform their branches and the branches fall down on the job.

Senator Toohey:

– Does nol the honourable senator think that the Government also has an obligation to inform repatriation pensioners?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– The

Government has an obligation and I believe it is meeting that obligation. Let me mention some of the benefits made available to ex-servicemen by State governments and local government authorities in Western Australia. I shall deal first with travel concessions. An open pass over all government metropolitan bus and rail routes and one return pass annually to any country centre are available to TPI and blinded ex-servicemen.

Senator Keeffe:

– What has that to do with increased pensions?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It is a benefit, and the motion the honourable, senator put to the Senate referred to benefits.

It did not mention monetary benefits specifically. In fact the honourable senator laid stress on all benefits in his speech. Surely a concession made available by a State or local government authority, which in the long run comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers, must be a benefit to the pensioner. A rail or bus pass from any metropolitan home address to a place of employment is available to TPI and blinded exservicemen as well as to those in receipt of a 75% war pension. In addition, six free interstate passes annually are available to members of the TPI association. War widows over 60 years of age and all service pensioners may travel at half fare in the State. On interstate bus travel a reduction of 33£% in the fare is available to persons dependent on a war pension or a service pension and a reduction of 5% in the fare of intrastate bus tours is available to persons dependent on a war pension or a service pension. Blinded ex-servicemen or ex-servicewomen who must travel with an attendant are granted a reduction of 50% in the published fare when travelling by air. That reduction in fare applies also to the attendant with the blinded pensioner.

Senator Keeffe:

– Does that apply to all States?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Perhaps it does. I know that it certainly is available in Western Australia. Let me turn to motor vehicles. A discount on the purchase of a new car is available to members of the TPI. association and reductions are available in the registration fee. No registration fee is charged to ex-servicemen whose total income does not exceed the basic wage. In the case of those whose total income does not exceed the basic wage by more than $6 the registration fee is reduced by 50% but in the case of those whose total income exceeds the basic wage by more than $6 no allowance is made. These benefits are also available to members of the Limbless Soldiers Association and members of the TPI association. Honourable senators are aware of the concessions available in relation to sporting events and entertainments.

Free broadcast and television licences are available to blinded persons provided the blind member does not live with a person who receives an income in excess of $19 a week. A reduction in broadcast and tele vision licence fees to $1 and $3 respectively is available to TPI and service pensioners living alone, living with another person or living with a person who is not in receipt o.: income exceeding $19 a week. Are not these things that count? Are not we providing people with something with which they are unable to provide themselves? I should say so. Telephone rental concessions are available to TPI and service pensioners provided that the pensioner lives alone, lives with another pensioner or lives wilh a person who is not in receipt of income exceeding $19 a week. Sales tax exemption is available to a TPI ex-service man or woman, an ex-serviceman who has lost a leg or both arms or who, under the Fifth Schedule to the Repatriation Act, is deemed to have lost a leg or both arms, and also to those in receipt of a special rare pension under the Second Schedule to the Act in respect of blindness or tuberculosis. Rate concessions are available to service pensioners and war widows. Immediate assistance is available to members who enlisted subsequent to 30th June 1.947 and serving personnel and their dependants. Goods to the value of a maximum or $15 are available to 1914-18 war members and their dependants. Housing deposits and furniture to the value of a maximum of approximately $100 are available to 1939- 1945 war widows and their dependants. Assistance with arrears of rent, hire purchase and hospital accounts is available to 1939-45 war members and their dependants. Assistance in providing school books for children over 12 years of age is available to 1939-45 war members and their dependants. These things are in addition to all of the things that the Commonwealth provides.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator O’BYRNE (Tasmania) 8.43] - Senator Drake-Brockman would have us believe or come to the conclusion that the most affluent people in our community are the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen.

Senator McKellar:

– He said nothing of the sort. That is rubbish.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– He would have us believe that the Government is doing u very good job. I notice that Senator McKellar has become emotional, but one of his New South Wales colleagues, because of the point of desperation to which he had been driven by the attitude of the Government, had this to say: lt anyone has forgotten ex-servicemen it is today’s ex-service members of Parliament. If I had my way, they are the chaps I would flog, because they are recreant to everything that is clean and decent in the country.

Senator Mattner:

– Who said that?

Senator O’BYRNE:

- Sir William Yeo. He must have been driven to the point of desperation to have used such extravagant language. Other people, who perhaps have not such a wide vocabulary as Sir William Yeo has, have made statements that T wish to quote. They include the delegates from twelve ex-service organisations who demanded that pension rates for totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen be increased to not less than the minimum wage. That is the nub and purpose of this matter of urgency. We wish to bring before the Senate and the people of Australia the great need that exists. We are trying to get this very basic point through to the Government. A statement by Mr Courtney, the National Secretary of the Korea and South East Asia Forces Association, was reported as follows: . . Australian ex-servicemen were reduced to the position of importunate beggars to get compensation for injuries they sustained on service. Those maimed in war are treated as citizens of second or third class priority by this country’, he said.

That is desperate language. These people are very concerned about the present situation. Another most responsible and distinguished gentleman, Sir Arthur Lee, the Federal President of the Returned Services League, also reached such a point of desperation that he said:

At the moment the totally and permanently incapacitated pension is calculated to bc worth 8 1 % of the current minimum wage.

Al the same time the war widows pension and the highest rate applicable for partly incapaciated ex-servicemen have been allowed to slip back to 32% of the. current minimum wage, compared with the 50% of the basic wage it had been equivalent to previously. ] suppose that in the thrust and parry of political debate the Government tries to discredit the opinions of the Opposition and the Opposition is often in doubt about the complete veracity of the answers it receives to its questions and probings. But I believe that in a matter such as this we are quite entitled to quote statements by people who are considered to be authorities on exservicemen’s rights.

During election campaigns Government senators go around the country wooing the electors and saying that nothing, in one sense, is too good for the ex-serviceman. But away from election campaigns their thinking seems to be that nothing, in another sense, is too good for the ex-serviceman. Because the value of the pensions is declining and the cost of living is increasing, the gap is growing wider. So it is no wonder that comments such as those I have quoted were made by people who attended the conference of ex-service organisations last month.

We found ourselves compelled to use the forms of the Senate to bring to the attention of the Government and the people of Australia the apathy of members of the Government parties. I am transferring the responsibility from the abstract government, which may mean the Cabinet, the Treasury or the Repatriation Department. The responsibility can be passed off to those abstract bodies. But I want to nail the individual members of the Government parties, so many of whom are very closely associated with the needs of ex-servicemen. 1 am appalled to think that apathy and cynicism have been allowed to be generated within their ranks in their rejection of the pleas of the Opposition and responsible people outside the Parliament who have the interests of ex-servicemen at heart and who want to see the right and proper thing done in regard to repatriation and war pensions.

Another growing trend in the thinking of members of the Government parties is to restrict the field of debate on repatriation matters. At one time one of the few remaining powers that the Senate had was in respect of repatriation legislation. But, without any protest of which I was aware, Government senators allowed people in another place, in the Government party room or wherever the decision was made to decide that the title of every repatriation Bill would be so constricted as to preclude any debate other than on the most specific of subjects. The Senate was done a disservice by Government senators in allowing that retrograde move to be made. I thought that Senator Henty engaged in a lot of irrelevant political twaddle during the course of his remarks. He certainly made no constructive contribution to this debate when he sought to compare the pensions payable in 1949 with those payable in 1968. He may have impressed some people by doing so, but he does not impress those who are affected, the ex-servicemen whose private income - indeed whose only income for the purchase of food and clothing and for the provision of shelter - is under discussion here tonight. When the honourable senator seeks to compare the pensions payable in 1949 with those payable in 1968 without also giving due thought to the relative values of money in the respective years, it is just ludicrous.

Senator Henty hurled jibes at Senator Keeffe about his plea for the free hospitalisation of those who served in World War I. He said that Senator Keeffe was asking for free hospitalisation for those who could not pass the means test. In the first place, hospitalisation would be free to everybody in any decent society. When Labor was in office every member of the community was entitled to free hospitalisation. They still have it in one enlightened State - Queensland. They had it in Tasmania until this Government’s policy forced the authorities in Tasmania to impose charges for hospital treatment. The argument that the means test should preclude any First World War man from obtaining free hospitalisation is beyond contempt. In any case, the means test itself is a living scandal in this country.

