Senate
22 September 1970

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

QUESTION
- ABORIGINALS
QUESTION
- WATER
QUESTION
- PRIMARY PRODUCTION
QUESTION
- PEAS
QUESTION
- MARIHUANA
QUESTION
- TOURISM
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- NATION AX SERVICE
QUESTION
- ARBITRATION
QUESTION
- WINE
QUESTION
- AMERICA-AUSTRALIA ALLIANCE
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY
QUESTION
- SMUGGLING
QUESTION
- DEMONSTRATIONS
QUESTION
- DEMONSTRATIONS
QUESTION
- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
QUESTION
- AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT
QUESTION
- AIR POLLUTION
QUESTION
- NATURAL RESOURCES
QUESTION
- ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS
QUESTION
- STARFISH
QUESTION
- VIETNAM MORATORIUM
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- FAT LAMBS
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR POWER STATION
QUESTION
- AVIATION
QUESTION
- WINE
QUESTION
- MEAT
QUESTION
- VIETNAM MORATORIUM
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
QUESTION
- SECURITY
QUESTION
- QUEENSLAND AERODROMES
QUESTION
- CAMBODIA
QUESTION
- SUPERPHOSPHATE
QUESTION
- MACQUARIE ISLAND
QUESTION
- WINE
QUESTION
- CIVIL AVIATION
QUESTION
- IMMIGRATION
QUESTION
- SOCIAL SERVICES
QUESTION
- FROZEN VEGETABLES
OFFICERS OF THE SENATE
COMMONWEALTH BANK REPORTS
DEFENCE REPORT
SOCIAL SERVICES ACT
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
ORGANISATION
INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONVENTION
AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD
AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR BOARD
CHICKEN MEAT RESEARCH ACT
REPATRIATION ACT
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE REPORT
ENGINEERING SERVICES DISTRICT OF DRIPSTONE, DARWIN, NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- NATIONAL SERVICE
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1970
- Second Reading
SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1970
- Second Reading
SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 2) 1970
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

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

page 723

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– 1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for the interior: Has the Minister for the Interior recently sought legal advice regarding the possibility of initiating police action against and the prosecution of members of the Gurindji tribe who are at present camped on the Wave Hill station in the Northern Territory? Was advice also sought regarding possible action against those Europeans who have visited Wave Hill to assist the Gurindjis or report on the situation? If such advice was sought, has a reply been received? [f so, what was the nature of the reply?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-] do not have any information which would allow me to make a judgment or offer any comment at present on a report that police action was sought against the Gurindjis who were camped on Wave Hill station or against Europeans who had attempted to visit the area to see for themselves what was happening. [ have not seen any reference to this matter. I have not read anything about it in the Press. With the honourable senator’s approval, I shall seek information for hiro on this matter.

page 723

QUESTION

WATER

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Development. Is there any truth in the stated finding by a River Murray orchardist that a seepage channel 10 feet wide and 6 feet deep was pouring approximately 3 million gallons of saline seepage an hour into the River Murray about 70 miles east of the South Australian border? If so, will the Minister indicate whether any action is being taken to stop this salty water flowing into the River Murray?

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister-in-Charge of Tourist Activities, Can the Minister indicate the position of the tourist industry on the scale of Australian income earners? Can he say whether there are any plans for the establishing in Australia of courses of training in tourist industry management? Has he had the opportunity to observe the work of the School of Travel Industry which, I understand, is situated at the University of Hawaii? If so, are any details available that could be useful in Australia?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– In answer to the honourable senator’s question, I have previously stated figures as to the earnings of the tourist industry. The most recent figure available is for the year 1969-70. lt shows that the foreign exchange earnings accruing to Australia from our tourist industry amounted to $127m. Comparing this with the exports listed in the statistical divisions, tourism therefore ranks No. 9 in the trades earning foreign exchange, behind such items as coal and coke, $173m; transport equipment, $153m; and iron and steel, $136m. Looking at it in another way, Australia’s income from tourism was greater than the total receipts from our exports to such major markets as Germany, France or Canada.

In reply to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, I am very glad to have the opportunity to say thai on my second visit to the United States of America this year I had the privilege of calling at Hawaii and there conferring with Professor Barnett who conducts the school of tourist industry management. I spent several hours with him going through his curriculum and seeing the sort of instruction that has been given. Quite coincidentally, in one of the hotels we visited, he was able to introduce me to 2 of his graduates, one of whom was manager and the other of whom held another senior position, and each position had been achieved at the age of 27 or 30 years. He convinced me that the wide spread of training that is afforded by that school would be of great value in uniting the industry in Australia. I am also pleased to tell the Senate that it was not only then that we began our interest in the possibility of training units of the tourist industry; the interest originated some 2 years ago with a conference of the Australian National Travel Association. Since then the Australian Tourist Commission has been examining ways and means of instituting in colleges of advanced education courses of training which would be advantageous to the tourist industry. Also the Commission is conducting periodical seminars in the South Pacific region for the purpose of promoting an interest in all facets of providing a professional service in the tourist industry.

page 724

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, and I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister back to our community. Did amendments provided by Statutory Rule No. 116 to the National Service Act come into operation on 27th August? Was an inquiry ordered by the Minister for Labour and National

Service into whether Brian Ross held con- scientious beliefs that would exempt him from national service? Although Brian Ross, having been convicted, was not entitled to have extended to him the provisions of the amendments to the regulations, is it true, as stated in today’s ‘Australian’, that in the Minister’s opinion Ross should have been given the opportunity of having his conscientious beliefs examined as he met the requirements envisaged by the regulations? Did Mr Justice Smithers commence hear- ing the case of Brian Ross 3 days before the regulations were gazetted and came into operation? At the’ time of ordering the inquiry, what authority did the Minister possess to so order?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The honourable senator, in a spirit that surprises me, has raised a question that attracts attention under the National Service Act. The Senate will recall that the National Service Act provides that a person whose conscientious beliefs do not allow him to engage in any form of military service shall be exempt from liability to render service under the Act, so long as he holds those beliefs. It was found that some people who came within the definition of persons liable to render service under the Act carried their opposition to the Act to the degree that they would refuse even to make a plea to the court to establish their conscientious belief. Brian Ross was one such person who. therefore, was convicted by the court. After an examination of his position the Government thought that it was equitable and fair that if a person refused to that extent to avail himself of the exemption accruing to a conscientious objector, the Government, and not he, should have the right to put that statement before the court. Consequently the regulations under the National Service Act were amended to make it possible to require the court to examine the issue in a case where a defendant could claim possibly to be a conscientious objector.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But you acted 3 days before the regulations came into operation.

Senator WRIGHT:

– Oh, the technicality that we are coming to! lt is known that an amendment of the regulations to enable this to be done would take some time, that after a decision by the Government tha regulation has to be drafted and then prepared in a form to go before the Governor-General. If it is the fact - a fact which has escaped my scrutiny - that Mr Justice Smithers was invited to undertake an inquiry 3 days before the actual publication of the statutory rules, that would indicate to me only the eagerness of the Minister to have the earliest judicial determination which a judge could give, strictly in accordance with court process, on whether this man who was lingering in prison for some 11 months was considerd by the judge to be a conscientious objector. The Ministers in their statement on this matter said that recent amendments to the national service regulations enabled the Minister to refer to courts cases of conscientious objection to military service where a man liable to render that service had not himself made formal application.

Ross’s case met the requirements envisaged in these regulations, but the new procedure could not be used because Ross, on his conviction, was no longer a person liable to service. The Minister said it was considered that in view of the new regulations Ross should be given the opportunity of having his conscientious beliefs examined. In considering how this might be done it had to be recognised that Ross would not have the opportunities available to those seeking to be recognised as conscientious objectors under the Act to appeal to the superior courts. It had therefore been arranged for Mr Justice Smithers, a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, to determine whether in fact the defendant held those beliefs.

page 725

QUESTION

NATION AX SERVICE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Further to the Minister’s statement regarding Brian Ross, does the Minister feel that this Australian citizen was originally improperly imprisoned? Will the Government consider a payment to Brian Ross to compensate for the period of his incarceration?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– It will be noted that the question asks whether or not in view of the proceedings to which I have made reference the said Brian Ross was originally improperly imprisoned. The word ‘improperly’ may be used to connote illegally-

Senator Byrne:

– Immorally.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I adopt the honourable senator’s term of immorally imprisoned. It should be quite obvious from what 1 said in my answer to the previous question that according to due process of law the imprisonment of Ross would appear to be without legal query. The defendant refused to put forward a plea on his own behalf to satisfy a court of facts which would exempt him from imprisonment. Some 11 months later the Government altered the law to enable the Government to put forward that plea and it anticipated the amendment by some 3 days - if I can rely upon the facts preferred to the Senate by Senator Cavanagh. Whether or not in those circumstances compensation should be payable on a basis of moral impropriety, I abstain from comment. But I am not in a position to indicate that there should be the slightest expectation that the case is an appropriate one for compensation.

page 726

QUESTION

ARBITRATION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, lt refers to two recent statements on arbitration by the Prime Minister - one made at a New South Wales Chamber of Manufactures dinner attended by the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the other made during the weekend at a New South Wales Liberal Party Convention - which were related to the responsibilities of the Commission and widely interpreted as an attempt by the Government to influence the Commission. Has the Government departed from the concept of an independent Commission? If the Government accepts the view that the correct role of Government is to submit its views to the Commission during appropriate hearings of the Commission, will the Minister give consideration to clearing up these misunderstandings by making a policy statement or by asking the Prime Minister to make a policy statement?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator asks me in the first place to react and respond to some judgments made consequent upon 2 statements made by the Prime Minister. I do not think it is proper for me to do so. I certainly believe that in the 2 cases referred to, as I read them, the statements of the Prime Minister were appropriate statements. I do not think it is reasonable to expect me to react at question time and to set about making an interpretation of what some people read into those 2 statements or of what judgments they reached. If the honourable senator wants further clarification from the Prime Minister then the best thing for him to do is to put his question on notice. I will certainly get for the honourable senator a transcript of the statements insofar as they were publicised. Then perhaps he can make his own judgment rather than depend upon some judgment or comment by other persons.

page 726

QUESTION

WINE

Senator WEBSTER:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. When the Government decided upon the Budget measure of charging a tax on Australian produced wine, what prompted it to select an excise duty? Why did not the Government introduce the charge as a sales tax and so avoid the increased cost to consumers due to further charges having to be raised by growers and wineries to cover interest costs and other charges imposed by the financing of an excise tax? Would the Government consider withdrawal from charging an excise duty on Australian produced wine?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The honourable senator knows that this is part of Government policy. A revenue producing excise was announced in the Budget. I cannot conceive of any possibility at all that the Government, having made up its mind that it was desirable to introduce the excise on Australian produced wine, would then decide not to continue with it because of public reaction. This first reaction is only natural. It is always expected when there is an increase in excise or when an excise is imposed that those who have to pay will react to it. As to why this action was taken by way of excise as distinct from other methods, this would be a question coming more within the responsibility of the Treasurer or perhaps the Minister for Customs and Excise or his representative who are in charge of the passage of the legislation.

page 727

QUESTION

AMERICA-AUSTRALIA ALLIANCE

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Leader of the Government aware of the strong public reaction of Australians to the disqualification of ‘Gretel H’ and the anti-American feeling generated by the incident? Will he admit that the silent majority upon which the Government so often depends for support of its policies has at last been aroused? Will the Government take advantage of the situation and detach itself from American policy and so withdraw from Vietnam?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– If the question were put as a serious one 1 would say it is extraordinary that we could hear about something on the radio at about 8.30 this morning and then Senator Georges could come into this chamber at 3.5 this afternoon and talk about antiAmerican feeling on the part of Australians because of a protest. I have never heard a more pathetic question in all my life.

page 727

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Was the Prime Minister correctly reported as saying that the 1970 Budget would turn out to be one of the best budgets of recent years if the trade unions exercised wage restraint? Will the Prime Minister issue the same warning to the manufacturers of frozen vegetables which are reported to have increased in price by 100 per cent? Would a system of price control along with wage control contain inflation in Australia?

– Can the Minister for Civil Aviation explain why his Department was unable to determine that the overseas aircraft which recently experienced an abortive take-off at Sydney Airport was overloaded? Can . he assure the Senate that procedures will be improved sufficiently to preclude a recurrence of that incident?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– On Friday we made available in the Parliamentary Library the accident investigation report on this matter. This is available to any honourable senator who is interested, including Senator Wriedt, lt is a long report. I could read out the conclusions but even that would take quite a long time. 1 suggest to Senator Wriedt that, if he would like to look at the report in the Library, he could do so and then direct further questions to me or have a discussion with me about it.

page 728

QUESTION

AIR POLLUTION

Senator LACEY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. As there is a widely based opinion that there should be some Federal body able to co-ordinate the anti-pollution codes and disciplines of the States, will the Minister explain the reason for the delay by the Government in dealing with the report of the Senate Select Commitee on Air Pollution which was tabled by the Chairman of the Commitee more than 12 months ago?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I am not sure of the portfolio to which this report was directed initially; but I will take the question up and have some examination made of it. As I understand the honourable senator’s question, he is saying, in essence, that this Senate Select Committee tabled its report and made certain recommendations, and he is asking what the Government proposes to do about the recommendations contained in the report.

Senator Lacey:

– No; I am asking why we have not debated the report, seeing that it was tabled more than 12 months ago.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I see. In effect, the honourable senator wants a debate on the report in this place. We will have to have a look at that in terms of our timetable. I certainly will have a look at it later in the day.

page 729

QUESTION

NATURAL RESOURCES

Senator CANT:

– Will the Leader of the Government advise the Senate of the department to which inquiries may be directed in order to ascertain the price at which the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd and the Esso company are selling overseas liquefied petroleum gas from Bass Strait? Which department is responsible for the sale overseas of Australian raw resources? I have asked the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Customs and Excise without result, and I will speak on the adjournment if I do not get a result.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator having asked the Minister for National Development and the Minister for Customs and Excise without result, 1 think that the honourable senator should put the question on notice and leave it with me to see what result I can obtain.

page 729

QUESTION

QUESTION

NUCLEAR POWER STATION

page 731

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I ask: Is there a clear indication at this stage from the meetings of the International Air Travel Association that the fares of air passengers are likely to be reduced and that the blackout provision for tourist passage fares is likely to be modified? Is it a fact that Qantas Airways Ltd is largely dependent upon reduced tourist fares to meet the highly competitive conditions which have been occasioned by the entry of a second airline of the United States of America onto the Australian scene?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– There is not yet a clear indication of what is happening at the IATA meetings. I think it is a little too early to get a clear indication of what is happening. The meetings are taking place in Honolulu, lt is true that Qantas is attending these meetings as Australia’s international air carrier and that it has quite a lol of proposals to make in relation to various forms of air travel concessions. These concessions are not a direct result of the increased competition on the Pacific route, although they are partly due to it.

They flow out of the view Qantas holds that concessions are desirable in the interests of increased air travel.

page 731

QUESTION

WINE

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate concerning the excise which was imposed on wine in the Budget. Will the Government give urgent consideration to the abolition of the excise in the event of a marked decrease in the demand on the local market for table wines or in the event of grape growers running into difficulties in disposing of their next vintage?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIt is not normal at question time for Ministers to answer questions relating to matters of policy. It would be clearly a matter of policy if the Government having put an excise on a product, decided to take it. off because of certain circumstances, lt would be rather unique in revenue raising if a government were to consider removing an excise on wine before being able to gauge the effect of it. The honourable senator’s question implies that consideration should be given to taking off the excise if there is a decrease in the demand. I would respond by saying that it is necessary to look at any impost, whether it be customs excise or sales tax, according to its impact over a period of time. I would have great reservations about any suggestion that the imposition of an excise duty on wine will have an effect upon the industry which will not be absorbed by the natural growth of interest in the imbibing of our own Australian wines. I have no fear of the consequences of the imposition of this excise. 1 do not think the Government is at this point of time considering whether to take off the excise.

page 731

QUESTION

MEAT

Senator GEORGES:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: Are Commonwealth meat inspectors now being forced to take their annual leave? If so, why has there been a sudden reversal of policy when only a few weeks ago a Commonwealth meat inspector in Queensland was forced to resign so that he could take his long service leave?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– In answering a series of questions some time ago in regard to the subject of meat inspectors I said that, because of the shortage of meat inspectors at that time, some had been called upon to forego their leave. As a result of recent Public Service Board approval a new organisation has been created consisting of 1,000 permanent positions of meat inspector and an additional 100 temporary positions. This has been done to provide relief for the inspectors who have accumulated recreation and furlough leave to their credit. I understand that a situation did arise in Queensland whereby a meat inspector who had applied for 41 months furlough and an additional period of time off on half pay was asked to delay taking his furlough because of the shortage of meat inspectors. I understand that because he had made previous arrangements he had no other alternative but to resign from the Public Service.

page 732

QUESTION

VIETNAM MORATORIUM

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been drawn to some episodes at last Friday’s Moratorium march in Brisbane when the small contingent of people from the University of Queensland, on arriving at the assembly point from where they were supposed to tag along behind the trade union members, decided instead to go on ahead and lead the march? Did the trade union members have great difficulty in keeping up with the younger people from the University? Did this not have the effect of making the so called Moratorium demonstration an even bigger farce and an abject failure? Did not the silent majority that stayed away in such large numbers make it clear that the majority of Brisbane citizens were not interested in the Moratorium?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI must admit to the fact that I have not been given, nor have 1 read, any information on the circumstances in Brisbane on Friday. I can well understand that the youthful ones who stepped out in front would leave the oldies behind a bit.

page 732

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Was the continued gaoling of Brian Ross, when so many others who defied the National Service Act were not prosecuted, an embarrassment to the Government? Will the amended regulation permit a question to arise and a referral to the court by the Minister, also the possibility of a finding of the holding of conscientious beliefs by any objector to national service training who has a powerful organisation supporting him, or do the new regulations end the gaoling of those refusing to obey the National Service Act? Did Brian Ross answer the questions normally found necessary to ask to establish genuine conscientious beliefs, such as: ‘Would you forcibly stop an invader in your home threatening the female members of your family?’ What was the evidence upon which Brian Ross was found to have conscientious beliefs exempting him from military service? Will the report of Mr Justice Smithers be made available to honourable senators?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– in answer to the only part of the honourable senator’s question which I think it appropriate to answer at this stage I say that the report of His Honour Mr Justice Smithers was attached to the statement of the Minister that was made public in recent days. If the honourable senator has not a copy of that report I would be pleased to get him a copy at the earliest opportunity. I ask the honourable senator to place the rest of the question on notice.

page 732

QUESTION

SECURITY

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Is the Minister aware that the New Zealand Government has appointed a Commissioner to hear appeals from persons who believe that they have in some way been prejudiced by reports from the New Zealand security service? Would the Minister consider recommending to the Attorney-General that the Australian Government appoint a similar official or tribunal in this country?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the New Zealand procedures but I shall refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for consideration.

page 732

QUESTION

QUEENSLAND AERODROMES

(Question 424)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Did a recent meeting of pilots and small plane owners in Queensland strongly criticise the

Department of Civil Aviation for the lack of landing and safety aids at Queensland aerodromes.

