House of Representatives
18 March 1943

16^th Parliament · 1^st Session

QUESTION
- PUBLICSERVICE PAY AND TAXATION
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN ARMY
QUESTION
- ACQUISITION OE PRIMARY PRODUCTS
COMMONWEALTH POWERS BILL
MEAT INDUSTRY
FOOD CONTROL
AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS FOOD PLANNING
- London, Wednesday
QUESTION
- RUBBER SUBSTITUTES
QUESTION
- UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
QUESTION
- WAR INSOUTH-WEST PACIFIC AREA
QUESTION
- CENTRAL WOOL COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- VOLUNTEER DEFENCE CORPS
QUESTION
- SYDNEY BAKERS’ STRIKE
QUESTION
- HORSE-SHOES
QUESTION
- BIRTH AND DEATH CERTIFICATES
QUESTION
- LAND TAX IN NEW SOUTH WALES
QUESTION
- SYDNEY MEAT SUPPLIES
QUESTION
- SEED POTATOES
QUESTION
- COUNTRY NURSING SERVICES
QUESTION
- POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION
QUESTION
- SHORTAGE OF VEGETABLES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY UNIT IN GREAT BRITAIN
NATIONAL WELFARE FUND BILL 1943
AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL 1943
QUESTION
- THE SIXTH SCHEDULE
COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL 1943
ADJOURNMENT
- Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill - Discussion of Grievances
PAPERS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Parliamentary Committees : Evidence

Mr. Speaker (Hon. W. Ml Nairn) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1962

QUESTION

PUBLICSERVICE PAY AND TAXATION

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Treasurer yet able to furnish the information which I sought last week regarding the making of the new income tax deductions from the salaries payable to public servants on the 2nd April next?

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The matter is being examined. The intention is to collect the new tax from all salaries payable subsequent to the first pay-day in April. It has to be understood that any overpayments up to the 31st March will be refunded. I shall furnish a full statement on the matter to the honorable member.

page 1962

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Hostel Accommodation in Brisbane - Release of Artisan.

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– The Minister for the Army will recall that during the last few months I have frequently stressed the need for additional hostel accommodation for troops on leave in Brisbane. Does the honorable gentleman consider that the hostel accommodation in that city, including that which is provided by the new hostel, St. Oswald’s, is still inadequate to meet the needs of troops on leave? Is he in a position to announce the taking over of any additional building in Brisbane, in order to provide further accommodation for hundreds of servicemen, with facilities equal to those that are provided in the new Australian Defence Canteens Service Hostel in Sydney, which he has described as the best hostel in Australia?

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The matter of additional hostel accommodation in Brisbane has exercised my mind for some time, and on several occasions I have discussed it with the honorable members for Griffith (Mr.Conelan) and Brisbane (Mr. George Lawson). The Army decided to take over what is known as St.

Oswald’s building on North Quay, Brisbane, and to have certain alterations and renovations made to it. These were completed recently, and I shall perform the official opening ceremony next Monday afternoon. Since the completion of this hostel, a survey has been made by responsible military authorities in Brisbane of the available hostel accommodation for servicemen in that city. The report furnished indicates that there is still a shortage, particularly of accommodation which will provide indoor entertainment and amenities for men on leave. The policy of the ‘Government being to do everything possible to provide adequate hostel accommodation for men on leave, I intend, while in Brisbane, to discuss the matter further with the General Officer Commanding lines of Communication and the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Cooper. I hope that we shall be able to come to a decision which will lead to the taking over of an additional suitable building.

Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– On the 31st December, I received from the Minister for the Army an acknowledgement of a letter which I had sent to him about an application by a soldier for release to take up his trade as a plumber. I have received from that man a letter enclosing a copy of the Queensland Worker, in which the Department of Labour and National Service advertises an urgent appeal for plumbers, as well as other tradesmen. Will the Minister for the Army release this man in order that he may take up his trade of plumbing? Alternatively, will the Minister for Labour and National Service cease advertising for plumbers?

Mr FORDE:

– I shall be glad if the honorable member for Herbert will give me full particulars.

Mr Martens:

– I have.

Mr FORDE:

– The honorable member will appreciate that I receive hundreds of letters each day. I do not recall this par.ticular ease. It must be realized that the Army, being largely mechanized, has a need for skilled artisans. “Whilst every consideration will be given to applications for the release of tradesmen, the defence of Australia must be the paramount consideration. I shall look into, this matter and reply to the honorable gentleman later.

Later:

Mr MARTENS:

– The Minister said that if I would give him full particulars he would make inquiries into this case. I point out that the man is not being employed as a plumber-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member is speaking of an individual case. He was asked by the Minister for the Army to state , t lie particulars to him in writing, and I think that the invitation may well be accepted.

page 1963

QUESTION

ACQUISITION OE PRIMARY PRODUCTS

Validity of Regulations - High Court Decision - Blue Peas - Wheat

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– When does the Attorney-General expect to ..be able to make the statement which, on the 26th February, he promised that he would make concerning the effect of the decision of the High Court in the Tonking case, upon claims that may be made as the result of the compulsory acquisition of primary products ?

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On the 10th March, the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Guy) asked me a question in connexion with the acquisition of blue peas. On the 26th February I had undertaken, in response to a suggestion by the honorable member for Indi (Mr. McEwen) to make a review generally of the position with regard to the acquisition of commodities, in the light of the High Court’s decision in the recent apple and pear case. Such a survey involves many detailed inquiries, but I now place some general considerations before the House.

In the Tonking case, the actual amount of compensation to which the plaintiff was entitled was a minor issue, so far, at least, as the court was concerned. The main issue was a general question of constitutional law - whether a grower had the right to have his just compensation assessed, by a court, and not exclusively by the authorities - the Minister acting on the recommendation of the board - which was at that time prescribed by the regulations. The main issue was decided in favour of the grower. The High Court held that the Constitution gave to the grower the right of access to the court. The court, therefore, had itself to proceed to assess the compensation to- which the plaintiff was entitled. At the trial of the original action, no evidence had been given as to the basis upon which growers were being compensated de facto under the regulations. In consequence of this, the court held that Mr. Tonking was entitled .to the net proceeds of the sale of the actual fruit which he had produced - which in this particular case were identifiable. But members of the court emphasized that additional evidence might have led them to assess the compensation altogether differently. It is wrong to assume that the Tonking case lays down a final and irrevocable rule as to the method of assessing compensation for products compulsorily acquired and pooled. The court, however, did say in. that case that the grower is entitled to the full value of his fruit; that this alone would be the “ just terms “ for which the Constitution provides. But the translation of these general propositions into pounds, shillings and pence is a task that cannot finally or satisfactorily be accomplished unless account be taken of the aims, methods and results of the acquisition by the Commonwealth of the commodity concerned. Each scheme depends upon its own organization and methods of compensation. As honorable members will realize, the very existence of a pool in some instances enables a market to be preserved. That, therefore, is one of the relevant circumstances. Without going into detail, I observe that, in considering the “ full value “ of a commodity that has been acquired, a clear distinction must be drawn between what may be called the “ individual “ and the “ mass “ acquisition of property. Where the Commonwealth acquires a particular building or piece of equipment, the acquisition generally leaves the market undisturbed. But the very object of “mass” acquisition is to deal with a threatened shortage or a threatened glut, to create an altogether new, fair and stable market, and to prevent profiteering on the one hand or the collapse of an industry on the other. “ Just terms “ in 1 such circumstances cannot be fixed merely by endeavouring .to ascertain what price a grower would have obtained for his commodity in an open market. Very often the market has been disturbed, or even destroyed, by the exigencies of war.

In connexion with wheat, the honorable member for Indi mentioned particularly the special position of what is called “ quota” wheat - a grower’s first 3,000 bushels - for which a price of 4s. a bushel is guaranteed. I do not think there is anything whatever in the judgments in the Tonking case which throws doubt on this arrangement. Doubt must rest, I think, on an entire misconception of the facts. They are these : An advance of 4s. a bushel is paid on the quota wheat. On the residue, ,an advance of 2s. only is paid, but, as sales take place, further advances will be made. In making payments from the pool, the necessary adjustments are made for variations in the quality of the wheat supplied. Additional payments are made to the actual grower concerned, in respect of the small quantity sold as premium wheat. For sub-standard wheat, deductions are made from the amounts payable to the grower concerned. The vital point is that the wheat pool - which, ‘by the way, includes the proceeds of the flour tax - will in any event pay in respect of all wheat, both quota and surplus wheat alike, the net proceeds of realization, neither more nor less. If the selling price of wheat is insufficient to repay the full 4s. advance on the quota wheat, the difference will be made up from general revenue. Surplus wheat will, therefore, not have to subsidize quota wheat. On the other hand, if the price rose so high as to exceed the guaranteed price plus costs of handling, quota wheat would not have to subsidize surplus wheat. The net proceeds of realization would still be paid by the pool to the grower.

In most cases of general acquisition, the industry has been faced with a substantial export surplus, for which the war has closed the customary markets overseas. Acquisition has been resorted to in order to avert the disorganization and collapse arising from a glut on the home market. Field peas, to which the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Guy) referred, are an instance of exactly the opposite process - the acquisition of a commodity in short supply. The local demand, especially for Army purposes, has rapidly expanded. The crop is small, too small, indeed, to meet in full Australia’s war-time needs. Acquisition was resorted to in order to ensure supplies for Service needs, and to regulate the marketing of any surplus available for civilian use. Price control alone would have prevented profiteering, but would not have secured the other important objectives. The terms of acquisition - 15s. a bushel to the grower - were fixed by the Commonwealth Prices Commissioner.

A court is not necessarily bound to hold that a price fixed by the Prices Commissioner will constitute just terms of acquisition. But the appropriate administrative authority has taken the view that this particular price was just. I have been advised that the price before the war was certainly not morethan 8s. a bushel. Growers themselves know that the price now fixed is both reasonable and payable. They could have got higher prices, no doubt, in an uncontrolled market; the merchants could certainly have got higher prices. Buyers, it is known, had to pay up to 30s. a bushel in. the year before acquisition took place. It is not to be assumed that the Constitution makes the Commonwealth powerless to check profiteering in a case where considerations of defence make it necessary to acquire a commodity that is in short supply. “ Just terms “ are not necessarily synonymous with getting the very utmost that competition can squeeze out of the necessities of the nation in time of war.

The commodities I have mentioned may be taken as typical of the mass or general acquisitions put into operation in order, either to rectify the ill effects of shortages in war conditions, or to avert the consequences of over-supply. There are, however, other commodities in respect of which the Commonwealth has not itself acquired and marketed a whole crop, but has obtained large supplies for service purposes, under contracts with processors whose own supplies are controlled by the Commonwealth, at prices fixed by the Prices Commissioner. Tomatoes and citrus fruits belong to this class of commodities. I do not wish now to repeat or amplify the statement I made to the House on this class of transactions as recently as the 26th February. Broadly speaking, it was to the effect that the price fixed by the Prices Commissioner may be examined by a court.

The principles upon which the Commonwealth has acted in carrying out plans for the “ mass “ acquisition of commodities have been laid down by successive governments representing all parties in Australia, and have been supported in each case by representatives of the industry concerned.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Nothing like that was done in the case of wheat lands.

Dr EVATT:

– That is the exception.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– It is a remarkable exception, too.

Dr EVATT:

– That is what the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) has pointed out.

The position arising from the High Court’s decision as to the damages awarded in the apple and pear case may have to be clarified in subsequent proceedings. Apparently, the decision lays down no mechanical rule of universal application in the ascertainment of just terms of acquisition. It may well be inapplicable to other circumstances and other commodities.

Summing up, it may fairly be said - (1)That under the Constitution no property of a citizen can be acquired or requisitioned except on “ just terms “.

That the citizen is not necessarily bound by any departmental or governmental assessment of compensation. The citizen has the general right of testing such assessments in the court.
That no general rule can be laid down as to the precise measure of compensation in each case. Each scheme or each acquisition must be governed by its own peculiar circumstances. The just measure of compensation in any given instance depends upon the particular circumstances of the acquisition concerned, and these may and do vary greatly, not only from industry to industry, but from season to season as well.
That perhaps the best working rule to be adopted both by departments and by growers or owners is to obtain agreement - in advance if possible - as to the compensation payable ; whilst no department can itself be the final judge as to the fair compensation, the owner or grower should also be ready to reach agreement if there is any dispute as to what, in all the circumstances, is fair compensation.

Mr Spender:

– Will that principle be applicable in the case of leasehold land which is not ta.ken over for the whole term of the lease, but for a period only ?

Dr EVATT:

– The same general principles apply in the case of fixed property.

Mr Menzies:

– Is it proposed to prescribe the court in which the claim shall be heard, or is that to be left to the claimant ?

Dr EVATT:

– Each set of regulations prescribes the method of arriving at compensation. In the apple and pear claims in New South Wales, there is an appeal from the board to a district court. The growers are anxious to know what price their commodity realized in the market, and I understand that the Department of Commerce and Agriculture will supply that information.

page 1966

COMMONWEALTH POWERS BILL

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– In view of the success of the campaign of sabotage which has resulted in all the States of the Commonwealth except two failing to pass the Commonwealth Powers Bill will the Attorney-General take early action to submit to the people by way of referendum the Commonwealth proposals for a transfer of powers from the States to the Commonwealth and other proposals of a like nature so that the people shall determine whether this Parliament should have adequate powers to deal with problems which may arise in the postwar period ?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– The present position was stated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) a few nights ago on the motion for the adjournment of the House. New South Wales and Queensland have passed the bill in the form agreed to at Canberra. In no other State has the bill been passed in that precise form. The Tasmanian upper house rejected the bill, but the Premier of Tasmania has prorogued Parliament and will call it together again in an attempt to have the bill passed in a satisfactory form. Consideration of the bill has not yet been completed in Western Australia. As the Prime Minister said, we cannot announce what will be done until we know what has been done by the State Parliaments; but, as the Prime Minister also said, the Commonwealth is determined to have the powers it will need to deal properly with all matters of post-war reconstruction.

page 1966

MEAT INDUSTRY

Mi-. FRANCIS. - In the absence of the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government proposes to set up a new body to replace the Meat Industry Commission which ceased to function following the Senate’s disallowance of the Meat Industry Regulations? If not, for what period is it proposed that Mr. j. Tonkin, of the Department of Commerce and Agriculture, shall continue as controller of the meat industry?

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– The matter is being considered, and I hope to be able to supply an answer to the honorable gentleman next week.

page 1966

FOOD CONTROL

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct the attention of the Attorney-General to the following article which appeared this morning in the Canberra Times: -

page 1966

AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS FOOD PLANNING

London, Wednesday

In a leading; .article on the announcement that Dr. Evatt will urge upon Allied leaders the need for united action to ensure steady,, adequate supplies of food at prices fair to both consumers and producers, “ The Times “ says it is natural that whole-hearted support for Mr. Roosevelt’s initiative concerning a food1 conference should come from Australia.

Secret Meeting of Parliament - Australia’s DefenceStrategy - General Douglas Mac Arthur.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of making a statement on the war situation to a secret meeting of the Senate and the House of Representatives before the termination of this session?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– I shall consider the matter, but I do not see any occasion for holding a secret meeting for the purpose of discussing the state of the war. If any developments should occur between now and next week that warrant an alteration of that view, I shall naturally be influenced by them.

Mr CALWELL:

– Has the Prime Minister read in the daily press that Australia’s war strategy was drastically revised after General MacArthur assumed command of the South-west Pacific front? The article read,inter alia -

Our defence plan then conceived that the islands to the north would be lost and that North Queensland and Darwin would be overrun. Provision had been made for an organized resistance behind a line drawn west from Brisbane. General MacArthur considered the conception of this strategy defeatist and fatal to Australia’s safety.

In view of the implications involved in the statement, will the Prime Minister consider the advisability of making a statement to the Senate and the House of Representatives, preferably in secret, before the recess, concerning the defence of the Commonwealth? Will the right honorable gentleman particularly relate what action was taken against those responsible for devising such a policy? Are those persons still associated with Army administration?

Mr CURTIN:

– I have not seen the article in the press, and I do not propose ro review here the arguments for and against war strategy eighteen months or two years ago. War is a changing problem. Japanese attacks on Singapore, Pearl Harbour and Australia completely transformed the whole character of the relationship of Australia to the war with the Axis. That, at least, is clear. That change occurred since this Government assumed office, and it has exerted every effort, in the closest co-operation with, and with the guidance of, the High Command, to ensure that Australia will be held and that the enemy will be resisted. At the same time, we are doing everything in our power to advance the cause of the United Nations in all theatres.

Mr McEwen:

– The Advisory War Council has co-operated with the Government.

Mr CURTIN:

– The Advisory War Council, which was established before the present Government took office, has functioned continuously since October, 1940. The fact is that we have held this country, not only by the valour of our soldiers, but also with the substantial aid of our Allies. We have also rendered substantial aid to them. The task now confronting us is to exert our maximum effort because vital issues are at stake. I do not propose to hold post mortems a3 to what might or might not have happened in certain circumstances. What I propose to ask” Australia to do is to concentrate upon the task which lies ahead of us, and by doing all that we humanly can, make certain that the directives given to our commanders shall be supported by the maximum cooperation of the people. This week marked the first anniversary of General MacArthur’s arrival in Australia. He has not only been a great organizer against a common enemy, but has also become an inspiring force to this nation. I desire my view to be known that if General MacArthur had been Australian-born and had served all his life in the Australian Army, he could have done no more for the defence of Australia than he has done as an American-born citizen and an officer of the United States Army.

Honorable Members.- Hear, hear!

page 1968

QUESTION

CENTRAL WOOL COMMITTEE

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister arrange for reports and any documents in the possession of the Government, setting out the views of the Central Wool Committee, to be laid on the table of the House?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– Many of the documents in the possession of the Central Wool Committee relate to negotiations with another government on the price to be paid for our wool clip, and to other matters, and no good purpose would be served by laying them upon the table of the House. If the honorable member desires information about a specific matter, I shall endeavour to obtain it for him; but I cannot undertake to lay on the table papers which I have not seen and which may involve confidential consultations with another government.

page 1968

QUESTION

VOLUNTEER DEFENCE CORPS

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Minister for the Army indicate whether any progress has been made in the training of units of the Volunteer Defence Corps in factories engaged in war production? Some time ago, the Minister announced that war workers would be given training in order that in the event of the invasion of this country, which still seems to be a possibility, they would be able to assist the fighting forces in making a stand against the enemy.

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The war establishment of the Volunteer Defence Corps was recently increased to include some thousands of supernumeraries who had not been associated with the Volunteer Defence Corps organization.

Mr Francis:

– How many?

Mr FORDE:

– For security reasons, I shall give that information to the honorable member privately.

Mr Morgan:

– Is progress being made with the training of the war workers ?

Mr FORDE:

– Generally speaking, the Volunteer Defence Corps organization encourages persons to enlist not from the factory in which they work, but in the locality in which they reside. In a few instances, certain men employed in special industries have been enlisted, and given special training in the part that they shall play in the event of an attack on the factories engaged in war production in which they are employed.

page 1969

QUESTION

SYDNEY BAKERS’ STRIKE

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Did the Prime Minister read in the Sydney Morning Herald a statement by the president of the Bakers Union, Mr. Kerr, that “he would do his damnedest to see that this fight is brought to a successful issue”? Does not the right honorable gentleman consider that the failure of the Government to take firm action against striking coal-miners is encouraging strikes in other industries, such as the baking industry, and that industrial troubles may spread even to war industries? Will the Prime Minister take immediate action to force those engaged in the baking industry to observe the terms of their award, and return to work?

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

– The baking industry in New South Wales is governed by State law and State instrumentalities. No federal jurisdiction is applicable to bakeries. I do not know what the president of the union said. He may have made it very clear that he would do his utmost to bring the matter to a successful termination. The sooner the strike ends, the better it will be for all concerned. I regret very much that this difficulty has arisen, but I am certain that the honorable member will not ask me to usurp the authority of the law of New South Wales.

page 1969

QUESTION

HORSE-SHOES

Later:

Mr COLLINS:

– I ask the Minister for War Organization of Industry to inform the House of the names of the persons who advised him as to the suggested standardization of horse-shoes. Will the Minister explain how horseshoes are to be standardized?

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

– The honorable member is a long way behind the times. Horseshoes were standardized a good while ago. It was found that an excessive number of types and varieties was being manufactured, and, after consultation with certain persons, it was decided to standardize horse-shoes with the object of reducing the number of types being manufactured, thus effecting economy in the use of material. I cannot, at the moment, give the House the names of the persons who were consulted, but I assure the honorable member that many varieties and styles of horse-shoes are still procurable. The standardization has not been to one size and design. I shall furnish more information to the honorable member later.

page 1969

QUESTION

BIRTH AND DEATH CERTIFICATES

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he will consult with State authorities with the object of introducing uniformity in respect of birth and death certificates, so as to avoid the publication, on occasions, of information which is embarrassing to individuals.

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– I am not quite sure of the present position, but I shall make inquiries on the subject.

page 1970

QUESTION

LAND TAX IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPOONER:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know of any vegetables of which the Army is in short supply.

Mr Anthony:

– The honorable gentleman made that statement yesterday.

Mr BEASLEY:

– I did not say that the Army was in short supply. Thank God., steps have been taken to maintain supplies of everything that is needed by the Army; that is something of which we all are proud. It is true that there are shortages of certain lines for the civilian population. A lot of causes could be stated, and perhaps the cause mentioned by the honorable member would rank prominently among them. I find it difficult to reconcile constantly the maintenance of the strength of the fighting forces on the one hand, and the needs of the civilian population on the other hand, in a way that would give satisfaction to all. The Minister for the Army is doing his level best to strike a proper balance between the needs of the Army and the requirements of the civilian population. I hope that the House will act reasonably in this matter, and recognize that the Government is making the defence of this country its paramount concern.

page 1971

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FORESTRY UNIT IN GREAT BRITAIN

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– Can the Treasurer state when he expects to reply to the question which I asked on the 4th March, concerning the complaint that members of the Australian Forestry

Unit in Britain had suffered and are suffering severe financial loss because of the exchange rate?

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

– I took the matter up immediately the honorable member had raised it. I hope to be able to reply to him shortly.

page 1971

NATIONAL WELFARE FUND BILL 1943

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 1971

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS’ REPATRIATION BILL 1943

In committee: Consideration resumed from the 17th March (vide page 1916).

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Upon which Mr. Spender had moved by way of amendment -

That the clause be postponed - as an instruction to the Government - that wherever in this bill the rates of pen - sion payable under the principal act have not been increased by 50 per centum they should be so increased.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– Last evening, the committee witnessed an extraordinary display by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) of agile footwork. The honorable gentleman moved from point to point in a manner resembling the little animal which jumps from peak to peak, but he was not nearly so sure-footed. In an endeavour to justify the increase of 20 per cent. which the Government proposes to give to the returned soldiers, he used the basic wage as his measuring rod, and said : “ This is theresult at which I have arrived.” I have heard from members of the special committee which investigated repatriation matters many explanations of the manner in which it had arrived at the increase of 20 per cent. The deputy chairman of the committee (Mr. Watkins) said that it was “ a deduction from common sense “. Members of the committee who sit on this side of the chamber have made other observations. I direct attention to the comments of the Minister. In order that the committee may have some idea of how he shifted his ground, I point out that when he endeavoured to justify the increase of 66 per cent. in respect of children, he used a different measuring rod. He then said -

The proposed increase is substantially the same as that recommended by the parliamentary committee, and the Government is of the opinion that it is justified, having regard to the increase of the cost of living since the commencement of the war–

That was his first point - the general increase of wages–

That was his second point - the present rate of pay of members of the forces, and the amendments which have been made in the rates of invalid and old-age pensions.

He thus forsook the measuring rod of the basic wage, and relied on other factors, which are just as relevant to the increase of 20 , per cent. as they are to the increase of 66 per cent. If the honorable gentleman uses a given basis to justify an increase of 66 per cent., I can see no reason why he should not use it also in relation to the amendment of the honorable member for Warringah. Does he regard it as fair that he should use the basic wage - which is the lowest amount necessary to maintain the standard of living in this country - as the measuring rod in computing the repatriation benefits that should be given to returned soldiers? I do not consider that it is. I should rather expect the honorable gentleman to be generous, and to say that the returned soldier is at least entitled to the basis upon which the wage of the average adult worker is computed in Australia to-day. If he were to adopt that course, he would find that, as I pointed out in my second-reading speech, the difference between the normal adult wage to-day and that paid in 1919 is 47 per cent., not 20 per cent. or less. The honorable gentleman said last night that no argument had been advanced in favour of an increase of more than 20 per cent., and that the organizations of returned soldiers were not interested in any different amount; otherwise, they would have sought it from this Parliament. The members of the special committee have said repeatedly that no evidence was placed before them by any organization of returned soldiers in advocacy of a greater increase than 20 , per cent. Evidence has been placed before honorable members that, notwithstanding the statements of the Minister and of members of the committee, the Victorian branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia asked for an increase corresponding to the increase of soldiers’ pay, which is 41.67 per cent. If the Minister was aware of this he has deliberately clouded the position; if he was not, he had been misinformed. If the committee was aware of this fact, and suppressed it, it was at fault in so doing. The fact is that the returned soldiers of Victoria asked for an increase of 41.6 per cent., whilst those of New South Wales asked for an increase of 50 per cent.

Mr Coles:

– The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. McDonald) mentioned that fact in his speech.

Mr HARRISON:

– Then I have done him an injustice, and I am sorry. I did not hear him. However, the Minister did not reveal that fact in his statement. If he was in possession of it he had no right to say what he did last night. He has been moving from foot to foot in an endeavour to justify his attitude in regard to the 20 per cent. increase, and he is not making too good a showing. I draw attention to the following paragraph which appears on page 4 of the committee’s report : -

The committee found that there was reasonable ground for a general increase of the rates of war pension. An outstanding factor in this regard was the comparison of rates of pay to members of the forces and allowances to their dependants with the same items in respect of the 1914 war.

If that was the opinion of the committee, and it knew that the soldiers’ pay had increased by 41.67 per cent., I still cannot understand why it recommended an increase of pension rates by only 20 per cent. The increase might, in view of the evidence, have been fixed at something less than 50 per cent., but, having regard to the depreciation of the value of money, and to the increased cost of living, the figure might well have been fixed at 50 per cent. rather than something between 41 per cent. and 47 per cent. The Government should accept the amendment. It has been frequently stated during this debate that pensions could not be increased by more than 20 per cent. because the Government could not find the money. References have been made to the depreciation of the pound and to the Government’s heavy commitments. We have been told that it would be impossible for the Government to carry on in the face of ever-increasing demands upon the Treasury. I cannot accept those arguments in the light of what the Government is, in fact, doing. If pensions be increased by 50 per cent., the extra burden on the Treasury will amount to about £2,500,000, which will be used to reimburse fighting men who have suffered disabilities while defending our freedom and standards of living. Those standards enable industrial workers to earn from £15 to £20 a week, and cooks employed by the Allied Works Council to earn up to £30 a week. We are told the Government cannot afford an extra £2,500,000 for returned soldiers, yet it has brought down a national welfare scheme which is to cost, not £2,500,000, but £30,000,000. Does the Minister say that for the fighting man who has left his wife and children, perhaps in penury, while he goes to fight in defence of the country and suffers disability in the course of his service, this money cannot be found, although £30,000,000 can be found for the benefit of those who are already earning £15 and £20 a week?

Let us see whether the national income is able to stand this increase. Let us compare the position as it obtained immediately after the last war with the present position. I quote the following figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician : -

In the light of those figures how can honorable members say that the country cannot afford an additional £2,500,000 for disabled returned soldiers?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member has exhausted his time, but if no other honorable member wishes to speak he may take his second period now.

Mr HARRISON:

– The Government has entered into various commitments for the manufacture of munitions and other war materials. I have here a list of names of men employed by one such firm. There are 46 of them, and the weekly earnings of these men range between £16 and £25. The average for the 46 cases was £20 7s. a week. But I direct the attention of the committee to the fact that, whilst only fifteen men out of the 46 worked 44 hours’ ordinary time a week, a number worked 26 hours’ ordinary time and 32£, 42J and 44 hours’ double time. They received as high as £25 a week, while the men fighting in the ranks in the Army receive 8s. 6d. a day. For the industrial worker, the Government is establishing a national welfare fund, into which will be paid £30,000,000 a year, but it cannot find £2,500,000 in order to increase repatriation pensions by 50 per cent., as it should do in accordance with the comparative daily wages paid to soldiers in the last war and this war. The committee cannot sidestep these facts. The Minister for Repatriation will not dodge the issue by moving from one foot to another in endeavouring to justify the proposed increase of 20 per cent, on the one hand and 66^ per cent, on the other. The Minister must give better reasons than he has given for the 20 per cent, proposal before the committee will support it rather than the amendment moved by the honorable member for Warringah.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- Like the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) and the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), I should like pensions for returned soldiers and their dependants to be much more liberal than is proposed in the bill, and I am sure that all honorable members share that view. The fact remains that the all-party committee, on whose report this legislation was framed, and which was composed entirely of returned soldiers, recommended that pensions be increased by 20 per cent.

The reasons for that recommendation have been given by the chairman of the committee, the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard), and other honorable members. The proper way in which to handle this matter is not by delaying the passage of this measure, but by referring the matter to the standing committee on repatriation, which is to be set up. I do not want to delay giving effect to the committee’s recommendations for one moment longer than is necessary. The Government has made its financial arrangements for this year in accordance with the terms of this bill. I remind honorable members that the Senate challenged this House the other day. If there were an election and a change of government, there would be no guarantee that this legislation would be proceeded with. The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) was Minister for Health in the government which introduced the national health and pensions insurance scheme, but did not proceed with it because it could not find £2,000,000 with which to do so. It was left to a Labour government to introduce a national welfare scheme for the people at large and this bill for the benefit of returned soldiers. I point out to honorable members that the agitation has not been against the proportionate increase of the pensions so much as against the meagreness of the pensions themselves. The Sydney Daily Telegraph carried out its agitation for an all-round increase of repatriation pensions on -the ground that men wounded in heavy fighting abroad were given pensions so parsimonious that they had to go to work before they were fit. The municipality of Narrandera circularized other municipalities in an endeavour to create an agitation for an increase of repatriation pensions. The circular set out -

There are men in Narrandera who have been discharged from service in the present war as medically unfit, and for pension are receiving a mere pittance. To receive only a small pension the onus is on the discharged man all the time, and he has to fight hard to secure even a small pension. No doubt there are similar cases in your area.

The complaints that the pensions are parsimonious would not be overcome by an increase of 20 per cent., 50 per cent., or, in some cases 100 per cent. The problem is one of administration. Many of the complaints of returned soldiers in that respect will be overcome by this legislation. For instance, the onus of proof is transferred from the appellant to the Repatriation Commission, and the medical boards, assessment tribunals and entitlement tribunals. I think that that will ensure a larger measure of justice to applicants for pensions. Legal aid will be provided to returned soldiers in placing their claims before the various tribunals. The personnel of the commission is to be increased, and thereby the administration will, be strengthened. One of the most important improvements of the repatriation system will be the creation of the standing committee. Whatever complaints arise will be investigated and reported on by that committee. That should overcome many anomalies. When the strain of war is ultimately lifted, this country ought to be able to bear a larger increase of war pensions because the increased productivity of war-time should be reflected in peace-time. If this Government remains in office, further sympathetic consideration will be given to the matter. Honorable members should not accept the statement that an increase of the rate of pension by 50 per cent, will involve an additional annual expenditure of only £2,500,000. When repatriation benefits are granted to returned soldiers from the present war, the annual pensions bill may be £20,000,000 or £30,000,000. Consequently, it is erroneous to contend that an increase of the rate of pension by 50 per cent, will not involve a substantial additional sum. Parliament should ensure that the increase recommended by the parliamentary committee is granted, and if some honorable members still consider that the pension is inadequate, the matter should again be submitted to the committee for consideration.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– The Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost), in introducing this measure, stated that the recommendation which is now -being attacked by this amendment was probably the most important provision in the bill, because it increases the rate of war pensions by 20 per cent. The estimated cost of the increase immediately is £1,620,000 per annum. Consequently, honorable members have now reached the heart of the bill. Those who were not members of the parliamentary committee have the responsibility of seeing that returned soldiers are treated fairly.”

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order! The honorable member for Wakefield is not obliged to answer the interjections of the honorable member for Wentworth.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– I am delighted to answer them. From his ministerial experience, the honorable member should know that it is only common sense for a Minister to consult with his department regarding .action to be taken. My third point is that returned soldiers’ organizations in all States, with only one exception, have approved the increase of 20 per cent. Many returned soldiers live in my electorate, and at their request I sent the relevant documents on repatriation post-haste to some of them for their consideration, because they desired to examine them and give to members the benefit of their views. It may be only chance, but weeks have elapsed since I despatched those papers, and not one of the sub-branches has written to me to express its opinion upon the matter. From- their silence, I can only assume that they are, on the whole, satisfied ; they do not consider that an increase of 20 per cent, is unreasonable.

I am never over-inclined to give away to any committee my own right of personal judgment. A committee is advisory. Honorable members have the right to decide whether they will adopt its recommendations. But the six members of the parliamentary committee represented very different political views, and each member personally had qualifications to express an opinion on this matter. Two members of the committee - Senator Collett and the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) - were former Ministers for Repatriation. Senator Collett is a man of very fair judgment. For that matter, I do not query the judgment of the other members. I have much respect for the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard), who made an excellent speech on this subject, just as did the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. McDonald). The honorable member for Moreton is never inclined to underrate the claims of returned soldiers. Their recommendation of an increase of 20 per cent., taken in conjunction with governmental approval, and the approval, tacit or expressed, of the soldiers’ organizations, makes a very strong case for the adoption of the proposed increases. I go so far as to say that, although Government supporters, in general, are not so enthusiastic about the claims of ex-soldiers as are honorable members on this side of the committee, such an imputation cannot be made against the three members of the Labour party who sat on this committee. It is not for me to set my judgment against that of the members of the committee on this subject. It is regrettable that six months should have elapsed since the committee’s report was furnished. Undoubtedly, some increase of the cost of living has occurred in that period, and further increases will occur in the next six months; hut no evidence has been submitted to show that the increase in the last six months has been exactly 15 per cent., or 20 per cent.; in fact, 50 per cent, may be a more likely figure than .20 per cent, in the near future. In my opinion, we cannot dispose of this subject properly by adopting a ceiling or a floor, for it should be considered in relation to the cost of living. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) intends to move an amendment on that point, and I hope to speak to it in due course. It has been claimed that, if war pensions be increased by 50 per cent., the process of inflation will be accelerated ; but such action would not have anything like the same accelerating effect as other Government actions are likely to have. This Parliament has just agreed to establish a national welfare fund, into which an amount not exceeding £30,000,000 is to be ‘ paid annually. That figure is considerably greater than the £7,000,000 expended annually for war pensions, to say nothing of our invalid and old-age pensions bill of £22,000,000 per annum. As the cost of living figures have been related to invalid and old-age pensions, surely they should be related to war pensions, for, with all due respect to invalid and old-age pensioners, this country owes far more to its war pensioners. I am concerned to ensure that ex-soldiers and their dependants shall receive a fair deal ; but I am not here to urge that war pensions shall be increased by 50 per cent, if I do not consider that such an increase is justified. I consider, however, that war pensions should retain their value in relation to the purchasing power of money. I intend to vote for the clause, and I shall do so with a perfectly clear conscience, though doubtless some of my constituents will disagree with me on the point; but I consider that a more scientific approach should be made to pension rates, and that they should be varied in accordance with the increase or decrease of the purchasing power of money.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– Despite the innuendoes that have been thrown across the chamber to the effect that honorable members who are supporting an increase of war pension rates by 50 per cent, are actuated by political motives, I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting the amendment. The Minister (Mr. Frost) has said that this proposal has no scientific basis. His statement waa not original ; in fact, it could have been taken from my second-reading speech, for I admitted that a completely scientific basis could not be found for a 50 per cent, increase. I pointed out, however, that a basis could be found for an increase of 42 per cent. The rates of pay of soldiers in this war are 42 per cent, in excess of the rates of pay of soldiers in the last war. But, if a scientific basis cannot be shown for a 50 per cent, increase, neither can one be shown for the Government’s proposal to increase the rates by 20 per cent. Last night, the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) tried, persistently, but in vain, to get the Minister to indicate the basis of the 20 per cent, increase. I shall now add such persuasive powers as I have to the persistence of the honorable member for Warringah, in the hope that we may. cause the Minister to reveal the exact basis of the ‘20 per cent, proposal - if one exists, which I doubt. I believe that an analytical examination of the whole subject might show that some beneficiaries under this bill should, in fact, obtain an increase of 50 per cent, in their pensions, whilst others may obtain an increase of only 20 per cent. Others may get nothing out of this repatriation bill. I insist, however, that a comparison of the rates of service pay in the last war and in this one may properly be made in considering the rates of pension - that should be provided. Pensions- of all kinds always bear some relation to the wages and salaries enjoyed by the persons to whom they are to be granted.

– I did nothing of the kind. I know the worth of the war record of the honorable member for Wentworth.