The important point is that tens of thousands of people have had the value of their savings, their superannuation benefits and their investments whittled away by the inflation that has been allowed to develop. The thief of inflation and the thief of government policy have dipped their fingers into the pockets of these people and reduced the value of their savings. Yet Government members have the temerity to say that we are seeking concessions for people who cannot pass the means test. Why, any government worth its salt would apply itself immediately to discovering ways of eliminating the means test. If it cannot be done immediately then at least there should be a 2-year, 3-year or 5-year plan for amelioration each year until eventually the means test is completely abolished. By means of taxation the people have contributed during their working lives for social service purposes in order that they may enjoy some benefit in the evening of their lives and they should be justly entitled to receive that benefit. The argument that, because they cannot pass the means test, ex-servicemen from the First World War should be excluded from benefit just does not hold water. One has only to view the Anzac Day parades to see how the numbers in the various companies of World War I veterans are dwindling each year. By viewing these parades one comes to appreciate that these veterans are now in the age group in which they could need hospital treatment, and that treatment should be readily available to them at any time. Indeed, the community should look upon it as a privilege to be able to provide these veterans with free hospitalisation.

The whole nub of the motion before the Senate is that pension rates are not only low but are continuing to decline. If it was good enough to pay TPI pensioners 3% more than the basic wage in 1920 - and that basic wage was the standard adopted for 30 years until this Government came to office - then this Government has to answer to the people of Australia, to the ex-servicemen’s organisations and to its own conscience for the fact that at the present time these unfortunate people are receiving only 81% of the basic wage and for the fact that it is robbing them of 20c in the $1, an action which in my view cannot be justified. It is worth repeating that the relative monetary value of the general rate or 100% pension has fallen to only 60% of the basic wage over the same period. In the light of those facts, any argument by Senator McKellar that our charge that the Government is not doing the right thing by the ex-servicemen is groundless can readily be refuted by us.

As I said before, at election time the Government raises bogies to divert the attention of the Australian people from the Government’s responsibilities in connection with the payment of pensions to exservicemen. Government senators argue here that the coat must be cut according to the cloth. If that argument be sound, then the first cut of the cloth should be directed towards honouring the responsibilities we owe to the ex-serviceman.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman) - Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator MATTNER:
South Australia

– I take part in this debate only because of a remark made by Senator Keeffe this afternoon and 1 am sorry that he is not in the chamber now. This afternoon, Senator Keeffe made one of the worst remarks I have ever had made to me during my parliamentary career. Never until tonight have I said anything in this chamber about anything that I may have done in World War I or World War II. It is true that this afternoon I was lying back resting my right leg, the injury to which is a legacy of war for which I receive nothing whatsoever.

Senator Keeffe:

– You had a lovely smile on your face.

Senator MATTNER:

– I did smile to myself over one statement that the honourable senator made about what the members of the Labor Party would do when they gol back into power. J said to myself that I would be dead before that happened. Surely Senator Keeffe does not begrudge my having a sense of humour. Let him come clean. Did not he attack the RSL? Did not he say in this chamber that the heads of the RSL were kowtowing to the Government so that they could get knighthoods and honours? Does he remember saying these things? Every honourable senator here remembers htm saying them. Now he comes out as a champion of the RSL and pleads for the national service boys in Vietnam. He is filled with the milk of human kindness. But he forgets to tell us that he supported certain students who proposed sending aid to the North Vietnamese. He was not concerned then about whether our national servicemen became returned servicemen. Let him answer that charge publicly. Let him answer it here in this chamber. He comes here and tells us about what he will do for the returned serviceman.

I would remind htm that perhaps there are some people who have done something for returned servicemen. I remind him first of hospitalisation for our war service pensioners. I mention this tonight because I may not speak again in this chamber. If there is one thing that I take credit for having a part in while I have been a member of the Senate, it is the provision of free hospitalisation for our war service pensioners. Has Senator Keeffe ever done anything similar to that? No, he has not. In fact, he has not done anything.

Let mc go a step further. This whole debate hinges on the question of the TPI pensioner. I say emphatically to every returned servicemen’s organisation that if our actions in connection with the TPI pensioner represent the only charge that can be levied against us as a government, then we can hold our heads high. In my opinion, if there is one section of ex-servicemen by whom the Repatriation Department has done the right thing, it is the TPI exserviceman. All this talk by Opposition senators about percentages and so on is just claptrap - pure eyewash. Honourable senators opposite take an imaginary case involving the basic wage and work out percentages. But they do not say that the basic wage is for a man with a wife and 2 or 3 children. They compare the basic wage with what is given to a single man receiving a repatriation pension. Honourable members opposite do not say what his wife receives, what his children receive and what hospital and education benefits are available to a TPI pensioner. I do not care who hears me say it - whether it is in this Senate or whether it is to the Returned Services League - in comparison with anyone else TPI pensioners are the best treated people in the repatriation field.

It is all very well for honourable members opposite to speak as an Opposition. I was a member of the Opposition when their Party was in government. The then Labor Government did not accede to any of the requests that the Opposition made at that time. Today we heard an attack on the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) in which it was alleged that he had not put his case strongly enough to the Government and that the Government had not done the right thing regarding repatriation. F remind honourable senators opposite that just recently in another great Party one man has not been quite satisfied with what the Party has been doing. He has gone to his masters. Although he signed a document - just as every honourable senator opposite has signed a document, otherwise they would not be endorsed - stating that he would obey the ruling of his Federal Executive, he has not been quite satisfied with his Federal Executive. What did he do? We now know that there are 32 members of. his Party who are not too happy with what he did and that there are 38 members who are perhaps happy with what he did. Yet honourable members opposite talk about what the Minister for Repatriation should do.

The job of the Minister is to try to convince the Ministry of his cause and he does this inside this chamber. We support him. Honourable senators opposite know as well as I do that concerning their organisation - and that is what the row in their Party is about - they try to settle their differences within that organisation. They do not usually take their dirty linen out into public and wash it there, although that is what they have been doing in this instance.

Honourable senators opposite have spoken about unity and about what they will do when they form a government. I remind Senator Keeffe tonight that I smiled earlier today when he made the statement about what his Party would do when it came into power again, lt made me laugh to think that T would be dead and lying in my grave before I could get any benefit from an Australian Labor Party Government. It is enough to make anyone smile.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There will be a few more ex-servicemen before then.

Senator MATTNER:

– I do not get the import of what, the honourable senator is saying. I will give the honourable senator credit for this: He has no love for the returned serviceman and he is honest about it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is not correct.

Senator MATTNER:

– I will quote chapter and verse if necessary. I can do so. But let me speak for a few minutes on the system of treatment under our repatriation scheme. Our repatriation scheme is unique in its performances. It is unique for its geographic spread and the continuity of its functions and services. There is a planned integration of a large scale departmental organisation with hospital and clinics integrated with other public services. Treatment is available throughout the length and breadth of the country. Australia is spending $256m a year on repatriation. That is no mean effort. Why is this service unique? lt gives treatment and deals with mcn and women who have served in many parts of the world - during the Boer War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Malayan War and now in Vietnam. In addition, our repatriation system extends to returned service men and women whose disabilities are not caused through war service.

I mentioned service pensioners before. They get free hospitalisation. Certain merchant seamen receive this treatment as well as representatives of various philanthropic organisations who have seen service at the front. Almost 300,000 people currently are eligible to receive and do receive medical treatment under our repatriation services. As I said before, these services are costing us $265m. We have throughout the length and breadth of Australia numerous hospitals and ancillary services dealing with the ailments of the returned serviceman.

Services are provided by general practitioners and specialists. Ex-servicemen have the great privilege of going to their own doctors if they so desire. Approximately 5,700 general practitioners are helping in the repatriation services by acting as local medical officers, and there is a large body of specialists. There are 2,800 dental officers and 7,000 chemists participating on a fee for service basis. Ex-servicemen, as I have said, may visit their own doctors and dentists. Honourable members opposite have spoken about TPI and general rate pensions but not a word has been said about the intermediate rate pension which was introduced recently. In fact, 900 people arc in receipt of this pension which is midway between the TPI and the 100% pension. Honourable members opposite have not said a word about this pension. They would not know about it. While I am on this question, I point out that Senator Keeffe flogged the fact that prior to the last election the Returned Services League circularised everyone putting out its case. What was the response of the public to this action? The public said that the Government was doing a good job concerning repatriation, lt endorsed the action of the Government by its vote.