Is Townsville one of the most unsafe aerodromes in this regard.
When willthe Department take action to install safety devices at Townsville, what type of devices will be installed and when will the installation be commenced.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

I understand that the subject of radio navigation aids in north Queensland was discussed at a meeting of the Association of Commercial Flying Organisations at Townsville on 29th May 1970. From the information available, I believe that there was no general criticism of the landing and safely aids in Queensland but that comments were made regarding the desirability of providing additional facilities in north Queensland, particularly in the Cape York Peninsula area. Since January 1967, radio navigation aids and other associated facilities have been installed at the following aerodromes in Queensland:

Taroom, Horn Island, Weipa, Hughenden, Roma, Cunnamulla, Winton, Longreach, Rockhampton, Birdsville, Windorah, Julia Creek, Richmond, Archerfield, Boulia and Thargomindah.

Further installations are planned during 1970-71 at Mount Isa, Townsville, Normanton, Georgetown, Iron Range and Coen. During 1972-73 additional facilities will be installed at Cairns and Weipa.

The aids and facilities at Townsville compare favourably with other similar centres in Queensland and are adequate for safe operations.
The installation of a Very High Frequency Omni Directional Radio Range (VOR) at Townsville is scheduled to be completed by January 1971.

page 733

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

(Question No. 477)

Senator GEORGES:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence the following question which I placed on the notice paper on 10th June:

Did Vice-President Ky state that South Vietnamese troops will remain in action in Cambodia after the American withdrawal; if so, will this not further delay the withdrawal of Australian troops from South Vietnam.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As the honourable senator is doubtless aware President Nixon, in his statement of 30th June 1970 about the allied operations in Cambodia referred to two basic principles which he was confident would govern the actions of those nations helping Cambodia:

They will be at the request of and in close concert with the Cambodian Government.

They will not be at the expense of those nations’ own defence, indeed they will contribute to their security which they see bound up with events in Cambodia.

The President went on to recall that in a speech of 27th June 1970, President Thieu had emphasised that his government will concentrate on efforts within South Vietnam; that his country will always respect the territory, borders, independence and neutrality of Cambodia and will not interfere in its internal politics; and that the South Vietnamese Government does not advocate stationing troops permanently in Cambodia or sendng the South Vietnamese Army to fight the war for the Cambodian Army. 1 announced on 20th August last that the 8th Battalion will be withdrawn from South Vietnam in November. As previously stated by the Prime Minister for the future the question of further withdrawals will be kept under review.

page 733

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

(Question No. 587)

Senator WEBSTER:
through Senator Lawrie

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

Is it a fact that Australian farmers can buy superphosphate at a lower price than farmers in any other part of the world; if so, what figures support this contention, and what part does the Commonwealth Government’s superphosphate bounty play in achieving the low price.
What is the volume of superphosphate used in Australia in the past 5 years, and how has the price of superphosphate varied in those years.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is true that Australian farmers pay less for superphosphate than farmers in most other parts of the world. Prices quoted in overseas publications, when compared with price information obtained from Australian fertiliser manufacturers, support this contention. Table I shows the current prices in eight countries, including Australia. Further information concerning the current price of superphosphate in a number of overseas countries is being sought and will be made available to the honourable senator. The Phosphate Fertilisers Bounty effectively reduces the price of superhposphate by the full amount of the bounty, which is currently $12 per ton of single superphosphate.
Table II sets out sales of superphosphate in Australia in the past five years. Variations in the price of superphosphate in Australia over these years are shown in Table III. The prices quoted are after deduction of the bounty and are F.O.R. ex works in each State except Tasmania where prices are at purchasers’ nearest rail siding. In each State the prices are subject to discounts foi prompt payment and in some States off-peak season discounts apply.

page 735

QUESTION

MACQUARIE ISLAND

(Question No. 409)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minis ter for Supply, upon notice:

When did the Commonwealth Government last seek to acquire Macquarie Island from Tasmania as a permanent national penguin, seal, and albatross sanctuary.
Is the Government satisfied that Tasmania has the facilities to provide effective sea patrols to combat nomadic whalers.
Do any Commonwealth personnel on the island, such as weather station staff, assist in assessing the numbers of existing fauna on the island.
Does the Wildlife Division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or any Tasmanian State Authority make checks on the Island’s fauna population.
Will the Government consider placing the future ownership of this island on the agenda for the proposed meetings of Commonwealth and Stale Ministers dealing with fauna conservation.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

As a preface to answering the specific questions asked,I make the following points:

In 1933, Macquarie Island was declared a sanctuary in accordance with the Tasmanian Animal and Birds Protection Act.

Since 1948, a permanent Commonwealth station of the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition (ANARE) has been occupied continuously on the Island. The ANARE parlies on the Island engage in scientific studies in fields such as Meteorology, Upper Atmosphere Physics, Earth Sciences and Biology.

The Commonwealth co-operates closely with the State of Tasmania on the protection of fauna on the Island and the Officer-in-Charge of the ANARE parties is appointed an Honorary Ranger by the Tasmanian Government Animals and Birds Protection Board.

The following are the answers to the specific questions asked:

Available records show that the Commonwealth last wrote to the Government of Tasmania in 1919 suggesting that Macquarie Island be transferred to the Commonwealth. At that time the Commonwealth had in mind making the island a wildlife sanctuary.

Macquarie Island would be more likely to attract sealers than whalers. However, it is unlikely that sealers could operate on the Island for any length of time without detection by ANARE party members who move regularly over the Island. Enquiries have not been made into the ability of the Tasmanian Government to provide sea patrols in the area as the question of the need for such patrols has not arisen insofar as the Commonwealth is concerned.

In the course of intensive specific studies of the population dynamics of certain species (e.g. Fur Seals, Elephant Seals, Wandering Albatrosses, Royal Penguins and Giant Petrels) much information has been gathered on the numbers of some fauna and a reasonable knowledge of the state of fauna generally on the Island has been gained. These studies have been conducted by biologists of the Antarctic Division of my Department and other Commonwealth party members of ANARE since the ANARE station was established.

Until 1966, an officer of the CS1RO Division of Wildlife Research supervised the biological studies on Macquarie Island by my Department’s Antarctic Division. At that time the CSIRO supervisor concerned was seconded to the Adelaide University and he presently continues his involvement in this work from that post.

A member of the Tasmanian Government’s Animals and Birds Protection Board has made visits to the Island on several occasions in recent years.

Representatives of. the Tasmanian Department of Agriculture and the CSIRO Division of Animal Genetics have visited the Island with ANARE relief ships for several years to study the population and control of rabbits introduced by sealers in the last century.

Such a course of action would not be regarded as warranted by the Commonwealth.

page 735

QUESTION

WINE

(Question No. 573)

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

As an increased impost of 50 cents per gallon amounts to an increase of 33 per cent on the large volume of local wine selling at $1.50 per gallon and an increase of only 12½ per cent on imported wine selling at$4 per gallon, is an added impost of 50 cents per gallon not a discriminatory tax against local wine producers.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

The changes in duty on wine announced in the 1970-71 Budget Speech do not discriminate against local wine producers.

Prior to the introduction of an excise duty on wine, local producers were favoured by protective customs duties on imported wine, the most common rate of customs duty then being $1.20 per gallon. Higher rates of duty were applicable to some sparkling wines and wines with a high alcoholic content.

When announcing the introduction of an excise duty of SO cents per gallon of locally-produced wine, the Treasurer also stated that there would be a corresponding increase of 50 cents per gallon in customs duties on imported wine. The duty differential in favour of locally-produced wine has therefore, been maintained at the same level as existed prior to the introduction of an excise duty on locally-produced wine.

page 736

QUESTION

CIVIL AVIATION

(Question No. 632)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

What were the ‘miles flown’ by (a) Trans Australia Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines during 1967, 1968 and 1969.
What were the number of ‘passengers embarked’ by (a) Trans Australia Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines during 1967, 1968 and 1969.
What were the number of ‘short ton mites performed’ by (a) Trans Australia Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines during 1967. 1968 and 1969.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

page 736

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Does the Minister recalla matter which I raised at question time during the last session of the Parliament on behalf of Slovene migrants who had complained that erratic doctors in Zagreb who were supposed to examine migrants from other areas had tended to force Intending migrants to stay overnight and incur extra expense? If so, has the Minister been able to obtain a report from the Australian Embassy in Yugoslavia on the methods which have been practised?

The Minister for Immigration has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

A report has been received from Belgrade in this matter. The Yugoslav panel doctor appointed to examine migrants in Zagreb operates as a part of a clinic in which he is a specialist staff member. Normal clinic hours finish at 2 p.m. after which X-ray and other clinic facilities are not available. Migrants are asked to present themselves at 12 noon for examination. Only where migrants arrive too late for examination in clinic hours would they be obliged to stay overnight.

Some isolated instances may have occurred where due to misunderstanding a few migrants have had to stay overnight in Zagreb to attend for examination the following day, but I can assure the honourable senator that every effort is made to ensure that they are not required to do so unnecessarily.

The Commonwealth Medical Director in Yugoslavia recently made a survey of the Northern Republics and as a result it will now be possible for migrants in Slovenia to be medically examined at Maribor or Ljubljana as well as in Zagreb. This extended service will result in greater convenience and some reduction in casts for people living near these centres.

page 736

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

In view of the petition received by this Senate today requesting the pension to be readjusted to equal 30 per cent of the base wage rate, while pensioners retain the extra benefits now available to them, such as free medical service, free transport and other concessions for radio and television licences, telephone and so on, will the Minister obtain for the Senate an estimate of the value of these extra benefits so that a more realistic assessment of the actual value of the pension may be arrived at?

The Minister for Social Services has provided me with the following information:

Pensioners whose entitlement to pension did not arise solely as a result of the introduction of the taperedmeans test are entitled to each of the following benefits:

Free consultation from a general practitioner in the pensioner’s home or at the doctor’s surgery and free specialist treatment as an outpatient atany public hospital:

Free treatment in public wards of public hospitals together with all associated ancillary medical services:

Free pharmaceuticals.

The average value of these three benefits to a pensioner is $3.10 a week.

A J reduction in telephone rentals and concessional licence fees for radios ($1 instead of $6.50, or 70 cents instead of $3.30 in remote areas), television ($3 instead of $14) and combined radio-television ($4 instead of $20) is worth 17 cents a week on average to a pensioner;

Provision and maintenance of hearing aids at a hiring charge of $10 to those pensioners who would benefit;

The Commonwealth provides financial assistance to the Stales to encourage the provision of dwellings for aged pensioners.

The value of this assistance is 14 cents per head.

Stale and Commonwealth transport systems provide special fare concessions to pensioners though it is difficult to calculate the value of these important benefits;

Councils may defer or remit local rales of pensioners. Again, it is difficult to calculate the value of these concessions;

In certain States, additional cash assistance may be provided lo pensioners; medical, dental and optical facilities may be made available, legal aid and assistance with heating costs may be provided as may certain necessities such as blankets’ or clothing where need is demonstrated;

Certain voluntary bodies and private business organisations also make available goods and services to pensioners at reduced rates.

In addition to the benefits already mentioned, the following benefits are available to all pensioners, regardless of means:

A subsidy towards nursing home fees of $14 a week where light nursing is involved or $35 a week if intensive nursing is required. The average value of this benefit would be 80 cents weekly;

The Commonwealth also provides financial assistance to encourage the provision of nursing home beds, home nursing, home care, paramedical services and meals on wheels, the combined average value of these benefits would be some 6 cents a week;

A subsidy of $5 a week is paid to hostel-type non-profit institutions for each resident over 80 years of age. Average value per pensioner is 4 cents a week;

Housing benefits provided by way of the Aged Persons Homes Scheme and rental concessions for aged persons provided under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement are worth on average 47 cents a week;

Persons of age pension age receive certain taxation concessions. Single persons pay no tax if their taxable income is less than $1326 a year and reduced tax if it falls within the range of $t327 to $2273. The corresponding figures for a married couple where at least one is of pensionable age are $2314 a year and a range of $2315 to $4102. lt is not possible to calculate the value of these concessions.

In summary, those benefits which it has been possible to cost may be valued at $4.78 a week for the average pensioner. When account is taken of the other concessions mentioned but not costed, the value of fringe benefits is seen to be some S5 a week.

page 737

QUESTION

FROZEN VEGETABLES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– On 16 September 1970 Senator McManus asked me a question concerning standards for frozen vegetables. The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer:

Specific standards for frozen vegetables are not presently included in the Exports Regulations but for many years the Exports (Canned and Frozen Fruits) Regulations have prescribed general minimum standards applicable lo frozen vegetables for export. For example, it is required that premises in which frozen vegetables for export are prepared should be registered. A requirement of registration is that the establishment be maintained and operated at a satisfactory level of hygiene and be adequately equipped for the processes involved. The Regulations also prohibit the export of frozen vegetables unless they have been prepared under supervision of an officer of the Commonwealth Export Inspection Service. lt has been the general policy lo include specific product standards in the Exports Regulations only when there is evidence of a need for such standards and, to date, the outturn performance of Australian frozen vegetables overseas certainly has not provided cause for concern. However, should exporters of frozen vegetables consider that the lime has arrived when it is necessary to prescribe product standards for frozen vegetables, officers of my Department would bc very ready to discuss wilh them the development of such standards.

page 737

OFFICERS OF THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– I desire to inform the Senate that consequent upon a reorganisation of Senate staff Mr A. R. Cumming Thom has been appointed to a new position of Clerk Assistant. Mr H. C. Nicholls has been appointed to the position of Principal Parliamentary Officer, previously occupied by Mr Cumming Thom. Mr H. G. Smith has been appointed to the office of Usher of the Black Rod.

page 737

COMMONWEALTH BANK REPORTS

The PRESIDENT:

– I lay on the table annual reports and financial statements of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia, the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia and the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia together with the Auditor-General’s report thereon for the year 1969-70.

page 738

DEFENCE REPORT

page 738

SOCIAL SERVICES ACT

page 738

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

page 738

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Education and Science for the year ended December 1969.

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator Dame IVY WEDGWOOD:

–

This report relates to the Treasury Minutes on your Committee’s Eighty-fifth and Eighty-sixth Reports concerning automatic data processing. From its examination of the treasury minutes relating to these reports and which are now brought before you, your Eighth Committee is pleased to note the general acceptance by the departments and authorities concerned, of the conclusions and recommendations made in this important area of administration. We note that progress has been made and is still being made in the relevant areas of education to improve staffing.

We also note with satisfaction the acceptance of the criteria outlined in our Eighty-fifth Report by which computer installations may be justified and their efficient usage measured. Additionally, exploratory and feasibility studies have been carried out in connection with all proposed Commonwealth computer installations. Your Committee is further pleased to note that a Treasury representative, in addition to the Commonwealth Statistician, now attends all meetings of the Interdepartmental Committee on Automatic Data Processing and that progress has been made in amending the Audit Act and Treasury Regulations to remove legal impediments to the efficient introduction and operation of automatic data processing systems.