Mr McCALL:

– The honorable member for Wentworth had meritorious service. In any case, this matter should be argued on merit, not on emotion. I shall examine the basis on which the special committee recommended an increase of 20 per cent. The committee is to be congratulated on its report in every respect but one. The formidable document shows that the committee went to work with a will, in the interests of returned soldiers. That makes it all the more extraordinary that it should have recommended, without stating its reasons, an increase of 20 per cent. Under the heading of “Rate of Pension”, the committee, in recommendation 24, said -

Hie committee found that there was reasonable ground for a general increase of the rates df war pension. An outstanding factor in this regard was the comparison of rates of pay to members of the forces, and allowances to their dependants with the same items in respect of the 1014 war. In the case of death of a member the rate of war pension in most cases is considerably below the payments received by the dependants, particularly widows with children, by way of members’ allotment and dependants’ allowances, up to the time of commencement of pension.

If there were reasonable grounds for them arriving at that percentage, why did the committee not state them? It very effectively elaborated all its other recommendations. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) has un availlingly tried to elicit from the Minister for Repatriation the basis on which the increase of 20 per cent, was determined. Either the Minister would not give the information or there was none for him to give. We did elicit from the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. McDonald) that the figure of 20 per cent, was made up of 11.6 per cent, for the increase of the cost of living since 1920 and S.4 per cent, for all other factors. That is rather a loose way in which to deal with such an important matter - S.4 per cent, for “ all other factors”! Any one supporting- the amendment should give his reasons for doing so. We have agreed to 50 per cent, because we think that it is justified by all the circumstances. Opponents of the amendment have emphasized the fact that the committee which recommended the increase of 20 per cent, consisted entirely of returned soldiers, and asked who were better qualified than returned soldiers to judge the requirements of returned soldiers. The New South Wales branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia advocates an increase of 50 per cent. It has been belatedly disclosed that the Victorian branch advocates an increase of 41.6 per cent., that rate being equivalent to the percentage by which soldiers’ pay has been increased since the last war. What happens now to the argument of those honorable, members who say that no one is better qualified than the special committee to say what, in fairness, should be given to the returned soldiers? The New South Wales and the Victorian branches would account for about 70 per cent, of the total membership of the league in Australia. That alone would justify me in supporting an amendment designed to increase the rate of pension by 50 per cent. I, however, do not rest my case on that consideration. The weighted average of adult wages has increased by 40 per cent, since 1920. I think the cost of living has increased in the same period by 11 per cent. The honorable member for Wentworth, in his admirable speech, demonstrated how the national income has grown from £537,000,000 in 1935 to more than £1,000,000,000 now. That is an increase of 100 per cent. Surely then, we are justified even in erring on the side of generosity to the men who have defended and are defending Australia.” If the amendment to increase the pension by 50 per cent, is defeated, I shall support an amendment to increase it by 33–V per cent., or any amendment to increase the pension by any proportion above 20 per cent. In 1920 invalid and old-age pensions amounted to £39 a year; they are now £67 12s., an increase of 70 per cent. How then can the ‘Government try to justify increasing the pension of returned soldiers by only 20 per cent.

Mr Francis:

– By how much has the cost of living increased?

Mr McCALL:

– By 11 per cent. But this matter cannot be determined only on the basis of the cost of living, because the productive capacity of this country has been greatly increased. Consideration has been paid by the Arbitration Court, in determining the basic wage, to the increased wealth of the country. The returned soldiers, particularly those who are incapacitated, are equally entitled to share in the increased wealth of the country. Some honorable members have declared that an increase of the rate of pension to 50 per cent, would necessitate the introduction of a “ means test “. That would not be necessary. air Frederick Stewart. - I cannot see the connexion.

Mr McCALL:

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The honorable gentleman is trying to save face.

Mr FRANCIS:

– Of the amount of 14s., the wife should have 5s., and 3s. should go to each child.

As to whether the increase of soldiers’ pension rates should be 50 per cent, or 20 per cent., I say at the outset that no sum would be adequate to compensate a man for war disabilities, or a widow with children for the loss of her husband and bread-winner. I attack the second point of the argument of my friends who are opposed to the increase of 20 per cent. Because high wages are paid to employees of the Civil Constructional Corps, or in secondary industries or munitions establishments, we should not on that account “ go mad “. It is quite wrong to argue that because a worker in a particular factory is receiving a lot of money we should not have regard to what would be just and generous to the returned soldiers. We have listened to speeches by the honorable members for Warringah (Mr. Spender), Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), Parkes (Sir Charles Marr), Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart), and Martin (Mr. McCall). All of those gentlemen spoke of the representations for a 50 per cent, increase having been made in New South Wales.

Let us analyse what we have heard from the honorable member for Warringah. He has stated that, as far back as the 23rd July, 1941, he wrote to the then government, of which he was a member, asking that the pension should be increased by 50 per cent. So far as this Parliament is aware, nothing happened in that respect. Between June and July of last year, every member of this Parliament was written to by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Repatriation and asked to make any representations or recommendations’ he might care to offer as to what might be done to improve the Repatriation Act in the light of the existing circumstances. The honorable member for Warringah had an opportunity to make representations for an increase of 50 per cent., but he did not do so. No reply at all was received from him. I am perfectly satisfied that, had the right honorable member for North Sydney considered in July, 1941, that the pension should be increased by 50 per cent., he would not have waited until to-day, but would have pulled this building down and “ raised hell “ to have the increase made. I regret the necessity to speak in this strain; but I have sat for three or four days under one-sided criticism, and do not intend to take any more of it. I want to make it quite clear that my record of service to returned soldiers will bear comparison with that of the honorable member for “Warringah. When I entered this Parliament, I was an original member of the State managing council of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, in Queensland. I had been district president in my district for three years, and president in my own town for more than three years. I should not ask returned soldiers to accept an increase of 20 per cent, if T considered that a higher increase would be proper. Urged by returned soldiers I came into this Parliament in order to serve my former comrades of the Australian Imperial Force. I have been a member of it for about twenty years. At the date of my election, I was receiving a 50 per cent, pension. I have not since collected one shilling of it. Having entered this House to serve particularly returned soldiers, I would not collect any pension, because, if I did so, every effort I made to assist the soldiers and their dependants would benefit me also. By not collecting; my pension, I consider myself free to leave no stone unturned to improve the conditions of my old comrades and their dependants. That may be proved by a letter which I wrote to the Repatriation Department on the day on which I entered Parliament; the letter is still on the file. The pension that I received while president of the league, I handed to the Distressed Soldiers’ Fund. With that record, why should I now debate whether the increase should be 20 per cent, or 50 per cent.? This Parliament asked six returned soldiers to examine the matter. They went through the act and regulations, and discussed the matter from many angles for a considerable time. One of the many decisions at which they arrived was that to-day there is more money in the hands of the people, despite heavy taxation, than there has been previously. We considered that, accordingly, the pension ought to be increased. The committee had then to consider the amount of the increase. An infallible rule cannot be laid down ; one has to inform one’s mind of the facts. The committee sought the co-operation of the Commonwealth Statistician, and learned that between 1920 and 1942 the cost of living had been reduced by 5 per cent. It would not recommend that pensions should be reduced correspondingly. ‘ The next factor considered was the basic wage, which was found to have been increased by 11.7 per cent. The committee held the view that an increase of pensions by 11.7 per cent, would not, be fair. Every member of it considered that the best fighting force in the world should receive the highest pension that could be recommended. We had to base our recommendation upon sound principles. We considered how much costs had risen between September, 1939, and September, 1942. We found that the cost of living had increased by 20.7 per cent., and the basic wage by 20 per cent. Those figures gave us an indication of what the increase should be. We spent more time considering .this matter than any other part of the report, except the question of eligibility. We were on the job almost clay and night for 28 days. Every factor was carefully examined, and we eventually came to the conclusion that a 20 per cent,, general increase would be the proper thing. We recommended an increase of 25 per cent, for widows, and one of 66J per cent, for orphans, and I am prepared to go still higher on that. I am sorry to have to say - and it is not party politics, but a simple fact - that there is a drift towards inflation at the present time. I am convinced that the Government is doing things which it should not do; that it is leaving undone things which it should do, and that its actions in this regard are accentuating the drift towards inflation. I am fully alive to that danger, and have put forward proposals to combat it. I have suggested that the members of the joint parliamentary committee on repatriation, who are soaked in the subject, and whose recommendations have been largely, accepted by the Government, should review these matters from time to time.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member’s time has expired, but if no other honorable member wishes to speak, Iia may take his second period now.

Mr FRANCIS:

– All the returned soldiers’ organizations of New South Wales, with the exceptions stated, have supported the proposed increase of 20 per cent. Had this bill been considered immediately after the parliamentary committee had brought in its report, the committee would have been applauded for what it had done, and the bill would have been accepted. Unfortunately, there has been a delay of six months, and the letter written by the honorable member for Warringah on the 23rd July, 1941, has been resurrected. There is also the request from New South Wales for a greater increase. However, New South Wales is not Australia, though it is a very important part of it. As a matter of fact, all the representatives of New South Wales in this House, except the five who represent electorates around Sydney Harbour, are prepared to accept something less than 50 per cent.

Last night, the Minister for Repatriation replied to the second-reading debate on this bill. I appreciate that he could not answer every point raised, but 1 regret that he made no substantial reference to the subject of widows’ pensions, and that he did not answer the strong plea of honorable members on this side of the House on the subject of preference to returned soldiers. I regard that as vital, and I hope that we shall have no equivocation on the matter. During the second-reading debate, I suggested that applicants should be reimbursed, if successful, for expenses incurred in carrying their appeals before tribunals. No soldier may appear a second time before the Repatriation Commission or a tribunal unless he has fresh, relevant evidence to present. In order to get fresh medical evidence, he must consult a specialist, and that costs money. The Minister did not refer to that point, and there is no provision for it in the bill. I have foreshadowed an amendment providing for a full pension for soldiers of both wars who served in a theatre of war and are now suffering from tuberculosis.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may discuss that subject on the appropriate clause.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The debate has shown clearly that the recommendation of the parliamentary committee for a 20 per cent, increase of the rates of pension was just. It has been accepted by the Government and by a great majority of honorable members as well as by almost all returned soldiers’ organizations. Only a limited number is prepared to support the amendment asking for a 50 per cent, increase, and I am convinced that the best interests of returned soldiers are not served by pressing the amendment. Those who do that are, in fact, doing a disservice to the soldiers who will be thereby encouraged to hope that, some day, their pensions, will be further increased. Those who are supporting the amendment know that it cannot be carried, and I regret that it has been moved.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– The honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) said that I had informed honorable members that the proposal for an increase of the rates of pension by 50 pei1 cent, had been advanced on a representation by the New South Wales branch of the returned soldiers’ organization. That is not so. At the beginning of my speech I said that, instead of the matter being discussed on its merits, there appeared to be an attack by honorable members from other parts of Australia on certain representatives from New South Wales. I resent this misconstruction of my remarks. The honorable member for Moreton begged the committee to support the recommendations of the special parliamentary committee on repatriation, yet he himself has given notice to-day of an amendment which will have the effect of varying one of the committee’s recommendations.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I have not spoken on this bill before, but I have heard the whole of the discussion on the proposal of the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender). I have a great deal of hesitation in voting against the recommendation of the special committee,, because I think that that body has done a very fine piece of work, and I am particularly influenced by the arguments of my friend, the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard). Notwithstanding that, I have made up my mind to join the band from New South Wales. In the first place, even the members of the committee do not consider themselves bound by the exact terms of their report, because the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) is himself the author of amendments proposing important deviations, which I think I shall support, from the recommendations of the committee. Therefore, no one is bound by the exact terms of the report. I have two points of view on this. The first is that I agree with what was said by the honorable member for Moreton about the inadequacy of the payments to widows and orphans. The honorable member himself suggested an amount for the widow with three children which would be more than a 50 per cent, increase of the pension which she now receives. The honorable member proposes that the amount paid to a widow with three children should he £5 12s. 6d. a week, but the committee recommended £5 ls. 6d. a week. The pension for a widow with three children is now £3 7s. a week; the bill proposes £4 7s. 6d. An increase of 33-J per cent, would give £4 19s. 4d., and of 50 per cent., £5 0s. 6d. The present rate for orphans is £1 17s. 6d. a week, and the bill proposes £2 5s. 6d. An increase of 33-J per cent, would give £2 10s., and of 50 per cent., £2 16s. 3d. Those sums do not seem at all disproportionate to the needs of widows and orphans. It is important to notice that the committee paid considerable attention to working out the rates for widows and orphans, but the honorable member for Moreton has now been convinced by the discussion that the committee made an inadequate provision for them, as I think it did. “

Mr Francis:

– Does the honorable member think that there is any section of people more worthy of consideration than the widows and orphans?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– No ; but I remind the honorable member that he and the committee elaborately considered the needs of widows and orphans, and recommended for them an amount which is lower than that which the honorable member is now prepared to concede. My other point is that this represents what we may call the ceiling of social benefits. The benefits that are to be given to civilians under the National Welfare Fund Act will not in any way reach the amounts that will be given to the incapacitated soldiers and their dependants. In the words of the German proverb, “The tree will not reach the heavens “. If we fix low benefits for the injured soldiers and their dependants, then much lower benefits will be fixed for civilians and their dependants. We have an illustration of that in our legislation to-day. The allowance to the wife of an incapacitated member of the forces is to be increased from 18s. a week to £1 2s. In other legislation it is proposed that the wife of an invalid ‘pensioner shall receive 15s. a week. I want to see as liberal a scheme of benefits as is possible given to the civilians, who will benefit under the national welfare scheme. I do not know what is to be given to them. The scheme so far is nebulous. But I am sure that, whatever we give to the soldiers and their dependants will be more than what we shall give to the civilians and their dependants. Therefore I want to ensure that the soldiers and their dependants shall be given as much as we can give to them, in order that civilians shall also receive further social justice.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- A great deal of play has been made with figures in this discussion, and reasons have been adduced why the pensions should be increased by 50 per cent., or some other proportion. Some arguments have been based on the cost of living in 1920 as compared with 1942, others on the basic wage in 1922 as compared with 1942, and others on the general earnings of the community. Varying groups of figures could be cited according to the arguments that the different proponents wanted to support. What I am concerned with is the fact that this is a money bill, and therefore cannot be amended without the agreement of the Government and without being withdrawn.

Mr Spender:

– That is quite wrong.

Mr ANTHONY:

– The honorable member has moved for the postponement of the clause instead of directly moving for a straightout increase of the rate of pension by 50 per cent., as he can achieve his objective in no other way. The honorable member has moved for the postponement of one of the most vital clauses in the bill. Does that not amount to the postponement of the bill itself? The bill cannot operate if that particular clause does not operate. As one with the interests pf the returned soldiers at heart, I regard it as wrong to ask for the postponement of a bill which proposes benefits to people who are in very great need. I shall cite figures to show the benefit that will flow to a large number of individuals in this community immediately this bill becomes operative. The blinded soldier, with a wife and three children, receives £4 a week for himself, 18s. for his wife and £1 2s. 6d. for his children, and £1 attendant’s allowance- a total of £7 0s. 6d. This bill proposes to raise the amount to £8 9s., an immediate benefit. The honorable member for Warringah, in order to put forward some specious amendment into which he has been propelled by certain organizations in and around Sydney, would ask for the postponement of that benefit, but I desire it to be given immediately. The totally and permanently incapacitated soldier, with a wife and three children, now receives £6 0s. 6d. a week. The bill provides that he shall receive £7 5s. a week, an increase of £1 4s. 6d. Honorable members may argue until they are black in the face whether the percentage should be based on the cost of living in 1914, 1920 or 1942 ; but what concerns the pensioners, who need the increase, is that they will receive the additional payment as soon as the bill becomes law. Therefore, this legislation should not be delayed.

A soldier, 100 per cent, incapacitated and unable temporarily to engage in any occupation, with a wife and three children, now receives £5 2s. 6d. a week. When the bill becomes law, he will be paid £6 3s. a week. If the Government agrees to postpone the clause, the bill will be delayed and the increased benefits that this measure will confer, will be held up for a considerable period. I hope that the Minister will not accede to the request of the honorable member for Warringah. To ask honorable members to agree to the postponement of the bill is not to serve the interests of those who will benefit under the measure.

I am not completely satisfied with all the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, and I contemplate submitting amendments to two clauses. However, I congratulate the committee on its fine work. No matter how the committee was constituted, other honorable members would still have found possible grounds for criticizing its recommendations. I find no fault with any of its proposals, but consideration could with advantage be given to one or two matters. I refer, in particular, to the financial position of a widow and her children. A wife with three children receives, when the husband is alive, allowances totalling £5 ls. 6d. a week. If he is killed, her allowances are immediately reduced to £3 7s. a week. When the bill becomes law, the amount will be increased to £4 7s. 6d. a week. Whilst I am in favour of that increase, I ask the Minister to consider, in the near future, the advisability of restoring to the widow and her family the income that she was paid when her husband was alive, so that his death will not involve her in any financial sacrifice.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; UAP from 1931

– Why not submit the necessary amendment now?

Mr ANTHONY:

– The matter should be considered by the parliamentary committee. The bill makes a substantial advance by increasing the payment to the widow and her family by £1 a week. That amount is still inadequate, but I believe that the Government will consider increasing it.

Mr Curtin:

– I have not made a decision on the point; but I am impressed by what has been said. It must be remembered, however, that if the woman were drawing a widow’s pension she would receive 5s. in respect of the child, though probably there would not be many such cases. Ordinarily, the unendowed child would represent an important element in the total family obligations.

Mr MCDONALD:

– I believe that, when the Prime Minister and the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) have had an opportunity to look further into the matter, they will agree that something should be done to enable the soldier’s widow to collect as much each week as she did prior to the death of her husband.

I remind honorable members that the Parliamentary Committee on Repatriation was not infallible, but it tackled its job with honesty and sincerity. I do not know of any other committee that worked more amicably than did ours, under the chairmanship of the honorable member for .Ballarat’ (Mr. Pollard). We spent a busy and interesting time. We invited all members of Parliament to submit recommendations for the amendment of the Repatriation Act. I regret that those who are now advocating a 50 per cent, increase of the pensions rate did not seize the opportunity to make their representations then. Especially do I deplore the fact that the honorable member for Warringah, who, according to documentary evidence, held decided views on this subject nearly two years ago, should have refrained from accepting our invitation. We should certainly have considered his representations, even if we were not able to accept them. I hope that this bill will have a speedy passage through Parliament, because hundreds of thousands of people will be affected by it. It contains nothing of such a contentious nature that there is any reason for delaying it. If the Prime Minister and the Minister for Repatriation are prepared to deal fairly with the points which I have raised, the bill should give general satisfaction.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I do not support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender). In my opinion, an increase of 50 per cent, of the pension rates would be far too much. Like many other honorable members, I received telegrams from returned soldiers’ organizations in my electorate, and from branches outside my electorate. I also received a communication from the central New South Wales branch of the soldiers’ league, of which Lieutenant Cutler, V.C., was secretary, asking me whether I was in favour of a 50 per cent, increase. I replied that I was in favour of a substantial increase, but I declined to pin myself down to any particular figure. This discussion has not changed my attitude, as stated .by me last night. I do not think that it can be denied that the repatriation pensions were based originally on the rates of pay of Australian soldiers in the last war. The New South Wales branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia has pointed out that the rate of pay of soldiers in this war is 41.66 per cent, higher than in the last war. Although there must be a connexion between’ the pay of serving soldiers and the pensions of repatriated soldiers, I do not know that pensions and pay should be increased in exactly the same ratio. A measure of justice would be given to returned soldiers if pensions were increased all round by 33^ per cent, and not 20 per cent., as is proposed in the bill. I would support an amendment designed to increase them by 33^ per cent. I deplore the low level to which this discussion has sunk. The war services of honorable members have been compared. My war services were lowly, but I tried to do my bit in serving for four and a quarter years in the front line. When personalities are indulged in not only from one side of the committee to the other but as between honorable members in the Opposition parties, it is no wonder that the people are beginning to hold Parliament and its members in contempt. My sensibilities were shocked when I heard one honorable member on this side of -the committee question the motives of the honorable member for Warringah’ (Mr. Spender) and insinuate that he had moved for the postponement of this clause in order to prevent the repatriation bil] from becoming law during the present sessional period. I hope that the rest of the discussion will be at the high level which the subject deserves.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to S p.m. [Quorum formed.~

Mr ABBOTT:

– I emphasize the necessity for preserving the purchasing power of war pensions by periodical adjustments in order to meet the increasing cost of living. To achieve this objective, I shall move in committee the amendment that I forecast when speaking on the motion for the second reading of the bill, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr PERKINS:
Monaro · Eden

– Last night I commended the Government upon its action in introducing this bill, but I intimated that I would support the proposal for increasing the rate of pension by 50 per cent. I realize that the Government will not agree to the amendment. If the committee accepted it, the Government, which has to provide the necessary finance, would probably withdraw the bill. I am committed to support the proposal, because, in my electorate, twenty sub-branches of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia have asked me to vote for it. Although I pointed out to them that a parliamentary com:mittee, consisting of returned soldiers, recommended an increase of 20 per cent., my experience of soldiers is that they are more severe on their own kind than ordinary citizens would be.

I object to the tendency of certain honorable members to stigmatize as insincere other honorable members who advocate the increase of 50 per cent. I am sincere, and I have given my reasons for supporting the proposal. The honorable member foi- Warringah (Mr. Spender), in submitting his amendment, is just as sincere as are members of the returned soldiers’ organizations. I shall vote in accordance with the wishes of my returned soldier constituents. At the same time, I realize that the Government will have to find hundreds of millions of pounds for purposes other than pensions and, therefore, it really rests with the Government to decide whether it will adopt the suggestion of the honorable member for Warringah. I understand that” later an attempt may be made to adopt the Victorian proposal to increase the rate of pension, by 41 per cent, and, in that event, I shall support it. Surely we can vote calmly and dispassionately upon these issues, without being accused of insincerity when we wish to secure increased benefits for returned soldiers.

Question put -

That the clause be postponed (Mr. Spender’s amendment) .

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 8

NOES: 0

N oes . . . . . . 54

Majority . . . . 46

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3-

Section forty-two of the Financial Emergency Act 1931-1938 is repealed.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I move -

That the clause he postponed - as an instruction to the Government - that wherever in this bill the rates of pension payable under the principal act have not been increased by 33 per centum, they should be so increased.

That is the vital question. The pay of soldiers has been increased by 41.6 per cent., but the increase of the cost of living also has been very great. I have no doubt that the Minister for Repatriation has a great deal of sympathy for returned soldiers, but he knows very well that the Government intends to bring down a number of measures that will cost much more than would an increase of war pensions by 33-J per cent. We have already passed a vague social welfare measure which will cost this country £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 a year for the next four or five years; yet the Minister says that it is impossible to agree to a proposal to give an additional £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to returned soldiers and their dependants.

Mr Frost:

– “We have not claimed that it is impossible.

Mr. - BARNARD, - Nothing of the kind was said.

Mr RANKIN:

Mr Rankin:

– Does not the honorable gentleman agree that the outlook has greatly changed since the Government has’ brought down a scheme for the provision of £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 a year for increased social services?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

I will do all in my power to ensure that that duty shall be done. I shall support the amendment which the honorable member for Moreton proposes to move. The honorable- member this afternoon eulogized the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), whose enthusiastic activity on behalf of ex-servicemen no one can doubt or surpass. Yet, although the right honorable gentleman, in his second-reading speech, recommended the acceptance of the bill as being the result of the report of the special committee, he has also brought along a sheaf of amendments. It would appear that only the Minister for Repatriation, members of the special committee, and the right honorable member for North Sydney are entitled to move amendments, and that returned soldier members from constituencies in New South Wales are disqualified. The Minister for Home Security (Mr. Lazzarini) may laugh, but if -a government formed’ from our ranks brought, down a bill increasing the rate of repatriation pensions by only 20 per cent, he would be amongst those clamouring for a greater increase. I regret the intrusion of personalities into this discussion.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).Order ! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- Adoption of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) for the postponement of the clause for the purpose stated by him would compel the withdrawal of the bill in order that it might be redrafted. About six months has elapsed since the special committee considered this matter, and it has taken from September to now to get the bill before Parliament. If the amendment were carried it would be another six months before we should have another opportunity to consider the matter, because, after next week, Parliament will go into a long recess. For the benefit of thosewho will come within the ambit of this measure, I protest against any postponement, any withdrawal or any redraftingof it, and demand its immediate passage,, in order that the Senate may deal with it next week and enable the benefits proposed in it to be conferred upon returned soldiers and their dependants as early as possible.

Question put -

That the clause be postponed (Sir Charles Marr’s amendment).

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 11

NOES: 47

Majority . . . . 36

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 -

Section four of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “ Division 6 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 4.” and inserting in their stead the words - “ Division6 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to certain male Members of Forces.

Division 7 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to Members of Women’s Services.”.

Mr COLES:
Henty

– I move -

That all the words after “ Principal Act “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ is amended -

by omitting the words ‘Division6 -

Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 4.’ and inserting in their stead the words -

Division 6 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to certain Male Members of the Forces.

Division 7 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to Members of Women’s Services.’; and

by inserting, after the words ‘Part IV. - Assistance and Benefits.’, the words ‘ Part IVa. - Parliamentary Standing Committee on Repatriation.’ “

This amendment is necessary in order to provide in the preliminary parts of the bill machinery to enable the inclusion at a late stage of new clauses empowering the appointment of a standing committee on repatriation. The committee which I propose shall be established is one similar to the joint committee of both Houses which inquired into and reported on the Repatriation Act prior to the preparation of this bill. The worth of the findings of that committee has been revealed during the debate that has taken place; from all sides the committee has been commended for the work that it has done and for its recommendations. I submit that a parliamentary standing committee consisting of members of both Houses, to which the Minister could submit matters relating to repatriation, would be of great value in investigating anomalies which must arise from time to time in legislation so comprehensive as the Repatriation Act. As the Minister has intimated that he is prepared to accept an amendment to provide for the establishment of a standing committee, I do not propose to discuss the matter at length at this stage.

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

.- I shall support the amendment as a preliminaryto the introduction of a new part which will provide for the appointment of a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Repatriation. The existence of such a committee will, I believe, be a! guarantee that there will be a continuous review of the pensions which are now to be increased. At this stage, I do not propose to speak of the provisions for a standing committee, because they will be discussed later, but with all respect to thehonorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles),

I submit that his amendment should have been moved by the Minister. A matter of high policy is involved. The suggestion that a standing committee should be appointed was first made by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis), and at a subsequent stage I also mentioned it. I believe that the inclusion of a new Part IVa. to provide for a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Repatriation, is an important part of the bill, and therefore the Minister should take the responsibility, as well as the credit, for the amendment.

Dr Evatt:

– What does it matter who moves it ?

Mr SPOONER:

– It matters a great deal. It is a matter of policy.

Dr Evatt:

– Some of the amendments which the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) proposes to move are also most important.

Mr SPOONER:

– The amendment of the honorable member for Henty has arisen out of the discussion over pensions. It is a way out of the trouble. I am convinced that the Government is doing the right thing in providing machinery for the establishment permanently of a committee which has already done an excellent job, but, in my opinion, the amendment should have been moved by the Minister.

Mr Duncan-Hughes:

Mr Harrison:

– We must discuss the principle fully before we can agree to this amendment, otherwise we shall commit ourselves to something, and later be able to deal only with the details.

Motion (by Mr. Spender) agreed to -

That further consideration of the clause and amendment be postponed until after the consideration of proposed new clauses.

Clause postponed accordingly.

Clauses 5 to 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 -

Section twenty-three of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (3.) the word “Act” (second occurring) and inserting in its stead the word “ Division “.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

– Amendments which I suggest should be made to a number of clauses have been circulated. As the first amendment is consequential upon a series of amendments in clauses18, 21, 23 and 33 - all of which deal with the same matter, although, perhaps, from different angles - it will assist the committee if I deal with them in a general way. Clause 18 proposes to amend section 39b of the principal act, and has relation to what may be termed the onus of proof. Proposed new section 39b is a most important clause; it gives statutory form to the present practice of the commission, and makes clear that the provision in section 39b of the principal act which relates only to the commission shall extend to the board, an appeal tribunal, and an assessment appeal tribunal. This provides that “ the commission, board, appeal tribunal and assessment appeal tribunal, in hearing, determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case, shall not be bound by technicalities or legal forms or rules of evidence and shall give to the claimant, applicant or appellant, the benefit of any doubt . . . “ By a further proposed amendment of clause18 the position of the claimant, applicant or appellant is to be improved by deleting the word “ conelusive”, so that the claimant, applicant or appellant shall have to furnish proof, but not “ conclusive proof “, to support his claim, application or appeal. Clause 18 also inserts the following new section : - 39c. A medical practitioner shall, in reporting on any claim in relation to a member of “the forces, set out in his report his opinion -

in the case of a claim in respect of the death of the member - as to the cause of the death; and
in the case of a claim in respect of the incapacity of the member - as to the nature, cause and extent of the incapacity. and shall also set out whether, in his opinion, the death or incapacity of the member -
has been contributed to in any material degree by the conditions of his war service.

I desire to amend sub-paragraph v to read -

has been contributed to in any material degree, or has been aggravated, by the conditions of his war service. and to have that phraseology adopted in the bill wherever the qualification of a claimant for a pension is referred to. The word “ aggravated “ is omitted from the bill as it now stands. I thought that such omission weakened the position of a claimant, applicant or appellant; and after consulting with the Minister and the Attorney-General, it has been agreed that the word “aggravated” shall be inserted. In order that the meaning of aggravation shall not be qualified by the words “ in any material degree “, the phraseology will read in every case as follows, “ contributed to in any material degree, or has been aggravated by, the conditions of his war service “. Wherever the bill deals with the qualification of a claimant, applicant or appellant, and the issue is whether the disability from which the claimant, applicant or appellant suffers is due to war service, or has been contributed to in any material degree by his war service, the following words are to be added, “ or has been aggravated by the conditions of his war service “. The Minister is thoroughly seised of the import of the amendments. I wish only to say, although I do not press the matter, that I should have taken the gravest exception to the clauses providing for reference to a medical practitioner of matters which go to the very root of the claimant’s position, were it not for the fact that the honorable member for Moreton (Mr.Francis) has been assured that men suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis will not be placed in the position where such a reference is necessary. I am satisfied that no man, no mattter how expert he may be, can say whether pulmonary tuberculosis from which the returned soldier is now suffering twenty years after the war is, or is not, due to, or has been aggravated by, war service. But as sufferers from pulmonary tuberculosis are now assured recognition once it is proved that they were members of the military forces, and are otherwise eligible for a pension, the question cannot arise. This will be received by the tubercular men with immense relief. They will get the pension which the bill, as amended, directs shall be paid, and, once given, under section 31a of the principal act cannot be altered or taken away. This benefit is now being extended to service pensioners. Thus, we are free from many of the difficulties which previously confronted us in respect of this particular matter. I urge that the amendments be accepted.

They have been carefully considered. The phraseology is somewhat difficult; but I am satisfied that the effect of the amendments will be to improve very greatly the position of a claimant, applicant or appellant. It is in the interests of the returned men that these amendments be made. I move -

That all the words after “ Principal Act “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ is amended -

by omitting paragraph (a) of subsection (2.) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: -

the incapacity from which the member is suffering or from which he has died has been contributed to in any material degree, or has been aggravated, by the conditions of his war service; and’; and

by omitting from sub-section (3.) the word ‘Act’ ( second occurring ) and inserting in its stead the word Division ‘ “.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral · Barton · ALP

– The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) has tabled a series of amendments, all of which flow from the alteration which he desires to have made in clause 18, which deals with the “benefit of the doubt”. I should be glad, therefore, of liberty from the Chair to discuss clause 18 in association with this clause. Clause 14, which is before the committee, makes alterations in the machinery providing for the general tests of entitlement to be applied to individual cases. Section 39b of the act directs that, subject to the act -

The commission shall, in the determination of appeals, act according to the substantial justice and to the merits of each case, and shall give to the appellant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

Section 45w provides that in proceedings before the Assessment Appeal Tribunal the onus of proof shall lie with the commission. Honorable members who are familiar with the act will realize that a provision of that character is of great advantage to members of the forces, particularly when it is compared with the provision which appears in workers’ compensation legislation which places the onus of proof upon claimants, and thereby handicaps them in that they are required to provide strict proof of their claims. As the Repatriation Act now stands the provisions dealing with the “ benefit of the doubt “ and “ onus of proof “ are of limited application, for the first one applies only to appeals before the commission, and the other only to appeals before the appellate tribunal. The provision in the bill ensures a much more comprehensive application of these rules, for proposed new sections 39b and 39c provide that the “ benefit of the doubt “ rule shall apply to the whole range of authorities involved in the legislation. Proposed new sub-section 1 of proposed new section 39b provides- (1.) The Commission, a Board, an Appeal Tribunal and an Assessment Appeal Tribunal, in hearing, determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case, shall not be bound by technicalities or legal forms or rules of evidence and shall give to the claimant, applicant or appellant the benefit of any doubt -

as to the existence of any fact, matter, cause or circumstance which would be favorable to the claimant, applicant or appellant; or
as to any question whatsoever which arises for decision under his claim, application or appeal.

In other words, if any question which is material to the case before any of these tribunals cannot be placed beyond doubt, the question must be determined in favour of the member of the forces.

Mr Spender:

– It is usually claimed by the authorities that there are no doubts.

Dr EVATT:

– If there be, in fact, no doubts, then another position arises.

Mr Menzies:

– What is the significance of the words “ conclusive proof “ in proposed new sub-section 2 of this new section ?

Dr EVATT:

– I shall come to that point presently. Section 45 w of the act provides that -

If the appellant or a representative of the appellant shall make out a prima facie case in support of his claim that the incapacity from which he is suffering or from which he has died was caused or aggravated by war service, the onus of proof that such incapacity was not in fact so caused or aggravated shall lie with the commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended agreed to.

Clause 15 -

Section twenty-six of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub- paragraph (iii) of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-paragraphs : - “ (iii) arose out of or is attributable to his service as a member; or

has been contributed to in any material degree by the conditions of his war service,”.

Section proponed to be amended -

– (1.) EachBoard shall be charged with the duties of -

determining whether the death or incapacity of a member of the Forces -

is directly attributable to his employment as a member, and in the case of incapacity the nature and extent thereof:

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to-

That all the words after “ Principal Act “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ is amended -

by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1 . ) the words ‘ the death or incapacity of a member of the Forces’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ the incapacity from which a member of the Forces is suffering or from which he has died-‘;

by omitting from sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph the word ‘ or ‘ (last occurring) “; and

by omitting sub-paragraph (iii) of that paragraph and inserting in its stead the following subparagraphs: -

arose out of or is attributable to his service as a member ; or

has been contributed to in any material degree, or has been aggravated, by the conditions of his war service,’ “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to.

Clause18 -

Section thirty-nineB of the Principal Act is repealed and the following sections inserted in its stead: - “39b. - (1.) The Commission, a Board, an

Appeal Tribunal and an Assessment Appeal Tribunal, in hearing, determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case, shall not be bound by technicalities or legal forms or rules of evidence and shall give to the claimant, applicant or appellant the benefit of any doubt -

as to the existence of any fact, mutter, cause or circumstance which would be favorable to the claimant, applicant or appellant; or

as to any question whatsoever which arises for decision under his claim, application or appeal. “ (2.) It shall not be necessary for the claimant, applicant or appellant to furnish conclusive proof to support his claim, application or appeal but the Commission, Board, Appeal Tribunal or Assessment Appeal Tribunal determining or deciding the claim, application or appeal shall be entitled to draw, and shall draw, from all the circumstances of the case,from the evidence furnished and from medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant, applicant or appellant, and in all cases whatsoever the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the claim, applicationor appeal should not be granted or allowedto the full extent claimed. “39c. - (1.) A medical practitioner shall, in reporting on any claim in relation to a member of the Forces, set out in his report his opinion -

in the case of a claim in respectof the death of the member - as to the cause of the death ; and

in the case of a claim in respect of the incapacity of the member - as to the nature, cause and extent of the incapacity, and shall also set out whether, in his opinion, the death or incapacity of the member -

resulted from an occurrence happening during the period he was a member;

resulted from his employment in con nexion with naval or military preparations or operations;

is directly attributable to his employ ment as a member;

arises out of or is attributable to his service as a member; or

has been contributed to in any material degree by the conditions of his war service.

Mr HUGHES:
North SydneyDeputy Leader of the Opposition

.- I move-

That, in proposed new section 39b (1.) (6), after the word “ whatsoever “ the following words be inserted: - “ (including the question whether the incapacity from which the member of the Forces is suffering or from which he has died was contributed to in any material degree, or was aggravated, by the conditions of his war service) “.

This matter has been explained by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), and I commend the amendment to the committee.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– An amendment standing in my name relates to this clause. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) and I are in agreement in our desire to achieve the best results for the soldiers, but our views differ as to how that can be accomplished. I should like to clarify the position under the act. Section 39b reads -

Subject to this Act, the Commission shall, in the determination of appeals, act according to substantial justice and to the merits of each case, and shall give to an appellant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

Sub-sections 2, 3 and 4 of section 45 w, which are repealed by the bill, read - (2.) Subject to this Act, an Appeal Tribunal and an Assessment Appeal Tribunal shall not, in the hearing of appeals, be bound by any rules of evidence but shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case and shall give to an appellant the benefit of the doubt:

Provided that if the appellant or a representative of the appellant shall make out a prima facie case in support of his claim that the incapacity from which he is suffering or from which he has died was caused or aggravated by war service, the onus of proof that such incapacity was not in fact so caused or aggravated shall lie with the Commission.