Senator Keeffe:

– The Liberal Party lost two seats.

Senator MATTNER:

– Honourable senators opposite stumped the country. The RSL put out a circular. But the Government was returned. This matter did not raise a ripple. The public is satisfied that the Repatriation Department is doing an extraordinarily good job with the money that the public provides. A man is looked after from the time his disability is accepted by the Repatriation Department until his death. I do not wish to deal very much with some of the problems that we had after World War 1 concerning shell shock. No antibiotics were available. They were introduced with other treatment during the Second World War. I pay this compliment to the Minister and to the Repatriation Department: The treatment received in repatriation hospitals is equal to any treatment in public or private hospitals. Recently, I went into the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. My treatment cost me $ 1 1 2 per week. But that treatment was no better than the treatment given in repatriation hospitals. When I say that, 1 am not decrying the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. If honourable senators opposite search their souls they wm say, if they are frank, that it is easy to criticise. I would have thought that honourable senators would tell us chapter and verse how the repatriation services might he improved. All they did was to belittle this great Department. They trotted out all sorts of little schemes, put up their own figures and then tried to bowl them over. The plain fact, as honourable senators opposite know, is that the public of Australia have a record second to none in what they have done for returned servicemen. I take a great deal of pride in having helped to get free hospitalisation for war service pensioners of the First World War. I should like to advocate again that those who are excluded from this benefit by the operation of the means test should be allowed admittance to their own local hospitals with the Repatriation Department paying the difference between what they receive under hospital benefit schemes and the cost of hospitalisation. There would be no need to provide one extra bed. I am a peasant and like everyone else who lives in the country 1 would like to go, when id, to my local hospital. This is not in any way to cast the slightest reflection on our wonderful repatriation hospitals. I am hoping that this extension of benefit will be granted. If that is done the repatriation services will be doing a very good job. and I think I know as much about how repatriation works as does anyone else in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– This debate has been of tremendous benefit to Australian ex-servicemen. I am quite certain that the case that has been placed before the Senate and heard by ex-servicemen throughout the nation will force the Government to increase pensions and other benefits in the Budget to be presented next August. If for no other reason, the time of the Senate has been well occupied in bringing before the Parliament and the public the bad treatment that ex-service men and women have had from this Government since it took office in 1949, and in particular over the last 2 or 3 years. The case presented by Senator Keeffe, Senator Bishop and other senators on this side of the chamber is completely unanswered by any Government senator. The only defence that honourable senators opposite have been able to submit has been in relation to the fringe benefits that ex-servicemen receive.

The Senate should be reminded that every organisation of ex-service men and women throughout the nation is attacking this Government because it will not raise pensions to rates comparable with those that operated previously. These organisations have been very specific in pointing out that fringe benefits cannot take the place of the pensions that ex-service men and women should rightly receive. 1 was very interested in one of the fringe benefits in a list of benefits that Senator Drake-Brockman said were provided by his State and other States. This is the provision of six free interstate rail passes. These would be of very little use to an ex-service pensioner in Western Australia. I am quite certain that if he had the choice he would add the cost of those passes to his pension income, because this would be of far more benefit than six interstate trips. Probably 99% of these people would not utilise the passes because they could not afford the costs involved.

Every ex-service organisation has attacked this Government for years in an endeavour to get it to increase pensions. I am sure that their efforts, together wilh the debate that has taken place in the Senate today, will ensure that some justice is given in August. I am equally certain that these organisations will make their voices heard very strongly when they meet the Minister for Repatriation (Senator McKellar) and the Government members repatriation committee, and that the Ministry will’ have to listen. Although the Minister may have thought that he was doing a job in the interests of ex-servicemen I do not think he has been forceful enough in pressing their needs to the point where the Cabinet listened carefully and properly to him. For two solid years there has been no increase in pensions for First World War and Second World War pensioners.

The Returned Services League was so disturbed by this state of affairs that its CTA Sub-Branch in Victoria circularised every candidate in that State prior to the 1966 House of Representatives election and the 1967 Senate election. The League has analysed the replies received from members and senators now sitting in the Parliament and these are very illuminating. This analysis appears in the February issue of Mufti’, in almost every instance the League praised the attitude shown in the replies from members of the Australian Labor Party and in almost every instance it criticised the replies received from Liberal Party members. Some of these are worth reading. The comment on the reply from the Minister for Immigration (Mr Snedden), who is also Leader of the House in another place, deals very shortly but effectively with the matter of fringe benefits. It reads:

Another reply from a senior member of the Government who is prepared to merge the pension entitlements with other demands. The sub-branch has tried to make it clear to Mr Snedden the League is entitled to expect priorities and preferences should be maintained in respect of these pensions before they become completely lost and submerged in, and probably overwhelmed by, other more recent demands.

Another interesting comment was made on the reply received from the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan). It reads:

A very ‘touchy’ reply indeed and obviously did not like either the questions which were set or the invitation to give any form of positive answer. Used the politician’s strategem of evasion by saying the questions were ‘loaded’ and not simple to answer - would appear to be an ex-serviceman or represented on an ex-servicemen’s committee.

In relation to the honourable member for Henty (Mr Fox) the League says:

Has gone to great pains on a statistical basis in an effort to show the ex-service pensioner and dependant was, in fact, better off than in previous years. At some stage of his calculations he seems to have lost the decimal point somewhere and has endeavoured to establish the authenticity of his submissions. However, it will be noted that Hansard reports of the reply by the member for Wills, Mr Gordon Bryant, made this member’s submissions somewhat untenable.

So criticism of members of the Liberal Party goes on throughout this document, including criticism of the then Senator Gorton, who is now Prime Minister of this country. The comment reads:

The senator’s reply on 26th October is merely an acknowledgement of receipt of our letter, but the sub-branch believes a look at his parliamentary effort will not establish he has been in favour of the League’s approaches in this regard.

So even the Prime Minister has never shown the sympathy that the RSL would like in relation to matters of repatriation. The problems of ex-servicemen are not confined to pension matters. Another matter thai has not been discussed in this debate is the application of the onus of proof provision. There should be a very close examination of the manner in which this provision is being used against ex-servicemen who seek war pensions. Many ex-servicemen from the First World War are finding it difficult after so many years have elapsed to establish their right to receive a pension. All honourable senators have on occasions received representations from ex-servicemen who they know in their own hearts are suffering from war caused disabilities. However, the standard reply they receive from the Minister or officers of the Department is that before anything further can bc done, evidence must be submitted that will be likely to change the decision of the tribunal. When senators try to ascertain what type of additonal evidence is required they fail to get any indication of what is necessary. Let me recall a particular case that I raised with the Minister. I have spoken about it before in this chamber. I had in my possession at least 5 doctors’ certificates establishing that the injury from which the man was suffering had at least been aggravated by war service. Again, I received the final answer from the Minister that we must produce further evidence. What kind of evidence is required? Having produced 4 or 5 medical reports certifying that this was a war caused injury, what further evidence does one need to produce?

Senator Henty:

– What did the tribunal find?

Senator POYSER:

– It rejected the appeal. All this further evidence was rejected.

Senator Henty:

– On what ground?

Senator POYSER:

– On the ground that they believed it to be an injury suffered before the war. This man was classified Al when he went into the Army and he was operated on in an Army hospital for a leg injury. In spite of this, we have got no further with our representations on his behalf. He has been fighting for 24 years, trying to establish his right to a pension for a leg injury for which he was operated on in an Army hospital. Having taken it up wilh the Minister, I received the stock reply that we must get additional evidence. Wc have evidence from doctors in Geelong, and evidence in relation to his admission to and discharge from hospital. I. have raised this man’s plight twice in this House, but I have got no further. There are many similar cases in which senators know in their own hearts that an ex-servicemen’s injuries are war caused, but the sad fact is thai they still carry the onus of proof even though the legislation slates otherwise. The Committee that has been suggested many times by the Opposition should be established so that repatriation legislation might be thoroughly investigated. If loopholes in the legislation prevent the payment of pensions to deserving ex-servicemen, the legislation should be altered to put it beyond all doubt that the onus of proof will lie on the Repatriation Commission, nol on the soldier seeking the benefit. As I said earlier, this has been a beneficial debate, ft has given members of the Opposition the opportunity to bring under notice weaknesses in the legislation and resultant injustice to exservicemen. It has been clearly demonstrated that no senator on the Government side can effectively answer the Opposition’s charges in relation to current repatriation benefits. I hope there will be a great increase in these benefits. I believe this debate will help every ex-serviceman to obtain those increases in August of this year.