During the inquiry evidence was tended relative to the important question of conducting studies relating to the costs of installing and operating automatic data processing systems in the Commonwealth Public Service and it is pleasing to learn from the treasury minute that cost-benefit relationships and general progress are now assessed periodically by departmental management. Furthermore, the Interdepartmental Committee on Automatic Data Processing conducts additional examinations in these fields when considering departmental proposals. I commend the Report to honourable senators and move:

That the report be printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 739

ENGINEERING SERVICES DISTRICT OF DRIPSTONE, DARWIN, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator DITTMER:
Queensland

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Engineering Services, District of Dripstone at Darwin, Northern Territory.

page 739

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– On 25th August Senator Greenwood asked me how many men had refused to comply with call-up notices given under the National Service

Act and what the Government intended with regard to their prosecution. The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Since the inception of national service in 1965, less than 0.2 per cent of the men liable to render service have failed to undertake service when required to do so. All cases of apparent default and failure to comply with the requirements of the Act are investigated and, depending on the outcome of that investigation, prosecution proceeds. Action had been stayed pending consideration of a civilian alternative but following Cabinet’s inability to find an alternative which it considered both equitable and practicable, I announced that Cabinet had decided that the present law must be enforced. Action is now in train in relevant cases.

page 739

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That, in accordance with the provisionsof the Public Works Committee Act 1969, leave be granted to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works to meet during sittings of the Senate until and including 16 October 1970.

page 739

REPATRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill ion motion by Senator DrakeBrockman) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– I move:

The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Government’s Budget proposals in the repatriation war compensation field. This Bill now before the Senate provides for higher war compensation payments by way of increases in the rates of pension for totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen and those ex-servicemen who, because of the severity of their war caused disabilities, receive payments equal to the TPI rate, namely, the war-blinded, those temporarily totally incapacitated, those receiving the special rate of war pension for tuberculosis, and the severely incapacitated double amputees who receive additional amounts under the Fifth Schedule. It provides also for increases in the intermediate rate payable to those whose incapacity allows them to work only part time or intermittently. There are also increases in payments to war widows and war orphans and in the special compensation allowance. In addition, the Bill makes essential changes which will enable additional Repatriation Boards to be appointed by the Governor-General where this is thought necessary.

I shall proceed now to explain in more detail the changes proposed. The rates for which increases are proposed in this Bil are to be found in the Schedules to the Repatriation Act. Although they are expressed in the Act as fortnightly amounts, it has long been the custom for honourable senators to refer to the weekly amounts payable and therefore I propose to follow this practice. The Bill provides for amendment to the Second Schedule to the Repatriation Act to give effect to an increase of $2 per week for the special TPI rate of pension which is payable to those people whose war-caused incapacities prevent them from earning more than a negligible percentage of a living wage, and to the war-blinded. The increase will apply also to ex-servicemen who are temporarily totally incapacitated and certain sufferers from tuberculosis. The new rate payable will be $38 per week.

In accordance with the usual practice, the amounts payable under the first 6 items of the Fifth Schedule to the Act for serious amputations and loss of an eye are also being increased by $2 per week so that the total amount payable to pensioners with those disabilities will continue to equal the TPI rate of pension although they may be able to work. This figure is arrived at by adding these amounts to the 100 per cent general rate war pension which these seriously disabled exservicemen receive. The intermediate rate payable under the First Schedule to those who, because of war-caused incapacity, can work only part time or intermittently and are thereby unable to earn a living wage, will be increased by $1.50 per week. The new rate will be $28 per week.

The Sixth Schedule is to be amended to provide an increase in the special compensation allowance. This allowance is payable as additional compensation to those seriously disabled ex-servicemen whose actual incapacity is assessed at from 75 per cent to 100 per cent of the general rate. The increase will be $1 per week at the 100 per cent rate scaling down to 75c per week at the 75 per cent rate. The new rate of allowance will range from $6 per week for those whose actual incapacity is assessed at 100 per cent to $4.50 for those so assessed at 75 per cent. Increases in rates payable to war widows and war orphans are also proposed. For war widows, the Bill amends the First Schedule to the Act to provide for an increase of 50c per week in the war widow’s pension.

The Third Schedule will be amended to provide increases of 60c per week for the first child of an ex-serviceman, who dies from war causes, and 75c for the second and subsequent children. For a double orphan, that is a child who has also lost the other parent, the increase will be $1.85 per week. The new weekly war pension rales will be as follows:

I turn now to the amendments in relation to repatriation boards to which I made earlier reference. A repatriation board, as honourable senators will know, is the first of the independent determining authorities to consider claims for repatriation pensions and associated benefits and is responsible for the reassessment of pensions as the occasion requires. The boards are appointed by the Governor-General and are comprised of a chairman and 2 other members, 1 of whom is selected from lists of names submitted by ex-service organisations. There is .1 board in each State, some of which, depending upon their workloads, operate on a part-time basis only. The volume of work submitted to the Repatriation Board in New South Wales last year pointed up the urgent need to appoint a second board in that State if cases are to be dealt with in the way intended by the Repatriation Act. Similar pressures in other States have been met by extending the periods of sitting of the boards all of which had been operating on less than a full-time basis. The Act as it now stands permits the appointment of 1 board only in each State.

The amendment I am proposing will provide the necessary power to appoint additional boards if and where required. The Bill also appropriates the Consolidated

Revenue Fund to the extent necessary to provide during the current year the additional benefits to which the Bill gives effect. All of the foregoing amendments will come into force on the date on which the amending Act receives the royal assent and the pension increases will be paid on and from the first pension pay day thereafter. A table which sets out in full the repatriation Budget details including those covered by this Bill has been prepared. It is available for information and, for convenience, has been attached to copies of this speech which are being circulated. The measures I have outlined represent further significant advances in the repatriation war pensions area and I commend the Bill to the Senate!

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 741

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill before the Senate is in accordance with the usual practice of the Government to keep the rates of pensions and allowances payable to seamen war pensioners under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act in line with the similar rates payable to other war pensioners under the Repatriation Act. The purpose of the Bill is to increase, in relation to seamen, the various rates of pension as announced by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr Bury) in his Budget speech, and being put into effect by the current Repatriation Bill.

Paragraph (a) of clause 3 of the Bill increases the ‘intermediate’ rate of war pension by S3 per fortnight to $56. The intermediate’ pension is paid to seriously disabled persons whose war caused incapacities render them incapable of working other than on a part time or intermittent basis. Paragraph (b) of that clause pro vides, in respect of children whose father, having been an Australian mariner coming under the Act, is dead, for an increase of $1.20 in the fortnightly rate of pension for the first child, making the rate $12 for that child, and for an increase of $1.50 to the rate of $10 for each other child. Paragraph (c) of the clause provides for an increase of $3.70 in the fortnightly rate of pension payable for each child where the mother also is dead - the ‘double orphan’ - bringing that rate up to $24.

Under clause 4 the maximum rate of the special compensation allowance, provided for those general rate pensioners who, although able to work, are nevertheless seriously incapacitated by war caused disability, is increased by $2 to $12 per fortnight for the 100 per cent rate pensioner. Under section 22 B (2.) of the Act the new rates will scale down proportionately to $9 per fortnight for the 75 per cent pensioner. Clause 5 of the Bill substitutes a new First Schedule to the Act to provide for an increase of $1 in the fortnightly rate of pension payable to widows of Australian mariners, the maximum rate thus becoming $34.60.

The Bill does not have to provide for the increase of $4 to $76 per fortnight in the rate of total and permanent incapacity or TPI pension or for the increase of $4 in the fortnightly amounts payable in respect of certain disabilities described in the Fifth Schedule to the Repatriation Act, as the increase rates under that Act will apply automatically to seamen pensioners by virtue of section 22A of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act. The increases in pensions and benefits will, as usual, be payable on the first pension pay day after the date on which the Act receives the royal assent. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

page 741

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL (No. 2) 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 715), on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator FITZGERALD:
New South Wales

– Let me say at the outset that Australians are disgusted with the miserable and paltry 50c a week that is granted under this Budget to the pensioners - those pioneers who are now our aged and infirm - and also with the same miserable sum that is given to widow pensioners, particularly in view of the fact that the Treasurer (Mr Bury), in the Budget Speech that he made in this Parliament on 18th August last, drew attention to the question of further inflationary trends. He said:

Cost and price increases gathered pace. Average weekly earnings rose by about 8 per cent in 1969-70. The consumer price index rose at an accelerating rate throughout the year, reaching an annual rate of growth above 5 per cent in the June quarter.

I have much pleasure in moving, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of this Bill:

At end of motion add: ‘but the Senate is of opinion that -

the increases proposed are inadequate;

social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living;

steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty; and

a contributory national superannuation system should be established and the means test eliminated.’

The 1969-70 annual report of the Department of Social Services shows that at 30th June last there were just on 1 million pensioners throughout the Commonwealth. There were 779,007 age pensioners, 133,766 invalid pensioners and 86,921 widow pensioners. No doubt the number would be in excess of 1 million by now.

The Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin), who represents the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth), said in introducing this Bill:

This Bill does two things:

It increases the base rate of pensions, both standard and married and all widows, by 50c per week.

It introduces a long term sickness benefit, at a higher rate than the old scale.

The long term sickness benefit applies after benefit has been in force continuously for a period of 6 weeks. Since the announcement of the changes in social service benefits proposed in the Budget, the 50c a week increase has been condemned strongly by every section of the community. Trade unions have protested. We know the extremes and the extent to which they went about their protests. Pensioner organisations have inundated members of Parliament with complaints. They have written to the Press about their feelings in relation to the increase. The President of the Commonwealth Pensioners Federation, Mrs Irene Ellis, said:

The 50c would be laughable if it were not so serious for pensioners. ‘

The Press had its say in condemnation of the 50c a week increase to pensioners. The Sydney ‘Sun’ said:

Tt is disgusting.

The ‘Mirror’, in its editorial, said:

The 50c a week rise in most pensions is most deplorable.

The Treasurer should not be too surprised to find a host of angry pensioners descending on Canberra. He will find they have come to seize Bury, not to praise him.

That such a paltry increase was conceived by any government is a complete disgrace to this so-called affluent society. Our leader, Mr Whitlam, when addressing a recent trade union meeting, said:

This is the first time in 40 years that a government has made the sick and the aged pay for its economic policy, for our war in Vietnam and for other dubious commitments.

I adopt that with all the sincerity I can muster because of the number of dubious commitments in which the Government is involved. The waste of public money which I think people reading the AuditorGeneral’s Report would find justifies my making the statements I do. An additional 50c a week would have cost approximately $30m extra. This money would have been available if no taxation cuts had been made for those earning $16,000 a year or more. Any amount can be found for war, but little can be found for the needy. To illustrate the cost to Australia of the war and the cost of the taxation cuts and to justify the statements I have made about the needy paying for the economic conditions in which we live at present, I remind honourable senators that in 1963 the tax on the average income was 7.6 per cent of the average weekly wage. In 1969 the tax on the average income was 13.1 per cent of the wage paid.

While Australia ranks among the top 5 nations of the world, I million people are living in poverty or in marginal poverty. A recent Melbourne survey by the Brotherhood of St Lawrence showed that one person out of every 5 of the city’s age pensioners, one out of every 4 of its large families, one out of every 3 of its widows, deserted wives or divorcees and the vast majority of our Aboriginals were living in poverty. This result could be substantiated by organisations such as St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army. They know of the poverty and the dire circumstances in which these people are living. As Secretary of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party for a number of years and as Private Secretary to the late Dr Evatt and to MiArthur Calwell, I have met many pensioners here and in Sydney and have heard in my office in this Parliament House and in my Sydney office the pitiful stories told by such people about how they survive. Those who come here as representatives of pensioner organisations have spoken of pensioners having t decent meal a day. On the pensions they receive they can buy 1 suit from a second hand jumble stall each 2 or 3 years. I recall and remember vividly the words of Henry Lawson. Those words are not very far removed from the present circumstances so far as these I million people are concerned. Lawson’s words were:

I wonder would the apathy of wealthy men endure (f their windowsills were level with tbe faces of the poor.

Oh mammon slaves your knees shall knock, your hearts in terror beat, When Cod demands a reason for the faces in the street.

I believe that members of the Commonwealth Parliament who are living in some degree of affluence and of luxury ought to remind themselves of the situation that confronts these unfortunate people. The great tragedy is that of the widow with children. She has to feed and clothe them. Under present conditions how can these children ever rise above the poverty line? The number of A class widows in 1969 totalled 44,000. The number of dependent children totalled 43,904. Those figures are taken from the latest report of the Commonwealth Department of Social Services. These unfortunate children are condemned to face problems of hardship throughout their lives. The means test should not be applied to the widows pension now. The Government should not talk about what it will do in the future. Right now the means test should not be applied to widows with children. I am not including or discussing war widows. I believe that a war widow is receiving not a pension but a compensation for the loss of her husband who died in defence of his country. I make a plea on behalf of the children of widows. Widows will receive an extra 50c a week under this Bill, but they ought to receive much more if they hope to have the right to live a decent life in our society. I make this plea because I have heard it said that the Government hopes to do something further to help pensioners, perhaps before the next Budget. I read in the Press recently about a conference of the Liberal Party in Sydney. The conference was pressing for greater benefits for these people.

The Government loves to compare past and present values and the percentages of 1949 and of 1970. It has made many attempts and gone through many extremes to do so. It forgets to tell us of the great industrial advances that have been made in the last 20-odd years, of the great mineral finds in this country, the greatest bonanza in the history of Australia for the big companies. It never tells of the huge inflation, but those on the bread line know just exactly what this inflation means. The June figures released by the Commonwealth Statistician show that the basic rate of pay is $36.90 a week but that the average rate of earnings is $77.80 a week. I know the Government likes to talk about the great prosperity that exists in this country, but f believe that it should realise that $77.80 is the average weekly earnings. That figure has been culled from the Commonwealth Statistician’s latest journal which he has submitted to Parliament.

Pensioners pay for bread, butter, cigarettes, shoes and clothing, if they can afford them, the same prices as those in receipt of the average wage; they do not pay less. When we talk about the amounts paid to age pensioners and what they are receiving, we have to compare those amounts with what other individuals are receiving. In the Government’s attempt to justify this miserable pittance it has gone to extravagant extremes to compare present rates with those applicable over 20 years ago. Surely with the great period of development since the Second World War and in this great era when wealth and production have increased at a tremendous rate it would be stupid to try to compare present rates with those existing almost a quarter of a century ago. In spite of this great advancement, in spite of the great profits made by industries - and they are quoted and specified day by day in the Press - such as Mt Isa Mines Ltd and the Broken Hill Pty Company Limited, in spite of. the bulk of the great mineral discoveries which I have mentioned and in spite of the profits made by large retail stores, we have many people in need. What is the plight of those in need? They alone know. In 1949 the Budget of the Chifley Government provided for expenditure of about $l,000m. The present Budget provides for expenditure of almost $8,000m, a sevenfold increase. One must consider those figures in making a comparison in percentages of the pensions paid in 1949 and now. In 1948 the basic rate of pension was 27 per cent of the average basic wage. The pension paid today to a married pensioner represents 19.3 per cent of the average weekly wage. Surely no honourable senator would attempt to justify the miserable pittance paid to pensioners today.

The Minister has made no comparison of the other social service payments paid in past years and now. The maternity allowance has remained unaltered since 1947 despite tremendous changes in hospital and medical costs and the excessive increase in the cost of rearing youngsters. Child endowment paid for the first child has not been altered for 20 years and remains at 50c a week. To provide for a baby the food and care recommended by baby health centres costs about $4 a week. It is true that there have been some increases in social service benefits, but since 1950 child endowment for the second child has remained at Si a week. In 1964 a change was made for third and subsequent children, and in 1967 for fourth and subsequent children. No comparison has been made to include the adjustments that should properly have been made to those rates.

The funeral benefit paid in respect of pensioners has remained unaltered since ils introduction in 1943. lt has remained at $20, except in the case of a surviving pensioner partner, who receives an extra $20. That total sum would not meet half the cost of a coffin. The present Minister for Social Services ranted and raved as a back bencher about what he would do to change the means test provisions, but nothing has been done in that direction. Government supporters make a great cry about the tapered means test, but the base rate of pension remains well below the percentage of the basic wage that was paid to pensioners in 1949.

What would Labor do if it achieved office? How would Labor finance the proposals we are talking about at the moment? I have mentioned to honourable senators exactly what Labor would do and what should be done in the present situation. Had taxation concessions not been extended to people in receipt of an annual income of over $16,000 the Government would have been able to provide an additional 50c a week for pensioners. That may have had some value for them. Members of the Labor Party have said in speeches in this Parliament, both here and in the other place, that Labor would introduce a capital gains tax and would make a significant increase in company taxes, with the proviso that in conjunction with the States a system of prices and profit restraint would be introduced. Higher income tax would be paid by people with annual incomes exceeding $20,000. Labor would institute positive and proper economies in government and public spending, including a review of subsidies and money and other considerations now being accorded to privileged groups. Labor would also tighten controls on overseas investment in Australia and the transfer of profits abroad which takes place to the very great detriment of this country.