Provided further that in the case of the death caused by an accident, of a member of the forces who is wholly or partially incapacitated as the result of war service, the burden of proving that such incapacity did not contribute to a material degree to the death of the member shall lie upon the Commission. (3.) The hearing of any appeal under this Part shall not be open to the public. (4.) For the purposes of sub-section (2.) of this section an appellant shall be deemed to have made out a prima facie case when he avers that the incapacity or death of the member of the Forces resulted from an occurrence happening during the period he was a member of the Forces or from his employment in connexion with naval or military preparations or operations or is directly attributable to his employment as a member of the Forces.

This clause purports, first, to make a common rule in respect of all tribunals, and, secondly, to make it clearer that the burden of proof is upon the tribunal to which the appellant makes his application. I desire to impress upon the committee my doubts as to whether either the amendment which this clause seeks to make in the principal act, or the amendment which the right honorable member for North Sydney has moved to this clause, goes quite as far as I want it to go, or probably as far as the right honorable member for North Sydney would want it to go. In perusing the clause, I find that proposed new section 39b provides - (1.) The commission, a board, an appeal tribunal and an assessment appeal tribunal in hearing, determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case–

Apart fromthe fact that it is a common rule applied to all tribunals, nothing new is added there - shall not be bound by technicalities or legal forms or rules of evidence–

The words in the original section were “ shall not be bound by rules of evidence “, and the words “ technicalities or legal forms or “ really do not add anything. It goes on - and shall give to the claimant, applicant or appellant the benefit of any doubt -

as to the existence of any fact, matter, cause or circumstance which would he favorable to the claimant, applicant or appellant; or
as to any question whatsoever which arises for decision under his claim, application or appeal.

Mr Hughes:

– That provision was originally put in by me.

Mr SPENDER:

– That is true; but I have reason to believe that it has not been interpreted in the way intended by the right honorable member. That is why I have drafted and circulated an amendment to leave out the words -

The onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed, and to insert in their stead the following words : -

The person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claim, application or appeal should not ‘be fully or partially granted.

I agree that that casts upon the commission an additional burden, and I intended that it should do so, because in my judgment the onus of proof provisions which appear in the act which we are now amending have proved to be insufficient. The onus of proof provisions in the act do not amount to a great deal when all the evidence has been taken, because the tribunal will say, “Yes, the onus of proof is upon either the appellant or the respondent, but there is the whole of the evidence, and, although we are enjoined by this section to draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant, we do not think that this is a reasonable inference in the circumstances “. There is too much elasticity in that respect, and for that reason we must impose upon the commission the obligation of proving its conclusion beyond reasonable doubt.

The commission, a board, an appeal tribunal and an assessment appeal tribunal, in hearing, determining or deciding a claim, application or appeal, shall act according to substantial justice and the merits of the case . .

We need not go further than that. If the commission acts according to substantial justice and the merits of the case, the onus of proof goes by the board. If the case has merits, the tribunal will decide in favour of the applicant, and, if the case is without merits, it will be decided against him. The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has laid stress on one or two points, one being that the applicant must get the benefit of any doubt. What exactly creates a doubt, as contemplated in the proposed new section? I know cases in which several doctors have declared a soldier to be suffering from a particular disability, but when another doctor has ultimately reported that he is not suffering from that trouble, -the evidence of that doctor has on more than one occasion been accepted in preference to that of all of the others. Apparently the commission was waiting for a victory, and it immediately deprived the soldier of his pension. In cases such as I have mentioned, those who determine whether there is a doubt are the members of the commission. It may say that there is no doubt. It has decided, in the first place, whether a doubt exists and it then determines whether the benefit of the doubt can be given. The proposed amendment circulated by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) is as follows : -

That the words “ the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed “, be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : “ the person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claim, application or appeal should not be fully or partly granted “.

When a soldier makes an application to the commission, who will decide whether there is a reasonable doubt and on whom lies the onus of proof? The commission would have the right, in the first place, to say whether there was a doubt, and, secondly, it would have to convince itself that it had established the onus of proof. That is rather one-sided. We have the remarkable position that the respondent, who is instructed to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt, has itself established the onus of proof, and the same authority is in the invidious position of having to decide whether it had established the onus of proof. So the commission has to be the respondent and also the judge as to whether the onus of proof has been established. It appears to me that practically every case in which there is the slightest element of doubt will go beyond the commission to the various appeal tribunals, with the result that the hearing of the claims of soldiers will be considerably lengthened. When a matter reaches the appeal tribunal, the soldier will be in a less favorable position than before, because the commission will have satisfied itself that it has proved that he is not entitled to the pension. The matter then passes to another tribunal, similarly constituted, but, before it reaches that tribunal, the soldier is already handicapped by the fact that the commission has satisfied itself that he is not entitled to the pension.

Sir George Bell:

– Why does the honorable member call that a handicap?

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Because the assumption is. that, as under the bill, the commission has the right to give to the applicant the benefit of any reasonable doubt, and is also accorded the right to determine the onus of proof, the decision will go against him. The case then goes to the Appeal Tribunal, with the man under the handicap that another body has established to its satisfaction that the facts are against him. The commission and all the other boards and tribunals before which the man may appear are required to give him the benefit of reasonable doubt; but decision as to what constitutes reasonable doubt rests with the commission, the board or the tribunal. The commission, board or tribunal is .required to establish the fact that the man is not entitled to the pension which he is claiming,, or grant the claim; but- the question of onus of proof has not been by any means settled, because the commission, board or tribunal itself decides whether it has discharged the onus of proof. The returned soldiers will not benefit from the transfer of the onus of proof to the commission unless the tribunals established under the principal act are reconstituted.

Dr Evatt:

– Because of their character?’

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– Yes. We are trying to graft a new limb on to an old tree. A civil case in which there is a. claimant and a respondent is decided by a third party, and one side or the other has to prove its case to the satisfaction of that third party; but that principle is not followed in repatriation matters because from the first tribunal to the last, regardless of where the onus of proof lies, the tribunal, which is the respondent, decides the case. There is need to recast the whole system in order that when the claimant, the returned soldier, and the respondent, the commission, are at variance the facts shall be decided on merit by a third party. Neither the bill nor the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) gets over the outstanding difficulty that the commission, one of the parties, decides whether it has discharged the onus of proof which is cast upon it. I submit that it is not difficult for any tribunal which has the decision to establish to its own. satisfaction that it is right and the soldier is wrong. Until we deal satisfactorily with this situation, all the other conditions prescribed in this bill will go by the board, and there will be as many thousands of injustices done to returned soldiers after this war, when the commission will have to discharge the onus of proof, as there were after the last war, when the- onus of proof was on the soldier.

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.- I also am very worried about this matter of onus of proof. Two or three years ago we inserted in the Repatriation Act a provision transferring, as we thought, the onus of proof from the soldier to the commission. We believed then that we had really succeeded in doing something of inestimable value to returned soldiers; but we were misled by the people who framed the amendment. There was a legal loophole. The old story that law is made by doubtful lawyers for the benefit of doubtful lawyers still holds good.-

Mr Brennan:

– The whole trouble is that Parliament is endeavouring to get away from established legal practice, and is consequently finding itself in a morass.

Mr RANKIN:

– We could not get into a worse morass than that into which lawyers have put us in the last 150 years. Lawyers appearing in court have never been known in any circumstances to agree. Ho-w would they exist if they did ? Why, it would be one of the most unpopular professions in the world.

Mr Brennan:

– Politicians do not seem to agree very well.

Mr RANKIN:

– And when we have a mixture of lawyers and politicians the position is worse. That is not the point that is worrying me. What I am worried about is . whether the returned soldiers suffering war disabilities and their dependants will receive a fairer deal than they have hitherto received. The repatriation legislation and regulations are framed in such a way that it has been practically impossible for disabled returned soldiers to receive fair treatment. Any man appearing before a repatriation tribunal should be entitled to know the evidence against him; but no man is able, owing to the way the law stands, to know what has been adduced against him on the medical side. He is merely told that the tribunal has decided against him. He is just wiped off. How can a man or his representative rebut evidence when he does not know what that evidence is? Some of the decisions of the Repatriation Commission have been a scandal, an absolute disgrace to Australia.

Mr Blackburn:

Mr Rankin:

– His mind had a legal twist.

Mr BRENNAN:

– There is no question of a legal twist. There are few lawyers in the chamber, and they can easily be suppressed. ‘ I am certain that the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) would be delighted to go to bed and leave in the hands of his highly practical colleagues, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) and the honorable member for Bendigo (Mr. Rankin), the task of formulating the necessary plain English to deal with this matter. Having that object in view, the principal act provided, in section 39b, that -

Subject to this Act, the Commission shall, in the determination of appeals, act according to substantial justice and to the merits of each case, and shall give to an appellant the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Those words are repeated in the new clause, with the exception that the word “ reasonable “ is left out, the assumption being, as the Attorney-General has already pointed out, that the soldier is to get the benefit of any reasonable or unreasonable doubt. The truth of the matter is, as I said by way of interjection

The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) gave an illustration to which I listened with very great attention. He cited the case of a man who had served in the war of 1914-18 and had developed heart trouble of some description. We know that there are many diseases of the heart. That man drew a pension in respect of his heart trouble. Eventually, to use the language of the commission, that trouble “ evaporated “, and the disease ceased to exist. I sympathize with the honorable member for Wentworth in respect of that case. He pointed out that that soldier, after having drawn a pension for some sort of cardiac disease, was declared cured, and went about his business, but later had a complete breakdown from heart disease. Whether it was the same -disease, I do not know; but in respect of it he had been refused a pension. I can only express the hope that the tribunal will accept the language of this clause, as it is now supported by the Attorney-General, as a broad hint, at least - and, perhaps, there is nothing more in it than that - that in such a case the pension should be renewed and continued. One cannot hope for more than that. I have very little confidence in this jargon; but I hope that, with sympathetic administrators of this law, we shall obtain substantial and just results for the soldiers in spite of the plain English of the gentlemen who, unfortunately, do not always know what plain English is.

Sir GEORGE BELL:
Darwin

– Our most difficult problem in respect of this subject is to express ourselves in language to explain that we want the soldier to get the benefit of the doubt when the commission is considering whether he is entitled to a pension because he has suffered from some disability due to war service. After all, what is a doubt? Of course, no doubt arises when a man suffered injuries which necessitated an amputation. But all cases are not so clear as that. Sometimes it happens that years after a soldier has been discharged from the Army he becomes ill and claims that his indisposition is due to war service. He may be examined by the most eminent doctors in the land, and a doubt would remain in their minds. But honorable members are now trying so to phrase thi3 provision as to make it perfectly clear that the onus of proof that a man is not entitled to a pension because his disability is not due to his war service, shall rest with the Repatriation Commission. How can it possibly be proved ? It cannot be proved. The language which is used in the bill will make little or no difference. to the phraseology of the act. The act provides that the commission shall, in the determination of appeals, give to an appellant the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The bill declares that the commission shall give to the claimant the benefit of any doubt. What is the difference between a “ reasonable doubt “ and a “ doubt “ ? We have to depend upon the Repatriation Commission, ana it consists of reasonable men, who are sympathetic to the soldier, and desire Ugive to him the benefit of any doubt. It any doubt exists in their mind, he will get the benefit of it. At any rate, I have no doubts in the matter.

I have had as much experience of war pensions as any other honorable member, and I am convinced that nine men receive a pension, although their disability cannot be proved to be due to war service, for every man who is suffering a disability due to war service, whose application is rejected. The Repatriation Commission consists of men who want to grant a pension to the soldier if it is possible for them to do so. The honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) contended that the only remedy is to recast the tribunal. That will not make the slightest difference. No doubt can exist regarding a disability when the soldier first returns from the war. The difficulty arises when he lodges a claim many years afterwards. If he had never previously applied for a pension, no board of doctors can be sure whether his illness was due to, or aggravated by, his war service. The matter rests with the tribunal, which does not consist of men who must determine the claim on legal grounds. They are plain, ordinary, intelligent men who are sympathetic to the application of the soldier, and want to perform their duties in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the act. No new words that this committee can insert in the act can alter it to any degree, because the onus of proof already rests with the Repatriation Commission and the tribunals. Of course, they will not be able to prove definitely .that a disability is not due to war service. In some cases a very grave doubt may exist, but still the soldier will get the pension. It is not possible for us so to amend the act as to make the position clearer than it is now. The tribunal has been most competent in the past, a.nd new tribunals, if appointed, will consist of reasonable men, who, without, prejudice, will interpret the will of this Parliament. The issue is whether a man is suffering from a war disability, which has affected his health, because he served in the war. After obtaining the best advice from’ medical practitioners, the tribunal will have one simple question to decide. I agree with the remarks of the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) that the interpretation of words does not enter into the question.

The whole matter will depend upon the decision of men of ability and sound judgment.

Sitting suspended from 11. J/8 p.m. to 12.18 a.m. (Friday).

Friday, 19 March, 19kS.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– Any one with experience of the dealing - with claims by tribunals will, I think, agree that in the great majority of cases no exception can be taken to the decisions made by the deciding authority, whether it be the board, the commission or the appeal tribunal; but that does not mean that in every case the deciding body proceeds to follow the lines set for it by the act of Parliament. Probably all the members of the board, the commission and the appeal tribunal are soldiers. One member of the board must be a person nominated by returned soldiers, and one member of the commission must be the same, and probably all the members of the commission are, whilst two members of the appeal tribunal must be returned soldiers, the third being a lawyer. It does appear that the members of these bodies say to themselves : “ Well, we are returned soldiers, and we have the capacity to judge the merits’ of returned soldiers’ claims, and an insight into the returned soldier character which other people do not possess, and whatever the legislation says, we are going to do what we consider substantial justice “. An illustration of that is the case referred to in this chamber some years ago, .which led to the amendment being made in section 42w. That is the well-known case which went to the High Court in relation to a returned soldier named Bott. Bott had contracted rheumatism while on war service,- and later received a pension for a chronic rheumatic condition. That pension was cancelled, and Bott made several ineffectual attempts to regain it. He then applied for an invalid pension, a fact which is material to what I shall say afterwards, and went to hospital. He applied again for his pension on the advice which he received from the medical man who examined him, and, being refused,, went to the appeal tribunal. What happened at the appeal tribunal was very interesting. The Commonwealth medical referee gave evidence, and the doctor from the hospital, who examined Bott, also gave evidence on his behalf, but the opposers refused to cross-examine. I quote the following from the judgment of Mr. Justice Evatt, now the right honorable the Attorney-General, reported in 50 O.L.R., 253:-

On the 24th February, 1933, the applicant waa represented upon his appeal to the respondents by Mr. T. W. McLaren. He called two medical witnesses. The first was Dr. H. J. W. Brennand, Commonwealth Medical Referee for Invalid Pensions. He was duly sworn, and stated that not only was the applicant suffering from chronic rheumatism, but he was actually receiving an invalid pension on account of that very condition. Asked whether the condition was referable to the rheumatic fever which the applicant had contracted at Gallipoli in 1915, Dr. Brennand said, “ Yes, definitely, it is related to the old trouble “. The chairman, Colonel Ralston, asked Dr. Brennand if he hod seen the appellant’s war history, and the reply was “ No “. The chairman then turned to Dr. Kenneth Smith, who -was present on behalf of the Repatriation Commission, and inquired if he desired to ask Dr. Brennand any question. Dr. Smith replied “No”.

Dr. Brennand’s evidence was corroborated by Dr. J. E. Sherwood-

Dr. Sherwood was the doctor who had examined Bott at the public hospital - in the essential respects, namely (1) a present condition of chronic rheumatism, and (2) a definite medical relation between that condition and the contraction of rheumatic fever at Gallipoli. Again, the Repatriation Commission’s representative, though invited by the chairman to cross-examine the witness, asked no questions. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the applicant had made a “ prima facie case “ within the meaning of the proviso to section 45w (2).

Nevertheless, the commission decided that Bott had not made a prima facie case. He had attended two doctors, each of whom said that he had this condition, and each of whom attributed it to war service, and the representative of the Repatriation Commission declined to cross-examine either doctor, but, in spite of all that, the Repatriation Commission said that a prima facie case had not been made out. What, of course, appears is that the tribunal thought that the man was not really entitled to a pension, and it was not going to allow the words of the section to stand in the way of its refusal to give him a pension, and so it did refuse to give him one. I suggest to honorable members who have not read the decision in that case that they should read it, because the tribunal’s conduct absolutely deprives any one who reads the report of any confidence in the will of these tribunals to follow the direction of an act of Parliament.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– That is a good reason why there should be some appeal.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– Of course these tribunals were created for the purpose of giving appeals, and they are manned by returned soldiers. On the appeal tribunal two of the members must be returned soldiers, and I understand that in fact all three of them are. Nevertheless, they disregard the language of the section when it prevents them from doing what they think that they ought to do. They say: “It does not matter what the act says; here is a man who we think should not get a pension, and we are not going to allow the language of the act to force us to give him one “. I prefer the language of the draft of the honorable member for Warringah to the language used by the act or by this clause, but I am very much afraid that, whatever words we put into the section, we shall, not be able to ensure that the appeal tribunals and the commission will obey the direction of Parliament. ‘ First. we free them from being bound by the rules of evidence, and the technical rules of law, and then we give them certain directions. To my mind the great advantage of the proposal of the honorable member for Warringah is that it does propose to change the formula. We have had a formula, and we have seen it disregarded by the men charged with the administration of it. It may be said that these words are polarized, that they have acquired a certain relation to other words and a certain unnatural meaning, and that the commission, if they still stand, will say: “ We disregarded them before and we are going to disregard them again “. The words proposed by the honorable member for Warringah are more explicit than the old words, and for that reason I think that they are preferable. Sub-section 2 of the proposed new section, if amended in the way which the honorable member proposes, would, read -

It shall not be necessary for the claimant, applicant or appellant to furnish conclusive proof to support his claim, application or appeal but the commission, board. appeal tribunal or assessment appeal tribunal determining or deciding the claim, application or appeal shall be entitled to draw, and shall draw, from all the circumstances of the case, from) the evidence furnished and from medical opinions, all reasonable inferences in favour of the claimant, applicant or appellant, and in all cases whatsoever- and here I come to the words which the honorable member proposes to insert - the person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claim, application or appeal should not be fully or partly granted.

There we are getting explicit English words instead of the legal phrase “the onus of proof “. I prefer the explicit English words which the honorable member for Warringah proposes to put into the clause to the repetition of a’ legal phrase, the use of which has not secured the result which it was intended to secure.

Mr Morgan:

– Would the honorable member retain the words “ onus of proof “ ?

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I would not. I have read the section as the honorable member for Warringah proposes to amend it. I believe that it. would be much harder for the board, commission, or tribunal to ignore the language used by the honorable member for Warringah than to ignore the language of the present section or of the proposed new section contained in the clause. The proposed new section retains the phrase “ onus of proof “. The use of that phrase has failed to secure the results which this Parliament intended to secure, and I believe that it would be much better to depart from it and to use the plain English words which the honorable member for Warringah has circulated.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.The discussion that has taken place on this clause would not have arisen but for the general dissatisfaction caused by the administration of the act. As the honorable member for Warringah has pointed out, the act as previously framed placed a strong onus of proof on the Commission. In fact, section 45w provided that it was sufficient in making out a prima facie case for the applicant merely to aver “ that the incapacity or death of the soldier- resulted from an occurrence hap pening during the period he was a member of the forces or from his employment in connexion with naval or military preparations or operations “. That is the simplest form of proof that could be laid down; yet there has been widespread dissatisfaction as to the manner in which the act has been administered. It would appear that that section has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance. The debate has disclosed the existence of a belief that, despite the present proposal, the administration may not be in accordance with the spirit and the letter of the act. Therefore, the matter should be made as plain as possible. I cannot see why such eminent lawyers as the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt), the honorable members for Warringah (Mr. Spender) and Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), and others cannot frame a provision that would give satisfaction to all parties. The desire of all is that it shall be made as plain as possible, in order to ensure that the spirit of the act shall he observed. It would appear that many of the claims that are coming before the department from returned soldiers of the present war are being rejected, although those men have been discharged from the Army because of medical unfitness. The particulars given to me disclose that, at the 31st December, 1942, there had been before the Repatriation Commission 39,853 claims, arising from the present war, for pensions by ex-members of the services or their dependants. Of that total, 5,050 claims by members had been granted and 5,998 had been rejected; and 12,735 claims by dependants had been granted, and 10,633 had been rejected; the totals being 17,785 granted, and 16,631 rejected. Therefore, it is essential that this provision shall be in the clearest terms. There would seem to be quite a prejudice against lawyers having a voice in the matter. They will not have a dominating voice in the administration, as only the chairman of the tribunal will be a lawyer. Medical men will have considerable influence in the administration of the act, as they have had in the past. Complaint has arisen not so much because of the repatriation administration as because of the domination of the administration by the medical assessors who, from time to time, give opinions in regard to disabilities.

I wish to refer to another portion of clause 18, which, if allowed to remain in its present form, will merely perpetuate the condition that has given rise to complaints. Proposed new section 39c provides - (1.) A medical practitioner shall, in reporting on any claim in relation to a member of the forces, set out in his report his opinion -

in the case of a claim in respect of the death of the member - as to the cause of the death; and
in the case of a claim in respect of the incapacity of the member - as to the nature, cause and extent of the incapacity.

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to-

That, in proposed new section 39b, subsection (2.), the word “conclusive” be left out.

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) negatived -

That in proposed new section 39b, subsection (2.), the words “in all cases whatsoever the onus of proof shall “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “the onus of proof of any matter referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) of the last preceding sub-section shall, in all cases whatsoever,”.”

Amendment (by Mr. Spender) put -

That in proposed new section 39b, subsection (2.), the words “the onus of proof shall lie on the person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ the person or authority who contends that the claim, application or appeal should not be granted or allowed to the full extent claimed shall prove beyond reasonable doubt that the claim, application or appeal should not be fully or partly granted.”

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 14

NOES: 40

Majority . . . . 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Amendments (‘by Mr. Hughes) agreed to-

That, in proposed new section 39c, subsection (1.), the words “ the death or incapacity of the member “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “the incapacity from which the member is suffering or from which he has died “.

That, in proposed new section (39c (1.) (iv) the word “arises” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the word “ arose “.

That sub-paragraph (v) of sub-section (1.) of proposed new section 39c be left out with a view to insert in lieu therof the following sub-paragraph : - “ (v) has been contributed to in any material degree, or has been aggravated, by the conditions of his war service.”

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.

Clause 21-

Section forty-five k of the principal act is amended -

Section proposed to be amended - 45k. - (1: ) A person who has claimed, as a member of the forces, or as a dependant of a member of the forces, a pension under section twenty-three ofthis act, and whose claim has been refused by the commission on the ground -

that the conditions of the member’s war service have not contributed to any material degree to his incapacity or death, may . . lodge . . . an appeal to an

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to-

That the following paragraph be inserted: - “ (6a) by omitting paragraph (6) of that sub-section and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: -

that the incapacity from which the member is suffering or from which he has died has not been contributed to in any material degree, or has not been aggravated, by the conditions of his war service,’; and”.

Clause further verbally amended.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- This clause limits unduly the grounds of appeal to an entitlement tribunal. I believe that there should be an appeal in all cases in which a claim has been refused by the Repatriation Commission or by an assessment tribunal. Pot instance, it is provided that no appeal shall lie when the disability is due to the wilful act of the claimant. Section 45at of the act defines active service. It is within the province of the commission to say whether the disability is such that it shall be deemed to have been contracted in actual contact with the enemy. Clause 33 amends section 45au - of the principal act by providing that upon the incapacity or death of a member of the forces, whose incapacity or death has resulted from an occurrence happening during the period from the date of his enlistment to the date of the termination of his service, and upon the incapacity or death of any member of the forces, whose incapacity or death has arisen out of, or is attributable to, his service, the Commonwealth shall be liable to pay the pension to him. But, if the death is, in the opinion of the commission, due to venereal disease contracted during -his period of service, the Commonwealth shall be liable to pay pensions to his widow and children. There, again, the matter is left entirely to the opinion of the commission, and. that is a state of mind from which there can be no appeal to the tribunal. Clause 33 further provides that the incapacity or death of a member shall be deemed to have arisen out of his service as a member, if it was the result of an accident which happened to him while travelling directly to or from his place of employment, or was, in the opinion of the commission, due to an accident occurring or to the contraction of a disease or an infection which would not have occurred or been contracted but for his being a member of the forces, or but for changes in his environment consequent upon his being such a member. There, again, the matter is left entirely to the opinion of the commission, and, as I have already said, there can be no appeal from a state of mind of the commission.

I contend that there should be an appeal in all cases. Instead of setting out the cases in which there can be an appeal, an appeal to the tribunal should be allowed in all instances where a claim has been refused by the. commission. There should also be an appeal from the assessment tribunal. The assessment of claims has been the subject of many complaints. The entitlement tribunal has no jurisdiction with regard to claims; it merely decides whether an applicant is entitled to the pension. Then the matter goes back to the commission, which follows the decision given before the soldier is discharged from the Army. The Army Discharging Board states whether certain disabilities are due to war service, and mentions other disabilities which may not be due to war service. It specifies the rate of pension payable by a mathematical calculation. That is why soldiers sometimes receive paltry pensions amounting to a few shillings a week. The decisions of the War Pensions Entitlement Tribunal are frustrated because of this procedure. The matter should not be left to the Army Discharging Board. Assessments may have been made on a wrong principle, and contrary to the spirit and letter of the act, yet there is no appeal to the entitlement tribunal with regard to the assessment. The tribunal should have the final voice with regard to both the entitlement and the amount of the pension. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) has shown that there should be no obstacle to claimants obtaining complete justice. He cited an instance of gross injustice in which the matter was taken to the High Court, but apparently that court had no jurisdiction to deal with it. There was no appeal against a decision which was contrary to all principles of common justice. The Government should consider whether it would not be fair, in all cases in which the claimant is dissatisfied with the decision of the assessment tribunal, that there should be a general right of appeal to the entitlement tribunal, instead of appeals being limited to certain cases.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES · NAT; UAP from 1931

– I support the contention of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan). After an inquiry by the entitlement tribunal, and after a verdict of entitlement is obtained by the applicant, the application goes back to the commission, which then has power to say, “We are now bound to admit the entitlement, but the disability is nil “.

Dr Evatt:

– The commission never says that the disability is nil.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– I have not had experience of such a decision in the last four or five years, but in the early days of the commission, after the appointment of the entitlement tribunal, I knew of many cases in which the commission had been appealed to and had refused entitlement. When the entitlement tribunal granted entitlement, the matter went back to the commission which had already refused the application. After that, the applicant has the right to appeal to the assessment tribunal, which is presided over by a legal man and two doctors. I agree with the honorable member for Reid that, if an application has been placed before a State board, and the applicant has then appealed to the entitlement tribunal and has been granted entitlement, the assessment of the pension ought to go automatically to the assessment tribunal, without having to be referred to the commission.

Dr Evatt:

– This is really a matter of quick administration, rather than one requiring an amendment of the section.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– Yes. I hope the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) will consider the matter.

Mr.Francis. - Sending an application back to the assessment tribunal, after entitlement has been established, would not help the soldier. There is only one assessment tribunal, and it moves from State to State.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The itinerary of the tribunal has nothing to do with the matter. Take the case of a returned soldier in Western Australia who was getting 50 per cent. of the full pension, until one day a Repatriation Department doctor suddenly stopped his pension. He then had to appeal, and he had to wait for months before his appeal was heard by the entitlement tribunal, which again granted him entitlement. He had been drawing pension from the end of the last war to about the year 1931. During all those years he had received 50 per cent. of the full pension, but when the payment suddenly ceased, nearly six months was occupied in getting a hearing by the entitlements tribunal. The fact that the assessment tribunal had assessed the disability at 50 per cent. total incapacity showed that the pensions should have been continued,but owing to the operation of the act, he was deprived of the pension for about six months. This is a matter of administration, and, if the Minister for Repatriation will look into it, I shall be satisfied.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Clause 23-

Section forty-fiveN of the principal act is amended -

by omitting from paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) . . .

by omitting from paragraph (b) of that sub-section the words “ a pension under that Division “ and inserting in their stead the words “ such a pension “ ; and

Section proposed to be amended - 45n. - (1.) Any member of the Forces -

who is in receipt of a pension under Division 1 of this Part; or

who is not in receipt of a pension under that Division but as to whom the Commission or an Appeal Tribunal has determined that he has an incapacity the result of any occurrence happening during the period he was a member of the Forces, . . . or that he has an incapacity to which the conditions of his service have contributed to a material degree, and the Commission has decidedthat the incapacity is so slight that it does not warrant a, pension assessment, may . . . lodge . . . an appeal . .

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to-

That the following paragraph be inserted in the clause:. - “ ; and(d) by omitting from paragraph ( b ) of that sub-section the words to which the conditions of his service have contributed to a material degree ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ which has been contributed to, in any material degree, or has been aggravated by the conditions of his war service ‘.”

Clause further verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 (Service pension in respect of a member permanently unemployable or suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis).

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I direct the attention of the committee to section 36 of the principal act, which reads -

In the case of any person who, at the time of the occurrence of the event resulting in the death or incapacity of a member of the forces (including a member of the forces within the meaning of section forty-five at of this act), was recognized as the wife of that member though not legally married to him, if the commission is satisfied that that person was wholly or partly dependent upon the earnings of the member, a pension under this division at a rate not exceeding the rate of pension which may be allowed under this division to the wife or widow of any such member of the forces may be allowed to- that person.

I have received a letter with regard to a de facto widow who has been awarded the full pension at the expense of the legal widow. The commission states -

The position of this case is that at the time the claim was submitted the Repatriation Commission had to consider also a claim by the dc facto widow for pension benefits for herself and adopted child and two ex-nuptial children of the late soldier residing in Victoria.

The commission, in its deliberations, took into account the following: -

the duration of the associations on a marital basis of the soldier and his de facto wife, i.e., from about 103(i;

the issue of that association.;

the soldier made a. military allotment to his de facto wife; (d) the Department of the Army recognized her to the extent of granting maximum dependant’s allowance;

the soldier made a will and appointed his de facto wife executrix and sole beneficiary, conditionally that she cared for the three children abovementioned.

In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the whole of the evidence adduced in respect of each claimant and the limitations imposed by section 30 of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act, the commission decided no reasonable ground existed for a grant in favour of the lawful widow.

The net. as no doubt you are fully aware. does not permit of payment of pensions to be made to a lawful widow and de facto widow at the same time.

The recommendation of the special parliamentary committe was -

CJ lider the Repatriation Act of ]!)20 the commission could pay a pension to a legal wife and a de facto wife in respect of the same member. In 1!)40 the act was amended to provide that in respect of members of the 1939 war, the pension could be paid to either the legal wife or the de facto wife, but not to both.

There is a difference between the two wars -

As a result of the amendment the commission now has to determine to which woman the pension will be paid, and as far as possible an attempt is made to follow the wishes of the soldier.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The term is wrong. I do not want this matter to be treated lightly. I do not want the committee to think that any tampering with this matter, or any pandering to a section of public opinion, will be passed by lightly. I know the feeling throughout the country on this subject. I know that if the moral looseness which is apparent to any one who walks about our city streets is not dealt with, sooner or later there will be a revulsion of feeling, and when that time comes some rather complacent people will be smitten in tender spots. I shall be pleased to see that revulsion, and I shall be interested to see how some people will react when they are smitten where I expect them to be smitten.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– If provision has not already been made I hope that it will be made to protect the interests of the legitimate wife, so that the position which has been referred to by the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard), in which a legitimate wife may be deprived of her just claim upon a soldier or ex-soldier in favour of an adulteress, will not be allowed to continue.

I wish to raise a matter affecting another class of wife, namely the wife and also the child of a service pensioner. “Under section 45ac of the existing legislation, they are entitled to consideration, provided that the child was born before the 2nd October, 1931, or that the wife was married before that date. I suggest that for the date mentioned there should be substituted the 1st day of July, 1938, in order to bring this legislation- into line with that relating to war pensions. I see no reason why the wife or child of a service pensioner should be placed at a disadvantage compared with the wife or child of a war pensioner.

Dr Evatt:

– I think that this is a matter which ought to be considered, but this bill is not the place to deal with it.

Mr CALWELL:

– This is a repatriation bill. The committee which has done such excellent work in connexion with other phases of repatriation should also have reported on this phase. The subject was brought to my notice by the Victorian branch of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia. That body has suggested that, as a matter of common justice, the definitions of “ wife “ and “ child “ for the purpose of service pensions should be brought into line with the definitions of “ wife “ and “ child “ for the purpose of war pensions. A man who is in receipt of a service pension is usually in poor circumstances, and the Victorian branch of the league believes that its request is not unreasonable. I do not know what the cost of giving effect to the suggestion would be, but I submit that cost should not be the determining factor, although I realize that sometimes our conception of justice is based on a consideration of cost. If justice can be done, it ought to be done. I urge now what I urged in my second-reading speech, namely, that where a person who is totally incapacitated marries a second time, the- second wife shall be entitled to receive a war pension. A totally incapacitated man needs the assistance of some one to care for him. A man who is bereft of his wife, and cannot look after himself, and who, moreover, has children dependent on him, may quite naturally desire that his children should have the care and attention of a step-mother. The woman whom he marries should not be disadvantaged by the fact that being married to a man who is totally incapacitated she for that reason faces the grim prospect of widowhood after, perhaps, only a few years of married life.

Mr FROST:
ALP

– A deputation waited on me in regard to this matter and I promised to look into it.

Mr CALWELL:

– I am glad to have that assurance from the Minister. There is justice in the claim. A man who is totally incapacitated is sufficiently burdened without having to worry about what would happen in the event of his helpmate passing on before him, and, may be, leaving little children for whom he can do but little.

Mr BRENNAN:
Batman

– There is no reference in the hill to the person described by the obnoxious term de facto wife, although Such a person is referred to in the report of the committee. It seems possible that, in certain circumstances, the clause may be construed to refer to persons living with and dependent upon a member of the forces. I believe that whatever gratuity, assistance or charitable indulgence, the committee might desire to extend to a woman in that situation in which she is described as a de facto wife, it will not do itself the injustice of reducing the status of a married woman by repeating, if it can be avoided, the use of that expression.

I accuse myself of having suffered that expression to re-appear in recent legislation. Probably, if a woman were a member of this Parliament, sensitive to the honor of her sex, that would never have occurred. I hope that we shall take an early opportunity to remove that offensive phrase from the statute-book wherever it occurs. “We cannot afford as a Parliament, or as a country, to write down the status of married women, or the status of the family. In fact, the preservation of family life and the maintenance of the status of married women are among the objectives for which the grim struggle in which we are now engaged is being fought. I associate myself with those who reprobate this tendency to regard the marriage tie lightly. We can easily afford to be indulgent and even generous to women in an unfortunate position without that. With that observation I leave the matter, feeling that I have spoken, Mr. Chairman, by your indulgence and the indulgence of the Minister also, inasmuch as this clause does not appear to relate specifically to a person in that situation; but it is time that the Parliament made a beginning to delete this objectionable designation and in doing justice to these persons, used more discreet and appropriate language than it has used in the past.

Mr. BLACKBURN (Bourke) [1.50 a.m. j. - The phrase de facto wife does not appear in this statute at all. It appears in a marginal note to section 36 of the principal act, and there is no definition of it in the act. Two questions arise on this point, and they must be kept apart. The first is the propriety of the use of the phrase; and the second is the propriety of making a payment to a woman whose relation to the soldier has been that of what we call a de facto wife.

Mr Marwick:

– - In other words an adulteress.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– I shall not use that word ; I do not like it. Canada has made a provision very much similar to the provision we have made. I. take it that the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) does not quarrel with the provision being made for this class of woman, but with the description of her as a de facto wife. I have in my hand a reprint of the Canadian Pension

Act 1919-1936. Canada has made a provision for the woman who, though not being married to a soldier, was either recognized by him as his wife, or ought fairly to have been recognized by ‘him as his wife. In the case of the death of the soldier the Canadian legislation has provided since 1919 -

– (3) A woman who, although not married to the member of the forces, was living with hi’m in Canada at the time he became a member of the forces and for a reasonable time previously thereto, and who, at such time, was publicly represented by him as his wife may, in the case of his death and in the discretion of the Commission, bc awarded a pension equivalent to the pension she would have received had she been his legal widow, and the Commission may also award a pension if, in its opinion, an injustice would be done by not recognizing a woman as the wife of a member of the forces although there is no evidence that she had been publicly represented by him . as his wife: Provided that such woman shall not be refused a pension for which she would have been eligible under the provisions hereof if she had remained unmarried, by reason only of her having married the member of the forces with whom she had been living as aforesaid.

The last proviso refers to the case of a woman who marries a soldier after the war. In the case of a disabled soldier, the Canadian act provides -

– (5) If a member of the forces, in respect of a disability pension, was, before the 1st day of May, 1933, living with a woman to whom ho was not legally married and since that date such woman has continuously been maintained by him and represented by him as his wife, the commission may, in its discretion, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (&) of section thirty of the amending act of 1930, if the said member of the forces has married or hereafter marries the said woman, award additional pension for a married member of the forces from the date of marriage or from the 1st day of August, 1930, whichever is the later date.