Senator HEATLEY:
Queensland

– As one of the ex-servicemen in this chamber I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest. 1 read recently that the Australian Parliament has among its members more ex-servicemen than any other Parliament in history. In the minute and a half at my disposal’ I shall refute Senator Keeffe’s criticism of this Government for its treatment of men returning from Vietnam. Let me point out what the Government has done for them through the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. lt has actually doubled the pension rights of men now serving in Vietnam. Previously this scheme had been confined to regular officers of the Services, but now the men returning from Vietnam arc entitled to such benefits and all the other benefits listed under the Repatriation Department’s schemes.

Senator McKellar:

– They will be.

Senator HEATLEY:

– That is so. This is the policy of the Liberal-Country Party Government, lt is a complete refutation of what has been implied by Senator Keeffe. Another suggestion was that the Opposition is forcing this Govern men 1 to lake some action on repatriation. We have a much prouder record in this mutter than Labor had when in government. I shall read from Hansard of 15th March 1967. Perhaps the Opposition thought tonight that it was forcing the Government lo do what it did in March 1967 about insurance. In reply to a question on insurance the Treasurer (Mr VIc Mahon) was able to assure Mr Webb that even though the Treasury, the Department of Defence and the Repatriation Department had prepared submissions, this matter would bs thoroughly discussed–

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The time allowed for the consideration of this motion under Standing Order 64 having expired, I shall now proceed to other business.

page 730

QUESTION

PERSONAL EXIM A NATION

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr President, I ask for leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Leave is granted.

Senator WEBSTER:

– In the AddressinReply debate I am recorded in Hansard as having made a certain statement relating lo wheat acreages in Victoria. I was speaking at the time in relation to drought and I had mentioned that last season’s yield of 2 million bushels of oats could be compared wilh the normal yield of about 21 million bushels. 1 instanced the wheat crop as being a little better than one-third of the normal crop and the barley crop as being of a similar proportion. My attention was drawn to the next comment that ‘something should be clone either to curtail acreages or to supervise the planting of: acreages’. My attention was drawn forcefully to this matter in two ways - firstly by a report from an irate farmer in the Wimmera area of Victoria, and secondly by the Acting Principal Parliamentary Reporter, who has drawn my attention to the inadvertent omission of two lines from the report of my speech in the Address-in-Reply debate on 14th March last. At page 114 I am reported as saying:

Something should be done either to curtail acreages or to supervise the planting of acreages.

The actual words used in my speech, and those which were reported by the Hansard reporter, were:

I feel bound to say that I have heard it said in this chamber before today that something should be done either to curtail acreages or to supervise the planting of acreages.

The difference in meaning is significant, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to correct the Hansard record.

page 731

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the texts of the undermentioned treatiesto which Australia has become a party by signature, acceptance or ratification:

  1. Amendment to the agreement for cooperation between the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Government of the United Stales of America concerning civil uses of atomicenergy, signed11th April 1967.
  2. Agreement respecting the war cemeteries, graves and memorials of the British Commonwealth in (Ethiopian territory, signed 18thMay 1967.
  3. Protocol extending the arrangement of 1st October 1962 regarding international trade in cotton textiles, accepted 30th September 1967.
  4. Agreement between Australia and Turkey on residence and employment of Turkish citizens in Australia, signed5th October 1967.
  5. Agreement between Australia and Malaysia relating to air services, signed 9th October 1967.
  6. Treaty on the principles governing the activities of Suites in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies ratified 10th October 1967.
  7. Agreement between Australia and Singapore relating to air services, signed 3rd November 1967.
  8. Exchange of notes between Australia and Prance relating to the conduct of balloon launching from Australia, dated 8th November 1967.
  9. Agreement between Australia and the United Nations Children’s Fund concerning co-operation in relation to projects to be carried out in the Territory of Papua and the Trust Territory of New Guinea, signed 21st December 1967.
  10. Exchange of notes between Australia and Laos constituting a further amendment to the agreement of 24th December 1963 concerning the foreign exchange operations fund for Laos, dated 30th January 1968.
  11. Fourth proces-verbal extending the declaration on the provisional accession of Tunisia to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, accepted by signature on 15th March 1968.
  12. Third proces-verbal extending the declaration on the provisional accession of the United Arab Republicto the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, accepted by signatureon15th March 1968.

I also lay on the table for the information of honourable senators the text of the following:

Protocol required by article 8 (1) (e) (ii) of the convention for the establishment of a European organisation for the development and construction of space vehicle launchers, concerning the use of technical information for purposes not within the field of space technology, signed 30th July 1964.

Australia is considering becoming, by ratification, a party to that convention.

page 731

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) - I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate appointing Senators Dame Ivy Wedgwood, Sim and Bull to be members of the Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs, and appointing Senators Branson, Lawrie and Laucke to be members of the Select Committee on Air Pollution.

page 731

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received the following resolution, agreed to today by the House of Representatives, with a request for the concurrence of the Senate therein:

That the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, or any sub-committee thereof, when considering certain matters relating to the desirability of establishing a fruit and vegetable market in the Australian Capital Territorywhich were referred to the Committee on 13th March 1968, have power to move from place to place.

Motion (by Senator Anderson.) - by leave - agreed to:

  1. That the Senate concurs in the resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 4 of the House of Representatives, namely:

That the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, or any sub-committee thereof, when considering certain matters relating to the desirability of establishing a fruit and vegetable market in the Australian Capital Territory which were referred to the Committee on 13 March 1968, have power to move from place to place.

  1. That the foregoing resolution be communicated to the House of Representatives by message.

page 732

NAVAL DEFENCE BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Repre sentatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator McKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · New South Wales · CP

-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to correct some unsatisfactory features of section 41 of the Naval Defence Act 1910-1966, so far as it relates to the employment of civil staff in the Department of the Navy. The present provisions of this section of the Naval Defence Act provide for the employment of all civil personnel engaged by the Department of the Navy, other than administrative and clerical staff who are employed under the Public Service Act. The civil personnel involved are mostly employed in naval dockyards and other naval establishments, for the most part on professional, technical, skilled and unskilled work relating to the design, construction, maintenance and logistic support of naval ships, aircraft and associated equipment. Personnel at present employed under the Naval Defence Act number approximately 7,600, comprising about 3,100 salaried staff and 4,500 wages staff.

Two main problems arise out of section 41 of the Naval Defence Act as it now stands. In the first place, it requires the regulations to prescribe the periods for which persons are engaged. This is impracticable because the staff is not engaged for specified periods, but is employed either on a permanent basis with a specified retiring age or on a purely temporary basis. Secondly, section 41 requires the regulations to prescribe all conditions of service, although certain conditions are not suitable for prescribing in regulations, being too variable or unpredictable. These conditions range over a variety of matters. To take one example, when a ship is refitting, specific tasks may arise which entail particularly dirty work under very cramped conditions in small compartments. In such cases, unions claim additional rates of, say. 12c to 20c an hour and the management assesses such rates and eventually pays a special rate. Need for quick decisions on this variety of matters arises on the average two or three times a week and can have effect in each dockyard. It would be administratively impracticable to prescribe these variations in regulations. Similar provisions for determining variable allowances exist in the Public Service Act. which for example empowers the Public Service Board to determine all overseas allowances rather than prescribe them in regulations.

Flexibility in determining conditions of service is essential in administering industrial undertakings such as the naval dockyards in Sydney and Melbourne, so that the ships of the Royal Australian Navy can be kept operational and planned operations and exercises can be carried out according to programme. This flexibility is at present provided by regulation 5 of the Naval Establishments Regulations which provides that the Naval Board may determine conditions of service so long as they are not inconsistent with the regulations. Although this regulation has been in existence for many years, some doubt is now felt as to whether it is legally consistent with the present terms of the Act. The proposed Bill resolves the situation by including in the Act itself power for the Naval Board to determine terms and conditions of service, within, of course, the general administrative instructions governing the conduct of Government business.

The regulations will continue to provide for the discipline of salaried staff and other important features of the existing section 41 are being retained. I refer here to Public Service Board control over the classes of work in which persons can be employed under the Naval Defence Act and to Public Service Board control over the fixing of rates of salary. The opportunity has been taken to include provision for the preservation of accrued and accruing rights in the occasional case of an officer of the Public Service who transfers to employment under the Naval Defence Act.