I am tired of hearing comparisons of pensions paid by Labor as a percentage of the basic wage. I have no doubt that we will hear of what Labor did in the great depression of 1930. I would like to put the record straight. At that time the Scullin Government was forced to reduce pensions by 2s 6d a week, which caused a great division in the ranks of the Labor Party. This chamber played a dastardly and cowardly role in denying to the Labor Government the right to govern. It refused that Government the passage of legislation to provide finance to feed the people during the depression. Theodore’s fiduciary issue of £21m was held up by the Senate. It is no wonder that the abolition of the Senate, the last bastion of big business, is still part of the Labor Party’s platform. Honourable senators opposite have a chance to justify the existence of the Senate to the people who are affected by the Budget and who remember the role of the Senate in the events of 1929-30. The Scullin Government was defeated in the election which followed. Whilst the Scullin Government was forced to reduce pensions by 2s 6d a week in that awful period the Lyons Government which succeeded it in office - and that Government is endorsed by Government supporters today- on taking office reduced pensions by a further 2s 6d a week, and introduced a harsher means test. The pension at that time was 15s a week.

Some honourable senators may regard the history I am detailing as superfluous, but my point is to state exactly where Labor stands on these issues and what Labor has done in this field. This point has been raised in debates in another place. Let us face the facts. Labor has governed in the Federal sphere for 144 years out of the last 70 years and has been out of office for the past 21 years. The present Government has been in office for the last 21 years and in that time in the Meld of social services it has provided only a few additional fringe benefits. T am not deriding those benefits. Everyone was pleased to obtain them.

Labor has been responsible for the introduction of ever)’ major social service benefit either by direct legislation or by lending support to a government which sought that support as the price of remaining in office. In 1901 Sir John See led the Government of New South Wales, while Labor held the balance of power. His Government introduced the age pension. In 1909 the Deakin Government introduced the age pension in the Federal sphere because of the support of Labor, which held the balance of power. On previous occasions 1 have said in this Parliament that as a former Secretary of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party I have read the letters forwarded in 1909 by Alfred Deakin, then Prime Minister of the Commonwealth, to Mr J. C. Watson, Federal Leader of the Labor Party, pledging the introduction of the age pension for the support of the Labor Party which at that time had the balance of power. In 1901 and 1909, in the New South Wales and Common wealth governments Labor held the balance of power and used it to ensure the introduction of the age pension.

In 1910 the Fisher Labor Government introduced the invalid pension. Child endowment was introduced in 1927 by the Lang Labor Government of New South Wales. The payment was 5s a week for each child. That is the amount paid today by the Commonwealth Government for the first child. In 1945 and 1948 the Curtin and Chifley Labor Governments instituted payment of 10s a week for children after the first child. In 1950 the Menzies Government introduced child endowment for the first child. The maternity allowance was introduced by the Fisher Labor Government in 1912. The unemployment and sickness benefit was introduced by the Curtin Labor Government in 1945. The widows pension was introduced by the Lang Labor Government of New South Wales in 1927. It was introduced in the Commonwealth field by the Curtin Labor Government in 1942. It was adjusted by the Menzies Government in 1963 and certain adjustments have been made since. The funeral benefit and the rehabilitation service were also introduced by the Curtin Government in 1941. If it had not been for the Labor Party it is quite probable that no social services legislation would have been introduced in the Commonwealth Parliament. Social services first came constitutionally within the sphere of the Commonwealth as a result of a referendum in 1946 when the Chifley Government was in office. The social services referendum was carried by 2,297,934 votes to 1,927,148. While it could be argued that the Opposition of the day did not oppose the extension of social service benefits, the facts are that nearly 2 million people voted against the proposals which were put forward by the Labor Government.

The Government’s so-called concern for pensioners is only a vote catching gimmick. At heart it is really opposed to the pay-( ment of pensions. The Government believes that those who are in need should be cared for by their families. Supporters of the Government- even its Ministers - are on record as having made these statements. Hugh Roberton, a former Minister for Social Services, and other Ministers have made very pronounced statements on this important subject. It is understandable that the Government opposes the payment of pensions because, as has been said so many times by honourable senators on this side of the chamber, it represents the wealthy section of our society. The Australian Labor Party, which came info being just on 90 years ago, has had as one of the foremost planks of its platform the provision of proper care and assistance to those in need. I repeat that an estimated one million people in Australia are on the poverty line. The word ‘pension’ almost spells out poverty. This will always be the situation while the present Government remains in office. The only way pensioners can and will improve their lot in life is to organise themselves into one powerful body to demand their rights. Whilst this nonsense of regarding pension payments as a non-political matter is accepted the pensioners will continue to get miserable handouts in each budget.

As J have pointed out it was the Chifley Government which in 1946 held a referendum to determine whether the Commonwealth Parliament should have power to enter the field of social services. The people of Australia should never forget that when John Curtin defeated the Fadden Government in 1941 and came into power he was concerned not only with the war effort but also with the unequal distribution of the national wealth, which caused him on 1st October 1941, in protest against the methods provided in the Budget for the raising of revenue, to move that the first item in the Estimates be reduced by £1. He gave his reasons for doing so as being as follows:

That, while agreeing that the expenditure requisite for a maximum prosecution of the war should be provided by Parliament, the Committee is opposed to the unjust methods prescribed by the Budget, declares that they are contrary to true equality of sacrifice, and directs that the plan of the Budget should be recast to ensure a more equitable distribution of the national burden.

John Curtin said that the Labor Party would, on assuming office, raise age and invalid pensions to at least 22s 6d a week and that it would at once ascertain how it could go beyond that figure. This was the situation when the Labor Party came into office. I know that some honourable senators will raise the question of how the Curtin Government reduced pensions by ls but they conveniently forget that this ls reduction in pensions was as a result of a reduction in the basic wage, and that the pension was readjusted within days. I do believe that the pensioners of today realise that a great error was made when a break was made in the tying of the pension to the basic wage. I support the return of this concept. I hope to see the day when pensioners will be able to live in comfort.

The Australian Labor Party’s proposal to bring an end to poverty was outlined by its Leader in his policy speech during the last election campaign. He said:

I pledge the Labor Party … to an Australian assistance plan designed to help Australia’s 1 million poor permanently out of poverty; to abolition of the means test over fi years; to a national superannuation scheme, embracing the retired, the widowed and the invalid; to automatic annual pension increases . . .

All honourable senators on this side of the chamber are pledged to support these proposals. The election of a Labor government will ensure the introduction of a contributory national superannuation system and the elimination of the means lest, as is proposed in my amendment. At its recent Federal conference the Australian Labor Party adopted a new national health and national superannuation scheme, involving abolition of the means test on age pensions, to put to the people of Australia at the next Federal elections. The national health scheme will provide free hospital treatment and medical, dental and chemist services based on a specified social services contribution, lt will be free of a means test. T ask honourable senators to study the national superannuation proposals of Professor Downing. They are very close to the views which Labor spokesmen hold on this question. In the interests of those in need and all Australians generally I ask the Senate to support the amendment which I have proposed.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Lawrie) - Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I have just proved that they are being looked after. We hope they will get more, but their purchasing power has been restored. What is forgotten is that over and above the $15.50 which the pensioner now gets are all the fringe benefits which have a very real value. The other day I asked a question of the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) who represents the Minister for Social Services in this House in order to ascertain whether the value per week of the fringe benefits could be estimated. An answer has been supplied to that question. I might mention some of these fringe benefits because they are forgotten when one. says that people are expected to live on $15.50, which they are not. Pensioners are entitled to free consultation from a general practitioner either at the doctor’s surgery or in the pensioner’s home, and free specialist treatment as an out-patient at any public hospital. They are entitled to free treatment in public wards of public hospitals together with all associated ancillary medical services. They are also entitled to free pharmaceutical benefits. The value of these benefits can be estimated at S3. 10 a week. However, there are more benefits available to them.

– The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Willesee) has just drawn my attention to a cartoon which appeared in this afternoon’s ‘Herald’. I am sure that Senator Buttfield will be interested in this. It mentions that the price of frozen food* has increased by 100 per cent and it shows 2 age pensioners examining the food bowl in a supermarket and saying: ‘This freezes our 50c increase’. That is very appropriate.

The amendment which has been moved by my colleague Senator Fitzgerald on behalf of the Opposition is quite specific, particularly in the first line which points out that the increases proposed are inadequate.

Before moving on I want to make some reference to the speech that has just been made by Senator Buttfield. I am not quite sure where she obtained the figures that she mentioned, but I shall be quoting some in a moment which will discount completely anything that she has said. The honourable senator said that this country is bursting with sympathy for the pensioners. Although we cannot give them any money, we have oodles of sympathy for them. As I listened to here I imagined the pensioners having a meal of sympathy. No doubt they would have salt and sympathy for breakfast, perhaps pepper and sympathy for lunch and then a sympathy stew for dinner. I imagined them being clothed in sympathy. I imagined Senator Buttfield’s arms around some old pensioner as she said: ‘1 am sorry that you cannot buy clothes, but I can give you the warmth of my arms for sympathy.’ I can imagine that same pensioner going to bed at night, groping for blankets but finding none, and remembering Senator Buttfield’s kind words. He would say to himself: ‘I shall not be cold tonight because 1 have Senator Buttfield’s sympathy.’ I can imagine that same pensioner becoming ill, being unable to buy a proprietary line of medicine because he cannot afford it and being unable to get any of the so-called free medicine, and taking a large measure of sympathy for medicine. If he wants to travel to pick up his weekly groceries, I can imagine him saying to a bus driver: T am sorry that I have no money to pay the fare; see Senator Buttfield as she dispenses sympathy. That will pay the transport fee.’

I shall not use the word hypocrisy because I do not think Senator Buttfield would indulge in that, but honestly I cannot understand her statement that no pensioner in this country today is in need. This statement is not true. Every pensioner in Australia today needs something. We have been told that 40c per week is the allocation per capita to provide housing for pensioners, if they need it. There are hundreds of thousands of pensioners today living in sub-standard rooms, sub-standard dwellings and in all sorts of sub-standard conditions because they cannot afford anything else. Anyone who visits the sandhills of Charleville will find a number of pensioners there living in the most squalid conditions imaginable, yet $20,000 or $30,000 would house these people. The honourable senator’s mention of fringe benefits reminds me of the people who are the fringe dwellers of Queensland, the Aboriginals who cannot afford anything better and the pensioners. On the outskirts of almost every country town can be found these underprivileged people living in conditions which honourable senators opposite ought to be ashamed of, even if they are not.

The pension is being increased by 50c per week. This is a matter which has been ski ted about by the Government. The Treasurer (Mr Bury) in making his famous pronouncement on behalf of the Government told the pensioner population of this country how well off they were already and how fantastically well off they will be with an increase of 50c per week. That amount would not buy one pound of butter. Thousands of pensioners today never see a pound of butter because they cannot afford it. The 50c is not going to buy them a second pound of butter. Whatever small pleasures they may have in life the 50c will barely buy one packet of cigarettes and enough matches to light them. 1 could go on indefinitely showing what this fantastic sum of 50c is supposed to purchase. In the Government publication ‘Australian Economy 1970’ the final paragraph states:

Here, however, in the external aspect of our economic affairs the question again arises - can the increase of home demand be kept to a level sufficient to evoke the full possibilities of real growth which our available resources will permit without running beyond this to cumulative excess? Our forward external prospects show a basic promise of continuing strength such as Australia has not known for many years past. Tin’s promise could be dissipated if. responding to needlessly expansive demand, imports rose disproportionately while cost increases further depressed the older export industries and weakened the current advantages of the newer industries. It is a problem for government policy but, within the framework of such policy, the outcome will be determined by judgments formed, decisions made and initiatives taken at innumerable points throughout the community.

What has happened in relation to the pensioners of this country is that the Treasurer has been guided by his own Department’s handbook. He has decided to hoe into the pensioners first. This is the first place where the Government decided it was going to clamp down in relation to the Budget. Obviously many thousands of people are going to suffer as a result. I must draw the attention of the Senate to another .document entitled ‘Additional Information, Age and Invalid Pensions’. I refer honourable senators to the page which lists the achievements of the Liberal-Country Party Government since 1951. Of course this is a political document produced with Australian taxpayers’ funds to put forward the policies of the Liberal-Country Party Government. In documents of this nature one normally sees no mention of the political party which publishes them. But so far as the pensioners are concerned the Government has decided to use this document as blatant political propaganda. It has misused the taxpayers’ funds to carry out this purpose. Probably the position would not be so bad if the truth were told about the limitations of the alleged benefits. I suppose these are the fringe benefits to which my honourable opponent on the Government benches. Senator Buttfield, referred a few moments ago.

In 1951 the Liberal-Country Party Government made medical benefits available for pensioners, gave aged persons income tax concessions and granted pharmaceutical benefits for pensioners. If one looks at any one of these 3 fields one will find that, in fact, these concessions are not as good as the bald statement printed in this document would suggest. In 1954 the aged persons homes scheme was brought forward. Is this what Senator Buttfield referred to when she was questioned by way of interjection? She became very dull or very dumb, I am not sure which. Certainly she was not informed on what she was talking about. She was able to say that every pensioner in Australia is entitled to 40c per capita for housing. The Australian Labor Party would like to know how this is paid. No doubt the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), now that he has been involved by Senator Buttfield, will make one of his television statements on the matter.

In 1956 television licence concessions for pensioners and additional pensions for second and subsequent children were introduced. If a widow pensioner has a son or daughter over the age of 16 living with her and that child happens to be an apprentice or earning a small wage that concession is no longer available. That is my understanding, gained from the complaint of somebody who has been to the Department of Social Services and been told this story. The home nursing subsidy has to be seen to be believed. It was instituted in 1957. In 1958 this Government of great sympathy introduced supplementary assistance for pensioners. Today thousands of pensioners throughout this country are not able to exist, even on the base pension, without supplementary assistance being made available. In 1963 the nursing home benefits were introduced. In 1964 telephone rental concessions were made available for pensioners. The same principle applies to that as to the television licence.

In 1965 the Government introduced the fantastic guardian’s allowance for pensioners with children. In 1968 the hearing aid service and the special temporary allowance were introduced. In 1969 the subsidy for dwellings for aged persons, the personal care subsidy for age pensioners and the home care and paramedical services were introduced. In this year of grace 1970 the achievement of this Government is the Meals on Wheels subsidy which is 10c per meal. One pork pie could be purchased with that 10c which is made available.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Fair gol It would purchase only half a pie.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I am informed that I am a little out in regard to the price of pies. I am told that 10c would buy only half a pie. ff a pensioner can live for a day on the fantastic subsidy the Government has granted he is really good. There are many areas of social service. In the not too distant past the Government decided it would make certain funds available for the retraining of deserted wives and widows. I do not know whether anybody has ever exercised supervision over any of these retraining schools. That remark does not apply only to New South Wales and Queensland. Some private teaching firms are making a fortune out of this government subsidy and not training anybody. If they are training people they are training them quite inadequately. I suggest that the Department of Social Services is relieving its mind or its conscience with the thought that it is helping these people so that they can obtain a job in some other avenue of society. But the expenditure of the money is not being supervised. The Government does not care because it has relieved that tiny one square inch of its conscience.

In the typing schools - 1 am speaking generally now because evidence has come to me from more than one quarter - apart from the lack of supervision, no real attempt is made to teach on an individual basis. Women, who probably have reached the age of 35 or 40 and who perhaps worked at clerical jobs in their teens or early twenties may not be able to continue at work because of the demands of child rearing. Subsequently when they find themselves widowed or deserted they take part in this so-called fantastic scheme of the Government because they hope they can qualify or retrain to fulfil a reasonable role in society and obtain something better than the miserly handout that is given to young women in these circumstances. A moment ago I mentioned that no individual supervision was given. If honourable senators would care to look at some of the classrooms they would find them grossly overcrowded, particularly in the typing schools. Speed typists are mixed in with the beginners. Only piecemeal training is provided in the use of the typewriter. Somebody from one of the Sydney classes told me that they were asked to draw up a trial balance. One of the lasses innocently asked: ‘Who is on trial?’. She had no clue as to bookkeeping procedures and did not know what was meant. She had never been told by the teacher who was drawing the subsidy from the Government.

A deserted wife or a wife who receives a pension while her husband is in detention is immediately deprived of any training when the marriage again reaches some sort of normality. She is taken away from the class. Who else but a stupid department operating under a stupid government would adopt this attitude? If a woman is three-quarters of the way through the course - whether she is doing bookkeeping, typing, shorthand or whatever it may be - and there is no stability so far as her husband is concerned, would it not be more economical to let that woman finish the course than arbitrarily to drag her away from it and say: ‘Your place is now back in the home’? But there are people who are much more dazzled and confused than 1 am by the activities of this Government. The previous speaker Senator Buttfield, conveyed the impression: Look how lucky the age pensioners are in Australia - they do not pay income tax whereas they do pay it in other countries.’ Goodness gracious, the level of pensions in all fields, including repatriation, is so low thai the country would have to be on its bended knees with an unemployment rate of 75 per cent before it could tax a pension.