That means that a woman who had that relationship towards a disabled soldier would not receive anything unless he married her. The Canadian act also provides that a pension may be refused to the wife of a married soldier if she does not live with him and is not maintained by him. The ‘Canadian position is interesting because the Canadian view on these matters is much stricter than ours. In Quebec divorce cannot be obtained except by act of parliament, and, until recently, it was general in Canada that no one could obtain a divorce by judicial proceedings. In Canada there is a strong opposition to divorce, supported generally, and particularly in Quebec, by the Catholic church; yet Canada has dealt with this matter on almost the same lines as we have dealt with it in Australia. I quite agree with those who object to the use of the phrase de facto wife in our statutes. It is objectionable; but that should not prevent us from doing justice to the woman with whom the soldier has had that relationship. If we are not going to insist that every soldier must be a sexual rigorist we must provide for the woman with whom he has had that relationship.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 31-

Section forty-fiveas of Principal Act is amended -

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– I move -

That, after paragraph (a), the following paragraph be inserted: - “ (ab) by omitting the word ‘seven’ (first and second occurring) and inserting in its stead the word ‘fifteen’; and “.

This amendment is in pursuance of the Government’s decision to extend the time limit with respect to the eligibility for pensions of the soldier’s wife and children from seven to fifteen years. It means that any woman who married a member of the present forces prior to fifteen years after discharge of the member will be entitled to receive a war pension in respect of any incapacity suffered by the member due to war service, or to receive a pension in respect of her husband’s death from war service. Any children born of such a marriage will be pensionable, notwithstanding the date of birth. The provision applies also to eligibility for service pensions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause further verbally amended, and, as amended, agreed to.

Clauise 32-

Section forty-five at of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “ 45at. For the purposes of this Division -

Member of the Forces ‘ means any male person who during thewar, was a member of the Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Commonwealth, and -

was employed on active service; or

although not so employed and not being a person to whom paragraph (c) of this definition applies, was enlisted during the. war -

in any of those Forces solely for continuous service for the duration of, and directly in connexion with, the war ; or

in the Permanent Military or Air Forces for a period other than the duration of the war;or(c) although not so employed, was enlisted in -

the Permanent Naval Forces before the war, or during the war for a period other than the duration of the war; or

the Permanent Military or Air Forces before the Avar or during the war but was, by reason only of such membership, deemed to be an officer or employee within the meaning of the Superannuation Act 1922-1937 or of that. Act as amended for the time being, and served in any of those Forces on or after the seventh day of December, One thousand nine hundred and forty-one;”

Amendment (by Mr. Frost) agreed to-

That definition of “ Member of the Forces “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following definition: - “ ‘ Member of the Forces ‘ means any male person who during the war, was -

a member of the Permanent Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Commonwealth ; or

a member of the Citizen Forces enlisted or appointed or called up for continuous service for the duration of, and directly in connexion with, the war;”.

Clause further verbally amended and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 -

Section forty-five au of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (1) all the words up to and including the words “this Part” and inserting in their stead the words -

by omitting from paragraph (ft) of the proviso to that sub-section the word “and” (last occurring);

by adding at the end of paragraph (c) of that proviso the following paragraphs: - ”; (d) in the case of a member within the meaning of (paragraph (c) of the definition member of the Forces ‘ in section forty-five at of this Act, who resumes or continues a period of service with the Permanent Forces which has been interrupted by, or which includes, his period of war service, any liability of the Commonwealth to pay pension to or in relation to that member shall not commence until the termination of the period of service so resumed or continued or any extension of that period; and

by omitting from sub-section (2.) all the words after the word “Forces,” (first occurring) and ending with the word “ appointment “ (second occurring) and inserting in their stead the words “ who after his enlistment, served in camp in Australia for at least six months or embarked for active service, the origin or cause of his incapacity or death existed prior to his enlistment”; and

Amendments (by Mr. Frost) agreed to-

That paragraph (d) be leftout with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph : - “; (d) in the case of a member who was enlisted in -

the Permanent Naval Forces before the war, or during the war for a period other than the duration of the war; or

the Permanent Military or Air Forces before the war or during the war but was, by reason only of such membership, deemed to be an officer or employee within the meaning of the Superannuation Act 1922-1937 or of that Act as amended for the time being, and who, after being employed on the service, not being active service, in respect of which the liability of the Commonwealth to pay pension arises, resumes or continues a period of service with those Forces which is continuous with the period of such first-mentioned service, the liability of the Commonwealth to pay pension to or in relation to. the member shall not commence until the termination of the period of service so resumed or continued or any extension of that period; and”.

That in paragraph (f ) the words “ embarked for “ be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ was employed on “.

Amendment (by Mr. Hughes) agreed to-

That after paragraph (f) the following new paragraph be inserted: - ” (fa) by omitting paragraph (a) of sub-section (2.) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: -

the incapacity from which the member is suffering or from which he has died has been contributed to in any material degree, or has been aggravated, by the conditions of his war service; and’; and.”

Clause further verbally amended.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I direct the attention of the Government to the restrictive conditions of the proviso of sub-section 1 of section 45au of the principal act. At present, the Commonwealth Government is liable to pay to the member, or his dependants, or both, as the case may be, pensions in accordance with division 1, provided that -

is not duo to the default or wilful act of the member;
does not arise from intentionally self-inflicted injuries; and
iii ) does not arise from, or from any occurrence happening during the commission of any breach of discipline by the member;

When those conditions apply, the member and his dependants are not eligible to participate in the benefits under the act. This provision causes severe hardship. To clarify my point, I cite a case that occurred recently in my electorate. A soldier, the father of three children, was summoned to his home owing to the illness of his wife. He was granted a certain period of leave,but he overstayed it, because her condition was serious. When he reported to his unit, he was sentenced to a period of detention for having been absent without leave. When his wife’s condition became worse, he broke out of the detention section and was shot dead by a guard. His wife appealed for compensation or a pension under the act, but this could not be granted because of the operation of paragraph (iii) of the proviso. As the result of the husband’s breach of discipline, his wife and three children are left destitute. I suggest that the proviso should be amended by leaving out paragraph (i) and by making paragraph (iii) more specific by stipulating a “ serious breach of discipline “. That would permit the Repatriation Commission to decide whether the breach of discipline was sufficiently serious as to warrant the exclusion of a man’s dependants from the benefits of the act.

Dr Evatt:

– The departmental view is that the word “ default “ must be retained in (i) in order to prevent the payment of a pension to a sufferer from venereal disease. However, I recognize the merit of the honorable member’s contention, and shall give careful consideration to the matter.

Mr Spender:

– Perhaps the requisite amendment can be made in the Senate?

Dr Evatt:

– Yes.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 -

Section forty-five av of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting the words “or Army Nursing Services “ ; and

by inserting, after the word “Australia “ (wherever occurring) the words “ or the Territories of the Commonwealth “.

Amendment (by Mr. Frost) agreed to-

That, in paragraph (b ) , the words “ the Territories” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ any Territory “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 -

After Division 6 of Part III. of the Principal Act, the following Division and sections are inserted: - ” Division 7. - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to Members of the Women’s Services. “45ax. - (1.) Subject to the provisions of this Division . ‘ . . . “ (2.) For the purposes of the extension of the provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 (inclusive) of this Part, of sections forty-five at, fortyfive au and forty-five aw and of the Schedules to this Act as provided in the last preceding sub-section -

any reference in those Divisions, sections or Schedules, or in any Act affecting those Divisions, sections or Schedules, to dependants shall, except where otherwise expressly provided, be read as a reference to -

such other members of the family of a member or, in the case of a member who is an ex-nuptial child, such of the parents or grand-parents of the member, as were, wholly or in part, dependent upon her earnings at the time of her enlistment, or at any time during her service or before the termination of the war, whichever first happens. “ 45ay. For the purposes of this Division - dependant’ means a dependant specified in paragraph (b) of sub-section (2.) of section forty-five ax of this Act; member of the Forces ‘ means a person who, during the war, was a member of the Women’s Royal Australian Navy Nursing Service, the Australian Army Nursing Service, theRoyal Australian Air Force Nursing Service, the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women’s Army Service, the Australian Army Medical Women’s Service, the Voluntary Aid Detachment, or , the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force.

Amendments (by Mr. Frost) agreed to-

That, in proposed new section 45ax (2) (b) (iii), the words “or before” be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words : - “ from the time of her enlistment to the date of her death or discharge from the Forces or “. .

That, at the end of proposed new section 45ay, the following words be added: - “or was employed on full-time paid duty as a member of the Voluntary Aid Detachment.”

Clause further verbally amended and, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36-

Section forty-six of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting sub-section (3.) and inserting in its stead the following subsection : - “ (3.) For the purpose ofParts IV. and V. of this Act any person who -

is or has been during the war which commenced on the third day of September, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-nine, a member of the Permanent Naval, Military or Air Forces of the Commonwealth enlisted for or employed on active service outside Australia;

is or has been, during that war, a member of the Permanent Military Forces who served in those forces on or after the seventh day of December, One thousand nine hundred and forty-one ;

is or has been, during that war, a member of the Citizen Forces enlisted during the war solely for continuous service for the duration of and directly in connexion with that war; [el) is or has been, during that war, a member of the Royal Australian Navy Nursing Service, the Australian Army Nursing Service, the Royal Australian Air Force Nursing Service, the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service, the Australian Women’s Army Service, the Australian Army Medical Women’s Service, the Voluntary Aid Detachment or the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force ; shall be deemed to be a member of the Forces within the meaning of those Parts “ ; and

Amendments (by Mr. Frost) agreed to-

That, in proposed new sub-section (3.) (fi.), the word “ Permanent “ be left out.

That, in proposed new sub-section (3.) (a), after the word “ Australia “, the following words be added : - “ and the Territories of the Commonwealth “.

That paragraph (6) of proposed new subsection (3.) be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following paragraph: - “ (6) is or has been, during that war, a member of the Permanent Military Forces of the Commonwealth enlisted for service only within Australia’ or the Territories of the Commonwealth ; “.

That, in proposed new sub-section (3.) (c), the word “ solely “ be left out.

That the following words be added to proposed new sub-section (3.) (d) “or was employed on full-time paid duty as a member of the Voluntary Aid Detachment “.

Clause further verbally amended.

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– I direct the attention of the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) to the position of members of the Women’s Land Army who have been recruited for service and I desire to know whether consideration has been given to the claims of personnel, compared with the claims of the members of the Voluntary Aid Detachment. It can hardly be said that members of the Women’s Land Army are entitled to repatriation benefits, but some of them will possibly be engaged in or near operational areas and military establishments. If the matter has not yet been considered, I ask the Minister to investigate the position later. I am prepared to accept a ministerial assurance to that effect.

Mr Frost:

– The matter will receive consideration..

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA · ALP

.Will the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) briefly explain the purpose of these amendments ?

Mr Frost:

– They are verbal and consequential amendments and relate to the women’s forces.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37-

Section 47 of the Principal Act is ‘repealed.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I move -

That after the word “ repealed “ the following be inserted: - “and the following section inserted in its stead: -

Where a member of the Forces is in receipt of a pension at the general rate for total incapacity under the first schedule to this act or .at the special rate of pension under the second schedule to this act, the Commonwealth shall, subject to the regulations, be liable to provide free medical treatment and, where so ordered by a medical practitioner, free hospital treatment for the member during such periods as it is necessary for him to undergo such treatment.’ “.

This is a proposal to provide free hospital treatment for all those persons who are totally and permanently or even temporarily incapacitated, including blinded soldiers and those suffering from tuberculosis. All these people are on full pensions, their health is constantly at a low ebb and so is their resistance, and they are subject, because of their weak physical condition, to all epidemic contagious and infectious diseases. It is essential therefore that they should be granted free hospital treatment for any sickness. They are required to subsist entirely on their pension, and it is unreasonable that the pension should be used by them to pay for hospital treatment for any disease or malady from which they suffer as a direct consequence of their Avar service. If they had not gone to the war and been so seriously affected that they are entitled to a full pension, they would not suffer from so many diseases as they do to-day. I understand that the Minister is favorably disposed towards the amendment, and is prepared to accept it. If it is made law it will do a great deal to bring financial relief to these people and at the same time help to improve their health.-

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– I refer the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) to the statement made by me in the House on the 9th March, in which I indicated that the Government would introduce a regulation to allow free medical or hospital treatment under certain conditions for all disabilities suffered by members of the forces who are in receipt of war pensions at the general rate for total incapacity under the first schedule of the act or at the special rate under the second schedule. This of course will include those members who are blinded, temporarily or permanently totally incapacitated, or suffering from tuberculosis. In view of the Government’s decision in this matter I ask that the honorable member withdraw the amendment. Full power already exists in the act to provide this treatment by the introduction of a regulation.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I accept the Minister’s assurance that all that is being sought by my amendment will be provided by regulation.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

. I move -

That after the word “ repealed “ the following be inserted: - “and the following section inserted in its stead: - 47a. Where a member of the Forces is suffering from tuberculosis and has, for a period of three years or more, been in receipt of a pension at a rate of not less than the maximum special rate of pension specified at any time during that period in the second schedule to this act, the children of the member shall, during any period during which the member continues to receive a pension at that rate, be entitled to participate in any soldiers’ children education scheme prepared under the regulations as if they were eligible children for the purposes of that scheme.’ “.

For a long time the trustees of the McCaughey Bequest, administering the legacy of about £500,000 left by the late Sir Samuel McCaughey, pastoralist, for the benefit of children of deceased or incapacitated soldiers, have been providing money for the education and training of children of deceased, totally and permanently incapacitated, or blinded soldiers. A large number of such soldiers are on full pensions, but these are in fact regarded as temporary pensions as the recipients are required to come up for medical review every six or twelve months. As the fund was being reduced, the children of tubercular soldiers, who are receiving full pensions on what are known as temporary rates, have been denied the bursary benefits which the trust offers. It is estimated that the legacy will yield over £750,000, and up to date about £620,000 has been spent. No similar assistance is yet available for the children of members of this war. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, because the rate of pension is not affected. If this is a case which he thinks can be better dealt with by regulation, I am prepared to meet him as I did in regard to the previous amendment.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– I intimated in the statement made by me in the House on the 9th March last that certain benefits may be provided by way of regulation. Benefits under the soldiers’ children education scheme are provided for under the regulations framed under the act, and the Government’ has decided to approve the extension of the scheme to the children of members of the forces who have been receiving the special rate pension of £8 a fortnight under the second schedule in respect of tuberculosis, for a period of three years or more. This will come into operation as soon as the appropriate regulation has been promulgated. It is considered that the provision now suggested should not be embodied in the act, as it can be adequately provided for by regulation. I therefore ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I am pleased to accept the Minister’s assurance that what I ask for in my amendment will he done by regulation and to accede to his request.

Amendment - by leave - wiithdrawn

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

– I do not wish to disturb what appears to be a very satisfactory arrangement, but I should like the Minister to explain why the Government prefers to deal with this matter by regulation rather than by an amendment of the act as proposed by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis). “We all know the general objection that exists to the growing tendency to legislate by regulation.

Wherever it is possible for these matters to be dealt with in legislation, it is preferable to do so. People who read the Repatriation Act in order to ascertain their rights may more easily understand the position if they can find everything within the act itself than if they have to watch for regulations which they may not be able to obtain. The Minister may be able to tell the committee that this class of benefit is already dealt with comprehensively under regulations, and if that is the case I am satisfied. If not, I suggest that the honorable member for Moreton should press his amendment. Generally speaking, the tendency to deal by regulation with matters which should be dealt with by legislation is far too extensive, and should be curbed by Parliament as soon as possible.

Mr. FROST (Franklin- Minister for Repatriation [2.28 a.m.]. - This matter is dealt with principally by regulation. The whole of the trust referred to is already covered in that way, and we prefer to continue that practice. All that is required is an amendment of an existing regulation. I am sure that the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) will be satisfied.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– Section 47 of the principal act, which clause 37 proposes to repeal, is the section which gives the commission power to make recommendations as to regulations. If it is repealed, will that mean that the commission can no longer make recommendations to the GovernorGeneral in the matter of regulations? If so, who is going to make such recommendations? Will the Government take action on its own initiative, or where is the power of recommendation left in the act or the bill to enable regulations to be gazetted in the future?

Mr Spender:

– Provision is made in section 60 of the act.

Mr Francis:

– Also in clause 40 of the bill.

Mr CALWELL:

– I should like the Minister to explain briefly why it is intended to deprive the commission of the power which it has enjoyed to make recommendations in regard to regulations.

Dr Evatt:

– The departmental officials have supplied the explanation that section 47 has been found unnecessary because all action concerning the making of regulations can be taken under section 60.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I move -

That after the word “ repealed “ the following words be inserted : - “ and the following section inserted in its stead: - 47b. The regulations shall make provision for the granting of preference in employment to members of the Forces.’ “.

Mr Blackburn:

– I rise to a point of order. The honorable member has moved for the insertion of a new section which has no relation to section 47. Several honorable members have given notice of their intention to move for the insertion of new clauses in priority to the provision which he proposes to insert. I am one of those, and I consider that I should not be deprived by this device of my prior right to move an amendment.

Mr Harrison:

– Clause 37 proposes that section 47 shall be repealed. I am moving to give to the Minister the power to make a certain regulation. I take it that that falls properly within section 47. It is really an addendum to clause 37.

Mr Spender:

– I appreciate the point that has been raised by the honorable member for Bourke; but it surely relates to the position that would exist if the proposal were to insert a new clause which was not in substitution of the section that was to be either repealed or amended.

Mr Blackburn:

– Section 47 deals with recommendations, not regulations.

Mr Spender:

– That is true; hut the amendment would appear to be sufficiently germane to warrant its insertion.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Chair is of the opinion that it is competent for the honorable member to move the amendment at this point.

Mr HARRISON:

– I regard as an integral part of any repatriation legislation, the provision that preference in employment shall be given to members of the services about to be repatriated. I cannot imagine any repatriation legislation being enacted by any country which would not contain some such provision. I fail to see how it will be possible to restore these men to employment, and enable them again to take up work in industry which their war service has caused them to drop, unless the country in whose service they have fought gives to them a measure of preference. This will give to returned men’ the right to earn their livelihood, which they would find it very hard to earn if not given some help by a generous and grateful country. They ask for no more than that they shall be given the right to earn a livelihood, and should be given no less by a grateful country.

Let us examine some of the reasons in support of preference in employment being given to the returned soldier. He has been taken out of industry, and placed in the service of his country. The man who has been at the bench loses his aptitude and efficiency in the years during which he is absent from it. This has been made obvious by no less a person than Lieutenant-Colonel Madgwick, Director of Education and Vocational Training in the Department of the Army. Giving evidence before the special committee, he said -

We have taken nien out of their normal civil employments and have changed them fundamentally. We have removed the motive that would actuate them in their civil life. We have taken from them, all striving to gain a livelihood. Shortly, we have changed them; they are different social beings. In the course of that process of change, we have put them into an environment in which they cannot get a full appreciation of the changes that are occurring in the economic and social structure.

He placed his finger exactly on the core of the matter, in drawing attention to the fact that these men have been taken out of their avocations and placed in an entirely different atmosphere under completely different circumstances. They will return to civil life strange to the new economic set of conditions that have grown up, and will have lost the efficiency which was theirs prior to having been, called up. Lieutenant-Colonel Madgwick went on to say -

Those men who aTO skilled tradesmen or process workers have two major advantages over the men in the Army. In the first place, they are maintaining and increasing their skill; and in the second place, they arc working in a changing economy, and are understanding the changes by reason of their participation in them. The man in the Army is losing his skill and is not being given the training that is being given to the ordinary civilian population. Therefore, when he returns to civil life he will have lost a good deal of the skill that he formerly possessed and will certainly Hot have been trained for all of those new trades that developed during the war.

That is a very clear exposition of the state in which the returned soldier will find himself when he is on the verge of being repatriated. No repatriation act could be complete, just or proper unless it gave preference in employment to these men, in order that they may be rehabilitated in the industrial economy of the nation.

There is also another section of men who will need looking after - the younger men who have not established themselves in a trade or profession. Some of them may have served a portion of their apprenticeship, whilst others may have matriculated and completed one year in a faculty at a university. The whole of their outlook may have been altered by their service. How often was it found after . the last war that a young man who had trained himself for a profession could not re-enter it upon his return? The outdoor life and the upsetting conditions had caused him to reorientate the whole of his outlook in regard to his employment. Some men found their way on to the land, whilst others took up an industrial occupation. Unless preference is given, these men will not be able to find their way back into industry. The country must nurse them back into employment, and give them the opportunity to re-establish themselves in industry. I know that this proposal cuts across the principles of the Government. It’s concern is with preference to unionists, and the establishment of compulsory unionism. The Government of New South Wales, which is of the same party-political colour a3 the (Commonwealth Administration, proposes to enact legislation along those lines. Even with the country at war, this Government is enforcing the principle of preference to unionists. The Government believes in preference in employment to industrial workers, so surely it cannot deny as favorable treatment to members of the fighting services. If the Government believes that industrial workers, who are employed under favorable conditions, should be given preference, it cannot in fairness offer less to members of the fighting forces who are risking disablement or death under the most appalling conditions. I do not want to flog the issue, because it is undesirable at this time to .rouse party feelings. If this benefit is not conferred upon the soldiers, although they may win the war f or us, they may well lose the peace. There are 700,000 men in the forces, and after the war they will demand their rights. It will go hard with any government that denies them preference in the matter of employment.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral · Barton · ALP

– The committee would render a disservice to the returned soldiers if it accepted this amendment. The policy of the Government in regard to preference to returned soldiers has been announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and is favorable to the general principle of preference. In answer to a question asked in the Senate, on the 27th 3 January last, the Prime Minister, as reported on page 12 of Hansard, said that the Government .believed that preference, although necessary, was far from adequate, and that what should be done was to obtain security of employment for servicemen. Returned soldier organizations are now insisting, not on preference in the narrow sense, but on the guarantee of employment. This hill is not the measure in which we should embody preference proposals. To deal with the matter in the crude way suggested would be unworthy of the Parliament and of the returned servicemen themselves. The amendment provides that regulations shall make provision for the granting of preference in employment to members of the forces. Does the honorable member mean all members of the forces whether they have been on active, combatant service or not, and whether they have been abroad or not?

Mr Harrison:

– All of them will have lost their skill, or the opportunity to acquire skill.

Dr EVATT:

– The Government is now drafting legislation to deal with this matter, and I beg the committee not to prejudice the principle of guaranteeing employment to returned soldiers by accepting the amendment. The honorable member asks for preference in employment, but at what point - at the point of engagement, during employment, or at the termination of employment? The honorable member made what was for him a favorable reference to unionists; does he wish returned soldiers to be placed in the same category as unionists?

Mr Harrison:

– I do not believe in preference to unionists. I said that the Government had declared itself in favour of preference to unionists, and therefore could not deny preference to returned soldiers.

Dr EVATT:

– The important thing is what the Government policy is. The Repatriation Act, which was passed at the end of ;the last war, contained no provision for preference to returned soldiers. The matter was then regarded as one for State Parliaments to deal with.

I believe in substantial preference to returned soldiers, but I ask those who think in the same way not to prejudice the application of this principle by insisting that regulations be issued under this bill to provide for preference.

Mr Calwell:

– The matter should be dealt with by legislation.

Dr EVATT:

– I agree. It would be most unsatisfactory to attempt to deal with it by regulations under the Repatriation Act. As I have already said, legislation is now being prepared.

Mr Coles:

– “Will the Government give an undertaking that legislation will be introduced ?

Dr EVATT:

– Fes, and I am convinced that legislation will emerge which will be of great benefit to returned soldiers.

Mr Blackburn:

– When will it be done?

Mr Curtin:

– We cannot complete a draft of the bill until we know what powers are to be transferred to the Commonwealth by the States.

Mr Harrison:

– So it is another “ Kathleen Mavourneen “ scheme.

Mr Curtin:

– It is not. It is obvious that the powers of this Parliament will be conditioned by the authority given to it to deal with employment and unemployment. To the degree that Parliament will have power to deal with those ma’tters, the Government will frame legislation for presentation to Parliament.

Dr EVATT:

– I ask the committee not to prejudice the broader policy of preference by accepting the amendment, but to get on with the . bill.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether I am at liberty to discuss the clause as a whole, or whether I must confine myself to the amendment?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Prowse).The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) has moved an amendment to the clause, and the honorable member must confine himself to the amendment.

Mr BARNARD:

– I listened with mixed feelings to the speech of the honorable member for Wentworth, who moved an amendment, the purpose of which is to give preference to returned soldiers. So far as I am concerned, the important factor is what is meant by preference to returned soldiers. Does it include nurses and other women in the services as well as men? When the Government proceeds to deal with the broad question of preference to returned soldiers, it should provide a measure of social justice, not only for the soldiers who have fought on the battlefields, but also those for whom the soldiers have fought. I agree that the lives of the soldiers have been disturbed, that, on their ultimate return to civil life, employment must be found for them, and that they must receive the protection of the Parliament and the country; but the claims of the men and women in industry who have been producing the munitions of war must also be considered. In many instances, industrial workers have been prevented from taking their place in the field, and that alters the whole principle of preference as we knew it after the last war. How can we say that the man who has been in uniform must be given preference over those who have been retained in industry because of their special skill and ability? There should be a balanced preference. The matter is one in which I take a lively interest, and I regard it from the broad aspect of the social security of the people. I desire to see a balanced economy after the war. I agree with what has been said by the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) and by interjection, by the Prime Minister (Mr.

Curtin), who pointed out that the matter should not be dealt with in a haphazard way by accepting the proposed amendment to the clause under consideration. The Prime Minister has indicated that

Separate legislation is needed, in order to make proper provision both for returned soldiers and for the other people to whom the right honorable gentleman has referred. The returned soldier has a right to the protection of this Parliament in the new social order which we expect after the war.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

– The special committee, realizing that, although the matter of preference was somewhat outside its terms of reference, gave consideration to the subject in an atmosphere entirely devoid of politics, notwithstanding that all shades of political opinion were represented. None of us had any desire to make political capital. After examining all the factors of this most difficult problem the most that the committee was prepared to say was to say that’ -

The evidence quoted in paragraph 22 directs attention to the necessity for all reasonable measures in the favour of members whereby the handicaps to which they are subjected by service can be off-set. The committee recommends that it be public policy that wherever practicable preference must be given to members of the forces in the matter of employment.

– I have no objection whatever to the committee reaffirming its adherence to the principle of preference to returned soldiers - that is what the special committee recommended - but I have an absolute objection to giving expression to that principle by the doubtful authority of a regulation. The amendment prescribes that it shall be done by regulation. I submit that that would be a very poor realization of the purpose that the committee has in mind.

First of all, there would be uncertainty as to the tenure of such a regulation. The present Government, like previous governments, has found this problem one of great difficulty. That the previous Government could not solve it is clear from the fact that it brought down no legislation to deal with it; nor did it issue any regulation to deal with it. The war had been going on for two years when that government went out of office, and many men had returned from the war. There were also those who had been disabled in the conflict, or were suffering the disabilities to which the honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. McDonald) has properly referred. That government appointed an inter-departmental committee; but that is all that it did.- The report of that committee was not presented until the present Government came into office. Since the report was presented the Government has taken action; it has directed that legislation be prepared to deal with this matter.

– I do not think that meets my point. “ Member of the forces” has two definite meanings. It covers those who served in the war of 1914-18 and also those who have served in the present war. For whom is the honorable member for Wentworth seeking preference ?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– If the amendment be agreed to, a consequential amendment can be made defining who shall be included.

Mr Morgan:

– The amendment is confusing as the measure is now framed, because it does not indicate to whom the preference is to be given, and will create discrimination between old and new “diggers “.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I was not surprised to hear the right honorable the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) state that the Government proposed to introduce a bill giving preference to soldiers in private employment, but I very much regret the statement and’I hope that such a bill will not be introduced. Anybody with experience of the Labour movement and of Australia since the last war, especially the years immediately after it, will recognize that no more potent apple of discord could be thrown into the ranks of Labour than the issue of preference to soldiers. That issue may be looked at in two ways. Preference may be given by Commonwealth and State Governments and public bodies, municipalities and so on, in filling employments directly under their control, either permanently or temporarily. The Commonwealth itself, as regards its own services, has no doubt power to legislate and has always applied the principle of preference. The State Governments, municipalities and public bodies have tended, at any rate in Victoria, to apply the principle of preference without any legal command. In

New South Wales they do so under tl] operation of law. But that is distinct from the notion of preference in private employment. That issue was raised immediately after the last war with, in my opinion, no other object than to divide the workers and keep them divided. It was very successful in doing so. In New South Wales in 1919 an act was placed on the statute-book providing for preference, but in Victoria there has never been a law compelling employers to give preference to soldiers over non-soldiers in employment. Even in New South Wales it appears to have been held that, although the employer could be compelled to give preference to a soldier in engagement, he might dismiss him the next day. He was not bound to continue his employment, and, although that defect existed, the act was not amended. The Government now says that although it contemplates the fullest measure of employment for every body after the war, it intends to introduce a measure compelling the private employer to give preference to the ex-member of the forces over the person who has not served. Apart altogether from the potent considerations urged by the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), I wish to emphasize these others: There will be a far greater number of ex-members of the forces after this war than there were after the last war. There will be a very great number of persons engaged in industry who will be ex-servicemen. It is desirable that legislation should be passed to provide that their employers should reinstate them, and the last Government did introduce regulations providing for the reinstatement of ex-soldiers in civil employment. That is perfectly reasonable, but it is, in my view, wrong to say that the numerous persons who have returned from the war are to be found employment at the expense of persons who have not gone to the war, because the effect of that is immediately to create two rival classes of workers. I cannot conceive of anything more injurious to the working classes and the Labour movement of this country than to divide them, whether on religious or racial ground, or by distinguishing between military and non-military service. That is a very dangerous policy, and I think that the Labour movement outside will be astounded to hear that the Prime Minister proposes to compel private employers to give preference to ex-soldiers over non-soldiers. I go a certain length with the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) in saying that, if there is to be preference to unionists, the soldiers’ rights should be protected. I agree with that, and the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act provides that no award of preference to unionists can be made to the prejudice of returned soldiers. Section 81a of that act provides -

Nothing in any award or order made under this act, or in1 any agreement relating to industrial matters, shall operate to prevent the employment of returned soldiers or sailors.

Then follows the definition of returned soldiers. The effect is that, in those rare cases in which the Commonwealth Arbitration Court has awarded preference to unionists, it has made quite clear that preference is subject to the rights of returned soldiers, who are to be employed on the same basis as unionists, even although they may not themselves be unionists. In a waterside workers case it transpired that on the waterfront the firstpreference was given to soldier unionists, and second preference to unionists who were not soldiers, and to soldier nonunionists on an equal footing. That is the only law operating under federal authority in Victoria dealing with that matter. There is no State legislation so far as I am aware - and I am fairly familiar with the subject - that gives any preference to soldiers in private employment in Victoria, or protects their rights in any way. If there is to be preference to unionists, then there should be provision that they should not get preference over returned soldiers. If there is to be compulsory unionism, there should be a provision preventing it from operating to the prejudice of the ex-soldier nonunionist. My experience, and I think that it is the experience of the Minister for Health (Mr. Holloway), is that upon the basis of the claim for preference to soldiers there were built up by unscrupulous men unions which were fighting the genuine unions in the interests of the employers. Ex-soldiers were gathered into those unions on the assumption that they were going to get preference because they were soldiers. The soldiers had no reason to be at enmity with the unions, because the unions took a very prominent part in the rehabilitation of the soldiers. Without worrying whether ex-soldiers were unionists or non-unionists, they helped all and did what they could to see that they were taught trades. The result of that and other measures is that in Victoria, where there has been no preference to soldiers, the unions and the returned soldiers have got on well.. In the trade union movement in Victoria some of the best and strongest and most militant unionists are men who served in the last war. I believe that when the men come back from this war, the bulk of them will want to join the unions, but if the promise of preference to soldiers in private employment is held out to them, there will again be people organizing unions of soldiers only, and saying to them, “ Do not join the ordinary unions of wage-earners, but join the union of soldiers only, because by joining it you can get preference over non-soldiers “. That is very dangerous ; it is one of the things that a fascist government would introduce.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

, - I am astonished at the revelation of the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear), and the definite assertion of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), that they are opposed to preference to returned soldiers. Normally, I should readily have accepted the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), and I was prepared to do so to-night. I asked my colleagues to accept his undertaking that he would introduce in the next period of the session a bill to grant preference to returned soldiers. But we have heard the only two private members on the Government side who have spoken state their opposition to the principle.

Mr Beck:

– The honorable members for Reid (Mr. Morgan) and Bass (Mr. Barnard) have said the same thing.’

Mr FRANCIS:

– I shall not weaken one iota on the report that I have signed. It has no qualification, and is as emphatic as it was possible to make it.

Mr Rosevear:

– Read paragraph 51.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The paragraph reads -

The evidence quoted in paragraph 22 directs attention to the necessity for all reasonable measures in the favour of members whereby the handicaps to which they are subjected by service can be offset. The committee recommends that it be public policy that wherever practicable preference must bc given to members of the forces in the matter of employment.

Mr Rosevear:

– It refers only to men who are handicapped.

Mr FRANCIS:

– It does not. Let me deal with the handicaps that are occasioned by active service. I should not have thought that it would be necessary in this Parliament to give examples of them. Every body ought to have the greatest appreciation of all that our service men are doing, and the handicaps against which they are standing up so wonderfully on our behalf. The handicaps are mentioned in the evidence of Lieutenant-Colonel R. P>. Madgwick, Director of Education and Vocational Training in the Department of the Army, who said -

We have taken men out of their normal civil employments and have changed them fundamentally. We have removed the motives that would actuate them in their civil life. We have taken from them all striving to gain a livelihood. Shortly, we have changed them; they are different social beings. In the course of that process of change, we have put them into an environment in which they cannot get a full appreciation of the changes that are occurring in the economic and social structure. The)’ have new interests which occupy the greater part of their time, and do not know what is taking place in the environment in which they formerly lived. At the same time, that environment itself is changing very rapidly. Australia is now going in for secondary industry. We are producing process workers, or men and women with a degree of skill rather greater than that of a process worker, in our munitions training schemes, dilutee schemes, &c. Those men who are skilled tradesmen or process workers have two major advantages over the men in the Army. In the first place, they are maintaining and increasing their skill; and, in the second place, they are working in a changing economy, and are understanding the changes by reason of their participation in them. The man in the Army is losing his skill and is not being given the training that is being given to the ordinary civilian population. Therefore, when he returns to civil life he will have lost a good deal of the skill that he formerly possessed and will certainly not have been trained for all of those new trades that developed during the war.

– That matter, as the honorable member has discussed it, was never raised at any stage of the proceedings. The regulations provided an arrangement as between tradesmen doing the job and the men who were brought in under the dilution arrangement. There are many engineers in the forces at present, and surely it is not suggested that after the war they are not to enjoy rights equal to those of the skilled tradesmen who remained in the trade. Regulation 21 of Statutory Rules 1941, No. 102, states -

Except as otherwise provided in these regulations, nothing in these regulations should be construed as depriving any employer or employee of any rights .under any industrial award, agreement or determination.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The regulations did not nullify the preference to soldiers.

Mr HOLT:

– Certainly not. The scheme under the agreement was fundamentally and essentially one dealing with the respective rights of the tradesman and the dilutee who was being brought in under the dilution agreement. “Whatever the honorable member for Dalley may attempt to read into it, as far as the government of the day and the trade unions were concerned, the matter of preference to returned men was never, to my knowledge, raised and never became an issue in the discussion.

Mr ROSEVEAR:
Dalley

– I shall not quarrel with the historical record given by the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), who is an exMinister for Labour and National Service. What he has said is correct. In the highly skilled engineering trade, the employees had served an apprenticeship on low wages, and they jealously guarded their rights-

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member for Dalley has already spoken twice on the amendment, and may not now make a third speech.

Mr JOHNSON:
Kalgoorlie

– I regret that the amendment has been submitted. It states that regulations should be made providing for the granting of preference in employment to the members of the forces. That matter should be deferred, because of the implications of the amendment. It makes no provision for many men who are playing an important part in the war effort - members of the Volunteer Defence Corps like those whom I have seen north of Port Hedland travelling, at their own expense, 30.0 miles to attend camp. Neither does it make any provision for servicewomen. This matter is too important to be dealt with in an amendment of the Repatriation Act, and I therefore urge the committee to set it aside for the time being in order that the .Government may be able to bring down the necessary legislation to deal with it, I appeal with all sincerity to the honorable member for “Wentworth to withdraw his amendment. He cannot hope to achieve by it what ought to be his objective, for he has made no mention of the thousands of men who are debarred by the man-power authorities from leaving munitions factories to join the fighting forces.

Mr Rankin:

– The honorable member cannot compare munitions workers and members of the Volunteer Defence Corps with the men who are fighting in New Guinea. “

Mr JOHNSON:

– This measure provides for the repatriation of our forces. Employment is another matter which ought to be dealt with in separate legislation.