When this Bill was previously before the House of Representatives it came to notice that there was considerable misunderstanding of its purpose. With this in mind, I assure honourable senators that the Bill, firstly, will not change the Department’s present employment policy and practices; secondly, will not affect employees’ and unions’ rights under the Public Service Arbitration Act; and thirdly, will not make any change to the existing disciplinary powers under the Act. lt will be necessary to validate certain payments of pay and allowances made under the existing section. This will be provided for in a separate Bill to be brought down later, which will also provide for validation of certain payments made to members of the defence force. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 733

SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

This Bill has two companions and, after its introduction, I will introduce the other two. All three are in fact companions to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. Honourable senators will recall that the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Bill was introduced by the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, Senator Scott, and passed quickly through the Senate to enable the coming into operation, by 1st April 1 968. of the Off-Shore Oil CommonwealthState Arrangement, lt is necessary to take account of the creation of the Department of External Territories and to provide in the Acts concerned that powers and functions formerly exercised by the Minister for Territories should be exercisable by the Minister for External Territories.

The purpose of the Bills which honourable senators will have before them is to give effect to the formal changes in administration to which I have just referred and I commend the bills to the Senate accordingly. This speech serves to explain each of the other two Bills.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I rise to indicate the attitude of the Opposition to this Bill and to those comprehended in the second reading speech by the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson). We do not oppose the passage of this legislation and see no reason to delay the motion for the second reading. This Bill is an amendment to the principal Act, No. 13 of 1949, which established the Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research Organisation as :t was then called. By section 32 of the Act it is provided that any exercise of a power or function by the Organisation which exclusively affects the Territory of Papua, the Territory of New Guinea and Norfolk Island, or any of those Territories, shall be subject to the approval of the Minister and, before giving any such approval the Minister shall consult with the Minister of State for External Territories. The position was then entitled the Minister for State for External Territories. Later the name of the Department was changed to the Department of Territories. We are now going back to where we were in 1949. It is an interesting matter of history that the wheel has turned full circle. We do not oppose the Bill because it merely records in the legislature the fact that the Minister is now known as the Minister for External Territories.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 733

NATIVE MEMBERS OF THE FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

The second reading speech I made in relation to the Science and Industry Research Bill 1968 also relates to this Bill.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I have already indicated that the attitude of the Opposition in respect of this Bill is the same as that for the Science and Industry Research Bill 1968 which the Senate has just agreed to. We do not oppose the measure. Its purpose is to transfer to the Minister of State for External Territories the responsibility which had formerly been exercised by the Minister of State for Territories This is a machinery change only and the Opposition does not oppose the measure. The change is affected by amending section 3 of the Act.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 734

REMOVAL OF PRISONERS (TERRITORIES) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. 1 have explained the purpose of this Bill in the second reading speech on the Science and Industry Research Bill 1968.

Senator COHEN (Victoria) 19.5 II - The Opposition does not oppose the Bill and agrees to its passage forthwith. Again, the amendments sought in the Bill are only of a machinery character. They seek to amend two sections of the principal Act by acknowledging the change in style of the Minister for Territories to the new style of Minister for External Territories.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second lime, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 734

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill and the Bill to amend the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act which I will be seeking leave to introduce later, have a single routine purpose. The Northern Territory (Administration) Bill proposes insertion in the Northern Territory (Administration) Act of a provision which will mean that if an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service is appointed Administrator he will be entitled to retain his existing and accruing rights in the Public Service and his service as Administrator will be counted for the purpose of his Commonwealth service.

The Officers’ Rights Declaration Bill is to include a consequential reference in the schedule to the Officers’ Rights Declaration Act. The effect of this is to identify the rights that are preserved to a Commonwealth public servant who may be appointed as Administrator. Those rights include retention of accrued sick leave, long service leave and superannuation rights and the right on termination of the statutory appointment to be placed in an office in the Public Service of such status and salary as the Public Service Board determines to be reasonable in the circumstances.

There is no particular significance in the amendments being made at the present time. If the measures are passed by the Parliament, however, the office of Administrator of the Northern Territory will be brought into line in this respect with many other statutory offices including the office of Administrator of Papua and New Guinea and those of Official Representative of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Territory of Christmas Island.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– The Opposition does not oppose the passage of this legislation, which provides for a new section in the Northern Territory (Administration) Act making it possible for an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service who is appointed Administrator of the Northern Territory to carry with him accrued rights and to be entitled to further rights as though he were an officer of the Public Service. We are assured by the Minister for Customs and Excise (Senator Scott) that there is no particular significance in the amendment being made at the present time. One can only assume that that means that there is no immediate appointment in mind or about to bc made under the Act, and that the amendment is being made in a routine way to bring the position of the Administrator of the Northern Territory into line with the positions of other senior statutory officers, such as the Administrator of Papua and New Guinea and the Official Representative of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the Territory of Christmas Island. That seems to us to be a proper amendment to make so that the office of Administrator of the Northern Territory can be on the same basis as that of other senior officers mentioned in the Minister’s speech. We do not oppose the passage of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 735

OFFICERS’ RIGHTS DECLARATION BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Western AustraliaMinister for Customs and Excise · LP

– I move:

Thatthe Bill be now read a second time.

The reason for the amendment proposed by this Bill was explained in my second reading speech on the Bill to amend the Northern Territory (Administration) Act. I commend the Bill.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

– I have already indicated in dealing with the Northern Territory (Administration) Bill that the Opposition does not oppose either of these Bills. They reserve the rights of an officer who may be appointed to this important position. They include such rights as accrued sick leave, long service leave, superannuation and so on. They are proper to be preserved and we do not oppose the legislation. .

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 735

NORTHERN TERRITORY REPRESENTATION BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Represenatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator SCOTT:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Western Australia · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Last November the Senate was informed that the Government had agreed to the member representing the Northern Territory in the House of Representatives being accorded the same voting rights as the other members after the next general election for members of that House. The question of full voting rights of the member representing the Northern Territory has been under notice for some years. At talks with representatives of the Legislative Council for the Northern Territory and Ministers in May 1967, Ministers agreed to recommend that full voting rights be accorded that member after the next general election.

The Bill now before the Senate follows the subsequent decision of the Government to introduce amending legislation for this purpose. However instead of delaying full voting rights for the member concerned until after the next general election, the Bill now proposes that the member should have these rights on the day the Act receives the royal assent. The opportunity has been taken to include in the Bill amendments of a drafting nature correcting references to the Northern Territory and the Supreme Court of the Territory in the present Act. There are reasons which would justify retention of the present limited voting rights. Nevertheless, the Governments approach has been to go as far as is reasonably possible to meet the wishes and special circumstances of people of the Northern Territory, and this has prompted the present decision.

This action does not meet all of the representations of the Legislative Councillors, who are also pressing for changes in the composition of the Legislative Council, and for greater participation in the executive government. There are very real difficulties in the way of going further in those matters than the present stage, both in terms of sparseness of population and the financial position of the Territory. Nevertheless examination of the whole question will continue. In the meantime I am confident that all honourable senators will support this Bill, and that having regard to the nature of the institution of the Parliament, none of us will regret the passing into history of the special class of member with only limited voting rights.

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

page 736

UNIVERSITIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1968

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a Bill which makes some minor technical changes to the Universities (Financial Assistance) Act 1966-67 in order to provide legal authority for proposed changes in the building programmes at two universities - the University of Newcastle and La Trobe University - for the 1967-69 triennium. The changes that are proposed are merely re-arrangements of the programme within the total capital grants that already have been approved for the current triennium and no increased Commonwealth commitment is involved. The variations have also been agreed to by the State governments concerned.

The changes proposed for the University of Newcastle are as follows:

As the University now desires to transfer the Department of Chemical Engineering from the Faculty of Applied Science to the Faculty of Engineering, $124,404 of the Commonwealth contribution is being transferred from the building project for the former Faculty to that for the latter so that the accommodation approved for the Department of Chemical Engineering can be provided in the Engineering complex. With this addition to the Faculty of Engineering, it has been decided to provide a separate building for Architecture out of the total approved grant for Engineering and Architecture and that is why the revised programme provides for ‘buildings’.

The main amendments relating to La Trobe University are:

Changes that have occurred since the original proposal was approved have indicated that the funds made available for science buildings at La Trobe University in the current triennium would provide better facilities if four buildings were built instead of the three originally proposed. A further change proposed for La Trobe University is:

Both these lecture theatre blocks formpart of the University’s plan of development and, in its submission for the current trienmium, the University requested support for the Science block. However, enrolments in the Schools of Humanities and Social Sciences have changed the University’s order of priority.

I emphasise that all these changes will be made within the total grants already approved for the current triennium and that all have the support of the Australian Universities Commission and the relevant State governments. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cohen) adjourned.

page 737

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) BILL 1968

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 April (vide page 678). on motion by Senator Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood) - There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator WILLESEE (Western Australia)

Agreements) Bill is a pretty formidable one. It was introduced in this chamber only 24 hours ago. The explanatory memorandum in connection with the legislation covers sixty-seven pages of very close typing. It is unfortunate that we did not have moretime to examine the Bill, with its wide ramifications and tremendous importance to the future of investment in Australia and Australian investment overseas. When the Parliament gets around to altering the way in which it has handled Bills since about 1900, I am sure that Bills such as this one will be referred to an all-party committee of the Senate for a short time - perhaps a few days or a week - not only to give more senators an opportunity to inform themselves on the legislation and then to inform the Parliament but also to give interested members of the general public a chance to put their views before the Parliament.

The debate on this Bill should have been delayed for at least a week. I hope the day will come when Bills such as this one will be referred automatically to committees so that much more brain power, deep thinking, examination and cross talk can be devoted to them. Such a course would be appropriate in respect of this Bill. There is certainly no question of delay in relation to it. The first of the two Bills that we are debating is designed to give parliamentary approval to an agreement with the United Kingdom which was signed on 7th December - the anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbour. The United Kingdom has given its parliamentary approval already. We are in the course of doing that tonight. Because the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, the approval will be given in the next day or so.

It is appropriate that an agreement on double taxation between the United Kingdom and Australia should be made at this time. Thelast time such an agreement was signed was in 1946. Twenty-two years is a very long time in the light of the rapidly developing economies of the world of today, particularly the economy of Australia which has experienced a mining boom over the last few years. I suggest that this agreement is being ratified tonight in a vastly different atmosphere from that in which the former agreement was ratified in 1946. In those days we were telling the world of the opportunities for development in Australia and the United Kingdom was looking for a place in which to invest money. I suggest that today we no longer have to advertise our wares overseas. No longer do we have to go around, cap in hand, looking for capital. No longer is the United Kingdom anxious to encourage its businessmen to export capital to Australia or any other country.

These Bills do two main things. The first reviews and in many ways improves the old double taxation agreement. The second defines what royalties are. ‘Royalties’ is a word of which, when we hear it, we immediately think we know the meaning. We immediately envisage paying a sum of money for taking minerals out. of the ground or cutting down trees, it. relates to assets which, in the first case, are never replaced and, in the second, can take many years to replace. But it can cover all sorts of things. That is a point on which we believe the agreement has not been tightened up sufficiently.

The purpose of a double taxation agreement between countries is to define clearly to investors just what their position is. This is necessary because of problems associated with the fact that the country of domicile of the financier is different from the country in which his finances are invested. His money is not always invested in the country in which he lives. For example the investor could be an Englishman, as could happen in this case, and his money could be invested in Australia. Or, he could be. an Australian whose money is invested in England. Double taxation agreements do facilitate overseas investment by making plain to the overseas businessman or investor exactly where he stands. They can also facilitate it in all sorts of other ways, depending on the type of agreement signed.

In his second reading speech, the Minister for Supply (Senator Anderson) said:

On one view, any country should be able to look to its own residents to contribute at normal rates of tax on all income they derive, to the cost of the government of the country and the benefits it provides for the residents. Further, it can be argued that the country which is the source of capital invested in the other country, presumably to the benefit of that other country, is entitled to a reasonable share of the taxation yielded by the investment. In opposition to these arguments the country in which the income originates can argue that in providing the con ditions necessary for producing the income lt acquires the main right to the taxation revenue on that income.

Within those two arguments vested interest obviously has a great influence. The argument put forward will depend upon the area of the globe in which the person arguing has the interest, and it is between the jigs and reels of the arguments that double taxation agreements are signed.

The extent to which one government yields and the degree to which this Government encourages overseas investment in Australia is, of course, the responsibility of the Government, and the extent to which the Government is encouraging overseas investment here is becoming a matter for public debate but mounting public opinion both generally and amongst manufacturers in this country, as well as in high Government circles, against a too heavy inflow of overseas investment seems to be having a slow effect upon the Government.

At first glance, one would not feel that we had anything to worry about so long as the same conditions apply to both countries whether the investor happens to be an Englishman investing in Australia or an Australian investing in England. But it is not so simple as that, especially when we realise that the amount of Australian investment overseas is probably only about onefiftieth of the amount of overseas investment in Australia. Figures which I have seen indicate that investors resident in the United Slates of America and investors resident in the United Kingdom have between them invested about $5,000m in Australia whereas only about one-fiftieth of that amount is invested by Australians in those two countries as well as possibly other countries. It is obvious, therefore, that the advantage from the point of view of taxation is with the investors resident in other countries in that a great deal more is being rebated to them by this country than is being rebated to Australian business people and investors by overseas countries.

I think this overseas investment is something which is dying because in my view the atmosphere surrounding it and the views on it have changed considerably over the last few years. It has been the policy of the Australian Labor Part)’ for some time now not to oppose the inflow of capital to

Australia because, obviously, our great mining boom could not have taken place if those concerned had not leant fairly heavily on overseas investment. But. we have said that the overseas investment that does flow to this country should make some contribution to the growth and development of the nation and that there should be an opportunity for Australians to acquire an equity in the investment.

The amount of overseas investment fluctuates according to how it affects national interests from lime to time. As I have said, it is obvious that the United Kingdom is in a different position today from what it was when it signed the original agreement 22 years ago. Again, the position could vary al any time in the future, lt is obvious, also, that the businessmen of the United States of America are wanting to invest in other countries of the world, but it is equally obvious that the Government of the United Slates is becoming concerned about the rate of overseas investment by Americans, lt will be remembered that there was quite a furore in this country about 3 years ago when President Johnson announced thai he proposed to lake definite steps to restrict the flow of capital from America.

I am wondering whether we are not now in a vastly different position from what we were 15 years ago. In those days, we were virtually unknown, we were hawking our goods around the world and we lacked capital. I do not think there has been a proper investigation to ascertain whether we are in the same position today as we were then and whether we should be seeking the amount of capital that is coming into this country al the present time. We have a vastly different set of conditions today from those we had 1 5 years ago. lt has been estimated that about 25% of Australian companies are now owned by overseas interests. The Vernon Committee in dealing with this subject, estimated that the rate of overseas investment in Australia was about $300m a year and that ownership by overseas interests of Australian companies could grow to about 46% by 1.975. My estimate is that overseas investment in Australia has been at the rate of about $600m a year since 1965 and the latest figures available indicate that this is increasing. Therefore, it could happen that perhaps only a few years after 1975, by virtue of re-investment of profits ownership by overseas interests could be as high as 50%. If the inflow of capital is allowed to continue, if something is not done to inhibit it, ownership in Australian companies by overseas interests could bc even higher than that.

Although this matter has been bandied about, although it has become a matter for discussion between various important bodies and many prominent men, not the least of them being Mr McEwen, Sir Robert Menzies, Sir Harold Raggatt and important manufacturing representatives, and although some of these people have been senior members of the Government, so far as I can see, there has been no real effort to examine and evaluate what our situation is or where we are going.

At the moment, in Western Australia there is taking place a boom which defies the imagination, lt makes the gold rush of the early Western Australian days pale into insignificance. We are spending more money in a year in Western Australia than we spent on the Snowy Mountains project in a year in which the expenditure on thai undertaking was greatest. Yet less than 19% - I base this on figures made available to me a couple of years ago; 1 have not had time in the last few hours to examine the latest figures - is the proportion of ownership by Australians.

There are all sorts of interesting facets connected with this question. The State Government is seeking to enjoy the benefit of all the income flowing from this development which represents a very large amount of money. At the same time, one wonders whether this is in the best interests of the whole of Australia. This gives rise to the competition that has been occurring without any inhibition by the Government. Because there has been no attempt at coordination by the Commonwealth Government, which is the only Government able to do so, the State Government is chasing after the immediate returns from the development and largely ignoring the fact that the Australian equity represents only 19% and that the more development there is, naturally the lower the percentage of Australian equity will be. I mention the development in Western Australia as an example of what can happen.

We now have the position where senior Cabinet Ministers are becoming concerned. It will be remembered that in 1965 President Johnson spoke about too great an outflow of American capital and all the problems this created. On 12th March 1965, shortly after that statement by President Johnson, Sir Robert Menzies, who was then Prime Minister of Australia, wrote to President Johnson. Amongst other things, he said:

This is not to say that we would oppose the issue by United States investors of some equity capital in their subsidiaries here to finance new investment in this country; indeed it would accord with an attitude we have frequently expressed. We have made it clear on many occasions in the past that we think it desirable for overseas investors to take in Australian investors as partners in businesses established in Australia,

I repeat that this was written as long ago as 1965. The Minister for Trade and Industry, in flamboyant and quite picturesque terms, has made perfectly clear where he stands on this issue. Sir Harold Raggatt, a nian who held a prominent place on the administrative side, also has been very outspoken on it. Where are we going concerning this matter? Why are the voices of those people not being heard? Why is the Government not evaluating the situation to try to see where Australia is going?

I suppose that General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd is the obvious example. Certainly it is not the only villain of the piece. Many other companies are doing exactly the same thing as it is. If it were possible for Australian investors to invest in General MotorsHolden’s, the return on their capital would be 2 times or 3 times as high as the return on some of the blue chip investments in Australian Companies. Yet this field has been preserved completely for overseas investment. This fact was highlighted recently by the Esso float. The overseas company floated debentures on fixed interest rates, skimming off an amount of money that would have been available for other investments of this type. This means that much less money will be available for investment in other equities to assist in Australia’s development. At the same time Australian investors are resolutely refused an opportunity to have any equity in the companies concerned. We’ have seen over the years merely a substitution of ownership without any benefit to the Australian economy.

Senator WILLESEE:

– The Minister for Works is leading me off onto a different track altogether. I do not think the shares are. They are not, as I recall, but I speak subject to correction. However, let me not bc dragged off the track, as time is moving on. The situation arises where change of ownership in these companies is of no benefit to the Australian economy. Policies are being introduced that are of little benefit to the local areas where development is taking place. Unless a new town has to be built or a new railway has to bc constructed to serve only the interests of the company, outback areas are not getting any benefit in the way of development or the expenditure of extra moneys over and above the normal amount of local taxation which flows from these developments.

If the Government attempts to increase taxation for defence or other purposes, as the Government may well have to do, a peculiar situation will arise. The action will lead to reduced investment of any type on Australian stock-markets but, at the same time, the Government will not be interfering with this flow of capital from other parts of the world. The Government is continuing to develop this flow. If the crunch does come, the big name companies will be in a position from which they can compete, because of the backing that they have in their home countries, on very unfair terms with Australian companies. What scrutiny is possible without strict laws controlling this type of thing? Let us consider what the position might be with a parent company overseas and a subsidiary company in Australia. By manipulation those companies might agree that they will keep the profits small in the country of investment - Australia - so that the profits of the parent company may be built up in the United States of America or the United Kingdom. If it suits the parent company, the exercise can be carried out in reverse and the company can take advantage of some taxation or other local benefits.

We find this sort of thing when we turn to the question of royalties. Australia vacated the field of royalties when the last agreement was signed 22 years ago. Now Australia is entering the royalties field again.

Under the present proposal, even though something is declared to be a royalty, it will be taxed at the rate of 10% as against a rate of 424% applicable to the profits of overseas companies in Australia. This might be a simple proposition if we were dealing with metals or timbers, for instance, but I do not know that the definition is severe enough to embody royalties on know-how, rights to use specific machines, the use of a trade name or a patent name or in respect of franchise. Those are just a few of the possibilities that I jotted down hurriedly as they occurred to me. The parent company will still be able to benefit. The payments are pui into a profit and loss account. In other words, these are losses to the company in Australia. Therefore, the company evades taxation and even after the passage of this legislation will be evading it completely. There should be stricter controls relating to royalties, and even now the Government should determine what is a fair thing for royalties. This could well be the subject of an inquiry, as indeed could the whole subject of double taxation.

I do not see why a differential tax could not be imposed on different types of investment. Obviously foreign investment which comes to Australia and is used to purchase a biscuit factory or a frozen meat factory is contributing nothing in the way of experience or know-how; it is merely taking over the running of an industry in respect of which Australians have just as much know-how as the foreign pundits who merely transfer their profits to the overseas country. This obviously is not benefiting Australia. Why should not such investment attract higher taxation and greater penalties than investment which is of a developmental character and which contributes technical know-how to Australian industry? In Canada companies that do not have at least a 25% local content of capital are penalised. I paraphrase a statement attributed to the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen) when I say that Canada was getting to the stage where not only was it selling a bit of the farm to keep going but was selling the farmhouse itself. So Canada took stringent measures. It is interesting to note that many of the developing countries are applying stringent measures. Japan does not mess around at all. It lays down a tight schedule of conditions relating to foreign investment. If someone wants to invest in a Japanese industry or to develop an industry in Japan, that industry must assist the Japanese economy. The Japanese are not interested in any other economy. The industry must not be unfairly competitive. This is a point I made about foreign investment in Australia. If a crunch comes and there is any sort of economic recession local industries should not suffer. Japan insists that the industry which has attracted foreign capital shall fit into the overall plan. Oh, that we had an overall plan in Australia and that the Commonwealth Government prevented competition between the States! We should have an overall plan to try to direct capital to those areas where it is needed and where it would do most to benefit the Australian community. Even when all the criteria for foreign investment in Japan have been met, the Japanese do not permit more than 50% of the ownership of an industry to be in foreign hands. Indeed, this percentage applies to but a small percentage of foreign investment. Generally it is 30% or 40%.

It is frequently said that if we start to lay down rules we will frighten capital away. People who talk like this have not examined investment in other countries that do lay down rules. Foreign investors are tough boys who have’ been brought up in a tough climate and yet have been successful. They are used to getting around rules and regulations. They are not concerned with whether taxation is 5% or 6% higher than elsewhere or with whether they must share with local people. They are not worried about whether they can establish a business in Melbourne or Sydney or whether they may have to establish elsewhere. We are, of course, interested in decentralisation. They look, first, to see whether a country is politically stable and then to see whether it is economically stable and there are markets for whatever their industry produces. It is only the diehards who argue that the moment we start to seek some say in controlling the inflow of capital we will frighten it elsewhere. India, with all its problems, is not turning somersaults in an effort to attract capital for development purposes. Foreign investment has no easy access to India nor has it easy access to Japan, which has had tremendous economic development.

I believe that we will achieve something if we leave one thought with the. Government tonight, namely, that these bills should be referred to a small committee. As a result of my examination throughout the day I say that such an investigation by a small committee would lead automatically to the suggestion that there ought to be a very close scrutiny - a long, hard look, I think, is the modern term - of the whole question of double taxation arrangements which flow from overseas investment in Australia, and also of our own taxation laws, because these impinge upon those arrangements. Surely it is time that the Commonwealth Government looked at such questions as the maximum ownership by Australians of industries based in Australia, to give as far as possible an Australian equity in these concerns. I know that such an arrangement would have to be made in agreement with people coming into the country. One could not make the rules impossible, but we could certainly give a fairer go and a better deal to Australia and Australians than we are doing now.

We must discourage takeovers of established Australian industries. All that results from these is that we sell a bit of the farm, and not an underdeveloped section of it, at that. We must guide investment into channels where overseas investment is needed. We must endeavour to assist decentralisation and development. In the mining field this aspect so far has looked after itself, but it may not always do so. We have been fortunate in that mining investment has been going into areas which have been underdeveloped and this has certainly tended towards decentralisation and development. If this has been easy in the mining field, that is all the more reason why such a policy would not frighten capital away from Australia. We must obtain co-operation from the Stales. At this moment we are not even organising within Australia on the question of attracting overseas capital. That the State Governments are rushing around trying to attract capital lo their own States is so obvious that I need not go into the matter. There is a danger that the big States will attract capital to cities like Sydney and Melbourne much more easily than the smaller States can attract capital to outback areas. Western Australia and Queensland have been fortunate. Minerals have been fortuitously located in areas where we need development.

We must also look at the unhealthy trade practices that flow from overseas investment in Australia. I refer to such practices as the parent company forbidding the Australian company to export in competition with the parent company in overseas trade. I have mentioned the insistence in Japan that some contribution be made to overseas balances. Let me refer now, if I may, to an address that was given by Sir Harold Raggatt in which - to be fair to him - he emphasised that but for overseas investment we would not have been able to make the great mining development that we have made. He finished on this note:

The largest bone of contention was the evident intention of some foreign companies never to offer the Australian public any equity interest in their businesses. One or two companies had been quite rude about this, he said. ‘Some foreign countries have treated Australia as just one element in a computer programme designed to find out how to conduct an international business for the maximum profit. Those countries who think this is the best way to conduct a business cannot complain when Australia forces a policy upon them which the Australian Government and people think is best for Australia.’

In other words he indicated that it is inevitable that if practices of this sort go on - irrespective of how many die-hards and conservatives there are in Australia - we will be forced one day to take action. I suggest that the sooner this comes about the better it will be. We must seek information on these points. We must clarify our own minds. We must get the Commonwealth Government to face up to its responsibilities, because it is the only government that can take the lead. We will, certainly not get the States, which are in competition, suddenly to co-operate unless they get a lead from the Australian Government. When we get these things we shall start to ensure that overseas investment in Australia will be for the benefit of Australians. When that happens the double taxation agreements that we sign in the future will be vastly different from the double taxation agreements that we are signing today.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– On 15th December 1967 the Treasurer (Mr McMahon) announced a revised double taxation agreement between Australia and the United Kingdom. This law is being enacted now and the Senate is dealing with two Bills - the Income Tax Assessment Bill 1968 and the Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1968. Both Bills refer to certain payments from source countries to resident countries. In today’s context of world affairs, particularly in relation to Australia’s interests, there is a changing pattern in the method of investment and in the method of taxation of the returns from that investment. The Income Tax (International Agreements) Act is one which reflects considerable credit on the Treasury. The agreement with Great Britain reflects enormous credit on those who have negotiated it. lt follows the lines of modern international tax agreements. I note that Mr Patrick Jenkins of Britain made the comment that the most noteworthy feature of this new agreement is that the Australian Treasury benefits to an extent vastly greater than does its United Kingdom counterpart. This is a very significant statement and I believe that it should lead honourable senators to have confidence in the action of the Treasurer and Treasury officials. I congratulate them very greatly for the deal that they have made on Australia’s behalf.

I have a note of some calculations which have been made under the double taxation agreement and 1 believe that some $5m to S6m will accrue to Australia above that which may have been collected under similar circumstances in the past year. Also in the instance of the royalty agreement, the benefit could be approximately $10m per year. The general facts of the Bills. I believe, are well laid out in the second reading speeches. But 1 agree with Senator Willesee that to follow accurately the various areas of the two Bills requires enormous study. I must say that I have not been able to read the sixty-seven pages of explanatory notes, nor have I been able to follow through the Bills to the extent that they vary the Income Tax Assessment Act, which is the main Bill to which the royalty agreement refers. There are many references and cross-references, and there are some quite complicated changes.

The Act provides for a uniform tax rate of 15% on dividends flowing between the two countries. The exemption from Australian tax of dividends paid by wholly owned subsidiaries of British companies is being withdrawn. Australia will be free to impose its full rate of withholding tax on interest paid to United Kingdom residents. On the other hand. United Kingdom tax on interest paid to Australian residents will be reduced to 10%. Australia will have the right to tax the royalties paid from Australia to British residents. As most of these royalties are exempt from Australian tax under the old agreement, Australia will be gaining very important taxation rights by this new agreement.

The new agreement provides in general that each country will limit to 10% its tax on royalties derived by residents of the other, but it is particularly important to note that mining and other natural resources royalties will continue to be taxable at the full rate of the country of source. I believe that those are several of the very important matters relating to this Bill.

This measure brings us to the position of investment by overseas companies in Australia. And, speaking of investment, 1 invite honourable senators to consider the very important matter of Australian investment in other countries. I note that Australia’s total investment overseas may be somewhere in the vicinity of SI 00m which, I suggest, reflects no great credit on Australia.

In the last few days a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation from Sabah has been visiting Australia and I had the advantage of discussing with several of the members the position regarding investment in their country. Sabah, like Australia, is crying out for investment for developmental purposes. I believe that Australia should have greater investment overseas. Senator Willesee criticised this Government’s taxation provisions but I was delighted to learn from him that it was the policy of his party to encourage overseas investment in Australia.

Senator O’Byrne:

– And to keep the Army here to protect it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That may be the honourable senator’s kind of thinking but it is not ours. Consider Australia’s standard of development and the standard of living of its people. We refer to Australia as a young country. When I compare the development that Australia has achieved in a comparatively short time with development in oilier similar countries, 1 cannot help feeling that something in Australia has been managed particularly well. 1 think it is in the nature of all Australians to be wary of risk investment. I suppose that is inconsistent with the picture of Australians as sports loving, or perhaps 1 should say, horse loving people, but look at the kind of investment that has been available to us over the past 10 years. The work of the Bureau of Mineral Resources encouraged investment in minerals. Considerable information on this subject has been available. The original surveys of possible oil fields under Bass Strait - the fields which BHP and Esso have now combined to exploit - were carried out by the Department of National Development. Any Australian who was prepared to risk his capital could have participated in this, Australia’s greatest bonanza. No doubt all of us can think of reasons why we were not able to do so. 1 suggest that by far the greatest number of Australians have finance lying idle in the bank, despite the fact that great investment opportunities are available. In speaking of the ownership of Australian companies some people express abhorrence at the buying up of Austraiian companies by overseas interests. However, it would be interesting to note what is happening to the share register of the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd when shares in that company are sold at $20 each, lt would be very interesting to see who is taking a gamble on that company at the present time. We know that today BHP is an Australian owned company, but despite the great future that that company has 1 doubt whether Australians will retain enough shares for it to remain Australian. It was interesting to note a comment by Sir George Fisher, a report of which states:

Sixty years ago the ownership of Australia’s leading mines was more in overseas hands than it was today.

Australian ownership of North Broken Hill increased from 34% in .1913 lo 84% today.

In the Western Mining Corporation, which was once owned by overseas capital, 90% of the shares were now held in Australia.

When Broken Hill Pty Ltd decided in 1911 to set up a steel industry in Australia, 74% of its shares were held overseas and the company was classified as an overseas-controlled company. Today only 16% of its shares were held overseas.

One has to decide, when one hears comments about and criticism of overseas ownership of companies in Australia, whether Australians are making use of the great financial resources which it has been demonstrated are being held in Australian savings banks today. One must decide whether Australians have given adequate assistance in the development of Australian based companies. One must decide whether there has been a reasonable investment in the development of Australia by overseas companies operating in Australia. I believe that investment in Australia has been reasonable and I do not find grounds for criticising investment by overseas companies in Australia. I do not fall fully into line with the policy put forward by this Government, of which I am a supporter, in which it is stated that all that it wishes to do about overseas investment in Australia is to say that it would prefer overseas interests to allow some part of the ownership of Australian based companies to flow back into Australian hands.

Senator Poyser:

– lt should be made compulsory.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Surely the honourable senator would not have a hand in making it compulsory. Surely he would not wish to say to the people who elected him: We are going to force you to do something with your farm. If you want to sell your farm we will prohibit you from doing so, even though you have been offered a high price.’ There is a problem relating to shares and to the capital ownership of certain items, but 1 certainly am not one who wishes to be involved in directing individuals in the way that they should invest.

Senator Poyser:

– All that the honourable senator would do is tell them what to do with their money.

Senator WEBSTER:

– 1 have not time to take up all the Socialist views expressed by the boys on my right. Although Senator Willesee talked all around this point he did not actually say what his Party proposes. The Bill which we are debating reflects great credit not only on the Treasurer but also on the gentlemen who stand behind him in his Department. I have spoken to individuals who are concerned with the operation of the financial arrangements between Australia and the United Kingdom and I have found that accounting firms which look after the interests of companies in these arrangements look forward, with great enthusiasm to a cleaning up of our taxation laws which have not been effective in the past.

page 745

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 1 May 1968, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1968/19680501_senate_26_s37/>.