The backlash of all this is that the taxpayer can claim allowances for children attending school - for uniforms, costs of transport and so on. He is entitled to allowances. But what happens to the widows and the deserted wives? They get none of these refunds from taxation because, as my worthy opponent said, they do not pay tax. The cost of keeping the child of a widow or a deserted wife at school is just as great as the cost of keeping the child of a politician or any other member of the community. I want to cite a few figures to emphasise what I say. These figures relate to a child attending a state high school in Queensland. The total cost for the year of outfitting thai youngster is $111.01. In addition to mat there is the cost of school entry fees, manual training material and so on - I will itemise these things in a moment - which amounts to $100.35. This child also required some private tutoring which cost $3.50 per hour. There is no tax refund for pensioners in relation to this. For a younger child in the same family kindergarten fees for the year amounted lo $72. That included the cost of equipment and so on. This, also, is not refundable to pensioners.

I will cite the things that this boy needed and I think every honourable senator will agree that it is the barest minimum: 2 pairs of college grey trousers at $12.50 per pair; a Lloyd Mason blazer at $16.99; 3 school shirts at $5.10 - I do not know of any youngster who would need only 3 shirts in a year: a school hat costing $4.99; a plastic hat cover costing 50c: one pullover at $6.99 - in this climate one pullover would be insufficient; 3 pairs of golf socks at $1.15 per pair; one pair of white golf socks at $1.20; 2 pairs of school shoes at $6.99 - and they would be a pretty cheap type of shoe; 2 pairs of white sandshoes at $2.10: one raincoat at $1.80 - that is the ordinary cheap plastic raincoat which is bought at the chain stores; one sports shirt at $1.20; one pair of sports shorts at $1.75; one leather belt at $1.50; a school badge at 80c; one school tie at $1.20 - and the average child needs at least 3 ties a year, not one; a hatband at 75c: one pair of swim trunks at $2.50; and one briefcase at $7.50. Those things total over $111, and I suggest that that is the bare minimum for which any lad can be outfitted.

The same unfortunate mother is paying off a budget account at the rate of $2 per week out of this fantastic pension that this Government gives her. She also pays school entry fees of $5.75; manual training material costs amounting to $6.60; sports fees for gymnastic training amounting to $6.60; the purchase of books, beginning at term 1, costing $30; 50c a week or a total of $21 a year for daily pads, pens, and sundry items, another $21 per year for project material; and fares for 3 terms amounting to $21. That is a fair indication, Mr Acting Deputy President, of the great battle being fought by so many women. I make a special plea on their behalf because in the main they have no-one to speak for them. I have said publicly previously, and I say again, that the Government is driving some of these women to a desperate position where rather than see their children starve they will sell their bodies for a night a week. They will do this because they have no alternative. The Government is not a bit worried, lt is forcing them into this situation. There is a minority of women who will do this before they will see their children starve. The Government has this general attitude about pensions. There is another great area of need in relation to wives who are not old enough to receive the same rate of pension as their husbands. Probably children also are involved in these circumstances but the Government says that these wives need only about half the amount given to husbands in order to keep body and soul together.

I believe that all these things should be examined in detail. The first responsibility of any Government is to ensure that those people who helped build up the economy of the nation are not those who have to suffer most. Twice a year representatives of pensioner organisations come to Canberra.

They travel many hundreds of miles - in some cases thousands of miles - in order to present their case. Frequently they are not seen by the Minister for Social Services. Frequently they are seen by him for only a short time. Occasionally they get a reasonable son of interview.

The previous spokesman for the Government in this debate - I can only classify Senator Buttfield in that category - said that this is an affluent society; that pensioners are getting plenty; that nobody is in trouble and that in addition pensioners can work. She said that the pension is only a base and that pensioners are expected to supplement their incomes. What fantastic rot. The average person of 70 years of age cannot get a job in the first place. I know of people over 65 years of age who have gone to the local office of the Department of Labour and National Service and have attempted to register for work. Do you know what happens, Mr Acting Deputy President? They are refused registration because they are in receipt of pensions. If one is a stranger and is not able to find a job because of lack of knowledge of local conditions or of local firms, the first place one goes to is the local office of the Department of Labour and National Service to see if any casual work is available. But if such a person is not allowed to register, this puts the dampener on any statemem made by Senator Buttfield.

If it is true that the thinking of the Government is along the lines claimed by Senator Buttfield, that nobody should have to live on the pension, that it is merely a base rate and that pensioners are expected to keep themselves by additional earnings, I have never before heard such a fantastic statement. When social services were first introduced - age and invalid pensions in particular - they were looked upon as something with which to keep body and soul together after people were no longer able to continue in normal employment. I hope the statement made by the honourable senator is not an authoritative one because it introduces an entirely new concept into the field of social services. I hope that the original reason for introducing pensions to these and other categories of people will be maintained. People who are no longer able to earn sufficient from their normal employment should not have to rely on a charity; they have a right to a weekly or fortnightly payment which will enable them to exist.

I will carry this point one step further. If this is accepted as the basis on which pensioners are regarded in 1970, what happens to those hundreds of thousands of people who cannot work at a job at all, who are physically incapable because of normal degeneration brought about by advanced age and who suffer from physical disabilities which become manifest in later years? How can we cope with them? I have not seen anything in the Budget saying that they will get an extra 30 per cent or 40 per cent to help them out of their particular problems. 1 come back to this Bill and the amendment moved by my colleague which states that the pension is totally inadequate and that the Government ought to establish a national superannuation fund to ensure that nobody in this community wants, regardless of age, regardless of physical or mental ability to work, and regardless of any other political or social factor that may influence this community. I hope that the amendment is carried.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– In all the time that I have been in this place and have seen successive budgets introduced which have provided for increased social service benefits, the Opposition at all times has claimed, when the relevant legislation has been brought before the House, that the proposed benefits were not enough. I suppose I could take that further and say that in the view of the pensioners themselves the proposed benefits are never enough. If we go back to the time when pensions were instituted, probably 50 years ago, I expect that every Opposition since then has made the claim, during the progress of the budgetary measures through each House of the Parliament, that the pensions were inadequate and did not recognise the exigencies of the age pensioners. That has always been the case and I suppose it always will be the case while pensioners are a matter for annual Commonwealth legislation. With the passing of the years one becomes accustomed to the strictures of the Opposition in regard to any proposal that is brought forward in relation to social services.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Do you say that they are enough?

Senator LILLICO:

– I say that this Budget provides for a payment of SI, 143m from the National Welfare Fund, an increase of SI 30m over last year’s allocation or, in other words, an increase of almost 10 per cent.

Senator Cavanagh:

– So age pensioners are getting too much?

Senator LILLICO:

– Age pensioners have received an amount commensurate with the movement in the consumer price index.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No. It went up by 8 per cent.

Senator LILLICO:

– Mr Bury has worked this out and I have no intention of arguing about a decimal point. I notice that Senator Poke said that it amounted to an decrease of 2 per cent, but I would say that overall the proposed pensions just about break even by comparison with the pensions that were provided for in last year’s Budget. The increased appropriation from the National Welfare Fund has been channelled into other directions. Millions of dollars have been spent in giving effect to the Government’s promises in regard to health. In addition, a promise to reduce taxes on lower and middle incomes has been honoured. No matter how we may disagree with some of the provisions of the Budget and irrespective of the many suggestions that could be advanced as to how proposals could be implemented, as I said during the Budget debate, I suppose there would be complaints and people would disagree with most of them.

I do not intend to waste any time comparing the amount of pension that was paid in the time of the Chifley Government of 20 years ago with the amount that is paid by this Government today. We have heard it worked out by various honourable senators who have taken part in the debate. They have used the consumer price index and all the rest and compared today’s pension with Chifley’s pension scheme. On balance, when you take the fringe benefits that are being paid today and add them to the pension, it may well be that the treatment of pensioners today is very much more generous than it was 20 years ago. In that regard I was interested in a statement made by the last Labor Prime Minister. Although 20 years have elapsed since the statement was made, what he said then holds good today. He said.

The Australian Labor Party, and particularly myself, would have liked to have seen several measures introduced in this country, including a scheme of national superannuation.

Some time before that, in the time of the Lyons Government, a scheme of national superannuation was introduced. That scheme was agreed to by both houses of the Parliament but it was never proclaimed as law and so was never implemented. Chifley went on to say:

I think that it will be possible in the days to come to give consideration to such a measure. 1 stress, however, that it could not be financed out of present taxes. The honourable member for Bourke also referred to endowment of the first child. This would cost over £30m a year. Furthermore, the abolition of the means test would cost another £60m a year. It is of no use attempting to fool the people with promises. These things can be done only by the imposition of additional taxes. They are, therefore, linked with the matter of genera) finance. “I he amendment which has been put up by the Opposition commences by claiming that the increases proposed are inadequate. That has been said over the past 40 or 50 years. I repeat that while ever the present order of paying pensions exists, it will continue to be said. The amendment then states:

Social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

The first thing that comes to my mind with those words ‘an acceptable standard of living’ is that if you need a pension, desire a pension or pay a pension which is to maintain an acceptable standard of living you think immediately of a pension at least equivalent to the basic wage, In my view there can be no other conception. It seems to mc to be so clear that if that were done under the present welfare fund and under the present scale of graduated income tax, it would be completely beyond the capacity of the taxpayers of this country to pay, having regard to the mighty increases which would be necessary to pay a pension which would, be adequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living. As Mr Chifley said. the. tax involved must come from the pockets of the people and it would be so drastic that the taxpayers of Australia would be staggering to meet the bill. The amendment goes on to claim that steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty. Both Labor senators who have spoken to date in this debate have not indicated in any way how that could be clone. As desirable as it is to eliminate poverty, it is a fact that while there are improvident people in the community - we will have them with us always - there will always be poverty. How on earth can you eliminate it? To eliminate it you would need to change the very nature of many people.

Sitting suspended front 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator LILLICO:

– I believe that Senator Greenwood made a very good point when he spoke on the Budget. Referring to pensions, he said:

In short, there has been an increase of 19 per cent in the pension.

That is over the past 3 Budgets. The last Budget provided for an increase of $1; the one before that provided for another increase of $1; and this Budget has provided for an increase of 50c. So. over the last 2i years there has been an increase of approximately 19 per cent. Over the same period there has been an increase of 8 per cent in the consumer price index. So, over the past 3 years real advancement has been made in the field of pensions.

Before dinner I was speaking about the Opposition’s amendment. 1 had reached paragraph (4) which reads:

a contributory national superannuation scheme should be established and the means test eliminated.

I agree in principle; but no-one on this side of the chamber knows precisely what is meant by that paragraph. 1 take it that the contention would come when those responsible got down to tin tacks as to who was to contribute and how. Ft could be said that we have some kind of contributory system today. I believe that we cannot go much further along the road of expenditure on social services unless some mighty readjustment is made in government expenditure and unless there is a substantial increase in productivity.

The very basis of prosperity in this country or any other is the ability of the country to produce and to earn its living in the world. Even the Communists found that out when the Soviet Union was compelled, or at least decided, to export art treasures to try to balance its overseas trade. The White Paper ‘The Australian Economy 1970’ states:

Over the ten years to 1968-69 weekly earnings rose at an annual average rate of 5.4 per cent. Productivity in that decade rose by about 2.5 per cent per year. There was thus an average gap of something just under 3 per cent.

That means that costs rose that much in excess of the rise in productivity. When costs are surpassing productivity it becomes more and more difficult to provide the amenities that I believe are desired by everyone in the community.

I call to mind a factory of which I know and which has on the wall a notice saying: ‘Don’t work too hard or do your best, or you will go down the road with all the naming rest’. We have to get away from that kind of thinking. I believe that in this country the old-fashioned idea that a person can produce himself out of a job has receded further and further into the background. But that old-fashioned idea carried to the other extreme can be just as detrimental to the economy and to the provision of all - those things that are desired. I repeat that the very basis of outprosperity is our ability to produce and to sell what we produce in the markets of the world.

Senator Cavanagh:

asked me whether 1 thought the pensions were enough. I answer him by saying that I believe that in all the circumstances that exist in this country today we have gone nearly as far as we can possibly go along the road of expenditure on social services - I have heard that admitted by honourable senators opposite - unless some readjustment is made. I cai) to mind that in New Zealand years ago there was a contributory scheme. I suppose it still operates. It worked in this way: A flat rate was levied on all incomes - I forget what the flat rate was - and in the higher brackets there were increases graduated according to income. It worked in such a way that everyone made some kind of contribution.

At end of motion add: ‘but the Senate is of opinion that -

the increases proposed arc inadequate;

social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living:

steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty; and

. a contributory national superannuation system should be established and the means test eliminated.’

Those honourable senators who wish to argue against the amendment would have to say, in the first place, that the increases proposed are adequate. Do honourable senators opposite say that the increase of 50c which is being made in the age pension is adequate?I think they would find it. most difficult to influence anybody in the community to believe that 50c is an adequate increase in the age pension. The second paragraph of the amendment states that social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living. Do honourable senators opposite say that a person in receipt of a pension of $15.50 a week can maintain an acceptable standard of living?It has been said tonight that pensioners can earn an additional $10 a week if they wish. Honourable senators would know from their own business experience that it is most difficult for persons 65 years of age and over to obtain a job.I do not know the position in other States of the Commonwealth, butI would venture to say that very few employers indeed would be ready to accept for employment an individual over 65 years of age. There might be the exception, but in the majority of cases employers would not accept that type of employee. The third point in the amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald reads:

Steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty.

Can we address the question to ourselves: Is there poverty in Australia? We have to look at the opinion of people who have done research in this direction for the answer to that question. They have found that there is poverty in Australia, and that is something of which we should not be proud. 1 know people who are living near poverty, if not in poverty. I know people of pensionable age who are living in homes and rented rooms, and by the time they have paid their rent they have very little to maintain a decent standard of living. I think we can say that there are people approaching, if not on. the poverty line. The fourth point in the honourable senator’s amendment is:

A contributory national superannuation system should be established and the means test eliminated.

When we speak of pensioners we are speaking of the aged, the invalid, the widows, the deserted wives and others.

They are all In receipt of a Commonwealth allowance. As far as the aged are concerned, in the main they are people who have contributed much to building up this nation. They have worked hard in years when remuneration and the standard of living were poor. Their return for their labour was little or nothing. They reared big families to whom they gave all that they had, and they have never had a favourable opportunity of accumulating any money or wealth at all. The result was that when they reached the age of 65 and they were no longer wanted by their employers in the main, they were turned out on an age pension. If we just reflect for a moment or two over the history of this country we realise that from the turn of the century until the First World War we always had a big percentage of unemployed. Our standard of living was poor, 1 repeat. The First World War began in 1914 and carried on until 1918, and for about 10 years thereafter we had a measure of prosperity. lt was not of a particularly high standard, and we still had an army of unemployed in our community.

Then we went through a depression which brought further unemployment and privation, and starvation in many cases. Men of industry, men of qualifications, men of education, were required to work on roads for 2 or 3 days a week, according to the number of their dependants. Single men were required to walk the roads from one point to another to get 6s worth of rations. Not until the Second World War broke out and since its conclusion have this country and its people enjoyed any standard of living to speak of. This has been the most prosperous period, I suppose, in our lives or in the history of this country since the turn of the century. So in the main most of these pensioners are men and women who have blazed the trail, worked hard for very little and never had an opportunity of accumulating any money. If they bought a house or a cottage it would be as much as they have. When they reach the age of retirement we say: ‘All you are worth, particularly today, is $15.50.’ 1 repeat what I said the other night: Not at any time in our political history have pensioners been properly treated by governments, irrespective of their political colour. They have been the forgotten people. We agree without equivocation that the pension increase is inadequate and that the pensions being paid today are inadequate having regard to costs and everything else. Immediately pensions are increased rents go up. The landlord has the case that rates have increased and that his maintenance costs have gone up because of increased wages and other things, that he is required to increase the rents to enable him to pay the rates and to meet the other commitments which, as a landlord, he is required to meet to keep the premises in decent order and to comply with local government requirements.

I deplore the suggestion made by Senator Keeffe in the course of his remarks today that deserted wives and widows found it impossible to live on the pension or subsidies that they were receiving and were required to lend their bodies in order to be able to keep themselves and those dependent upon them. I do not agree that that is the case. Senator Keeffe has grievously insulted all those women who are in receipt of assistance and aid.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He said only a section of them would.

Senator GAIR:

– To suggest that a section of them would do so casts an aspersion on all of them. To suggest that any of them lend their bodies in prostitution for money to supplement what the Government pays them in allowance is to cast an aspersion on every woman who is in receipt of aid or a pension. It is one thing to be enthusiastic about the question of pensions and to try to help people to gain more, but it is another thing to suggest that any one of these women would lend her body, 1 or 2 nights a week, as he said, to supplement her income from the Commonwealth. To make a statement such as that is most unfair, most unjust and irresponsible, and it is a grave reflection on those women throughout Australia who are receiving aid under the social services vote.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He was trying to show the desperation that they are driven to.