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · Fremantle · ALP

– The basic aim of this bill is provision for those who have been incapacitated in war. It deals with the provision that the country shall make so that they shall be assured of a certain income, certain treatment, and certain other services in order that their incapacity may not be so acute to them personally as to deprive them of the ordinary amenities of life which they would be able to get if they could work. That is the basis of the bill. It is not a bill to decide the conditions of employment or qualifications for employment, or to deal with the relationship of employer to employee, or to do anything else connected with the regulation of industry. I submit to the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) that he 13 doing a disservice to returned soldiers by attempting to judge how and by what means there shall be assured employment for the fit, and the right kind of employment for the partially fit, and what generally shall be the relationship of the men and women who have served Australia to industry as a whole. Under the existing powers of this Parliament, no regulation which’ we could gazette could be made applicable to any private person, unless he was engaged in war work.

Under present conditions, this Parliament can have no authority over post-war work. The right place in which to put the honorable member’s amendment would be the Public Service Act, but ever since the last war that act has contained a section which provides for preference to returned soldiers in employment. I have already intimated that Cabinet has advanced this matter to the stage of preparing a hill, for submission to Parliament - a stage never reached by any previous government. I shall not condemn previous governments on that account, because the problem now is of much greater magnitude than it ever was in the past.

Mr Harrison:

– I did not like the trickiness of the Attorney-General in trying to get me to withdraw my amendment by saying something which is not borne out by what the right honorable gentleman says.

Mr CURTIN:

– The honorable member is on nice points. He wants a division so that he may be able to refer to it at public meetings. I am concerned with the practical problems. I regard it a3 a national duty to have those practical problems resolved in a much more deliberate way and in accordance with the forms of Parliament. Legislation would give to Parliament far more enforcible authority than a regulation could ever give. I appeal to the honorable gentlemen who have shared the burden of the preparation of this bill and to the committee not to mix things that ought to be kept distinct. The problem of organization of employment is basic. It is my hope, and it should be the prayer of all, that when this war is finished we shall have so arranged things that every decent citizen shall have work to do if he is fit to do it. Some have been compelled to serve at home, because Parliament has declared that to be their best service; some have gone to fight, others have gone to sea in ships. The pilots who have flown civil transport aircraft have engaged in a most hazardous vocation vitally related to the capacity of the country to win the war. All must be assured of work. Those who are not trained to enter a trade or a profession shall be trained and those who are not fit shall be made as fit as human ingenuity can make them. I hope that there will be an administration at that time with the requisite sympathy and understanding and courage to make whatever provision may be necessary to tide those men over that period. I am advised on the best of authority that they should be given some work, even part time work, so that they shall not be left to brood in loneliness which would breed neurasthenia. I am also told that it would be equally bad just to give them the dole. There are infinite problems in this question of what is to be done in the interests of all. Our proposal contained in the Commonwealth Powers Bill is not merely the repatriation of the returned soldiers but their replacement in the civil order.

Mr Holt:

– Rehabilitation.

Mr CURTIN:

– Yes. The magnitude of our task in that respect is so great that I ask honorable members to make it their high duty and to treat it as a problem separate and distinct from repatriation.

Question put -

That the amendment (Mr. Harrison’s) be agreed to.

The committee divided. (The Chairman - Mr. Prowse.)

AYES: 18

NOES: 25

Majority . . . . 7

AYES

NOES

Question resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.

Clause 40 -

Section sixty of the Principal Act is repealed, and the following section is inserted in its stead : - “ (60. - (1.) The Governor-General may make regulations . . . providing for the granting of assistance and benefits -

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I move -

That, in proposed new section 60 (1.), after paragraph(g), the following paragraph be inserted: - ” (ga) by way of free medical treatment to members of the Forces for a period of twelve months after discharge from service; and”.

Repatriation deals only with disabilities due to war service.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– Some totally and permanently incapacitated soldiers have not been eligible under the present act for treatment for any kind of illness.

Mr Frost:

– .”Why does not the honorable member submit the names of specific cases ?

Sir CHARI ES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I have already done so.

Mr Frost:

– The Repatriation Commission accepts totally and permanently incapacitated cases.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– I am aware of that. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.The amendment contains a good deal of merit, and I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) to re-examine it. Soldiers returning to Australia during the first year after the cessation of hostilities will carry with them the aftereffects of many diseases which they contracted in the course of their war service, and presumably they will be entitled to medical treatment. I was not altogether satisfied with the reply given by the Minister for Health (Mr. Holloway) to the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) because it avoided the problem of illness not directly attributable to war causes. Whilst it might be difficult to establish that an illness occurring in the twelve months immediately following discharge was the direct result of war service, the conditions endured by the soldier probably rendered him more susceptible to even the common ailments that he contracted during that period. Any financial loss occasioned to the Administration in dealing with the odd cases that were not attributable to war service would be more than offset by the saving of the time of skilled men who would be engaged in sifting out the doubtful cases. Some men, after experiencing two consecutive summers, may then endure the rigours of a winter. That sudden change of climate will reduce their resistance . to even ordinary maladies. For that reason, as part of the general scheme of rehabilitation and to help to place returned men on a footing of equality with their fellow citizens, the Government might well accede to this request. It is not sufficient to say that the medical treatment does exist. It is fairly clear that it exists only in those cases which can be definitely shown to result from war service.

Mr Holloway:

– The honorable member will find if he looks up the history of the Repatriation Act that there was no trouble in the first twelve months after the last war, but trouble arose ten years later.

Mr HOLT:

– Then the concession will not cost the Government very much.

Mr Barnard:

– It is not a concession.

Mr HOLT:

– It is clear, from the reluctance of the Government to grant it, that it is a concession. It appears that a number of men will in the ordinary way incur illnesses which the Government believes will not be attributable to war service, or result from any particular weakening of their resistance, or their inability to re-adjust themselves to climatic or other conditions. Because the Government believes that there will be a number of such cases, which in its view should not reasonably be a charge on the repatriation administration, it resists the amendment. I cannot see the force of its attitude.

Mr. ABBOTT (New England) [6.18 a.m. 1.- I support the amendment, and cannot understand why the Minister will not accept it. The most evident reason is that the Minister is in the deep slumber of a decided opinion, which he will not alter. The amendment is essential, not only for the soldier, but also for the adequate, working of the department. When the men come back from the war many will probably begin in the first twelve months, when changing from war to peace life, to show signs of a breakdown, which may take place at some time in the future. This will enable the Minister and his department to make proper medical histories of the men in that early period, and to come to a decision, perhaps years afterwards, that the disability arose from war service. What the Minister for Health (Mr. Holloway) has said about the service being available now is ridiculous. The amendment can do no harm, and may do an enormous amount of good. It will not cost the department much, and may save thousands of pounds by obtaining proper medical histories. The men may be saved and patched up and safeguarded against a breakdown by early medical treatment in the first twelve months after discharge. This matter might begin to operate within a few days, but a vast system of medical and hospital service for every body is not in operation yet, and is not likely to be for some time, according to the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), so that there will be a gap between the introduction of that service and the discharge of the soldiers’, who may urgently need treatment in the next twelve months.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Health · ALP

.Under the existing act and this bill, now and in the future, soldiers returning from war can get free medical treatment if they are sick or ailing owing to their war service. The amendment asks that free treatment be given to them even if the sickness is not due to war service. That power already exists, and all that the amendment does is to limit the time to twelve months, whereas at present there is no time limit. The amendment, therefore, does no good and may do harm. Another argument is that a medical examination may detect possible defects, and that it is wise to detect them as quickly as possible, but under the present act an X-ray is taken of every soldier on his discharge, so that the department already gets the foundation.

Sir Charles Marr:

– It did not after the last war.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– It does now, and will continue to do so, so that the department gets the initial history of the case and follows it up.

Mr Spender:

– If that is so, why object to the amendment?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Because it is unnecessary.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.Either Opposition members are speaking in ignorance of the provisions of the act or they are at cross purposes over the whole matter. I rose previously to make the point which the Minister for Health (Mr. Holloway) has now made. Many returned soldiers have come to me since I became a member, and I do not know of any who has not been able to get free treatment as the result of his illness. The amendment will not improve the present situation, but rather will limit the provision of medical treatment to a period of twelve months. It is now available to the men all the time, because I understand that they can always get free medical treatment. The amendment will not achieve anything, and may do a disservice to the soldiers.

Mr MARWICK:
Swan

.I support the amendment. Even to-day there are soldiers who are not getting free medical treatment. I had a case that lingered on with the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) for a long time. If the Minister were present he could confirm what I am about to say. The man had two days off to go to his brother’s funeral, and while on leave had to be operated on. He went into a hospital, which was fortunately a military one, but he was operated on by a private doctor. I fought the case for six months, and even to-day returned men are not getting free medical treatment.

Mr Barnard:

– Look at the provisions of the act.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order ! If the honorable member for Bass again interjects, I shall name him.

Mr MARWICK:

– The least that we can do is to give unconditionally, for a period of twelve months, free medical treatment to the men on their return, particularly as there is likely to be a high mortality rate among them. Even at the present time, men on leave are obliged to carry a quantity of quinine to guard against attacks of malaria.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- A strong case has been presented for free medical attention for returned soldiers. I should not, however, like the act to impose a time limit. The Minister has the power to bring down a regulation to deal with the matter. The returned soldiers’ organizations are anxious that a’ provision of this nature shall be made. Perhaps the proposed standing committee may investigate the subject. Is the Minister prepared to make a regulation?

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I am amazed at the “ stone wall “ of the Government. It seems reasonably certain that men discharged from the Army will have some disease latent in them, because of their services. If a man becomes ill, he may have to be treated by a general practitioner who is unable to diagnose an obscure tropical complaint. Because of his failure to obtain the advice of a specialist, the disease may develop rapidly, causing him to become a charge on the country. In the long run, the cost to the country would be greater than would be involved in free medical service for the short period during which the majority of the men would need it. I cannot understand why the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment. It would result in a considerable saving of man-power, repatriation benefits, pensions and general medical services.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– I cannot understand the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison). He was a member of a committee which went into this matter with the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and myself, the result of which was that the Government agreed that a member totally and permanently incapacitated by reason of any complaint, should if necessary be treated for twelve months. He was satisfied with that decision. There is not sufficient hospital accommodation to provide free medical treatment for all disabilities, whether war caused or not. The honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) continues to “ harp “ on malaria. I have had as much experience of that disease as he has, and know the effects of it and the measures which have to be taken to guard against it. Any member of the forces who has any disability, will be cared for. The whole of the repatriation system would be broken down, if the Government were to accept responsibility for everything that was not war caused. All that is possible will be done. The honorable members for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) and Moreton (Mr. Francis), have been Ministers of the Crown, and must recognize that the Repatriation Department does everything possible for those who have war disabilities. We should not depart from the present rule.

Sir Charles Marr:

– Does the honorable gentleman agree with the Minister for Health that medical benefits are now available ?

Mr FROST:

– The Minister for Health had in mind men who returned sick. They will be well looked after.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Before discharge, not subsequently.

Mr FROST:

– After discharge, if they have war disabilities. Practically all our hospitals are filled at present. I cannot accept the amendment. It would not confer any benefit on the returned soldier, and every facility for treatment is now afforded.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I am unable to support the amendment. The special committee discussed this matter at length and from several angles. The committee was impressed mostly by the fact that any soldier with a disability due to war service may promptly obtain medical attention. The honorable member for Parkes (Sir Charles Marr) has stated repeatedly that appearance before a tribunal is necessary. That is not a fact. If a soldier who has been discharged contracts a disability due to his war service, he can seek advice from a medical practitioner appointed by the Repatriation Department, wherever he may be, and secure admittance immediately to a hospital. The committee should particularly bear in mind that, when the war is over our hospitals will be filled with very badly disabled soldiers. If men suffering from disabilities that are not due to war service are allowed to take up the available accommodation, bad and urgent cases which may need special treatment will not be able to obtain it in the hospitals. Those who have malaria can obtain automatic treatment. In a theatre of war in which malaria is likely to be contracted, the doctor will quickly detect it, and get the patient into hospital immediately. These were the reasons which prompted the special committee to reject the proposal. As a set-off, it decided to recommend that the Government should make additional provision for soldiers who areblinded, have tuberculosis, and are totally and permanently incapacitated. The Government accepted that proposition.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 41 -

The First Schedule to the principal act is repealed and the following schedule inserted in its stead: -

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- I move -

That, in the proposed new First Schedule, column 3, the item “ £2 16s.” be left out, as an instruction to the Government -

That the appropriate rates in the principal act should be increased in column 3 by at least 50 per cent.

– The Government decided upon a flat rate, which was the most democratic thing it could do. ‘

Amendment negatived.

Amendments (by Mr. Frost) agreed to-

That, in the proposed new First Schedule, column 3, all the figures commencing with “2 1C 0” and ending with “4 18 0” be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following figures : “ 5 0 q “.

That the first paragraph to the footnote of the proposed now First Schedule be left out.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I move -

That the following paragraph be added to the proposed new First Schedule: - “ Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the rate of pension in the case of a widow and her children shall be, for the period commencing on the date of the commencement of the pension and ending on the date twelve months after the death of the member of the Forces, at a rate in the aggregate not less than the aggregate amount received by the widow in respect of herself and children by way of standard allotment and dependants’ allowance immediately prior to the death of the member “.

Many honorable members who found themselves unable to agree to a further general increase of the pensions rate expressed their readiness to support a proposal for increasing widows’ pensions. These women have to adjust their way of living after the death of their husbands, and their only offence is that they have given their husbands to the service of their country. At present, the grim telegram announcing the death of a husband is followed very shortly by an almost equally grim communication announcing that, because of his death, the family income is to be considerably reduced. We cannot give the woman back her husband, but we ought at least to defer the second blow. In my amendment I am asking only that the diminution of income as between allotment and pension should not occur for a period of twelve months. There is a precedent for this in regard to what may be called civilian casualties. Widows who are not qualified under the general terms of the widows’ pensions provision receive a compassionate grant for six months to enable them to adjust themselves to their new condition. In order to show the unfairness of the present proposal of the Government I cite the instance of the widow of a lieutenant. The man’s allotment to his wife is £3 10s., but upon his death the widow would lose £1 a week.

If she had one child her loss of income would amount to £1 8s. 6d. a week; with two children it would be £1 10s. a week; and with three children it would be £1 8s. a week. I maintain that some provision should be made to enable her to adjust herself to the altered situation. She would probably have to obtain a cheaper house, and make other suitable domestic arrangements.

Mr Calwell:

– How does the honorable member arrive at the figures which he has just cited?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART.They were supplied to me by the Commissioner for Repatriation. The variation of the amount of loss in respect of different numbers of children is due to the differential increases of children’s allowances provided for in the bill. Unless the committee accepts an amendment of this kind, the widows of soldiers will have to live on their previous savings, while adjusting themselves to their greatly reduced incomes. I suggest to honorable members that this amendment at least will strongly appeal to their sympathetic impulses, and I ask the Minister to accept it without a division.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– The essential basis of the war pension scheme in Australia for both members of the forces and their dependants is a standard rate of pension in the .case of all ranks up to the rank of lieutenant. If the proposal of the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) were accepted, a drastic departure from this principle would result. In the case of a widow, with three children, of a soldier of the rank of private, she .would receive by way of pension under the amendment £5 ls. 6d. a week, whereas the widow and children of a lieutenant would receive £5 15s. 6d. a week. To pay war pensions at such differing rates would be quite opposed to the principle upon which the pension has been based in Australia since 1920. A departure from the principle in favour of one class would lead to pressure in the case of a member for pension to be paid for a period at the rate of his pay while serving as a member. The committee has already agreed to increase the pension of the first child of a widow from 12s. 6d. to 17s. 6d. a week. In view of this fact, and the departure from the principle previously mentioned, the Government cannot accept the amendment.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– It is obvious and regrettable that, although we are living in a democracy, the repatriation officials are opposed to every amendment which honorable members submit. The department has prepared answers in opposition to every proposed amendment that has been circulated. The case presented by the honorable member for Parramatta should receive the strong support of the committee. The wife of a young man may have been in receipt of from £7 to £9 a week, but on the enlistment of her husband the income of the home is greatly reduced. If her husband suddenly died in action, the widow’s income would immediately be further reduced by 30 per cent, or 40 per cent. Have we no sense of our responsibility and no desire to honour our promises to do what is fair to the widows of soldiers? I cannot understand the Government refusing to give way in the slightest degree. If any amendment has merit, surely that now under consideration has. When the wife of a soldier suddenly becomes a widow she needs some period in which to adjust herself to her weakened financial position, and all that is asked for by the honorable member for Parramatta is that for twelve months she shall not be placed in any worse position than when her husband was alive. I hope that the Minister will reject the advice of the repatriation officials, and support the important principle embodied in the amendment. Otherwise we shall witness a travesty of democracy.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– If acceptance of the amendment involves a departure from principle I am not appalled by the fact, and I think that the Minister might well give the amendment the reconsideration that it deserves. There is great merit in the proposal of the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart). I am not concerned about the social position of members of the forces, but I am concerned at the fact that when a woman loses her husband she has to expect almost immediately to have to meet a position in which her income is considerably diminished. Figures were quoted by the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) to show that a widow with three children is 14s. a week worse off than when her husband was still serving with the forces.

Mr Francis:

– Since I spoke the Government has given 5s. a week for each child, and the difference is now only 9s. a week.

Mr CALWELL:

– It seems reasonable to ask that the allotment shall continue for a period of twelve months. If the children are young the widow will have to provide for their education and arrange for accommodation for them, if she herself takes a position. Because of the sacrifice of the father we should not make it appear that we are anxious to finish, as quickly as possible, our financial obligations to the widow and her children in respect of the father’s service. If the amendment be not accepted a similar proposal will be submitted in the Senate, and probably be agreed to. It will then be sent back to this committee, and we shall be asked to agree to it. In order to obviate the necessity to agree to an amendment by the Senate, we should recognize the intrinsic merit of the proposal now. If the honorable member for Parramatta had had more time to circulate his amendment, it might have received closer consideration at the hands of the Government, hut the fact that it has been hurriedly prepared does not justify its hasty rejection. We cannot do too much for the widows and children of the men who give their lives to keep this country free.

This plea on behalf of soldiers’ widows and their children should not fall on deaf ears. The former member for Melbourne, Dr. Maloney, was a noted advocate of the claims of women and children, and he would have warmly supported an amendment of this kind, regardless of the side of the chamber from which it emanated. The children of the nation are our living capital and we cannot do too much to help them. If there is lack of parental control to-day of children who have both parents to look after them, how serious will be the charge against us if we refuse the widow of a soldier increased financial support over a period of twelve months, to enable her to do a modicum of justice to her fatherless children. The sum of money involved does not amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Repatriation Department is probably more concerned over the principle involved than the cost. We shall have introduced many new principles before the war is over, and the new order is established, and we should not be so conservative as to say that what was a principle of this act in 1920 must be a principle of it in 1943.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I am amazed that the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) is not. prepared to accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart). The Minister is too big a man to have a little heart. He should let his head go, throw away the advice tendered to him by his hardhearted officials, tear up the notes they have given to him, and show bigness of heart. In order to prove the justice of the amendment, I shall compare the family income of “ A “, a person drawing a 100 per cent, pension, before his death with the amount received by his widow after death. On the present scale the family income would be a minimum of £8 15s. a week, and on the proposed scale £9 13s., an improvement of 18s., but after his death it would drop to £4 5s. a week, a loss on the present scale of £5 10s., and on the proposed scale, £5 18s. It is anomalous that his widow loses more under the proposed rates than she does under the operating rates. The Minister cannot challenge the authenticity of these figures, which were supplied by officers of his own department who are well aware of the case. It is encumbent upon the Minister to get this matter into proper perspective, and to remove anomalies from the schedules contained in this hill. Compare the lot of the widow of a soldier who is killed or dies from injuries or disease sustained on active service with the widow of a man killed in a street accident in New South Wales. The widow of the civilian is awarded £800 as lump sum compensation plus £50 for two children plus £1 10s. a week Commonwealth widows’ pension, plus £1 a week and 10s. a week for each child under the New South Wales

Widows and Orphans Pensions Act. How niggardly are soldiers’ widows treated in comparison with the way in which beneficent governments treat the civilians’ widows.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The war widow does not qualify for a pension under the Widows’ Pension Act.

Mr HARRISON:

– No. The other woman receives £800 of capital which she can invest in a small business, whereas on the death of her husband the war widow is plunged into penury. Maintenance of the military allotment paid to her during her husband’s war service for twelve months after his death would enable the war widow to adjust herself to her new status. My plea, which is not in any way exaggerated, must touch the Minister’s heart. It would cost the Treasurer little to comply with the proposal made by the honorable member for Parramatta.

Mr COLES:
Henty

.- I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) to reconsider his answer to the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart), whose suggestion has more virtue than many others that have been made in this debate. The discussion has brought to light many anomalies, but that which the honorable member for Parramatta is seeking to remove is the worst. I do not think that the Minister’s reply that to accept the amendment would infringe the flat rate on which pensions are based holds good. The shock that a woman suffers when she loses her husband should not be intensified by the additional shock of finding herself in sadly reduced circumstances as the result of her late husband’s sacrifice of his life in the defence of his country. If we cannot ensure that a war widow shall continue to receive the amount which she received while her husband was on active service surely we can afford to ensure that for the twelve months following his death an amount equivalent to the allotment she received from his Army pay shall continue. If the Minister is adamant and a division is taken, my vote will be cast in support of the amendment.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I welcome the support of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) and the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles) to the reasonable proposal which has been made by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) . The plight of a war widow deprived of the money that she was receiving- when her husband was an active defender of this country was mentioned during the debate on the second reading. Several honorable members presented strong arguments in support of the Government maintaining a war widow on the same financial basis that she was on when her husband was still soldiering. The Government has agreed to pay child endowment for the first child of all such widows. Therefore, instead of losing 14s. a week, she will now lose 9s. The Treasury would, as every one must agree, suffer little loss if all war widows were allowed to retain the £23 8s. a year which it is now proposed that they shall lose. My main concern is the widows on the bread line. Recently I was visited in my office in Sydney by the widow of a sailor about whose death she did not learn until she read it in the casualty list in a newspaper. She met her husband in England and married him there, and she told me that she had no friends in this country. The income of that woman who has three children drops from £5 to £3 19s. a week. I give the Government good marks for this bill, but I would give it a credit if it would yield on this matter.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– In my second-reading speech, I said that the recommendation of the special committee on pensions for widows and orphans had not achieved what the members of the committee aimed at. I pointed out that a widow of a soldier killed on active service overseas lost 14s. a week as the result of his death. The Minister has gone a part of the way towards removing that anomaly by agreeing to extend child endowment to the first child of such a widow. That, however, stil] leaves the widow at a disadvantage of 9s. a week as compared with her financial condition when her husband was a member of the forces. I think that after pondering this matter at the breakfast table the Minister will come back to the chamber and announce that the proposal of the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) is worthy, and that it will be accepted. All I ask is that for twelve months after the death of her husband a war widow be paid by the Government the allotment which her husband made to her while he was alive in order that she may be enabled to readjust herself to her altered circumstances.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The widow of a private soldier with two children loses lis. a week on the death of her husband. _ Mr. FRANCIS.- Yes, but the dissections have been in respect of families in which there are three children. I dispute the suggestion that all the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) does- when he answers honorable member’s suggestions is to read a statement prepared for him by officials of the Repatriation Department. The Minister should not look to officials for decisions-. He makes the decisions, with the approval of his colleagues in the Ministry and asks the officials of the Repatriation Department for the data to support them. What the Minister does is acquaint his officers of his decision and ask them to provide him with a detailed reply setting out the grounds of objection. The Minister is entitled to obtain from departmental officers whatever information is necessary to enable him to place before honorable members his view of the case.

Sitting suspended from 7.30 to 9.80 a.m.

Mr FRANCIS:

– The proposal before the committee is that a married woman who loses her husband on war service shall continue to receive for a period of twelve months the rate of service pay to which she was entitled while her husband was alive. The principle has been adopted from the Widows’ Pensions Act, under which a widow who cannot quite qualify for a pension is granted a gratuity for six months in order to enable her to adjust herself to the altered standard of living made necessary by the death of her husband. In my opinion, that is one of the best features of the pensions system. I appreciate the action of the Government in yielding to representations made by myself and other honorable members on both sides to grant 5s. a week for the first child. Our discussions have been based on >a widow with three children, in respect of two of -whom she receives child endowment. The amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta would improve the bill substantially, and assist a woman greatly in the time of her greatest need. Under the bill as drafted, a woman with three children whose husband is serving with the forces would receive 14s. a week less after the death of her husband than when he was alive. The concession to which I have just referred reduces that difference by 5s. a week, but she will have an income of 9s. a week less than before the loss of her husband. A payment of an addiditional 9s. a week for twelve months would amount to only about £23 a member. At an earlier hour I asked the Minister to consider the amendment during the suspension of the sitting for breakfast, and I hope that he is now in a position to say that he will accept it.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I cannot add anything to what has been said, except ]to urge the Minister (Mr. Frost) to give to the amendment his favorable consideration. I believe that it would improve the bill, and I intend to vote for it.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I, too, shall support the amendment of the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart). When a man is killed on active service the change in the family life comes more suddenly than after the death of the bread7winner in civil life, following a long illness. In the latter instance the* family has some time in which to adjust itself to the changed circumstances, but in the event of the death of a serviceman that change is sudden. The result is that in the moment of her greatest sorrow the widow has to face great financial difficulties. I ask the Minister to view the amendment favorably; but, should he not see his way to accept it now, I suggest that he refer it hack to the special committee for investigation and report.

Mr POLLARD:
Ballarat

– I think that the amendment is reasonable, and might well be favorably considered by the Minister (Mr. Frost). Any woman who loses her husband on active service is entitled to our deepest sympathy; but, should she have young children to care for, her position is most difficult, notwithstanding the various benefits she may receive under the repatriation legislation passed by this Parliament. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. Not a great deal of money is involved.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– I hope that the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) will not press his amendment. I am impressed by the suggestion of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) that this matter be referred back to the special committee which previously submitted a report to the Government. This matter was raised some time ago and I brought it before the committee, which agreed to abolish the means test for widows. Later the Government agreed .to make an allowance of 5s. for the first child of a family, in respect of whom no child endowment is paid. I have no desire to be hard on widows, but I think that the concessions already made are considerable. They do much to bridge the gap that previously existed between the amount payable to the wife of a soldier before and after she becomes a widow. I trust that the committee will accept the clause in its present form. I should like to accede to the wishes of honorable members, but I cannot see my way to do so.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I cannot agree to the suggestion of the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) that I should withdraw my amendment in order that the proposal embodied in it may be referred to the special committee for investigation. Six months have already elapsed since the report on which the bill is based was presented to the Government. In the meantime, many widows of soldiers have lost the benefits which would have accrued to them had there been no delay. Several more months are likely to elapse before the

Parliament meets again after the termination of the present sittings. He would be a bold prophet indeed who would prophesy what will happen in the political sphere within the next few months. Every week men are losing their lives in the battle line, and we have no right to defer this matter. The Minister’s statement that the financial position of the widow will be improved by the granting of 5s. a week in respect of the first child of a family has no significance. We are not asking for this payment in perpetuity, but merely for a time sufficient to enable a woman who has lost her husband in the country’s service to adjust her economic conditions to her new circumstances. For the information of honorable members who were not here when this proposal was submitted to the committee, I repeat that the wife of a private soldier with one child receives by way of standard allotment and dependant’s allowances £3 17s. a week while her husband is alive, but after his death that amount, after allowing for the concession of os., which has since been made in respect of the first child, will fall to £3 7s. 6d., a reduction of 9s. 6d. a week. In similar cases a widow with two children will have her allowances reduced from £5 5s. to £4 a week. These are substantia] reductions, which should not be imposed on a woman immediately following her bereavement. The committee would be recreant to its trust if it did not press the amendment.

Mr MARTENS:
Herbert

– I suggest that instead of the undertaking which he has already given, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) should give an undertaking that the special committee which submitted recommendations on which this bill is based be consulted before the measure reaches the Senate. The proposal embodied in the amendment is a proper one, and, as no great sum is involved, I thought that the Minister would accept it. He has not done so, but I trust that he will accede to my suggestion and place the proposal before the committee in time for its recommendations to be considered by the Senate when the bill reaches that chamber.

Mr SPOONER:
Robertson

– I am glad that the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) does not propose to withdraw his amendment. It is not only fair, but also is urgently required. The proposal cornea within a different category from those matters which were discussed at earlier stages of the bill. In the first place, the benefit to the widow will not be permanent; it will continue for only twelve months. It is different from an adjustment of a pension ‘ which may continue for many years. The proposal is to pay to the widow a sum which will tide her over a most critical period. This is not a matter upon which the all-party committee can give us any great assistance. All that is involved is a plain question of fact, whilst the extra cost is small in relation to the total pension. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment. It falls within an entirely different category from the other amendments which have been proposed, most of which involve questions of principle, and difficult calculations. This provision is to operate for only twelve months after the death of the soldier; but it is within that period that the widow requires all the assistance that can be given to her.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.The amendment provides only a temporary benefit. The benefit will operate for twelve months after the death of the soldier. That means that the total liability under the amendment in respect of all claimants will cease twelve months after the end of the war. The amount involved is not very great. The Government, under its national welfare scheme, intends to allocate £30,000,000 annually to a fund to finance that scheme; but the main features of the scheme cannot be implemented while the war lasts. In view of the comparatively small sum that would be required to meet the extra benefits proposed under the amendment, the Government should seriously consider the proposal.’ The benefit proposed is in keeping with the basic principles of the Government’s National Welfare Scheme. The submission of this amendment shows that it would have been very desirable for the special committee to have given to honorable members an opportunity to give evidence individually before it in order to put forward suggestions of this kind. Honorable members on this side, at any rate, have not had an opportunity to discuss this matter. Obviously, however, the proposal is justified; and, in all the circumstances, the Government should give it favorable consideration.

Mr JOLLY:
Lilley

.- I support the amendment moved by the honorable’ member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart). I do so rather for humane reasons and not so much because the amount of expenditure involved is comparatively small. It is hard to imagine that we shall be content to notify the widow of the death of the soldier, and, at about the same time, notify her of a reduction of the amount of her allotment. “We must remember that the receipt of news of his death is the hour of the widow’s greatest sorrow7.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I hope that even at this eleventh hour the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) will relent, and yield to the views which have been expressed by honorable members on both sides in support of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart). ‘ I regard the amendment as one of the most meritorious yet proposed in this debate. The extra benefit which it is proposed to give will be all the more appreciated by the widow because it will be made available to her at a time of real hardship.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– I should like to postpone further consideration of this clause to a later hour, in order that I may look more fully into the amendment.

Clause, as amended, and amendment postponed - by leave - until after consideration of proposed new clauses.

Clause 42 (Amendment of the Second Schedule).

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I again raise the point which I dealt with in my second-reading speech, when I pointed out that the limitation of the period in hospital to six weeks for which a pensioner is entitled to the full rate of pension was operating detrimentally to the interests of the pensioner and the community. I understood that the Minister for Repatriation (Mi.

Frost) was inclined to agree with that view. Perhaps the amendment which I advocate in respect of this clause can be effected by regulation. Previously I raised this matter particularly with respect to pensioners suffering from tuberculosis, but I should like also to apply my proposal to pensioners who are permanently and totally incapacitated as the result of other ailments or injuries. I know from my own personal experience, which has been confirmed in discussions which I have had with other doctors, that many pensioners leave hospital at the end of the period of six weeks with a view to re-entering hospital later in order again to qualify for the full rate of pension. In respect of serious amputations or serious injuries to the’ limbs, for instance, such pensioners leave hospital when a few weeks longer in the institution would benefit them substantially. In that way pensioners act to their own detriment, and their only reason for doing so is in order that they can again qualify for the full rate by re-entering hospital. The extra cost involved by completely abolishing this time limitation would not be very great. In any case it would practically be offset by the reduction of hospital expenses in the treatment of pensioners for longer but fewer periods.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 43 -

The Thi rd Schedule to the Principal Act is repealed and the following Schedule inserted in its stead: -

Amendment (by Mr. Frost) proposed -

That in the proposed new Third Schedule the words “children of a member” down to “25s. per fortnight”, inclusive, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: -

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– It seems that the representations which have been made from this side of the chamber, particularly by honorable members from New South Wales, have borne fruit at least in respect of the children of a deceased soldier. I ask the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) whether he can give a minimum flat rate of 15s. a week for all children. In an amendment to this clause, of which I have given notice, I propose a minimum flat rate of 30s. a fortnight in respect of all children other than the first child in the case of death of a member of the forces, and also in the case of total incapacity of a member of the forces.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I move -

That in the proposed new Third Schedule the words “ each child of a member . . . 18s. per fortnight “, be left out with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ each child of a member . . . 30s. per fortnight “.

Sir Charles Marr:

– . Since that amendment was forecast by the honorable member for Warringah, I think that the Government agreed to increase the allowance in respect of the first child of any member by 5s.

Mr Frost:

– Yes; and that was in order to offset the non-payment of child payment in respect to the first child.

Mr Jolly:

– The honorable member for Warringah is proposing to increase the allowance only in respect of children other than the first child, in the case of death of a member of the forces, and in the case of total incapacity of a member of the forces.

Mr SPENDER:

– That is so. The other cases are now covered to my satisfaction.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.

Clause 46 -

The sections of the Principal Act, as amended by the foregoing provisions of this Act, which are specified in the first column of the Second Schedule to this Act arc amended as respectively specified opposite thereto in the second column of that Schedule.

Amendment (by Mr. Frost) agreed to-

That after the word “ Act “, second occurring, the following words be inserted: - “ (other than the provisions of the last preceding section) “.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

New clause 13a.

Mr BECK:
Denison

.- I move -

That, after clause 13, the following new clause be inserted: - “13a. Section twenty-two of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in the definition of ‘Dependants’ the following further proviso : -

Provided further that any such wife married to a member of the Forces while the member -

was in receipt of a pension under the

Second Schedule to this Act or would, but for the third paragraph of that Schedule, have been in receipt of such a pension; or

was in receipt of an amountin respect of a disability described in any of the first eight items in the first column of the Fifth Schedule to this Act orwould, but for subparagraph (i) of paragraph (c) of the proviso to that Schedule, have been in receipt of such an amount, shall be deemed to be a dependant;’.”.

In accordance with an amendment made to the Repatriation Act of 1938, pensions are not payable to wives of members of the 1st Australian Imperial Force who have married an ex-member of that force since that date. This amendment is aimed at making wives of seriously disabled soldiers, including blinded soldiers, totally and permanently incapacitated soldiers and soldiers suffering from tuberculosis, who have married since 1938, eligible for a pension. As the act stands, should a soldier who is absolutely dependent upon his wife have the misfortune to lose her, her pension dies with her, and should he remarry, no pension is payable in respect of his second wife. In that way he is penalized seriously. He may have to employ a housekeeper or some one to look after him, and to pay for such assistance out of his pension. Such a state of affairs is not in the interests of the soldier or of the public. The amendment includes also cases specified in the first eight lines of the Fifth Schedule, namely, double amputation cases. I should like to have gone much farther, as I indicated in my secondreading speech, and included wives of all disabled soldiers whether they be amputation cases or disability cases. However, the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) indicated that the adoption of my suggestions in their entirety would involve considerable cost, and although I agree that that would be so, these other cases are fully entitled to consideration. I trust that the Minister will see his way clear to accept the amendment.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– This matter has already been placed before me by a deputation representing blinded and totally and permanently incapacitated . soldiers. I agree that such a soldier who loses his wife suffers a great disability. The deputation stated the case very clearly and I promised to look into the matter. It may be that if the Government were to lift the restriction on the payment of pensions in respect of wives married to members of the 1st Australian Imperial Force since 1938, the entire basis of the scheme might be upset. However, it may be possible to overcome the difficulty by making a compassionate allowance.

Mr Spender:

– Would that include the wives of soldiers suffering from tuberculosis?

Mr FROST:

– I would not say that. If a soldier were suffering from that disease, discretion would rest with the Repatriation Commission.

Mr BECK:
Denison

.- In view of the assurance given by the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) that this matter will be dealt with by making allowances to wives in these cases, I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.

New clause - by leave - withdrawn.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I move -

That, after clause 13, the following new clause he inserted: - “ 13a. Section twenty -two of the Principal Act is amended by adding to the definition of ‘ Permanently unemployable ‘ the words ‘ in which, in the opinion of the Commission, he can reasonably be expected to obtain regular employment’.”.

When service pensions were introduced into the Repatriation Act in 1935, it will be recalled that one of the alternative’ conditions to obtaining a service pension, was that an applicant should be permanently unemployable. A definition of permanently unemployable was then inserted in section 22 of the act, in the following terms : -

Permanently unemployable means permanently incapable by reason of physical and mental disablement of being employed in a remunerative occupation.

As that definition stands, a man may be deemed to be capable of being employed in a remunerative occupation, although he has no reasonable chance of being so employed. I am asking the committee to -apply to this legislation the same principle that was laid down in the interpretation of the New South Wales Compensation Act in the case of Wicks v. The Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Limited. In that case, a man who had been engaged on manual work all his life sustained an injury to a leg which prevented him from standing on it for more than a few minutes, but the medical report said that he was capable of sedentary work. The case ultimately reached the High Court which decided as follows : -

The commission was, therefore,’ called upon to decide whether the worker had been permanently and totally disabled, an expression which, in our opinion, means physically incapacitated from ever earning by work any part of his livelihood. This condition is satisfied when capacity for earning has gone except for the chance of obtaining special employment of an unusual kind.

In connexion with service pensions, as is the case with invalid and old-age pensions, the authorities tend to hold that if an applicant is capable of performing some class of remunerative work, be is not permanently unemployable within the meaning of the definition, although the getting of such work is only remotely possible.