Senator GAIR:

– We can stress the desperation without suggesting immorality. I know how pensioners feel when their incomes are being discussed. As I said the other night, they are humiliated by the ignominy associated with these public discussions of what they are receiving from the Government, and which is not a charity but a right to which as taxpayers they contributed in the active periods of their lives. Those who have any measure of pride recoil to think that their income is periodically put in the auction room, as it were, and their conditions, their living and everything else debated in public. That is why the party which I am’ privileged to lead has repeatedly asked that the question of pensions be taken out of the field of politics, where it has been made into a political football, and that the responsibility for determining this vital question be handed over to an independent tribunal of men who have some knowledge of social services and a humanitarian outlook, a tribunal which would have regard to wage increases, cost of living increases and all the other vital factors in arriving at a proper determination of what is a just pension for these people who are our responsibility. I am sure that tribunal could do this and do it well.

Reference has been made to means tests and fringe benefits. Dealing first with means tests, being a realist I cannot imagine that the means test would be abolished overnight. I can understand the feelings of people who, because of their provident outlook on life, have contributed to superannuation schemes and such like and have discovered that all they have done is to relieve the Commonwealth Government of a financial responsibility to them. I have cited the case - I know many - of the provident fellow who has contributed to a superannuation scheme to secure his future whereas another worker has taken out just the bare compulsory unit or two to qualify for the scheme and, at the end of his working life, has received the pension or a good part of it. The first fellow has insured himself out of the pension field, yet bis income would not be very much more than a pensioner would get from his pension and what he can earn, if he has the health to earn something.

Why on earth can we not liberalise the pension scheme sufficiently to take in those borderline cases? Furthermore, why can we not give to those people some of the fringe benefits, particularly the medical and pharmaceutical benefits, which are invaluable to an ageing couple? With the aid of the fringe benefits they could be relieved of the responsibility and worry of doctors’ bills and chemists’ bills. If they fall ill they can go to a doctor or send for him without the worry of having to pay. Many of these old people who do not qualify for the pension because their income is a little more than what is allowed need a doctor or chemist but cannot afford them. Why do we not extend that fringe benefit in particular to that class of person? The means test is a penalty on thrift. Those who are provident, careful and thrifty are penalised by comparison with the fellow who in many cases squanders his money and finishes up with nothing - not even with proper superannuation or insurance.

Senator Lacey:

– Many of them have no money to squander throughout their lives.

Senator GAIR:

– I have already explained the situation. I know of cases, particularly of public servants, who have neither chick nor child but only themselves and their wives and who finish up with the bare compulsory units of superannuation. Compare the situation of those people with that of a man with 3 or 4 children whom he had educated and who, because he has contributed to a superannuation scheme at. the same time as he has paid taxation, and has made sacrifices to do it, is debarred from the pension. That is not fair play and it is not right. I think the means test should be liberalised to a greater extent than it has been. I am not one who believes that it can be abolished overnight. 1 am sure that some people on big salaries and incomes would not be interested in the abolition of the means test. In fact they probably would be embarrassed from the income tax point of view if they were to receive a pension.

I think that all the social service increases provided for in the Budget, whether it is the age pension, the invalid pension - small as it is - or the TPI pension which comes under another Bill, should be made retrospective to 1st July. After all, that is the beginning of the new financial year. I am sure that. would not. break the Treasury and at least it would put the pensions on a proper basis. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to this proposal. 1 believe it is some thing the Government could do without disturbing the equilibrium of the economy of the country.

I have considered the amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald. Whilst it agrees with what I have said tonight and also on a former occasion I propose to move an amendment to it to add a paragraph (5). I move:

At me end of proposed amendment add - “(5) rates pf pensions should be determined by an independent tribunal or committee of experts on social services including pensioner representation.’

This is not a new exercise for the Democratic Labor Party. Indeed we have been hammering away at this for 6 years or more. For the record let me say that the DLP has moved this amendment in the Senate on six previous occasions. On every occasion the Australian Labor Party has voted with the Government to defeat the amendment. The late Senator Cole moved the amendment in 1955, 1957, 1959, 1960 and 1963. Soon after my election to the Senate I moved a similar amendment on 30th September 1965. Once again the ALP joined with the Government to defeat the amendment. I propose to delve into the debates on these past occasions when the DLP amendment came before the Senate to demonstrate the weak excuses advanced by the Government and the ALP in opposition to our amendment. Running through the various debates has been an extreme pessimism on the part of the ALP. On 29tb September 1959 the former Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator McKenna, flatly declared: ‘Nothing will ever take pensions out of politics.’ Such an approach condemns pensioners to perpetual acceptance of the crumbs handed out at Budget or election time by governments, irrespective of their political colour. That is the history of the pension scheme. Tt ensures that pensions will always remain in the auction room. We of the Democratic Labor Party adopt a more optimistic approach in the hope that one day pensions will be removed from politics. We believe the independent tribunal is an admirable way of removing pensions from politics. In 1960 Senator Willesee stated:

. before I would agree to the formation of such a body as has been advocated by Senator Cole, I would require an assurance that it would be independent and more free from interference by ‘ the Commonwealth Government than the present Commonwealth Arbitration Commission. 1 do not know what prompted Senator Willesee to claim then that the Arbitration Commission was not independent. I would be surprised if he holds the same view today for I am not aware that the Arbitration Commission is regarded as anything less than independent.

Spooner, since deceased, when he attempted to justify Government opposition to the DLP proposal by stating that the Department of Social Services already had a research section to determine all the relevant information. Of course we know it has such a section. It has all the facilities to determine this information. But did its judgment, assessment or finding ever see the light of day? Of course not. The information is passed on to the Government and the Government ultimately decides in spite of the results of the research.

Senator Byrne:

– It makes a political decision, too.

Senator GAIR:

– It makes a political decision. The Department may well have such a section but what does the public know of its findings? Does it receive information from the pensioners themselves? I, and I am sure most Australians, would prefer the cards to be placed on the table in public view and all turned up. I believe I have given sufficient examples to prove that the ALP and the Government are not sincere on the question of taking pensions out of politics. When a genuine attempt is made by the DLP to take pensions out of the political field through the establishment of an independent tribunal, the Government and the ALP scrape around the bottom of the barrel to find weak excuses for their opposition.

Sometimes I feel that both the major political parties want to retain pensions in the political field as a means of attracting support at election time, when they might use them as a carrot for the less thinking section of our people, particularly the aged and the sick who are desperately in need of additional funds and will vote irrespective of what other policy items might be on the platform or in the policy speeches of the respective leaders. They will say: *I am going to vote for him because he is going to give me another $2 whereas the other fellow is going to give me only $1.’ I suppose that is a sound and logical reason from that individual’s point of view but in voting along that line he often does the country a lot of disservice. Perhaps he does himself disservice in the long run.

I promised at the outset not to detain the Senate unduly because I have spoken before about social services. However, I would like to see the means test liberally improved. I would like to see the fringe benefits extended to those people just outside the pension eligibility provisions. I would like to see some of our municipal bodies, particularly those controlled by the Australian Labor Party, give greater consideration to pensioners in regard to rates. Many municipal bodies extend rate rebates only to persons in receipt of full pensions and deny it to those in receipt of a part pension.

Senator Toohey:

– Most of the municipal bodies are themselves broke.

Senator GAIR:

– Well, I suppose that might be a statement of fact about some of- them. Yet the fact remains that it is not of much use for ALP people to profess to have so much interest in pensioners when ALP controlled municipalities do not demonstrate sonic concern about them by doing a little more than they now do. They should not be so hide bound. They should set the example.

Senator Willesee:

– Most municipalities throughout Australia do relieve pensioners of rates.

Senator GAIR:

– If the honourable senator had been listening he would have heard me say that municipal bodies deny that rebate to partial pensioners; people who do not receive a full pension do noi enjoy the rebate. This is cutting it a bit thin, I think, because to all intents and purposes they are pensioners. Notwithstanding the fact that I rose tonight with very little hope of achieving anything or of being able to do anything to remedy social service matters about which the Democratic Labor Party complains, I sincerely appeal to the Government to keep a very close eye on the cost of living and rents particularly as they affect pensioners. I hope the Government will not be too proud or loo reluctant, if things worsen, to make an interim increase, perhaps at the end of the year, rather than wait until the end of a year.

There is no insurmountable difficulty or impediment to this action being taken, lt can be done. J hope the Government will see to it that the position of the pensioner does not worsen. If at all possible the ( Government should, improve the position of pensioners immediately there is any increase in the cost of living. The Democratic Labor Party believes that if a tribunal is not set up there should be some legislation to provide for an automatic increase in the pension as the base rate is increased. The Government can do this. It was done in Queensland during my time as Treasurer of that State in spite of protests from public servants that it could not be done. This was in connection with workers compensation. Instead of having to alter the schedule of payments under the workers compensation legislation there each time the basic wage rose, I insisted that a formula be worked out so that each time there was an increase in the basic wage the schedules were proportionately and relatively increased, lt can be done. Where there is a will there is a way. As wages rise so should pensions rise. Pensioners should not be disadvantaged. Invariably the basic wage increases increase the cost of living. The court tries to reimburse the worker because of the increased cost of living. The pensioner also should have a system by which he will not be disadvantages but will receive an increase in pension when there is evidence of an increase in the cost of living.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

- Mr Acting Deputy President, we have had a long debate during which many figures have been quoted. For that reason f shall nol go into the figures involved to the extent to which I might have done otherwise and will refer to them only in a very limited way. Nor do I intend to detail the benefits conferred by the Bill before us. I merely want to mention that ils provisions are not limited solely to age pensions. Anyone listening to this debate might have gathered the opinion that that was the case. I draw the attention of honourable senators to the fact that the Bill does include a number of other provisions relating to widows’ pensions, benevolent homes, and a matter which I regard as most important - the supplementary sickness benefits after a period of 6 weeks which are referred to in clause 8. Other benefits also are being conferred by this Bill. Although the debate has principally ranged round age pensioners I feel that the Senate would be misled if it believed that they are the only people with whom this legislation is concerned.

I propose to refer first of all to some of the facts and arguments put forward by honourable senators. The first point I want to make - and to reiterate so far as it was made by other speakers from this side of the chamber - is that social services have been shown to be, and they continue to be, at the forefront of the thinking, particularly, of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), and of the Government generally.

It is easy to become too involved in sympathy for people in need and not consider the matter from the point of view of reality. Honourable senators have tended to become emotional when debating social services in this chamber. Other people have done the same thing when writing in the Press, when writing letters to editors, when attending parades and doing all the other things that they do in order to make known their views on a subject. 1 feel that one must take away some of the emotion and some of the humbug introduced by one or two speakers in this debate and look at the facts, on the premise that we must consider the extent to which the public purse can be used not to pay a desirable amount but to pay a possible amount. Governments must act responsibly. 1 believe that this Government has acted responsibly. I believe that it has not looked to that which may be vote catching or that which, to the mind of the emotional, may be the most desirable. Instead it has looked to that which is possible. One must look not only to the interests of the aged but also to the interests of the youth of this country. We must not be unjust to either. There is only so much money available in the public purse, and therefore it is a matter of balancing the competing interests.

For instance, should we take away from education so that we can pay higher pensions? Should we take away from national development that which will give rise to a higher income, and therefore a growth in gross national product with a corresponding growth in the available amount in the public purse which can be directed towards the needs of the people who are aged or who fall into any of the other categories of persons in this community who receive social service benefits of one kind or another? Should we take away from that? May it not be a very shortsighted belief that we must take all now to give the maximum possible to those who are in need, to the detriment of the growth of the country and of the people in the community who in the future will be in need? There will be people in need in 10 years time, in 20 years time and in 50 years time and I would hate to see any government being so irresponsible as to jeopardise, for the sake of achieving cheap popularity at the moment, the possibility of those in need, in any of the categories that I have mentioned, in 20 years time or 50 years time receiving proper assistance from the public purse. But that would be the inevitable result of taking out of balance the matter of social service benefits. That would be an improper and irresponsible approach to budgeting.

Judging by some of the aspects which we have heard discussed tonight one would gather that this was the most shocking Budget which had ever been produced. If one listened only to the speakers from the Opposition side one would gather that the meanness and parsimonious attitude of the Government had reached an unheard of level. To refute that. 1 suggest that if one extends in graph form the total annual payments of age and invalid pensions during the 1960s- that is, from 1960 until 1970- one will see that the year of the greatest noise in protest at the meanness of the Government happens to coincide on the graph with the year of the highest increase. It is incredible and strange that the more a government finds itself in a position to do responsibly, the louder becomes the objection that it has not done enough. I invite anyone who wishes to criticise what the Government has done to consider the payments that have been made. He will find that from the beginning of 1960 the graph shows a steep rise to 1962, then a shallow rise increasing steadily to 1969 and then a very dramatic rise in the 1969-70 period.

Those who have been so critical today have tended to forget all the impositions upon the public purse which have arisen out of the provisions which have been implemented during the past 15 months. There has been a great number of them, but it is very easy to sit back and criticise by saying that they are not enough. Whether they are enough is one question. Whether they have made a very significant difference to the extent to which the public purse is being directed towards this particular disposition of funds - that is, age and invalid pensions - is another question. If you look at- the social welfare programme as a whole you will find that the graph similarly goes up but the rise is not quite as marked as it is in the field of attention to age and invalid pensioners. Strange as it may seem from listening to the debate in this chamber, they are the people upon whose behalf the loudest pleas have been made but who also in the past 15 months have received the greatest attention from the Government. It is curious but it is a fact.

Senator Gair said that he moved his amendment because, amongst other things, the Government did not want to take politics out of pensions. I find it rather extraordinary to believe that any government would not want to take politics out of pensions if it could do so responsibly.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Pensions out of politics, was it not?

Senator RAE:

– Whichever way you like to put it. Does it. make much difference? ls there some subtle difference between the two? If so, it escapes me. 1 would have thought it was taking politics out of pensions and not pensions out of politics, but at some later time you can perhaps develop the difference between the two. Be that as it may, Senator Gair said that the Government will not accept his amendment because it is not prepared to take politics out of pensions, or, I. add in deference to Senator Cavanagh, vice versa. I would delight in the day that pensions could be taken out of politics, or vice versa. It would certainly simplify government. It would certainly simplify the job of the parliamentarian. It would certainly simplify everything to do with the operation of this institution of Parliament and the activities of the Executive of this country. But could that happen responsibly? Could a responsible government take that step?

I do not think that any responsible person wald say that a government - gets votes out of pensions. A government loses votes out of not doing enough for pensioners because there is always that part of human nature which claims that whatever you do is not nearly enough. That is one of the reasons why I, and I have no doubt that many others certainly would like to see the situation that Senator Gair envis ages when the Government no longer would have to accept the responsibility. It is nice to think about that, but if I am honest and ask myself whether 1 could live with my conscience if I said: ‘We can shirk this responsibility’, then I would have to say: ‘No. we cannot shirk the responsibility because the people of Australia are entitled to a say iD the matter of pensions and the provision that is made by government for pensioners’. This is a matter in relation to which the people should have the opportunity to exercise their will over the Parliament, and they have that opportunity through the ballot box at an election.

Let us not have a situation such as exists at the present time with the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Anyone who wants to complain or who wants to lay the ills of any section of the community at someone’s feet can say that it is all because of what the Arbitration Commission has done. What can a member of the general public, if he believes that to be a fact, do about the Arbitration Commission? He has no standing before it. He cannot go and argue a case before it. He cannot go and put his interest before it. He cannot go and say why he thinks a decision should be something different. But he can do that with a government. So long as the social welfare programme as a whole is a matter in which the people have a say, I believe that the social welfare programme that is evidenced in the country will be a reflection of the will of the people. I believe that it is important that it should be so.

For that reason, if for no other, I would oppose the amendment proposed by Senator Gair. I. suggest that it is a coward’s way out simply to pass the buck. Further, I suggest that any government should be prepared to accept the responsibility of making a decision as to what the economy can stand in the form of non-productive payments - I do not say that in any derogatory sense- in which 1 include those under the social welfare programme, as opposed to productive payments in which I include, but not exclusively, things such as national development and education. A government must act responsibly. A government must make its own decision as to where the importance of those things lies and what is the will of the people in relation to the importance that should be given to any of those things.

Passing on to what some honourable senators on the opposite side of the chamber have mentioned, I refer particularly to Senator Fitzgerald who said, if I noted his statement correctly, that had the income tax measures proposed by this Budget, which we debated just recently and the Bills in relation to which we shall be debating, not given any income tax relief to people with a taxable income of more than $16,000 per annum there would have been sufficient funds to pay an extra 50c a week to each age pensioner. To me, that is a curious statement. I have not had time since he made it to check it completely, but I have done such quick checking as 1 could.

As 1 understand the position, an extra 50c per week per pensioner at the moment would amount to $26m per annum. Also as I understand the position from the figures contained in the taxation statistics for 1968-69, which would be a percentage but only a relatively small percentage smaller than those for the current year, the total taxable income of all taxpayers between $10,000 and $30,000 per annum - that is the only equivalent bracket I can take, although Senator Fitzgerald referred to those between $16,000 and $32,000 per annum because, as ali honourable senators know, no taxation relief at all is given to a person whose taxable income is more than $32,000 per annum, which means that I am taking a bigger area than that taken by Senator Fitzgerald - was $160m. Also, as all honourable senators know, the average relief given to people in that bracket was about 4 per cent. It may have been a little less. That relief amounts to about $7m. So, Senator Fitzgerald’s statement impresses me only in that it displays the woolliness of thinking that has been evident in many of the other remarks that have been made by honourable senators on the opposite side of the chamber.

One other example of this woolliness of thinking which has been evident repeatedly is the equation of the basic wage and the pension. The person who is in receipt of the basic wage is a single wage earner. He receives his wage, with which in theory he is expected to keep a wife and 2 or more children. As I understand it, the original concept was a wife and 2 children. That amount is regarded as the basic wage or the minimum wage. If we are to equate the pension with that we must look at the fact that the average pensioner unit is a pensioner couple. Therefore, we are dealing with not 1 person but 2 people who are in receipt of a pension, and we have to look at what is the combined income available to a pensioner couple. Al the moment that is $27.50 a week.

If we add to that an amount for fringe benefits - not necessarily the $5 a week to which Senator Buttfield referred earlier as being an estimate made by the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) of the value of the fringe benefits excluding, as I understand it, those granted by the States which certainly are not inconsiderable - it takes it to $36 a week or a little more. If we deduct from the basic wage the amount of income tax that a basic wage earner would have to pay, the difference between the net amount a pensioner couple receives, together with fringe benefits, and the net amount which a basic wage earner receives after tax and on which he is expected to bring up a young family and to accumulate assets to purchase furniture and all the other things that a pensioner couple may not have to purchase at their stage of life-

Senator Keeffe:

– Thai makes it a double indictment. You are wrong in both fields.

Senator RAE:

– Senator Keeffe wishes to interject; he does not want to listen. That is typical of him. 1 do not intend to answer any further interjections from him. I will proceed with the explanation that I was giving. If we equate the pension and the basic wage in the way I have described, we find that there is a difference of only $3 or $4 a week, depending on the basic wages in the various States, between the 2 figures. A further point that I want to make is that Senator Keeffe completely misunderstood the comment that Senator Buttfield made earlier.

Senator Keeffe:

– I did not misunderstand. She made the statement, not me.

Senator RAE:

– Let me refer to the comment which Senator Buttfield made and which Senator Keeffe completely misunderstood when she made it. She was working out the amount that is paid by the public parse to pensioners and what that works out at per pensioner. It does not mean that every pensioner receives every bit of the fringe benefit. Some pensioners receive more; some receive less. But, if the amount is averaged out, it works out at about $5 per pensioner per week. That is apart from the amounts that are granted by the States, some of which are quite significant. In my State, for instance, the grants in respect of free travel, reductions in prices of entertainment and reductions in prices of electricity for heating and lighting and so on amount to . quite a considerable sum per week. But, leaving them aside, the amount paid by the Commonwealth public purse in respect of each pensioner couple is $37.50 per week.

I agree with Senator Keeffe insofar as he says that not every pensioner receives that. But that is what the public purse pays in respect of every pensioner. Obviously, this means that some pensioners receive more and some receive less. That is the average. When we equate that average with the basic wage, we see that this country is not doing a bad job if it can produce for the people who are in receipt of age pensions an amount that is nearly the equivalent of the basic wage; provided - and I add this proviso- (Quorum formed.)

We have just had a quorum called by Senator Keeffe because only 2 members of his Party were in the chamber at the time and apparently he thought that my comments were of sufficient interest to members of his Party that he should call a quorum to ensure that a few more of them came into the chamber and heard what I was saying. I am delighted by the honour that he has bestowed upon me. I take the opportunity to thank him very much and to say: ‘My day is made. Thank you, Senator Keeffe’. I return to the point I was making, which Senator Keeffe found so interesting. The point I was making was that this country, which at times is abused, belittled and denigrated by senators from the other side, is capable of providing an amount for its retired people who are in need and who have not saved during their working lives sufficient funds to enable them to keep themselves, for whatever reason that may be. This country is able to give them out of the public purse an amount which, when equated with the basic wage, is for a pensioner couple only $2 or $3 less than the basic wage if the tax which a basic wage earner would have to pay on bis basic wage is deducted from it. That is something of which we can be reasonably proud.

I hasten to add that in saying that 1 do not mean to be taken as saying that that is the ultimate, that that is the objective and that the objective has been achieved. I think we have a long way to go. I hope to see many things achieved, but they will be achieved only by a continuation of a responsible approach to an equation of the division between those elements of expenditure which are productive of future income and those elements of expenditure which are to keep those who are in need of assistance from the public purse at a level at which they can get the maximum advantage available from the present community. Senator Keeffe indulged in some sarcastic criticism, both by way of interjection and by way of comment subsequently, of what Senator Buttfield said. I do not intend to traverse in any way his sarcastic comments other than simply to draw the attention of all honourable senators to the fact that it ill becomes anyone to become as emotional and as carried away as Senator Keeffe did in the exuberance of his sarcasm and in the exuberance of his abuse. He denigrated some of the people of this country in the way to which reference has been made already by Senator Gair, and 1 do no more than say that I can well understand the feeling exhibited by Senator Gair here tonight when referring to the matters raised by Senator Keeffe. To me, those matters are beneath contempt and I do not intend to comment on them further.

Senator Milliner spoke of the inferior standard of certain homes for the aged. He spoke of some of the problems of pensioners and of the homes in which they reside. I would like to have heard more from the honourable senator because, unlike Senator Keeffe he tends to be constructive. I am sorry that Senator Milliner is not here at the moment. He is a speaker who generally makes an attempt to make constructive comments. I would like to have heard more from him as to what he thought the deficiencies were and more particularly as to the ways in which he thought those deficiencies could be overcome. It is unfortunate that he raised this matter because one of the basic problems in any scheme administered in this country and involving human nature in any way - and I suggest that that is every scheme - is that they are subject to human foibles. One of the human foibles, which is obvious, is that not all people have the same capacity or the same efficiency. The types of efficiency and capacity of persons running and organising homes for the aged will vary tremendously. I would like to have heard Senator Milliner develop further the theme as to whether Big Brother’s governmental control can be imposed upon a home for the aged and whether that will achieve a certain standard in every case. If he has a constructive suggestion to make, I am sure that not. only I but also the Minister in charge of the Bill, the Minister for Housing (Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) and others on this side of the chamber would be interested to hear it.

Nobody wants to see money from the public purse being wasted or frittered away. Nobody wants to see people who are in need of home nursing not receiving the best possible home nursing. The matter is not one for the kind of chirpish comment that Senator Keeffe has been trying to make by way of interjection during the past, few minutes, in between having a conversation with Senator Willesee, but is one for the kind of constructive approach that is often forthcoming from Senator Milliner, if at some other time he is prepared to give the Senate further details of the deficiencies and of the way those deficiencies can be overcome. I have not the slightest doubt that every person on this side of the chamber will listen to him with considerable attention. That will be a remarkable difference from the attention that honourable senators on this side paid to the speeches of other honourable senators opposite who were much more vociferous earlier in the day. In his speech Senator Milliner also referred to what 1 rather gathered to be a contributory superannuation scheme. He referred to the scheme in Holland. He held that country up as a paragon of virtue. I have figures and details of the various social security programmes throughout the world for the year 1967 only, but certainly in 1967 Holland was not quite the paradise which was painted by Senator Milliner.

Senator Byrne:

– Perhaps the honourable senator was speaking about a Dutch wife.

Senator RAE:

– I well recall Senator Byrne’s experience in Surabaya and the delightful practice of providing one with an extra pillow called a Dutch wife. In 1967 Holland had a contributory scheme requiring contributions to be made throughout the working life of persons from the age of 15 to the age of 64. People had to contribute every year from the time they were 15 until they were 64 before they could obtain a full pension. If there were any years during that period in which they did not contribute then they were subjected to a percentage decrease in the amount which they would obtain. When one realises that it is only a little over 49 years since that scheme was introduced - it was introduced in 1913, I see from checking - there would not be very many people in Holland at this stage who would bc likely to benefit from the scheme because, I emphasise again, only those who contributed from the age of 15 to the age of 64 are entitled to a full benefit. If there were any years in which they did not contribute then they received a lesser amount. 1 mention this because I think it is important to remember this when we listen to some of the suggestions and criticisms that come from the other side of the chamber. Honourable senators opposite hold up other countries as paragons of virtue and berate this country for its various shortcomings. I think we should know in detail what are the exact circumstances in those other countries. No doubt some time later in the debate we will hear about the relatively low percentage of the gross national product which Australia spends on social services. This subject is a hardy annual which comes up at about the same time as the subject of Australia spending a low percentage of its gross national product on education. On so many previous occasions explanations and refutations have been made that I simply refer honourable senators to what I said last year during the debate on the social services legislation. That is all I say on that

I pass on to what has happened generally in relation to social services. I point out to honourable senators that, under the Aged Persons Homes Act, this year the funds made available will be increased by 25 per cent. That is only one of the very substantial increases to be made, not only through the legislation we are now debating but also through ancillary Bills. The first proposition contained in the amendment proposed by Senator Fitzgerald is that the increases are inadequate. That depends upon the second proposition which claims that social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living.

What evidence have we heard in support of that claim? We heard an attempt to support the claim by Senator Keeffe who cited some rather spurious figures. Otherwise no facts or figures have been given to substantiate that proposition. As I recall it, Senator Keeffe relied upon basically the same figures in speaking of the costs faced by mothers in clothing children for school. I suggest that Senator Keeffe has never heard of the old hand-me-down system. It was good enough for me. It is good enough for my children and no doubt for great numbers of school children in this country. That old system very substantially reduces the costs involved in clothing school children. The figures cited by Senator Keeffe are quite unreal because they are based on the supposition that every parent of school children buys new clothing for each child and that no school child s ever accepts hand-me-down clothing from a brother or cousin to be worn for as long as it fits and then passed on to somebody else.

The hand-me-down system used with school clothing in this country would be a credit to the Scots. In saying that I am not agreeing with people other than Scots who claim that the Scots are as mean as can be. It is one of the obvious economies which can be practised by parents and is commendable. I wholeheartedly applaud it, but apparently Senator Keeffe has never heard of it. Perhaps he is too proud to engage in such practices. Perhaps he just does not have enough brains for it. I do not know.

Senator Kennelly:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I would like you to give a ruling on whether the honourable senator is discussing Senator Keeffe or the Bill before the Senate. If he is discussing the Bill I would say, with respect, that he is perfectly in order, but 1 doubt that he can discuss Senator Keeffe and be in order.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Fitzgerald) - I ask Senator Rae to keep to the provisions of the Bill and to leave personalities out of the discussion.

Senator RAE:

– Thank you, Sir. I can understand that Senator Kennelly could not appreciate what I was talking about because he has not been listening. 1 was making the point in relation to Senator Keeffe that some of his comments would not bear investigation. Let us continue with the discussion of the Social Services Bill. I welcome and applaud the wide range of benefits that this legislation will bring to various sections of the community which this Government has endeavoured to serve, while displaying a sense of responsibility towards the other sections of the community which it also serves.

I oppose the amendment as being mere political posturing typical of that engaged in to obtain a little, shall I say, publicity. It is not supported by fact or basic argument. It has been supported only by emotionalism and a tirade of abuse. I trust that the Senate will forget about the proposed amendment and will expedite the passage of this Bill so that the benefits it confers will be made available to the people at the planned time. If there is any delay in payment of these benefits beyond the beginning of October it will not be the fault of the Government. I hope that they will become available at that time. I hope that the Senate will pass the Bill with all due expedition so that we can then proced to get on with the development of our country through argument and positive suggestions as to how we can increase our gross national product and thereby provide in future for greater increases in our social welfare programme.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I exercise my right as seconder of the proposed amendment to speak now in this debate. I found rather pathetic the extent to which Senator Rae went in criticism of honourable senators on this side of the chamber and the distances he travelled in citing figures applicable to other countries in an attempt to condemn the Opposition and to justify the Government’s attitude. The Government is in a peculiar position on this occasion because there will be no attempt by the Opposition to delay this measure. We shall do everything possible to expedite it. That attitude was indicated when the Opposition permitted the Bill to be introduced last Thursday night, contrary to some arrangements that had been made. We have been prepared to debate the Bill today in order to pass it and to make the increased payments available by 1st October

The Opposition has done nothing to delay the Bill or to defeat it. The amendment proposed by the Opposition does not involve defeating the Bill. Irrespective of whether the amendment is carried, the Bill will come into operation by the vote of the Senate, including the votes of Opposition members. Senator Fitzgerald has proposed that at the end of the motion that the Bill be read a second time certain words be added. The first proposition contained in the proposed amendment is: but the Senate is of opinion that - (1.) the increases proposed are inadequate;

Senator Gair said in his speech that he agrees with that proposition, so it is clear that the majority of honourable senators agree that the increases are inadequate.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– So does the public.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– That is so. But If honourable senators opposite vote against the proposed amendment they will be indicating that they are not of the opinion that the increases are inadequate. Senator Buttfield has suggested that pensioners can go out to work to earn incomes additional to the pension. That might be taken as an admission that there is some inadequacy in the pension as it needs to be supplemented by people working and not completely retiring. It seems that 82-year- olds with arthritis in their bones, hobbling about on sticks should seek to gel work, in the opinion of Government supporters. The second point of the proposed amendment is:

social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living;

Honourable senators opposite intend to vote that in their opinion social service payments generally are adequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living. No honourable senator opposite has suggested that he can live on $15.50 a week, but

Government supporters are telling pensioners today that social service payments are adequate, irrespective of whether the country can afford to increase them. They will not vote for the opinion expressed in the amendment that the payments are inadequate. The third point in the amendment is more damaging, lt states:

steps should be taken immediately to eliminate” poverty;

– I do not believe that the State parliaments should determine issues of this nature if there is no comparable wage justice or there are no comparable payments between one State and another. What I am saying is that if the Commonwealth Government has the power to distribute the wealth of Australia I think it should exercise that power and accept the praise or wrath of the electors. The Commonwealth Government does not have the power under the Constitution to control wages. However, it has intervened in proceedings before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and presented statistics. In recent years the Commonwealth Government has briefed learned counsel, mostly Queen’s Counsel, . to appear before the Commission to support the employers and oppose the employ ees. If one examines recent judgments of the Arbitration Commission one will see that it has invariably accepted the representations of the Commonwealth Government’s advocate. I do not know whether his representations are invariably accepted because he is a superior advocate or whether his advocacy is invariably correct, but acceptance of his representation creates tremendous suspicion about the impartiality of the Arbitration Commission.

The question is whether further increases in pension payments should be suspended whilst a committee is set up to determine the rates. 1 would have thought that the proposal of Senator Gair contradicts in some respects the fourth proposal of Senator Fitzgerald regarding the establishment of a contributory national superannuation system because if both proposals were accepted, we would also have a committee or independent tribunal to determine rates of pensions. The Opposition is not prepared to support the proposal of Senator Gair for the setting up of an independent tribunal because it would mean that the pensioners would be delayed in receiving the justice to which they are entitled. The Opposition wants the Senate to express the opinion that the proposed pension increases are inadequate, that social service payments generally are inadequate to maintain an acceptable standard of living, and that steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty. Senator Fitzgerald, on behalf of the Opposition, has moved an amendment along those lines.

I do not believe that there is a vote for either the Government or the Opposition in the amount of social service payments. I think the average recipient of social service payments has reached the stage where he has voted for a particular political party for many years and will not change. I would be inclined to think that the false cry that increased social service payments means increased taxation could result in a loss of votes to a political party rather than a gain. The Australian Labor Party has never supported increased pension payments with a view to gaining popularity. It has done so because it believes that increased pension payments are just. The Labor Party does not believe that there is any .justification for asking people to live on J 15.50 a week.

Reference has been made to the fringe benefits available to pensioners. Fringe benefits started with the payment of a higher pension to a single person than to a married person. This- is the alternative to providing an adequate pension for ail. Of course, the basic wage to which Senator Rae referred was based on the needs of a family unit of a man and his wife and their 2 children. This meant that those couples who had more than 2 children had to curtail some of their expenditure and live somewhat cheaper than a man who had only his wife and 2 children to support. But the family unit with less than 2 children, including the single man, received a higher income and did somewhat better out of the basic wage which was determined from time to time according to cost of Irving figures. The Labor Party was responsible for the introduction of pensions in the Commonwealth sphere but at no time did a Labor Government discriminate between pensioners. The Chifley Government introduced the child endowment system in order to give some justice to those couples who had more than 2 children. The argument of this Government apparently is that 2 people can live as cheap as one person. If that were so, a pensioner couple could possibly get along comfortably on the unit pension. When the single pensioner could not exist on the pension, rather than increase it so that a pensioner couple would receive an increase, we introduced an additional amount for the single pensioner so that he could exist, but the conditions of the pensioner couple were not improved. Following this, when basic needs created poverty, rather than increase the pension so that every pensioner could afford to supply his needs, we gave fringe benefits for certain happenings that may occur in a pensioner’s life. But a fringe benefit is only of benefit to the person who utilises or requires it. Free hospitalisation is a benefit to the pensioner who goes into hospital; it is not a benefit to the pensioner who does not. Instead of increasing the pension so that a pensioner could pay for hospitalisation, which would leave some few in a more advantageous position, we have given these free benefits.