Mr Spender:

– Or although the man may be- completely untrained for such work.

Mr BLACKBURN:

– Yes. The honorable member for .Warringah (Mr. Spender) will recall the well-known reference to an “ odd lot “ -

They have reserved the term “ odd lot “ for a man so injured that he is only able to do certain very special jobs depending on finding a very special employer who, either from compassion or because he has a special job, is able to give him employment, but any ordinary class of work he is not able to do.

In my view, if a person is not able to earn his living by performing ordinary work he should be regarded as being permanently unemployable. An applicant should not be excluded merely because he is able to obtain casual work of a particular kind. For that reason I have inserted in my proposed new clause the words “ can reasonably be expected to obtain regular employment “.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– The definition of “ permanently unemployable “ was given much consideration at the time the service pension provisions were introduced, as it was realized that the pension was of a special nature, and should be granted only to men who, for all practical purposes, were permanently unemployable, and was really in the nature of an invalid pension. In addition, however, provision was made for the wife and children to receive also service pensions. To amend the definition “ permanently unemployable “ on the lines indicated by the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) would be a distinct departure from the intention and would alter the whole aspect of the pension. Moreover, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of the amendment as it certainly seems to be a contradiction of the first part of the definition, and will have the effect of reducing the pension to something in the nature of an ordinary unemployment benefit. I can assure honorable members that the provision is most sympathetically administered by the commission, and in support of this I quote from instructions issued by the commission for the guidance of its medical officers -

To determine whether a member of the forces is, for the purpose of his application under section 45ab “ permanently unemployable “, the commission realizes is a matter in the first instance for the expression of opinion of a medical officer having regard to a man’s physical and mental condition, including all the disabilities attributable to or not attributable to war service. The commission feels that it can safely be left to the discretion of medical officers to form an opinion and make a recommendation to the board, after examination of the applicant. No more difficulty should be experienced in determining whether a man is “ permanently unemployable “ than there has been in the past to determine whether a man is “totally and permanently incapacitated the only difference in the case of applicants for service pensions being that they need not necessarily be totally incapacitated. The medical officer should form his opinion on the facts at the time of examination, and if there is a doubt in his mind, he may recommend a review of the man’s condition in two, three or five years as the case may demand.

– Every Minister for Social Services who has administered the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act has been irked from time to time by the rigidity of the interpretation of the words “ totally and permanently incapacitated “, which is the qualification necessary to secure an invalid pension. I join with the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) and the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) in urging the Minister (Mr. Frost) to accept the proposed new clause, remembering that the ultimate discretion in the matter will rest with the Repatriation Commission. On many occasions I wished that my powers to deal with these cases could have been a little more elastic than they were. A person, who had lost his limbs, may be told that he can still carry on in a sedentary occupation. That implies clerical work, but the applicant for the pension may have no knowledge of such work.

Mr Pollard:

– A miner might be told to take a course in accountancy.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART.Yes. I should like to hear the opinion of the Minister upon this matter. As a private member, he expressed definite views on the subject. I am confident that, if he were to speak his mind freely this morning, he would express even more emphatically and effectively than I did the opinion that the proposed new clause is justified.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I support the proposal, because it appeals to every honorable member who represents a rural constituency. Repeatedly, we encounter sad cases of hardship. Men who might be able to obtain employment in some capacity in a large city have no chance of getting a job in the small town or village in which they live. While they reside in those districts they are totally and permanently incapacitated, and they have no money or means to enable them to travel to the city in search of employment. In the name of humanity, I ask the Minister to accept the proposed new clause.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– For seven years I administered the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, and I considered that one of the mostvaluable authorities possessed by the responsible Minister was the opportunity to grant, in special circumstances, a compassionate pension. That opportunity was availed of only in extraordinary circumstances. The Minister (Mr. Frost) should have a similar authority for the purpose of enabling him to grant a compassionate pension. Many men are not regarded, by medical standards, as being totally and permanently incapacitated; but, because of physical defects, lack of training, or the locality in which they are forced to live, they are unable to earn any money. The Repatriation Commission should have a discretionary power to deal with those cases, and such a provision would enormously improve the administration of the act. I support the proposed new clause.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.The present definition is too rigid, and fetters the hands of the Repatriation Commission. The proposal provides elasticity and allows the commission some discretion in making a decision. The matter is very simple, and can be decided immediately. There is no necessity to refer it to the proposed repatriation committee.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I fail to see why the proposal is not acceptable to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost). “I agree with the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) that the discretionary power should be conferred on the Repatriation Commission, which is responsible for granting or refusing this assistance. The proposed new clause, if adopted, will not involve a substantial increase of expenditure.

Mr Frost:

– I am not thinking of the increase of expenditure.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– The rigidity of the act at present results in hardship ; but the difficulty can be overcome by granting to the commission power, in special circumstances, to make a compassionate payment to a man whose condition of health prevents him from earning any money.

Mr COLES:
Henty

.- I support the proposed new clause and ask the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) to give the fullest consideration to it. The value of granting some discretion to the Repatriation Commission at this point is that it will save a good deal of acute distress in the community. The difference between the full pension of £2 10s. and the pension payable to a totally and permanently incapacitated person is substantial. This class of case constantly arises, but tribunals cannot deal with them. The applicant cannot prove that he is unable to work, although he has no chance of obtaining permanent or regular employment. The Minister should not dismiss the proposal lightly. If adopted, it will facilitate the administration of the act. No danger can arise from showing leniency in this instance.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

– I regard the proposition sympathetically. I do not know whether the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn) sought to draw a distinction between the class of person to whom he referred, and service pensioners.

Mr Blackburn:

– These are service pensioners. .

Mr HUGHES:

– The honorable member will recollect the comprehensive discussion that took place when a previous government introduced legislation to amend the act. The measure, which was long overdue, conferred great benefits on a long-neglected section of the community. I should like to know whether the persons whom the honorable member has in mind are, or are not, included in the class eligible to receive the service pension.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– This class has been refused the service pension.

Mr HUGHES:

– I am sure that a permanently unemployable person, other things being equal, is eligible to receive the service pension. The Minister (Mr. Frost) should give to this matter his close, immediate and sympathetic consideration. In the modern world, it is very easy for a person to become permanently unemployable. If he does not fit into a niche, there is no place for him. If a person lacks the physical strength to enable him to fight for recognition, he must become a specialist, and rely upon skill and alertness to win a place for him. This class of totally and permanently incapacitated person is most deserving, and should be eligible to receive the service pension. If the Minister has considered differentiating between the various classes of persons who are now entitled to receive the service pension, perhaps he will be good enough to study the class to whom the honorable member for Bourke referred. I support the proposed new clause.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– After hearing the views expressed by honorable members on both sides of the chamber, I feel that I can do no less than agree to their representations.

New clause agreed to.

New clause 14a.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

– I move -

That, after clause 14, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 14a. After section twenty-three of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 23a. - (1.) No deduction shall be made from the degree of actual disability of any member of the Forces who has served in a theatre of actual war on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him at the time at which he became a member of the Forces; but no pension shall be paid for a disability or disabling condition which at such time was wilfully concealed, was obvious, was not of a nature to cause rejection from service, or was a congenital defect. (2.) An applicant shall not be denied a pension in respect of disability resulting from injury or disease or the aggravation thereof incurred during military service or in respect of the death of a’ member of the Forces resulting from such injury or disease or the aggravation thereof solely on the ground that no substantial disability or disabling condition is considered to have existed at the time of discharge of such member of the Forces

I have had the opportunity of discussing sub-section 1 of proposed new section 23a with the representatives of the Repatriation Department. It relates to preenlistment disabilities. Sub-section 2 of section 23 of the act, although it has been slightly altered by an amendment moved in committee by the right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes), can, for the purposes of my argument, be quoted as it appears in the original act, as follows : -

Notwithstanding that the origin of the cause of the death or incapacity of a member of the Forces, who, after enlistment with those forces, served in camp in Australia for at least six months or embarked for active service with those forces overseas, existed prior to his enlistment, where, in the opinion of a board -

the conditions of his war service contributed to any material degree to the death or incapacity of the member ; and
neither the death or incapacity, nor the origin of the cause of the death or incapacity, was due to the default or wilful act of the member, the Commonwealth shall, subject to this act, be liable to pay to the member or his dependants, or both, as the case may be, pensions in accordance with this division.

The proposed new sub-section 1 was prepared for the purpose of providing that no deduction shall be made from the degree of actual disability of any member of the forces who has served in a theatre of actual war, on account of any disability or disabling condition which existed in him at the time at which he became a member of the forces, with a proviso that no pension shall be paid for a disability which at the time was wilfully concealed, and so on. I am told by the Repatriation Department that, although on my reading of sub-section 2 of section 23 of the act there would be no obligation to pay the pension in full, the department does not make any deduction for any disability that comes within the section. That’ meets my objection, and makes sub-section 1 of proposed new section 23a unnecessary. Sub-section 2 of my proposed new section 23a deals with the case in which a man is discharged from the forces with no substantial disability, and later becomes disabled through injury or disease, or their aggravation, incurred during military service, or dies as a consequence of such injury or disease. It would prevent the commission from taking advantage of the fact that no substantial disability was considered to have existed at the time of discharge, in determining whether a pension should be granted. Again I am informed by the Repatriation Commission that, in actual practice and administration, both those aspects are covered. I accept that assurance, and in the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my motion-.

New clause - by leave - withdrawn.

New clause 17a.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

– I move -

That, after clause 17, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 17a. Section thirty-one a of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - (3.) Where a member of the Forces -

at any time after his discharge from the Forces, became or becomes incapacitated, or died or dies, from pulmonary tuberculosis, and pension in respect of the incapacity or death would not, but for this sub-section, be payable, the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Act and upon receipt of an application in writing, be liable to pay to the member or his dependants, or both, as the case may be, from the date of the application, pension in accordance with Division 1 of this Part as if the incapacity or death resulted from an occurrence happening during the period he was a member of the Forces’.”.

Mr Frost:

– I told the honorable member that I would be agreeable to accept the proposal.

Mr FRANCIS:

– My reasons for proposing it are these: A tubercular soldier who has not had his complaint accepted by the Repatriation Commission as due to war service, is granted a service pension of £1 18s. 6d. a week. He receives treatment when necessary in a repatriation hospital or sanatorium, at a cost to the Repatriation Department of £4 3a. a week in New South Wales, and up to £5 lis. a week in other States. If he were given a full pension for tuberculosis due to war service, it would cost the Government only £2 ls. 6d. a week more to make up the service pension to a full pension, instead of the sanatorium cost of from £4 3s. to £5 lis. a week for his treatment in an institution, in addition to the service pension of £1 18s. 6d. The granting to all tuberculosis sufferers of a full pension would, therefore, effect a considerable saving to the Repatriation Department. I understand that the Minister intends to adopt the proposed new clause, and I appreciate his ready acceptance of the representations made by me to him in this matter. I believe that it will do great service and bring about a large measure of relief to a section of our community, the members of which have been the greatest sufferers from war disabilities. By this clause they move up to the full pension.

Mr CONELAN:
Griffith

– I am pleased to know that the Minister (Mr. Frost) has agreed to grant the full pension to sufferers from pulmonary tuberculosis who have served in a theatre of war. They deserve every consideration, and I have done everything in my power to help them. As I have pointed out, in common with other honorable members, the cost involved will not be very great. I am pleased that after 25 years this Government has the credit of bringing in a comprehensive repatriation bill, including this very much needed reform. I congratulate the Government on all that it has done.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– A supplement to this clause is really the question of the continuous payment of the pension while the patient is in hospital. I raised the matter at the time on the appropriate clause, but, owing to some misunderstanding or confusion, the necessary amendment was not made in clause 42. When the bill is reported from committee, I ask the Minister (Mr. Frost) to recommit it, in order to enable a consequential amendment to be made, so as to allow the full intention of the Government and the committee to be carried into effect.

New clause agreed to. New clause 17b.

Mr. SPENDER (Warringah) [10.40 a.m. j. - I move -

That, after new clause 17a, the following now clause be inserted: - “ 17b. After section thirty-one a of .the Principal Act the following section is inserted : - 31ab. - (1.) The Commission may, on special application in that behalf, grant a compassionate pension or allowance in any case which it considers to be specially meritorious, but in which the Commission, or, on an appeal, a Tribunal, lias decided that the applicant is otherwise unqualified to receive such an award under this Act. (2.) The amount of any compassionate pension or allowance granted under this section shall be such sum as the Commission shall fix, but not exceeding the amount to which the applicant would have been entitled if h is entire chum to payment had been upheld.’.”.

I submit that provision because one finds, from time to time, many cases which do not come within the ambit of the act, but in which I am quite certain that, if the commission were invested with this power, ii would be only too ready to see that the applicant got some assistance. Most honorable members know that such cases can arise under SeCTion 15au. which provides that, where the incapacity or death of a member is not due to his default or wilful act, or does not arise from intentionally self-inflicted injuries, or from any breach of discipline by him, a pension will be granted, but where it is so due a pension will not be granted. There are cases which to my knowledge have arisen from time to time which would justin the granting to the commission of t* compassionate power which I propose in the proposed new section. I hope that the Minister (Mr. Frost) will accept it, because it is intended to deal with hard cases, where there are especially meritorious circumstances, but where, because the member does not come within the strict ambit of the act, the applicant is denied relief.

Mr Brennan:

– Who has the discretion under the honorable member’s proposal ?

Mr SPENDER:

– The commission. I think that in practice the whole matter would come within a very small compass, and the Minister could very readily accept it. I know that his repatriation officials are against it, because they anticipate that there will be a large number of claims for compassionate grants, but I put it to the Ministerthat that argument should be rejected. In seeking to do justice by allowing such a compassionate pension where the commission thinks that there are circumstances which merit it, one should not be frightened by the proposition that too many applications will be made to the commission. The commission itself, by the way in which it handles the matter, will be its own brake on the number of applications likely to be made, but I suggest that there should be this safeguard in the act in order to cover cases which are otherwise meritorious, but which fail to comply with its strict provisions.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– As the honorable member forWarringah (Mr. Spender) said, this is a very important matter. If the proposed new clause were agreed to, it would practically lead to another pension being granted. Those who fail to obtain a pension would apply for a compassionate allowance, and I do not know where the commissioner could stop. This matter was referred to in my second-reading speech, and it was thought that the Government had given sound reasons for not introducing such a system in the act, the basic principle of which must be a war pension, payable in respect of war-caused incapacity. The introduction of a compassionate grant system such as the honorable member for Warringah asks for, would lead to no end of confusion and odious comparisons between the value of the services of one man and another. The Government believes that all its fighting men are worthy of equal consideration, and does not consider that it is the desire of Australian people that special treatment should be given to those who have merited special recognition and have earned decorations and other honours on the field. The principle to be followed by this Government is that all who serve, and their dependants, shall be entitled to full provision in respect of the results of war service. To do otherwise would immediately lead to undesirable controversy as to the relative merits of the services of individuals. A very important reason why approval should not be given to the proposed new clause is that it would simply mean that in the majority of cases, where claims for a war pension had been refused, the application would be made for the grant of a compassionate allowance. Experience has shown that it is almost impossible to argue that any soldier did not have meritorious service. Moreover, in view of the tightening up of the onus of proof clause in the bill, the onus would be on the commission to prove in each ease that meritorious service had not been rendered. This would be a most invidious task. The result can well be imagined, because every soldier to his friends and comrades is a hero. It is considered most undesirable to suggest that a pension should be paid to soldiers on a compassionate basis. One principle only should govern the granting of pensions under the Repatriation Act.

New clause negatived.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– I move -

That, after new clause 17a, the following new clause he inserted: - “ 17b. Section thirty-six of the Principal Act is amended -

by inserting before the proviso the following sub-section : - (2.) Any such pension may be allowed to any such person under this provision as well as to the widow of any member of the Forces.’; and

My desire is to right what I regard as a very great wrong that is being done to many legal wives of soldiers, who receive no assistance by way of a pension when the husband has been killed, the natural or de facto wife receiving the whole of the amount payable on account of his death. After 1920, discretionary power was given to the commission to make the pension payment to both the legal and the natural wife. An amendment made in 1940 provided that, in respect of members of this war, the pension could be paid to either the legal or the de facto wife, but not to both.

Mr Jolly:

– Is the honorable member proposing that both shall receive it?

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am proposing that the commission shall have discretionary power. If it decides that the pension shall be payable to both, it will be. A de facto wife may have been living for only a few years with the soldier subsequently killed, whereas the legal wife may have been a good wife to him for very many years. The Minister has replied to representations that I have made concerning a signaller who was killed on the 18th April, 1941, leaving a natural wife, an adopted child, and two ex-nuptial children residing in Victoria. He had also a legal wife. The commission, in its deliberations, took into account that, owing to the duration of the association, on a marital basis, of the soldier and the de facto wife - that is, from about” 1936 - he was the de facto husband of the woman for only five years, during a portion of which time he was away at the war; but, because there had been issue, and also because the soldier had made a will in which he had appointed his de facto wife executrix and sole beneficiary, the commission gave the whole of the pension to her. It probably had no other course open to it. On the other hand, the legal wife had been married to him for very many years and may have been extremely good to him. He may have left her through no fault of her own. Yet she was deprived of the right to a pension by the alteration made to the act in 1940. It cannot be argued that what I am proposing has not been done under other legislation of this Parliament. Under the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act, the National Security (Civil Defence Volunteers) Regulations, and the National Security (War Injuries Compensation) Regulations, provision is made whereby both the legal and de facto wife may receive 50 per cent, of the pension. The Widows’ Pensions Act provides that a de facto wife and a legal wife may each receive the full pension. I ask the Government to agree to the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act being brought into line with the Widows’ Pensions Act, and the committee to approve of that course.

Mr Calwell:

– Under the Widows’ Pensions Act, it is possible for three women to receive a pension in respect of the one man.

Mr ABBOTT:

– I am not so modern in my treatment of the subject; I am considering the case of only two women.

The cost involved would probably not be great. The commission would have the discretion to make a double payment, if necessary. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) said last night that he is not in favour of any compensation being paid to de facto wives. He added that living with a woman to whom one is not married is an immoral act, and should be stopped. The effect of the act at present is to give compensation by way of a pension to the woman whom the soldier alleges has sinned. I wish to obtain some justice for the legal wife, who has probably committed no sin. If she has sinned, and the commission considers that she is unworthy of being assisted, it will have discretion to refuse the pension.

Dr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

– Are the children also covered ?

Mr ABBOTT:

– I understand so. The children are innocent victims of either mother. Absolute control would be in the hands of the commission. I therefore appeal to the Minister to accept the proposed new clause and thus bring this legislation into line with the Widows’ Pensions Act as well as with the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act as it was before being amended in 1940.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– I regret that I cannot accept the proposed new clause. We, and I believe the special committee also, have given a good deal of thought to the position in regard to de facto wives. We have decided not to give them that designation. We say that a man has a wife, and do not go farther than that. The matter is difficult to administer. We like to act in accordance with the wishes of the soldier. If he has had a mistress who has borne a family to him, and he wishes to provide for her before he goes away to fight, the Army guarantees that it will look after her if anything happens to him”. We had to deal with a very distressing case a little while ago. A woman who had been living with a. man for twelve years had four children by him. I understand that she was a good woman to him. He left Australia. His legal wife had never been in communication with him during the twelve years, hut when she learned that he had been killed she applied for a widow’s pension.

Mr Abbott:

.This amendment raises an important principle, although the sum involved is not large. I am acquainted with a case which shows that the right to allot the payments should not be left to the discretion of the soldier himself. A woman, who is a constituent of mine was shamefully neglected by her soldier husband, who refused to make any allotment to her. lie went away with another woman prior to enlisting. She could not get any allotment herself, because at that time the allotment had to be made by her husband in her favour. She had to apply to a court for maintenance, and she had some difficulty in getting her husband served with the necessary notice, because he had enlisted under a false name. She obtained a maintenance order, but he said that he would not make any allotment , to her. That happened during the time when the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender)’ was Minister for the Army, and as a result of that case the making of allotments became compulsory. In that instance the soldier was vindictive towards his innocent, legitimate wife. If the procedure proposed in the hill be adopted, that wife, in the event of her husband’s death, will receive no allowance whatever. Some discretion should be allowed to the commission in this matter, because difficulty will arise only in exceptional circumstances. The special committee recommended that both women might participate in the pension, but that only one pension should be paid and it might be divided between the two women. The amendment proposed by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) goes farther than that, and would, in some cases, involve the payment of a double pension. That would be necessary only in a limited number of instances, and the sum involved would not be large. I take it that the commission would exercise its discretion wisely. It would weigh the whole of the circumstances, and probably there would be children to both the legitimate wife and the de facto wife. It would be only fair that an allowance should be made to each, because they would have to support the- children and look after them, and in many instances would not be able to take up outside work. The Minister (Mr. Frost) said that the department should not be under the obligation to go into the merits of the respective claims of the wife and the other woman; but, after all, that has already been done by the Department . of Social Services. In the case of a deserted de facto wife, or widow, the department can pay a pension; but it has to be satisfied as to the facts of the case. A similar procedure could be adopted by the commission, so that justice would be done to both of the women concerned.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

– The amendment proposes to restore the position that existed prior to the passage of the amending act in 1940. No honorable member has yet explained why the principal act was amended hi that year. It would be interesting to know whether it was because of financial considerations, or whether other reasons actuated the government of the day.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The department probably knows what sum was involved.

Mr CALWELL:

– I cannot conceive that it was large. Since 1940 the Widows’ Pensions Act has been passed, and under that measure Parliament recognizes the right of at- least three women to draw pensions in respect of the one man. It is possible, in the event of that man’s death, for a divorcee, a deserted wife and a de facto wife all to draw pensions, because at one time or another they were either married to him or living with him. It is necessary to adopt a uniform principle with regard to the Widows’ Pensions Act and the Repatriation Act. Some honorable members have, by interjection, stressed the difficulties that may arise if the, amendment be carried. Brigham Young had, I believe, about 17 wives and 56 children, and it is well that the Repatriation Department has not been called upon to deal with a problem such as he would have presented. It is far better to pay two women than to deny justice to the legal wife. An outrageous principle is incorporated in the act as it now stands’, when we say that the man concerned shall have the right to determine who shall receive the pension from the Repatnation Department.

I ask honorable members to consider what would be the position in actuality. A man deserts his wife in order to live with another woman. Is it likely that in one case in a thousand such a man would say, “ My wife is the person who shall draw my pension when I die “, and disavow any claim of the woman who alienated his affections? The act now says, in effect, that the rights of the deserted wives have been extinguished by the mesalliance that her husband formed. If she had obtained a maintenance order against him she may have been able to do something in the courts, but a great many husbands disobey maintenance orders and some have been repeatedly gaoled, on the application of wives, by order of the court for not having complied with maintenance orders. Often, too, the woman for whom a man has left his wife has had children by him, and she pleads with the man’s wife not to continue to have him committed to prison because of the suffering cast upon his little children.

Mr Brennan:

– Many good women fear the public scandal of prosecuting erring husbands.

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, and other women have abandoned their legal rights and allowed maintenance orders to lapse, because they have found it to be too expensive to keep on having their husbands committed to gaol. In every case the wife has suffered. The proposed amendment will restore her rights, at least under this act. If we have to choose between the present provisions of the act which denies the right of the widow, and another, which previously existed, in which the widow’s rights were safeguarded, I should prefer the latter. I, therefore, propose to vote for the amendment moved by the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott). I think that the overwhelming feeling in the committee is in favour of the amendment. If the Minister would consent to the postponement of the clause, he would be able to consult with his advisers and be in a better position to complete consideration of the matter later. That would be the wise course and I think that ultimately we could avoid dividing the committee on this issue.

Dr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

.I. feel that I must support the amendment. It is an extremely difficult matter, and I understand that it caused much worry to the special parliamentary committee on repatriation.We must admit that it is wrong that a widow and her children can be robbed of their pensions by a de facto widow and her children. One widow in Adelaide had to go. to work to support her child while the de facto widow and her children were pensioned. Whatever we do, we must not penalize the children. Many honorable members have received letters from well meaning people on such matters as this. One writer suggested that in order to improve morals it was necessary to cancel pensions when venereal disease was contracted. What a cruel anti-social outlook! How evil it would be to penalize the innocent for the sins of the guilty. If the amendment be lost I shall ask that this matter be referred to the proposed Standing Committee on Repatriation.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

– I cannot agree with the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) that, if we had women in this Parliament, the provision, which the honorable member for New England proposes to amend, would not have been made. The Naval War Pensions Order of Great Britain, under the heading of “Unmarried Wives “ - that is the term they use in Britain - contains the following order: -

Eligibility for pension and rates. - (1) A woman who has lived as his wife with a man who has died in the circumstances set forth in Article 39 may, at the discretion of the Minister, be granted a pension not exceeding 10s. a week, provided that -

she had been wholly or substantially maintained by the man on a permanent bona fide domestic basis continuously from a date not less than six months prior to the commencement of the war or to his first employment with the Forces, if later, and was dependent on him at the date of his death;

(i) she has a child or children of the man in her charge eligible for allowance in respect of his death, or

she is, on his death, if childless, or on ceasing to have an eligible child of the man in her charge, as the case may be, in pecuniary need and incapable of selfsupport;

she makes her claim to pension within one year of the man’s death.

A pension awarded under (1) may be continued until the woman ceases to have children eligible for allowances in her charge or ceases to be in pecuniary need and incapable of self-support.

Any pension granted under this Article shall cease on the marriage (or, if she is a widow, the remarriage) of the woman. Allowances for children under Article 44 or 46 may be paid after marriage or remarriage.

Under the heading “ Family Allowances “, the order provides that allowances may be granted to -

has been wholly or substantially maintained by him on a bona fide domestic basis continuously from a date not less than six months prior to the commencement of the war or to his first employment with the Forces, and
has a child or children of the officer in her charge eligible for allowance under this Article, or is over 40 years of age, or is incapable of self-support.

That order was issued by the British Ministry, which contains women, and has not been disallowed by the House of Commons, which contains more women.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– The Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) declared that the amendment, if agreed to, would cause trouble in the. Repatriation Department through officers having to decide whether two pensions should be paid or not; but there must be the same trouble to-day, because the officers have to decide whether the pension shall be given to what I might describe as the “ natural “ widow or the real widow. All that the amendment asks is that the Repatriation Commission shall have the discretion to decide whether the circumstances justify the payment of a pension to each widow, de jure or de facto. The quality of mercy would not be strained if the Minister agreed to accept the amendment.

Mr Blackburn:

– The authorities in England have that discretion.

Mr ABBOTT:

Mr Jolly:

– I do not object to the appointment of the proposed committee, but point out that some of the committees already appointed by the Parliament overlap.

Mr SPOONER:

– I shall not judge the wisdom of establishing this committee on the ground that there are too many other committees. The appointment of this committee is justified. It should be established on the basis- on which the Broadcasting Committee is already functioning. That principle is sound; and I should like to see it extended to social legislation. Whether the quantum of benefits to be allowed to beneficiaries is fair or unfair is a matter of opinion. Individually, we cannot obtain all information necessary to enable the Parliament to deal thoroughly with many problems. Some honorable members may be justified in thinking one way and some another way; but only by intensive study over a period of weeks can we arrive at a thoroughly sound decision. More than the mere consideration of £ s. d. is involved in these matters. The problem of soldiers’ pensions, for instance, is a human, as well as a financial, problem. We may require to know what is being done in this respect in other countries. We must study changing conditions as the war progresses, and also what the Parliament is doing with regard to other classes of pensions. All such considerations enter into the matter in addition to the mere aspect of £ s. d. Parliament cannot ordinarily give to those matters the consideration which they demand, unless it has before it a concrete proposal for discussion.

I do not agree that the appointment of this proposed committee is unnecessary. It is thoroughly justified by the debate which has taken place on this bill. I say, frankly, that but for the knowledge that the Government was going to accept this amendment, I should have found myself obliged to reconsider my attitude towards the proposal to increase the rates of pension under the bill by 20 per cent.; I, personally, do not think that that increase is sufficient to meet present conditions although it might have been sufficient to meet the conditions existing when the special committee concluded its deliberations nearly six months ago. The proposed committee will keep abreast of developments in the repatriation sphere, although it need not sit regularly, because it. will deal only with matters referred to it by this House, or the Senate, or the Minister. It will not have power itself to initiate inquiries. It is not very likely that subjects will be remitted to the committee very frequently. However, a doubt still exists in the minds of honorable members generally whether the rates of benefits and pensions agreed upon under this measure are fair. Such a subject could be referred to the committee; and it would reassure honorable members generally to know that the matter was being intensively studied by a committee constituted in this manner. The right honorable member for North Sydney (Mr. Hughes) asked whether the committee would be composed of returned soldiers only. No provision is made in that respect. The proposal is that the committee shall consist of four members of the House of Representatives and two members of the .Senate. The special committee consisted entirely of returned soldiers; but there can be no guarantee that that will be the case in the future.

Mr Pollard:

– No such guarantee should be given.

Air. SPOONER,- That is so. It may be advisable to appoint an honorable member to the committee because of his special knowledge of the subject. A particular honorable member may be personally acquainted with the operation of repatriation legislation in other countries. I should imagine that a wise government would see to it that a substantial propor tion of the members of the committee were ex-servicemen. I accept the proposed new provision because it will give to the House during the months ahead some guarantee that should the bill prove to be inadequate to meet existing conditions our decisions under the measure will be further reviewed and adjusted accordingly. I sincerely hope that the amendment will be adopted, and that as soon as possible after the measure is proclaimed the Government will ask the committee to be set up to examine the new rates of pensions in relation to existing conditions.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- I congratulate the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles) on proposing this amendment, and commend the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) on accepting the principle embodied in it. The principle has already been adopted by Parliament with respect to other legislation. Section 84 of the Australian Broadcasting Act, which deals with the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting, reads -

The powers, privileges and immunities of the committee and its members shall, subject to this part, be those of each of the Houses of the Parliament and of its members and its committees.

It is highly desirable that the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Broadcasting Committee be also enjoyed by the proposed repatriation committee. Indeed, it might prove to be dangerous to deny this protection to the proposed committee. I hope that the honorable member for Henty will embody that provision in his amendment. It is desirable that the committee should have all the powers, privileges and immunities now enjoyed by Parliament itself in order that neither the committee nor any of its members may be embarrassed with litigation for doing something for which no member of the Parliament could be proceeded against. I think that that omission from the honorable member’s amendment is unintentional. I also suggest that the amendment might be improved in another respect, although the matter I am now about to raise may be controversial. The Australian Broadcasting Commission Act provides that the Minister or either House of Parliament may refer any matter to the committee; but it also provides that the Minister shall refer to the committee any such matter which the Australian Broadcasting Commission, or the body known at the commencement of the act as the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations, ‘ requests him to refer to it. Similar provision should be made with respect to the proposed repatriation committee. The

Minister should be obliged to refer to the committee any matter which the Repatriation Commission, or the body known as the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, requests him to refer to it. Several honorable members opposite appear to fail to understand that the principles on which the proposed committee is based are wise, practical and beneficial.

Mr Jolly:

– But the system can be abused.

Mr CALWELL:

– Any system can be abused. The parliamentary system and the executive system can be abused ; but the principle involved in the amendment strengthens the Parliament in relation to the Executive, because the committee is to consist of members of both Houses - in practice this means members of all parties - who will he equally as well advised on repatriation matters as is the Minister himself; and the committee must report to the Parliament, and not to the Minister, on any matter so referred to it. Thus, the proposed committee, which will probably be the same as the special committee whose report formed the basis of this measure, will be an integral part of our repatriation machinery. There is nothing wrong with that. The commission can play its part, discharging its special responsibilities under the act; and the committee can deal with such matters as are referred to it, and so play an equally important part in advising honorable members from time to time on all matters of major importance affecting repatriation. Committees which have been appointed by the Parliament either as statutory bodies, or in the form established under the National Security Act, have already justified their existence. Mere hostility to the committee . system, and attacks such as those uttered by the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey) on previous occasions, which, no doubt, he will utter again when he gets the call from the Chair, do not destroy the validity of any of the contentionswhich have been advanced in support of the principle of the amendment.. The more we have of the committee system in our parliamentary structure, the better it will be for the Parliament, for the Executive, for all persons concerned with the legislation involved, and for the people generally. In the Congress of the United States of America, every bill that is introduced is referred to an appropriate committee of each House and reported upon before debate ensues, in order that its passage may be as speedy as possible. In the British House of Commons, the President of the Board of Trade, for instance, and he is only one of several Ministers similarly empowered, can, and does, set up committees to examine various proposals, and these committees have done extremely valuable work in making recommendations which subsequently have been embodied in legislation. Some of that British legislation has been copied in this country. Therefore, I cannot see that any real argument can be advanced against this principle, and I strongly urge the proposal now before the committee, and in again congratulating the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles) I urge him to include the substance of section 84 of the Australian Broadcasting Act in his amendment. I ask him also to consider the advisability of recognizing the right of the Repatriation Commission to refer matters to the proposed standing committee through the Minister, because the time may come when a Minister for Repatriation will be at loggerheads with the Repatriation Commission, and may misuse his power in the same way as some honorable members have suggested that parliamentary committees may misuse their power. I contend that the federal executive of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia is competent to bring matters of moment under the notice of the proposed standing committee, and that the Minister for Repatriation should be obliged to submit to that committee any matter placed before him by that thoroughly representative organization.

Sir CHARLES MARR:
Parkes

– I am in favour of appointing parliamentary committees to deal with matters of national importance, particularly public works, but repatriation is an entirely different matter. If we are to have a parliamentary standing committee on repatriation, why should we not also have parliamentary standing committees on army matters and such subjects as invalid and old-age pensions? I submit that every honorable member of this chamber has a responsibility to see that justice is done to the returned soldiers and their dependants. I do not wish to criticize the parliamentary committee whose report formed the basis of this legislation, because I consider that that body did an excellent job. It presented a good report, which, as I have said, has been largely incorporated in this measure; but that should finish the work of the committee. In view of the thorough overhaul now being given to repatriation legislation, I trust that there will be no occasion, in the near future at least, to make further alterations to it. If, however, further adjustments become necessary, say, through an increase of the cost of living, surely such matters could be determined equitably by the Minister for Repatriation in conference with the Repatriation Commission. My fear is that the setting uo of a standing committee on repatriation will result in undue interference with the work of the Minister and of the Repatriation Commission which is a quasi-government body. In addition, the proposed body would be called upon to undertake an immense amount of work because of the many questions that would be raised.

Mr BARNARD:

– Surely that could be overcome quite easily.

Sir CHARLES MARR:

– It could be overcome, but I do not think that it would be. Much as I admire the work that has been accomplished by the parliamentary committee, I contend that its usefulness has now ceased and that Parliament would be well advised to leave the responsibility of carrying on the job to the Minister and the Repatriation Commission.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

– I am pleased that the Government has agreed to accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles), first, because I was one of those who advocated the setting up of an allparty parliamentary committee to investigate repatriation matters, and, secondly, because I have also advocated the appointment of a standing parliamentary committee on repatriation. 1 am pleased also that it is to the honorable member for Henty that credit for placing this proposal on our statute-book will go. I was disappointed that the parliamentary committee did not accede to my request, which I made so far back as August last, that members of Parliament be given an opportunity to place their views before it. However, in a letter to the committee I made the following suggestion: -

The precedent set in the Broadcasting Act by the setting up of a Parliamentary Standing Committee might well be followed in regard to Repatriation so that same, and the administration thereof, would bo constantly under the purview of Parliament and many of the injustices complained of would be automatically dissipated.

This would constitute a more democratic form of control and in keeping with the principles the war is being waged for.

There would also be much constructive work for the Committee and it would be in a position to act promptly to meet each situation that may result from war conditions and we would not have such occurrences as happened in the case of disabled Militiamen for whom no provision for pension had been made after two and a. half years of war. This happened to a constituent of mine, an original Anzac who was in the landing at Gallipoli, served four years in the last war and sixteen months in this one as a member of the Home Forces, yet on being discharged in January of this year, following an injury sustained while in the service, he found himself without pension, sustenance, employment, and he ended up on the dole.

His application for a pension was refused on the ground that there was no provision in the Repatriation Act covering his case. The result was that, because of his disability, he was unable to obtain employment, and he ended up on the dole. That occurred two and a half years after the outbreak of the present war. Had the administration been fully alive to the situation, it would have made provision for such cases, and that unfortunate soldier would not have been obliged to go on the dole despite the fact that his disabilities resulted from war service. I realize that new problems arising out of this war keep the administration very busy, and there can be no doubt that a standing committee on repatriation would be of great assistance to the commission in dealing promptly with various anomalies that arise from time to time. Members of Parliament are constantly receiving representations from their constituents on repatriation matters, and they would be pleased to have an opportunity to put their problems before such a committee. In addition, there are many other matters which the proposed body could investigate, such as land settlement for returned soldiers, after care, vocational guidance, housing and so on. The payment of a gratuity to soldiers returning from this war is also an important matter. There is no reason why that question should not be discussed and determined now, so that soldiers will know what to expect when the war is over, and the payment of a gratuity will not be made a political football, as was the case after the last war. I have no doubt that if a parliamentary standing committee on repatriation were in existence at present, much of the acrimonious debate that has taken place on this measure would have been avoided. Honorable members could have placed their views before that committee, and many problems could have been solved without being ventilated in this chamber. Even the increase of pension advocated by certain honorable members opposite could have been discussed; in fact, I see no reason why the honorable member for “Warringah (Mr. Spender) should not place before the standing committee his views in regard to an increase of pension rates. I trust also that the proposed body will investigate the possibility of consolidating the Repatriation Act in order to present it in a Hunch simpler form than it is at present. The problem of small pensions about which many complaints have been made in this chamber could also be tackled.

I agree with the suggestion of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) that the returned soldiers’ organizations and the Repatriation Commission should have recourse to the proposed standing committee in the same way as the Australian Broadcasting Commission has recourse to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting through the Postmaster-General. When the Broadcasting Commission or the Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations makes representations to the Postmaster-General on a particular matter, there is an obligation upon him to refer that matter to the standing committee. Similarly, the reference of repatriation matters to the proposed standing committee should not be left to the discretion of the Minister for Repatriation. After all, the ex-servicemen are the people most vitally concerned in repatriation matters, and they should have direct recourse to the proposed standing committee, through the Minister. If it be necessary first to satisfy the Minister or Parliament that a matter is one that should be discussed by the committee, there will be unnecessary waste of time and useless repetition of discussion. In fact, there would be no need for the committee at all. Therefore, I agree with the suggestion of the honorable member for Melbourne. The precedent already has been established in the Australian Broadcasting Commission Act, and I hope that it will be followed in this case. Matters affecting returned soldiers and their dependants should be thrashed out thoroughly in a non-party atmosphere. In his second -reading speech upon this measure, the Minister himself said that it should be above party politics, and the same sentiment has since been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin). My only regret is that we on this side of the chamber have been bound to a large degree by party decisions, and have not had the same freedom to speak upon these matters as has been enjoyed by honorable members opposite. In many respects, we have been hamstrung in this debate, and have had to sit idly by while motions embodying principles with which we were entirely in accord were submitted by honorable members opposite.

Mr HUGHES:
North Sydney

– I shall support this amendment, because I consider that it is a good one. In his second-reading speech the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) suggested the setting up of a standing committee on repatriation, the functions of which he outlined briefly. I agree with the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner) that the recommendations of the parliamentary committee were a material factor in assisting decisions to be made in regard to many repatriation matters. From the inception of the repatriation legislation it has been my practice to consult with the soldiers, and I have been guided by them on many occasions. I can say, with justification, that I have been guided by them and by none other. The original rate of pension was fixed on the recommendation of the soldiers, and increases have been made from time to time, so far as I am aware, on the advice of soldiers’ organizations. Practically every amendment of the act has originated in the soldiers’ organizations, through which the returned man has made himself articulate. The parliamentary committee which was appointed to deal with this matter accomplished its work so ably that honorable members, almost with one accord, are desirous of making the committee a permanent part of the mechanism of this Parliament. ‘

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP; LANG LAB from 1932; ALP from 1936

– What matters should the standing committee deal with?

Mr HUGHES:

– One honorable member suggested that the committee should make its report to the Parliament. I agree with that view. I support the proposal to appoint a. permanent committee, because it will be charged with the special duty of acting as a liaison between the returned soldiers’ organizations and the Parliament. It will attend to duties that it is well qualified to perform, and it should submit at least an annual report. But the committee should not be galvanized into activity only when matters are referred to by the Parliament. It will protect the welfare of returned men, and bring urgent matters before the Parliament. I strongly support the proposal, for, if the Parliamentary Standing Committee had not been proposed, I, like the honorable member for Robertson (Mr. Spooner) should not have been able to support the government in limiting the increase of the rate of pension to 20 per cent.

Mr STACEY:
Adelaide

– I sincerely congratulate the parliamentary committee which compiled the recommendations for the amendment of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. Having studied its proposals most carefully, I consider that the committee did an excellent job. All members were returned soldiers who were well qualified to recommend to the Government proposals for improving the present repatriation system. This bill is based upon the recommendations of the committee.

The committee, which was appointed to do a specific job in a limited time, admirably discharged its responsibilities. However, I object to the number of committees that has been appointed, first, by the Menzies Government, and, later, by the Curtin Government. The committees, which were appointed two years ago, were given important work to do, but I believed that their inquiries would be completed within a month. I was mistaken. Their number has been increased, and some honorable members are attempting to serve on three of them. One honorable member, who is associated with several committees, told me that he did not know which meeting to attend. The committees have travelled widely in the Commonwealth, with large and expensive staffs, and many of their reports have not been, and never will be, studied. I resigned from one of the committees a fortnight ago, although I believed, when I became a member of it nearly two years before, that I could render useful service. The committee was given two important jobs. First, it investigated the proposals for the construction of the Canberra Community Hospital and submitted to Parliament certain recommendations, of which I was justly proud. Some honorable members, defending the appointment of the committees, declared that their investigations have saved the Government large sums of money. I shall recount my experiences. The proposal to erect the Canberra Community Hospital was examined by the Public Works Committee.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN” (Mr Martens:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– The bill contains no reference to the Canberra Community Hospital. I ask the honorable member not to digress.

Mr STACEY:

– I am endeavouring to show why the repatriation committee will not be a success. The estimated cost of the construction of the new hospital was £134,000. Although the buildings have not yet been completed, the expenditure on the building to date is £1/8,000. The Public Works Committee also investigated the proposal for the construction of the new abattoirs in the Australian Capital Territory. The estimated cost of the work was £32,000, but the expenditure will exceed that figure by nearly £30,000. Those examples illustrate the futility of inquiries by committees. Often their recommendations are disregarded without examination. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Broadcasting has done some good work, but its action in recommending continued publication of the A.B.G. Weekly has aroused keen criticism.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The bill contains no reference to the A.B.O. Weekly.

Mr STACEY:

– I am positive that infinitely better work could be done without the appointment of the Standing Committee on Repatriation. Once the committee is appointed it will become permanent and will find for itself plenty of work to do. Its inquiries will necessitate long trips to distant parts of Australia. The proposed committee will get into the same rut as that into which previous committees have fallen. Its expenses will be considerable and I consider that better work could be done through the Minister and the department.

The number of Cabinet Ministers has been increased, and departments have expanded enormously. The whole position is farcical. I shall not support the proposed appointment of the Standing Committee on Repatriation. Another reason why I object to the committee is that the Standing Committee on Broadcasting recommended the continuance of the A.B.C. Weekly, although its losses total £600 a week, and only 3 per cent, of the licenceholders subscribe to the journal. From those remarks honorable members will understand that I am definitely opposed to the appointment of parliamentary committees.

Sitting suspended from 12.^5 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- I am glad to know that the Minister (Mr. Frost) has agreed to accept the new clause proposed by -the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles). The committee system of doing our business may be open to criticism, but I think that that is very largely a matter of one’s point of view. Having had some experience of committees working for this Parliament, I am quite satisfied that the all-party committee system does very useful work, provided that the committees’ recommendations are acted upon by the government of the day. I believe that the proposed repatriation committee will serve a very useful purpose. It will give an opportunity to the Minister to have questions inquired into, it will be an avenue through which the commission itself can have matters referred to it. provided that the Minister is prepared to do so, or it will provide an opportunity for members of the Parliament to have subjects referred to it for investigation. Repatriation over the years has been a subject of very great controversy, and I believe that in the future the work of this Parliament will be considerably lightened and much more expeditiously performed if we are able to have such subjects referred to a committee, a report made to the Parliament, which can subsequently be discussed, and the recommendations considered not only by Parliament but also by the Government of the day. I heartily agree with the new part, and support it.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I shall oppose the new part proposed by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles), because I think that if anything should convince honorable members of the foolishness of having such a committee as a standing committee, it should be the results of the debate in this chamber. It appears to me that on every occasion on which an honorable member challenged the committee’s report in any way at all, certain members of the committee took it as a personal affront. They appeared to think that, because they had been appointed to investigate repatriation problems on behalf of the Government, every honorable member should have surrendered his rights as a representative of the people, and fallen in completely behind the committee because it had given attention to this subject. Strangely enough, we find that some members of the committee have come briefed with a sheaf of amendments altogether contrary to the committee’s recommendations, proving conclusively that the committee itself did not investigate the whole position thoroughly. Yet, repeatedly, when we make suggestions from this side of the chamber we are told to be good boys and sit down, because the whole subject has been investigated, everything is in hand, and all is right with the world. I disagree entirely with that point of view, and I can see only a repetition of this sort of thing if the special committee which has been sitting is converted into a standing committee. We have a parallel to the proposed committee, in many committees in existence. The Broadcasting Committee is a severe headache to the commission, and, I should say, to the Minister also. We have appointed a commission to administer the provisions of the Repatriation Act. It has done a really good job, and its work will be extended, following the the proclamation of a new Repatriation Act. Side by side with the commission is the Minister. If Ave appoint a committee to cast its shadow over both the commission and the Minister, the commission will be unable to do its work satisfactorily, whilst the Minister will not be able to give the necessary attention to the task he has in hand. Therefore, both he and the commission will become mere ciphers, subject to examination by the committee itself. With all due respect to the members of the proposed committee, I do not think that -it will provide a complete representation of the views of members in this Parliament. If we are simply to delegate our duties to a committee appointed from both sides of the House, we may just as well pack up our bags, and leave the whole task in the hands of the committee. Another objection, I think, suggests itself. We know that on one side of the House sits a party which is rigorously disciplined. It has to obey the rules of caucus whether it believes in them or not. We have had instances of this when members on the other side of the chamber have been members df a committee and signatories to its report. Indeed, one member pointed out in the debate that they were handicapped by not being given the liberty which honorable members on this side enjoy. Whilst we have three members from one side of the chamber rigorously disciplined, who, once they have signed on the dotted line expressing the wishes of their party, are not permitted to depart from the committee’s recommendations, and even ready to interpret Government policy, we are likely to have a lop-sided committee. Honorable members on this side, who are not disciplined by caucus methods like honorable members opposite, but are more or less free-lances, are placed at a disadvantage. Such a committee cannot reflect impartially the decisions of its members, or the views of all parties in the chamber. For these reasons, I oppose the appointment of a committee.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– The reference made by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) to the Broadcasting Committee is very much to the point. When that matter came before us in June of last year, I expressed the opinion that there was no need for such a committee, but the recommendation for the appointment of a permanent committee had been made by the Joint Committee on Broadcasting. No recommendation has been made in this case by the special committee that it should continue to act, or that some other body of a similar kind should carry on in the future.

Mr Rosevear:

– That is due to the modesty of its members.

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:

– That may be so, but we have no assurance that the committee which is to be appointed will be identical with the one which made the report which has been before honorable members during the debate on this bill. All of us agree that the committee has done good work in the preparation of its report. Having said that, I am free to discuss the whole matter without being suspected of antagonism to any individual. The question is, whether there is to be a permanent committee to deal with repatriation which may or may not be composed of returned soldiers, who. may or may not be identical with, those who sat on the special committee. With that premise, we may discuss the proposal broadly on its merits. I consider that, if any committee ought to be reconstituted just now it is not the special committee, but the public accounts committee, which is much more needed in this country at the present time. The amendment of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles) is a lengthy one, and contains a good deal that is of interest. For example, the members of the committee, when appointed, shall hold office as a joint committee for the duration of the Parliament, but ‘ shall cease to hold office as soon as the House of Representatives expires by dissolution or effluxion of time, or upon their ceasing to be members of Parliament. Thus it is not to be a continuous committee, but will be subject to disruption at any time by contingencies over which it will have no control. The proposed new section 56j provides -

The committee may, subject to this section, sit and transact business during any adjournment or recess as well as during the session, and may sit at such times and in such places, and conduct their proceedings in such manner, as they deem proper.

The most important of the proposed new sections is 56l, which proposes -

The committee shall, subject to the provisions of this act, consider and report to the Parliament, upon every matter affecting repatriation which either House of the Parliament, by resolution, refers to the committee and upon every other such matter affecting repatriation referred to the committee by the Minister.

Those are very wide powers indeed. There are indications that the committee will be expected to do a considerable volume of work. I state quite clearly that, in my opinion, such a body would not be the appropriate one to act as a consultant to the Minister. The honorable gentleman is himself vested with certain powers, and may take such advice as he thinks fit. The responsibility will be his alone. If he requires advice, it can be furnished to him by the Repatriation Commission, which is the prime body in this matter. Should he consult it, he will not have the overlapping that is inseparable from a series of committees dealing with work of the same type - which is always undesirable. But if, on the other hand, the decision is that there must be a reference to some other body, I consider that a preferable body would be the returned soldiers’ league which already has branches in the various States, and a great deal of material which would assist its work from the beginning. Not only could it do this work in a specialized sense far better than it could be done by a parliamentary committee, but, in addition, it would not be torn from its duties in the way in which a committee appointed from this Parliament would be. I have always understood that “ one man one job “ was one of the objects of the Labour party. That is a theory to which I do not subscribe; but having members of Parliament performing all sorts qf other duties, and being liable - as they undoubtedly will be in this instance - to be drawn to all the States, one cannot expect them to be able properly to carry out the prime duties that they have been elected to perform.

For the reasons that I have given, I consider that it is not desirable that this committee should be appointed, and I shall vote against its appointment.

Mr. rosevear (Dalley) [2.30].- 1 have already said that, to a very large section of the community, this is a vital piece of legislation, concerning which there has always been a considerable degree of controversy, contention and difficulty. On that account, there are good reasons for the appointment of a standing committee. But there are equally good reasons in opposition to such a proposal. So far as I can see, the proposal of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles), with the addition which the Minister (Mr. Frost) proposes to accept, will place that honorable gentleman in the position of being a mere cipher in the control of repatriation matters. The original proposal of the honorable member for Henty contained quite enough power to enable the committee to be called together. That could be done by a resolution of either House of the Parliament. I suppose it can safely be said that, with a due sense of its responsibility, neither House of the Parliament would request the calling together of the committee except to investigate something that was substantially wrong. The original proposal further provided that the Minister himself, if he considered that difficulties were likely to arise and that he ought to be informed from an outside source apart from those contesting the matter, could request the committee to furnish a report to him. The returned soldiers’ league might be at loggerheads with the Repatriation Commission.. The Minister might not be sure as to which body was right and which wrong. Desiring to be advised, he could enlist the aid of the committee. But, under the present proposal, which, I understand, the Minister intends to accept, he will be in grave danger of becoming a mere cipher. It provides -

The Minister shall refer to the committee any such matters concerning repatriation which the commission or the federal executive of the Returned Soldiers Association requests him to refer to the committee.

I cannot visualize any possibility of the Minister rejecting such a request,

Mr Frost:

– The matter will have to pass through the Minister.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– The Minister will have no alternative; he will have to refer the matter to the committee. The addition to the original proposal has been made by the honorable member for Henty at the instance of the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). The proposed amendment is as follows : -

The Minister shall refer to the committee any such matters concerning repatriation which the commission or the federal executive of the Returned Soldiers’ Association requests him to refer to the committee.

This provision departs entirely from the proposed new part which the Government was prepared to accept from the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles) in which it was provided that requests might be referred to the committee by the Minister or the Parliament. It is now proposed to give an outside authority power to order the Minister about.

Mr Calwell:

– That is not its meaning.

Mr ROSEVEAR:

– It is, unless plain English words have lost their meaning. While I can see nothing wrong with the proposed new part of the honorable member for Henty, I warn the Minister that if he accepts the amendment of the honorable member for Mel- bourne (Mr. Calwell), he will become a mere cipher who may be ordered about by an outside authority.

Mr MARWICK:
Swan

.- I approach the consideration of this proposal with mixed feelings. I have sat on parliamentary committees which have done useful work, and have reported either to the Prime Minister or to Parliament. In no previous instance have the members of a parliamentary committee taken any important part in sponsoring, in this Parliament, legislation embodying recommendations of the committees, of which they were members. This right has been reserved for the members of the special committee on repatriation. I have supported its recommendations because I believed them to be sound, but, during the last two days we have witnessed the deplorable spectacle of members of the special committee, while reserving for themselves the right to move amendments to clauses embodying their recommendations, at the same time attacking all and sundry who dared to move other amendments. Surely it is the right of every honorable member to move amendments if he feels that he can improve the bill before the committee. Our experience in connexion with the Broadcasting Committee was very different. A non-party measure was introduced into Parliament based upon the recommendations of the committee, and it was considered by honorable members in a non-party spirit. In thE case of this bill, however, while government supporters have stuck solidly to the measure, opposition membershave fought among themselves over many of its provisions. If that is to he the result of the parliamentary ‘ committee system, then the sooner it is abandoned the better. I have a strong suspicion that this committee system will develop; and if it does, then so far as repatriation is concerned, I see no reason for having a Minister for Repatriation or a Repatriation Commission. Why not go a little farther? Why not do as has been done in the United States of America, and vest the parliamentary committee itself with complete power?

Mr Calwell:

– It might not be a bad thing if parliamentary committees had more power.

Mr MARWICK:

– That may be so, but I do not want to see Ministers of the Crown reduced to mere ciphers. Every honorable member who spoke on the motion for the second reading of the bill congratulated the committee on its report, yet there were 50 odd speeches delivered on the second reading. I believe that the returned soldiers are capable of seeing for themselves that they get a fair deal in the future. I am prepared at all times to listen to representations from their properly constituted organizations. The league can submit proposals to the Minister, but I do not believe that it, or any other outside body, should have power to direct the Minister what he shall do. Therefore, I propose, with great reluctance, to vote against the proposed new part.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- I submitted my suggestion for the improvement to the proposed new part in perfectly good faith, and I did so because there is a precedent for it in the Australian Broadcasting Act which was passed last year. The very words of the amendment to which exception is taken were copied verbatim, with the exception of an alteration of terminology by substituting the word “repatriation” for the word “ broadcasting “ from subsection 2 of section 85 of the Australian Broadcasting Act. The objections of the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) were not raised by any other honorable member in this chamber, or in the Senate, when the Australian . Broadcasting Bill was under discussion. The sub-section referred to states -

The Minister shall refer to the Committee any such matter which the Commission or the body known, at the commencement of this Act, as the Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations requests him to refer to the Committee.

The Australian Federation of Commercial Broadcasting Stations is as much an outside body as is the returned soldiers’ organization.

Mr Abbott:

– It is a commercial body.

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, it represents the interests of 100 commercial broadcasting stations, and it is by no means so important in the social, national and general life of the community as the returned soldiers’ organization. The argument being advanced now about ministerial responsibility could have been put forward about nine months ago when we were considering the broadcasting measure, but it is really only an afterthought. The bogy of danger to ministerial responsibility has been destroyed, and should not influence one vote in this chamber. The joint parliamentary committee set up under the Australian Broadcasting Act has dealt with many matters referred to it by the Postmaster-General. I have not heard from that Minister or any other member of the Government, or from any member of either House of this Parliament, that section 85 of the act has undermined ministerial authority in any respect. We talk about ministerial responsibility, but may I offer the suggestion that, .because of the absence of a standing committee of the kind contemplated, and because of the over-emphasis that has been laid upon ministerial responsibility for the last twenty years, we have had to wait that time for an amending repatriation bill. Had the committee system operated earlier, and had there been less desire on the part of a few Ministers to subordinate the whole of the interests of the Parliament to their particular interests as Ministers, there would have been better legislation by this Parliament and more progress in this country than there has been. The talk of ministerial responsibility leaves me cold. By seeking to strengthen the proposed new part submitted by the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles), I thought that I was helping to give to the Parliament as a whole some share in the responsibility of shaping repatriation policy in the years to come. After all, it is not the Ministry which controls the destinies of this country. Parliament, over the centuries, has always been jealous to see that neither the King nor the Executive invades its rights and privileges. The whole history of parliamentary government is one long story of the parliament insisting that its authorityis paramount. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree to my amendment of the amendment of the honorable member for Henty. If he will not, I hope that he will accept it in an amended form by the substitution of the word “ may “. for the word “shall”. That would be better than nothing. There can be no argument against the incorporation of the returned soldiers’ organization, through its federal executive, in the work of repatriation in the years that are opening before us. This country will have to accept the responsibility and discharge the duty of rehabilitating the 800,000 men and women who constitute the fighting forces of Australia to-day.

Mr MENZIES:
Kooyong

.- I do not like the proposal before the Chair at all, and I should like it less if it were amended in the direction sought by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). I shall offer my reasons for my attitude briefly. I am not opposed to the idea of- a parliamentary committee; indeed, it would be very odd if I were, because a great number of the committees now sitting were set up as the result of decisions given by myself. So I am not right in line with my friend, the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Stacey), in thinking that the committee idea is, of itself, bad. Every case must be judged on its own ments. In this case, we are dealing with something which is quite different from broadcasting. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is hot concerned with administration, but with policy. The chief executive officer of the commission is the general manager, and he acts under the policy direction of the commission. The Broadcasting Committee sits, not to discuss matters of administration, but matters of policy, and it offers as a representative committee views on policy which the Government may not think fit to include in its broadcasting policy, or to convey in its own fashion to the Broadcasting Commission. But, with regard to repatriation, we have an entirely different problem.

I have not previously spoken on this matter, or on this bill, and so, perhaps, I shall be permitted to say that no commission in Australia, in the last twenty years, has had to undertake so difficult a task as has the Repatriation Commission. Composed primarily of returned soldiers, it has had to stand between the returned soldier, with his just and imperative claims, and the community, the Government and the tax payer. It has occupied a position which is, in a peculiar sense, judicial. Having had seven years’ ministerial experience in this Parliament, I do not believe that any commission has a better record of service than the Repatriation Commission. It has performed a most delicate of all tasks, and I believe that, broadly, it has done it conscientiously and wisely. I take this opportunity to express my acknowledgment to the commission of the work that it has done. It has deserved very well of this country.

The proposal is that we should have a Repatriation Committee. For what purpose? If it were to be a committee that would report upon matters referred to it by either House of the Parliament by resolution, such as that of the pension quantum that has been discussed in this case, I should entirely support it. In addition -to that, it is to report on every matter that may be referred to it by the Minister for Repatriation. There is no need for me to tell the present Minister that I have no quarrel with him, because he has brought before this country a wise and just Repatriation Bill which will do great credit to him when it goes on to the statute-book. -But no Minister is permanent,- and, if we establish the position that any Minister for Repatriation, confronted with a difficult problem, which may be primarily a problem of administration, can refer it, not to the administrative body, the Repatriation Commission, but to a parliamentary body composed of politicians, I very much fear that we shall not have a non-political administration of the repatriation legislation, but a political administration. Nothing could be worse than that. The whole point of the work of the Repatriation Commission has been that it is removed from party politics, its business being to act as agent between the returned soldier and the civilian, a difficult task which, as I have said, has been splendidly performed. It has been said that Parliament must not abdicate its responsibilities. The Minister is responsible to Parliament. He is the man who, in the long run, must and will accept responsibility for the administration of repatriation. I, as a member of Parliament, am content that the Minister should be in his place on the treasury bench, willing and able to answer for the administration of his department. It is vital to a proper handling of the problem that administration through a commission acting under the Minister should be in the first place non-political, and in the second place that it should not be duplicated by the settingup of two authorities which may appear to exercise equal authority. Let me give an example. I see the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) on the treasury bench. The administration of the Army involves the making of important decisions on matters of policy. It involves the organization and use of troops. But it also, as we all know, involves a host of little questions affecting individuals which are sent to the Minister, and which have to be dealt with’ in an administrative way. What would happen if the Minister for the Army were to be told by Parliament that, in the future, he must administer his department under the general supervision of a small parliamentary committee ?

Mr Archie Cameron:

– That was recommended before the sitting was suspended for luncheon.

Mr MENZIES:

– Maybe. If that system were instituted, the Minister, perhaps not this one, but some other Minister for the Army, if a human being, would say, “ If these things are to go to a parliamentary committee, let them go there in the first place. I am not going to bother my head about them. Let the committee administer and deal with these matters “. The Minister would be in an intolerable position if he had to give a decision subject to appeal, not to the Parliament, not to the Prime Minister, not to his colleagues, but to a committee of Parliament. I venture to say that no self-respecting Minister for the Army would want to undertake the task of administration in those circumstances.

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– Utter absurdity!

Mr MENZIES:

– Of course, the honorable member for Melbourne, whose passion foi” the parliamentary committee system will begin to diminish only when he is admitted to the Ministry, says, “ The perfect idea is to have parliamentary committees “. The first object of administration is to get work done, to get it done justly, and to uphold the authority of those who have to do it. The proposal before the chamber now will inevitably undermine the authority of the Repatriation Commission. What will happen to the chairman of that commission and his colleagues if, all the time, when a matter comes before them in the ordinary course of administration, they are given -to understand by some honorable member or members of Parliament that, unless the matter is dealt with in a certain way, they propose that it shall be dealt with by the parliamentary standing committee? I repeat that this committee will not be like the Broadcasting ‘Committee, of which my friends, the honorable member for Boothby (Dr. Price) is a member and the honorable member for Melbourne is chairman. The Broadcasting Committee Ls not concerned with administrative matters. It is not deciding as between Jones and the Crown or Brown and the Crown. It is concerned with what should be the broad policy of broadcasting in Australia. On that sort of matter a parliamentary committee can do first-class work, but I repeat that a proper understanding of the administration of this country requires that no parliamentary committee shall be an administrative body. Administration is for the Government of the country and for the heads of the departments and commissions which operate under the Government. The best service will be rendered to Australia when that principle is recognized and when, if any one has the desire to discuss administration, he can discuss it plainly across the chamber with the Minister concerned. But duplication and division of authority will not bring reputation to the parliamentary system. I should like the Minister to say, not that he will accept the proposal as a whole, but that he will provide for a committee that will deal with matters referred to it by either House of Parliament by resolution. If that were done, large issues would be- referred to the committee, but we should not have the same real danger from the corporate wisdom of members of the committee in those circumstances as we should otherwise have.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I was pleased to hear the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) speak on this matter, because, as he said in his opening remarks, he personally was largely responsible for the very luxurious growth of committees of this Parliament.

Mr Duncan-Hughes:

– Luxuriant ?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Luxuriant, too. I meant what I said. I think that no single act of policy inside this Parliament has done more to subvert the usefulness and authority of this Parliament in the last two years than has the policy of setting up extraneous committees.

Mr Calwell:

– The right honorable member for Kooyong also devised the Advisory War Council.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Another body and most useless of the lot! It will be a bad thing if this standing committee on repatriation is established. I think that the set-up will become impossible if we have a committee which will be a sort of buffer for the Minister for Repatriation. The game of “ passing the buck “ politically is not unknown to some of us in this chamber. It will reach its grandest pretensions if the proposed committee is established. The administration of the Repatriation Act must be entrusted to the Minister of State for Repatriation. If he is not able to do that job with the assistance of the Repatriation Commission, the quicker he is replaced the better. If we are to have a committee of half a dozen honorable members who, if the speech of the mover of the new clause, the honorable member for Henty (Mr; Coles) is correct, will be able to move from one part of Australia to another like a lot of “ Meddlesome Matties “ and “ Nosey Parkers “. Any time some one likes to refer a matter to it, the position of the Minister for Repatriation and the Repatriation Commission will become utterly impossible and the only result must be chaos. If, however, a committee is to be established the suggestion of the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) is the only sensible thing to do. The committee should be restricted to the investigation of matters which are referred to it by either House of the Parliament. I prefer, however, that the proposal before the committee bo not accepted. I am at a loss to understand how the Government could have main tained such a rigid front on certain other matters within the last few days, and yet have given in so easily on a matter of this description. The position of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia in this matter must not be overlooked. The league is a highly organized body throughout Australia. If, in the opinion of soldiers, anything goes wrong it is brought before the Minister for Repatriation; and if he does not take notice of the representations made to him, various branches of the league will soon get in touch with members of Parliament, and action willbe taken. As the result of my experience, [ say that, regardless of the department of which a Minister took charge, if he had a committee of this description butting in between him and heads of departments, between him and the Parliament, and between him and the people, an impossible position would soon be reached. I have never denied that committees have their usefulness. That they can serve a good purpose was revealed recently by the way in which the special committee which reported to the Minister in connexion with repatriation matters did its job. Having completed its task, it ceased to exist. The broadcasting committee is different. I am one of many who have never been quite sure that that committee ought to have been set up, but I can sec nothing of value to the soldier, the administration, the Parliament, or the taxpayer emerging from the appointment of a Repatriation Committee. We had better look that fact in the face now, and decide not to establish it.

Mr SPENDER:
Warringah

.- I share the misgivings expressed by the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) about committees, but, at the moment, I am more concerned to make certain that the rates of pension shall be reviewed. I am determined that shall be done, and, therefore, I am prepared to accept the proposal of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles), provided that certain words be added f.o it. I therefore move -

That the following new sub-section he added to proposed new section 56L - “ (2.) The Committee first appointed under this Part shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, within three months after its appointment, consider the matter of the adequacy of the rates of pension payable under this Act, and shall, within fourteen sitting days of the Parliament after the expiration of that period of three months report to the Parliament on that matter.”.

I want to make certain that the umbrella which we have been told is being provided for the protection of soldiers does not contain too many holes. My amendment would give a definite direction to the committee to deal with the adequacy of the pension.

Sir GEORGE BELL:
Darwin

– I see no virtue in adopting the proposed new part. The idea of appointing a committee to examine proposals to be placed before the Parliament is not new. As the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) said, the Congress of the United States of America has had a committee system in operation for many years. Every proposal for legislation is examined by the appropriate committee. The committee system operates also in the British House of Commons. Happenings in this Parliament, however, during this week should convince honorable members that the committee system would be of little value in this Parliament. Ever since the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) spoke on Tuesday last there has been an almost continuous debate on this subject. We have had an excellent committee in operation. Almost every member who has risen to speak has praised the committee for doing what he described as “ a fine job of work “. Nevertheless, as the debate proceeded, speaker after speaker indicated that the judgment of the special committee was wrong. Such matters as the rates of pensions, eligibility for a pension, the person to whom the pension should be paid - matters into which the special committee had inquired - were discussed, notwithstanding that the special committee was much better informed on those subjects than were the members in this chamber. It can be said, too, that the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia is, in general, better informed, and more sympathetic regarding the needs of the returned soldier than are most members of Parliament. The league devotes its energies to the interests of service men. Some of its most prominent officers do little else. They work without hope of reward. I am convinced that they are more concerned for the welfare of this country in general than are many members of this Parliament who have spoken on this subject. The special committee was guided largely by the opinions of those men, and I had hoped that the Parliament also would have been guided by them. The debate in this chamber this week does not reflect credit on the Parliament, nor does it commend the committee system. Immediately «a bill is introduced in the Congress of the United States of America it is referred to the appropriate committee. That committee examines the proposition; but, I repeat, the presentation of its reports is not followed by a week’s debate in Congress on the subject upon which the committee has reported: If we intended to follow a similar course in this Parliament I should support the proposal. However, my faith in our committee system has waned considerably during recent years, and, particularly, during the last few weeks. I now consider it to be of little, or no value. The Repatriation Commission is a competent body. It is better informed upon repatriation matters than any committee appointed by this Parliament could inform itself over a period of months, or years. The commission advises the Minister; and the Minister is responsible to this Parliament for the administration of the Repatriation Act. It is now proposed to appoint a standing committee to inquire into every matter which the Minister may be requested by returned soldier organizations to refer to it. The commission and the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia are mentioned as the most suitable bodies to submit requests for such inquiries. Any branch of the latter organization which is dissatisfied with decisions of the commission could ask the Minister to refer such matters to the proposed committee. We can easily imagine what will happen. Obviously, the proposed committee will not be free from party politics. The Minister will be able to refer to it any matter as he himself decides. In those circumstances, ministerial responsibility will go by the board. Does any honorable member seriously suggest that the proposed committee will be capable of giving more reliable advice to the Minister than is now made available to him by the Repatriation Commission ? That , body devotes its whole time to its work. I shall not support the proposal. It will not be beneficial to returned soldiers. Certainly, it will not help the Minister. The committee system is excellent in theory, but it is not working out well in practice in this Parliament. After the exhibition we witnessed in this chamber during the last two days, when honorable members examined in detail each recommendation of the special committee, although the members of the committee, as the result of their investigation, were better informed on the subject, I have lost faith completely in the committee system.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– I oppose the inclusion of the proposed new part. I . do not suggest for one moment that the Government, intends to make the proposed committee an administrative body. I am sure that that is not in the mind of the Minister (Mr. Frost), and that only matters involving general repatriation policy, and matters directly related to the administration of the commission - such as eligibility for pensions, and rates of pensions - will be submitted to the committee. However, I foresee that if the Minister failed to keep a tight rein on the committee it might very easily develop administrative functions. Should that happen, all the disabilities mentioned by the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) and the honorable member for Darwin (Sir George Bell) would arise. It is for the following reasons I oppose the adoption of the proposed new part. The Minister is in direct charge of the Repatriation Department. He is assisted by the commission, whose virtues have been extolled by the right honorable member for Kooyong. The commission has the services of a deputy commissioner in each State, whilst every co-operation is given to the department by the various returned soldiers’ organizations, which are virtually the watch-dogs of repatriation in Australia. Therefore, no necessity exists for the proposed committee. Indeed, such a body will cause duplication and extravagance. If many of our existing committees, along with quite a number of business boards, were wiped out, ire should obtain more efficiency and expedition in our war effort.

Mr COLES:
Henty

.-Nothing contained in the proposal which I have submitted suggests that the proposed committee shall be an administrative body in any respect. The proposal simply is that the committee will carry out functions similar to those which have been performed by the special committee upon whose report the bill is based. The proposed committee may consider and report only upon such matters as are submitted to it by a resolution of either House of the Parliament, or by the Minister. I am prepared to embody in my proposal the two amendments suggested by the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), provided the Minister is allowed to exercise his discretion as to what matters. he may ask the committee to investigate. I am entirely opposed to making it mandatory for the Minister to refer all matters to the committee which the commission, or the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia may ask to be investigated. As a matter of fact, the Minister already has power under proposed new section 56l to refer any matter to the committee for investigation. However, as the Minister (Mr. Frost) has stated that he is willing to accept both the honorable member’s proposals, I fin quite willing to embody them in mine, provided the honorable member for Melbourne is prepared to make the alteration which I have indicated, and thus allow the Minister to exercise his discretion as to what matters he may refer for inquiry to the committee. I oppose the amendment moved by the honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender), which provides that the proposed committee shall consider and report to the Parliament within three months upon the new rates of pensions fixed under this measure. Any honorable member can move in that direction at any time.

I believe that the proposed committee can investigate and solve many knotty problems which deeply concern the people whom our repatriation legislation is designed to benefit. Certainly, the committee will relieve the Minister of many of his burdens. The description of the proposal as a buck-passing proposal is unjustified. Surely, we can put aside party politics and consider repatriation problems without bias. Such an attitude towards our repatriation legislation will enable all parties to pull together. Indeed, it may bring nearer the formation of a national government.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

– I have no objection to the principle involved in the setting up of this committee, but I have certain objections to the details of its proposed functions. The Repatriation Commission has done a good job in the past, is still doing a good job, and I have no doubt will continue to do so in the future, provided that its administration is not interfered with. Under the constitution of the proposed standing committee, for reasons very well explained by the right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies), there is every probability that the work of the commission will be interfered with. If that could be avoided, I should be prepared to support the proposal, and I suggest to the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles) and to the Government that adequate safeguards would be established if the word “ policy “ were added after the word “ repatriation “ wherever occurring in proposed new section 56l. The effect would be that the committee could report upon any matter affecting repatriation policy. That would remove any possibility of the committee interfering with the administration of the Repatriation Commission. I trust that the honorable member for Henty and the Government will accept my suggestion.

Dr PRICE:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · UAP

.-There is much to be said in favour of the establishment of a standing committee on repatriation. One good reason is the unity, peace. and accord which usually is associated with committee meetings, in contrast to the envy, hatred and malice which too often is evident in parliamentary debates. To those who would attack the committee system, I point out that the envy, hatred and malice displayed in the course of this debate has not come from members of the special committee which investigated repatriation matters, but from other interests in this chamber. This debate has shown that the setting up of the proposed committee is necessary in the light of the widely-held view in this chamber that amendments of the Repatriation Act will be necessary in the near future. The falling value of the £1 indicates that the proposed committee will be called upon to investigate certain matters almost at once. Strong support for the committee system has been expressed by Professor Bland, of Sydney University, who drew the attention of the Broadcasting Committee to the tremendous success of that system in the Congress of the United States of America, where important bodies such as the Foreign Relations Committee are now functioning, and in the British Parliament, where committees such as the Standing Committee on Estimates and Accounts is doing excellent work. Professor Bland’s idea was that committees should not interfere in any way with a body such as the Repatriation Commission or the Australian Broadcasting Commission, but that they maintain an adequate liaison to keep Parliament in touch with developments and to advise Parliament on the various matters. With that end in view, it was laid down that the Broadcasting Committee should discuss only matters referred to it by either House of Parliament or by the Minister. The procedure that has been adopted is that should the committee find anything which it considers should be investigated, it asks the Minister to refer that matter to it. That practice has worked splendidly with the present Postmaster-General (Senator Ashley), but there is always a danger that a hostile Minister may seriously obstruct the work of the committee.

I shall mention three practical points which have arisen from my experience of committee work: First, it is absolutely vital that parliamentary committees should confine their investigations to questions of principle and not deal with questions of administration. Once a committee starts to play around with the administration of bodies such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission or the Repatriation Commission or attempt to take into their own hands consideration of individual grievances which are not matters of general principle, the whole parliamentary committee system will become so cumbersome that undoubtedly it will collapse. Secondly, I am glad that under this proposal the suggested personnel of the committee is small ; it consists of only six members. This is a sma.ll Parliament of only 110 members, and we have not the personnel, nor do I . think that the country can spare the funds, to set up big committees. I am sure that my colleagues will agree that the Special Committee on Broadcasting which consisted 1 of six members, and which was under the chairmanship of Senator Gibson, was more workable than the new Broadcasting Committee with its personnel of nine. In that connexion, one calls to mind the story of a commission which founded one of the, Australian colonies. This consisted of ten commissioners, and which, allegedly, spent most of its time at meetings explaining to members what had “happened at the previous meeting. Perhaps that is an exaggeration, but it indicates the danger of unwieldy committees Personally, I should like to have seen the proposed committee even smaller than is now suggested. The third point I should like to make is one to which consideration might be given when Parliament meets again: It would be a great improvement if it were provided that a chairman of a parliamentary committee could not also be a member of another committee. ‘ Such a rule would mean that a chairman of a committee would be able to give his entire time to the work of that committee, to his parliamentary duties, and to his electorate. It is not fair to burden any man with an undue volume of committee work. In the past there have been instances of honorable members sitting on three or four parliamentary committees, and I contend that at least the chairman of a committee should have :no other committee work. 1 pay a tribute to the members of Parliament, who, in war-time, have carried out onerous duties on various committees. There has been much criticism of certain committees in this chamber, but, based on my experience on the Broadcasting Committee and on continual contact with members of other committees, my view is that these bodies have done a wonderful job for the country.

At this juncture, I desire to counter the untruthful libel published in a newspaper recently. It stated that members of parliamentary committees did most of the work in their own States, and were paid allowances for doing it. As every one knows, members of committees, who work in their own States and home cities, do not receive an allowance. Members have devoted months to committee duties, and have never accepted one penny as travelling allowance, because they were residing in their own State. If certain sections of the press must throw slime at members of parliament, they should see that the slime is real, and not a tissue of lies.

I have pleasure in supporting the appointment of this committee. The committee system has functioned most successfully in Great Britain and the United States of America, and I think it will be successful in the Commonwealth, particularly if the improvements which I suggested are adopted.

Mr BLACKBURN:
Bourke

.- I support the original !proposal of the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles), but I object to the amendment that he proposes to accept, and I shall not vote for it. The amendment to which I take exception provides that -

The Minister may refer to the Committee any such mutter concerning repatriation which the Commission or the Federal Executive of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia requests him to refer to the Committee.

– I trust that the committee will dispose of these amendments as soon as possible. I am not attempting to coerce the committee, and, if honorable members wish to continue the debate, I am prepared to remain.

Amendment of proposed new clause (Mr. Spender’s) negatived.

Mr ANTHONY:
Richmond

.- I believe that the committee will not benefit the operation of the Repatriation Act, but the Minister (Mr. Frost) has said that he hopes that it is not going to be availed of to any great extent.

Mr Frost:

– I cannot see that it will be.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I wish to ensure as far as possible that it will not be used to a greater extent than is necessary, by placing some limitation upon the fees to be paid to the members of the committee. I find, upon examination of the records of some of the committees that have been appointed, that very large sums of money have been drawn in fees of £2 2s. a day, and I can see very little evidence of benefit a& the result of that expenditure. In order to ensure that an undue amount of time will not be expended in following up various matters that might well be dealt with by the Minister himself, I move -

That, after the proposed new section 56l, the following new section he inserted: - “ 30m. The aggregate amount of travelling expenses payable to a member of the Committee shall not exceed fifty pounds in any one year.”-.

Amendment of proposed new clause (Mr. Anthony’s) negatived.

Question put -

That the new clause 39a proposed to be inserted (Mr. Coles’s amendment) be inserted.

The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. Martens.)

AYES: 35

NOES: 19

Majority…… 16

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

New clause agreed to.

New clause 39b -

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

– Atthe request of the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott), I move -

That, after clause 39a, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 39B. After section fifty-seven a of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - 57b. Rates of pension (other than service pension payable to a member of the Forces) and rates of prescribed periodical allowances shall be adjusted from time to time at intervals not exceeding six months (commencing with the half year ending on the thirtieth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and fortythree), in accordance with variations in the cost of living, in such manner and subject to such conditions as are prescribed ‘.”.

In an earlier speech on the bill, I made a somewhat lengthy reference to this matter. I deeply regret that the honorable member for New England, who was prepared to speak upon it, has been obliged to leave Canberra. The object of the amendment is almost entirely to place war pensioners and their dependants in the same position as invalid and old-age pensioners in regard to increases of the cost of living. For some time, the cost of living has been rising. Due to the copious releases of credit which have recently taken place and are meditated in the future, it threatens to rise still higher. All of us recognize that war pensions are not in the nature of a charity. They are not even on the same basis as invalid and old-age pensions. The purpose is that they shall substantially compensate an injured returned soldier and his dependants for loss of health and in other ways on account of his war service. Although I opposed an increase beyond that of 20 per cent. which the Government placed before the committee, I am greatly concerned that there shall be no lowering of the value of the amount awarded to returned soldiers and their dependants as the result of a steep rise of the cost of living. The agreement which I made with the honorable member for New England was that the amendment should be so framed that it would provide for an increase or decrease of the rates of pension - other than the service pension, payable to a member of the forces, which is already provided for under another act - and of the rates of prescribed periodical allowances. These amounts will be adjusted according to increases or decreases of the cost of living. The amount received by the pensioner will be exactly calculated so as to ensure that it will at all times purchase the same quantity of goods. In that way, he will have real value because the purchasing value of his pension will remain constant, notwithstanding the upward or downward movement of the cost of living. This is somewhat different from the provision in relation to invalid and old-age pensions, in which case there is a flooring below which pensions cannot fall without the consent of this Parliament. I consider that the method which I now propose is the fairer. I cannot imagine that exception would be taken by any one to a variation of the amount received, corresponding with the rise or fall of the cost of living, so that the returned soldier and his dependants may continuously occupy the same position, irrespective of money changes over which they have no control. I say emphatically that I do not believe in this principle as a general rule. If a fresh commencement had to be made, I should not be prepared to apply it to invalid and old-age pensions. But exservice men and their dependants are entitled to claim that we shall ensure that they will not be placed in an impossible position owing to variations of money values. In my opinion, no other section of the community has an equal claim. The amendment merely lays down the main principle, leaving the detailed arrangements to be covered by regulations. In the first instance, the Crown Law officers drew it in a form suitable for regulations to be incorporated in the act. Although the proposition may have considerable results under certain conditions, it is so simple that a returned soldier will be able to gather the gist of it from a cursory examination. The details, scientifically worked out, can be incorporated in regulations.

I have much pleasure in moving the amendment on behalf of the honorable member for New England, and in heartily supporting it.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment. The honorable member for Wakefield (Mr. Duncan-Hughes) said that it was a simple provision, but it would create serious administrative difficulties. This proposed provision would be almost impossible to administer, because pensioners receive partial rate pensions, and the pensions of children and other dependants are involved. The calculations required to ascertain the increase in, say, the case of a child of a member whose pension is payable at the 10 per cent. rate, where the cost of living has risen1s. a week, would be difficult, and the increase, if any, would be almost negligible. All soldier organizations are known to be opposed to the principle of directly associating war pensions with the cost of living, and no recommendation for the introduction of the principle has ever been received. Immediately the cost of living fell, and a reduction was indicated, strong opposition would be met with from exservicemen’s organizations, &c. The work involved at each change would necessitate the whole staff of repatriation branch officers working day and night for a fortnight, during which period all other work would necessarily cease. This would result in delays, and hardship to claimants and appellants would follow. Other types of payments, such as medical sustenance, unemployment sustenance, educational allowances and living allowances bear some relation to war pensions, and increase one without increasing the other would cause misunderstanding. Such payments would have to be adjusted at the same time as pensions were adjusted in order to avoid anomalies. The different rates of war pensions, service pensions and prescribed allowances, either fixed or maximum rates, number well over 200. In very many cases the payments to a family consist of various kinds of pension or allowance. They consist of war pension and service pension ; war pension and fifth schedule amount; war pension and education allowance. The possible variations are numerous. With all this complex system of payments under the act and regulations, the department could not, without serious dislocation, undertake variation of amounts in accordance with price index numbers.

New clause negatived.

New clause 44a.

Motion (by Mr. Coles) agreed to -

That, after clause 44, the following new clause he inserted: - “44a. After the Fifth Schedule to the Principal Act the following Schedule is inserted: -

page 2117

QUESTION

THE SIXTH SCHEDULE

Section 56c

Declaration by Members of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Repatriation.

A.B., do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that, according to the best of my skill and ability, I will faithfully, impartially, and truly execute the office and perform the duties of a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Repatriation.

(A.B.).’ “.

New clause 44B.

Motion (by Mr. Frost) agreed to -

That, after clause 44a, the following new clause be inserted: - “ 44b. Where, by reason of the operation of the amendments effected by the foregoing provisions of this Act, pension becomes payable in respect of the incapacity or death of any member of the Forces and any payment has already been made by the Commonwealth under any other Act (other than the Superannuation Act 1922-1937, or that Act as subsequently amended) or as an act of grace, in respect of that incapacity or death, the Commission shall have regard to all such payments under any other Act or as an act of grace and, for the purpose of making such adjustments as it thinks just and equitable, may determine the date of commencement of the pension or the amount thereof which may be paid from time to time.”.

Postponed clause 4 -

Section four of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words “ Division 6 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 4.” and inserting in their stead the words - “ Division 6 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to certain male Members of Forces.

Division 7 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to Members of Women’s Services.”.

Upon which Mr. Coles had moved by way of amendment -

That all the words after “ Principal Act “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “ is amended -

by omitting the words ‘Division 6 -

Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 4.’ and inserting in their stead the words - “ Division 6- Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to certain male Members of the Forces.

Division 7 - Extension of Application of Provisions of Divisions 1 to 5 to Members of Women’s Services.’; and

b ) by inserting, after the words “ Part IV. - Assistance and Benefits.”, the words ‘ Part IVa. - Parliamentary Standing Committee on Repatriation.’ “.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Postponed clause 41 -

The First Schedule to the Principal Act.

Upon which Sir Frederick Stewart had moved by way of amendment -

That the following paragraph be added to the proposed new First Schedule: - “Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the rate of pension in the case of a widow and her children shall be, for the period commencing on the date of the commencement of the pension and ending on the date twelve months after the death of the member of the Forces, at a rate in the aggregate not less than the aggregate amount received by the widow in respect of herself and children by way of standard allotment and dependants’ allowance immediately prior to the death of the member.”.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation · Franklin · ALP

– On this clause the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) had moved an amendment to extend the allowances to the widow and children for twelve months after the death of the soldier. The clause was postponed. Since then, the senior Ministers present discussed this amendment with the Repatriation Commission and with Sir Gilbert Dyett, federal president of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen’s Imperial League of Australia, before his departure for Melbourne this morning. Sir Gilbert has a close and intimate knowledge of the effect which failure to accept this proposal could have upon the widows, and after full discussion with him, the Goernment decided that it is justified in accepting the principle of the amendment, with the proviso that the period be limited to six months after the death of the soldier. Honorable members can rest assured that the Government is fully in sympathy with the principle of the amendment, but it is informed by its legal advisers that the amendment may have far-reaching implications in its present form. Therefore, the Government undertakes to move a suitable amendment in the Senate to give effect in principle to the proposal contained in the amendment. In the circumstances, I ask the honorable member for Parramatta to withdraw his amendment, and to accept the assurance I am giving on behalf of the Government.

Mr FRANCIS:
Moreton

.- I understand that the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) arranged with the Minister that the period of six months should date from the time of the notification of the death of the soldier. Otherwise, the provision might be of no benefit to the widows of many men who died in Malaya, because more than six months would have elapsed in their case before they received notification.

Mr Frost:

– I am prepared to agree to that.

Mr FRANCIS:

– On behalf of the honorable member for Parramatta, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment - by leave - withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Motion (by Sir Earle Page) - by leave - agreed to -

That clause 42 be reconsidered.

Clause 42 (Reconsideration) -

The Second Schedule to the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting the words “ £8 per fortnight “ and inserting in their stead the words “ £9 12s. per fortnight”.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- I move -

That, after paragraph (a), the following paragraph be inserted: - “ (aa) by omitting the third paragraph;”.

The paragraph proposed to be left out reads -

In the case of a member of the forces who is maintained in an establishment at the public expense for a period in excess of forty-two days, the special rate of pension shall not be payable, except for the first forty-two days of the period.

I have already explained that this provision operates harshly in cases of sufferers from tuberculosis and other diseases.

Mr Frost:

– I have no objection to the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second Schedule -

Amendments (by Mr. Frost) agreed to-

That the words “ thirty-three “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ thirty-two “.

That the words “ one hundred and two “ be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the words “ one hundred and three “.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report - by leave - adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2119

COMMONWEALTH BANK BILL 1943

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2119

ADJOURNMENT

Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill - Discussion of Grievances

Mr.CURTIN (Fremantle- Prime Minister) [4.20] . - In moving -

That the House do now adjourn,

I express to honorable members the indebtedness of the Government for the way in which they have remained continuously at work in order to complete the consideration in this House of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill, so that the measure can be considered by the Senate at the commencement of its deliberations next week. This has been a long and difficult task, and I think thatit would be proper for me to say that all honorable members are indebted to the members of the special committee of parliamentary exservicemen for the work done by them. We are also grateful to the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost), who, for nearly 26 hours, has sat continuously in charge of the bill.

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

-A debate on the order of the day, Financial Statement - Motion for Printing of Paper - will enable honorable members to discuss general matters. As far as I know, the bills already on the notice-paper will have to be dealt with before the present sittings are concluded. Leave has already been given for the introduction of a bill to make provision for furlough for temporary employees in the Public Service who have had twenty years’ service. A measure will be submitted to authorize an appropriation to enable the fertilizer bounty to be continued. I have also undertaken that time shall he given to the Leader ofthe Opposition (Mr. Fadden) to discuss the motion, of which he has given notice, with regard to dairy products. I shall endeavour so to arrange the business of the House that the report of the Standing Orders Committee may be debated. In accordance with a statement that I made some time ago, a bill is to be introduced in the Senate by the appropriate Minister to provide that soldiers under the age of 21 years may become enrolled as voters, and so that those soldiers over 21 years of age who have neglected to enrol may not be deprived of their voting rights. That, I think, completes the list of measures that the Government desires the Parliament to deal with before it goes into recess.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2120

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Audit Act - Finance - Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure for year 1 941-42, accompanied by the Report of the Auditor-General.

Ordered to be printed.

Customs Act - Proclamation (dated 10th March, 1943) prohibiting the Exportation (except under certain conditions) of Bitumen, &c.

National Security Act - National Security (Man Power) Regultaions - Orders - Protected undertakings (52).

House adjourned at 4.24 p.m.

page 2120

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Parliamentary Committees : Evidence

Mr Curtin:
ALP

n. - On the 25th September, 1942, the honorable member for Boothby (Dr. Price) asked me the following question, upon notice: -

Will the Prime Minister make available in each State library, State parliamentary library, and university library, a copy of the evidence tendered to joint standing and joint committees of the Commonwealth Parliament when such evidence is printed?

I desire to inform the honorable member that I have conferred with Mr. President and Mr. Speaker and that it has been agreed to meet the request as subsequently modified by the honorable member, i.e., that the number in each State be reduced to one copy - that for the State library, wherever it is possible to do so and where the cost involved is not appreciable.

Brandy for Medicinal Use.

Mr Beasley:
ALP

y. - On the 11th March, 1943, the honorable member for Batman (Mr. Brennan) asked the following question, without notice : -

I have received a letter from the Batman Women’s Organizing Committee in relation to the making of adequate supplies of brandy available in small quantities for medical use. I ask the Minister for Supply and Shipping whether he will give an assurance that adequate supplies in small quantities will be made available for this purpose?

The Minister for Trade and Customs has now furnished the following information : -

Arrangements designed to facilitate the supply of brandy in genuine medical cases are at present in operation. Under these arrangements, a person desiring the assistance of the department in obtaining medicinal requirements of brandy is required to make application supported by a medical certificate to the Collector of Customs of the State in which the applicant resides. In special cases, the collector is authorized to waive production of a medical certificate. Upon approval of the application, the collector issues the applicant with a. permit which enables him to obtain his prescribed requirements of brandy from the supplier specified in the permit.

Coal-mining Industry: Jumbunna and Outtrim; Strikes and Production.

Mr Beasley:
ALP

– On the 12th March, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) asked me whether I would give early consideration to the augmentation of the coal supplies of Victoria by re-opening, at Jumbunna and Outtrim. coal-mines which were worked by private enterprise some 40 years ago,but which had subsequently been closed as the result of the influence of the colliery proprietors of New South Wales.

I am now in a position to inform the honorable member that the question of re-opening these mines has already been considered by the Commonwealth Coal Commission, and it appears that, apart from the difficulties associated with the mining industry generally, there are certain technical problems associated with both fields. On the general question of augmenting Victorian coal supplies, the commission is of the opinion that this can best be achieved by obtaining the maximum production from the State coal-mine at Wonthaggi. The problem here is purely one of man-power, and until the labour requirements of this mine can be met, the commission feels that there would be little point in developing other sources of production. With regard to the two fields mentioned, the commission advises as follows : -

Jumbunna is a most difficult and costly proposition. The field is much faulted by displacements of major character and ventilation was a serious problem even when this mine was working. Outtrim has a seam of coal only 2 ft. 3 in. high at a depth of 746 feet ahead of the face, which was last worked in 1936.

Mr Hutchinson:

n asked the Minister for Supply and Shipping, upon notice -

How many strikes have taken place in the coal industry over the last twelve months to the present date?
How many men have been involved?
What is the total tonnage of coal lost owing to these strikes?
What have been the reasons for these stoppages ?
What are the estimated annual requirements of coal for Australia?
What has been the production over the past twelve months to date?

Mr Beasley:
ALP

– Questions 1, 2 and 4 relate to matters under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Ward), who will furnish the relevant information to the honorable member. The answers to the remaining questions are as follows : -

The latest recorded twelve-monthly period is that ending on the 20th February, 1943, and in respect of that period the figures are 827,250 tons.
For specific foreseen demands, estimated requirements are 15,000,000 tons. This figure does not include additions to reserve stocks.
For the same period as No. 3-15,028,568 tons.

The honorable member will appreciate that stoppages do not occur in a regular cycle, and figures taken over twelvemonthly periods at varying dates must necessarily fluctuate.

Communist Party:rail Priorities for Members.

Mr George Lawson:
ALP

n. - On Tuesday, the 16th March, the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) asked the following question, without notice : -

Has the Minister for Transport seen the statement attributed to Mr. J. B. Miles, general secretary of the Australian Communist party, published in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph; that 50 interstate delegates had been granted rail priorities to attend the thirteenth national congress of the Australian Communist party; if so, will the honorable gentleman state what class of priority has been granted to these delegates and, if the issue of such priorities indicates that the need for imposing restrictions upon travel is not so pressing now as it has been, will he consider the extension of similar facilities to the wives of soldiers?

I have caused inquiries to be made in respect to the granting of rail priorities to delegates attending the national congress of the Communist party and desire to point out that 25 travel permits were issued and not 50 as indicated in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph. In accordance with Priority Permit Travel Regulations 1-8, all delegates attending conferences are placed on No. 4 priority. This priority granted to the Communist party is the same priority as granted for church conferences, conferences of trade union organizations, wheat-growers, and other recognized bodies who periodically convene conferences to conduct the business of their organizations. This procedure has been followed since the introduction of the permit system on the 1st July last. The issuing of such permits to delegates attending conferences does not, in any way, indicate that the heavy strain imposed upon the railway systems has eased, but, on the contrary, the position has become more acute. The request of the honorable member for me to consider the extension of similar facilities to the wives of soldiers is one which has, at all times, received the careful and sympathetic consideration of myself and my department. As far as I am aware, all applications from soldiers’ wives for priority travel have been granted where it was foundthat the travel was necessary or advisable.

Impressment of Typewriter’s.

Mr Forde:
ALP

e. - On the 16th March, the honorable member for Lilley (Mr. Jolly) asked me a question regarding the impressment of typewriters in Brisbane. I now desire to advise the honorable member that typewriters were impressed by Captain Ramsay, an authorized purchasing and impressment officer, who purchases typewriters for the Army, Navy and Air Force. His authority is presented to the head of every firm visited and any person interviewed has the right to demand to see the authority. The statement that a firm from whom the typewriters were impressed was inundated by offers from persons prepared to sell typewriters is challenged, as is also the statement that the firm was able to purchase typewriters at a much lower price than paid by Captain Ramsay - taking into consideration age and mechanical condition. The Stationery Officer, Queensland Lines of Communication Area, tried, by advertising and other means, to obtain typewriters, prior to the visit of Captain Ramsay, and was unable to obtain sufficient machines to meet the needs of the Army. For this reason Captain Ramsay was instructed to proceed to Queensland to obtain the typewriters necessary. Two hundred and eighteen typewriters were purchased in Brisbane at an average cost of £19 each. Over 500 firms have been called on in Australia, and there has been only one complaint, from the Queensland Pastoral Supplies Proprietary Limited, 27 Bowenstreet, Brisbane. This firm had at least twenty machines - some of them not in use - and 20 per cent. of this number was called for, this being the usual percentage taken from commercial houses. The method used throughout the Commonwealth of valuation and mechanical inspection has been as follows: - In South Australia and Victoria, a mechanic representing the Commonwealth Supply and Tender Board accompanied Captain Ramsay, and in Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, a typewriter mechanic attached to the Stationery Store performed this duty. In each case the mechanic had had many years of experience in the repair and valuation of typewriters. In the case of Queensland, the mechanic accompanying Captain Ramsay has had over twenty years’ experience as head mechanic of one of the leading typewriter housesin Queensland. Valuation is based on the age and mechanical condition of a typewriter. The mechanical inspection is made on the premises of firms visited, and after valuation is made by the mechanic, it is either amended or approved by Captain Ramsay. This procedure of inspection and valuation has been endorsed by the Business Board and approved by the Minister. australian Army:Service Chevrons; Tax Exemptions; Sufferers from Malaria; Leave; Treatment of Soldier Suffering from Mental Derangement.

Mr Forde:
ALP

– On the 12th March, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell) asked me a question regarding service chevrons and tax exemption for men serving at Darwin.

I now desire to advise the honorable member that service chevrons are awarded for service in any area which, under the order governing their issue, is declared to be a “ theatre of operations “ for the purpose of that order. The question of what areas are to be declared theatres of operations is decided by the Commander-in-Chief. His decisions in this matterare based on the operational situation from timeto time and the matter is kept constantly under review. The mandated territories of New Guinea and Papua have already been declared theatres ofoperations. Darwin has not been declared a theatre of operations, but recent events there will be taken fully into consideration in the current review of the matter.

With regard to taxation deductions, the Treasurer has approved that members of the Australian Military Forces who serve for a period longer than six months in Papua, New Guinea, or any other territory of the Commonwealth which is not part of Australia, will be exempt from income tax while so serving and. that such exemption will continue until the group year following the financial year in which they return to Australia. It will thus be seen that members serving in the Northern Territory are not, by reason of that service only, exempt from payment of income tax. This matter will also be kept under review in accordance with the progress of operations, and I shall direct the Treasurer”s attention to the honorable member’s representations.

On the 4th March, 1943, the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir

Earle Page) in a question, without notice, asked me whether I would give consideration to extending leave to persons who developed malaria during the fourteen days’ leave which they were granted upon return to Australia from tropical areas. I now desire to advise the right honorable member that an instruction has been issued to provide that the leave of a member of the military forces who has been granted recreation leave or disembarkation leave and who is admitted to hospital during such leave, is to be extended so that he will receive the full effective period of his leave.

Mr Curtin:
ALP

n - On the 4th March, 1943, the honorable member for Richmond (Mr. Anthony) referred to certain soldiers on leave from New Guinea who desired to visit their wives and families in New Zealand but were unable to secure seats on the plane. I desire to inform the honorable member that Army regulations provide that if sufficient leave is available to members of the forces who have the requisite authority and time within the leave period to proceed to and return from their home town in New Zealand they may do so. The only practicable method would be by air, but members are required to make their own bookings, pay their ownexpenses outside Australia, and are warned that passages booked may be cancelled at any time owing to priority bookings which are not available for leave travel. Inquiries made by the Department of Civil Aviation with regard to the availability of seats on the SydneyAuckland service indicate that early this month the traffic officer of Qantas-Empire Airways received an inquiry from Victoria Barracks, Sydney, for twelve seats for soldiers from Sydney to Auckland and return on a fixed date. The position was that for the next trip only three seats were available, and the priorities for the return trips were governed by the New Zealand authorities. The inquirer was informed that it was impossible to obtain twelve seats on one trip without priority, and he was referred to the Department of Civil Aviation. However, no application was made to the department, and if it had been made it could not have been granted for one trip. I am assured that Qantas-Empire Airways always give as much preference as is possible to soldiers returning home. It is pointed out, however, that available aircraft are limited and no guarantee can be given that those granted seats will he able to return on a fixed date. The position at present is that all priority and non-priorityseats are booked up to the 17th Aprilnext and there are reservations beyond that date.

Mr Forde:
ALP

– I wish to refer to a statement made by the honorable member for Deakin (Mr. Hutchinson) on the 12th February, 1943, regarding a soldier who was suffering from a mental disability and was discharged from the forces. The honorable member stated that the mental disorder of this soldier was known to the military authorities some time before any hospital treatment was given, and indicated that that fact would emerge clearly from a letter which I had written to him in response to his representations; Continuing, he said that some months after his enlistment, the soldier showed signs of mental disorder and was given leave to go to his home on the 17th June, 1942. He returned to camp on the 20th June. The honorable member went on to say that shortly afterwards the mental disorder was again noticed and once more he was sent home on leave. I should like to point- out to honorable members that, at the time of writing to the honorable member for Deakin, I was unaware of the fact that the soldier had. been given leave on the 17th June, and for that reason no reference to that fact was made in the letter which the honorable member read out in the House. I have had further inquiries made, and it has been reported to me quite definitely that the soldier showed no signs of mental disorder on the 17th June, 1942. He was a member of the Australian Army Ordnance Corps Training Depot at Bendigo, and was employed in the regimental aid post directly under the eye of the regimental medical officer. This officer states that the soldier had not appeared on sick parade, nor were any signs of mental disturbance noticed. He did, however, appear somewhat highly strung and in need of a rest. As he had leave due to him, the regimen tal medical officer gave him a few days home leave on the 17th June, 1942, and may have told him to report to his area medical officer if he did not feel well whilst on leave. The soldier returned to camp and said that;. he had seen the area medical officer, who had extended his leave, but that he was anxious to get back to camp. Further leave was due to the soldier and the regimental medical officer again sent him home on the 28th June, 1942, but states quite definitely that there was no sign at that time of mental derangement. I might here interpolate that the reportwhich I have received from the medical officers in my department is ‘ that the soldier’s trouble could quite easily have been in its early stages on the 28th June, and that, although on arrival at his home the soldier may have appeared -quite mental to his relatives, he may not have volunteered his delusions or acted strangely to other persons. Had this soldier shown signs of mental derangement, I have no doubt that action would have been taken to ensure that he had proper medical care. However, he certainly gave no such indications to- the medical officers at his camp, and appeared only to need rest and change. In these circumstances, the officers can hardly be blamed for having sent him home rather than to hospital. In his speech on the 12th February, the honorable member for Deakin stated that- after the soldier returned on the 2Sth June, his sister and other relatives noticed his mental state and communicated with the authorities. I am not sure whether the honorable member intended to convey that the soldier’s sister and his relatives had not noticed anything unusual in his behaviour during his previous period, of leave at home between the 17th and the 20 th June; but, it might be fair to infer that that is the case, since the sister, in her letter to the honorable member, made no reference to any unusual signs before the 28th June. If that inference be correct, it would be quite apparent that the soldier was, at that time, showing no signs whatever of any serious mental disorder. As a result of information conveyed by the soldier’s relatives shortly after he arrived home on the 28th June, instructions were given to the medical officer at the Heidelberg area to go and see the .soldier at his home. On his arrival, the doctor noticed that the. soldier was in a mental state and suffering from hallucinations. He, there- fore, instructed the soldier to report to 115th Army General Hospital, Heidelberg, but this the soldier refused to do. The medical officer, considering that the soldier should be taken .care of, called at 115 th Army General Hospital, reported the case, and the hospital authorities arranged for the, soldier to bc brought by the Provost Corps to the hospital. The honorable member informed the House that when the military police arrived to take the soldier away they intended to take him to the Russell-street gaol; but I feel sure that if the soldier’s relatives were of opinion that the military police had intended to remove the soldier to Russellstreet then, either they misunderstood what was said to them by the military police, or- else the military police misinterpreted the instructions which were given to them. The report which I have received is quite definite that it was the intention of the hospital authorities who gave the instructions to the military police that the soldier should be brought to hospital. It will be appreciated by honorable members that the Army had no indication ‘at all. of the soldier’s mental derangement before his sister communicated with the- authorities, and immediately steps were taken to have the soldier transferred to hospital. In fact, the soldier reported himself to the 115th Army General Hospital on the 4th July, 1942, the day after the military police had called at his home. It will be apparent, therefore, that the honorable member for Deakin was not in possession of the full facts when he informed the House that the mental disorder of the soldier was known to the military authorities some time before any hospital treatment was given. With regard to the medical history of this case, I should like to place before the House the following facts which I have received from competent medical advisers : The soldier presented himself for medical examination, prior to enlistment, at Heidelberg on the 6th January, 1942. One of the questions asked him was, “Has any member of your family suffered from nervous breakdown or mental trouble?” He answered in’ the negative. Inquiries have since been made, and it has been ascertained that the soldier’s mother died in Mont Park

Mental Hospital, and that her brother was also a patient in a mental hospital some years ago. Had this information been disclosed at the time of enlistment, further inquiries would have been made before the soldier was accepted for service. At the time of his admission to the military hospital, on the 4th July, the soldier was suffering from schizophrenia, a disease which arises from constitutional causes, and could not be induced by military service. I drew the attention of the honorable member to this fact in my letter of the 2oth January, and in his. statement in the House he expressed surprise that such a statement could be made. He pointed out that the soldier at his enlistment was a “ perfectly sane, normal and intelligent man and was passed physically fit and taken’ into the Army . He continued that what subsequently happened was not known except that the ‘ soldier was attacked by a mental disorder. The honorable member concluded by saying that, when a man enlisted and was accepted as medically fit, thu Government had a definite responsibility to him. My 1 reply is ‘ that the med’ical opinion is unanimous that the di.-case from which this soldier suffered was constitutional and arose from a predisposition and not from the circumstances of his military training. The soldier certainly was passed as medically fit by the Army; but the medical officers who passed the soldier were relying upon his own statement that there had never been any mental trouble in his family. Surely they are entitled to rely upon such statements and cannot be expected to carry out independent and searching investigations into the family history of every person who presents himself for enlistment. The constitutional predisposition of this soldier to the complaint from which he is n’ow suffering could not be determined by clinical examination. A correct reply on his part to the inquiry concerning the family history was all-important. The honorable member suggested that because the soldier appeared quite normal at the time of 1,is enlistment and some time afterwards became subject to violent mental trouble, the mental trouble must be attributable to the circumstances of his military training. I cannot agree that, because the illness manifested itself for the first time after the soldier commenced his military training, it must be attributable to his training, nor does competent medical opinion accept that proposition. I quite agree that if the Army accepts the services of a man whois perfectly normal and healthy, and that subsequently, as a result of his services, the soldier’s health is broken, the Government has a responsibility to see that he is properly cared for and provided for; but I cannot agree that the Government is responsible to care for every person whose health is broken after, but not as a result of, military service - particularly in cases such as this, where the soldier has not given his complete medical history. Again, I- would repeat that had the soldier disclosed the fact that his mother and her brother had suffered from mental complaints, further inquiries would have been made, and it is quite possible that the soldier’s services would never have been accepted.

The final matter regarding which I wish .to place further facts before the House concerns the valuables which the soldier lost. The honorable member stated on the 12th February .that the soldier had been admitted to the Australian General Hospital on the 9th July and was transferred to Royal Park on the 11th July, where he lost certain valuables, including some money. He continued that a person admitted under these circumstances should have his belongings checked and should not be left’ in possession of documents which would be in danger of being destroyed by himself or by others. In this regard, I would like to say that a searching inquiry has failed to reveal any’ record of this soldier having been in possession of money or valuables on his admission to 115th Australian General Hospital. When subsequently he was transferred to the Royal Park Receiving House he bad in his possession seven military badges, an Army pay-book and 9d. in cash. Since the soldier was not, at the time of his admission to the hospital,’ in possession of the valuables which unfortunately cannot now be traced, it can hardly be said that the Army is responsible to make good the loss to his relatives. The history df this soldier after his admission to the Australian General Hospital is that he became rapidly worse, and it became clear that his treatment could no longer be continued at the hospital. He was certified “ apparently insane, suffering from schizophrenia”, and was transferred on the 11th July to the Royal Park Receiving House. The considered medical opinion was that further treatment would not enable him to resume military training for some time, and that his complaint was not attributable to his military service. He was therefore discharged from the Army on the 27th July, whilst in the Royal Park Receiving House. Up to and including the date of his discharge from the Army he was the responsibility of the Army, who paid all expenses to that date. After the 27th July, responsibility for the soldier was taken over by the Public Trustee of Victoria as a case to be supervised by him. During August, the soldier’s sister, who was a frequent visitor to him, stated that he appeared to be fairly normal, and expressed her willingness to care for her brother. He was detained until the 12th September, under further treatment and observation, and on that date, as he appeared much better, be was discharged from the receiving house to the care of his sister. At the time of his discharge from the receiving house, however, he did not appear to have been completely restored. His bank book and insurance policy were held by the Public Trustee. The bankbook showed a credit of £41 Os. 3d., and the Public Trustee claimed an amount of £6 12s. 4d. from the estate for maintenance charges from the 27th July to the 12th September, which was the period between the date of his discharge from the Army and the dato of bis discharge from the receiving house. The soldier was still liable for service under Part IV. of the Defence Act, and some time after, his discharge from Royal Park Receiving House he was given notice .of call up. He reported on the 12th November, 1942, and was classified on the same day as “permanently unfit for military service “. The action for call up was in order under the provisions of Part IV. of the Defence Act.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 18 March 1943, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1943/19430318_reps_16_174/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

House of Representatives18 March 1943

QUESTION

PUBLICSERVICE PAY AND TAXATION

Mr McCALL:MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Mr CONELAN:GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr MARTENS:HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:

Mr Martens:

Mr FORDE:

Mr MARTENS:

Mr SPEAKER:

QUESTION

ACQUISITION OE PRIMARY PRODUCTS

Mr ABBOTT:NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EVATT:Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr Archie Cameron:

Dr EVATT:

Mr Archie Cameron:

Dr EVATT:

Mr Spender:

Dr EVATT:

Mr Menzies:

Dr EVATT:

COMMONWEALTH POWERS BILL

Mr CALWELL:MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Dr EVATT:ALP

MEAT INDUSTRY

Mr CURTIN:Prime Minister · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

FOOD CONTROL

Sir EARLE PAGE:COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS FOOD PLANNING

London, Wednesday

Dr EVATT:ALP

QUESTION

RUBBER SUBSTITUTES

Mr JOHNSON:KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEDMAN:Minister for War Organisation of Industry · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Mr SPENDER:

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

WAR INSOUTH-WEST PACIFIC AREA

Mr HUTCHINSON:DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:ALP

Mr CALWELL:

Mr CURTIN:

Mr McEwen:

Mr CURTIN:

QUESTION

CENTRAL WOOL COMMITTEE

Mr RANKIN:BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:ALP

QUESTION

VOLUNTEER DEFENCE CORPS

Mr MORGAN:REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FORDE:ALP

Mr Francis:

Mr FORDE:

Mr Morgan:

Mr FORDE:

QUESTION

SYDNEY BAKERS’ STRIKE

Mr HARRISON:WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CURTIN:ALP

QUESTION

HORSE-SHOES

Mr COLLINS:HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Collins:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr Collins:

Mr SPEAKER:

Mr COLLINS:

Mr DEDMAN:ALP

QUESTION

House of Representatives
18 March 1943

Mr McCALL:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
Treasurer · MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CONELAN:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP

Mr MARTENS:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General · BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

Dr EVATT:
ALP

Mr CURTIN:
Prime Minister · FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

Sir EARLE PAGE:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EVATT:
ALP

Mr JOHNSON:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister for War Organisation of Industry · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr HUTCHINSON:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr RANKIN:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr FORDE:
ALP

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr COLLINS:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr DEDMAN:
ALP

Mr JOLLY:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

Dr EVATT:
ALP

Mr SPOONER:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

Sir CHARLES MARR:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

Dr EVATT:
ALP

Mr CURTIN:
ALP

Mr PATERSON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Health · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

Mr PERKINS:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

Mr BEASLEY:
Minister for Supply and Shipping · WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr CHIFLEY:
ALP

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

Mr DUNCAN-HUGHES:
Wakefield

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

Mr POLLARD:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Prowse:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr McCALL:
Martin