The aged persons’ homes scheme and the other schemes that we have are of benefit only to those who occupy an aged persons’ home. A bankrupt pensioner, a pensioner without money behind him, cannot get into an aged persons’ home because a minimum of $3,100 for key money is needed. Senator Buttfield said that we have housing trust homes on which no deposit is . required. So we have, but there is a 5 to 7 years wait to get one of these homes. Usually the undertaker calls before the housing trust people call for the purpose of giving the pensioner a home. Therefore we cannot count fringe benefits as being beneficial to all pensioners, and say: Whether or not the pension is adequate or not, they have these other fringe benefits’. 1 suppose Government supporters live in suburbs which are not industrial areas,, where the neighbours have a higher margin than that of the average manual worker. Government supporters see their neighbours become entitled to various benefits and think that they are not very badly off and therefore all pensioners are not very badly off. Those who have spent their lives in industrial areas can point in every street to cases of hardship and poverty amongst pensioners. They can point to the conditions of hardship of a particular couple that does exist in poverty and they know that the existence is real.

The family on a low income - even a family whose breadwinner has had constant work, on a tradesman’s wage with a tow margin- employs its income perhaps in the rearing of 3 or 4 children. Since the rearing of children is expensive, this leaves the family nothing to save. Perhaps they live in an impoverished furnished home until such time as the children grow up and go out to work to supplement the income of the home. When the children get married, if the father is still young enough to work, he may have some opportunity to save a few bob. But possibly the parents will spend money more lavishly on presents for the grandchildren than they were capable of spending on their own children. Would anyone condemn them for this expenditure on the grandchildren? If a son or daughter has had an unfortunate marriage and finds it hard to get along - and this is happening in all of these working class homes with 3 or 4 children - the parents contribute to help them along. There is always some drain on the income of the older couple when they are working so that at the stage of retirement when they become of pensionable age, they find themselves still in their rented home. What do they live on if they find the pension inadequate to keep them? If they can get the job that Senator Buttfield was talking about, they can struggle on for a bit. Not long after retirement they become physically unfit for acceptance in industry. Their capability for work in industry is limited to a very short time.

So we have appeals through all the newspapers of Australia in winter time for blankets for some impoverished pensioners. So we have set up Meals on Wheels to ensure that those who cannot provide a meal for themselves get one hot meal a day at a low cost. The Meals on Wheels organisation also has a housekeeping service. This is the state to which the pension is reducing the people who struggled to develop this country. This is our treatment of the people to whom we owe the wealth of Australia today. Despite the fact that that is happening we have notification that the Government is going to vote against the amendment moved by Senator Fitzgerald which states that steps should be taken immediately to eliminate poverty. It is indifferent to these things that it sees paraded before its eyes. It thinks it is doing its Christian duty by allowing as taxation deductions donations of $2 for the winter relief of those in need to buy blankets to clothe the bodies which the pensions will not permit them to clothe.

My purpose originally was not to deal with this question of the plight of the pensioners but to raise questions that concern me, which I think are properly Committee questions. In view of the fact that Committee discussion is limited to a quarter of an hour - certainly there is opportunity for an extension of time - this does not permit one to criticise all of the clauses of the Bill that one would like to criticise. I have been concerned for a long time with the discretionary power of heads of departments when a social service gift is to be given or some payment is to be made. This power is the concern of the Regulations and Ordinance Committee. With the Regulations and Ordinance Committee moving to disallow the many discretionary powers which are given to the Executive, we have nearly eliminated this discretion from regulations and ordinances. Rarely now do we see discretion extended in regulations and ordinances. But if we exclude the discretion from regulations and ordinances, I do not see why it should be provided in legislation if there is an alternative to it. It may be that we should not complain about this if the operation of the Act has been in accordance with what Parliament decided or in accordance with what would be an entitlement if discretionary powers were not given to individuals. But I think it could be shown that heads of departments have not always acted in accordance with the express intention of the Act. Of course, if heads of departments have not operated in accordance with the express intention of the Act, under any Act we have the right to appeal to the judiciary in these terms: ‘I have an entitlement for such and such but the Secretary of the Department refused to pay me the entitlement.’ Judgment could therefore be given that the entitlement did exist and the payment should be made. We cannot complain much when there is an appeal to the judiciary and the matter is given judicial consideration. If the discretion is applied in such a way that a wealthy company is deprived of some entitlement, the company takes the matter to the High Court and sometimes as far as the Privy Council for a determination of the question in order to get justice under a particular Act. However, if the recipient of a social services pension wishes to challenge the exercise of a discretion, although the court has power to act the opportunity is not present for the pensioner to take the matter before the court. Therefore we must give added protection to the impoverished sections of the community in declaring their entitlement. We must ensure that we do not give power to some individual to refuse to give them their entitlement.

The Social Services Act lays down conditions under which a pensioner may receive a social service benefit or supplementary assistance, provided that the applicant for a pension meets certain requirements at a date determined by the DirectorGeneral. The Act prescribes conditions under which a widow or deserted wife may receive a pension from a date determined by the Director-General. The Bill now before us proposes to extend the provision relating to the supplementary allowance to cover also those pensioners who are in receipt of the sickness benefit only. I understand that the qualification for the allowance is that they shall be dependent entirely on the sickness benefit and be in receipt of no other income. Proposed section 1J.2b (2.) slates:

Subject to this Part, there Is payable to a person to whom this section applies, in addition to his sickness benefit, a supplementary allowance at a rate determined by the Director-General in the particular case, being a rate not exceeding Two dollars per week.

Again we find that the Director-General has a discretion. But the point that I want to raise is that which is contained in proposed section 112b (3.) which states:

An allowance under this section is payable from a date determined by the Director-General, which may be a dale before the date of the determination.

Under that sub-section the DirectorGeneral, having decided that an allowance shall be paid, may determine that payment shall be retrospective. The power is there for him to do that. Proposed sub-section (4.) states:

Where a person in receipt of an allowance under this section ceases to be a person to whom this section applies, the Director-General may cancel the allowance as on and from such date as the Director-General determines.

Therefore, the payment of an allowance and the date between which it shall be paid are within the discretion of the DirectorGeneral. By reference to the principal Act I propose to illustrate that certain qualifications are required of a person to be entitled to the supplementary allowance. Section 68 of the Act provides that where a widow’s pension is granted: it shall be paid from a date determined by the Director-General, but the date so determined shall not, subject to this section, be prior to the date on which the claim for the pension was lodged or later than the first pension pay day occurring after the date on which the claim was lodged. . . .

In providing for the payment of a widow’s pension we stipulate in the legislation that it shall be payable from a date which the Director-General decides, but we impose upon the Director-General a limitation by stipulating that it shall not be paid from a date earlier than that on which the claim was made. In this way we put on the widow an obligation to claim and place a restriction on the Director-General by providing that he shall not determine a date earlier than that on which the claim was made.

I think it ls important In interpreting this legislation to note that the draftsman placed significance on the lodgment of ft claim. He recognised that some importance was associated with the lodgment of a claim. But when we come to the payment of supplementary assistance, eligibility for which is to be extended by the Bill to those in receipt of a sickness benefit, we provide that it is to be payable to a single pensioner only, that the pensioner must be relying entirely on the pension for income and that he must be paying rent. If he satisfies those 3 requirements he becomes entitled to a supplementary allowance which is payable from a date determined by the Director-General. Having determined that a person is entitled to the allowance, the Director-General may make the payment retrospective. The Draftsman has used different language in this provision because he makes no mention of the determination being made in response to a claim. Under the Act no claim for a supplementary allowance is necessary, whereas a claim is necessary for the payment of a widow’s pension. The Draftsman has recognised the significance of these two matters and has made a claim necessary in one case but not in the other.

Senator Byrne:

– I presume that one is for an initial allowance whereas the other is for a supplement to an existing allowance. Would that be the difference?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– One is for the widow’s pension and the other is for an allowance.

Senator Byrne:

– One is coming on the record for the first time and the other is already on the record in one place.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– On the record for the payment of a pension. If I were able to establish that a month ago I had all the qualifications under section 30a of the Act to entitle me to a pension, I should be paid an allowance from that date because there Ls no requirement in the Act that I shall lodge a claim. I must be paid the allowance from the date that the DirectorGeneral determines and he may make payment retrospective to the date when I had all the qualifications to satisfy a claim under this section. But in determining whether a pension shall be paid the DirectorGeneral does not operate in this way.

I refer to a particular case of a man and his wife who were receiving the pension. He was paying rent. His wife died and the Director-General was informed sufficiently to enable him to stop the payment of the wife’s pension from the date of her death. I think funeral benefits were claimed. The husband was in such a distressed state that he was not capable of making an application until 3 weeks or a month after the date of her death. When the application had been lodged the Director-General recognised the man’s entitlement and made a determination granting an additional benefit by way of supplementary assistance as from the date of application. I remind the Senate that for payment of a widow’s pension a claim is necessary, but for the payment of a supplementary allowance a claim is not necessary. The DirectorGeneral had every right to make the payment of the allowance retrospective to the date on which the man became entitled to the allowance. His entitlement did not rest on his making a claim.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– How does the Director-General become aware of it if no claim is made? I am referring to the generality of cases.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– There are means by which he could become aware of it. He knew that the wife had died. The man would fill in the pink monthly return to say that he was not receiving free board and lodging and in this way the DirectorGeneral would become aware of his entitlement. In any case, the Director-General was made sufficiently aware of it when the claim was lodged, and he would have been aware then that the man had been entitled to payment from a date 3 weeks earlier.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

– He would have been receiving the special temporary allowance after his wife’s death.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No.

Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin:

–

From the lime that the second pension ceased.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not think so. Although I am unable to state whether this matter has been raised, the custom of the Department is to pay an allowance from no earlier date than that on which the claim was lodged. The DirectorGeneral adopts that custom as the principle upon which payment shall be made, rather than to exercise his discretion as permitted by the Act. As a Parliament we have decided the date on which payment shall be made, but when a person becomes entitled to payment we permit the Department to determine some other date which accords with the custom of the Department.

Debate interrupted.

page 779

ADJOURNMENT

Com mon wealth Offices, Adelaide

Hie 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.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– 1 regret having to speak again but I did not know 1 would bc speaking at the time of the adjournment. J will speak on an entirely different matter and for a briefer period. 1 want to complain about the conditions attached to the office accommodation for members of the Federal Parliament in South Australia.

Senator Young:

– I thought the honourable senator would have spoken on some other subject such as events last Friday or something like that to make it interesting. 1 heard his comments on Friday.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If Senator Young is interested, I am going to speak about last Friday, but for the moment I want to refer to my dissatisfaction with the office accommodation in Adelaide. When I was first elected to the Senate 1 was occupying a building on the corner of Hindley Street and King William Street.

Senator Byrne:

– Not the building entirely?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, I occupied part of the building. An insurance company was building an office across the road. lee parliamentarians were moved to that building on the corner of Grenfell Street and King William Street to assist the insurance company to pay for the construction of the building. The Australian Mutual Provident Society built an elaborate office on the corner of North Terrace and King William Street which had to be paid for and arrangements were made for the politicains to be moved into that building. At the time I protested to

Mr Anthony, who was then Minister for the Interior, that my interest was down the Grote Street end amongst the Trades Hall section. I was placed up amongst the scheming Parliament House and Liberal federation on North Terrace. I had no interest in that area. I wanted to be down the market end where the workers congregated. The then Minister informed me that it was impossible to give me the separate accommodation I might desire as a senator.

Senator Young:

– Was not Mr Clyde Cameron responsible for the move?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The honourable senator is not contributing anything informative, interesting or logical to the debate so I suggest he keep quite for a while.

Senator Young:

– The honourable senator will not answer my question. Was not Mr Clyde Cameron the instigator of the move to the AMP building?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not uphold all Mr Clyde Cameron’s moves as the best. My protest was only noted and I had to shift to quite a good offce at the AMP site. The first brush I had was on one occasion when we had a parcel for someone to pick up and sign for. He was going to call for it before 5 o’clock. Because of departmental arrangements the girls knocked off at half-past 4. A departmental messenger called in at 10 minutes to 5 to collect the parcel. He was chased up to the floor by the security officer at the AMP building and asked what he wanted. He said he wanted to pickup this parcel which had been left on the counter for him. The security officer said: ‘What is your name?’ When he gave his name the officer said: Well, this is not yours. It is in some other name.’ The messenger said: ‘I am picking it up as agent for this man.’ The security officer held the messenger and called the state police for the purpose of accusing him of theft until he could contact me. They wanted me to go up and identify him. Finally the security officer took my word without my journeying to Adelaide. I complained to the Department and I had this position rectified. I was told it would not happen again and that other arrangements would be made to get over such an event in the future.

On another occasion I was informed at lunch time that 2 security men had been sitting out at the reception desk all the morning. I was told that the purpose was to stop people - university students, they thought - from going into members’ offices. I went out and said: ‘Are you security men?’ One man called me over to a dark corner on my own and whispered in my ear: “Yes’. I then said: ‘Is it your purpose to stop anyone going into the office?’ He said: ‘We are protecting members.’ I said: I want no protection. If you are going to stop anyone going into my office there will be a complaint. There is going to be trouble.’ He said: ‘I can assure you, senator, I will stop no-one from going into your office.’ 1 was satisfied with that. The only thing I want security or protection from is security. I am not afraid of the decent elements in South Australia.

Last Friday my lad came to see me. As he came in the front door the commissionaire said : ‘Who do you want to see?’ My son said: ‘Senator Cavanagh.’ The commissionaire asked: ‘What do you want to see him for?’ My lad could not tell the truth because he wanted to report the brutality which he had seen displayed by the police in the Moratorium out the front that afternoon. He wanted to report the breaches of security which had occurred. He said: ‘He happens to be my father. This is a call of affection.’ He had someone else with him. As I was not there he came down the street and he saw me. I was at the demonstration. My lad told me what had happened. I went to the AMP building. The person who had spoken to my son was not there but there was a person in a Commonwealth uniform with SS on his shoulder. I suppose it stood for Storm Trooper’ or ‘Secret Service’. I said: Did you ask my lad what he wanted to see me about?’ This officer said: ‘No, it was not I. It was the commissionaire on the door. But I would have if he had not been there. I was here at the time.’ I said: If people come to see me, before they see me do you want to know what they want to see me about?’ He said: ‘Yes, I will insist on that.’ JJ said: ‘It will have to stop. If I have visitors it is not for them to tell you what they want to see me about.’ This person said: The commissionaire did the right thing. Those are his orders. They are our orders and I can do nothing else.’ I said: ‘It will have to stop.’ He said: ‘It is not going to stop because those are our orders.’

I did not object to anyone who came to see me telling this man on the door whom they want to see, but I do not think they should have had to say what they wanted to see me about. I had many people coming in there - females come to see me - and 1 did not want them telling these officers. The procedure is wrong. Visitors to a member of Parliament should not have to be questioned about security. There should be sufficient trust in a member of Parliament for that. 1 ask for some guarantee that this situation will not be repeated where 1 have my accommodation. If it is, J will not stand for it. I will have no alternative but to put my table and chair in the foyer or out on the footpath where 1 will meet the persons seeking the interview before the commissionaire of the AMP building speaks to them. If the AMP has a system whereby they have to check on everyone entering the building, for Cod’s sake let us get out of the building. 1 do not need protection in Adelaide. As 1 said, the only protection I need is from the Security Service. I ask the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon) to look into this question and give an assurance that people who want to see me will not have to report to someone else the reasons why they want to see me.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– This is a matter for the Minister for the Interior (Mr Nixon). I shall direct to him all the points the honourable senator has raised. I would like to be sure in my own mind whether it is a security service of the Australian Mutual Provident Society or of some other organisation. But all these points will need to be looked at and investigated in order to answer the various points which Senator Cavanagh has raised this evening.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.39 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 22 September 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19700922_senate_27_s45/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate22 September 1970

QUESTION

ABORIGINALS

Senator WILLESEE:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

WATER

Senator BUTTFIELD:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

PRIMARY PRODUCTION

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

PEAS

Senator LILLICO:TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

MARIHUANA

Senator POYSER:VICTORIA

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

TOURISM

Senator DAVIDSON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

Senator Cavanagh:

Senator WRIGHT:

QUESTION

NATION AX SERVICE

Senator WEBSTER:VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

Senator Byrne:

Senator WRIGHT:

QUESTION

ARBITRATION

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

WINE

Senator WEBSTER:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

AMERICA-AUSTRALIA ALLIANCE

Senator GEORGES:QUEENSLAND

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator CANT:WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator Cant:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

SMUGGLING

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS

Senator POKE:TASMANIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

DEMONSTRATIONS

Senator YOUNG:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Senator MILLINER:QUEENSLAND

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT

Senator WRIEDT:TASMANIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

AIR POLLUTION

Senator LACEY:TASMANIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Lacey:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

NATURAL RESOURCES

Senate
22 September 1970

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator LACEY:
TASMANIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
through Senator Lawrie

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA