House of Representatives
30 March 1944

17th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 17th Parliament
  3. 1944

Mr. Speaker (Hon. J. S. Rosevear) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2347

QUESTION

CONTROL OF KANGAROOS

Supplies op Snaring Wire.

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I have just received from the secretary of a primary producers’ organization a telegram which reads -

Kangaroo pest severe Flinders Island owing scarcity snaring wire. More kangaroo means less butter. Can you obtain release half ton wire immediately?

Can the Minister for Munitions release supplies of snaring wire for use on Flinders Island for the purpose mentioned?

Mr MAKIN:
Minister for Munitions · HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I am not unaware of the difficulties which beset constituents of the honorable gentleman in the matter stated : A survey of Tasmania in this regard has already been made. I am sorry that I have to inform the honorable member that, at the moment, the stocks of snaring wire are sufficient for only 25 per cent. of the requirements. I. suggest that the honorable member advise those concerned to reduce their orders upon the manufacturers to that percentage. If they do, that quantity will be supplied to them.

page 2347

QUESTION

MEAT INDUSTRY

Country Killing Works

Mr ADERMANN:
MARANOA, QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture state when the Government is likely to finalize its policy in respect ofthe establishment of country killing works?

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · GWYDIR, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I cannot state definitely when a decision will be made. The Government is endeavouring to evolve a uniform scheme in consultation with the States. Quite a lot of detailed work has to be done. I hope that finality will be reached at an early date. When it is, I shall advise the honorable member.

page 2347

QUESTION

KALGOORLIE WOOD LINE

Mr JOHNSON:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Labour and National Service received further information of the progress of the negotiations for the settlement of the dispute in connexion with the Kalgoorlie wood line, an effect of which has been the hampering of certain mining operations on account of lack of firewood?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Minister for Labour and National Service · MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · ALP

– State authorities and officials of the Commonwealth Arbitration Court were consulted, with the result that Mr. Mooney, an industrial commissioner, was sent to Kalgoorlie, where he called a conference of all the parties concerned and subsequently requested the men to resume work, which they did. He then made an examination of the territory within a radius of 100 miles of Kalgoorlie, in which wood-cutting operations were conducted, and later sent bis decision to me for signature. I am satisfied that the anomalies which gave rise to the dispute have been removed, and I hope that there will not be further trouble.

page 2347

QUESTION

WOOLLEN CLOTHS

Mr HOLT:
FAWKNER, VICTORIA

– It is reported that the Government has decided to refer to the Tariff Board for inquiry and report the matter of the policy to be adopted in relation to the manufacture of woollen cloth in Australia. I ask the Minister for War Organization of Industry, as chairman of the Production Executive, whether or not a time limit has been fixed for the completion of the inquiry, and what assurance he can give that a decision in this very important matter will not be delayed.

Mr DEDMAN:
Minister in charge of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research · CORIO, VICTORIA · ALP

– This matter was discussed by the Production Executive on Tuesday, and according to my recollection the Minister for Trade and Customs stated that the inquiry would be completed by the Tariff Board in approximately three weeks, when its report would immediately be made available for consideration by the Production Executive. The policy of the Government is to expedite the inquiry, and to reach a decision as soon as possible.

page 2348

QUESTION

INVALID AND OLD-AGE PENSIONS

Mr CHAMBERS:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– In view of the great hardship that is occasioned to invalid and old-age pensioners by reason of the insufficiency of the present pension to provide an adequate living standard, I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether or not the Government proposes to increase the rate.

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

– It is not usual to announce determinations in respect of policy in reply to questions. Any representations which the honorable member may care to make on this or any other subject will receive the fullest considera-tion of the Government.

page 2348

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ARMY

Leave for Soldiers in Western Australia.

Mr BOWDEN:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Is the Minister for the Army aware that members of certain military units serving in Western Australia are having six days deducted from their accrued home leave because they volunteered to assist in garnering the wheat harvest in that State? If so, will the honorable gentleman take steps that will ensure that the Commonwealth will not be associated with cheese-paring of this kind?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I am not aware that six days were deducted from the leave of certain Army personnel in Western Australia who assisted in harvesting, operations. I shall consider the suggestion of the honorable member, and forthwith communicate with Army Head-quarters, Melbourne, on the matter.

page 2348

QUESTION

SUPPLIES OF MEDICINE BOTTLES

Mr DALY:
MARTIN, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Acting Minister for Supply and Shipping aware that chemists are unable to obtain adequate supplies of bottles in which to dispense essential medicines, and that 8-oz. bottles, which constitute 90 per cent, of the requirements, and 1-oz. ointment jars are practically unobtainable? Does it not appear that bottles are available for much less essential purposes than those mentioned? Is it not natural that chemists should wonder, therefore, why they are unable to obtain supplies ? Will the necessary action be taken to make adequate supplies available?

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

– I was not aware of the facts which the honorable member has recited; but I shall have inquiries made in order to ascertain what action may be taken.

page 2348

QUESTION

HOWARD ROTARY HOES AND TRACTORS

Spare Parts

Mr ABBOTT:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture aware that considerable delay, in some instances as long as twelve months, is occurring in the provision of spare parts for Howard rotary hoes and tractors? As these machines are used in the raising of vegetables and fodder crops for dairy cattle, and, according to my information, the failure to supply them has been caused largely by shortage of man-power in the factory which makes them, will the honorable gentleman make a full inquiry, and take up with the Minister for Labour and National Service the matter of providing adequate manpower ?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– This matter has been concerning my department for a con,siderable time. The Controller of Agricultural Machinery is taking it up with the firm concerned. Only recently the operations of that firm reverted from munitions production to the production of rotary hoes. When manufacture was recommended, a ‘ large accumulation of orders for new hoes had to be overtaken. An attempt has been made to speed up operations in order to meet the demand for new machines, and it is hoped that the firm will be able to manufacture before long the spare parts that are so essential. The honorable member may rest assured that I have the matter well in hand, and will do all that I can to meet the situation. I am confident that, the Minister for Labour and National Service also will assist in the fullest degree.

Mr Abbott:

– Will the honorable gentleman give consideration to the manpower position ?

Mr SCULLY:

page 2349

RUBBER FOR SPORTING GOODS

Mr BRYSON:
BOURKE, VICTORIA

– In view of the necessity to provide sport and recreation for the general .body of the people, including school-children, during the winter months, will the Acting Minister for Supply and Shipping make available sufficient rubber to enable football bladders to be produced in order that the game of football may continue to be played.

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– In response to representations by the honorable gentleman, as well as by the honorable member for Griffith -(Mr. Conelan) and the honorable member for Adelaide (Mr. Chambers), I have been looking into the matter, especially as it affects sport in schools. I hope that I shall be able to give a satisfactory answer before the termination of this sessional .period.

page 2349

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Release of Diplomatic Cadet fob ARMY.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs whether or not Alan Renouf, a cadet in the Department of External Affairs, Canberra, applied to him personally last Friday for release from his cadetship, on the ground that he wished to return to the Army, which wanted him urgently for a special task? Can the right honorable gentleman give the assurance that he will be released immediately, as, according to my information, the position in the Army to which he desires to be appointed must be filled within a couple of days?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– I am sorry’ that the honorable gentleman has brought this matter before the House, because it is one of discipline between the permanent head of the department and the cadet in question, who was released from the Army for the specific purpose of joining the Department of External Affairs as a ‘ cadet and has been allotted to important duties. The matter of his release is one for negotiation between the departmental head and the Army authorities. Attention is being given to it, and finality will be reached to-day.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I raised the matter only because he had approached the right honorable gentleman.

Dr EVATT:

– It is true that the cadet approached me. I told him that on such a matter he should deal with the head’ of the department. I cannot be expected to interfere with the internal arrangements of the department.

page 2349

QUESTION

BRAN AND POLLARD

Mr RUSSELL:
GREY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture whether or not action has been taken by his department for the distribution of bran and pollard to dairy-farmers and others in the northern areas of South Australia and Eyre Peninsula?

Mr SCULLY:
ALP

– There has been some delay in supplying bran and pollard in the areas mentioned. As the matter is now under control throughout the Commonwealth, through the agency of the Departments of Agriculture in the different States, I am sure that shortage in any locality for essential requirements such as those of the dairying industry, will be rectified immediately attention is drawn to it. I shall do all that I can to achieve expedition in that respect.

page 2349

APPLES AND PEARS

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– The inquiry into the operations of the Apple and Pear Board, concerning which the AttorneyGeneral yesterday tabled the report of the royal commissioner, was based on an allegation by a man named Hewson, who was subordinate to a man named Stevenson in the employ of the Apple and Pear Board. As a result of the allegations made by Hewson to the Assistant Minister for Commerce, Stevenson was removed from his position, his home was raided, and he was subjected to certain other indignities. He was deprived of his position, and this inquiry, which has cost about £20,000, was instituted. By the finding of the commissioner, Stevenson has been completely exonerated, and the man who laid the charges has been branded by the commissioner as unreliable.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order.’ The honorable member is giving a great deal of information. He must ask his question.

Mr ANTHONY:

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral what is to be done to restore Stevenson to his position, and to defray his expenses, amounting to hundreds of pounds, incurred for his defence? Will Hewson, who, as a result of his conspiracy has succeeded to Stevenson’s position, be allowed to profit thereby, or will action be taken against him for conspiracy?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– My knowledge of this matter goes no further than that the royal commission was appointed through my department. What is to happen to the officersmentioned by the honorable member is a matter for the Department of Commerce and Agriculture to decide. As for the expenses incurred by persons who have to engage legal assistance to represent them at inquiries, the practice is that the Solicitor-General and his officers consider whether the expenses incurred were reasonable, and whether, in the light of the finding of the commissioner, they should be met by the Crown. In many cases the SolicitorGeneral recommends that the Commonwealth should bear the whole or a part of the expenses, and the Government accepts the recommendation. Beyond this, I am not concerned in the matter.

page 2350

QUESTION

PETROL SUPPLIES

Mr SHEEHAN:
COOK, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is it a fact that petrol supplies are nowsatisfactory? If so, will the Acting Minister for Supply and Shipping give instructions to the Liquid FuelControl Board in each State to make available more petrol to the producers and processors of foodstuffs?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– It is not a fact that the supplies of petrol are satisfactory. Petrolis still in very short supply. When considering priorities, I must remember the very urgent demand placed before me within the last fortnight for increased supplies of petrol for primary producers. I shall endeavour to give the honorable member a more complete answer later.

page 2350

QUESTION

COUNTRY RACE MEETINGS

Mr LANGTRY:
RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the Deputy Prime Minister consider lifting the ban on the holding ofcountry race meetings on holidays other than New Year’s Day, Boxing Day and Easter Monday? Race meetings held upon holidays are much more profitable than those held upon other days. Recently, £500 was cleared at a trotting meeting held in my electorate. Now that the serious part of the war is over, I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to consider my proposal.

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– The fullest consideration will be given to the honorable member’s representations.

page 2350

QUESTION

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION

Referendum Information for Service Personnel

Mr ABBOTT:

– I desire to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a question and I ask the indulgence of the House to quote briefly from the following document : -

H.Q. Moresby Base Sub-Area

page 2350

AUSTRALIAN ARMY EDUCATION SERVICE

Lecture Notes

Increasing the Commonwealth’s Powers. case FOR constitutional changes.

The following lecture notes on the proposed increased powers for the Commonwealth Government have been prepared from an address by the Attorney-General of New South Wales, Captain C. E. Martin, M.Ec. LL.B., M.L.A., and from other material. Captain Martin has given such an address to several units in New Guinea, where he has been on service for some time.

As the Deputy Prime Minister is quoted in this document, is he still as unaware as he was yesterday that Captain Martin has lectured troops in New Guinea on the Government’s case in favour of increased powers? Is it not grossly improper for an Army officer and State Attorney-General to place before New Guinea units the case in favour of the proposals without following it up immediately with the presentation of the case against the proposals? Who ordered Captain Martin to address the troops, and will the Deputy Prime Minister order the immediate cancellation of onesided lectures of this kind?

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I thank the honorable member for New England for the information which he has given the House. The Army Education Officer delivered a lecture to the troops based on the contents of an address given by Captain Martin some time previously. I cannot see anything wrong with what Captain Martin has dene. In my opinion, it is very gratifying to find that, away up at Port Moresby, the troops . are being entertained .by persons having the necessary educational qualifications with addresses that are not of a party political kind, but are of national importance.

Mr HARRISON:

– Is it a fact that the Captain Martin referred to is Attorney-General in the Labour Government of New South “Wales? If so, can the Minister for the Army substantiate his claim that any lectures given by Captain Martin are not of a party political kind? Will the Minister for the Army consider sending a United Australia party representative, who is a member of the forces, to New Guinea to give lectures?

Mr FORDE:

– I understand that the Captain Martin referred to is identical with the Captain Martin who was Attorney-General in New South Wales. However, Captain Martin, unlike ‘ the* honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), can rise above the level of party politics, and deal with national questions on a high plane.

Mr ANTHONY:

– Will the Minister for the Army give favorable consideration to a suggestion that the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), who is a military officer on the active list, should be permitted to visit New Guinea during the referendum campaign in order to present in an unbiased way the facts for and against the referendum proposals?

Mr FORDE:

– As the honorable member for Barker has already been nominated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) for an important position on the Censorship Committee, I am afraid that he cannot be spared to go to New Guinea in the near future.

page 2351

QUESTION

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

Mr BREEN:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the AttorneyGeneral have an investigation made into the patent rights in the various internal combustion engine designs from which motor car engines were being constructed, or were about to be constructed, in Australia just before the war? Oan the Attorney-General say ‘whether there is any legal obstacle to the use of those designs for the manufacture of motor car engines in government factories?

Dr EVATT:
ALP

– I shall look into the matter and give the honorable member an answer later.

page 2351

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1944

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 2351

HOSTEL FOR CANBERRA

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

– I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-36, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: - Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, erection of a new hostel.

It is proposed that the hostel be situated on the block of land south of, and next to, Barton House, on the same side of Brisbane-avenue. The building is to be constructed of brick, and will accommodate approximately 220 guests. A tentative estimate of the cost of the building, including all services, but excluding furniture, is £75,500. There is an urgent need for accommodation for civil servants in Canberra, particularly those on low salaries, and the construction of this hostel will go a long way towards meeting requirements. ‘ I lay on the table plans of the proposed work, but point out that the drawings and estimate submitted are subject to revision when the proposal has been more fully examined and considered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2351

UNEMPLOYMENT AND SICKNESS BENEFITS BILL 1944

Second Reading

Debate resumed from the 29th March (vide page 2273), on motion by Mr. Holloway -

That the bill be now read a second time.

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

That all words after “That” be left our, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following words: - “the bill be withdrawn and redrafted so as to provide for an equitable scheme of unemployment and sickness benefits on a contributory basis “.

Mr WILLIAMS:
Robertson

– The Opposition has evidently taken the view that, since it cannot prevent the passage of this bill, it will applaud the general principles, while condemning the financial arrangements embodied in the measure. That attitude will deceive no one because, when the party opposite was in power it failed to put into force amy unemployment benefit scheme. I regard this bill as one of first-rate importance. A few years ago, the introduction of a measure of this kind would have been hailed with cheers by millions of Australians, and it would have been discussed by groups of interested people in the streets. What a change the war has wrought! However, the war must end, and afterwards hundreds of thousands of workers will swarm back to peacetime industries. For the time being war has banished the spectre of unemployment from the land. The Government has displayed commendable courage, initiative, imagination and sympathy in dealing with the people’s problems by bringing down so early in the life of this Parliament a measure, the worth of which as an instrument to ensure their security, the workers, although they have little need for it now, will appreciate. Social security is dominant in the minds of the masses to-day. The old orthodoxy taught that property was the reward of virtue, and poverty the penalty for improvidence, drunkenness or vice. It was said that governmental interference with the unhappy state of the poor was wrong, and that it did more harm than good. That left the poor open to exploitation by the social parasite and the tyrant. Indeed, Adolf Hitler, and his satellites, during the upsurge of fascism in Germany seized upon that outlook and taunted the capitalistic countries for their failure to improve the social standard of their people. Hitler and his gang rose to power mainly through the ravages of unemployment and poverty in Germany. If, is generally conceded that the morale of democratic nations, so badly shaken, has never fully recovered .from the depression of 1929-33. Therefore, these socialistic and betterment measures will help to improve and sustain the morale of our people. The depression came about through the failure of governments in all parts of the world to interfere with what they called the natural processes of economy. All intelligent people realize that now. These matters must have been prominent in the minds of Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt when they met in fateful days on the 10th August, 1941, in the Atlantic on H.M.S. Prince of Wales and the U.S.S. Augusta, for the purpose of cheering the hearts and fortifying the peoples of the civilized world opposed to the Axis. They met, as Mr. Churchill told us, “to give all people, especially the oppressed and conquered peoples, a simple, rough and ready war-time statement of the goal towards which the British Commonwealth and the United States mean to make their way”. The eight-point declaration of these great leaders of men, soon to be called the Atlantic Charter, was a restatement of democracy, but it expressed fervid hopes for the future happiness and social benefit ‘ of the peoples of the world. The fifth clause of the charter sets out -

They desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field, with the object of securing for all improved labour standards, economic advancement and social security.

The sixth clause states -

After the final destruction of Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.

The Atlantic Charter therefore set the future course for the democracies, and the part of it that is directly relevant to this debate concerns social security and freedom from fear, and want. The Atlantic Charter was, in fact, a serious and formal confirmation of what the leaders of the British Commonwealth of Nations promised for the post-war years. The declarations in it, exalted by the name of charter, shine like a beacon light to guide the democracies through the years. Unfortunately, political promises are not always kept, but the Curtin Government will not forget that Labour’s policy is social progress. What shape the new order will take I need not venture to explore, but I say that a great many things of fundamental and far-reaching importance must take place in this country. We must push on with reform, and we must keep our promises to rid the world of the twin evils of fear and want. This bill gives some expression to the spirit of clauses, 5 and 6 of the Atlantic Charter. The time for simple platitudes about individual initiative has passed, and we must rebate our ideas to the conditions and problems of contemporary life. In normal times, there is always a reservoir of unemployed, and I think that this will always be the case. For a few years after the war ends there will be very few people out of work, but, as the years pass on and normalcy is reached, natural causes of unemployment will have their effect. Unemployment may be caused by failure of crops, by droughts, by floods, storms and the like, which dislocate business and throw people out of work for varying periods. Factories may close down in one place and open in another. Employers may install laboursaving machinery and re-organize their plant. New industries may force old industries out of existence. Then, also, many industries are seasonal in their labour requirements, demanding thousands of workers at some period of the year and having no need of them at other times.

This is a kind and benevolent measure. The community has great need of it. It will be an everlasting blessing and assistance to many single women or those women, who have not the assistance and protection of a breadwinner. In that regard I read to the House a letter dated the 23rd March, which has just reached mc. The letter is a strong argument in favour ofl such a bill as this. It reads -

Mr. Williams, I happen to bo a single woman entirely dependent on myself for a living. Since the 12th January I have been unemployed through illness. I have had three weeks in hospital, and have had to have treatment as an out-patient since my discharge. I will not be able to return to work for some time yet. Well, Mr. Williams, the position is this. What relief or assistance can I obtain while I am unable to work? My hospital treatment must be paid for. I have not been allowed any concessions on account of unemployment. As I pay tax when I am working, I think I should be entitled to some kind of assistance in my present position.

Social services seem to provide something for almost every other kind of thing, but theGovernment appears to close its eyes to the plight of the single woman situated as I am.

Could there be any more cogent reason or better argument for bringing this bill into force? I have to tell the writer that there is nothing for her at present, but that when this bill becomes law, if she is still ill, she will be able to receive an allowance which will go some way towards relieving her distress, and, if shecannot find work, she will also be able to receive a weekly payment. Th.e bill will have great advantages for the Australian people. It is a part of the Government’s plan to ensure security from want. It raises the standard of living in this country. The measure will banish from the minds of Australians the terrifying fear of unemployment, and give to the worker the self-assurance and self-respect that every human being should have.

Mr HARRISON:

– It will give them a dole.

Mr WILLIAMS:

– Well, it will give him a far better dole than the Government which the honorable gentleman supported gave them. It will give him something substantial. The measure, above all, will go a long way towards ensuring that the precious children of this vast and undeveloped continent will never suffer the shame and degradation which seared the souls of the children of this country during the depression. Honorable members should not forget that high social standards in this country, and freedom from want, will be appreciated abroad, and will induce decent immigrants to bring their families to Australia. This bill makes a fine contrast to the miserable dole and drastic means test of the past. In the eyes of the workers it will stand as a monument to the wisdom and sympathy of the Curtin Government.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

, - When the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) was introducing this bill, he intimated that the Government was impelled to formulate the legislation not only because some form of economic security was necessary in Australia, but also because the present was the most opportune time to give effect to such a proposal. With these two propositions, “few people will disagree. But agreement with ,them does not imply agreement with the method proposed in the bill. Indeed, the application of the wrong method might even destroy the very element of security. No scheme of social security can be worth while, and have permanent results, unless it is based upon a comprehensive view of the whole situation. The progress in social outlook in Australia during the past has largely been a process of “ bits and pieces “, without that comprehensive view. In considering whether the Government’s proposal conforms to that view, I have sought assistance from the report of Sir William Beveridge, to which reference has already been made in this debate. Although this document is referred to as the “ Beveridge report “, and is signed only by Sir William Beveridge, the report, in fact, is the joint effort of a number of persons who were selected because of their experience of the workings of the social economy of Great Britain for some decades.

Mr Holloway:

– It is still only a report.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART.This Government would be wise to profit by some of the recommendations contained in that report. The paragraphs which I shall read refer to the guiding principles which actuated those who were responsible for preparing this worldfamous document. The paragraphs are -

The first principle is that any proposals for the future, while they should use to the full the experience gathered in the past, should not be restricted by consideration of sectional interests established in the obtaining of that experience. Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.

The second principle is that organization of social insurance should be treated as ohe part only of a comprehensive policy of social progress. _ Social insurance fully developed may provide income security; it is an attack upon want. But want is only one of five giants on the road of reconstruction and in some ways the easiest to attack. The others are disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness.

The third principle is that social security must be achieved by co-operation between the State and the individual. The State should offer security for service aud contribution.

The State in organizing security should not stifle incentive, opportunity, responsibility; in establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than that minimum for himself and his family.

It was on those principles that this world-famous report was based, and I commend a study of it to those responsible for initiating the various steps of social progress in Australia.

Mr Holloway:

– We have been reading similar reports for 50 years.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART.The urgency for security against industrial and social vicissitudes, irregularity of employment, and the loss of wages due to illness, is not new-. A great deal of criticism has been levelled against the text of the Versailles Peace Treaty, but not a great deal of objection has been taken to section 13, which declared that it was quite impossible to contemplate a. system of permanent, worth-while peace unless it was based on a condition of social security among all the nations of the world. Nor will very much criticism be levelled at the peace conference for having followed up that declaration by creating an’ International Labour Office, with a charter to see that the declaration was put into operation among the constituent members of the League of Nations. The Minister, like myself, has had an opportunity to represent Australia at the meetings of the International Labour Office at Geneva, and I am confident that he will, agree with me that if all the instrumentalities of the League of Nations had attacked their tasks with the same vigour and success as did the International Labour Office, there might have been less universal criticism or condemnation of the League of Nations to-day. In the more .human atmosphere of the International Labour Office, free from the trappings of diplomacy and international politics, lies a greater hope for world peace and harmony than rested in the even more august sections of the League Assembly. Therefore, I am pleased that this Government is following the precedent established by its predecessor of continuing Australia’s membership of the International Labour Office.

I am even more gratified that the Government has seen fit to delegate one of its senior Ministers to attend the forthcoming conference of the International Labour Office. Too often have we seen, when these conferences have been pending, the tendency to send a clerk from the High Commissioner’s Office in London to represent Australia at Geneva. True it is that there has always been serious competition for election as the workers’ representative at those conferences, because, strangely enough, the conditions attaching to the appointment of a workers’ representative have always been made attractive. Apart from the payment of expenses associated with the journey, the representative was reimbursed for loss 6f wages during his absence from Australia. I have no complaint of that. It is the only way in which we can ensure that the voice of the workers shall be properly heard at those conferences. I am in agreement with it. But whilst we make that provision in selecting a workers’ representative, we ought not to be content to ask, when considering the appointment of an employers’ representative, “ Who is likely to be roaming around Europe when this conference takes place, and who will find it most convenient to drop across to Geneva for a week or so?” I congratulate the Government on having appointed one of its senior Ministers to represent Australia at the forthcoming conference of the International Labour Office. I hope that is an augury of similar action in future.

Having thus testified to its confidence in the International Labour Office, the Government should treat the conventions of that body with equal respect. For many years the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has been a severe critic of Australian governments for what he claims was their failure to ratify some of the conventions adopted by the International Labour Office. In his capacity as a justice of the High Court in 1936, he pronounced judgment that the Commonwealth, notwithstanding the limitations of the Constitution, was competent to enter into international conventions, and the act of doing so endowed the Commonwealth with power to legislate on those subjects, even though the Constitution did not give to it that specific power. I refer particularly to the case in which the Commonwealth Government instituted proceedings against Goya Henry, an aviator, for a breach of the Air Convention. A portion of the judgment of Justices Evatt and McTiernan, constituting a part of the majority decision of the High Court in this case, read -

And in our view the fact of an international convention having been duly made a.bout n subject, brings that subject within the field of international relations so far as suein subject is dealt with by the agreement. Accordingly (to pursue the illustration) Australia is not “ a Federal State the power of which to enter into conventions on labour matters is subject to limitations “. A contrary view has apparently governed the practice of the Commonwealth authorities in relation to the ratification of the draft convention of the International Labour Office.-

This, latter was the instruction given to me when I represented the Commonwealth at Geneva in 1935, but the High Court, which is charged with the interpretation of our Constitution, decided that such a view was wrong. In other words, the Commonwealth has power, notwithstanding any limitations specific or implicit in our Constitution, to enter into the international conventions of the International Labour Office.

Mr Holloway:

– Why did not the Government of which the honorable gentleman was a member help him to implement the conventions?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– I have already explained that. The view was that the Commonwealth was restricted to the power of recommendation to the States. That was the intimation which I was instructed to convey to the conference in 1935. A year later, the High Court pronounced against that view and its decision is now the law of the land. One of the judges who made that very definite recommendation is the Attorney-General of the Curtin Government. Therefore, it might not be inappropriate if we ask the Government to implement several of the conventions which are not altogether irrelevant to the bill.

Mr Holloway:

– What about the 40-hour working week?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– 1 introduced the 40-hour working week in my own commercial activities without waiting for the Government to act. In. 1927 the International Labour Conference adopted a convention relating to sickness insurance, and the recommendation was that all member States co-operating in that convention should introduce systems of contributory insurance against loss of wages due to illness. The voting on that occasion was 97 for and 9 against. The Commonwealth Government representative, Sir Joseph Cook, then High Commissioner in the United Kingdom, and the workers’ representative, Mr. Culley, of Tasmania, a former member of this House, both voted in flavour of the convention. In the light of the judgment I have cited, and the opinion expressed by the present Attorney-General, it is not unfair to suggest that the Government should have adopted the principle of contributory sickness and unemployment insurance, for those authorities declare that it is competent to do so. The voting of government representatives in favour of conventions surely implies responsibility to give effect to them.

Mr Brennan:

– The High Court expressed no opinion on that occasion. ‘

Sir FREDERICK STEWART.That is not true. The judgment I cited was apposite to my argument. In 1934 the International Labour Conference adopted another convention recommending that the principle of compulsory contributory unemployment insurance should be adopted. The voting on that occasion was 84 for and 8 against. The Commonwealth representative at that conference, Sir John McLaren, then official secretary to the High Commissioner in the United Kingdom, and the workers’ representative, Mr. J. W. Roche, of the Australian Federated Storemen and Packers’ Union, both voted in the affirmative. I do not forget that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has been a delegate to one of those conferences, and so have the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) and . the Minister for Supply and Shipping (Mr. Beasley). If the Government has such great respect for the findings of international labour con ferences I suggest that it should consider whether or not it is bound to give effect to a contributory insurance scheme in preference to a scheme based upon Treasury finance. World-wide experience is at the disposal of the International Labour Office. It cannot be suggested that these conferences would seek to exploit, in any way, the workers of the world. In fact, I know of no conferences which consider the views of the workers so carefully, and which are less tolerant of the exploitation of the working classes. The conferences that have considered this subject realize that the giving to the workers of a vested interest in these schemes by means of their contributions, is the only chance of ensuring security for them. As such schemes were in force in Great Britain before the’ international labour conferences declared in favour of them, I propose to make a few comparisons which will reveal the security of the British workers under their schemes. I was surprised to hear the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) say last night that the British scheme of contributory unemployment benefit had broken down. He said that the British Government had found it necessary to provide £110,000,000 from the Treasury to enable the scheme to be maintained. Although such an amount may have been provided, it is fallacious to say that the scheme has broken down. When the depression occurred in Great Britain, the scheme had surplus funds amounting to £22,000,000. The fund would have continued to accumulate surpluses if the Government had not called upon the scheme to accept obligations which were never contemplated in the actuarial calculations on which it was based. In effect, the Government said to the management of the scheme, “ Use up your £22,000,000, and when it is gone come to us and we -will give you some more “. In other words, the Government used the scheme as a vehicle for disbursing unemployment relief on a basis that was never contemplated when the fund was established. No inherent weakness was revealed in the basis of the fund.

Mr Holloway:

– The position arose because of increased demand’s made upon the fund.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– But they were demands additional to those prescribed in the legislation under which the fund was established. Benefits which do not suffer by comparison with the benefits contemplated in this bill are enjoyed by the workers of Great Britain who are secure in their enjoyment of them. At the beginning of 1942 the unemployment insurance fund of Great Britain had a credit balance of £177,000,000, the health insurance scheme had a credit of £142,000,000, and the pensions insurance scheme a credit of £43,000,000, making a total of £362,000,000. That amount was invested with the National Debt Commission which, in turn, invested it in war loans so that the social security plan of Great Britain, instead of subtracting from the financial resources of the Government at a time of financial stress,’ has actually added to them. The funds for the scheme of social security that this Government is proposing are to be provided from the National Welfare Fund which has been established by the appropriation of_ £30,000,000 from Consolidated Revenue.

We have already been informed during this debate of the very insecure foundations of certain social security schemes of the past, but some of the details are so telling that they will bear repetition. I point out that when this scheme iB agreed to, the total financial commitments of the Commonwealth Treasury in relation to our social services will be actually greater than the total of our annual Consolidated Revenue in the pre-war period. The workers of this country may well consider that circumstance. They have been promised freedom from fear and want, but measures such as the one before us are not likely to provide it for them. In Great Britain the unemployment insurance scheme is amassing funds at the rate of more than £70,000,000 a year.

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How can it be amassing them if the money is being expended 6*n the war?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– The funds are standing to the credit of potential beneficiaries. An official document that has been issued by the British Ministry of Labour states that for the thirteen weeks ended the 25th Septem’ber, 1943, the total income of the unemployment insurance fund was £19,900,000, but the total outgoings, in the same period, were only £621,000 in benefits and £600,000 in administrative costs, making the total outgoings less than £1,250,000, although the income was nearly £20,000,000. Contrast that position with the state of affairs that is likely to arise under this bill. The Government’s plans are entirely dependent upon the competency of the Commonwealth Treasury to provide, year by year, the money needed to maintain the fund in a solvent condition. Some honorable members seem to be complacently, blissfully and innocently confident that under the terms of the measure passed by this Parliament last year, providing that an ‘amount of £30,000,000, or one-quarter of the total revenue from income tax on personal exertion, shall be devoted to social welfare purposes, everything will be all right and that practically any calls may be made upon the fund. I remind such honorable gentlemen that we do not need to delve far into the history of this country to discover that legislative measures which have provided for payments from Treasury funds to meet social service commitments have not been at all satisfactory, because events have proved that Treasury finance has been inadequate for the purposes. We have the classic example of the serious reduction that had to be made in invalid and old-age pensions and similar social services in 1931 because of the inability of the Commonwealth Treasury to find money to maintain payments at the then existing rates. When Mr. J”. T. Lang was Premier and Treasurer of New South Wales, he found it impossible at one stage to continue to pay subventions which had enabled certain friendly societies to meet their obligations to aged members. The friendly societies decided, there and then, that they would no longer depend upon Treasury funds to meet their needs. They increased their rates of contribution so that they would be able to meet their obligations to their members who reached the age of 65 years.

They found the method of Treasury finance quite unreliable. When Sir Bertram Stevens was Treasurer of NewSouth Wales he found it necessary to repeal certain legislative provisions for Treasury contributions to the Public Service Superannuation Fund. The present Treasurer of New South Wales, Mr. McKell, is having a severe fight with the public service organizations of that State at present over that fund, and millions of pounds is involved. These instances show how unstable any social security service must be which is dependent upon Treasury finance. It was said during the debate last evening that this is really a contributory scheme, because the workers, who are the potential beneficiaries, are required to pay income tax from which the funds for the scheme may be drawn.

Mr Holloway:

– Is not .£30,000,000 per annum to be obtained from that, source?

Sir FREDERICK: STEWART:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– J am glad to have the Minister’s endorsement ofl the argument that was used last night, but I do not admit its validity. I do not agree that any scheme can be truthfully called contributory if not all of the potential beneficiaries shall contribute and not all of the contributors may become beneficiaries. However, for the sake of a few comparisons, I shall assume, for the moment, that this may be described as a contributory scheme. The Treasurer, in February of last year, introduced a measure which provided for substantial increases of the rates and range of income taxation. In justifying the application of the taxes to incomes in the lower ranges he declared that the incursion into this field of income tax was being made not for war purposes, but for the specific purpose of providing social services. Presumably the measure before us is a sequel to the honorable gentleman’s statements on that occasion. Let. us, however, consider the benefits that are inherent in some other forms of contributory insurance and also in the Beveridge plan. Documents which the Treasurer distributed with his financial proposals in February, 1943, when the new income tax was introduced, reveal to me that the increase of the income tax required from a single man without dependants on £150 a year was not less than 4s. a week. A man with a salary of £200 a year was asked to pay an additional 5s. 8d. a week. A man on £5 a week - in the basic wage range - was asked to pay an extra 6s. 9d. a week. On an income of £300 u year the additional amount was 9s. a week; on £350 a year it was 12s. a week; and on £400 a year it was 14s. Sd. a week. What social security benefits have been provided in return for those contributions? These ure: A funeral benefit fund for old-age pensioners; liberalization of the mater.nity benefit - which would not be of much use to single mcn without dependants - and unemployment and sickness benefits, but only for those whose income is less than £1 a week,- above which the benefits ‘‘ave to bc correspondingly reduced.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– Not at all.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– Other proposals are : Free medicine, and, if a person becomes a pensioner, the continuation of his pension should he go to prison. I do not know whether or not I have failed to mention anything-, if I have, I stand to be corrected. Apparently that is the full catalogue of benefits for which “ contributions “ were imposed in February, 1943.

Let, us consider what could be done under a full-blooded scheme of contributory insurance. I refer again to the Beveridge plan. I hope that honorable members will take a note “of the solidity and reality of the social security inherent in a scheme of that kind, and compare it with the lack of security in a measure such as that which we are now discussing. First, while the figures in relation to increase of income tax, or the social security contributions, are fresh in mind, let us consider the contributions which, under the Beveridge plan, it was proposed should be exacted from potential beneficiaries. The weekly contributions would be the same from everybody; there would bc no discrimination; all would pay and receive the same. That is a good policy in any social security plan* If the Beveridge plan were brought into operation, the weekly contribution would be 4s. 3d. I have pointed out that in Australia, under the legislation that waa passed last year, even a man on £150 a year is to-day paying 4s. a week more ti) an lie paid previously.

Mr Daly:

– How much would the employee pay under the Beveridge plan?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– He would pay 3s. 6d. a week. I was not responsible for that plan; I would have been a proud and happy man had I propounded it. I hope that before long I shall have the opportunity, as Minister for Social Services, to introduce a scheme comparable with it. I desire a comparison to be made between the catalogue of benefits under it, and that which I read a few minutes ago. A man with a wife would receive £2 a week in respect of unemployment, sickness, and training benefit. The training benefit would apply when a man was unfit for work of one type and was trained for work of another type; during the training lie would be entitled to £2 a week for himself and his wife. A single man or single woman - no discrimination was made against women and I shall have something to say later about the sex discrimination in the bill-

Mr Holloway:

– The honorable gentleman will not find it in the bill.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– I shall do my best. A single man or single woman would receive £1 4s. a week in respect of unemployment, disability, or training benefits. The retirement pension - in Australia it is described as an old-age pension - for a man with a wife who was not employed, would be £2 a week. If he preferred to remain in industry after he had reached the age of retirement, and did so for one year, two years or three years, the pension would be increased correspondingly when he retired. We do not treat in that way the man who remains in industry after he has. reached the age of 65 years. We say to him: “If you have the impudence to remain in industry after you are 65 years of age, you make the contribution provided according to income earned, but you are not eligible for any of the benefits “.

Mr Holloway:

– That is nonsense.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART.Will the Minister deny that, if this bill becomes law, a worker who is 67 years of age will be required to make what the

Treasurer called a social service contribution, but will not be entitled to om5 penny of benefit?

Mr Holloway:

– If he returned to industry and earned £7 or £8 a week, he would have to pay income tax, as does every other wage-earner.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– Under the Beveridge plan, a single man would be entitled to a retirement pension of £1 4s. a week. It also provided for a maternity benefit for thirteen weeks of £1 16s. a week, a widows’ benefit for thirteen weeks of £1 16s. a week, a dependant’s allowance of 16s. a week, a children’s allowance of 8s. a week, and an industrial pension in respect of a worker injured in the performance of his work, amounting to two-thirds of his assessed weekly earnings, but noi more than £3 a week, and not less than would have been paid as disability benefit and dependant’s allowance, if any. For partial disability arising out of his employment, he would be entitled to a pension appropriate, to the loss of earning power. Certain cash grants also were- included : A cash grant on marriage of up to £10, according to tha number of contributions made before March; a maternity cash bonus of £4; and funeral benefits, consisting of a payment of £20 for adult funerals, and of amounts ranging from £6 to £15 in respect of children. Other provisions were : That injured persons would receive for themselves, and their dependants comprehensive medical treatment and postmedical rehabilitation services, including general, specialist, domiciliary and hospital treatment, and nursing and subsidiary services, without any charge being made for the treatment.

Mr Sheehan:

– That is only a proposed plan.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– The proposal has met with acclaim in Labour, circles in Great Britain.

Mr Holloway:

– But not in any other circles.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– It has met with universal acclaim. I invite honorable members to compare the contributions proposed under that plan, with those exacted under the income tax legislation passed last February, which have been described by the Treasurer and the

Minister for Social Services as social service contributions. I invite them also to make a comparison of the two catalogues of benefits.

Having dealt with general principles, let us study some of the specific provisions of this measure. Just now, I was challenged by the Minister when I said that a person of 67 years of age who remained in industry would be compelled to make the contributions provided,but, by reason of his age, would be disentitled to participate in the benefits. I, in turn, challenge the honorable gentleman to controvert my statement. In fact I shall cite a concrete instance in support of it. A man of my acquaintance who is 67 years of age has not retired, for the reason that he cannot qualify for an old-age pension, not yet having satisfied the twenty years residential qualification. That applies to many thousands of workers in Australia, who, to-day, by reason of the war effort, have been recalled into industry. This man is a British subject, and has been resident in Australia for approximately eighteen years. As he cannot qualify for the oldage pension, he is compelled to remain in industry. He is required to contribute to the social security scheme, although not entitled to participate in any of its benefits. But an alien who arrived in this country twelve months ago, whether he was 26 years, 36 years, or 46 years of age, or any other age under 65 years, would immediately be qualified to obtain all the benefits. The Minister might examine that position in committee. A more extraordinary provision is that which effects sex discrimination. I have always understood that honorable members opposite were great sticklers for the elimination of all sex discrimination. I recall very heated exchanges in this chamber during the passage of the Women’s Employment Board Bill, which was designed to remove the existing discrimination between male and female workers. Yet clause18 of this measure makes the following provision : -

A married woman shall not be qualified to receive unemployment benefit or sickness benefit unless the Director-General is satisfied that it is not reasonably possible for her husband to maintain her.

What yardstick is the Director-General to apply in making that determination?

Why is there not the corresponding provision that no man shall be qualified to receive any benefits if, in the opinion of the Director-General, his wife has resources which are considered sufficient to maintain him? I presume that the object of the provision is to place the ordinary housewife outside the scope of this legislation. I have no particular objection to that. [Extension of time granted.] But provision is already made in the income stipulation. Under this proposed legislation a married woman employed in a cannery - and 2,000 women were dragooned into canneries recently - would not be entitled to draw benefits if she were injured, although she had been contributing week by week throughout the period of her employment. An even more extraordinary provision is to be found in clause 28, which reads -

The Director-General may postpone for such period as he thinks fit the date from which unemployment benefit shall be payable to any person, or may cancel the payment of unemployment benefit to any person, as the case requires -

if that person voluntarily became unemployed without good and sufficient reason;

if that person became unemployed by reason of hismisconduct as a worker ;

if that person has refused or failed, without good and sufficient reason, to accept an offer of employment which the Director-General considers to be suitable; or

if, in the opinion of the DirectorGeneral -

that person is a seasonal or intermittent worker; and

the income of that person is sufficient for the maintenance of himself and the persons who are ordinarily maintained by him notwithstanding a period of temporary unemployment.

If I interpret that provision correctly - and I think I do - a shearer who has been employed for nine months, and has been paying income tax for all that time, will not be entitled to unemployment benefit for the three months that he is out of work, unless the Director-General, after investigating his household accounts, is convinced that he did not earn enough during the nine months that he was working to maintain himself and his family for the remaining three months of the year. I have a great deal of sympathy with the Minister and the officers who are charged with the responsibility of formulating a scheme of unemployment benefits for seasonal workers. I have had t.00 much to do with the problem not to appreciate its inherent difficulties, but the Government has not solved the problem by requiring the Director-General to investigate the domestic accounts of thousands of seasonal workers. It would be a physical impossibility for him to do so. In any case, why should the accounts of the seasonal worker be investigated when it is not proposed to do this in respect of the miner or the wharf labourer, or any other kind of worker who also might be idle for three mouths of the year?

For the reasons I have given, I cannot support the bill in its present form. I shall vote for the amendment in the hope that the ground may he cleared for the introduction of a scheme of social security which will more nearly approximate the Beveridge plan. The question may be asked : Why not take this scheme now as something to go on with ? I know the difficulty of trying to inaugurate a contributory pensions scheme after a noncontributory one has been in operation for years. Therefore,” I prefer to wait until we can formulate a really dependable and comprehensive scheme of social security which will be financed from a fund to which every potential beneficiary will contribute, and from which every such contributor may, in due course, draw benefits.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- Unlike the Government of which the honorable member for Parramatta (-Sir Frederick Stewart) was a member, the present Government has brought down a practical programme of unemployment and sickness benefit?: and it has provided for financing the scheme. It must be galling to the honorable member that the Government has gone resolutely forward with its proposal, and has not pleaded that the scheme cannot be financed, or that it should not be put into effect until the “ sweet bye and bye “. [Quorum formed.’] It is some years since the honorable member for Parramatta was Minister for Social Services in a previous government, which introduced a contributory scheme of unemployment insurance. However, the scheme was pigeon-holed ‘because the Government said that it could not find an amount of £2,000,000 which was needed to put it into effect. Even in its earlier stages, the present scheme will probably cost a great deal more than the estimated cost of the one introduced by the previous Government. The present scheme may ‘cost between £15,000,000 and £20,000,000 a year, and the Government has made provision for financing it in the National Welfare Act. The outlay may even be greater in the years to come.

The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), in his secondreading speech, explained that the bill was designed to provide for payments to persons whose normal earnings have been interrupted through unemployment or sickness. It represents a. further instalment of the Government’s plan to afford social security to all who are in need. The rates of benefit provided in the bill are identical for both unemployment and sickness. The scheme includes all females between- the ages of 16 and 60 years, and males between the ages of 16 and 65 years, who have resided in Australia for at least twelve months immediately prior to application and who are not qualified to receive a service pension, or an invalid, ©Id-age or widow’s pension. To obtain unemployment relief a person, in addition, must, be available for, and willing to work. For sickness- benefit the claimant must produce a doctor’s certificate, and demonstrate that he has suffered loss of earnings up to the amount of the benefit he obtains. The rates of benefit provided for both schemes are as follows: -

A married person, whether adult or minor, will receive an additional 20s. a week for a spouse, and 5s. for one dependent child. Provision for children in excess of one in a family is made in the Child Endowment Act, and no further payment in respect of such children is contemplated in these proposals.

All benefits are subject to the exercise of a mean3 test, which disregards the value of the property owned, by a claimant, and permits the possession of income, without affecting benefit, up to the following amounts : -

lt is provided that any amount up to 20s. a week received from a friendly society shall not be taken into account in computing income. The bill provides for the payment of benefits out of the National Welfare Fund. This provision takes the place of an appropriation of moneys which would otherwise have been necessary. It is estimated that the cost of unemployment benefits at the rates provided will be about £2,000,000 a year for each 1 per cent, of unemployment. It is estimated that the annual cost of the sickness benefit, based on a 4 per cent, absence due to sickness, and after allowing for the waiting period and the means test, will be about £8,500,000.

I support the measure as a first step towards the provision of full social security for all the people. I should have liked to see the benefits even greater, but I realize that the Government has to meet heavy expenditure arising out of the war. I look forward to the time when a full living allowance will be paid to every “unemployed person. The Government is pledged to a policy of jobs for all after the war. If it fails in this, it should provide a full living allowance for those out of work. We are pledged, also, to give effect to the Atlantic Charter, which provides for freedom from want and freedom from fear. There is no greater fear in the minds of a great many people than the fear of sickness, unemployment, and poverty. It is the desire of the Labour Government to ensure that fear shall he eradicated. One way in which we may ensure that is by ensuring full employment for every person willing and able to work. “ Jobs for all “, the slogan on which this party was elected to power by an overwhelming majority of the .people, should be our slogan for all time. The right honorable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) has moved an amendment which, if carried, would, as it were, place this bill in the discard in favour of some contributory scheme. Coming from the. right honorable gentleman, who was Attorney-General in the Administration which passed through both Houses of this Parliament the never-proclaimed national insurance legislation, and who gallantly resigned from the ministry in protest against the failure to proclaim that legislation, the amendment is peculiar, because, by the turn of the political wheel, the right honorable gentleman himself became Prime Minister and had years in which to bring that legislation into practical effect. It ill becomes him now to try to force this measure into the discard in order that there may be brought down a measure similar to that which he could have brought into being: The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) is strongly in favour of a contributory scheme along the lines of the British scheme. He pointed out thai under the British scheme great funds are amassing from contributions by the workers. I direct the attention of the honorable member to the fact that that money is only a book entry and has been reinvested in war loans. The people will have to be taxed in order to reimburse the funds in which between £300,000,000 and £400,000,000 has accumulated, From one fund of £20,000,000 the contributors have received only £1,000,000 per annum. I do not see the difference between the British scheme and the National Welfare Fund scheme. The workers are taxed to provide the money in the National Welfare Fund and very little of the fund has been used for the purposes for which it was raised. The money, like the money in the British funds, is being invested in war loans and, of course, the people will have to be taxed to reimburse the fund. To that extent the scheme is contributory.

I should have preferred that there were no means test in relation to sickness benefit. All taxpayers will be contributing to the fund. Even middle-class people who are being taxed very heavily cannot afford to pay for private medical attention and hospital treatment as they could in the past. Unemployment benefit is different and there should be some means test to qualify for it. I should have liked to see the administration of the sickness benefit scheme in the hands of the friendly society movement, which has developed ro great proportions in this country. The friendly societies have all the experience and all the facilities needed to administer and police this scheme, and it would be better to employ their services i ban to set up another huge administration and add to the bureaucracy. That is the manner in which the British Government administers its scheme, lt would also have been much more appropriate if the Government had not limited to £1 the amount, which recipients of sickness benefit may receive from friendly societies without it. being taken into consideration as income under the means test. Seeing that the members of friendly societies have to make their contributions to those societies as well as to the National Welfare Fund. I should say that at least they should be entitled to draw their full benefit from both. That would be’ an encouragement to the thrifty section of the community. If the Government decided to use the friendly societies to ad minister this scheme, I think that it could be administered much more cheaply than will otherwise be the case. Friendly societies, owing to the fact that their operations are restricted because of actuarial limitations on the risks they may take, would need to be subsidized or indemnified against the additional risks that they would have to take in carrying out ibis legislation. Nothing should be done to whittle down the friendly societies as, unfortunately, they have been whittled down in New Zealand since the introduction of social security. According to the Manchester Unity Journal of -Ve?/; South Wales of the 1st July. 1943, the New Zealand Official Year Book of 1942 shows that since the introduction of the Social Security Act of 193S the number of lodge members has dwindled. Total membership in 193S was 113,709. compared with 1.09,S59 in 1939. and 104,446 in 1940. In order to show that the decline in membership of friendly societies in New Zealand has not been due to war conditions, I cite the fact that, during the -war, membership of friendly societies in Australia has steadily increased, as is shown by the following table:-

Sir Frederick STEWART:

– After the free medicine legislation ‘has been passed the membership of Australian friendly societies will fall.

Mr MORGAN:

– That is another aspect of the matter. This Government has diverted to a degree from the line followed by the Parliament of New Zealand by providing that, in addition to benefit under this bill persons may also draw benefits from friendly societies to the amount of £1 a week. A similar attitude has been taken in connexion with the free medicine legislation with which we shall deal later. I urge the Govern-

ment, before it sets up new administrative machinery, to give serious consideration to administration of the sickness benefits . provisions of this measure through the friendly societies.

The friendly societies sprang up in Great Britain to deal with the health of the people as did Starr Bowkett societies to deal with housing. Under the capitalist system industry had given little consideration to either the health or the housing of the workers with the result that the workers, in order to protect themselves, created both movements. Both have reached high standards of efficiency, and it would be a tragedy if anything were done under this legislation to whittle down the activities of the friendly societies; but there is a real danger that they will be whittled down, as they have been in New Zealand, unless they are protected. The protection I suggest is the placing of the administration of the sickness benefit scheme in their hands. The manner in which Starr Bowkett societies in New South Wales were indemnified by the Government of New South Wales against the added risk that was imposed on them by the Government in order to carry out a home purchase scheme provides a good example of the way in which friendly societies could be indemnified by this Government against added risk that would be imposed on them if they administered this legislation. The Starr Bowkett societies were guaranteed an indemnification amounting to £20,000,000 for the additional risk that they ran, but they were so sound that the State Government has not been called upon to pay one penny in indemnification.

Regarding medical services, I hope that the Government will, take into consideration the employment of salaried medical officers to issue certificates.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! The honorable member may not anticipate debate on another bill.

Mr MORGAN:

– The bill provides that the Director-General may call for a certificate from a particular medical officer. I envisage the utilization of the services of the medical officers of friendly societies, or government medical officers. The care of the people’s health should not be left to private enterprise. The medical profession should not have to fear economic insecurity, or rely upon private gain. In friendly societies, medical officers would have no incentive to grant medical certificates without justification, because they would receive no additional remuneration for it. They would be paid an over-all fee for their services. If we encourage a system of private profit in the care of the people’s health, abuses may arise. Fortunately, the medical profession in Australia is on a high plane, although some abuses have been exposed in the past. People have been given purposely wrong advice, and operations have been per formed unnecessarily. In one celebrated case, a doctor advised many patients that they were suffering from tuberculosis, and subjected them to expensive courses of treatment. If we do not give careful consideration to this aspect, abuses may creep in. Even at the present time, some workers who absent themselves from their employment for a few days manage to get a medical certificate declaring that they were ill. If a medical practitioner has no incentive to grant a certificate without justification, abuses will not arise.

In the policing of unemployment schemes, the Government should utilize the officers of the Department of Labour and National Service, because they have records showing whether a person is able and willing to accept employment. I urge the Government, in dealing with sickness, to give earnest consideration to the preventive side. After all, this bill deals merely with effects, and does not treat causes. Much of the sickness, or so called sickness, in the community is avoidable. Often sickness is caused by our way of living. Whilst I shall not moralize on that view, I point out that our method of living under modern conditions tends unnecessarily to undermine health. The Department of Information should launch a campaign to educate the people to safeguard their health, and improve their way of living. The advertising columns of newspapers are utilized extensively by the vendors of patent medicines, but counterpropaganda is not published. A few days ago the Minister for Health (Senator Fraser) announced that many patent medicines are fraudulent, but the vendors are extracting from the people colossal amounts of money. Surely, some way can be found to counteract those advertisements! For example, the public could be informed, through the newspapers and by broadcasting stations, about the advantages of a balanced diet and proper nutrition. People should be encouraged to promote their physical fitness, and should be educated in such matters as infant health, maternal welfare, dental and medical care, and proper housing conditions. The time will come when the Government must take its courage in its hands and deal with national health generally on a broad basis. Ill-health leads to great suffering. Without good health, one loses much of what is worthwhile in life.

The Government, when introducing a medical scheme, should utilize the services of young doctors who are now performing wonderful work in the Army, the Navy, and the Royal Australian Air Force. They are anxious to be given an opportunity, on their return to civil life, to devote their services entirely to the interests of society. The medical profession should be guaranteed economic security. Many doctors have financial worries, and their health is suffering because their services are at the disposal of their patients for 24 hours a day. Under a national health scheme they would be paid a salary commensurate with their training, knowledge and experience. They would have time for leisure and research. At present, many medical men realize that a good deal of the medical science which they apply to-day, is out of date. If they had economic security, they would be able to devote themselves to research and keep abreast of new developments. Sister Kenny had to go abroad before her method for the treatment of infantile paralysis was recognized. If the medical profession were subsidized in the correct manner, new discoveries in medical science would be properly investigated and the benefits would be made available to our people. The derivation of the term “ doctor “ is “ teacher “. The real function of the doctor is to teach the rest of the community how to preserve their health. With proper education, many people could retain their health. The salaries paid to doctors under a national health scheme should not be skimped and the doctors should be given facilities to go abroad and study. The Chinese have a system under which a doctor is paid on the basis of the number of people he keeps in good health. Under the system operating in Australia, a doctor’s living depends upon the amount of sickness in the community. I should not like to see develop in Australia what has happened in other parts of the world under the system of private enterprise in the medical profession. Honorable members will be interested in the following news item from the United States of America a few days ago:-

Doctors in 1942 collected’ £5,625,000 from a fee-splitting racket in workers’ insurance.

This is one finding of the special committee which investigated the New York State insurance scheme.

It claimed the doctors split fees among insurance men, opticians, analysts’ laboratories, and some State officials.

More than 3,000 doctors were found to have taken part in fee-splitting. They sent patients for needless but costly examinations at X-ray and opticians’ establishments. “ Many men and women were subjected to needless operations, some being totally disabled as a result”, the report said.

Fortunately, that kind of “racket” is not happening in Australia; but it shows the proportions to which “ rackets’ “ can develop, under the system of private enterprise, in the treatment of sickness. If people were educated to safeguard their own ‘health, they would save a large amount of money. Every child in the community knows: something about a motor car or an aeroplane, but how many people know how to take care of the human machine? Although biology and hygiene should be among the fundamental subjects taught in our schools, the people do not learn about them until comparatively late in life. I am reminded of the saying that a man at 40 is either a physician or .a fool.

I hope that the Government will consider the introduction of a fuller scheme of national health, deal with the preventative side, give to the medical profession economic security, and educate the public in the principle of “ every one his own doctor “. If that were done, Australia would build up a healthy, virile, happy race. [Quorum formed.’]

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– ‘Whilst I agree that some action should be taken regarding unemployment and sickness in the community, I disagree entirely with the way in which the Government is dealing with the problem. I regret that the Government is foisting a dole under the cloak of unemployment and sickness insurance upon the unfortunate people of Australia. Surely, during the depression, the people had sufficient experience of the dole! Why does the Government desire to make them repeat that experience? Let us examine the method that the Government has adopted to finance this proposal. Whilst I agree, in principle, that something must be done for unemployed persons, the method which the Government has chosen to finance the scheme leaves much to be desired. The world is not without experience of this matter. A contributory scheme for unemployment and sickness insurance is the only means of preserving a man’s self-respect and dignity. Great Britain has a contributory system of insurance which provides a model for the guidance of any government of a dominion. New Zealand, also, has a contributory form of insurance which does not compare favorably with the British system, but is much better than the method that the Government has adopted

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15p.m.

Mr HARRISON:

– I am strongly opposed to the institution of a dole system of unemployment and sickness benefits. The scheme proposed by the Government falls within that category. Unfortunately all the social service measures that we have implemented in this country are on the dole or charity basis. The people have not been given the opportunity to earn their benefits as a right.

Mr Williams:

– This is a contributory scheme.

Mr HARRISON:

– I am glad to bear the honorable member’s remarks. I shall examine his contention. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) also stated this morning that this was a contributory scheme.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– This scheme can be termed contributory only if the payment of ordinary income tax is regarded as a contribution.

Mr HARRISON:

– The suggestion is that because people pay income tax they are contributing to these benefits. But how much are they contributing? Honorable members will recollect that when the present heavy income tax rates were imposed in 1943 the Treasurer furnished us with a table setting out the rates payable under the tax legislation then in force and the proposed new rates, and told us that the new taxes were intended to make provision for social services. I direct attention to the following table which sets out the weekly increase of the amount of income tax that people were called upon to pay at that time : -

page 2366

QUESTION

INCOME FROM PERSONAL EXERTION

I pause at the salary rate of £400 per annum because I wish to ask honorable members to compare the benefits that are available for the payment of 14s.8d. a week under this scheme with those of the Beveridge plan in Great Britain for which the people will pay 4s. 3d. a week. In my opinion the English scheme is infinitely more generous. We should bear in mind, too, that the Beveridge plan has been definitely proposed for adoption in Great Britain. I regard it as the most generous scheme of social services ever devised. It is certainly very far in advance of the pettifogging plan being proposed by this Government.

Mr HARRISON:

– It has been submitted to the people. The Beveridge plan, however, is much more generous in the scale and range of benefits than is the plan provided in this bill. Even when we add to the benefits now being proposed the benefits that are prescribed in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Bill, which will shortly come before us, the comparison is highly favorable to the Beveridge plan. For a payment of 14s.8d. a week in Australia we are told that our invalid and old-age pensioners will bp granted some additional sickness benefits. It is argued, too, that the liberalizing of the maternity’ allowance is part and parcel of this scheme. Surely honorable gentlemen opposite do not contend that an increase of the maternity allowance will be of any particular benefit to unemployed persons. The unemployment and sickness benefit will apply to persons whose income does not exceed 20s. a week. Those benefits are not to be compared with the benefits being provided under the Beveridge scheme in Great Britain. Yet they will cost our people three times as much as the benefits under the Beveridge scheme.

Even if we concede the point, which we do not, that this is a contributory scheme, it is not nearly so generous to our people as are- contributory schemes in operation in other parts of the world. I bring to the notice of honorable members the following remarks which appear in paragraph 21 of the Beveridge report :-

The first view is, that benefit in return for contributions, rather than free allowances from the State, is what the .people of Britain desire.

Unfortunately this Government is applying a policy which will have the effect of breaking down the spirit of independence in our people, and of ruining personal prestige. That must be the result of the handing out of largess and charity. Our people do not want charity; they are entitled to receive their social service benefits as a right and not as a charity. That they desire to preserve their free and independent spirit has been proved conclusively by a recent gallup poll which indicated that by far the majority of Australian people favour a contributory form, of unemployment and sickness insurance. The provision of a dole system may result in the disappearance of the last vestige of independence of spirit in the working men of Australia. Paragraph 21 of the Beveridge report continues -

This desire is shown both by the established popularity of compulsory insurance, and by the phenomenal growth of voluntary insurance against sickness, against death and for endowment, and most recently for hospital treatment. It is shown in another way by the strength of popular objection to any kind of means test.

Unfortunately, the scheme set out in this bill will perpetuate the means test, which is a most objectionable feature of our social service legislation. We should abandon that principle in relation to social service legislation. T commend that remark to honorable members opposite who, on many occasions in this chamber, have condemned the application of the means test to the payment of invalid and old-age pensions. We certainly should not permit that, principle to find a place in any new social security measures that we pass.

I ask honorable members opposite to consider the advantages of the social service plan that has been applied in New Zealand. The Curtin Government has recently concluded a treaty with the Eraser Labour Government of New Zealand in relation to matters of high political moment and of international importance, yet it is not prepared to cooperate with the Government of the sister dominion in relation to employment and unemployment although, obviously, that is a matter on which there should be the closest collaboration among members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. It appears that this Government is more concerned about gaining a little political kudos, and greater franchise support, from the people than it is about applying a really effective social ‘ security programme. The social security measures of New Zealand are based on a registration fee of £1 a year from each male person over the age of 20 years, 5s. a year from male juveniles between the ages of 16 and 20 years, and 5s. a year for all females over the age of 16 years. Tho New Zealand scheme tends to develop a spirit of independence in the people but that cannot be claimed for this scheme. In New Zealand a specific tax” of 2s. 6d. in the £1 is made on all salaries and wages and the proceeds are devoted to social security measures. The funds in New Zealand are gathering strength and the New Zealand Government is receiving substantial benefit from them. But under the scheme of this bill the Commonwealth Government will be drawing, at all times, upon public funds. The first draft of £30,000,000 has already been made. It is estimated that the social security measures in New Zealand will cost £15,700,000 next ‘ year, of which only £4,100,000 will come from general revenue. That is a substantial pool upon which to draw. The Government expects this scheme to cost £2,000,000 for every 1 per cent, of unemployment, plus £8,500,000 for sickness benefits. It was designed to meet the possibility of a further depression. The Ministry claims that, having learned the lesson taught by the previous depression, when unemployment was at a very high level, they are devising means of avoiding the hardship that was then caused. No Government could avoid a similar depression, because it was worldwide. Therefore, legislation must be enacted to make provision against it. In 1933, the percentage of unemployment was 25.8. If another depression were to occur in Australia, and the percentage were again to reach that level, the cost to the Government under this scheme, on the figures which it has supplied, would, he not less than £50,000,000. In days of peace, we can look to the percentage of unemployment fluctuating. However, I accept the average of 9.5 per cent. which has been stated. That includes all seasonal unemployment, which represents approximately 4 per cent. of the total in any year. On that basis, the cost of providing the proposed benefits would be approximately £20,000,000. In addition, certain social services will continue to operate. The approximate annual costs will be : Invalid and old-age pensions, £23,250,000; widows’ pensions, £2,250,000; child endowment, £12,500,000 ; maternity allowance, £2,250,000; funeral benefit for old-age pensioners, £250,000; pensions for returned soldiers of the last war, £10,000,000; free medicine, £3,000,000; and administrative expenses, £350,000.Repatriation benefits and pensions for soldiers of the present war will impose a much greater liability on the Government than has been imposed under those heads since the last war. Conservatively, one might estimate the cost to be £10,000,000. That would make the grand total £63,620,000; and, with the addition of £20,000,000 in respect of unemployment, it would be £83,620,000. It is obvious that the old-age pension will be increased markedly in the years to come, because of the increasing number of persons in the upper ages. The Treasury expects to receive £91,000,000 for the year ending the 30th June, 1944, from tax on incomes over £400 a year. The States will have allocated to them 20 per cent. of that amount, in return for their having vacated the field of income tax. Therefore, even at the present high rate of taxation, the Government will have a deficiency of £10,000,000 after discharg ing its liability in respect of social services. The promise has been made that taxation will not be maintained at the present level after the war. If I know anything of the Government’s industrial supporters, they will want taxation to be removed from incomes under £400. If such a demand were granted, the tax on incomes above £400 a year would have to be increased, or the Government would have to resort once again to the use of bank credit; and taxpayers would receive only the miserly benefits provided in the bill in return for the contribution of 14s. 8d. a week.

Mr Coles:

– It cannot be miserly if the cost of all social services is to he £83,620,000.

Mr HARRISON:

– They are miserly in this bill in comparison with the benefits proposed under a contributory scheme in England, for the payment of 4s. 3d. a week.

Mr Coles:

– The honorable gentleman means that they could be provided more cheaply ?

Mr HARRISON:

– Definitely. The Government claims that there will be no unemployment after the war.

Mr Daly:

– If the Labour party is still in office.

Mr HARRISON:

-If additional powers are conferred on the Commonwealth, if the sun continues to shine, and the moon to wax and wane, a new order will be established, and “ everything in the garden will be lovely “. Then why provide for the dole of 25s. a week for the unemployed? The prospect for a soldier who returns from the war after having fought for the maintenance of decency and freedom, is a gloomy one; he will receive a rude shock when he learns of the provision for a dole of 25s. a week, instead of the elimination of unemployment. The Government argues that these men will be fully employed, and that consequently there will be no need to grant preference to them in employment. Yet, atthe same time, it says, “We will have a bit on the side; we will make provision for a dole of 25s. a week in case we cannot provide all the work that will he needed “. The passage of this legislation must warn the soldier that he will not return to the conditions that he is fighting to establish. But that is not the whole story. Honorable members opposite objected when I described the unemployment benefit as a charity. If it be not a charity, then it must be a right. Why, then, subject to a means test an applicant for it? Why employ Gestapo tactics in order to effect the disclosure of domestic details? Obviously, it is not to be a right; because, if it were, a means test would not be applied.

There is an important omission from the bill, in consequence of which returned soldiers will be vitally affected, and I ask the Minister to give consideration to the matter in order to avoid injustice. The definition of “income” does not contain any reference to soldier pensioners, other than in connexion with special or service pensions. The men who receive service pensions, being unemployable, obviously will come under this scheme. But a soldiers’ pension is also paid on account of disability. I have always been under the impression that the pensions of soldiers are sacrosanct. Honorable members know that they are not regarded as income for purposes of taxation, and that they cannot be gar.nisheed. Yet, under this bill, they are to be regarded as income, and the amount received will determine what payment will be made to a soldier who is unemployed. The soldier offers his life and, if he does not make the supreme sacrifice, may become mutilated in defence of this country and all its interests. That is not -recognized by the bill. This is characteristic of the approach which the Government makes to returned soldiers in all the legislation that it introduces. I hope that the Minister will make amends in that regard. If not, I shall move an amendment designed to give to returned soldiers the benefits of this legislation. The definition of income does not exclude a soldier’s pension. But it does exclude maternity allowances and child endowment payments. I have no fault to find with that. I suppose they are excluded because the Government believes that the wife and mother has done her duty to her country. Again, the definition excludes payments received as compensation for incapacity. The Government recognizes that money paid in the form of compensation is not to be regarded as income. Surely, however, the pension paid to a disabled soldier is compensation for his injury, so why should that not also be excluded from the definition of income? The man who stayed at home and earned high wages may, if he is thrifty, invest his earnings, and draw an income from his investments of, say, £1 a week. Here, I ask honorable members to compare the wages earned by. the men who stay at home with the 8s. 6d. a day paid to soldiers, who are offering their lives to preserve the freedom and jobs of those who remained behind. Thus, the man who did not go to the war, but remained here and earned a huge income, may, under the bill, draw £1 a week from his investment, and £1 5s. a week compensation. The disabled soldier will be at a disadvantage compared with others after the war, because it is evident that the Government does not intend to give preference to returned soldiers. The Government’s proclaimed policy is jobs for all. The disabled soldier, who draws a pension of £1 5s. a week, will have that amount regarded as income for the purposes of this bill, and 14s. a week will be deducted from his unemployment benefit, leaving him with lis. benefit only, or a total of £1 16s., as compared with an income of £2 5s. a week allowed to the man who stays at home. Surely that was not intended by the Government. Surely the man who has fought for his country and suffered mutilation should not be penalized in this way. A disabled soldier’s pension is not income. It cannot be garnisheed. Why should it be regarded as income for the purposes of this scheme? If the benefit of this provision were extended to the returned soldier, his total income would be only £2 10s. a week as compared with £2 5s. for the man who stayed at home. I should like honorable members opposite to deal with this aspect when they speak, but I am afraid that they will be silent. Already, the subject has, of course, been discussed in caucus, and the Government’s brutal majority has decided not to give any consideration to returned soldiers. If honorable members opposite do not feel that way about it, then let them stand in their places and say a word for the men who have- made it possible for them to enjoy the privileges at their disposal.

Mr Mulcahy:

– They also made it possible for the honorable member to enjoy his privileges.

Mr HARRISON:

– I recognize that, but I remind the honorable member that I served in a previous war, and I also served in an honorary capacity in this war. Indeed, I should have been overseas now if the age limit had not been varied.Clause 15 of the bill contains a very interesting provision -

Subject to this act, every person (not being a person in receipt of, or qualified to receive, a pension) who -

is residing in Australia and has been continuously so resident for a period of not less than one year immediately prior to the date of the claim; shall be qualified to receive unemployment benefit.

There are in Australia many prisoners of war and internees, including enemy agents. The Government has announced that they may be permitted to remain in Australia after the war. Thus, an exprisoner of war, a German or Italian who fought against our men, will be allowed to benefit under this scheme while the returned soldier -perhaps the very man whom the prisoner, while fighting for our enemies, wounded and mutilated, will be excluded. I cannot conceive of anything more likely to dishonour the Government in the eyes of the public.

Mr Holloway:

– The honorable member has misstated the position.

Mr HARRISON:

– I ask the Minister whether an enemy alien, who remains in Australia after the war, will he entitled to this benefit even if he he not naturalized?

Mr Holloway:

– He must be a resident, and must have been employed - not as a prisoner of war.

Mr HARRISON:

– That is splitting hairs. Suppose such a man has been in employment for twelve months, and then gets out of work. He would come under the provisions of the bill.

Mr Calwell:

– Prisoners of war are sent here by the British Government. We are merely their gaolers. When the war is over, they will go back.

Mr HARRISON:

– Quite recently, a statement was made on behalf of the Government that some of these men will be allowed to remain here when the war is over.

Mr Calwell:

– Who made that statement?

Mr HARRISON:

– It was made on behalf of the Government. Will the Minister deny that prisoners of war and internees, including enemy aliens, will be permitted to remain in Australia after the war?

Mr Calwell:

– I do emphatically deny it in the case of prisoners of war, and in the case of internees also, unless an arrangement is made with the British Government on the ground that they were residents of Britain when the war broke out.

Mr HARRISON:

– I have to confess that the Minister dissembles very well. [Extension of time granted.] Does he mean that enemy aliens, resident in Australia before the war, will not be permitted to claim benefits under this bill? Unless words have lost their meaning, such persons will be entitled to benefit, notwithstanding the attempts of the Minister to get his party out of a nasty position. Even though I accepted what the Minister has said - and I do not accept it - that would not weaken my contention that the returned soldier, who has lost a limb or an eye in the service of his country, will be placed under this proposal in a worse position than the man who stayed at home, earned big wages, and invested the proceeds.Because of that, and because I believe in a contributory scheme of unemployment and sickness insurance which would have the effect of fosteringa spirit of independence in the community, and because I believe that the proposal of the Government constitutes a gratuitous insult to returned soldiers, I will not support the bill.

Mr DALY:
Martin

.- Criticism of this bill by honorable gentlemen opposite is based on false premises. It is part of their make-up to look forward to another period of mass unemployment in this country, and it ill becomes the. honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) to say that we are proposing to give the people the dole. I was unfortunate enough at one time to live in the honorable member’s constituency where I saw people evicted from their homes and forced to live on the dole, with the honorable member doing very little about it. The dole then amounted to a few shillings, whereas the provision to be made for the unemployed under this measure will amount to pounds a week when family allowances are taken into consideration. In view of the honorable member’s criticism of the amount of benefit provided under this measure, it is well that I should remind him that when the Commonwealth was being administered in 1940 by a government of which he was a supporter and when there were still tens of thousands of Australians unemployed, a man with a wife and two children was receiving about £1 7s., all-States average, in money and/or groceries by way of relief. If he were given relief work he was paid award rates in some instances, less in others. Depending on the State in which he lived, he might also have received firewood, some help in regard to housing, and some clothes for himself or bis family. Queenslanders alone enjoyed unemployment insurance. Considerable variations in the lot of the unemployed from State to State were thus apparent. That Li an indication of what the Opposition has to offer the unemployed. The allowance provided in this measure of 25s. a week for an unemployed man is a big improvement on anything that the Opposition has offered or over would offer. -But I do not believe that people will have to live permanently on an unemployment allowance. I have enough confidence in the Government and the Labour party to believe that we, like the Labour Government of New Zealand, can organize the country against mass unemployment. The foundation of full-time employment is being laid by the Department of Postwar Reconstruction in the national plans that it is devising. Nevertheless, there may be a few people here and there who will be unemployed for short periods while changing occupations, and there will be others who ‘will be temporarily laid aside by sickness. This measure contains provisions whereby they will be looked after. That is the very reason for the introduction of this bill. It is not designed to provide a full living allowance for all time so that people shall be deprived of the incentive to work. I, therefore, submit that the Opposition has built up its case on false premises in thinking that there will be mass unemployment after the war. The experience of other countries has proved that, far from costing millions of pounds more than the estimate, schemes of this kind cost very much below the amounts allowed for. ‘ The New Zealand Social Security Act came into force in December, 1939. According to the Next’ Zealand Official Year-Book of 1943, the number of persons in receipt of unemployment relief were: -

Payments for unemployed benefits decreased from £434,497 in 1939-40 to £138,528 in 1941-42. The progressive decline is a good answer to those who say that unemployment benefits will cost £20,000,000 a year and that the scheme will break down of its own weight. New Zealand has a properly planned economy and works programme, and the people are provided with work at award rates. We can well learn from New Zealand and ensure full-time work for all. 1 am confident that we shall do that. I believe that the great masses of the people have the inalienable right to work and independence, and it is the duty of the Government to ensure that work shall be provided for them. The proper way in which to approach the problem is to ensure that there shall be no unemployment. A measure of this sort, however, is necessary to tide people over a few weeks should anything happen to break the continuity of their employment.

The Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) ranks high among the financial brains of this country. In his capacity as Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, he has issued a booklet on social security and reconstruction, in which he deals with the method of finance employed in this scheme. I propose to read passages from that publi cation- for the education of honorable gentlemen opposite, because his arguments completely undermine theirs. He said -

The advantages of financing social security from general revenue arc obvious. Insofar as general revenue is raised by means of direct taxation (income tax, estate duties, &c), the burden is being distributed in strict accordance with ability to bear it. For the richer man pays not simply more than the poorer man at the same rate in the £1, as in New Zealand; but, since the tax scales are graduated, he pays at a progressively higher rate in the fi as his income rises.

No one escapes entirely - even those whose incomes are not normally subject to direct tax make their contribution to general revenue through such indirect taxes as customs, excise and entertainment tax, which enter into the prices of many items in the family budget.

Benefits under the National Welfare Scheme are not in any sense, therefore, to be looked upon as a charitable dole; all have contributed to the scheme according to their individual capacity. The Commonwealth Government’s National Welfare Scheme of social security is thus as financially sound as, and ever fairer than the best schemes based on the social insurance principle or the flat-rate social security tax. The National Welfare Fund has been duly set up by Parliament and is as sacrosanct as the New Zealand Social Security Fund or the social security fund with which Sir William Beveridge proposes to finance his plan. Every man and woman who pays direct or indirect taxes and contributes his or her labour to the nation’s well-being, as opportunity allows, has an indefensible right to the social security provisions of the National Welfare Scheme! Deprivations of those rights or whittling down of the terms of those provisions would be a breach of trust with the whole Australian nation.

That is a clear summary of the position. This scheme, far from being noncontributory, is more directly contributory than that suggested by the honorable member for Wentworth. I do not believe that the psychological effect on people of the belief that they are getting something for nothing, although, in reality, they are paying for it, is so very important.

Mr Ryan:

– What are the honorable member’s views on the means test.

Mr DALY:

– I believe the means test is desirable in some instances and not in others. Under this legislation there is to be practically no means test. In some directions the Government has done away with the means test. I intend to deal with that later. What I am concerned about now is the fact that, although members of the Opposition had professed agreement with the general principles of this bill, they are “knocking” it, because their views as to the financing of the measure differ slightly from ours. The difference is not important because, when all the pros and cons are boiled down, our proposed methods and theirs amount to the same thing. Under their proposal, the contributions to the fund would be on a graduated scale. The contributions under this scheme are on a graduated scale. The only difference is that, whereas the Opposition would have the contributors make their contributions direct to a special fund, we obtain them through income tax. Work for all is the first consideration. Social security measures such as this bill are subordinate to that, but they are necessary to deal with special cases. A policy of full-time employment for all capable of work is necessary to promote the well-being, happiness and security of the people. It is interesting to note that the social security schemes in Canada, England, the United States of America, and New Zealand, arc based on a full-time employment programme.

I believe that this legislation will go n long way towards the establishment of a comprehensive scheme of health and other benefits. It is very liberal legislation ii:. that the time of benefit is unlimited. So long as a person is unemployed or ill he will be entitled to draw benefit. The provisions are also more liberal than any scheme of the kind that has previously existed. There are certain aspects of the matter with regard to friendly societies and permissible income which could be improved, but in no sense can this bill bo truthfully described as a dole. The provision of special benefit to a woman who looks after aged parents at home is a new departure and a considerable improvement. The scheme proposed by the Government compares favorably with unemployment and sickness benefit schemes in other countries. Even the Beveridge plan, of which we have heard so much in this chamber, has not been adopted by the British Government. There is no certainty that every recommendation in it will be given effect. Possibly some of them will be rejected by the British Government. Consequently, honorable members opposite should not regard the

Beveridge plan as a gilt-edged scheme that has already been accepted and put into operation.

The scheme proposed by the Commonwealth Government compares favorably with the New Zealand system. In fact, the Commonwealth Government devised its scheme after having carefully studied the New Zealand plan. The benefits provided by the two are comparable, but honorable members should bear in mind the fact that contributions on a flat rate are applied to every one under the New Zealand scheme, and that is an unfair method of taxation, because it imposes a burden on those least able to bear it.

A person who receives an. allowance of £1 a week from a friendly society, as a sickness benefit, will not be disqualified from receiving benefits provided by this legislation; but the average payment by friendly societies to sick members is about 2.1s. a week. Some friendly societies pay more than 21s. 6d. a week. The Minister should liberalize this allowance in respect of members of friendly societies. Probably friendly societies will have to expand in other directions in order to retain their membership and if they were allowed a little latitude it would help them to carry on the good work they have been performing for many years. I offer that suggestion to the Minister for consideration, and I hope that it will be given effect.

As this bill is a progressive step in the social legislation of Australia, I heard with regret the criticism which honorable members opposite levelled at the measure. Although anti-Labour governments had been in office for many years, they never introduced social benefits of this kind. Never have social benefits been so good as they will be when this bill becomes law. The Government will move with the times, and this legislation will be further liberalized in the future. Unfortunately, when legislation of this kind is introduced, some people immediately set out to knock it over. They pretend to discover all its weaknesses before it has been given a trial, and they roundly condemn it. This bill deserves a fair trial, and honorable members opposite should not attempt to undermine it.

After it has operated for a time, weaknesses will probably be revealed, but our experience of the administration of the act and the devotion of particular attention to all the details will enable us to produce an improved article. Honorable members opposite should take a more liberal view of the bill than. they have to date. This legislation is long overdue. The only way in which to have a lastingand proper peace is by providing fulltime employment and social security for the people. Those essentials to the maintenance of peace are contained in this bill.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- The people of this country will be in full agreement with the purpose of this measure, namely, the provision of unemployment and sickness benefits. The House will agree also that the measure should long ago have found a place on the statute-book. Australia is one of the few countries which has not provided either sickness or unemployment benefits. However, at long last, the Government has produced this measure. Whilst the objective is excellent, the measure itself is purely a palliative. It deals with effects and does not treat causes. To give a man a sickness benefit is not to restore him to health. Before we deal properly with sickness, we must get down to the root cause of it and take preventive measures. By doing so, we shall improve the health of the population, decrease a serious burden on the country and take a long stride towards increasing the general well-being of the community. Some years ago, the province of Ontario, in Canada, suffered a series of diphtheria epidemics, but by preventive measures wiped out the disease, and their incidence per 1,000 of. population has been reduced practically to nil. That successful campaign against epidemics has increased productive capacity, lessened misery, and reduced the burden on the finances of the State. Similar action could be taken in Australia. One of the first acts of the Government should be to increase preventive services.

It is often said that the way in which to deal with unemployment is to have no unemployment. I agree with that view. Many honorable members opposite also believe that, in the “ new order “, there will be no unemployment. I invite them to examine this problem in a realistic manner. However efficient our national economy and legislation may be, there will always be some people unemployed. In 1939, unemployment stood at 9 per cent. A year later, when wartime activity was developed, unemployment was still S per cent. This year, when every available man is at work, unemployment. is slightly more than 1 per cent. So the problem will never be entirely overcome. There are various kinds of unemployment. The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) referred to mass unemployment. “We hope that we shall never see mass unemployment again in Australia, but internal measures alone cannot prevent that dreadful scourge. It arises from factors beyond the control of this Parliament. Mass unemployment and a decrease of general economic activity throughout the world must have repercussions in Australia, and therefore affect employment in our own industries. In addition to mass unemployment, there is casual unemployment - the man who works intermittently; seasonal unemployment, which is always with us ; and technological unemployment, which is caused by industry changing from one form of production to another. No matter how effective the measures taken by the Government may be, we shall always have a fairly large degree of unemployment. I shall be surprised if the average figure of unemployment, even under the best condition.^ is less than 4 per cent, or 5 per cent. Probably the Government does not expect to reduce the figure below 4 per cent, in peace-time.

Whilst I agree with the general purposes of the bill, I am totally opposed to the financial basis of the measure. Surely it is time that we made the basis of finance for our social security measures a contributory system, and not a “ hand-out “ from Consolidated Revenue. At present, we are wading in the financial mire above our ankles, almost to our knees. If this bill becomes law, we shall sink in the “mire up to our waist-line and I fear that we shall never be able to extricate ourselves. The financial basis of this scheme is the income tax collections of to-day and to-morrow. The steep graduations of tax impose excessive burdens on all classes of the people, but particularly on the high and middle income groups. Does the Government seriously believe that the present high rates of income tax will be permanent? Does the Government really consider that the basis of finance for this scheme is sound? High taxation is all right in war-time. The burden can be imposed on the people, because they know that the money is required for the conduct of the war. If tax collections do not meet requirements, they can be increased for the purpose of bringing in more money. If more money is required, more notes can bt: printed. Although that system may operate satisfactorily in war-time, it would be impossible in peace-time. The present heavy ‘taxation cannot be retained after the war. Loans also must be restricted. When the war ends, the Government should cease turning out an immeasurable volume of bank credit. Before it is too late, because it will be too late if this bill becomes law, we should try to place social security measures on a sound footing. Like honorable members opposite, my heart is in the extension of social security. Because I am so keen, I want to see this matter placed on a really sound financial basis that will endure long after the end of the war. The only sound method of finance is a contributory system. By a “contributory system “, I mean specific payments into a fund out of which eligible persons may receive benefits. Contributions made by individuals will entitle them, in time of distress, to receive not a dole, but payments as a right. Various contributory schemes are operating in other countries. There is the tripartite system, which has advantages and disadvantages. The NewZealand system insists upon certain registration fees, together with levies on the earnings of the individual. Regarding the relative merits of those, systems, a great deal of argument is possible. For myself, I favour the New Zealand scheme. But either of those two systems is better than the present amorphous, weak and insecure system that the Government has adopted. No doubt the Government gave some consideration to the various methods under which social security measures could .be financed before it adopted the one outlined in the bill; but

I suggest that it would have acted more wisely had it given greater attention to world experience in this matter. The tripartite contributory scheme of finance has been proved in many countries, among which are Great Britain, Eire, Bulgaria, Poland, Germany, Italy, Austria, and Queensland. A voluntary scheme of contributory finance in relation to social security measures has been applied in Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Switzerland, Holland, Denmark, France, Norway, Spain and Finland.

Mr Mulcahy:

– Did the honorable gentleman mention Eire?

Mr RYAN:

– I did. The basis of contribution in Eire is lOd. a week for each employee, 9d. a week by the employers in respect of each employee, and 5.310d. a week by the Government. The tripartite scheme has also been applied in Russia, the practices of which are of considerable interest to some honorable gentlemen opposite. The contributors to the social security measures in Russia are the business undertakings and the employees, and the three schedules which operate are: the standard schedule which applies to employees whose contributions are between 16 and 22 per cent. of wages; the privileged schedule, the contributions in respect of which are from 10 per cent, to 14 per cent, of wages ; and the special schedule, relating to employees in the higher salary ranges, whose contributions vary from 7i to 12 per cent. Russia is said to be the home of modern ideas, and it is interesting to know that the Soviet Government has adopted the contributory system for social security services. It is somewhat odd that the Commonwealth Labour Government should have passed over the experiences of the countries I have enumerated which have accepted the contributory principle and found it to be most satisfactory. The contributed funds in those countries are assisted by votes from consolidated revenue, but there is a definite personal contribution by the beneficiaries. On this point I bring to the attention of honorable members the following paragraph which appears in the Beveridge report: -

There are some to whom pursuit of security appears to be a wrong aim. They think of security as something inconsistent with initiative, adventure, personal responsibility. That is not a just view of social security as planned in this report. The plan is not one for giving to everybody something for nothing and without trouble, or something that will free the recipients for ever thereafter from personal responsibilities. The plan is one to secure income for subsistence on condition of service and contribution and in order to make and keep men fit for service. It cannot be got without thought and effort.

I regret that the principle of personal contributions has not been accepted by this Government.

Mr Martens:

– A good old tory !

Mr RYAN:

– There is nothing of toryism in this. Experience has proved that personal contributions to social service schemes have been satisfactory. “We should bear in mind, also, the psychological as well as the material considerations in this issue, and of the two the psychological is the more important. People who contribute personally to these funds must develop a sense of responsibility, and they must also have a sense of entitlement which is necessarily missing in relation to funds established on a dole or charity basis. Some honorable gentlemen opposite have argued that the Government’s scheme is based on personal contributions. That is true in the very limited sense, that every person in the community contributes to the revenue by taxation. Even the widow puts in her mite. But the sense of personal contribution is necessarily vague and undefined. Let me illustrate my point: No doubt the Minister in charge of this bill enjoys now and again, a nice juicy lamb cutlet for his lunch. I am a producer of fat lambs and no doubt some of my lambs are required to provide the cutlets which the Minister, as a member of the general community, enjoys, hut he has, as a consumer, no sense of direct, responsibility to me, nor have I, as a producer, any to him.

Some honorable gentlemen opposite have referred to the reports which have been presented by the Social Security Committee of which I had the honour to be a member.

Mr Mulcahy:

– Until the honorable gentleman went on strike.

Mr RYAN:

– I was not on strike when these reports were prepared. It has been contended by some Government supporters that the Social Security Committee recommended the scheme which the Government has adopted. I do not. agree with that view, and in support of my attitude I bring to the attention of honorable members the following statements in paragraph 12 of the committee’s second interim report -

The counterpart to the right of every one in the community to protection against loss of income due to unemployment is the obligation of all the potential beneficiaries to contribute to the scheme.

Mr Holloway:

– That was not the recommendation of the committee.

Mr RYAN:

– It is implicit in the committee’s recommendations^ I call attention also to the following paragraph from the seventh interim report of the committee : -

The committee believes that all social security measures should bc financed by personal contributions from those for whom the benefits under the scheme will be provided.

Those statements are perfectly clear. “When I signed those reports I was under the impression that a personal contribution and not a general scheme of finance was being proposed.

Mr Martens:

– Does the honorable gentleman consider that the committee did good work?

Mr RYAN:

– I do.

Mr Martens:

– Then why did he walk out?

Mr RYAN:

– I believed that certain things were happening which I did not think should be happening. I do not desire to debate that matter any further; I gave my reasons yesterday for resigning from the committee.

I deeply regret that the iniquitous means tests is being retained in these social security measures. Had the scheme been placed on a strictly contributory basis the means test could have been eliminated completely. I trust that it will be eliminated from all our social security measures at the earliest possible moment. Unfortunately, at present, all of them are disfigured by this principle.

Mr Coles:

– The child endowment scheme is not contributory.

Mr RYAN:

– It is intended to assist people to maintain children and to have larger families. I am 100 per cent, in favour of that policy, and I do not think that the contributory principle should be applied to child endowment.

I wish now briefly to consider our future commitments in relation to social security measures, which already include old-age and invalid pensions, widows’ pensions, child endowment, maternity allowances, and funeral benefits. The annual cost of these, plus departmental expenditure, is £41,500,000. The unemployment and sickness benefits now proposed to be provided will involve additional heavy expense. The sickness benefits are estimated to cost £8,500,000 per annum. The estimate of any one honorable member would be as good as that of any other honorable member in relation to unemployment, but on the basis of 5 per cent, of unemployment in the years following the war, the amount involved would be £10,000,000, making a total of £18,500,000 under this legislation. Repatriation commitments are likely to require £12,000,000 per annum and pharmaceutical benefits are estimated to cost £3,000,000 per annum. Our total commitments therefore under all of these headings may be £75,000,000 per annum. The Government, of course, has certain other health services in mind to which I have given some study. An estimate of their cost has not been made; but the amount expended in this country to-day on medical and hospital services is approximately £21,000,000 a year. If health services are taken over by the Government, I cannot believe that the expenses will be much- less than that, and very likely they will be higher. The addition of that amount would raise the total to £96,000,000 a year.

Mr Holloway:

– There will be adjustments in certain directions.

Mr RYAN:

– There may be; but we are not assured’ of that.

Mr Holloway:

– The Commonwealth would not pay the States, and itself conduct the services.

Mr RYAN:

– In addition, there is the national debt service, which to-day amounts to £33,000,000, and is likely to amount at the end of the war to approximately £50,000,000, which would make the grand total little short of £150,000,000. The Government also has in mind other schemes, which I consider ought to be brought into operation at some time, such as the medical inspection of school children, which to-day is extremely inadequate and badly conducted; and; - one of the most important undertakings - child welfare, upon which no amount is being expended. There is also the further suggestion that the Government is likely to subsidize house rents on behalf of the poorer class. This would involve an expenditure of millions of pounds a year. Apparently, we shall be faced before long with a social security bill, plus fixed commitments in respect of the national debt service, amounting to £160,000,000, £170,000,000, or perhaps £1S6,000,000. Does the Government consider that income tax provides a sound basis for the financing of these schemes? Is the income tax to remain at the present high level? One knows what is likely to happen; indeed, it is happening now. Because of the enormous burden of income tax, the people, despite the desire to do their best in the interests of the country in time of war, are going slow in all classes of society. That is apparent in the business and professional world, in the coal mines, on the wharfs, and in every class of society. I cannot imagine that the Government wishes that state of affairs to continue. If it does not, then it must reduce the present enormous burden of tax, which destroys the incentive to work harder and make more income. It is entirely wrong to have income tax as the basis for the financing of any social scheme. The Government should accept the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition, and bring this and subsequent schemes on te a contributory basis.

Mr BREEN:
Calare

.- A great American statesman is credited with the statement, “You can fool some of the people all the time “. That appears to be the basis of the attitude of the “ Old Guard “ of the Opposition towards these proposals. The experience of the last elections ought to have taught them that the number of people who can be fooled is constantly diminishing. The leading members of the Opposition composed the Government which preceded the present Administration. They had many opportunities to formulate schemes of social service, embodying principles similar to those of the scheme now before the House, hut did not at any time attempt to implement them. Now, tinder the guise of allegedly constructive criticism, they are endeavouring to repeat the performance they consistently gave while in office, in connexion with the concrete proposal which is before the House. They shelved the only scheme that appeared likely to reach fruition, and are attempting to subject this scheme to a like fate. One does not need to have political perspicacity to realize that the amendment for the withdrawal and redrafting of the scheme is merely a demonstration of the principles which, from time to time, have been expounded by members of the Opposition, when urging that the victims of the present economic system should not be a charge on the community. Their philosophy is that of the old Roman capitalist class typified by Cato - that the old and the infirm should be thrown to the lions, or should be destroyed by other means and buried. That is the philosophy of modern capitalism, the advocates of which always o’bject to social service schemes being a charge on industry, anl urge that they should be contributory. Time and again, the present Government has affirmed its ability to provide full employment for the people of Australia. It has drawn attention to the fact that, in war-time, there is no limitation on the finance which the nation can provide for the conduct of its affairs. That is in contradistinction to the state of affairs in pre-war days, when employment and unemployment were conditioned by some mythical financial balance in the banks of Australia or other countries. Such an economic policy prevailed in this country under anti-Labour governments.

Mr Bowden:

– Also under Labour governments.

Mr BREEN:

– The present Labour Government has stated that it can provide full employment for all persons who are employable. It admits that always some members of the community will be on the border-line and will be unemployable. Holding the belief that unemployment will be negligible, the provision by it of an elaborate scheme of social services which provided full maintenance for a large number qf unemployed persons who were physically fit to work, would be neither sensible nor logical.

Some critics of the Government have been unfortunate in that they have picked out anomalies for the purpose of denouncing the scheme generally. The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) condemned it, on the ground that a person who remains in industry after he has passed the age of 65 years will not be entitled to participate in its benefits, even though lie ‘ has made contributions to it for a period. Under the economic system visualized by the ‘Government, there should ‘be no need for a person who has reached the age of 65 years to continue in industry. If his financial status enables him to live without drawing the old-age pension, there is no need for a social service dependent on taxation to make provision for him ; and if the economic system which operates after this war functions so efficiently that such a person need not discontinue his employment in order to qualify for the old-a&e pension, that will be a fulfilment of the promise of the Government to provide full employment for all. On such trivialities have the arguments in condemnation of the scheme been advanced. Its critics might base their future political philosophy upon a qualification of Abraham Lincoln’s aphorism, a modern version of which could be that you cannot fool the same people all the time. Our friends might well learn that lesson, and thus contribute more beneficially to the political, social and economic advancement of this country, than they are contributing by trying to ride opportunity with hands and ‘heels, caring not whether the country benefits so long as their prospect of winning the prize of occupancy of the treasury bench is thereby improved.

A feature of this scheme which has aroused a certain degree of criticism relates to the casual rural worker. One who has arrogated to himself only lately the right to speak on behalf of casual and seasonal workers has criticized the the Government on the ground that it proposes to launch an inquisition of the whole of the earnings of those individuals before agreeing that they should come under the scheme. Any one with a knowledge of rural employment realizes that Ifr. Breen. many rural workers are to-day selfemployed. Many- small farmers contribute to the pool of casual labour for rural industries. Some farmers who are now fairly well to do started as shearers or bush workers. They acquired land, and, as they accumulated some cash, spent’ less time working for wages and more time on their farms, until finally they had no need to hawk their services as seasonal workers. It would be very difficult to devise a formula, to which no one could object, for applying unemployment benefit to casual workers. The bill provides that if the income of a seasonal worker for the year is not sufficient to enable him to maintain himself and his family, he may receive unemployment benefit. If but few casual workers come under the scheme, so much the better for them, and for the community generally. In the past no section of workers has been so degraded as the casual bush workers. Wages in rural industries have always been lower than in secondary industries, and the casual nature of .their employment made their existence precarious. When an opportunity presented itself for them to obtain permanent employment, they seized it with both hands, which is one reason why so few seasonal workers are available now.

This scheme has been devised as something supplementary to the Government’s general economic plans. We all hope that, there will not, be much unemployment after the war, and that the money in the National Welfare Fund will be sufficient to satisfy all demands, even at the comparatively high rates proposed. I, for one, trust the Government to do the job properly. Most of the money in the fund will, I believe, be devoted to the payment of sickness rather than unemployment benefit. That was recognized by those who drew up the scheme, and that is why the means test is to be applied to income, rather than to property. Under previous schemes an unemployed person was required to liquidate his assets, and even to sell his home, in order to provide himself with the necessaries of life, before he could qualify for unemployment benefit. That will no longer be required of him. The Government expects that there will be full employment for all persons willing and able to work, but it recognizes that it must carry on under the capitalist system, in which the motivating force is production for profit. In time of war the system is capable of providing employment for all who are willing and able to work, and, in the change-over from war to peace, seeing that it is in some measure a selfrepairing system-, no radical alterations of the basic principle will be necessary. The Government hopes that no revolutionary change of the economic system will be required to enable it to apply its policy. That is why the Government has brought down a scheme which does not provide full sustenance for the sick and unemployed, but only enough to tide them over while the economic system is being adjusted to peace-time conditions. With all its faults, this is an honest attempt to ensure that starvation and degradation do not accompany temporary periods of unemployment. Bearing in mind the schemes that have been tried in other parts of the world, and also in Australia, there is good reason to hope that this one will prove successful.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– in reply - The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition (Mir. Menzies) cannot be accepted by the Government, because it attacks the fundamental principles of the scheme, and its acceptance would ensure the abandonment of this effort to provide social security. Were the amendment to be accepted, the Government’s scheme would suffer the same fate as the national insurance scheme which, after costing the country so much money, was finally left at the doorstep of the Government. I ask honorable members to cast their minds back a few months to the time when the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) introduced the National Welfare Bill, the purpose of which was to establish a National Welfare Fund. He was sneered at by honorable members opposite, who said that the bill was merely a piece of window-dressing for the forthcoming elections, and that nothing would come of it. Now, when they find themselves snared in their own political cunning, they clamour against this measure . because it is the fulfilment of the promises which the Treasurer then made. It is evidence of the Government’s determination to keep faith with the people, and the Opposition does not like it. Honorable members opposite hate a government that does things. They were prepared to carry on year after year, spending public money on inquiries and the preparation of reports, and then pigeon-holing them. . This Government is determined not to pursue a policy of postponement, which always means defeat. The people cannot exist for ever on promises.

The Leader of the Opposition did not expect his amendment to be accepted, but he knew that if it were it would mean the end of the Government’s proposals. They would come to nothing, just as did the national insurance scheme introduced by a previous government. The right honorable gentleman, in his remarks upon this bill, said that it was impossible, to provide more than the people of the country produced. I do not think that any one will argue with him on that point. It is so elementary that I shall let it go without further comment. Then he said that the benefits cannot really be free. Well, no one gets anything free. None of the benefits provided under our social legislation is free. Those who receive benefits have earned them by serving their country for years, and by paying their taxes. Every time a child sits down to his breakfast he is, in the form of the tax paid on some of the things he eats, contributing for future social benefits. The community as a whole pays for the benefits received by industry under our fiscal system, but too often the benefits are collected exclusively by the great captains of industry. Thousands of pounds are paid out of revenue for maintaining scientific research laboratories, but, here again, the’ benefit often goes almost entirely to those who make fortunes out of industry. The great mass of the people get work, certainly, but their balance-sheet at the end of the year shows them to be in exactly the same position as at the beginning of the year. I have said in other places to people who would have contradicted me if they had been able that 80 per cent, of the Australian people are listed as wage or salary earners on the pay-roll of some employer and that 90 per cent, of the 80 per cent. exist on or below the bread-line, one-third being much below it. All pay taxes in some way. That is why we must continue to finance social legislation in the way adopted at the outset, namely, from Consolidated Revenue. Every one contributes, both directly and indirectly, to Consolidated Revenue, according to his capacity. I can remember that when the first Labour government of this Commonwealth placed social security legislation on a sound basis, Australia was hailed all over the world. I was asked to several round-table conferences at Geneva and London to outline the methods adopted by Australia in financing and otherwise dealing with social legislation. We were then regarded as being in the vanguard of social reformers, but, as the result of two or three decades of Nationalist, United Australia party and all kinds of tory control, we remained just where we were 30 years ago, whereas the countries that had been following in our wake caught us and many of them passed us. I remember a great judge of the Arbitration Court saying publicly. ‘*’ I was proud a few years ago that Australia was in the vanguard of social reform, but I am afraid it has lost its place to-day”. That place was lost owing to the long reign of anti-Labour governments. We say that in the interests of humanity and justice we must continue the existing method of spreading the cost of social legislation. The last piece of social legislation should be the best. I will prove that this is the best. I would prove in debate on the platform with .the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), or any one else, that there is no other piece of similar legislation better than this. That honorable members opposite realize that fact is shown by the poor quality of their ammunition. They had to rely on the Beveridge report which some day may, but I doubt it, become legislation. Before it can do so it will have to run the gauntlet for six or nine months of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I should not like to bet that many of its recommendations will be passed into law. Honorable gentlemen opposite quoted extensively from the Beveridge report, but they put forward nothing in actual operation today which is better than this legislation. 1 do not say for one moment that this legislation is as good as we should like it to be. We do not claim that it will bring economic security to the people. All we claim is that it is just a little contribution towards economic security. It will bridge those gaps which we cannot close so completely as we should like. We do, hope, however, that the percentage of unemployment will, as the result of good administration, be less than ever before. We hope also that, as the result of medical research by the Commonwealth Department of Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council, the sickness rate will be diminished. Neither unemployment nor sickness, however, can be eliminated. That is why this measure is necessary. I do not believe that any system of society could be conceived in which there would not be gaps which would have to be bridged by legislation of this character. Our aim to-day is to reduce the black spots which mark our society to the irreducible minimum.

The right honorable member for Kooyong (Mr. Menzies) introduced into this debate a Dark Age term. It was bad enough for him to use the shocking phrase “master and man”, but I was disgusted to hear him use the -word “ pauperism “. Fancy a man of the right honorable gentleman’s intelligence using in these days of enlightenment the word. “ pauperism “ ! It reminded me of an incident which occurred about fifteen years ago when, before I entered this Parliament, I was a member of the Victorian Council of Public Education. At a meeting of that council, I moved that all text-books used in State elementary schools should be provided free, and a professor from the University of Melbourne said, “ Pauperism ! Fancy introducing pauperism into our country ! “. I assure honorable members that every member of that council was as disgusted with that professor then as I was yesterday with the right honorable member for Kooyong, for whom I have always had the greatest respect. What we are proposing is not pauperism. It is not even charity. Everybody, regardless of his place on the social ladder, pays taxes, and those taxes in the aggregate form the exchequer from which we draw to pay for this social legislation. I have heard the right honorable member for Kooyong say in this chamber and outside that one of the canons of taxation is that people should pay according to their ability. That is the principle which guides the imposition of taxes in this country, and it is why we say that social legislation should be paid for from the funds which are paid into the Consolidated Revenue by the people for expenditure on their behalf. I come now to the kernel of the Opposition’s contention that unemployment insurance and sickness insurance should be on a contributory basis. The conservative elements of the community say that those who directly derive benefit ought to pay for that benefit from their wages ; in other words, that the workers, while they are working, must themselves ensure that they shall not be in want when they are not working. The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) destroyed the fallacy of the three-party contributory system, whereby payments are made by the employees, the employer and the Government, when he pointed out that the employees’ contributions, being made directly out of wages or salary, reduce their standard.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– He did not say that at all. He said that the payments added to the cost of the regimen.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– That is the same thing.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– No.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– The payments made by the employees reduce their income correspondingly. The honorable member for Warringah said that the employer’s share was passed on to the people in increased costs of goods and services, and that the Government’s contribution was paid from the taxes paid by the taxpayers of whom the majority are the workers. So, in the last analysis, 99 per cent. of the cost is met by the workers. The representatives of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited and such companies-

Mr Menzies:

– Fancy the Minister talking such nonsense. I venture to say that the average elector in Kooyong has less money than he has. All this “ tosh “ about moneyed classes!

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– I am afraid that the right honorable gentleman cannot take it.

Mr Menzies:

– I cannot take rubbish like that.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– For an example of rubbish honorable members need only to refer to the right honorable gentleman’s speech, in which he used such empty but insulting phrases as “killing incentive “, “ self-respect “ and “ making them paupers “. The right honorable gentleman then made the rubbishy statement, “ You cannot get it for nothing”. I have never claimed that any one can get anything for nothing. The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) was a member of the Social (Security Committee, and he signed the reports which impressed the fact upon us that all forms of social legislation should be incorporated in one measure and that the cost should be borne out of the proceeds of a direct tax. Those reports were made unanimously by an all-party committee which scoured the world for evidence. Here is what the committee said about unemployment -

Continuation in the post-war period of the principle of a graduated tax on incomes as a means of financing unemployment benefits and to maintain a minimum standard of subsistence for disemployed persons or those suffering from want of the necessities of life.

Mr Ryan:

– That does not mean income tax. It means something entirely different.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The Opposition strains at the gnat to find a more logical reason for their arguments. The honorable member for Flinders says that the recommendation of the Social Security Committee is for a special tax, not income tax.

Mr Ryan:

– Yes.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– What does that matter ?

Mr McDonald:

– It matters a lot, in that the beneficiaries under this bill are excluded from payment.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The honorable member wants the imposition of a direct tax on the workers.

Mr McDonald:

– No. I want the workers to subscribe for their own benefit, but the Government exempts them.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– That is not so. The honorable member for Wentworth, spreading himself greatly on this subject, said that in England the workers will pay 4s. 3d. a week in direct contributions. He insinuated that they did not pay income tax at all. He said that what we shall pay-

Mr Harrison:

– Is 14s. 8d. on £400 for social services.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– From income tax in return for benefits.

Mr Harrison:

– That is rich.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The honorable member said that in Great Britain a person will pay only 4s. 3d. a week as a direct contribution for the benefits, because it is a tripartite contributory scheme. But be omitted to point out that in addition to that contribution the taxpayer also pays income tax. As a matter of fact, the honorable member made some extraordinary statements.

Only one attempt has ever been made by a Commonwealth government to introduce a contributory scheme. In 1938, the Lyons Government sought the advice of experts in Great Britain, actuarial computations were made, and the National Insurance Bill was introduced. But the benefits were so miserable and the scheme was so costly that the public protested against it, and the Government hurriedly dropped’ it. In fact, there was even a “bust-up” in Cabinet and some Ministers threatened to resign if the scheme were not abandoned. The scheme proposed by the Curtin Government spreads the burden over all the people, and those who derive an advantage, from the employment of people help to pay for it. Surely the “captains of industry”, who spend large sums of money upon the maintenance of machinery, should help to maintain their human machine. Honorable members opposite did not complain when university professors secured the support of the Trades Hall, in a deputation that waited on a State Premier, to ask for a grant of £50,000 for the erection of a new building. They did not cry, “ Pauperism “, although that money was subscribed by people, rich and poor, by way of taxes. They do not complain when the reports of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research are made available to wealthy “captains of industry “, assisting them to add to their riches. But the salaries of the scientists who furnished those reports are met from income tax collections. Nearly everything which makes it possible for industry to enrich itself comes from taxes subscribed by rich and poor alike. In many ways we subsidize “ captains of industry “. We admit their imported machinery free of duty, although people pay excise on their tobacco and alcohol. If the Government assists to keep industry going, it should also maintain the human wreckage broken on the wheels of industry.

The Social Security Committee recommended this basis of finance. It is only right and proper that every one should share in the cost of the scheme. Another advantage is that this is the cheapest method of administration, because it spreads overhead costs. Although the honorable member for Parramatta read “ slabs “ from the Beveridge report, he did not refer to the cost of the administration of the scheme in Great Britain. I shall refresh his memory. In 1939, the costs were as follows: unemployment, 10 per cent.; health, 17 per cent.; pensions and other benefits, 5 per cent. The cost of the administration of invalid and old-age pensions, widows’ pensions, child endowment, and maternity allowances in the Commonwealth last year was 1 per cent. I do not contend that the cost of administration will not rise when the unemployment and sickness benefits scheme begins to operate, but I am’ sure that any increase will not be substantial. It certainly will not rise to 17 per cent. The Government prefers to make as much money as possible available to the unemployed and the sick, rather than create an enormous department which would be necessary under the tripartite system, employing thousands of officers to keep records. The cost of that organization would be about 20 per cent.

The basic principle for financing the scheme was unanimously recommended by the Social Security Committee. It travelled to all States and took voluminous evidence. Members almost shed tears when witnesses explained the necessity for this legislation. When honorable members opposite, who were members of the Social Security Committee, signed the report they apparently believed that this legislation would never be prepared.

They did not think that the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) is so honest as he is.

Mr Archie CAMERON:

– They did not i Link that the Treasurer was so weak !

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– They did not know that he is politically honest and gives effect to his promises. This bill is the material manifestation of his honesty.

Mr White:

– Is that why the Government will take the pensions of disabled soldiers into account under the “means” tost?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The honorable member for Balaclava plays to the emotions of returned soldiers.

Mr White:

– The Minister himself is shedding a few tears.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– This scheme will provide benefits for unemployed persons and sick persons. The only semblance of a “ means “ test will be the income of the sick person. Family income will not be taken into account. The honorable member for Balaclava mentioned that a returned soldier may be receiving . a war pension of fi a week for an injury to an eye. Perhaps the disability grows worse and the returned soldier gets sick. The Repatriation Commission will attend to that matter. If the returned soldier is unable to work, he will receive a full pension. He will not sustain any loss. I do not think that he would ask for additional sick pay.

Mr White:

– The Minister is missing (he point.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– A returned soldier may get sick because of some disability other than the war-caused injury for which, he is receiving the repatriation pension of fi a week. He will be eligible to claim the sickness benefit, just as any one else will be.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– I hope so.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Does the honorable member believe that I am not so much concerned’ a’bout the treatment of returned soldiers as he is? I have a son in the fighting forces, and I would rather lose my right hand than have anything happen to him. But I do not make a political issue of the matter. If the returned soldier gets sick .he will receive £1 5s. a week for himself, fi for his wife, and the prescribed benefits for his children. The war pension of fi a week is the amount that he will be permitted to retain in excess of the income that he receives as sickness benefits. He is in the same position as any other member of the community. A returned soldier has “ guts “ and would not want to be put on a different basis.

Mr White:

– The Minister is twisting.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I will not allow the honorable member to tell me that I am twisting. I am explaining what is in the bill. If the honorable member will show me that a hardship will be inflicted on returned soldiers the Government will examine the matter.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The Minister stated earlier that family income would not be taken into consideration for the purposes of sickness benefits.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I did.

Sir FREDERICK Stewart:

– Will the Minister reconcile that statement with the provisions of clause 18?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– For the purposes of unemployment benefits, the income of the spouse, as well as of the applicant, is taken into consideration. The earning* of any child under sixteen years of age are not taken into consideration, because the Government has raised the age o dependency from fourteen to sixteen years. The Government does not consid- that a child under the age of sixt years should be at work. But if child has an income left to him, it will he taken into account.

Mr Calwell:

– And. why not?

Sir FREDERICK Stewart:

– The child will be supporting the parents, although the parents pay the tax.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The income which the parent receives on behalf of the child will be regarded as income; but it will not be taken into account unless it. exceeds the sum of fi a week. A good deal has been said about the means test. Five or six members of a family may be contributing to the maintenance of the home. A reasonable figure will be- allowed for board and lodging and the family income will have to be fairly high before it will exceed the allowance. In my opinion, the value of the means test as applied to family income will be practically negligible. The honorable member for Wentworth exaggerated this position. It is true that the exemption of £1 a week applies to soldiers as well as to other persons in the community.

Mr White:

– It does not apply in relation to income tax; why should it apply in these circumstances?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– If the honorable member makes a submission to me in this connexion I shall consider it. The Repatriation Commission will compensate any soldier whose disabilities may increase. If a returned soldier is not able to work he is granted a pension, but if, while he is in work he falls sick, as other persons in the community do on occasions, the provisions of this bill will apply.

Mr Harrison:

– A disabled returned soldier is at a disadvantage in seeking work. This Government will not grant preference to returned soldiers.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– As soon as the honorable member is defeated in one argument, he jumps to another. I am prepared to examine any detailed case that he may submit to me. The Government cannot accept the amendment and I ask honorable members to reject it.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be left out (Mr. Menzies’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. J. S. Rosevear.)

AYES: 38

NOES: 13

Majority . . 25

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Clause 4 -

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - “ income “, in relation to any person, means any personal earnings, . . but does not include -

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I move -

That, in the definition of “ income “, after paragraph (b), the following paragraph be inserted: - ” (ba) in relation to a person qualified to receive unemployment benefit or sickness benefit, any payment not exceeding One pound five shillings per week made under the Aus tralian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1920-1943 in respect of a pension other than a special pension ; or “

Scant justice is being done to returned soldiers in this bill. The Minister in charge of the measure said in his speech in reply, that soldiers who were unemployable received consideration from the Repatriation Commission. I point out that a soldier who haslost an arm, or a leg, or an eye, may be granted a war pension, but he is nevertheless at a disadvantage in seeking employment, and men who have suffered disability because they have engaged in active warfare in the defence of their country should not be required to labour under any disability that we can remove. The war pensions which soldiers receive are not regarded as earned income for taxation purposes, and are not assessable as such. I can see no reason why the benefits which disabled soldiers receive under this measure should be considered as income. Men who have suffered the disabilities I have enumerated are obviously at a disadvantage when applying for jobs in competition with hale-and-hearty individuals, who, perhaps throughout the war period, have been employed in munitions factories and the like and have not undergone the risks attendant on active service. Take the case of a soldier who has lost a leg. He is paid a pension of £1 17 s. 6d. a week, plus an allowance of 0s. If my amendment be agreed to he will receive a benefit of 3s. 6d. a week under the provisions of this bill, but as the bill stands, he will receive nothing, whereas a man who has not been on active service and who, having retired from work, is in receipt of £1 5s. a week, will be entitled to £1 a week, which will bring his income up to £2 10s. a week. Surely a returned soldier is entitled to some consideration from the Government! It is gravely anomalous that an enemy alien, who may be interned at the present time, will merely have to establish the fact that he has been domiciled in Australia for twelve months in order to become entitled to the benefits of this legislation, and will thus be in a much better position than the returned soldier who has lost a limb. The Minister has not controverted that submission. If my interpretation is wrong, I should be put right; but I do not think that it is. Returned men should be given the opportunity of at least “ breaking even ,J with those who have remained behind, invested their money, and had the advantage of the conditions which have been made possible by the sacrifices of the soldiers. If the Government is prepared to expend £73,000,000 on social services, surely it should not quibble at a slight increase for those whose war services have made it possible for this scheme to be financed.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

– The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) has raised a point which demands serious, and sympathetic consideration by the Minister. The treat ment of returned soldiers is a matter that is divorced from party politics. This legislation is most far-reaching, and I am somewhat amazed at the complacency of the committee generally towards it. The Minister should no’ set himself the task of .having it passed without amendment. If the honorable gentleman cannot agree to the present proposal, he should at least promise to give sympathetic consideration to it. Many returned soldiers receive double the amount that has been suggested as the limit in this case.- It is not proposed’ that the full pension shall be taken into consideration, although that is an aspect that might well be considered. Different Ministers for Repatriation, when the subject of an increase of service pensions has been under consideration, have always stressed that these are granted purely on a disability basis, and are regarded as compensation for injury that has been sustained. Under this measure, a returned soldier who becomes unemployed or ill, will be expected to make provision for himself by means of the disability pension, which had been granted for entirely different reasons. I agree with the honorable member for Wentworth that returned soldiers should not have discrimination practised against them.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I support the amendment. I am sorry that this matter was not considered by the committee of returned soldier members which has deliberated upon many repatriation matters in the past. I have participated in those deliberations, and have found myself in complete agreement with points raised by Government members on the committee. When an honorable member advocates in this chamber the cause of returned soldiers who cannot urge their own case, the Minister ought not to accuse him of exerting pressure. Last night, I was associated with the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) when, from the platform of the .Town Hall in Melbourne, the right honorable gentleman, addressing those who had assembled in support of the First Victory Loan, paid an exceptionally high tribute’ to the services of Australia’s defence forces, and said that they would not be forgotten in any way. They certainly were forgotten when this legislation was framed. A soldier does not receive a pension because he has fought in the war, although some honorable members consider that he does. If an entitlement board decides that he has sustained some disability which impairs his effectiveness in his work, he is granted a pension, the amount of which varies according to the measure of his disability. No pension, however high, would compensate him for the loss of a leg or an arm. I was Minister for Repatriation for a period, and for a long while have been associated with various phases of repatriation. I have found that the man who experiences the greatest difficulty in obtaining employment is the one who is partially blind. Returned soldiers know that those who suffer from facial disfigurement learn that for them the field of employment is very restricted. Yet the person who is in that category, and receives a pension on account of it, is to be disqualified’ partially from the benefits of this scheme if he happens to be unemployed. It is useless for the Minister to say that the Repatriation Department will look after him, because it will not d,o so. Any government possessing common sense, let alone compassion or a sense of justice, would accept the amendment without cavil. Why accuse of insincerity the honorable member who has. proposed it? The men affected are to-day taking risks which members of this chamber do not take. It is a pity that this building was not bombed once or twice. Had that happened, honorable members might have more appreciation of what the fighting services are experiencing daily. Those men are not in the position to plead their cause to-day; but later, if they consider that their rights are not being properly regarded, and that many of the promises made to them were hollow, they will exhibit anger and disgust. The matter need not Be debated at length. Had it been discussed’ and urged by honorable members who comprise the unofficial committee of” returned soldiers, surely the Government’ would’ have accepted it.

Mr Holloway:

– I cannot accept the amendment; but I freely undertake to discuss the matter with the Treasurer.

Mr COLES:
Henty

– I sincerely commend the amendment to the consideration of the Minister. The honorable gentleman must have overlooked one point in connexion with the pensions of soldiers. This Parliament has accepted the provision in a repatriation measure, that if a soldier is bodily disabled he shall receive a full pension of £2 10s. a week. The amendment merely seeks to provide that a soldier who has had a disability pension granted to him because of a war injury shall, when unemployed for the time being, be raised to the status of one in receipt of a full pension of £2 10s. a weekThat request is very reasonable. In my opinion, the whole of a soldier’s pension should be left out of account in the consideration of income for the purposes of this legislation. The amendment having been proposed by certain soldiers. I am willing to support it. A man who had returned from this war with a disability could be unemployed and because of the pension in respect of that disability not receive the sustenance allowance fixed by this bill for a person unemployed. I commend and support the amendment, and urge the Minister to give consideration to it.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- For the purpose of other legislation, a disability pension is not regarded as income, and I cannot see why an exception should be made in this measure. This is a matter which will affect disabled soldiers more than any one else. The Government might well accept tie amendment; a small amount only is involved. As a matter of fact, I should like to see the whole of the disability pension excluded from income.

Mr BRYSON:
Bourke

.- The returned soldier has been made a political football for the last 25 years, and it is time that we settled down to decide what is a fair thing to do for him.

Mr Coles:

– Take his pension away from him?

Mr BRYSON:

– No, but I say that a special act should be passed giving te the returned soldier the conditions which he really deserves. I have not been a member of this Parliament very long-

Mr Archie Cameron:

– And the honorable member will not be here much longer.

Mr BRYSON:

– Perhaps not, but for :i good many years I have read the mouthings of politicians who have used the returned soldier for their own political advancement, but who did nothing io give the returned soldier of the last war what he was entitled to. I remind honorable members that the present Opposition constituted the Commonwealth governments almost continuously from the end of the last war until 1941, and what did they do for the returned soldier? They used him for their own political advantage, and they are trying to do the same thing now.

Mr Coles:

– Is the honorable member speaking as a returned soldier?

Mr BRYSON:

– I am not,

Mr Coles:

– Well, I did.

Mr BRYSON:

– I was a bit young for the last war, and a bit old for this one. Some of those who criticize me have not done as much for the returned soldier as I have) but I am not claiming any kudos for what I have done. As I have said, a special act should be passed to ensure that every returned’ soldier of t is war, and every returned soldier of the last war who did not receive justice from previous governments, will now receive that to which he is entitled. However, the Unemployment and Sickness Benefits Bill is not the one to which the returned soldier should look for justice. This measure is designed to provide a small benefit for persons who are unemployed or who, because of sickness, are unable to work. The returned soldier is in a different category. If he is disabled, he must be assured of a pension that will enable him to live in comfort for the rest of his life. If he is not disabled, but falls sick or becomes unemployed, then he will come under this scheme. The returned soldier has a special claim, on the people of Australia, and I feel sure that the Labour Government will grant him what he is entitled to. Previous governments made all sorts of promises to the returned soldier, but did’, not keep them. He was to be given preference, but in actual fact the preference was worth nothing, and there were no jobs to be had. During the depression, thousands of returned soldiers were walking the streets begging for a meal.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– And there was a Labour government in power.

Mr BRYSON:

– The conditions which existed at that time were the outcome of the policies which the honorable member for Barker consistently supports. Honorable members opposite were prepared to use the returned1 soldier to win elections for them, but when the election was over he was allowed to starve. Every returned soldier should be assured of a job. When he is having one meal, he should be in no doubt as to where the next one is to come from; otherwise, this Government will have failed in the same way as previous governments failed. The soldier is called upon to risk his life. Many have lost their lives. Numbers of the men who return are maimed, having lost a leg or an arm or an eye. It is the duty of the community to see that such men shall be able to live in comfort for the rest of their lives. This bill proposes that a payment of 25s. a week shall be made to a man who is out of work, but that is not enough for an unemployed, disabled soldier. He deserves something better than that. While I am a member of this Parliament I shall support every proposal to ensure that the returned soldier of this war shall receive the justice which the returned soldier of the last war was promised, but did not receive.

Mr. BOWDEN (Gippsland) 5.25).- I support the amendment, and I urge the Minister to accept it, I believe that he can do so without loss of dignity. To treat a disability pension as income is utterly indefensible. The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) defined it properly when he said that a disability pension represents an attempt by the country to restore to the disabled soldier something that he has lost. It never has been looked upon as income. If a man loses a leg at the war, his disability is computed at so much. If his leg could be restored to him, there would be no question of a money payment at all, but because that cannot be done, a certain sum of money is paid to him, either at so much a week, or in a lump sum.

The proof of that lies in this fact : there are returned soldiers in this country with incomes of thousands of pounds a year, but they still draw their disability pensions. That makes it clear that the disability pension is not paid to enable a man to keep himself, but as compensation for something that he has lost. I ask the Minister to look on it in that light, and to grant this small concession.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I support the amendment. I have a strong feeling that the Minister representing the Minister for Health (Mr. Holloway) is not altogether happy in the position into which he has manoeuvred himself. I noticed that perambulating messenger of peace, the honorable member for Ballarat (Mr. Pollard), approached him, probably with an olive branch in one hand and a knobkerrie in the other. The honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Bryson) said that this was not the bill in which to make concessions to returned soldiers. I point out that a returned soldier’s disability pension is exempt under the Income Tax Act. Logically, if this clause is agreed to in its present form, the Income Tax Act should be amended so as to make a disability pension taxable. The proper title of this measure would be the Disabled Soldiers Handicap Act.

Mr Bryson:

– What weight will the honorable member for Barker carry in the handicap?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I was a bit lucky. I was one of those who came through the last war without getting knocked. This’ provision does not affect me. I carry no military disability, and the Government has seen fit to ensure that I do not take any risks in this war. 1S0 far as I can foresee in this troubled world, I am not likely to come under the scheme as an employee. I have always been my own boss, and I have rather a liking for that. I do not relish starting and knocking-off by clocks. I prefer to start by the sun - it has the advantage of saving the price of a watch. This case is one in which only men who have been so disabled that the country pays them a pension will he concerned. For a government which claims the great depth of charity and breadth of generosity that this Government claims to adopt an attitude like this is indeed a sad state of affairs. The honorable member for Bourke having imported past history into the argument - it was not imported by anybody on this side - my mind goes back over 25 years and I remember well that the only Labour Government which reigned during that time was the one which saw fit to cancel preference to returned soldiers; that was in 1930-31. Since the Government lately has shown a lot of concern about my administration of departments - especially since’ the censorship row began - I ask Ministers to examine what I did as PostmasterGeneral in 1938 on behalf of the temporary returned soldier employees of the Postal Department.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order !

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– It is all germane to this clause. During the last Parliament, when the question arose as to what will happen to the men who return from this war, the honorable member for Dalley (Mr. Rosevear) told the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) pointblank that the Australian Labour party would instruct him that it was not preference to soldiers that he was to introduce, but preference to unionists, and that he was to have no doubt about it. He and those who supported him with a. fair amount of. vigour, wanted the country to know it. Since these matters are germane to the clause under discussion, it is reasonable that the committee should have them at the back of its mind. Some of us are not oblivious of what is going on. Like the Irishman’s parrot we do not say much but we see a lot of the attitude of honorable members opposite. This should not bc a party question, and it is unbecoming of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), after the speech he made this - afternoon in reply to the debate on the second reading, in which he unctuously oozed self-righteousness in regard to all these matters, and claimed that this bill was not even yet what the Labour party thought it should be, to decline to make any alteration whatsoever. This is a matter on which there should be no doubt in the mind of any honorable member. Whether or not we have reached the stage at which, as we read in the Book of Esther, once anything is ordained by the King of the Assyrians, it cannot be altered, I do not know, but we have heard too much from the treasury bench during the last couple of weeks about the immutability of legislation. The Opposition may criticize legislation and move amendments, we are told, but it will not alter the result. The legislation will remain the same whatever we say or do.

Mr Bryson:

– The honorable member must admit that the bills have been well prepared.’

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Well prepared ! The honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) himself said that thi* bill was hastily prepared. I think that every honorable member knows perfectly well that it was hastily prepared - not just hastily prepared, but, I think, prepared by somebody not altogether sure of his ground. Since the Minister for Labour and National Service forecast and prophesied this afternoon - that is something he does with great distinction and ability, and any one would be pardoned for thinking that he was directly descended from the Prophets - it is safe to say that before long he will be coming here and saying, “ After all, lads, I did make a bit of a mistake at the end of a long session in March, and I was a bit rough on you, but here’s the amendment. What about supporting it “. The time for the amendment is now, not six months hence.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta.

– The ‘ Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) has not been helped one bit by the venomous outburst of the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Bryson). I was hoping that the temperate attitude of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) and the honorable member for Henty (Mr. Coles) indicated that this matter would be discussed on its merits, instead of being made a party issue, as it was made by the honorable member for Bourke, who claimed, unctuously - if I may borrow a term from the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) - that he wanted to see justice done to returned soldiers and that he wanted them to get pensions appropriate to their disabilities and service. He told us that he was a bit too young to serve in the last war. If he were a little older in politics and had been here a little longer, he would have heard the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost), speaking of appropriate pensions for returned soldiers, on the Repatriation Bill which Parliament was then considering. Those of us who were here then will remember that, the Minister for Repatriation claimed that the bill was most generous. One purpose of that measure was to increase from 42s. to 50s. a week the pensions paid to those soldiers who are practically debarred from employment because of disabilities resulting from war service.

Mr Frost:

– The honorable member is not objecting to that?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– No. I am mentioning that in opposition to the argument used by the honorable member for Bourke. All that this amendment proposes is that that 50s. a week shall be retained by those entitled to it. I agree with the honorable member for Henty and others that, in the light of other aspects of pensions and disability allowances, one could be excused if one asked that the whole of that pension be excluded, as the whole of the maternity allowance and child endowment have been excluded. All that this amendment proposes is that there shall be retained to the disabled returned soldiers the 50s. a week which was the evaluation of his disability by the Minister for Repatriation. If a man’s disability has been rated at, say, 40s., he should be entitled to dra w 10s. of the 25s. unemployment benefit, making the total payment 50s., which the Repatriation Act says is the due of a disabled soldier who cannot earn. I hope that the Minister for Labour and National Service will not hesitate to grant this concession. I agree with the honorable member for Barker that we are becoming tired of the arbitrary and adamant attitude of Ministers who bring down bills. I know that this proposal involves some slight addition to the cost of this measure, but I cannot see why. merely because the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) is not at the moment here, justice cannot be done to disabled soldiers.

I hope that the Minister will not defer consideration of this matter, because of that adventitious circumstance, but will take immediate steps to ensure that disabled soldiers shall receive at least partial justice.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I ask honorable members to remember that this bill was introduced in the Senate, and that, as it is not my bill, I cannot accept the amendment, not because I do not think that there is justice in it, but because it is not a matter for me to determine. I promise that I shall sympathetically submit it to the Treasurer and Cabinet so that- it shall be discussed at the next Cabinet meeting, which will take place soon. I shall see that an answer is given.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The Minister will not ask us Vo pass the bill until the answer has been given?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I do not say that, but I do say that it will not be put into force until this provision has been inserted or reasons against it have been given,

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Parliament will adjourn to-morrow for at least four months.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– This legislation will not come into effect for six or seven months.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Let us have a vote.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Honorable members had better accept my offer.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- The Minister for Labour and National Service sees the merit of the argument, but the honorable member for Bourke (Mr. Bryson) apparently thought that this was a party matter; it is nothing of the sort.

Mr Bryson:

– It is.

Mr WHITE:

– The honorable member is a newcomer. He does not understand the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act. Our repatriation act, which has been amended on many occasions, is one of the best in the world. Admittedly, it contains anomalies.

Mr Frost:

– Of course it does.

Mr WHITE:

– The Minister for Repatriation knows that improvements could still be made. He has his own ideas on that subject and I have mine.

Mr Frost:

– That can be done at the appropriate time. Why try to sneak this matter into this bill? The Opposition did the same kind of thing when it tried fo insert preference to returned soldiers into the Repatriation Act.

Mr WHITE:

– The Minister misunderstands. In this connexion no amendment of the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act is needed. What we are trying to do is to prevent the whittling down of provisions made for returned soldiers in the Repatriation Act by means of this proposed act, under which pensions of returned soldiers will be considered as income in assessing the allowance to be paid to them if they are unemployed. Pensions paid to returned soldiers are not taken into consideration in assessing income tax. In referring to the honorable member for Bourke, the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) used the word “ venomous “.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Because I could not think of a better word.

Mr WHITE:

– The Government could at any time bring down a bill providing for preference to be given to returned soldiers and the Opposition would support it to a man. It has the power to do so under the defence power. So much for that, which is quite apart from this bill, under which the Government intends to clip the pensions paid to disabled soldiers if they should become unemployed. Those who are most susceptible to unemployment are those with facial disfigurements or missing limbs, for whom opportunities of work are few. The honorable member for Bourke is not aware of what was done in the Repatriation Act. He talked about starving returned soldiers walking the streets looking for work during the depression. The depression hit every country, and every country took its own corrective measures. In not one of the measures taken by this country were the pensions of returned soldiers considered for taxation. This bill has been hastily drafted and considered. It is a pity that the returned soldier members of Parliament who know the background were not asked to put forward a proposal. I think that they could have made one that would have been acceptable to all. It is not sufficient lor the Minister for Labour and National Service to say that he will tell his colleagues about this matter. Parliament will rise to-morrow for a long recess. I think that we should meet at least every quarter. “We cannot have Ministers churning out dictates and the bureaucracy making national security regulations without supervision or check. That is not the way to govern this country. This is the only place where matters of import can be discussed. When we have raised matters, Ministers have impressed us with the fact that something will be lone and a reply given in a day or so.. When they come back again, armed with advice from some one outside, they are adamant in. their noes. A similar amendment was moved in the Senate and the arguments which are now being advanced in support of it were raised in that chamber. But the amendment was negatived. The Minister is obviously impressed with our representations. As a solution of the difficulty, he should report progress and refer the matter to Cabinet. By accepting the amendment, the Government will earn the acclaim of all those who love justice.

Mr FROST:
Minister for Repatriation and Minister in charge of War Service Homes · Franklin · ALP

– The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) expressed the fear that this clause would whittle away soldiers’ pensions. That is not the intention of the Government.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Nevertheless, the bill will have that effect!

Mr FROST:

– The Minister has assured honorable members opposite that he will refer the matter to Cabinet for reconsideration. That assurance does not satisfy the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), who is obviously anxious to make political capital out of this issue. He resorted to the same tactics when I introduced the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Bill last year. He pressed for the acceptance of amendment ensuring preference for returned soldiers. When the Prime Minister promised to introduce a bill to give preference to returned soldiers, the Opposition was still not satisfied. The Opposition in the Senate amended the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation

Bill, with the result that a bill granting preference to returned soldiers has not been introduced. Even returned soldiers’ organizations cannot agree among themselves regarding the preference issue. When the Minister refers this matter to Cabinet for review, he will have my support. The Minister has bean fair with the Opposition. I ask honorable members opposite not to press the amendment, because the measure will not come into operation for six or seven months.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– In what way will the Minister for Repatriation support the Minister for Labour and National Service?

Mr FROST:

– I do not go back on my word. I do not wriggle, as the honorable member wriggled on the issue of the 40-hours week.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– What does the Minister promise to do?

Mr FROST:

– I shall support the representations that the Minister for Labour and National Service makes to Cabinet. Listening to honorable members opposite, one would think that we had no sympathy for returned soldiers. We are as much concerned for their welfare as are our critics. The raising of the returned soldier issue for the purposes of political advantage is degrading. The Minister, who is a very . sincere man, has given an assurance and I fail to see why the Opposition does not accept it.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– I appeal to the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) to give to the committee an assurance that this provision will be inserted in the bill, or that the clause will be postponed until Cabinet has had an opportunity to examine it. The House will sit again to-morrow. In the interim, the committee can discuss the remaining clauses of the bill and resume the consideration of this clause to-morrow when Cabinet has reached a decision. I do not desire to make this a party issue. Far from it ! My representations appear to have impressed the Minister. A similar amendment was moved in the Senate, so that Cabinet has really had an opportunity to examine it.

Mr Holloway:

– ‘Cabinet has not examined it.

Mr HARRISON:

– Weeks have passed since this bill was considered by iiic Senate. I hope that the Minister will agree to the postponement of the clause.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- The committee should consider this matter on its merits without heat, recriminations or other emotional display. The proposal of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) for the postponement of the clause in order that Cabinet may consider it. is reasonable. This is “rush” legislation; the measure should receive more consideration. Even members of the Labour party did not have an opportunity to examine the bill until after it had been introduced in the Senate.

Mr Lawson:

– The honorable member should speak for himself. Every member of the Labour party -had an opportunity to examine it.

Mr Abbott:

– Is this freedom of speech ?

Mr MORGAN:

– I always speak for myself, and I do not shirk any issue. This is not a party political issue. All honorable members are greatly concerned for the welfare of the returned soldiers. There has been an oversight in the drafting of this legislation, and a misunderstanding of the principles on which war pensions are based. War pensions are laid down on a disability’ basis, and have no relation to the economic position of the recipient. They are given for the purpose of compensating a returned soldier for a war disability. Consideration has been granted to members of friendly societies because they contribute perhaps for years for the unemployment or sickness benefits that they are entitled to receive. The same principle may be applied to returned soldiers. They bought their pension, probably more dearly than members of friendly societies, because they paid for it with pain and suffering. This is the proper place in which to decide the issue. The bill deals with unemployment and sickness benefits, and should contain any special provisions relating to benefits for returned soldiers. I feel strongly about this matter. Many honorable members on this side of the chamber would like to support the amendment. The amount of money involved is only small, and will be provided from the National Welfare Fund. In my opinion, ‘an entire war pension should be allowable, but the honorable member for Wentworth suggested the moderate sum of 25s. In fact, the whole of the benefits which people receive from friendly societies and trade unions should not be taken into consideration when these benefits are being bestowed. Miners receive benefits, for which they contribute, up to 35s. a week; consequently, they will not derive much advantage from this legislation. Unfortunately, this matter has arisen late in the session, but that should not preclude the committee from giving full consideration to the issue. If the bill passes in its present form,’ months will elapse before this matter can again receive consideration. The Minister ha3 not said definitely that he will recommend it to Cabinet, and, after all, others have to be considered in the making of a decision. It is in committee that an oversight can bo corrected.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I inform the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) that I am not arguing the merits of the amendment.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Will the Minister postpone the clause?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– No. I want the committee to complete its consideration of the bill. Rut I promise to submit the measure to Cabinet when it meets next Tuesday.

Mr Ryan:

– Cannot Cabinet meet tonight?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– No ; some Ministers are occupied in the Senate. I shall present this proposal to Cabinet with the same degree of sympathy as the honorable member for Wentworth has shown. He is aware that the bill will not be implemented for some time.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Then why should we hasten to pass it?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I have given my word. and I ask honorable members to accept it.

Sitting suspended from 6- to 8 p.m.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- The Minister in charge of the bill (Mr.

Holloway) has indicated that he has been impressed -by the case submitted by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) in support of the amendment, and has said that if the committee will pass the clause as it stands he will undertake to bring the honorable member’s representation before Cabinet. The Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost) has also indicated that he has been impressed by the strength of the case. At first sight, it would appear that the Minister has made a generous suggestion, but, on closer examination, it will be seen that his attitude is extraordinary. He has admitted that his confidence in the soundness of the Government’s proposal is shaken, but all that he is prepared to do is to make representations on the subject to Cabinet. He is asking the committee to agree to a proposal which he has admitted is unsound.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– If the bill is passed, it may be six months before an amendment can be made.

Mr McEWEN:

– That is so. To agree to the. Minister’s proposal would be to consent to an abrogation of the authority of the Parliament. The proper course for the Minister to take is to ask the committee to postpone consideration of the clause so that the amendment may be carefully considered by Cabinet. The Minister has said that Cabinet will meet on Monday or Tuesday, but Parliament will not then be in session, and, in fact, it may not meet until next August, or even September. As all the members of Cabinet are available for a meeting, I urge the Minister to call them together to consider this proposal at once. I greatly regret that the Minister for Repatriation suggested by interjection that if the Opposition pressed this amendment to a division it might cause the defeat of the purpose we have in view. Upon reflection, the Minister must realize that it would be unwise to persist in that attitude. The amendment is equitable or it is not equitable towards ex-servicemen. If it is equitable it should be adopted. In the interests of fair play, I urge that it be considered immediately on its merits. Surely that id a reasonable proposition. On the merits of the case, I remind honorable members that, during the 25 years that repatriation legislation has been in force in this country, innumerable amendments have been made to it; but one fundamental that has remained unchanged is that soldiers who have sustained a continuing disability in their war service should receive a compensation which should be in no sense related to their private means or other income. That principle has never previously been challenged. This is the first time that the pernicious principle of the means-test has been applied to war pensions. That the application is indirect does not alter the fact. The situation that we face is this : So long as a former serviceman suffering from an assessable disability is in employment, his income is greater by the amount of his pension than is the income of a fellow citizen doing the same work who does not suffer from a continuing war disability. Let us assume that the disability of the ex-serviceman has been assessed at £1 a week, and that his pay in his civilian job is £5 a week. His income is £6 a week. His fellow citizen, doing the same kind of work, who has sustained no war disability, has an income of £5 a week. Successive Parliaments have accepted as equitable the principle that ex-servicemen shall be compensated in this way in respect of war disabilities. But if this clause be agreed to in its present form the effect on the -ex-serviceman will be to rob him, when he falls out of employment, of the benefit which it is proposed to grant, for in such circumstances the fellow citizen who suffers no war disability and the citizen who suffers from a continuing war disability would both be on the same footing. In view of the fundamental principle which has hitherto been observed in this country in relation to war pensions, the Government’s attitude is entirely indefensible. As a matter of fact the ex-serviceman should he entitled to the greater consideration if unemployment should befall him.

Mr Holloway:

– The provision in this bill is similar to provisions in other pensions schemes. It is not new. I do not argue at the moment whether it is right or wrong.

Mr McEWEN:

– It may not be new; but other pensions relate to needs, whereas war pensions are intended as a compensation for the physical disability which ex-servicemen arc suffering on account of war service. Take the position of two men, who have each lost a leg, one through war service and the other through accident in civil employment. Again I shall keep to simple figures. The ‘ ex-serviceman has a pension of fi a week in respect of his disability. For the sake of the argument I shall put down the civilian’s compensation at £300 cash. Assume that both individuals lose their employment. The fact that the civilian received £300 compensation in a lump sum would not be invoked in order to assess his right to benefit under this bill, but the exserviceman who receives his compensation by means of a weekly payment would find that his compensation would be reduced. Surely the Minister must agree that that is unjustifiable. I submit, therefore, that it is most unreasonable for the Minister to ask us to agree to this clause on his promise that he will . submit the representations to Cabinet for later consideration. The subject should be considered at once. We do not accuse the Government of any sinister motive in haying failed to include in the bill a provision such as the honorable member for Wentworth is asking for. I have been a member of cabinets which have had to consider shortcomings disclosed in bills during a parliamentary debate. .The shortcomings may have been due to pure oversight. We do not suggest that the Government has any nefarious design in respect of ex-servicemen, but we ask that the unsatisfactory state of affairs which has been revealed, shall he remedied at once. The committee is indebted to the honorable member for Wentworth for having brought this point to notice. I hope that the Government will accede to our request. I hope also that the Minister for Repatriation will not seek to place the responsibility on the Opposition for the defeat of the proposal, if that should happen on a division. Ex-servicemen should not be penalized in that way.

Mr MCDONALD:
Corangamite

– I deplore the fact that passion has been shown in discussion of a subject that should have been considered on strictly non-party lines. Probably there has been a complete oversight by the Government of the point raised by the honorable member for Wentworth. I do not believe that Cabinet deliberately decided not to insert the provision which the honorable member for Wentworth has now proposed. A member of a friendly society who, during years of thrift, industry and foresight, has contributed to a fund which will yield him £1 a week in a time of sickness is being assured that his thrift shall not operate against him in relation to the sickness benefit prescribed in this bill. But contrast his ‘case with that of a “ digger “. He, by reason of service, sacrifice, suffering and war injury, becomes entitled to a pension. As the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) said, a man who loses a limb suffers a capital loss for which no monetary payment will fully recompense him. This matter should go before the Cabinet afresh. Scant justice will be done to the soldier, and members of the Ministry will do less than justice to themselves if the bill passes without providing that the man who has sustained injury on war service shall be on a footing at least equal to that of the citizen witu whom lie daily comes in contact.

I regret that I have to rebut certain statements of the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost). I do not think that I shall be accused of partisanship, because my attitude when repatriation legislation was before the House is well known. I remind the Minister that the committee of returned soldiers which reported on that legislation stated in definite term? that absolute preference should be given to returned soldiers wherever possible.

Mr FROST:

– That is so.

Mr McDONALD:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– The committee did not wish to embarrass the Government, f. made it perfectly plain that I would stand by anything to which I had subscribed as a member of the committee. I was prepared to vote for it, despite the attitude of my party. I, in common with others, would have accepted the assurance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) that the Government intended to introduce legislation to give preference to returned soldiers.

Mr FROST:

– Why did not the honorable member accept his word?

Mr McDONALD:

– The honorable gentleman has given me an opportunity to state the reason. It was because of the statement of certain honorable members who occupy the corner benches opposite, that the policy of the Government was preference to unionists, not preference to returned soldiers. I did not at any time doubt the good will and sincerity of the Prime Minister, but I was doubtful of the support which he would receive from a certain quarter of the House if he endeavoured to introduce legislation of that character.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member having replied to the statement of the Minister, I ask him to confine his remarks to the amendment.

Mr McDONALD:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– With due deference, I point out that there was no interruption while the Minister for Repatriation was heatedly stating his case. Nothing could afford me. more pleasure than discussion of the amendment, because it gives to me an opportunity to point out that a war pension is assessed on the applicant’s disability, irrespective of his earning power. He may be earning £’1,000 a year, and yet receive a 50 per cent, pension if his disability entitles him to it. I appeal to the Minister in charge of the bill to reconsider this matter, and repeat that he will do less than justice to the fighting men as well as to the Government if he declines to accept the amendment.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

, - The Minister has suggested that the Opposition should suspend action in connexion with the amendment until the Cabinet meets next week. We understand that we shall not be here next week, or for many weeks subsequently. Therefore, the Minister’s proposal is that this hill shall be submitted for the Royal assent in its present form, on his undertaking, not that he will recommend to Cabinet the acceptance of the amendment, but that he will have the matter considered by Cabinet. If the honorable gentleman were prepared definitely to undertake that Cabinet would see that the provision was inserted before the measure became law, the attitude of members on this side, and I am sure of members opposite also, might be entirely different.

What is involved in the amendment? There are two sections of the bill which deal with income qualification or dis qualification. The definition clause, with which we are dealing, specifically exempts from the calculation for income disqualification all moneys received from the maternity allowance or child endowment. Later, provision is made for further exemptions: A member of a friendly society who is entitled to certain sick benefits because of his contributions to it, is to be entitled to an exemption of up to £1 a week. At the discretion of the Director-General of Social Services, sick benefits paid by other persons and bodies, such as trade unions, are also to be exempt. Surely we shall do less than justice to ourselves and the soldiers if we permit investments in friendly societies and trades hall funds to carry an exemption of £1 a week, and refuse to apply the same principle to the investment of a soldier in the service of his country! Let us assume that a member of a friendly society is entitled, under his contract with the society, to sick benefit of £1 10s. a week. Under this legislation, he will have deducted from his sick benefit the amount in excess of £1, and will thus receive a sick benefit of 15s. a week. Likewise, if a member of a trade union, under a contract with the provident fund, is entitled to a sick benefit of £1 10s. a week, £1 of that will be excluded when his income is calculated, and 10s. will be taken into account, reducing the benefit of £1 5s. to one of 15s. But if a soldier has a contract with, the Repatriation Department, under which his sick benefit is assessed at £1 10s. a week after very close investigation by one or other of the statutory tribunals, that fact will debar him from any participation whatever in the benefits of this scheme. But he is not to bc exempt from the payment of the income tax, which honorable members opposite describe as a contribution to the fund from which the benefits are to be payable. With that clearly in mind, the Minister can no longer deny that it is not reasonable to ask this Parliament to pass the legislation in its present form. It would be easy for members of the Cabinet to meet, and make a decision. This proposal has not come “ out of the blue “ ; the amendment was moved in the Senate some weeks ago. Consequently, the Government has had ample time in which to consider it. AVe are prepared to agree to the postponement of the clause until to-morrow. The bill could then be finalized in the form desired by the Government.

The definition clause, in addition to jiving complete exemption to maternity allowance and child endowment in the calculation of income, also provides -

The calculation of income shall not Include, in relation to a person qualified to receive sickness benefit, any payment made in respect of incapacity, in respect of which that person is so qualified.

That is capable of two interpretations, and I should like to know which is thecorrect one. It could mean that a person entitled to claim sickness benefit is also entitled to have an unlimited income without prejudicing his claim for the sickness benefit; alternatively, it could mean that he is entitled to the gross payment of £2 53., namely, the benefit of £1 5s. plus an allowable income of £1. I hope that the Minister will state what is intended.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- 1 admit that, prima facie, there is some merit in the case submitted by the Opposition. But as the matter has already come before the Senate, and the Minister for Social Services (Senator Fraser) declined to accept it without further examination, I cannot see any reason why the Minister in charge of the bill in this chamber (Mr. Holloway) should depart from the assurance that the matter would be considered by Cabinet, with the object of doing even-handed justice to all. The Opposition claims that the amendment does not involve party politics. I am not altogether sure that the statements of honorable members opposite since dinner have not clearly displayed that tendency. The honorable member for Corangamite (Mr. McDonald) said that the matter should be viewed dispassionately and without heat, yet not two minutes later he evinced every inclination to engage in physical combat with the Minister for Repatriation’ (Mr. Frost), after admitting that he had attempted to “ bait “ the Minister to say something off which the honorable member might score. The amendment ought to be examined, in order that its implications might be revealed. In every measure that has come before this Parliament since the present Government has been in office, even-handed justice has been meted out to the soldiers. After all, this measure is designed to bestow benefits upon a certain section of the community. It is not designed to benefit, in particular, returned soldiers in receipt of pensions. They are provided for in the Repatriation Act. However, if their interests are affected by this clause, the matter should be examined so that justice may be meted out to all, whether they be returned soldiers or not.

The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) made great play on the fact that Parliament is shortly going into recess, and will not meet again for some time. That does not matter a bit so far as this scheme is concerned, so long as the bill is passed by Parliament, Honorable members know quite well that several months will be required to prepare the machinery for giving effect to the scheme. That is why it is necessary to pass the measure now, so that, when the act is proclaimed, it may immediately be put into operation.

This is just another of the occasions upon which the Opposition is seeking to make political capital out of the returned soldier. It did so in connexion with the Repatriation Bill which was before the House some time ago. It forced into the measure a section providing for preference to returned soldiers, although it was utterly irrelevant to the measure and gave the returned soldier exactly nothing. I desire to place on record my opinion of the tactics pursued by the Opposition in connexion with this bill. Members of the Opposition have consistently used the returned soldier as an excuse for making attacks upon the Government. They have done so ever since they have been in Opposition. I hope that the Minister will not yield beyond saying that the matter will be examined. I am sure that justice will be done to every one.

Question put: -

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

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

AYES: 14

NOES: 33

Majority . . . . 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– The debate, which has just concluded on the amendment of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), should be a warning to the Government that there is a screw loose in this piece of jerry-built legislation. During the parliamentary recess, it would be well advised to put into effect the good intentions expressed earlier by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway). I hope that, in this case, his good intentions will not meet with the fate referred to so often by Dante.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 5 to 14 agreed to.

Clause15 (Unemployment benefit).

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– Some words were omitted in the drafting of this clause.I do not propose to move an amendment now, but merely to inform honorable members that action will be taken later to include the missing words. The clause provides that benefit shall not be payable to any person who is a direct participant in a strike. It was intended to make it clear that this disqualification would not apply to those who refused to take a position vacated by a striker. I give an assurance that the clause will be amended in that way.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– This is the clause which says what persons are qualified to participate in the benefit. It states that benefit shall be payable to males between the ages of 16 and 65 years and, in the case of females, between the ages of 16 and 60 years. The assumption is that, at the age prescribed, the person ceases to become an active industrialist, and becomes an old-age pensioner. If he does so, there can be no complaint regarding his exclusion from the benefit, but we know that many people continue to work after they reach pensionable age. Indeed, only a few months ago, the Government appealed to men over 65 to return to industry. People of pensionable age who continue in employment also continue to contribute, by the payment of income tax, to the National Welfare Fund, out of which unemployment and sickness benefits are paid, yet it is proposed in this clause to exclude them from participating in such benefits. I hope that that is not intended, and that an appropriate amendment will be moved. It may be that the person who remains in industry after he has passed the age of 65 does so, not because he has responded to an appeal by the Minister or because he prefers to do so, but because he cannot conform to the requirements entitling him to an old-age pension. He may not possess the residential qualifications, or other income or property possessed by him may be a disqualification. He, therefore, must remain in industry and, remaining in industry, he will be subject to the income tax from which this measure is to be financed and yet disentitled to derive any benefit in time of unemployment.

Mr Scully:

– What age does the honorable member suggest?

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– So long as he is making any contribution towards the fund from which this measure is to be financed he should be entitled to benefit.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- Two aspects of this clause call for some comment. I entirely support the representations made by the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart), but it is not only a question of male workers of more than 65 years of age, many of whom remain active workers in industry long after their sixty-fifth birthday. There is also the female worker who continues to work after her sixtieth birthday. She may be a domestic worker, caretaker or cleaner, or occupy any one of a number of occupations which will readily come to the minds of honorable gentlemen. It seems extraordinary that a worker, whether male or female, should be debarred from benefit under this legislation because of an age disqualification. One would imagine that, at that time of their lives, the earning capacity of such people would be reduced, and that they would not be able to earn sufficient in one week to set aside money against a lean week.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– They keep on paying the income tax.

Mr HOLT:

– It may be that their weekly earnings will not be sufficient to bring them into the taxable field, butI imagine that of all groups this group of workers would have the greatest need for support in the weeks in which they may be unemployed. Many of them are unskilled or casual workers, and they are customarily not in receipt of a weekly wage sufficient to enable them to establish a surplus for the periods when they may be unemployed.

Mr Coles:

– Does the honorable gentleman not realize that the means test provided in this measure is the same as that provided for the old-age pension, which is 2s. a week more than the unemployment allowance and that, therefore, his argument does not apply.

Mr HOLT:

– Is the honorable gentleman suggesting that those people would automatically go on to the old-age pension?

Mr Coles:

– Yes.

Mr HOLT:

– But the old-age pension would give them nothing like the benefit provided for in this bill.

Mr Coles:

– The old-age pension is 2s. a week more.

Mr HOLT:

– A man of 65 with a wife of 50 would not get the same benefit from the old-age pension as he would from this bill.

Mr Ward:

– Is the honorable gentleman in favour of increasing the old-age pension ?

Mr HOLT:

– Do not draw red herrings across the trail. Why have an age limit on this class of benefit? Provided the persons concerned can establish that they are regular workers in industry they should be entitled to benefit. I hope that the Minister will clarify that matter.

The second point I raise relates to paragraph 15 (c) (i), which reads -

Subject to this Act, every person (not being a person in receipt of, or qualified to receive, a pension) who -

c ) satisfies the Director-General that he -

is unemployed and that his unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike, shall be qualified to receive unemployment benefit.

I think that the committee is entitled to clarification of what is meant by the words “ direct participant “. Do they mean a person who instigates a strike or a person who obeys an instruction of the secretary of his trade union that he shall participate in a strike shall be debarred from benefits. If they apply only to the instigators the field will be very much narrowed.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– It is laid down that the benefits shall apply to all males between 16 and 65 years of age, and all women between 16 and 60 years of age. The Government believes that no one should start work until he has turned sixteen. We have accordingly raised the age of dependency from fourteen to sixteen. I do not think that the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) will object to that. We do not think that women should have to work after 60 or men after 65.

Mr Holt:

– But why debar them from work ?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– There is nothing in the legislation to prevent people from working as long as they like. They may work till they reach the century mark if they choose. We have asked men to return to work. Some of the best engineers in Australia are well over 70.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– They are cut out of these benefits.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– They do not want them while they are working. The benefits apply to people when they are unemployed, not while they are employed. If they retire from work after they are 65 they can immediately go on to the old-age pension. Under clause 36 the Director-General of Social Services has discretion to deal with special cases which would include people who have not the residential qualification for the old-age pension. The real answer to the honorable member for Parramatta is that if people over 65 become unemployed owing to there being insufficient work for all they should not want to compete on the labour market.

Opposition Members. - Oh!

Mr HOLLOWAY:
ALP

– Why should they compete ?

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Why throw them on to the scrap heap?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– We are not throwing them on to the scrap heap. While people are working, no matter what they may produce, they do not need these benefits, which are designed for the unemployed.

Mr Holt:

– What about strikers?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

-It would be hypocritical if the words “ direct participants “ applied only to the fomenters of strikes. They apply to any one who is associated with a strike.

Mr Holt:

– Even if they have stopped work under instructions?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Yes. The clause does not mean that people will he debarred from benefit if they refuse to “blackleg”.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The explanation of the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) does not satisfy me. It presupposes that persons who, regarding the old-age pension as charity, will not take it - and all honorable members know that there are many such persons in their electorates - and prefer to remain at work are not to be given any consideration should they become unemployed, notwithstanding that while they are working they must contribute their shave of the cost of unemployment benefit. In effect the Government’s attitude to these people is: “Regardless of your life-long principles, you must accept the old-age pension, because, when you qualify for that, we do not recognize your right to obtain benefits under this act “. Some provision ought tobe made for people, who, rather than accept the old-age pension and thereby reduce the Government’s revenue, continue at work and are bona fide employees.I am glad that the Minister said that the DirectorGeneral of Social Services would have discretion under another clause to bring within the scope of this measure people who do not possess the residential qualification to draw the old-age ipension. I had intended to say something about that, but I accept the Minister’s assurance.

I direct the attention of the Minister to an anomaly which exists in paragraph (b) which reads -

Subject to this Act, every person (not being a person in receipt of, or qualified to receive a pension) who -

is residing in Australia and has been continuously so resident for a period of not less than one year immediately prior to the date of the claim.

Persons who have not the residential qualification to become naturalized citizens of Australia willbe entitled to full benefit under that provision. The anomalies created by this clause must react unfavorably on any Government which brings it into force. I have already directed attention to the fact that people in internment camps may come within the scope of this legislation to the exclusion of Australians who are working beyond the age at which they could qualify, but for their independence, for the old-age pension and are thereby adding to Australia’s wealth. Whilst returned soldiers who have lost an arm or an eye will be excluded from the provisions of this bill, preference will be given to a section of the community who have done nothing for Australia, who have been guilty of subversive activities, and who have done everything possible to prevent the legitimate development of this country. This matterrequires explanation. Why should an unnaturalized person receive benefits that are denied to a soldier who has suffered war disabilities?

Mr Holloway:

– That would be wrong.

Mr HARRISON:

– -I ask the Minister to explain the intentions of the ‘Government to the committee.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- If clause 15 were considered apart from other clauses of the bill, I could see some merit in the contention of the honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) and the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt). They declare that a person over the age of 65 years may still be working, and therefore, will not he entitled to the benefits of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. If he becomes temporarily unemployed or gets sick, he will not be eligible for the benefits of this bill. That contention is clearly answered in clause 36, which provides -

The Director-General may, in his discretion, grant special benefit under this Part to any person (not being a person in receipt of, or qualified to receive, a pension) with respect to whom the Director-General is satisfied that -

by reason of age, physical or mental disabilityor domestic circumstances, or for any other reason, that person is unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for himself and his dependants (if any); and

that person is not qualified to re ceive unemployment benefit or sickness benefit.

Mr Holt:

– How will that clause work in practice?

Mr MORGAN:

– It will meet the special circumstances to which the honorable member referred. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) has already given that assurance to the committee, and that should satisfy honorable members.

I direct attention to paragraph (c) (ii), which provides that every person (not being a person in receipt of, or qualified to receive, a pension) who satisfies the Director-General that he is capable of undertaking, or is willing to undertake, work which in the opinion of the Director-General issuitable to be undertaken by him, shall be qualified to receive unemployment benefit. I should like an assurance that this provision will not be used for the purpose of breaking a strike. For example, an applicant for unemployment benefits could be instructed by the Director-General to report at a factory where a strike was in progress. One of the basic principles of trade unionism is that one worker shall not “ scab “ on another worker. If the applicant refused to accept the direction, he might be deprived of any benefit under this clause.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I do not consider that clause 36 will cover all special cases. It is designed to meet cases requiring ex gratia payments, and people with mental afflictions, or in indigent circumstances who are not covered elsewhere in the bill. This measure excludes some worthy persons, namely, citizens of Great Britain, who, though they have resided here for a considerable period, will not qualify for the benefits until their term of residence is twenty years. I am informed of a Britisher who came here sixteen years ago with his wife and family; he is aged 67 years and his wife62 years, and they are not eligible for the old-age pension. In my opinion, the residential qualification should be reduced to five or -ten years. The man points out that whilst heis debarred from sickness and unemployment benefits, an alien who has resided in Australia for only twelve months will be eligible. This man served in the British Army in the Boer War and in the last war, and did garrison duty for three years in Germany. The Government must have overlooked the necessity for dealing with that kind of case.

Mr Brennan:

– An alien cannot obtain a pension.

Mr WHITE:

– An alien may participate in unemployment benefits after having resided in Australia for twelve months, but this British subject will not be eligible for those benefits. The clause provides -

Subject to this Act, every person (not being a person in receipt of, or qualified to receive, a pension ) who -

has attained the age of sixteen years but has not attained the age of sixty-five years, or in the case of a. female, sixty years . . . shall be qualified to receive unemployment benefit.

I suggest that we should insert after the words “ sixty-five years “ the words “ and is not in receipt of an invalid or old-age pension “. That would put the matter beyond doubt, and would ensure that Britishers who have lived here for some years shall be entitled to these benefits.

Mr Holloway:

– I am sure that a case of that description is covered by clause 36.

Mr WHITE:

– I am afraid that it is not. The Director-General has power to decide special cases. Hundreds of people have claims similar to those of the couple I have just mentioned.

Mr Holloway:

– If the honorable member’s suggestion were adopted, Parliament would have to amend the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act.

Mr WHITE:

– That would not be necessary. I have not suggested that the period of residence to make a person eligible for an invalid or old-age pension shall be reduced. If the man with the laudable record, to whom I referred, becomes unemployed, he will not be entitled to the benefits provided by this bill, and he is not qualified for an old-age pension.

Mr Holloway:

– Clause 36 was inserted to meet such cases.

Mr WHITE:

– If a family in Great Britain desires to migrate to Australia, the younger members will be able to find employment, but the older ones will be unable to qualify for an old-age pension, and will not be able to claim benefits under this bill. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter.

On behalf of the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan), I suggest another amendment. After the word “ person “, first occurring, there should be inserted the words “ who is a British subject, or a naturalized British subject “. I fail to see why an alien who comes to Australia. does not choose to become naturalized, and sometimes becomes a menace to national security, should enjoy the benefits of this bill, when citizens of Great Britain who come to Australia are debarred from participating in them. Before the war, I contended that rights in irrigation, water supply and land ownership should be reserved for Britishers and naturalized citizens of Australia. It is a mistake to confer great benefits on aliens, after they have resided only one year in Australia, whilst excluding British subjects. In fairness, the Minister should accept both amendments. The Government apparently has not adequately considered this clause.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– As this debate proceeds, the bill becomes more obviously a prize piece of jerry-built legislation. Clearly, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), who usually is distinguished by having a complete knowledge of the bills that he sponsors, is not so armed on this occasion. It is equally obvious that if this bill be passed in its present form, the Parliament will have to sit in judgment on it. when it meets towards the end of the year, when the peach blossoms are at their best. I should like the Minister to clear up one or two points, though I am doubtful whether he will be able to do so. First, I should like to know what constitutes a strike.

Mr Johnson:

– Did not the honorable member witness a strike in this chamber during the week?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The socalled strikers were not driven out by a sparrow, as certain coal-miners were. An applicant has to satisfy the DirectorGeneral that he is unemployed, and that: his unemployment is not due to his being a direct participant in a strike. What is a participant in a strike? How does a person become a participant in a strike? What is the difference between a participant and a direct participant in a strike? During the last couple of years we have had some interesting experiences of strikes. I recall an occasion when the habits of a pit-pony were responsible for a strike.

Mr Harrison:

– It had bad breath, or something.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– -Well, the coal-miners insisted on striking. I should like to know whether in such a case as that, all who went on strike as the result of the objections to the pit-pony were merely participants in a strike,, or were direct participants in a strike, or whether the whole blame would be fastened on to the poor pitpony ? In the early chapters of the Bible, there is a reference to a scapegoat. They used to tie a few tins, or the equivalent of tins in those days, on to him and start Lim out into the desert. Another strike occurred in a coal mine because a naughty little sparrow got into the bathing house and that offended certain people.

Mr Harrison:

– Was it a female sparrow?

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I was not so inquisitive as to inquire, but that sparrow caused a strike. I have known of engine-drivers, wheelers, and a few key men deciding that they would not work and thereby holding up a large number of other men. Are the few men the direct participants in a strike, or are all the men affected to bc regarded as direct participants? Are some of them direct participants, and some indirect participants? In 1940. when the Government desired to increase the output from a certain dockyard in Sydney all the men except half a dozen key men turned up for work on a particular day. Because it happened to be a holiday the management had to pay double time to 98 per cent, of its employees, who were ready to work, but could not do so because perhaps half a dozen others in key positions failed to attend for employment. With due respect for the legal knowledge of the honorable member for Reid, who said that clause 3G rectified the difficulties we foresee in this clause, I consider that that clause is one of the worst in the bill. Labour governments, from time to time, introduce dragnet clauses of this description into legislation. They say, in effect, to some poor civil servant: “There you are Jones, Smith, Brown or Robertson. You have complete power. Get on with the job.” Obviously, particular qualifications should be prescribed in a bill of this description. I am not a lawyer, but I have always understood that the first objective in drafting legislation was to make the intentions of the measure clear. The language of legislation should be so concise that even he who runs may read and understand the intentions of the Parliament. Such clarity is missing from this clause and also from clause 36. Here and there we catch glimpses, through the fog of Government policy, of the new order about which honorable gentlemen opposite say so much. We see suggestions that the boss bureaucrats intend to toll the proprietors of industry in this country what they shall do, and their employees when, where and for how long they shall work. The people are to be told not only the industries in which they may work, but also those in which they may not work. This bill gives a clear indication of an intention on the part of the Government to provide that 65 years of age for men and 60 years of age for women shall be regarded as the respective ages for retirement. I do not believe that our democracy will accept any such direction. I do not deny that I am one of those who find a certain degree of pleasure in work. Other people also find pleasure in their employment. I remind the Minister for Repatriation (Mr. Frost), who is laughing, that the time is coming when both he and I will be missing from our places in this House. Probably the day will arrive when nothing will suit the Minister for Repatriation better than to roam about among the Rome Beauties and Cleopatras in his riverside orchard in Tasmania, and prune his trees or pick his fruit as the inclination seizes him. But apparently a director-general, or a person with some such title, is to tell the people when they shall work and when they shall cease work. It is not clear yet who will be the goose and who will be the swan; but if I were a betting man my money would be on the goose. I strongly dissent from the proposal that any individual, under any title, shall have the right, power and authority to say when the- men and women of this country shall cease work. Obviously, however, the Government is seeking to establish a general retirement, of men at 65 years and women at 60 years. So far as I can understand this legislation, it is not related to any particular part of Govern- ment policy, or to any particular Government scheme. The provisions of the bill have been dragged together just as an old Mallee hen drags a heap of dirt and leaves together in the spring in order to lay her eggs. The incubation from measures of this kind will not result in chickens which will be profitable to the Curtin Government. I believe that a very poor market will be available for chose chickens.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- Obviously honorable gentleman opposite do not appreciate the significance of this clause or the discussion of it would be much more lively than it is. I asked several pertinent questions earlier, but the answers that the Minister gave did not satisfy me in any respect. I do not believe that the men and women of Australia who are approaching the age of 65 and 60 years, respectively, will ‘ appreciate what the Government, is doing. The “ new order “ which honorable members opposite envisage will apparently have very little attraction for people who are in the late middle life. I cannot conceive of the great majority of persons now approaching the ages that I have mentioned being satisfied to withdraw completely from active occupations. We must bear in mind that the proportion of aged people in the Australian community is much larger than it was a few years ago. I vividly remember the former Treasurer, Mr. Casey, stating in this house some years ago that in 40 years’ time the proportion of elderly people to younger people in Australia would be double what it is to-day. This will be due not only to our present population trends but also to improved living conditions, better hygiene, and the more active life that people live in these days, compared with the manner of life a generation ago. The Government is proposing that, in the future, men of 65 years and women of 60 years shall be obliged to retire from active participation in industry for, at those ages, they will become ineligible for the unemployment benefits being provided in this bill. But many of our people will be most unwilling to retire at’ that time of life on a meagre old-age pension, for H will mean that they will have to eke out a poor existence, although they will still be sufficiently healthy and energetic to engage in many steady occupations. We should not discourage them from continuing in active work.

Mr Frost:

– If they are provided with employment, obviously they will not be unemployed.

Mr HOLT:

– Apart from the persona engaged in professional callings, many people who do cleaning and gardening work, or domestic service of one kind or another, will desire to continue their occupations, although perhaps less strenuously than in their younger years. The implications of this bill are that they will not be encouraged to do so. lt seems to me that the Government has given very little thought to some of the provisions of this bill. It cannot have considered the implications inherent in the clause before us. The Minister in charge of the measure has given abundant evidence of his desire to improve the conditions of the under-privileged sections of the community, and I am at a loss to understand why he should have consented to some of the provisions of the measure.

Mr Holloway:

– Men above the age of 65 and women above the age of 60 will be eligible for a pension which will bc more valuable to them than the unemployment benefit prescribed in this bill.

Mr HOLT:

– But surely the Minister appreciates the possible effect of this measure on, say, a man of 66 years whose wife is under 60 years of age, or who may have married a second time and have a young wife and children. Such individuals may be subjected to severe hardships. Many men who reach the age of 65 years will say, “ I am not unemployable ; I want work. I do not want to have to apply for an oldage pension because I may be temporarily incapacitated. I shall be able to resume regular employment and I shall wish to do so when I can”. It is that very incidence of casual unemployment which this bill is designed to meet. Why should we exclude this group, who are more helpless and on the average will earn less than the younger elements of the community, and thus have less put aside to meet this contingency? Why should they be penalized by legislation designed to cover the incidence of unemployment? Frankly, I cannot appreciate the attitude of the Government.

The other point, clarification of which 1. sought, relates to the phrase “ direct participant in a strike “. The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) also referred to the matter. I believe that I am not doing the Minister an injustice when I say that he gave a deliberately “woolly” explanation of the meaning of “ direct participation “. There can be only one substantial test of whether or not a person is a direct participant in a strike. If he or she fails to resume his or her work in accordance with the award governing his or her industry, whether out of sympathy with others on strike, under instructions from a trade union secretary, or on principle, then, in the terms of this legislation, he or she should be regarded as a direct, participant in the strike, and should not be eligible for benefits given by a government which, if it has any sense of responsibility, is bound to uphold the decisions of its own tribunals. That is a simple test, upon which the committee should insist before agreeing to pass this legislation. If the Minister and the Government are not prepared to back up the decisions of their own tribunals, or those of State governments, by insisting that any such person shall bc ineligible for these benefits, then we on this side should not accept the clause as it stands. We have not been given such a clear undertaking as we and the country are entitled to expect. If people are to enjoy benefits from Government largess, surely it would be the height of absurdity if the Government were to make them available to persons who cease work in resistance to the award of a Commonwealth tribunal, and thus provide them with means to continue a strike! What could be a greater travesty of administration and justice? Yet that is implied in the explanation which the Minister has made.

Mr Holloway:

– The honorable gentleman said that he could not understand my explanation.

Mr HOLT:

– That is all that I could infer. In an emphatic aside, the Minister said to his own supporters that certain words had been omitted but would be implied, thus suggesting that the definition of “ direct participant. “ would be rather narrow. Why introduce the word “direct”, unless some qualification is probable? Surely a participant in a strike is a person who fails to work either because of or in support of a strike ! From the standpoint of the Government, such a person should be disentitled to benefit, because of resistance to an award or a decision of a Commonwealth tribunal. I ask the Minister to make a clear explanation of what is in the mind of the Government.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

.- I thought that I had answered the honorable gentleman’s question to his satisfaction. He has had experience in. arbitration courts, and knows the difference between being directly and indirectly involved in a strike.

Mr Holt:

– The coal-miners may commence a strike. A direct effect may be that the engineers are unable to work. They should not in consequence be penalized. If the Minister has that in mind, I accept it.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I assumed that the honorable gentleman knew that I had that in mind. When he and I have dealt with disputes, we have always known what was meant by direct and indirect. If men or women decide to go on strike against some condition which they regard as intolerable, then they are to be debarred from benefiting. But if a section of a workshop, factory, or any other establishment goes on strike, involving others who are not associated with the matter, and causing them to be out of work, then those others must not be ineligible. If the Director-General calls upon a man who is unemployed to take a job in an establishment, the employees of which are on strike, in a position vacated by a striker, that man can refuse and still be eligible. Surely that is plain enough !

The honorable member also stressed that injustice was likely to be caused to persons over 65 years of age. I assure him that the Social Security Committee had those special cases in view. That is why the Director-General is to be given the power that is conferred upon him by clause 36. The honorable member is very clever at putting up straw men in order that he may knock them over. I know something of his debating ability. He has stressed the position of a man or woman, over 65 years of age, or 60 years of age respectively, who wants to continue at work. There are thousands of such persons. Their desire is justifiable and laudable, and is appreciated by every one. But why should they want a pension if they are physically and mentally fit to work? Neither this nor any other legislation could prevent them from working if they so desired. The honorable member’s argument is that if they work they are not eligible for unemployment benefits. That is true. A married couple would lose £2 5s. a week. But if they obtained the old-age pension they would receive double £1 7s., and in addition would be entitled to earn between them £1 5s. a week. Therefore, financially, they would be better off if they obtained the old-age pension than they would be on the unemployment benefit. An age limit must be imposed ; otherwise, such persons would become unemployable and benefit continuously, thus making the operation of the enactment farcical. The picture is not nearly so bad as. it was painted by the honorable member. The person who suffers most is the immigrant who cannot satisfy the residential qualification. Clause 36 is intended to rectify that position.

The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) stressed what he regarded as an injustice. He said that he could visualize aliens who had lived in this country before the war and had been interned during the war being entitled to the benefits of this legislation. Surely any person whom, we accept as a citizen is entitled to all the rights of citizenship! Otherwise, this would not be a democracy. We boast overseas that we have no regard for race, creed or colour after we have admitted a person to citizenship of this country. If an alien, after his release from internment, returned to industry, he would be entitled to the benefits of this legislation. But before being entitled to sickness benefit, he would need to have been at work for a specified period and then to have lost his income. Would honorable members opposite let them starve? Of course not.

Mr Bowden:

– Send them back to their own countries.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– We are looking for means of increasing our population. Whether what has been done be right or wrong, I hope that honorable members will not again charge me with failing to give a direct answer. I have explained how the provision will operate, and 1 agree with it.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Minister has accused the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt) of putting up a straw man for the purpose of knocking it over. That is the very thing which the honorable -gentleman himself has done in answering my question. I did not challenge the fact that an alien Ava? to be entitled to the benefits of this legislation, but merely drew attention, by way of comparison, to the exclusion of another section of the British community. The point that I made was, that if it be good enough for an alien, it should at least be good enough for a soldier who had lost an arm or an eye, or a person of British origin who had not residentially qualified to receive the old-age pension. I am pleased to accept the Minister’s interpretation, because I find no fault with it. It will furnish an additional argument for the exemption of the pensions of soldiers.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- J want to make sure that the Minister will give a direction that clause 36 is to cover British migrants in Australia who have not resided here for the twenty years which would qualify them for an old-age pension. We cannot leave it to the discretion of some officials who may say “ Yes “ to-day and “ No “ to-morrow. Unless what I suggest be done, it will be possible for an Italian, perhaps a Fascist who had been .working on the cane-fields in the north, a man recently released from internment, to benefit under this scheme while a British migrant of 67 years of age, who served in the last war and the Boer war, and whose son is fighting in this war, will not be entitled ‘to benefit. I have always thought it wrong that British migrants should be required to reside in Australia for twenty years before qualifying for an old-age pension, but we cannot in this bill remedy that defect. Unless the Minister is prepared’ to give me the assurance I seek, I propose to move an amendment to make the benefit payable to British migrants not in receipt of an old-age or invalid pension.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I cannot understand why the honorable member repeats the assertion that the Britisher will be treated worse than anybody else. I do not propose to give a direction to anybody. The Director-General understands what he has to do. I say that clause 36 will definitely cover cases of the kind’ mentioned by the honorable member.

Mr. ARCHIE CAMERON (Barker) 9.50]. - I am not easily disturbed, but lately I have heard of things going on about this place which are definitely disturbing. I have heard that privileges are being enjoyed by certain persons because they happen to be members of a trade union. I want to know whether, in the administration of this scheme, the Government proposes to differentiate against persons who are not members of a trade union. When we learn that certain Commonwealth public servants are paid higher travelling allowances because they are members of a union, we wonder that those who speak of the Atlantic Charter and the four freedoms <lo not get blistered lips. Some laws are eloquent in what they say; others are still more eloquent in what they do not say. When I hear the Minister for Labour and National” Service (Mr. Holloway) say that he is not going to give a direction to the Director-General, I ask the Minister what he is there for.

Mr Holloway:

– I am not the Minister in charge of the department concerned.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– That may be the department’s misfortune. I believe that the first duty of a minister is to direct the officials of his department in regard to matters over which he has control. In this instance, it appear* that power is to be placed in the hands of the Director-General, when it should be in the hands of the Minister. The Minister is to be relieved of responsibility, and sooner or later questions will arise regarding the administration of this provision. Then the Minister will say : “ But Parliament agreed that these powers should reside, not, in me, but in the Director-General “. I believe in the principle of ministerial responsibility, but that principle is being departed from here in a vital particular. Moreover, I demand that the people of Australia shall be not only free, but also equal, whether they be members of trade unions or not. This tyranny, this dictatorship, which is growing up under the cloak of trade unionism, is the very negation of liberty. It is utterly wrong to say to .a public servant that his reward shall depend, not upon how he does his job, but according to whether he pays toll to some tinpot dictator at the Trades Hall. This is a matter which demands the attention of Parliament. This kind of dictatorship is going just a little too far. and I should like to know how far these self-appointed dictators will be allowed to carry on their nefarious practices under this scheme.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– It seems extraordinary to me that a scheme which is designed to confer benefit upon people in need should refuse benefit to persons who require it at the very time when they are going rapidly down the hill of life. Let us consider the case of the man mentioned by the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White), the British migrant 67 years of age. Because he has been in Australia for only fifteen or sixteen years, he may not draw an old-age pension, and because he is over 65 years of age he is not qualified to receive unemployment or sickness benefits. It is a poor excuse to say that the Director-General will have power to make or withhold payment in such a ease. To place such power in the hands of the Director-General would be most unfair to him, and to the applicant also. It would give to the Director-General power of life and death. The man 67 years of age, who has been in the country for only sixteen years, would have to wait another four years to qualify for the old-age pension. He may not live so long. The position should he placed beyond doubt in the act itself. It should not be left to the discretion of the Director-General, who may be so busy that months would pass before he could give a decision in a particular case, and even then, if he granted the benefit, it would be on the basis of hardship. If the Minister is unwilling to accept the suggested amendment of the honorable member for Balaclava, I hope the honorable member will move an amendment and press it to a division. We may be defeated, but we shall have recorded our objection to the great wrong which it is proposed to do to a section of the community because of the stupid obstinacy of the Government. This is ;mother example of the harm that may be done by rushing legislation through at the end of a session. This bill should have been dealt with long ago, when honorable members would have had leisure to consider it carefully.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Sickness benefit).

Mr JOHNSON:
Kalgoorlie

.- 1 draw the attention of honorable members to the conditions which this clause proposes to apply to men who become incapacitated from industrial diseases. The clause states that every person who satisfies the Director-General that he is temporarily incapacitated for work by reason of sickness or accident shall be qualified to receive sickness benefit. That in its general application- might be quite all right, but the bill provides no limit in respect of unemployment benefit although it does impose a limit in respect of sickness. The case I desire to place before the Minister concerns some men in my electorate known as the “ burnt-out “ miners, who are suffering from silicosis or tuberculosis. According to the latest statistics, they number less than 600. The miners in Western Australia have developed the Mine Workers’ Belief Fund in which there is considerable wealth. It is governed by an act of the State Parliament which provides that a miner who, as the result of medical examination, has been warned out of the industry shall be accorded compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act of Western Australia, and that, when that compensation has been exhausted, he shall receive a. pension from the Mine Workers’ Belief Fund. But the act also provides that he shall make application for the invalid pension. A single man, if the invalid pension is granted, receives £1 7s. 6d. a week from that source and 12s. 6d. a week from the Mine Workers’ Belief Fund in accordance with the statute of Western Australia, making a total income of £1 19s. 6d. a week. A married man and his wife, if they are both pensioners, receive £3 19s. a week. The position of those “ burnt-out “ miners is unique. They are totally different from men who have, because of their advanced age, acquired an old-age pension, but at the same time have retained good health. The miners are forced to undergo a periodical medical examination, and men who are found to be suffering from silicosis are prohibited from taking further employment in a mine. Only those with experience know how quickly that dread disease robs a man of his health. The point on which I wish to focus the Minister’s attention is the difference between these pensioners and the others I have mentioned. The major part of their pension is taken in the purchase of medicine needed to keep them alive. The Mine Workers’ Relief Fund has plenty of money, and the board of directors which is representative of the mine-owners, the miners and the State

Government and is elected by ballot of the respective organizations, being wholly Sympathetic with these men, is not only willing, but also most anxious to assist them. It would be a splendid thing if those burnt-out miners could receive from the Mine Workers’ Relief Fund whatever the board of directors is prepared to allot to them without that payment affecting the amount of sickness benefit under this scheme. I have seen these sufferers in winter-time in more than one district of Western Australia- forced to sleep in an armchair before the fire because they cannot sleep in a bed owing to the fact that a recumbent position brings on fits of violent coughing which make sleep impossible. Doctors in every district have prescribed as the only method of relief brandy and cod-liver oil, an expensive medicine. The Minister may say that this is not the appropriate measure in which to deal with these people, and that t!:ey should be dealt with in an amendment of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act. I am prepared to accept whatever avenue is open so long as those people get the financial relief that they so greatly need and which is so long overdue. Ever since I have been a member of this Parliament I have been bringing all the influence within my power to bear on successive ministries in the hope that they would see the justice of these men’s claims, and I have been no more successful than was my predecessor, the late Mr. Albert Green, who, for the many years during which he represented Kalgoorlie, carried the same banner as I am carrying.

Honorable members opposite who are holding up almost every clause of this bill by suggesting this and that amendment are giving no more than lip service to the workers. Here we have a measure which for the last twenty years I have heard talked about, but never seen introduced, by honorable members opposite to provide insurance against unemployment and sickness. It was left to the Labour party to bring it down, notwithstanding that the parties opposite had more than twenty years in which to do something of the same sort. The tactics of the Opposition to-day are designed to cover up their maladministration.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Is the Government giving the honorable gentleman what he asks?

Mr JOHNSON:

– I am appealing to the Government, which I realize is the only government that will give to the workers what they require.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply to the honorable gentleman.

Mr JOHNSON:

– I was once interested in the honorable gentlemen’s vocal support of a 40-hours week. Nothing came of it. I was equally interested to hear him espouse the cause of national insurance. Nothing came of that. I am content to leave with the Minister the appeal that I have made on behalf of “ the burnt-out “ miners, because I know that he is sympathetic. I also know that the Minister for Social Service (Senator Fraser) is sympathetic. I am confident that their sympathy will weigh with the Ministry, if weight be needed, and that something will be done, if not in this bill, at any rate in a bill to amend the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, to bring into operation what I have asked for. I know that the Government has not had time to bring about all the social reforms that are necessary It was saddled with a huge responsibility to clear up the mess left by its predecessors. The Ministry has the interests of the workers at heart.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I was interested to hear the honorable member foi1 Kalgoorlie (Mr. Johnson) in one of his usually eloquent moods. The history of national insurance in this country is a long one.

Mr Chambers:

– The honorable member for Kalgoorlie showed a vast, knowledge of the subject.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Maybe. The president of the Australian Workers Union is an important man, and when he clenches his fist some one goes down on his knees.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Martens:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Order! The president of the Australian Workers “Union is not in this bill.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– No, but he is behind it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN Order! I ask the honorable member to direct his remarks to the clause.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– For the benefit of the honorable member, may I say that I had the experience of sitting for six weeks at the table trying to argue through a committee of this House a sickness benefits bill to apply on an Australia-wide basis, and I do not think that there was one clause in that long legislation, from the title to the schedule, with which the Labour party ever agreed. We spent long days and nights contesting the arguments that the Labour party advanced on everything we submitted. That measure was carefully thought out, but this is not. If the honorable member talks about the Labour party being saddled with responsibilities, let him remember that in the last Parliament he and I, from different points of vantage, watched the Labour Government going into the saddling paddock. I never saw a more awkward, colt to get into harness than that Labour Government. A great deal of coaxing was needed to get it there. Then it settled down and for a long time it was a meek, modest and mild Government, virtually ready to eat oats out of any hand that offered them-

Times have changed ! No one realizes that better than I do. No one realizes better than I do, too, the necessity for some form of sickness insurance in this country. The trouble with this clause is that it is a part of a bill which is on the wrong foundation. In my opinion, no sickness fund which is not on a contributory basis will ever be worth anything to this country. You cannot have sickness benefit unless you have a sickness benefit fund from which the benefit is to be paid, unless the Government has gone completely Douglas-credit, or something like that. It is all very well to talk about what the Government is doing under this- clause. I am one who has a good measure of patience, and I shall still be in this chamber when the day of reckoning arrives. If there ever was a case of the Government going to the workers of this country and asking them to drink the fluid of delusion from the empty skull of the future instead of the past, it is contained in this clause.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– The honorable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr. Johnson) has raised the claims of “burnt out” miners on several occasions, and the Government has not yet been able to find a solution. Although the subject does not come within the scope of this bill, the Minister for Social Services (Senator Fraser) and his officers are now endeavouring to evolve a scheme to cover the men whom the honorable member mentioned.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (Married women).

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I record my strongest protest against the retention of this clause. Some honorable gentlemen opposite, who have just “ squealed “ so loudly, should join me in my protest when the full implications of this clause are revealed. It reads -

A married woman shall not be qualified to receive unemployment benefit or sickness benefit unless the Director-General is satisfied that it is not reasonably possible for her husband to maintain her.

The Director-General will have the task of investigating the domestic budget of every household where the wife is engaged in industry. A few days ago, honorable members gave to one man what they thought was a full time job, to control the coal-mining industry. But he will have a playtime job compared with the task that will confront the DirectorGeneral in carrying out the duties imposed upon him by this clause, let alone the duties that will be imposed upon him by other clauses. This afternoon, the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) challenged my contention that the family income would be taken into account in the granting of sickness benefits. 1 cite clause IS in support of my contention. That is one reason for opposing the retention of the clause. There are also stronger reasons. Does the committee realize the full implications of the clause? If an unmarried woman works in industry and pays her income tax, she will be entitled to the benefits provided by the bill. But if a married woman works in industry and pays her tax, the Director-General may decide that her husband is able to maintain her and, in that event, she will be disqualified from participating in sickness and unemployment benefits. Scores of thousands of wives, whose husbands are now in the fighting forces, are working in industry and are receiving high wages. They will have the privilege of paying for these benefits, but will be denied the privilege of enjoying them.

Mr Calwell:

– Only while the war lasts !

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– So we shall be grossly unfair to those married women only while the war lasts! The full injustice of this clause is revealed when we contemplate its application to the wives of our fighting men. Many of them are working in munitions establishments, and in the textile industry. The Director-General will have to make an investigation before any of those women will be entitled to enjoy these benefits. He does not have to investigate whether they pay their income tax. The Commissioner of Taxation will see to that. Although they will pay the tax, they will not be eligible for these benefits. The Director-General will have to decide whether the husband - a fighting man - is in a position reasonably to maintain his wife. If he considers that the fighting man is able to maintain his wife, she will get no benefit at all. But if he is not of that opinion, the inference is that the Government is not paying the fighting man sufficient to enable him adequately to maintain his wife. That is the position. I leave it to the committee to decide. If the DirectorGeneral considers that the fighting man is being reasonably paid, a wretched injustice will be done to married women in industry. I hope that the Minister will delete the clause. It has not even the grace of being necessary. Other provisions in the bill will exclude wives from participation in these benefits if the family income is adequate to maintain them. This is wretched discrimination against wives, who, not being content to sit at home, assist the war effort. Indeed, many of them are not allowed to stay at home because they arc hounded by the man-power officers. But if the Director-General decides, after having investigated the household budget, that the husband is reasonably able to maintain the wife, her interest in this legislation will be confined to the privilege of helping to pay for it.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- This clause reveals, in its most unhappy form, the weakness of a system of insurance without contribution. The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) has posed .for the Minister on a dilemma, with very sharp horns, and he has to decide upon which horn he prefers to become impaled. If the DirectorGeneral decides that the serviceman is not in a position reasonably to maintain his wife, she will be eligible for sickness and unemployment benefits. Then we shall have the extraordinary situation that, while the husband is absent and not able to look after his wife in her sickness or unemployment, she will have only this meagre provision available to her. I agree with the honorable member for Parramatta that it is difficult to understand the necessity for this clause, in view of the restrictive effect of other clauses when the family income is deemed to be adequate. I join with the honorable member in protesting against the inclusion of this clause in the bill.

Other implications call for some clarification. What will be the position of a deserted wife? It may be technically argued that it is still reasonably possible for her husband to maintain her, yet in practice he is not doing so and perhaps shows great unwillingness to do so. She may have no court order against him and may not be able to get one, yet in the terms of the bill it may be argued that it is reasonably possible for him to maintain her.

Mr Calwell:

– The decision in the matter will be given by the DirectorGeneral. The clause is not mandatory.

Mr HOLT:

– I do not know that the clause works out as the Minister for Information suggests. No directorgeneral could hold that it .was not reasonably possible for a husband separated from his wife to maintain her. “ Reasonably possible “ is, after all, a very flexible phrase, which would give the Director-General a most facile escape, should he be looking for it in regard to an individual case. In fact, in the language of the clause as it stands, if the Director-General is satisfied that it is reasonably possible for the husband to maintain her, I imagine that he will feel very grave doubt as to his authority or responsibility to make provision for her. There is no reference in the bill to a case of this kind. We may have, as I suggest, a woman in the unhappy circumstance of having been deserted by her husband, the husband being in a financial position to maintain her, and therefore coming within the implication of the phrase “ reasonably possible “, yet she herself is not able to receive any benefit. We have also this odd result, that a mother may be in industry, the husband away in one of the services, and a young daughter, with not the same needs to cater for, also in industry, but able to receive the benefits of this legislation in respect of both unemployment and sickness, whilst her mother, deprived of the companionship and support of her husband, is at the same time deprived of such benefits. In view of all these facts, the Minister will be well advised to withdraw the clause. He has his protection in other parts of the bill. The weight of argument which the honorable member for Parramatta has been able to bring to bear should convince the Minister of the unwisdom of the clause.

Mr CALWELL:
Minister for Information · Melbourne · ALP

– The committee faces an extraordinary position. Apparently, every clause is to be stonewalled with some sort of fatuous, futile argument about a situation which the Opposition alleges that the Government proposes to set up. For years while on these benches, with huge majorities in both Houses, honorable members opposite did nothing in regard to unemployment and sickness benefits. They then had every conceivable chance of translating into legislative actuality those airy sentiments to which they are giving expression to-night.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister must confine his remarks to the clause.

Mr CALWELL:

– I shall do so. 1 wished first to outline the atmosphere surrounding the tactics of the Opposition on this and other clauses. For many years they had numberless opportunities to introduce legislation to deal with this subject. I presume that there was a similar clause in the Casey bill dealing with national insurance which, although passed by Parliament, was never proclaimed’. The honorable members for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) and Fawkner (Mr. Holt) were members of that Government, but did not give effect to the measure.

Mr Holt:

– I was not a member of the Government.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Nor was I a member of it. I was the most active critic of the bill.

Mr CALWELL:

– I am sorry that the honorable member has saved his criticism for this clause, which is obviously directed at a situation in the post-war world, when the men who are now fighting will be back in their peace-time avocations. It is not intended that married women whose husbands are capable of supporting them shall be entitled to special benefits under this legislation. Quite a number of matters concerning the illnesses of married women do not require to be dealt with here. It is surely not intended that they should be made the subject of legislation of this sort. It is true that to-day there are married women in industry, but that is only a passing phase. I hope that the honorable member for Parramatta and others opposite do not think that the Government desires to have as many married women in industry in the post-war world as there are to-day. Their argument arises from the supposition that the abnormal conditions of war-time economy will prevail in peace-time. There were very few married women in industry in pre-war clays, and there will be very few in the post-war period.

Honorable members opposite are working themselves into a frenzy on the issue, with all the mock enthusiasm of people who want to have themselves accepted by the public as modern crusaders for social benefits. They expect the public to forget the fact that when they had the opportunity to do all these things they were not prepared to do them. This is good legislation. It has already passed the ;Senate, in which the Opposition party had equal numbers with the Government party. The Opposition had ample opportunity there of reviewing this legislation, instead of putting up the futile arguments that are being advanced here to-night. The bill was discussed in the Senate in a much more temperate and helpful fashion. It was forwarded to this chamber, and now, when Parliament is about to go into recess, we have this sham-fight from “a fighting, thinking Opposition “. Is this evidence of the fighting that was talked about in the early stage of the session? If it is evidence of the thinking that the Opposition puts into its consideration of legislation, the thoughts are not worth much. The clause deals with the post-war situation.

Mr Holt:

– It does not say so.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The bon’orable member for Fawkner has been constantly interjecting. If he interjects again I shall have to name him.

Mr CALWELL:

– This legislation is not merely for the period of the war and six months afterwards. It is as monumental as the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act, which the Labour party inspired or passed in the early days of federation. The Labour party is responsible for all the social and remedial legislation on the statute-book.

Mr Holt:

– I rise to order. Is the Minister in order in discussing all these other aspects of social legislation without at any point dealing with the clause before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The Minister has discussed the clause since I directed his attention to the fact that he was straying from the point.

Mr CALWELL:

– I contend that under this clause the Director-General will act with the same discretion and acumen that have characterized his dealings with other legislation which he has administered. All the fears that have been expressed by the honorable member for Fawkner are beside the point. The Director-General will arrive at his decisions, not in accordance with legal niceties, but on the facts of the cases presented to him. We trust him to give sound judgment in regard to invalid and oldage pensions, and I have yet to hear an honorable member opposite give an instance in which he has failed in that trust. Surely we can rely upon him equally to do the fair thing in regard to the administration of this clause.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Has the Minister read the clause?

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, and for the benefit of the honorable member for Parramatta who apparently is unable to read it, I shall read it again. It states -

A married woman shall not be qualified to receive unemployment or sickness benefit unless the Director-General is satisfied that it is not reasonably possible for her husband to maintain her.

I emphasize the words “ unless the Director-General is satisfied “. Obviously the final decision rests with the DirectorGeneral, and not with a court of law. In accordance with the terms of that clause the Director-General will be called upon to give a fair and reasonable decision on every case which comes before him. In the post-war world, 20 or 30 years hence when this legislation will be of very great benefit - not during war-time when, as a former Treasurer (Mr. R. G. Casey) said “ the sky is the limit of expenditure “ - there will not be many married women in industry. All the heroics that have been mouthed by honorable members opposite in regard to this clause in an endeavour to win sympathy from the wives of soldiers who at present are engaged in industry, have failed dismally.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– How will this clause benefit soldiers’ wives who are employed in industry at present?

Mr CALWELL:

– I point out that the vast majority of soldiers are in receipt of a private’s pay. Surely it will not be argued that a soldier who is in receipt of a private’s pay is able to maintain his wife should she become seriously ill. In such a case the wife will he eligible for benefits under this measure. These very people and others who are in similar circumstances, are those whom this legislation is designed to benefit. The honorable member for Parramatta knows that, but apparently he feels obliged to put up some sort of a fight in this committee. He belongs to a dying party; indeed, it may be already dead, for it does not even possess a name in the State in which the honorable member resides. I urge the committee to vote for the clause.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I have been very interested to hear the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) amble delightfully all around the subject without addressing himself to the clause now under discussion. Earlier to-night I heard the same sort of speech from other honorable members opposite, but it was made in a much better manner. However, at the conclusion of his remarks, the Minister made several pertinent comments. He said this measure was designed for the post-war period. I point out that like every other measure, this bill contains a clause relating to commencement, which states -

This act shall commence on a date to be fixed by proclamation.

But, according to the Minister for Information, the measure is to become operative in the sweet by and by when post-war conditions obtain. I submit that we must treat every measure which comes before us in the light of its stated intentions, and that we cannot depend upon an assumption by a Minister. as to when it will come into operation. Therefore, we must expect this legislation to apply to the conditions which exist in this country to-day. The clause states -

A married women shall not be qualified to receive unemployment benefit or sickness benefit unless the Director-General is satisfied that it is not reasonable for her husband to maintain her.

I put it to honorable members that almost daily our courts of justice are confronted with the task of making decisions of this nature, and that they find great difficulty in determining just how much a husband can be expected to pay to maintain his wife. I am afraid that the Director-General will have the greatest difficulty in deciding these matters. However, there is a further serious obligation upon the shoulders of the Director-General, and that is to determine whether or not we are paying our fighting men sufficient to enable them to maintain their wives. The Minister for Information said that in. his opinion the Director-General would find that we were not paying our fighting men sufficient for that purpose. If the Minister is satisfied on that point, I should like to know what he proposes to do about it. Surely the least we can do is to pay our fighting men sufficient to enable them to maintain their wives in reasonable circumstances. The Minister’s admission is a shocking one, but, of course, he is a minority in Cabinet, and I venture to predict that the Director-General will find in every case which he is called upon to determine that, because of Government policy, servicemen are being paid sufficient to maintain their wives. That leads us to the point that soldiers’ wives working in munitions factories will be debarred from enjoying the benefits under this bill. The wife of any man, other than a member of the fighting services, will be able to enjoy the benefits of this legislation should her case be considered favorably by the Director-General. But because it is government policy that a soldier shall be paid a certain amount to enable him to maintain his wife in Australia, then the wife is to be debarred from participating in the benefits of this legislation. There is no other way in which the matter may be viewed. It is another injustice to returned men and their dependants. Many wives of servicemen have gone into employment, not from necessity but as a relief from worry. The husbands are overseas fighting. Time hangs heavily on the wives’ hands, and they prefer to do what they can at the lathe or the bench in support of the war effort.

While in such employment, they are taxed in order that a fund may be provided for the provision of social benefits, but they are not to be permitted to participate in those benefits. That is a grave injustice. That was never intended. It is another example of the hastiness with which the legislation was prepared. Proper consideration was not given to it. Its anomalies have been revealed in their ugly nakedness. It gives no consideration to the fighting man; on the contrary it penalizes him. Anything more incongruous it would be difficult to imagine. I ask the Minister to come to a determination which will be sound in judgment and good sense, will do a measure of justice to our fighting men and their wives, and will not place on the DirectorGeneral the responsibility of supporting government policy. The Minister for Information considers that our fighting men are not being paid sufficient to maintain their wives. Surely that is an indictment not only of the Government, but also of the country as a whole. The honorable gentleman has access to all the information that is available in connexion with the war effort, and occasionally produces a gem such as he has released to-night. There has been revealed a weakness in government policy in connexion with the payment of our servicemen which must ring throughout the country and be sufficiently publicized to compel the Government to do justice to the men who return.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– The honorable member for Parramatta (Sir Frederick Stewart) has made another mistake. A fundamental feature of the bill is that the breadwinner of the family is to receive an unemployment benefit if he or she ceases to earn income, and a sickness benefit in the event of illness. Great stress has been laid on the position of the wives of servicemen. Such a wife does not lose her income if she becomes sick or unemployed, because she receives an allowance of £3 17s. a week on account of her relationship to the serviceman.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– This can refer only to women who lose wages, not to wives who are not in employment.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The honorable gentleman said that there is discrimination against the wives of servicemen.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– No.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– He said that the Director-General would have to determine whether or .not they were entitled to benefit, and if he determined that they were, that would be an admission that the serviceman is not paid sufficiently. The wife of a serviceman receives an income every week. It does not cease if she becomes sick or unemployed.

Mr Harrison:

– Has she not paid income tax on her earnings while working ?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– She has not paid income tax on the allowance from her husband.

Mr Harrison:

– I referred to the amount which she earned in a factory.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Yes.

Mr Harrison:

– Yet she will not derive benefit from this legislation.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– Because her income is in excess of the amount allowed. She need not accept employment. The honorable member for Parramatta said married women’ are hounded to work. That is quite wrong. No regulation or other law in this country makes it possible to compel a married woman to work.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Married nurses in New South Wales have been dragooned into work.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– They are not compelled to go to work; but if they do so voluntarily they are directed to the most essential job. There is no sex discrimination. Throughout the bill, the expression “ person “, not “ male “ or “ female “, is used. The two fundamental features of which we are proud are, that the bill does not discriminate between the sexes, and that it raises the dependent age of children by two years, which honorable members opposite did not have the courage to do.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I can hardly credit that the Minister believes what he has said. He referred to the allowance which the wife of a serviceman receives by reason of her relationship to him. The bill deals exclusively with women who are earning wages in industry, and whose wages are suspended because of sickness or loss of employment; it has no relation to the allowance that is granted to the wives and dependants of soldiers as such.

The case which I presented earlier in the evening is water-tight. The DirectorGeneral of Social Services is charged with the responsibility of determining whether the Government is paying to the soldiers who are fighting for u3 emoluments reasonably adequate for the maintenance of their wives. If his decision be in the affirmative, the wives of such men working in canning factories, textile mills or hospitals have no chance of participating in the benefits provided under the bill.

Mr Holloway:

– They cannot participate, because their incomes exclude them.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– The Minister declared that under no consideration can the wives of any of the thousands of servicemen who are now working in munitions factories participate in the benefits under the bill. If nothing else condemns the measure, I hope that that fact alone will condemn it.

Dame ENID LYONS:
Darwin

– I hope that I shall not be accused of stonewalling or of raising the sex issue. I have refrained up to the present time from introducing that matter; but I cannot help feeling that on this occasion I ought to say something, not as a member of an emaciated Opposition, or of a defunct party, but as a member of an order that began with Eve and has carried on the world ever since. It is not long since married women in this and every other English-speaking country, as well as other countries, had no right even to own property. The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) said that this is a monumental measure. It is a monument certainly to a continuation of that attitude, because it implies that married women have no rights whatever. Looking through this measure, can we discover any discrimination against a married man, even .though his wife be wealthy enough to support him and fourteen other people as well? The husband has rights as a man, but a woman, because she is married, apparently has none. As a member of my sex I cannot do other than protest against the discrimination which the Government has, unwittingly perhaps, shown against women in this matter, and against continuing an injustice against women that has lasted far too long. Take for a moment the position of two persons in partnership in business, a husband and a wife. If the husband falls sick he is entitled to benefit under the bill, but the wife is entitled to none. If the Government persists in passing this clause it will deprive itself, in the eyes of women everywhere, of some of the credit that no doubt it will have gained by bringing the measure forward in its present form. I hope that the Government will withdraw the clause.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- The honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid ‘Lyons) has expressed exactly the thoughts which were in my mind. The clause unjustifiably discriminates between the sexes. I have always understood that honorable members opposite believe in the equality of the sexes. They advocate equality of pay for men and women, yet they say that the position of a married woman is entirely different from that of a married man. I contend that women and men should be treated entirely on the same basis. The clause provides that a married woman shall not be qualified to receive unemployment or sickness benefit, unless it be not reasonably possible for her husband to maintain her. To be honest we ought to insert another clause providing that a married man shall not be qualified for the benefit, unless the Director-General be satisfied that it is not reasonably possible for his wife to maintain him. Why should we not insert such a clause? The only reasonable thing to do is to delete the clause, because it serves no useful purpose and is quite inequitable,

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– Much has been said to-night about the actions of other governments and other parliaments. The National Health and Pensions Insurance Act which was passed by Parliament in 1938 was a very different proposal from that now under consideration. In that measure women were conceded the same rights as men, and no conditions were imposed. The rights of women were secured, and if a woman were married she still retained her rights under the act. This clause is a standing disgrace to a Government that claims to be democratic, despite its similarity to a dictatorship. Ministers can neither explain nor excuse it. If they talked for a week they could not justify it. The clause furnishes further evidence of the fact that the measure was drawn up in a hurry. It is a jerry-built piece of legislation. It was never properly dove-tailed together, and it was never placed before caucus, according to what has been said to-day. The measure should be withdrawn, re-drafted and re-submitted in an acceptable form.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- The Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell) has accused the Opposition of attempting to stonewall the bill, but the Opposition has merely discussed in detail two or three clauses which under ordinary conditions might have occupied the attention of honorable members for some weeks, and in almost every instance the Minister in charge of the bill (Mr. Holloway) has adopted the views which honorable members on this side have expressed. The Minister’s attitude to women in this clause reminds me of that of Hitler or Mussolini. He can see no place in industry for women in the post-war era. According to him, the employment of women in industry is purely a war-time phenomenon, a manifestation of an extraordinary situation, which will vanish with the ending of the war. I point out that there is nothing in this clause to limit its application to the period of the war. This is designed to be a piece of permanent legislation to provide unemploy-ment and sickness benefits. If what the Minister said earlier is to be taken as an indication of the state of mind of the Cabinet, it is quite clear what the Government intended when this clause was framed. It wishes to discourage married women from accepting employment in industry. Many married women of 40 or 50 years of age who have small domestic obligations prefer to work in industry rather than to remain at home. Are we to assume that in this clause the Government is expressing its disapproval of their participation in industry? I was struck by the Minister’s reference to this “ monumental legislation “. Perhaps it is to be regarded as a monument placed by the Government over the tomb of women’s emancipation. As the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) pointed out, there is to be no corresponding limitation in the case of a husband. Evidently the woman is to be disqualified merely because of her sex.

Question put -

That the clause he agreed to.

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

AYES: 32

NOES: 12

Majority . . . . 20

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 (Means test).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- Subclause 2 provides that in determining the amount by which the rate of unemploy ment benefit or sickness benefit payable to any person shall be reduced, any amount received by him in respect of board or lodging or both, provided by him shall not be regarded as income. How will it be possible to give effect to this provision? Let us consider the case of a farmer with a fairly large family, including three sons aged sixteen years and upwards, and in receipt of 20s., 30s. and 40s. a week respectively. According to this sub-clause the benefit is to be estimated according to the amount that they receive each week. The farmer may say that he will average the amounts, but the result may not agree with the amount actually received by each member of the family. The provision is too vague, and will not work out in practice. Sub-clause 3 provides that in determining the amount by which the rate of sickness benefit payable to any person shall he reduced, any amount received by that person from a friendly society, hut not exceeding £1 a week shall not be regarded as income. Why is this provision restricted to friendly societies?

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– It is not restricted to friendly societies; it extends to similar bodies.

Mr RYAN:

– The benefits should not be limited to persons who elect to invest in a form of co-operative society. If an individual chooses to invest his savings in war loans, in real estate, in shares in a company, or in some other safe investment, he should not be excluded from this benefit. In its present form the clause is discriminatory ; it should be wide enough to cover all thrifty people who make provision for the future. I ask the Minister to consider this matter, because in its present form the provision is too restrictive.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– This clause imposes the means test. I have never been able to understand why our schemes of social service should treat thrift and prudence as a crime for which some penalty must be exacted. Unfortunately, such a test is an almost inevitable corollary of a noncontributory scheme of social service. That fact alone should be sufficient for us to find fault with the scheme before us. If the great mass of workers believe that when this monumental piece of legislation finally secures the Royal assent, whether in the war period or in the postwar period, there will come great relief in the way of benefits in respect of unemployment and sickness which have been talked about so glibly in this chamber, they will be soon disillusioned. The clause says that only those people who are able to present to the DirectorGeneral evidence of their indigency will qualify for full participation in these benefits. A beneficiary under the age of eighteen years will find that the benefit payable to him will diminish in proportion to the amount by which his income exceeds 5s. a week. In the next class, those from 18 to 21 years of age are allowed an income of 10s. a week before the diminishing element intrudes itself. Likewise, adult beneficiaries, to the extent that they have an income of 20s. a week, with some of the exceptions mentioned to-night, are to have their benefits reduced. I know that it is futile to ask for any variation of this measure. It only remains for us to record our protest.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 23 and 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 (Medical certificates to be furnished).

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

– I should like to know whether a member of a friendly society who has been accepted for sickness benefit by that society will be required to obtain a further certificate in order to qualify for sickness benefit? It seems reasonable that his acceptance by the society should bo sufficient for the purposes of the Director-General of Social Services and that he should not be required to undergo the expense of obtaining another certificate. The bill, as it stands, requires that all claimants for benefit shall produce a doctor’s certificate as to their illness before they may qualify for benefit. But, as the purpose of this bill is to give assistance to the poor in unemployment and illness, there should be provision to meet cases of destitution whereby the government medical officer or some other medical officer shall provide certificates free of charge.I understand that that matter has been discussed in Cabinet. What is the Government’s attitude ?

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- I rise to support the point made by the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) ; but with me it does not have exclusive reference to members of friendly societies. It should be possible for the Government to come to some arrangement with the medical profession whereby medical certificates shall be supplied at a reduced rate. It is obvious that the medical fee necessary to obtain a medical certificate represents a substantial amount to a person of moderate means. I do not know whether the Government has been negotiating with the medical profession to come to a special arrangement along those lines; but I consider that it should be possible to arrange for a reduced fee or for examinations to be carried out at general hospitals. I shall appreciate any information that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) can supply on that matter.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I reply to the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) by saying that members of friendly societies admitted to sickness benefits by their societies will not need to obtain two medical certificates. In reply to the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), I point out that a person who calls in a doctor or goes to a doctor does so in order to receive treatment, not merely to get a certificate which will entitle him to some cash benefit. The certificates which will be given in connexion with that treatment will also meet the requirements of this legislation. The honorable member’s suggestion that arrangements should be made with the medical profession for medical certificates to be supplied at a reduced rate’ will be followed up. There will be close collaboration with the friendly societies. We may be able to work on real business lines and make a saving in the cost of certificates.Conferences have already been held on that matter. The doctors associated with the Commissioner of Pensions ought to be used, if necessary; for examination of claimants for sickness benefit or the checking of claims. It is the common /practice nowadays for large undertakings, governmental or private, to employ staff doctors. If they give certificates in respect of the illness of employees of those undertakings, those certificates will comply with the requirements of the Director–General of Social Services. There is wisdom in the honorable gentleman’s suggestion that steps be taken to cheapen the cost of medical certificates.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– The clause provides -

A claim for sickness benefit shall, unless the Director-General, in special circumstances, otherwise directs, be supported by the certificate of a legally qualified medical practitioner certifying as to such matters, and containing such information as the DirectorGeneral requires.

Is it proposed that medical certificates shall be distributed among members of the medical profession with a special space for the insertion of the information which will be required by the DirectorGeneral of Social Security? Otherwise, doctors may issue certificates not in the form required and claims for benefit may be held up. The Minister should examine that point.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– I have a lot of sympathy with what the Minister for Labour and National Service .(Mr. Holloway) proposes in regard to making the cost of medical certificates as cheap as possible, but I warn him that if he cheapens the service dangers may arise. During the great depression, when the dole was supplemented, on presentation of medical certificates with special items of food, there were instances of hale-and-hearty men receiving a better dole than their fellows did because they were able to present such certificates. I know one doctor at Glebe who made a “ racket “ out of medical certificates. I concede that sub-clause 2 is a safeguard. That sub-clause reads -

The Director-General may refuse to determine any claim for sickness benefit until the claimant has been examined by a legally qualified medical practitioner nominated by the Director-General for that purpose.

The Minister must not destroy the value of that safeguard by cheapening the supply of medical certificates.

Mr Holloway:

– I meant cheap certificates, not cheap doctors.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- It has been agreed by the medical profession that medical certificates in connexion with sickness benefits should not be issued by the doctors who normally attend the persons in respect of whom the certificates are issued. As the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) knows, that may lead to difficulties between doctors and patients. The practice in other countries, including the United Kingdom, is that the treatment of patients and the issue of certificates should be completely separate. The two do not work well together, and I ask the Minister whether any arrangement has been made or is in prospect to separate the two services.

Mr Abbott:

– Why do they not work well together?

Mr RYAN:

– Because if a man asked the doctor who normally attended him for a certificate and it was refused he would probably-

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:

– Withdraw his support from the doctor.

Mr RYAN:

– Yes.

Mr Abbott:

– Unless he had treated a man, a doctor would not know whether he was sick or not.

Mr RYAN:

– That may be true in some cases, but the fact is that that theory does not work out in other countries, and I doubt whether it will work out in Australia. I do not think that the system of having the one doctor responsible for both- the treatment of the patient and the issuance of the medical certificate is particularly good.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– The great majority of these cases will be of persons who lose income through sickness. They become ill at work, and on proceeding home, immediately call in a doctor. In such cases, he will be the family doctor or a local doctor. Many checks operate in respect of such illnesses. For instance, wages have to be adjusted and sick pay approved. We can visualize many cases of persons who become suddenly ill at work. Perhaps they have continued working for some time after the first signs of illness, and later it may be found that they have pneumonia, or some such complaint. When the family doctorexamines a person in such circumstances, he will give a certificate, and, in doing so, will not charge for the certificate, but for attending the patient. When I spoke of the desirability of cheapening the procurement of certificates, I meant that so far as possible, in order to obtain a certificate, a person should not be obliged to incur expenditure in addition to the normal expenditure incurred in obtaining medical treatment. For instance, it would be preferable to accept the certificate which members of friendly societies are usually obliged to produce in respect of sickness benefit, rather than oblige a person to pay an extra fee solely in order to obtain a certificate for the purpose of qualifying for benefit under this measure. Likewise, when a person is taken to hospital following a sudden attack of sickness at work, a certificate from the hospital authorities would meet all requirements under the bill. Generally, that is what the Minister has in mind.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- When Germany introduced a system of sickness benefits some years ago, the procedure followed at first was that an applicant was supposed to produce a certificate of sickness from the medical practitioner who usually attended him. After a few years’ trial that system was found to be unsatisfactory, and it was replaced by a system whereby applicants for sickness benefit were obliged to produce certificates from specified medical practitioners. This latter system worked very well in Germany and produced far better results than the system which it replaced. Therefore, I suggest that it might be tried in connexion with this scheme. The bill does not lay down what system is to be employed in this respect. I hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to this point.

Clause agreed to.

Sitting suspended from 11.40 p.m. to 12.10 a.m. (Friday).

Friday31, March 1944

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 (Date from which benefits shall commence).

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.This clause provides that the sickness benefit shall be payable from and including the seventh day after the day on which the applicant becomes incapacitated, or the day on which he makes a claim for the sickness benefit, whichever is the later. A person taken ill in a remote district might not be able to lodge an early claim. If he is involved in an accident, he might be rendered unconscious and not be able to make a claim for some weeks. In such cases, the DirectorGeneral should be able to exercise discretion to pre-date payments. I contemplated submitting an amendment to empower the Director-General to authorize the payment of the benefit as from a date not being earlier than the seventh day after the day the person became incapacitated, but I understand that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) is not prepared to accept any amendments. However, I shall be satisfied if the honorable gentleman will give consideration to my suggestion.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.I support the remarks of the honorable member forReid (Mr. Morgan). The clause, in its present form, is not adequate to deal with all the circumstances that may arise. A person involved in an accident may be taken to hospital, and remain unconscious for a long period. He may have no relatives or close friends to make inquiries about his condition, and lodge an application on his behalf. He will not be able to make a claim within the prescribed period. The bill should provide for such cases. The request is reasonable, and I should like to know why the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– Provision is already made to meet such cases. If a person were injured in an accident and taken to hospital unconscious, there would be no difficulty in proving that he was incapacitated, and any one could lodge an application on his behalf. Most people have relatives or close friends who would act for such persons in the circumstances mentioned. Although the department has already considered this point, I shall discuss it again with the Minister for Social Services (Senator Fraser) and his officers.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Paramatta

– I do not believe that the Director-General has discretion for dealing with these cases. The clause provides that the sickness benefit “ shall “ be payable from and including the seventh day after the day on which the person becomes incapacitated. I cannot understand why the Minister objects to accepting an amendment, because he admits that the proposal of the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) is reasonable to meet a case of emergency.

Mr MCDONALD:
Corangamite

– I should like the Minister to explain why the sickness benefit shall not be payable before the seventh day after the day on which the applicant becomes incapacitated.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– There must be a waiting period.

Mr McDONALD:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · UAP; LP from 1944

– When a member of a friendly society is certified by a doctor as being incapacitated, he receives the benefit from that day. The clause, in its present form, may give rise to great hardship. A father with seven or eight children may be seriously injured in an accident. Seven days must elapse before he is entitled to receive any benefit from this scheme. Is it possible to have the payments begin from the day on which the doctor’s certificate is granted?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I am not able to accept an amendment to reduce the waiting period, because it would affect the estimated expenditure under the bill.

Mr McDonald:

– The period is unduly long.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– All legislation granting social benefits contains a waiting period. The shortest period, I understand, is five days, but the majority of the acts of various countries, including New Zealand, prescribe seven days.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28 (Postponement or cancellation of unemployment benefit in certain cases).

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

.- The Minister for

Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) has made it clear that he is not prepared to accept any amendments. That is a great pity, particularly as it seems to be developing into a practice in connexion with legislation introduced by this Government. To-night, the philosophy was extended by the Minister for Information (Mr. Calwell), who had the effrontery to suggest that the Opposition had no right even to advance suggestions. Despite that view, I desire to make an observation on this clause. I direct attention to the fact that -

The Director-General may postpone for such period as he thinks fit the date from which unemployment benefit shall be payable to any person, or may cancel the payment of unemployment benefit to any person, as the case requires -

if, in the opinion of the DirectorGeneral -

that person is a seasonal or intermittent worker,

and the income of that person is sufficient for the maintenance of. himself and the persons who are ordinarily maintained by him notwithstanding a period of temporary unemployment.

A shearer who works for nine months of the year will have a seasonal unemployment period of three months. The Director-General of Social Services will have to determine whether the shearer’s earnings during the nine months’ period are adequate to maintain his family for twelve months. Of course, those periods are given for purposes of illustration. They may be considerably shorter. The Director-General will have to examine the family budget of thousands of seasonal and intermittent workers throughout Australia. Even with the full powers of delegation which the bill confers on the Director-General he will hardly be able to tear himself away from considering whether fighting men are able to maintain their wives to investigate the financial position of the intermittent and seasonal workers. This only reveals one more of the inevitable impracticalities of any scheme of social relief in which the benefits are not related to contributions.

Mr MCDONALD:
Corangamite

– I direct attention to paragraph d, which provides that the

Director-General may postpone or cancel a person’s unemployment benefits, if, in his opinion -

  1. that person is a seasonal or inter mittent worker; and
  2. the income of that person is sufficient for the maintenance of himself and the persons who are ordinarily maintained by him notwithstanding a period of temporary employment.

This appears to be aimed mainly at rural workers, such as shearers, artisans, fruit pickers and timber workers. I do not know why they should be so unduly discriminated against. Legislation of this character is an added inducement to men to flock to the cities to obtain permanent employment in factories and other places, and so neglect those very necessary rural pursuits. The shearer is mostly employed at piece-work rates. If there is any class of worker who earns his living by the sweat of his brow, it is he. It may be said that he earns big money, but he pays heavy taxes and does a great deal of travelling, and his earning period extends over nothing like nine months in the year, except in isolated cases. Generally the season lasts for only four or five months, during which period his operations take him to two or three States. His travelling expenses are heavy, the work hard, but the pay good, because piece-work rates to-day are generally good, which is probably why we rarely hear of a shearer’s strike. With perhaps the smallest number of shearers that we have had for the last ten years, shearing operations were successfully carried out last year when Australia had more sheep than ever before. It is becoming more and more difficult to secure shearers. If more difficulties are placed in the way of their earning a living, they will forsake the hard work for softer jobs in places where the work will be permanent, and the average remuneration greater.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.The clause provides that the DirectorGeneral may postpone or cancel the payment of unemployment benefits to any person who becomes unemployed by reason of his misconduct as a worker. Who decides what misconduct is - the Director-General, the court or the employer? The clause is very vague as it stands, and requires explanation.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA · FLP; ALP from 1936

– I suppose that a number of causes could lead up to the Director-General taking action in such a case. Probably the most common would be a charge of misconduct by the employer against the employee, who is put off temporarily. He may come to work drunk, or strike somebody, or be a danger amongst the machines to himself and his mates, whereupon he is suspended because of his own fault. The DirectorGeneral may decide on the evidence in each case whether the offender is or is not entitled to unemployment benefit.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 29 to 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 (Cancellation, &c., of benefit).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.What is the purpose of the clause? It provides that the Director-General may at any time cancel or suspend the payment of unemployment or sickness benefit payable to any person, or reduce the rate, if he considers it expedient to do so. I refer the Minister to clause 10, which provides that whenever it appears to the Director-General that sufficient reason exists for reviewing any determination, he may review and may affirm, vary or annul the determination. In view of clause 10 what need is there for clause 35?

Mr Holloway:

– I am not going back to clause 10.

Mr McDONALD:
Corangamite

– The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) has raised a pertinent point, and the Minister should answer him. These are matters that vitallyaffect the people whom we represent, and we have a perfect right to ask for and receive information from the Minister.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

, - Clause 10 gives a general power of review to the Director-General. For instance, under clause 9 he may determine claims for benefit, and clause 10 enables him to review such determinations. This clause is directed to quite a different purpose. It gives to the DirectorGeneral power to cancel or suspend benefits. One is a general right to review all determinations, and this clause gives specific power to the Director-General to cancel or suspend benefits.

Mr Ryan:

– Is not the specific power contained in the general power?

Dr EVATT:

– I doubt it. If it is, there is no harm in including it here.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 41 agreed to.

Clause 42 (Payment of benefit to be made from National Welfare Fund)

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– This is the clause which provides that the financial resources from which the benefits are to be paid shall be drawn from the National Welfare Fund. What provision, if any, is made to meet the financial requirements of the bill and pay the benefits- in the event of the National Welfare Fund being exhausted? That is not a flippant inquiry, because quite a number of social services are to draw their sustenance from the fund. The maximum amount which can be paid into the fund under the law as it stands is £30,000,000 a year, but that amount will only reach the fund so long as the returns from income tax on personal exertion remain at £120,000,000 a year or more. I remind honorable members that before the income tax on personal exertion was taken to its present astronomical height, the returns collected from that source seldom exceeded £10,000,000 a year. It is not inconceivable that expenditure under this legisla- tion alone will reach £30,000,000 per annum. That figure would be read led with 10 per cent, of the population drawing sickness benefits, and 5 per cent, unemployment benefits, or vice versa. I ask what provision the Government is making to meet such a contingency, which, however unlikely, is still quite possible.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.

Clause 45 (Training or treatment of claimants or beneficiaries).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.I ask the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) how the training or treatment provided for in this clause is to be financed. The Director-General may deny benefits to a claimant unless he undergoes a specified course of vocational training or medical treatment. In such a case, will the claimant be forced to meet the cost of training or treatment himself? This is a most extraordinary clause and I should like to have some explanation of it.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne Ports · ALP

– I consider this to be a most important clause. It is a provision which I have heard many honorable members opposite say at various times, should be included in all legislation of this type. Its aim is to provide a method of rehabilitating the semi-invalid who really should not be paid an invalid pension without some effort being made to restore him to useful citizenship. During training he. would draw the benefit, and the cost of the training would .he met from the fund.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– I regard this an excellent provision. The Social Security Committee had placed before it in Brisbane some very interesting evidence on the provision of vocational training, under pensions legislation. The attention of the committee was drawn to a number of cases in which vocational training had been carried out without undue encouragement by the department. I do not say that in a derogatory sense, but merely because the provisions of the Invalid and Old-age Pensions “Act do not encourage the Deputy Commissioner to deal with vocational training. Such activities are additional to his ordinary work, and do not come directly within the scope of his duties. However, we were given evidence of case& in which vocational training had been encouraged and had resulted in the saving of a considerable sum of money to the Pensions Department. The honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) has asked who will pay for this vocational training or medical treatment. Undoubtedly, a certain amount of money will be required to finance vocational training activities, but I consider that it will be money well spent because ultimately it will mean a saving to the Treasury. Vocational training will serve to restore a sense of citizenship and responsibility, and, surely, that is something which should be encouraged by every honorable member. It was shown to us in Queensland that as a result of their training many young people had become useful and profitable citizens. They had developed confidence in themselves and were far more valuable units of the community than they had been in the past. I commend the Government for including this clause in the bill.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.I have not yet had an answer to my question. I agree entirely with what has been said by the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard). If any member of the community is out of employment and requires vocational training or medical treatment he should have it, even at the expense of the state; but the fact remains that there is no provision in this measure for expenditure on vocational training or medical treatment of that kind. All that the bill lays down is that the unemployed person shall receive 25s. a week. Obviously that sum is not sufficient to feed, house and clothe the recipient, and at the same time, cover the cost of vocational training or medical treatment. Whilst I agree with the principle of this clause I should like to know how the extra finance is to be provided.

Mr Holloway:

– This clause is associated with a similar provision in the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act.

Mr RYAN:

– But the Invalid and Old-age Pensions Act does not provide for vocational training.

Mr Holloway:

– Yes.

Mr RYAN:

– ‘Over and above the 27s. a week?

Mr Holloway:

– No. There is provision in the act whereby a person may be given vocational training whilst he is in receipt of a pension.

Mr RYAN:

– Why is a similar provision not incorporated in this measure?

Mr Holloway:

– The cost will be paid by the department.

Mr RYAN:

– That should be stated in the bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 46 (Information as to beneficiaries).

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The Minister ought to explain this clause, which is rather extraordinary. It reads -

The Director-General may require any person whom he believes to be in a position to do so, to furnish to him a confidential report relating to any matter which might affect the payment of benefit to any other person and a person so required shall not fail to furnish a report accordingly within a reasonable time and shall not furnish a report which is false or misleading in any particular.

A penalty is provided, which should cause the committee grave concern. There has been sufficient snooping in regard to the affairs of taxpayers. Members of the committee know that recently the censor took extracts from certain letters and sent them to different departments. The press has also reported a prosecution, based on information obtained by the censor from private correspondence. Does the Minister intend to instruct the censor to open mail, and generally to adopt a Gestapo approach to these matters ? Whom is he to direct - the doctor, the censor, the employer? He could put his hand in a hat, draw out the name of any person, and require him to furnish a report in regard to. any other person. The provision is altogether too wide. There is too much snooping on behalf of bureaucrats. If they are empowered to demand entry to the homes of private people, and to inquire into their private affairs in order to supply the Minister with information, prosecutions might ensue, and another vicious circle be started. When all directive powers have been given to bureaucrats, there is no knowing what will be the result. This extraordinary provision must have been extracted from the archives of the Reich.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– I am sorry to disappoint the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison). This provision was taken from legislation passed, not in the Reich, but in the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and by a government of which the honorable member was a Minister. It is a common form of provision in relation to pensions, and merely arms the Director-General with authority to obtain information in order to check the bona fides of claimants.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.The clause appears to be rather wide, and might lead to the disclosure of confidential information passing between doctor and patient, which ordinarily would not be revealed to any other person. If a doctor refused to disclose information in his possession in relation to a patient, he would be liable to a penalty of £50. Could not the power be restricted?

Dr Evatt:

– The better course is to adhere to the form that has been in use for so long.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I am interested in the defence of the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt). We have heard speech after speech from the Government side, in which we have been told that the Government was getting away from both the bad old days and the bad old ways, and disdained to do anything that had been done by members who sit on this side of the chamber. Yet, as soon as the Attorney-General is asked a very mild question by my friend from Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), his defence is: “We have lifted this ‘ holus-bolus ‘ from something that you did three or four years ago, when you were a Minister in an unnamed government.” I should be delighted if the right honorable gentleman would state the act from which this provision was purloined; because, if it appeared in an act passed by a. government in which the honorable member for Wentworth was a Minister, its origin might be in the dim and distant past, and it might even have come out of an act passed by the Fisher Government. I am afraid that the Attorney-General will not increase his popularity with his belligerent supporters by defending this provision on the ground that it is identical with a provision enacted by a government composed of men like the honorable member for Wentworth. That is not a defence.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 47 and 4S agreed to.

Clause 49 (Offences).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.Paragraph b of sub-clause 1 provides that a person shall not obtain payment of any benefit or instalment thereof which is not payable. I suggest the addition of the words “ according to this act “.

Dr Evatt:

– That is what is meant. Otherwise, that statement would have to be made in every clause.

Mr RYAN:

– If the right honorable gentleman is satisfied, I shall not persist.

Dr Evatt:

– I am satisfied.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 50 (Consent to prosecution).

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

– I should like an explanation as to why the authority to institute prosecutions is restricted to the Minister. The Director-General is tobe vested with most extraordinary powers. He is to be entitled to investigate the domestic affairs of half the workers of Australia, yet apparently he cannot be trusted to initiate prosecutions for infractions of the law. From the standpoint of practicality, it is not wise to concentrate all authority to institute prosecutions in a Minister resident at Canberra or Melbourne, when offences may be committed all over the Commonwealth. That would be conducive to the creation of a bottleneck, and would not ensure the best administration. The authority to institute prosecutions might be vested in the Director-General and his delegates.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 51 to 53 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment: report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2424

SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE

Message received from the Senate intimating that Senator Cooper had been discharged from attendance on the Social Security Committee.

page 2424

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (W AR-TIME) BILL 1944

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by Mr. Lazzarini) read a first time.

page 2424

FORESTRY BUREAU BILL 1944

Bill received from the Senate, and (on motion by Mr. Lazzarini) read a first time.

page 2424

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE

page 2424

SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate : -

Without amendment -

Loan Bill 1944

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Appropriation Bill 1944.

Entertainments Tax Assessment Bill 1044

Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Bill 1944

Widows’ Pensions Bill 1944

Invalid and Old-age Pensions Bill 1944.

Supply and Development Bill 1944

Without requests -

Entertainments Tax Bill 1944

“EXCUSE TARIFF REBATE BILL 1944.

Motion (by Dr. Evatt) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill tor an act to provide for a rebate of certain duties of excise.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill hu now read a second time.

Prior to the introduction of the price ceiling in April, 1943, increases of the retail price of tobacco and cigarettes of varying amounts from 45 per cent, to 55 per cent, were permitted. These increases were due to the imposition of higher customs and excise duties on tobacco, and not to increased costs of production or applications by the manufacturing companies for higher prices. If the added cost of duties be excluded, no increase has taken place, since the outbreak of war, of the manufacturers’ selling price of tobacco. During the last twelve months a substantial increase has taken place in the landed cost of imported tobacco leaf. The average cost in 1942 of imported tobacco leaf used, exclusive of duty, was just under 20d. per lb. In 1943 it had risen to just over 26d. per lb. For the four months November 1st, .1.94.3. to February 29th, 1944, the average cost of purchases was nearly 46d. per lb. This represents an increase of about 26d. per lb. in the cost of imported leaf since 1942 and of about 20d. per lb. since 1943. Manufacturing companies have up to the present, absorbed substantial increases of costs of imported leaf, but the position has now arisen when they require some relief from these increased costs. In the absence of the price ceiling, it would be normal practice for the Prices Commissioner to increase the price of tobacco to meet the increased costs of imported leaf. Tobacco, however, is included in the regimen for the cost-of-living index, and is a widely consumed article. It has been decided, in lieu of a further increase of the price of tobacco, to provide the relief by way of a remission of excise duties. The basis on which the remission of excise is being arranged requires the companies to carry about half the increase of cost of imported leaf this year as compared with last year, and still more as compared with the cost in 1942. This involves the companies in a considerable increase of costs with a consequent reduction of profit margins. It is proposed that the reduction of excise shall take the form of a rebate of 4£ per cent, on total excise collections. The current level of these collections is about £17,000,000 a year, compared with a pre-war figure of £6,200,000. The cost of the rebate will, therefore, be at the rate of about £750,000 for the current year. The position will be kept under close scrutiny, and the rebate will be varied as required. As the price of imported leaf has averaged nearly 46d. per lb. since the 1st November last, it is proposed to make the rebate retrospective from that date.

This proposal does not affect in any way the assistance the Government is giving to local producers of tobacco. Increases of prices of a total of 26.5 per cent, in the local leaf have been permitted since the outbreak of the war. and the manufacturing companies have absorbed these increases without any increase of their selling prices. The Government is anxious to encourage the production of local leaf and the action now taken is designed merely to protect consumers from an increase of price that would otherwise be necessary because of an increase of the cost of imported leaf. At present tobacco is imported by the Division of Import Procurement and sold on arrival to the manufacturing companies on a basis of cash payments. The companies are thus being asked to finance the purchase of high-priced imports, and it will be possible to keep a close check on the effects of the reduction of excise duty now made. Full information is available as to the amount and cost of the imported leaf, and the Prices Commissioner will make a periodic review of the costs and profits of the manufacturing companies.

Mr HARRISON:
WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · UAP; LP from 1944

– The Opposition does not purpose to contest this bill, but I desire to make some observations upon it. We have been told that the Treasury is now collecting about £17,000,000 a year in excise on tobacco, which is nearly three times as much as was collected before the war. Out of this large amount, it is proposed to give a rebate of £750,000. I agree that there has been an extraordinary increase of the price of imported leaf - from about 20d. per lb. in 1942 to 46d. per lb. in February, 1944. Such a large increase must necessarily affect the price of manufactured tobacco. The amount of the rebate is not large in comparison with the amount of revenue collected, particularly having regard to what the Treasury is getting because of the increased price of manufactured tobacco. It would be unforgivable to increase further the retail price of tobacco at this time. People are paying more for their tobacco now than over before in the history of Australia. This not only affects those who require tobacco as a solace, but it also affects the quantity of tobacco available to members of the services. Even now, Allied soldiers are getting their tobacco for a fraction of the cost which our troops are required to pay for an inferior article.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.This measure requires some analysis. Over a period of six years, when I was Minister for Trade and Customs, I was responsible for many changes, up and down, of import duties and excise on tobacco. It is now proposed to give a rebate duty amounting to £750,000, the rebate to be retrospective to September of last year. Before the war, collections of duty amounted to £7,000,000 a year; now they amount to £17,000,000. I recognize that the Government must have revenue, but I am surprised that an undertaking has not been obtained from the manufacturers that there will be an adjustment of price.

Dr Evatt:

– This rebate is being made in order to ensure that there will not be an increase of price.

Mr Martens:

– The honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) would be willing to ruin the growers.

Mr WHITE:

– I induced the Government of which I was a member to provide £30,000 to be expended upon the improvement of Australian leaf. As a result, Australian leaf is a usable commodity to-day. I should like to hear from the Minister what the retail price of tobacco is to be after this rebate is granted. There should be a statement by the Prices Commission.

Dr Evatt:

– It will be the same as before.

Mr SCULLY:
Minister for Commerce and Agriculture · Gwydir · ALP

– Last year, I called a conference which was attended by the Prices Commissioner and representatives of the growers and the manufacturers. At this conference it was decided to fix the price of local leaf at 3s. per lb., but it was found, after the leaf had been appraised, that the average price to the grower was only 2s. 5-Jd. per lb. I propose to discuss the matter with the Prices Commissioner and the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane) with a view to ensuring that the growers will get the price agreed upon. I do not say that they were wilfully cheated, but, through the working of the appraisal system, they were deprived of a price which had been fixed. I am sure that the Minister for Trade and Customs and the Prices Commissioner will see that the amount by which the growers have been underpaid will be made up to them.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2426

QUESTION

BAERAMI SHALE OIL PROPOSAL

Reference to PUBLIC Works Committee.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– by leave - I move -

That, in accordance with the .provisions of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-1936, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report, viz.: - Bacrami Shale Oil Proposal.

On the 16th February, 1943, the House of Representatives referred to the Public Works Committee, for investigation and report, the Newnes and Baerami shale oil proposals. On the 10th June, 1943, the committee submitted a report to Parliament, in which it stated in paragraph 17-

All witnesses examined agreed that, for the present, efforts should be concentrated on increasing production at Glen Davis, as it was unlikely that men and material could be obtained for the development of the project at Baerami, which, in addition to mining machinery, refining plant, power house, &c, involves also the construction of a village, road, pipe line, water supply, &c., for an entirely new venture. Consequently, beyond preliminary inquiries, the committee has confined its attention to Glen Davis, and this report refers wholly and solely to that project. As regards Baerami, consideration of its development will form the subject of a future report.

It was the intention of the tenth committee to consider this proposal at a later date, but on the dissolution of the Parliament, the committee under the terms of the Commonwealth Public Works Committee Act 1913-1936, ceased to exist, and the committee subsequently appointed is not empowered to carry on the investigation without a further reference from the Parliament. Certain information having reached the committee that it would be expedient that this proposal should be investigated at the present time, so that all preliminaries may have been dealt with should it be decided that it would be advantageous to proceed with the development of this deposit as a post-war project, it is urged that a formal reference be made to the present, or eleventh, committee to enable it legally to proceed with its inquiry. As all the information furnished to the tenth committee, as well as the evidence taken by that committee, is available to the eleventh committee, the motion, if agreed to, will enable the work already undertaken to be completed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2427

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS BILL 1944

Second Reading

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

As its name implies, this is a measure to provide free medicines to all people of the Commonwealth requiring them, and is a further instalment of the complete plan of social welfare services promised by the Treasurer (Mr.Chifley) last year, when he introduced the National Welfare Fund Bill, under which provision was made for a National Welfare Fund, out of which the initial costs for improving existing and initiating new social services would be met. Already some of these promises have been kept, such as improved pensions for invalids, aged and blind persons; a wider scope and increased benefits under the Maternity Allowances Act, with special help for pre-natal and post-natal care of both mother and children; new extensions of widows’ pensions; funeral benefits for pensioners; the unendowed first child of the family of a widow, and the raising of the age of dependency of all children from fourteen to sixteen years. All these features of the plan are in operation. Other instalments which have been passed in the present period of the session include cash payments to persons temporarily unemployed, or suffering loss of income through sickness. The measure now before the House cannot be given effect whilst the present shortage of manpower and equipment exists, but the Government desires to pass the necessary legislation to warrant its planning the necessaryadministrative machinery as far as is possible, so that it shall be ready for immediate action when circumstances make that possible.

The bill provides that any person ordinarily resident in the Commonwealth, on presenting a prescription from a doctor, may have it dispensed free of cost by a qualified dispenser in any chemists’” shop, friendly society or hospital dispensary, the cost of which shall be paid by the Government. Every care has been taken to ensure that medicines of the highest quality shall he supplied to the public. Clause 7 sets out to assure this by the adoption of a pharmaceutical formulary prepared by an expert committee. This formulary will cover all reliable and essential combinations of medicines, and will not be limited to any number of prescriptions. All. prescriptions of value may be included if accepted by the expert committee. Insulin and anti-toxin will be included. Materials and appliances are also provided for. The Government is determined that all preparations of proven value shall be made available, including penicillin as soon as it is available. I am sure that all honorable members will be glad to know that the Commonwealth Health Department, under Dr. Cumpston’s control, has this position well in hand. There will be three committees under this act: A Formulary Committee to decide the formulae of prescriptions ; a Consultative Committee in each State to investigate all local disputes, matters of practice, &c, and to report to the Minister; and a Consultative Council to advise the Minister upon matters of policy. These committees will consist of men trained in, and associated with, the medical profession. A new feature is dealt with in sub-clause 4 of clause 8, which sets out that a person whose sickness is due to his own misconduct shall be entitled to the benefits. Clause 15 provides for special arrangements for persons in isolated areas where no doctor or chemist is available. Other similar systems have been examined so that we may improve and simplify this legislation and the methods of its administration. It is intended that the system shall not become inflexible. The scheme is to be controlled by the Department of Health, which will guarantee that it will be progressive and scientific, and will be linked with, and have the advantage of, the research in which that department is engaged. It will be noted that any chemist, lodge or hospital dispensary may share in the work of catering for tie people under this scheme. At present, some States allow dispensaries to cater for all people who desire to deal with them, whilst others do not. I hope thai this anomaly will be rectified, and that State legislation will enable these dispensaries, which have done so much to meet the needs of the workers of this country, to trade without restriction. Wc shall need all the trained personnel available to meet the greater demand for medicine when the scheme is in operation. The medicines to be available under the scheme will be those contained in the Commonwealth pharmaceutical formulary which it is proposed will be compiled by a committee of doctors and chemists. Persons will have free choice of chemists, and will thus be able to have medicines dispensed wherever it is most convenient to them. Arrangements will be made with chemists to supply medicines under the scheme on the basis of an agreed price for each prescription in the formulary. It has frequently been said that other health services should have received attention before the one provided in the present bill. My answer to that contention is that the Government is not prepared to delay any portion of its plan merely because it is thought that other portions should receive precedence. Honorable members will readily appreciate that the prevailing conditions as to manpower and resources must largely determine the practicability of bringing into operation other sections of the national welfare plan. In regard to desirable projects, such as hospital services and the treatment of tuberculosis, which involve expansion of hospital accommodation and facilities, I assure members that the Government has for some time been examining these problems, and, as soon as possible, legislation will bc introduced to deal with them. We shall proceed on the basis of doing what we can as soon as practicable and no measure will be delayed simply because we have not been able to complete our arrangements.

One of the most important features of the Government’s proposals is the adoption of an entirely new method of providing pharmaceutical benefits. The basis of this method is the predetermination by a formulary committee of the full scope of the benefits to be supplied. This committee will be composed of experts representing the medical profession, pharmacologists and pharmacists, and will examine all known drugs and compounds, with a view to incorporating all those essential in the relief or cure of any known disease in a formulary from which any medical practitioner may order. It is not the intention to limit the inclusion of any drug or compound merely on the score of cost. The only question asked will be, “Does it contribute anything towards the medical efficiency of the formulary?”. In this way the Government hopes to achieve a high standard of efficiency in prescribing and expects to offset to some degree any increase of the cost of supplying expensive drugs by the elimination of redundant and useless drugs and by keeping the cost of administration down to a minimum.

The restriction of prescribing to a formulary is a departure from the accepted practice in the provision of pharmaceutical benefits, and it is very desirable that honorable members should be conversant with the reasons for the adoption of such a principle, and know something of the advantages that may be gained. The practice in Great Britain under the National Insurance Act is to allow doctors to prescribe “ all proper and necessary drugs “ which, on the face of it, looks like unrestricted prescribing. This does not mean, however, “ complete freedom for the prescriber “, which has sometimes been claimed for the British scheme, because prescribing is hedged in by a great many instructions, to ensure due regard for economy in drugs and costs. If any prescriber does exceed the limit of his instructions he is promptly dealt with. The view has been urged that prescribing from a formulary limits the power of the prescriber to meet the individual requirements of his patients; but that is not so. Any conception that the formulary is merely a list of preparations to meet certain complaints is erroneous. The formulary is a list of drugs considered necessary in the treatment of the sick and injured, together with a range of formulae showing suitable combinations of drugs, rather than a list of prescriptions for certain complaints. It will be the prescriber’s responsibility to decide which compound is most suited to his patient’s requirements, and it will be the duty of the formulary committee to ensure the provision of an adequate range of drugs and compounds to meet the needs of the medical profession. But the liberty of the prescriber does not end with the choice of a suitable formula, for he is also able to alter the dose of any ingredient in a formulary compound.

He may also decide that, owing to some idiosyncrasy of his patient, it is necessary to eliminate certain drugs from a formulary prescription. Furthermore, he is at liberty to prescribe the quantity of any drug or compound that should be taken. In fact, the only limitation is that the prescriber cannot increase the number or the quantity of drugs in any formula, but in view of the elasticity in prescribing already mentioned, this should not debar any patient from receiving the treatment he needs.

The advantages of this plan are, first, it will assist the prescriber by providing him with a formula which has been tested and proved, both as regards its chemical combination and its therapeutic value; secondly, it will assist our war-time drug supply situation by eliminating unnecessary and useless drugs; thirdly, it will avoid the necessity of creating a large administrative staff that would be necessary if every prescription written had to be independently priced, as would be the case if doctors wrote their own formulae.

There is another aspect of the benefits conferred by this bill that may be easily overlooked in any cursory examination of the clauses. I direct attention to clause 25 c, in which it is stated that an authorized person may take samples of drugs, medicines, &c, and clause 27 c, which provides that the GovernorGeneral may make regulations prescribing the standards of composition or purity of pharmaceutical benefits. Although standards are set for most drugs, there has been nothing in the way of a systematic check on the quality of the drugs used in medicine, with the result that many medical men to-day are misled in their diagnosis because of the patient’s lack of reaction to treatment. Most chemists take every reasonable precaution to ensure the quality of their products by buying their drugs from reputable wholesalers and manufacturers. But what I am stressing is the fact that there is at present in Australia no adequate provision for the testing of many drugs in common use and in consequence the present standard of pharmaceutical service is not so good as it should be.

That does not imply that members of the profession are at fault.

It is estimated that the cost of supplying the pharmaceutical service will be about £2,000,000 in a full year. The service will be financed from the National Welfare Fund. Finally, the Government does not suggest that this and other social security legislation can give real economic security to the people. That can come only from full employment at full rates of pay, at a standard equal to the resources of the country. The legislation already passed will bridge the gaps which occur from time to time. Sickness and unemployment in some instances are inevitable. The date on which this legislation will become operative has not been decided upon but we want the right to provide the machinery.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– It is a serious reflection upon the Government that we should be asked in the early hours of the morning to debate an important instalment of its national health proposals, and that, without even the courtesy of granting an adjournment of the debate to enable honorable members to study the implications of the bill and the second-reading speech of the Minister in charge of the measure (Mr. Holloway), the Government intends to force it through the House. I object most strongly to the furtive way in which the Government is seeking to bring its national health programme into being. The health of individuals and of the nation is the most important subject that this Parliament could ever consider and it is disgraceful that we should be asked to consider it in these circumstances. The Government is the master of its own business, and it should be able to arrange the order of business in such a way as to allow a measure which so greatly affects the health standards of the people, to be debated in the full light of day. I propose to examine the bill from three aspects: First, whether the passage of this measure will materially improve the health of the community; secondly, whether the welfare of the sick will be seriously jeopardized by the limitation of the freedom of the doctor to prescribe for a patient exactly what medicine he regards as most suitable to restore a patient to health ; and, thirdly, whether the Government’s approach to this subject will assist, or retard, cooperation with the States and the medical profession in the formulation and implementation of a comprehensive national health programme covering the whole field of health and medical treatment. The only justification for the introduction of this measure in wartime would be that it is a most urgent and an integral part of the Government’s national health programme. The Government must establish that the supply of medicine to the public lags well behind other urgent national health matters and especially those health measures that would reduce the total expenditure on medicines. Otherwise, it must be convicted of a gross waste of public money.

The object of a Commonwealth health programme should be to prevent the incidence of disease, to provide for early diagnosis, and to make available efficient treatment before disease reaches the chronic and tragic stage. All enlightened medical teaching has stressed the necessity of making available to the people as a whole, in decentralized and convenient institutions, all the equipment necessary to provide early and accurate diagnosis of disease, which every one so greatly fears. In such a programme, the provision of a bottle of medicine is the last requirement. The Government’s approach to the health problem is exactly the reverse. It proposes to provide medicine first, before diagnosis, and before hospital and medical treatment. This is starting the national health programme in reverse gear. It would be equally logical to supply free coffins before free medicine. The Government has already provided free funeral benefits in certain circumstances, and its action under this measure in providing free medicine as the first step in a national health programme, is, perhaps, in logical sequence.

The amount that the nation would need to expend on medicine could be very considerably reduced if an orderly health programme were carried out by’ the Government. Much of the funds that would be spent on medicine would be saved if an equivalent amount was expended in inaugurating a national health plan along the lines that medical experience has indicated to be necessary. Such a plan would ensure the nutrition of pregnant and nursing mothers and children by reducing the cost of essential protective foods such as milk, oranges, &c. Priority in securing these essential foods, and, in fact, essential clothing for these women and children, should also be given. Otherwise they must stand in queues, or risk missing supplies altogether.

Let me illustrate the requirements of an effective health plan by dealing with the case of a common disease. Infantile scurvy frequently develops in children between the eighth and fifteenth month of life. It takes time to develop, and usually occurs in infants who have had solely boiled, pasteurized or dried milk. Latent scurvy, not immediately recognizable, may be made active by infection. The treatment for scurvy, both preventive and curative, is the supply of foodstuffs rich in vitamin C. If there were an abundant supply of orange, tomato, pawpaw, pineapple, or black currant juice, sufficient to give 30 mmg. of ascorbic acid daily, children would not develop scurvy. The quantity necessary is roughly -

If these quantities are not available, we are forced to rely on a very inferior substitute, synthetic ascoribic acid, which, in fact, must be used for a fraction of the number of infants who, for financial reasons, or because of geographical difficulties, or a shortage of supplies, cannot obtain those other juices. Under the Government’s free medicine scheme, I take it that the synthetic ascoribic acid, the inferior substitute, will be supplied free as a medicine. Surely, it is much more sensible to include in the formulary under the bill these indispensable concentrated juices, which are much more curative than the synthetic medicine, and would prevent the necessity for using ascorbic acid. For other infantile diseases, such as anaemia, rickets, tuberculosis and other infections, fresh milk and eggs are equally essential.

The Nutrition Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council has indicated in its last report that children from six months to five years of age must have three eggs a week, and pregnant and lactating women must have six eggs a week in order to keep themselves and their children in health. The committee says, . further, that children under six years of age should have 10$ pints of milk a week; children from six to fourteen years, 7 pints a week; expectant mothers, 10$ pints a week; and invalids, 14 pints a week. It goes on to say that it is quite useless to give medicines for the treatment of various diseases if these quantities of milk are not available. The committee urges that positive action must be taken concurrently with the introduction of meat rationing to ensure that infants and children, pregnant and lactating women, and invalids will have the quantity of milk recommended by their medical advisers, even if nonvulnerable groups are restricted. Sir John Boyd Orr referred to the position in Great Britain, where first things are placed first and not last. Writing in the Listener, of the 6th January last, of the effect of milk on health and growth, Sir John said -

What has been the effect of this on the national health? Let us take the children first. Their diet has been improved and I think we are safe to say that there has been a corresponding improvement in their health. One of the first signs of improvement in the state of a child’s nutrition is that he grows faster. And our children are growing faster. The Health Department in Glasgow reported early this year that boys of thirteen years of age are more than J in. taller and more than 2 lb. heavier than boys at the same age in the five years before the war. What about mothers? You can judge the health of mothers best by the infant mortality rote - that is, the number of children who die before the age of two years. The two things which do most to cause a high death rate are bad housing and bad feeding. Now, owing to the war, housing is worse and overcrowding is worse, but the infant mortality rate has fallen. In England, the average rate in the five years before the war was 57 per 1,000; in 1942, it had fallen to 48. In Scotland it was 77 per 1,000 on an average in the five pre-war years: in 1942, it was down to 69.

Last week I described the effect of ample milk and foods on the health of mothers in preventing stillbirths and miscarriages, ensuring the health of new-born children, and reducing the mortality and incidence of crippling diseases. Honorable members will recall that I mentioned a daily addition of 30 oz. of milk, 1 egg, 1 orange, 3$ oz. of canned tomatoes, 1 oz. of cheese, 1 viosterol capsule, and two tablespoonsful of wheat germ. This brought dietary levels up to moderate requirements. Of all those’ foods, one viosterol capsule is the only thing that is provided under this bill, and people might not obtain even that if it be a proprietary line! Only one of six foods which are absolutely essential to reduce infant mortality and build up the health of mothers is mentioned. Eight at the beginning of our national health scheme something should be done about this omission. It should take precedence of everything else.

The National Health and Medical Research Council recommends a scheme for the controlled distribution of milk. This system would supply customers in the priority group with the quantities of milk that they order - the quantity recommended by their medical advisers. This raises the question whether milk should not also be regarded as being on the same plane as medicines. If they are indispensable to recovery, they should be supplied on the same basis.

Mr Clark:

– Why did not the right honorable gentleman think of that when he was a member of a previous government?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– In 1935 the Government of which I was a member expended £250,000 for the purpose of providing additional supplies of milk for the people. On that occasion, the Commonwealth induced the States to take an interest in the matter. The present Government has appealed to the States for co-operation in various matters; but the Minister in his second-reading speech gave no indication that the Commonwealth intended to seek the assistance of the States in its scheme to provide free medicine. In addition, the Government of which I was a member helped1 to finance the King George V. Memorial Hospital, which is the bast equipped institution of its kind in Sydney.

I come now to the question of the order in which the medical programme should be outlined and implemented, Surely .the order must be the prevention of sickness, if possible, by the maintenance of people in health through nutritive food and hygienic conditions of life. For this, the best foundation must be a healthy mother and healthy children, and this must go back to good1, suitable and abundant food. The health value of diet, its power to start vigorous growth, in children to make blood and bone, and to give strength of sinew and nerve, depends upon the quantity of protective foods consumed. These protective foods, like milk and eggs, are rich in vitamins and minerals. It is just as valuable to get these out of a bottle of milk as out of a bottle of medicine, which, in the last analysis, is composed of the same mineral and vegetable constituents.

Preventive medicine is a most important aspect. During the last 40 years, great advances have been made in preventive methods and, as the result of achievements in this sphere, huge territories throughout the world, especially in tropical areas, have been rendered habitable with an almost negligible amount of sickness and an extremely low death-rate. I see nothing in the bill to indicate provision for immunization against diphtheria and the use of anti-typhoid serum. They are required for maintaining the health of the people. What does the Government propose to do? I am afraid that the Government has begun at the tail end of the organization instead of at the head. When I began to practice 40 years ago, diphtheria was a most deadly scourge amongst children in Australia. Deaths numbered many thousands a year. With the discovery of the diphtheria serum and later with the introduction of immunization, the death-rate fell until now it is very low. The onset of. infectious diseases should be countered by prophylactic treatment, such as immunization against diphtheria, and the use of anti-typhoid serum. I am not clear whether the bill provides for these.

If health cannot be maintained and sickness intervenes, the most important items in their proper order are skilled diagnosis, correct treatment, and hospital accommodation with adequate equipment to ensure recovery. Provision of medicine is one part of this treatment; but it is useless without the other factors. What are the relevant positions of the adequate supply of these various factors? I find that the Social Security Committee has indicated in its sixth report that the pharmaceutical service in Australia at the present time is adequate for any reasonable expansion in the dispensing of medicines that are needed. Although the Government has tackled only provision for the dispensing of medicines, the committee reports that the other essential factors, such as hospital services, are hopelessly inadequate. The committee points out, on page 54 of its sixth report, that there is a deficiency of 6,690 beds in general hospital services. We need 64,000 beds and we have barely 57,000. There is a very big deficiency in the convalescent homes. The committee was struck with the number of elderly people with chronic diseases accommodated in beds for acute cases because there was nowhere else to go. These prevented acute cases being treated as early as possible, and lengthened the ultimate time of their stay in hospital and the quantity of medicine taken. In mental hospitals there was a deficiency of 6,994beds. Of maternity hospitals the committee stated that, apart from a few, the facilities were conspicuously lacking in the proper standards for ensuring the safety and future health of mother and child. This position, of course, increases the quantity of medicine that must be taken by people not able to be properly treated in hospital. In the case of tuberculosis, the committee set out on pages 49 and 50 of its report that the position was hopeless. There was a deficiency of 2,963 beds for tuberculous people, assuming that two tuberculous cases died for each bed each year. It has been proved beyond question that where the tuberculous parent remains at home there is double the rate of infection of children. Consequently, we have a vicious circle of more medicine being necessary for these, more hospital accommodation and more ill health and infection of the general community by reason of our failure first of all to have proper accommodation. In addition, the committee says that the maintenance of nutrition in the families of tuberculous persons is an essential factor in the prevention and control of tuberculosis. Therefore, we come back again to the original question. We must deal with the prime factors of health before wo can hope to deal with ill health. That is axiomatic. There is no short cut. All of these suggestions would limit the quantity of medicine that would ultimately become necessary to the people, would improve the birth-rate, lessen infantile and maternal mortality, tend to reduce sickness, make diagnosis more accurate and assist substantially in improving the health and longevity of the people of our nation.

The nub of the bill is clause 7, which provides -

The pharmaceutical benefits referred to in this Act shall consist of -

  1. uncompounded medicines the names of which, and medicinal compounds the formulae of which, are contained in a prescribed formulary to be known as the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Formulary; and
  2. materials and appliances (not being uncompounded medicines or medicinal compounds) the names of which are contained in a prescribed addendum to the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Formulary.

We are left in the dark as to the formulary. I, myself, have always prescribed individually. It will be found that the most successful practitioners and specialists always do so. Are patients to pay for these prescriptions as well as the fees of the specialists? Let me give two instances : A very common mixture is “mist.gent.alk”. This is used really only as a basis for treatment. Certain cases would need the addition of a sedative like potassium bromide or a laxative like cascara. If there is such an addition to the formula, the patient would apparently then pay for the mixture, or the doctor would give the patient two bottles and the Government would pay for two bottles of mixture instead of one. Take another case: Big proprietary houses like Burroughs Wellcome and Company (Australia) Limited, Parke Davis and Company or Shering Proprietary Limited, whose research establishments have cost them millions of pounds, and who employ some of the greatest chemists in the world, specialize in special standardized drugs. Take digitalis - the great heart tonic which has been used for many hundreds of years. Digitalin is the alkaloid of digitalis, or the active principle. In tincture of digitalis, the strength of this active principle varies, so one of these chemists has made a preparation called digoxin, which is absolutely standard, but it is a proprietary medicine and a patient would have to pay for it. Or take the case of certain skin lotions: The purity of the drug makes all the difference to the result of treatment. Special firms specialize in certain drugs. What does the bill provide in that respect? Surely, rather than have a formulary, it would bo better to have a costing system with the chemists, for which they would be paid according to what was used. The chemists are willing to install this costing system at their own expense, but if the Government believes that it should do it to safeguard completely its own financial position, the estimated cost is £30,000. Therefore, from an insurance point of view, it is worth 1 per cent, to assure the wisest and most satisfactory expenditure of £3,000,000 on medicine - a matter which may determine one’s life or death, or the continuance of chronic ill health, or whether one’s cure is rapid or slow.

The third point is: Does the bill ensure co-operation with the medical profession and with the States? ‘Cooperation with the medical profession is indispensable to the success of any national health scheme. Unfortunately, the Government’s approach to the matter is very clumsy. In the Senate the Government inserted clause 16 in the bill, which was not in the measure originally, but which as it stands, as the Minister in the Senate interpreted it, practically opens the door wide to the nationalization of ‘the medical profession. Clause 16, which, as I have said, was inserted by the Senate, is worrying members of the medical profession. They are quite agreeable to the special conditions of remote villages and settlements where there is no doctor, being met in this way, but they believe that unless there is some qualification, this provision may be the thin end of the wedge of nationalization of the medical profession. Doctors arc willing to discuss this whole question on its merits, but they are strongly of the opinion that a vital step such as this should not be taken when more than onethird of the members of the medical profession are on active service and have no opportunity to examine whatever scheme may be put forward. When this matter was discussed by the present Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) whilst he was Minister for Health and Social Services, with members of the medical profession and chemists, the Minister said quite plainly that in his opinion it was quite wrong that such a step should be taken in war-time. This is a matter which cannot be tackled without the full cooperation of the medical profession, and that full co-operation will not be given by medical men if they suspect that they may be double-crossed, or that the interests of the men who are away in the fighting forces will be prejudiced. My own strong view is that the nationalization of the medical profession would cause a deterioration of the calibre of its future personnel. The best men would go abroad as was the case with members of the engineering profession before the secondary industries of this country were built up to such a degree that they offered reasonable opportunities for employment. At that time, our best engineers went overseas and helped to build up the industries of Brazil Malaya, China and other countries. Only one out of every twenty remained in this country. The same thing would happen with the medical profession under a scheme of nationalization. In my opinion the health of the people of this country is so important that the medical profession should attract the highest quality of service. When I become ill, I invariably seek the best medical advice available, because I realize that my health is at stake. It would be dastardly for any legislature to take action which would result, in placing the health, and perhaps the lives, of the people of this country in the hands of men in whom they have no confidence. In any case, how would such a scheme operate? Obviously it would not be possible for the work of medical men to be divided into shifts of say eight hours. Is it suggested that a child should be left half-bom, or a wound halfstitched? What would happen in the case of doctors who were called upon to travel great distances to see their patients? In such cases the double journey, together with the time devoted to attending the patient, might involve a stretch of 24 or 36 hours without a break. The success of medical men to-day lies in the fact that they are able to devote continuous personal attention to their patients. Many patients ure alive, to-day because their medical practitioner was able to visit them eight, ten, or twelve times within 24 hours when they were desperately ill. In that way a doctor is able to watch for the first sign of a flagging pulse or an alteration of condition. New men attending a case at the end of every eight hours could not acquire full knowledge of a patient’s ailment, nor could a number of men treating one case have the same personal interest in the patient.

In regard to co-operation with the States, the Government has not stated whether it has discussed this measure with the State health authorities. That is an extraordinary state of affairs in view of the fact that the new powers which the Commonwealth seeks to acquire at the forthcoming referendum include power to deal with “health in co-operation with the States “. Health administrations must endeavour to get as close as possible to patients, and to the cause of disease. Disease and cause of disease in human beings can be treated satisfactorily only by the man on the spot, and so the administration of health must begin with the local governing authorities and rise through the State system to be finally co-ordinated by the Commonwealth controlling body. That has been recognized in the history of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States during the last twenty years. In 1923, the question of ensuring co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States on health matters was raised at a Premiers’ conference, and as a result of the ensuing discussions we have had annual meetings of the health officers of the various States and of the Commonwealth ever since. When there was a danger of the Commonwealth branching out into research activities, in dependently of the States, the then Commonwealth Government, of which I was a member, brought into being the National Health and Medical Research Council. Since then, that body has coordinated all the medical research activities of Australia. Its report upon the whole question of health follows the line that I have taken in the course of this speech. It insists that the questions of primary importance are the nutrition of mothers and children, and then of other members of the community, appropriate hygienic housing and living conditions, ample hospital accommodation, skilled medical attention and, finally, the provision of appropriate medicines. I suggest to the Government that it should follow the advice of that body which has no politics, but has great knowledge and experience.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- I regard this measure with mixed feelings and some misgivings because I believe that it has no substantial scientific basis, nor do I believe that there has been any great demand for it. During the whole of the time that I have been a member of this House, I have not received a single request for a scheme such as this. However, the Government has brought the measure forward as a preliminary instalment, of a comprehensive national health and social security plan. Personally, I should have preferred a full-blooded scheme of national health and social security, and I regret that the Social Security Committee has been more or less by-passed in regard to this matter. That committee has done excellent work and already legislation based upon its reports has been passed. This is a matter which could well have been considered by that committee in relation to the larger subject of national health and social security and so brought into its true perspective. I have been unable to ascertain just where this proposal originated. It is being ushered into the world by “ Drs.” Chifley, Holloway and Fraser, but I should be interested to know just who fathered it. In my opinion the scheme should have been brought forward in a more scientific manner, instead of in thi3 half-baked fashion. I should have preferred a wholesome dish, well cooked and with the right ingredients. No doubt, many anomalies will arise in connexion with this scheme. I hope that the Government will review it after it has been in operation for a period, with a view to placing it on a more scientific basis. There must be consideration of who will really benefit. I was rather surprised to note that before the scheme was introduced, certain outside vested interests were consulted. The Pharmaceutical Guild has adopted the principle, and has come to an agreement as to the prices that will be paid by the Government for the medicines supplied. Before that arrangement was made, the matter might have been further investigated and an arrangement made with the friendly societies; because the statistics in relation to their operations disclose that they can dispense medicines at a cheaper rate than is fixed under the arrangement with the Pharmaceutical Guild. The preamble to the annual report of the Auburn and Lidcombe United Friendly Societies’ Dispensary and Medical Board for the year ended the 30th June, 1943, stated -

The high price of drugs is shown in the big increase in our drug account, but the expenditure is beyond the control of the board and is due largely to the scarcity caused by the war.

Despite those factors, they are able to dispense medicines at a rate considerably less than will be paid to private vested interests under this scheme. I note with satisfaction that the Government has brought the friendly societies within the scope of this measure, and that the Minister has intimated that the different State Governments will be asked to enlarge the activities of the friendly society dispensaries, which are limited under the existing State law. I realize that the Commonwealth cannot make provision in that regard because the matter is one purely for the States. The Dispensary and Medical Board, from whose report I have quoted, embraces numerous societies which are operating in the district. In 1943, the average membership was 3,147 ; the number of patients was 33,848 ; the number of prescriptions was 60,084; and the average number of prescriptions per member per annum was 19.09. That works out at an annual levy of 12s. per member, his wife and family. At the rates which are to be paid by the Govern ment the comparative cost would be £21s. 3d. per annum. The initial rate in New Zealand was lower than the existing rate of 3s. 3d. Therefore, the prices payable under this scheme are likely to increase, and the total cost of it will probably be considerably greater than the estimate. Other items, too, have to be considered. An after-hours fee of1s. will be added to the cost. There is also an agitation for the early closing of chemists’ shops in some States, and that may ultimately increase the cost of medicines. The Government should give serious consideration to the utilization of the machinery of the friendly societies, because they have a democratic basis and are operated on the mutual instead of the profit-making principle. The societies that I have cited have a panel of 27 doctors, and the members of them may make their own selection in respect of prescriptions and medical service. I hope that the Government will preserve in every waythe rights of the friendly societies, and will do what it can to avoid a repetition of the experience of New Zealand, in which the tendency was for the membership of the friendly societies to be reduced as the result of the operation of the scheme of social services. Under the bill, the rights of friendly societies and their dispensaries have been recognized, and they will be reimbursed for any loss that they may incur. On its face, that appears to be all right. But we have to bear in mind that many friendly society dispensaries, being principally workers’ organizations, are operating in localities which are convenient tothe needs of the workers ; many of them have bought land and erected dispensaries in back streets. Under this scheme, the natural tendency will be to have a prescription dispensed at the nearest chemist shop. The private chemist has his business premises in a central position, or handy to a railway station. In New Zealand, there has been a falling off on this account of prescriptions dispensed by friendly society dispensaries. ‘Therefore, it is essential that the representations of the Commonwealth to the various States shall prove successful if friendly societies are to be preserved. I urge the Government to use their administration in connexion with the scheme generally, including the policing of it. If a huge organization, employing many hundreds,be set up, another vested interest will be created, and the chemical combine will share the benefit with the departmental officials. With drugs, as with many other things of which we partake,the more we have the more we want. I have seen many new drugs come and go. To-day, it is M and B; tomorrow, penicillin; and next week, perhaps, something else.

Mr Chambers:

– Both of those are remarkable drugs.

Mr MORGAN:

– I agree with the honorablemember. But I have seen many other remarkable drugs come and go. We hear only of the benefits which they confer, and not the harmful results thatthey cause. Vitality pills are “ the rage “ on the other side of the world, and they may he included in the formulary here. A recent press article, dated London, the 5th March, was headed: “ Vitamin Pills Criticized - Appalling Trend “, and read -

London, 5th March.

Professor Sir Jack Drummond, scientific adviser to the Ministry of Food,has described as “ appalling “ the growing tendency of people to swallow vitamin pills three times a day. “ They believe they give them pep “, he said, “ but you cannot add pep to a nourished person in that way. Vitamin pills have their proper place, which is in the treatment of deficiency conditions, but 00 per cent, of vitamin pills go into the stomachs of the properly nourished, to whom they cannot make the slightest difference.”

Sir Jack Drummond said that America spent £37,500.000 sterling on the commercial exploitation of vitamin pills. Of this, nearly £34,000,000 was utterly wasted. “ We have made tests on factory workers and school children throughout Britain to see if there are any beneficial results to be obtained”, he added, “but no detectable benefits followed.”

The Government should give consideration to the positive side of national health. The right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) has pointed to one direction in which the people could be educated with regard to health. Patent medicines are well advertised, but, according to the Minister for Health (Senator Fraser), some of them are fraudulent. I quote from a recent newspaper report -

Canberra, Tuesday. - Some patent medicines were fraudulent and some of these were being sold at high prices, the Minister for Health (Senator Fraser) said in the Senate to-day. “ Other proprietary compounds are good “, he added. “These facts have been known for many years, but State parliaments, which have power to legislate, have not seen fit to take action. “ The Commonwealth Government has no constitutional power to take action.”

The Commonwealth Government has power to engage in propaganda with regard to public health, and it could educate the people on that subject. Australians expend about £80,000,000 a year on beer and tobacco and about £20,000,000 a year on patent medicines. Surely the Government could provide a few thousands of pounds to educate the people with regard to natural ways of living and the efficacy of fruit juices.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is diverging from the subjectmatter of the bill.

Mr MORGAN:

– I hopethat the interests of the friendly societies will be conserved. Their attitude to the Government’s social security measures is indicated in the following report published in the Manchester Unity Journal of the 1st May, 1943 : -

Press reports have consistently indicated that the Government intends to proceed with the introduction of a scheme of social insurance based upon the New Zealand plan of social security, but of a non-contributory nature. Friendly societies will not oppose the introduction of a scheme which will extend to all sections of the community the benefits they already give. This has been their ideal for many years, and it only requires the correct legislation and government co-operation to make this ideal a “practical and working reality. However, we find a lack of readiness to accept the advice and experience of our friendly society leaders, but a leaning towards schemes which will give certain monetary benefits, and if persisted with to the fullest, extent will cause irreparable damage to the friendly society movement. . . .

During the first two years of social security, New Zealand membership decreased rapidly. Friendly society membership in 1938 was 113,709. In 1939, it receded to 109,059, and in 1940 to 104,436. This has still further receded, until to-day the total stands at less than 100.000 members. Almost every activity in which friendly societies are interested has commenced to decline. A striking example is the Wellington District Manchester Unity Hospital Association, whose membership has decreased each year since 1938, when the total membership was 1,786, until in 1942 the membership was 1,230 only.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The membership of friendly societies has” nothing to do with the bill.

Mr MORGAN:

– I submit that I am entitled to refer to the attitude of friendly societies to the free medicine proposal. Their views were submitted to an important interstate conference of friendly society representatives held in Melbourne on the 10th May, 1943. The societies are of opinion -

That a registration system should be incorporated in the scheme, as we consider such a scheme to be the only one which will fully protect the patient, the State, as well as the dispensaries.

I understand that that proposal was considered bythe Government, and was not accepted. The second proposal submitted by the friendly societies was -

In order to protect the friendly societies’ dispensaries and pharmacies, any government scheme giving a free medicine benefit should embody a provision giving equal public trading rights to all contractors for the supply of medicines and other pharmaceutical appliances provided for in the scheme.

The Minister has already indicated that steps will he taken to give effect to that request. The third proposal of the societies was -

That the principle of only dispensing prescriptions signed by authorized medical officers and hospital authorities be always insisted on.

Effect has also been given to that proposal. I hope that the machinery of the friendly societies willbe utilized to the fullest degree in both administering and policing the scheme.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I protest emphatically against the action of the Government in forcing this bill through the chamber at this hour of the morning. I stronglyobject to its bulldozing tactics. The few members who remain in the chamber are listless, and the measure should receive the close attention of all honorable members. One is now almost past astonishment at the actions of this Government. This scheme for the provision of free medicine is premature. I am in favour of free medicine when it can be properly distributed, and properly used by the public, but that is not possible under this proposal. The Government should withdraw the bill and re-introduce it at a more suitable time. It is significant that the Social Security

Committee was not consulted by the Government, although it had been charged with the duty of drawing up plans for social services, and particularly medical services. The committee had been in negotiation with the medical profession and had arranged for the setting up of a medical planning commission, which had travelled over a great part of Australia and elicited facts of much importance, including many relating to pharmaceutical services. I suspect that the Government did not wish to consult the Social Security Committee lest that body should report unfavorably upon its proposal. I suggest that this scheme, which the Government is now seeking to foist on the country, is the offspring of a companionate marriage between the DirectorGeneral of Health and the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley), without benefit of clergy or medical advice. As a matter of fact, in the preparation of the scheme no one was consulted who had any immediate interest in the problems involved. There was certainly no consultation with members of the medical profession or with chemists. Who has ever asked for a scheme of this kind? The people do not want it, because they are far better off now than they have been for years, and are well able to afford to buy medicines. The chemists do not want it, so why has it been brought along at this moment? The idea occurs to one that it is a nice piece of window-dressing. The Government says to the public, “ Look what we are going to do for you. We have a great deal of money - here, take some of it “. It is hard to believe that, at a time like this, when there is so much expenditure to be met, the Treasurer can have surplus cash burning a hole in his pocket; but apparently that is the case. The Minister for Labour and National Services (Mr. Holloway) has said that the scheme will cost £2,000,000 a year. I suggest that he is over-optimistic. At the present time, 20,000,000 prescriptions a year are made up for the public. It is almost certain that the number will be increased, because people will ask for more when they do not have to pay for them. The estimated average cost of 20,000,000 prescriptions is 2s. each, whereas I understand that the average cost of prescriptions at the present time is about 3s. The Minister has said that a system of free medical service for the giving of prescriptions is also to be introduced, and that, too, will cost a lot of money. It may well be that the total cost will eventually be as much as £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 a year. Why should all this money be spent on something which is unnecessary? There are other services upon which it could be much more profitably expended. The first is the provision of better hospital facilities, as advocated by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page). A survey made by the Medical Commission showed that there is a shortage of 16,000 beds in hospitals throughout Australia. Great numbers of people have to wait months before gaining admission to a hospital. A part of the money might also be diverted to combating tuberculosis. The death rate in Australia from this disease is rising. We are fortunate in having, perhaps, the best climate in the world, yet the death rate from tuberculosis is higher than it ought to be. In Ontario, Canada, the death rate from tuberculosis has been reduced from 80 per thousand to 16 per thousand. Deaths from tuberculosis in Australia have increased from 40 to 46 for each 100,000 of the population since the war began. In the treatment of that disease there is a field for the expenditure of money to great advantage. The Government may say that it cannot provide labour and materials for the construction of sanatoriums, but it could provide cash benefits to the dependants of persons undergoing treatment. Or it could subsidize a system under which milk would be distributed free to children, or it could extend the existing child welfare system. Instead of expending money in these directions, which would be of real benefit to the community, the Government proposes to expend large sums in providing free medicine which is not required by the people.

I turn now to certain principles underlying this measure, which, in my opinion, are wrong. For instance, the scope of the medicines to be made available will bc limited to a pharmaceutical formulary. I speak, not as a medical man, but as one who has consulted with doctors on this matter, and understands their view. Hot one doctor in 100 issues the same prescription for the same disease in different persons. A doctor takes into account the personality of his patient, the particular form of the disease, and even has regard to the locality in which he lives. All these things influence him in prescribing the medicine for his patients, but under this bill a doctor will be tied down to a limited formulary. Another point which arises relates to the administration of this legislation. The administration will be vested in the Commonwealth Department of Health. From that fact two important considerations emerge. First, in any medical service the cash benefits should be divorced from the administration of health services. That is to say, the technical aspects of health should be entirely separate from the cash benefits.

Mr Holloway:

– Cash benefits are not payable under this bill.

Mr RYAN:

– Is it not a fact that the Department of Health will pay the cost of this scheme?

Mr Holloway:

– The Department of Health will pay the chemists.

Mr RYAN:

– I direct attention to the report of the Royal Commission on National Insurance in 1926 which stated, inter alia -

Your commissioners . . . after reviewing the reports of the experience of other countries, are of the opinion that it is not desirable that these provisions (health) should be included in any scheme providing for financial benefit, but that they . . . can be more effectively dealt with if disassociated from the administration of financial benefits. Where medical benefits have been administered under a scheme providing for cash benefits also, they have invariably been limited and have proved inadequate, while the increasing cost of the former has had a detrimental effect upon the provision of the latter.

In an official reference to national insurance in 1943 the British Medical Association stated -

This, in the main, is due to the fact that financial aspects of schemes have assumed overwhelming importance in the welter of complex administrative difficulties.

This aspect of the bill seems to be wrong in principle.

When the measure was before the Senate a new clause 16 was inserted. It reads -

The -Minister may, on behalf of the. Commonwealth, enter into an agreement (on such terms as to remuneration, allowances and otherwise us he thinks fit) with any medical practitioner providing that the services of the medical practitioner shall be available without charge to members of the public for the purpose of furnishing prescriptions and orders for the purposes of this Act.

As clause 22 has a definite relation to clause 16, I shall read it -

A medical practitioner shall not write a prescription in accordance with any prescribed form unless he is satisfied, by personal ex;i munition of the person in respect of whom the prescription is written, that the pharmaceutical benefit specified in the prescription is necessary for the treatment of that person.

That clause means, in effect, that the Government proposes to introduce a national medical service in Australia, and that is the main reason why I object to the bill. For several months the Social Security Committee has been conducting negotiations with representatives of the medical profession with a. view to setting up some form of national medical service.

Mr Ward:

– The sooner” that is done the better.

Mr RYAN:

– I agree; but one difficulty amongst others has arisen in regard to the remuneration of the doctors. That is one of the stumbling blocks. Various suggestions have been made to meet the difficulty, such as the introduction of a panel system, or a salaried service, but no conclusion has yet been reached. The medical profession was concerned lest the Government should introduce a salaried service, to which many doctors are opposed. The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway), when Minister for Health, gave an assurance that no such service would be introduced until after the war.

Mr Holloway:

– That is so.

Mr RYAN:

– Yet this bill means the introduction of a form of salaried medical service. I know the dilemma in which the Government finds itself. The main objection to this scheme was that it imposed a means test, inasmuch as a person who required medicine would be called upon to pay a doctor 7s. 6d. or 10s. 6d. for a prescription, and it was t,1 ought that that might prove a hardship to persons in poor circumstances. The Government did not wish to force any sick person to pay 10s. 6d. for a prescription which would entitle him to receive a free bottle of medicine, and so it decided to include in the hill a provision that prescriptions should be issued free in certain circumstances. At the time, I do not think that it was realized that that amounted to the setting up of a salaried medical service. Obviously, no person who feels unwell will ask a doctor to prescribe castor oil. He does not know whether he should have castor oil or, say, insulin. He goes to the doctor and says, “ Doctor, I am not feeling well, and I think I ought to have some medicine “. Obviously, before the doctor can prescribe he has to put him through a thorough medical examination. That is borne out by clause 22, read in conjunction with clause 16, for clause 22 lays down that the doctor shall conduct an examination.

Mr Holloway:

– That is what the honorable member wants.

Mr RYAN:

– It is a lovely idea, but I do not want it in such circumstances. The fact is that, if the Government sets up doctors to carry out these examinations, it will be setting up a salaried medical service. I look forward to the time when we shall have a national medical service, but it cannot be established without due consultation with, and the concurrence of, the profession, and full working out of the details. It cannot be established in an underhand way. The whole proposal has aroused the medical profession, which very naturally resents that at the time when negotiations are proceeding on the very subject of the establishment of a national medical health scheme, such a scheme should be introduced by back-door methods. This scheme means nothing but the beginning of a salaried medical service. For that reason, this proposal should be taken out of the bill or so modified that the fears of the medical profession and my own fears may be set at rest. It is premature if not unnecessary. I think that the time will come when it should be brought in, but that time is not now. Planning for the future, especially for the future of medical services, is like working out a jig-saw puzzle, as any one who has studied this problem knows very well. This provision should be the last piece of the whole puzzle instead of the first. When the rest of the pieces have been set in place it will fit in very nicely, but at present there is no place for it to fit into.

Mr DALY:
Martin

.- 1 believe that in another place Senator Tangney said that particular medical services could not be called a part of a long line of services but were a piece of a circle which would have to be completed piece by piece. This measure is a part of that circle which in due course will be completed. From the arguments of honorable gentlemen opposite, if one believed them, one would be led to regard the dispensers of medicine as nothing but “ crooks ;:, and to believe that medicine was unnecessary; but I believe there would be a tremendous outcry from the public if the Government banned the dispensing of medicine on the ground that it was not necessary. It is necessary, and will always be necessary in some instances. This measure is only a part of a scheme, the purpose of which will be to reduce to the limit disease and ill health by preventive medicine and other essential measures, in measures to protect the health of the people many factors count, among them being not only medical attention and curative medicine, but also preventive medicine, improved housing and working conditions, and healthy surroundings for adults and children. I could list many other needs, but those suffice for now. The scheme embodied in this measure will, in the long run, prove to be a valuable unit of a comprehensive medical and national health scheme. The Governmentrealizes that there is a tremendous shortage of hospital beds and other facilities necessary for the care of the sick. Tt would like to be able to embark on the provision of hospital accommodation for every one in need of it and all the other needs which would make for a more healthy people, but the limitations on the availability of labour and material imposed by war and the necessity to fight the war to the finish prevent it from doing all that it would like to do. Whatever it can do. notwithstanding the war, the Government is determined to do. This bill incorporates one of the things that it can do and is determined to do. I do not want honorable gentlemen to run away with the idea that this bill is a new departure. Free medicine is the vogue in other countries, for instance, New Zealand, and some States of the United States of America. No evidence has been adduced to show that the system has been abused. As a general rule, people do not ask for medicine unless they are in need of it, and I do not think that it is likely that the people, except a few who are always seeking some panacea or other, will be likely to abuse the privilege that the Government is extending to them by this means. On the contrary, this measure, if it be properly administered, will do away with many abuses, and. I should like honorable gentlemen opposite to bear that aspect in mind.

For years, friendly societies have been providing for their members a free medicine service on a smaller scale than that which this Government proposes to provide and which should have been provided many years ago by its predecessors. The friendly society dispensaries now face a serious problem as to how they shall maintain their membership and continue in business. I shall submit on behalf of the friendly societies a suggestion which, with the Government’s approval, will enable them to continue their good work. Although I intend to speak on behalf of friendly societies, I believe that their members will not suffer in any way under this scheme, because they will receive probably greater benefit than hitherto.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– What about the societies themselves?

Mr DALY:

– The Government will be doing in a bigger way what the friendly societies have been doing, and, in considering a big national scheme of this character, one cannot allow oneself to be influenced against it by consideration of organizations which have been doing the same work on a smaller scale. At the same time, we must let down these societies as lightly as possible. We can do so by assisting them to continue their good work on a modified scale. In some States, particularly in New South Wales and Victoria, friendly society dispensaries are not allowed open trading rights. This Government, should ask the State Governments to extend those rights to those dispensaries. Such laws are entirely a matter for the States. I urge the Government to do all it can to persuade the State Governments to amend their laws in order to give assistance to the friendly societies in that direction. By doing this we shall enable them to retain a very large proportion of their existing membership, and carry en almost as effectively as they have done in the past. Of course, the friendly societies themselves must make greater efforts to sell their wares, as it were, to the people as a whole, and endeavour to offset the disadvantage at which they will find themselves in relation to the Government’s scheme by offering more attractive concessions to the average person. Certain other aspects of the operations of friendly societies’ dispensaries have been brought to the attention of the appropriate Minister; and I have no doubt that he will give those matters careful consideration. I understand that the wishes of the friendly societies in respect of man-power representation on the board have already been met; and I have no doubt that other matters raised by honorable members on this side relating to the future operations of friendly societies’ dispensaries will receive due consideration. We should do all we can to help those dispensaries because they render valuable service to many people. At present they serve about 20 per cent, of the people. I support the measure. It is a step towards the establishment of a comprehensive medical scheme, and those responsible for bringing forward these proposals are to be commended. I believe that in the years to come our people will look back upon this measure as the first, and probably the most progressive, step ever made by any government in this country towards conserving and improving the health of the people.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– The honorable member for Martin (Mr. Daly) described this measure as the first step in a comprehensive medical scheme. That admission is remarkable in view of the promise given to the British Medical Association by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) when he was Minister for Health and Social Services that no medical health service would be introduced during the war.

Mr Daly:

– I did not say that the medical health service itself would be introduced during the war.

Mr HARRISON:

– The honorable member said that this measure represented the first step towards such a scheme. Actually it is a part of such a scheme, because it provides for the engagement of doctors to diagnose complaints and to prescribe for patients; and it provides that the prescriptions themselves shall be farmed out by the Government at the Government’s expense. In essence, therefore, this is a part of a medical health scheme, and the Government’s introduction of the measure represents a breach of faith on the part of the Minister for Labour and National Service. The British Medical Association accepted his word, and thereby was deprived of any opportunity it might have had to give advice to the Government on these proposals. The association was thus deprived of the opportunity to combat unfavorable features of these proposals, or to take steps to challenge evils, which, as experts, they foresee will arise under this legislation. Having originated as the result of a breach of faith on the part of a senior Minister of the Government, this scheme can hardly be expected to be successful. To say the least, I am surprised that a Minister of the standing of the Minister for Labour and National Service should break faith in this matter with such a reputable organization as the British Medical Association.

Mr Haylen:

– The members of the British Medical Association are divided among themselves on this issue.

Mr HARRISON:

– They are not divided in their opposition to this measure, because they were not given an opportunity to advise the Minister with respect to it. Indeed, when they took the precaution of making preliminary inquiries with respect to the Government’s intentions, the Minister for Labour and National Service promised that a national health service would not be established during the war. However, the Minister broke faith in that respect. 1 shall say nothing further on that aspect, because I believe that his conscience will trouble him sufficiently in the matter.

This is an extraordinary hill. Perhaps its most extraordinary provision is clause 27, which deals with regulations. This clause has been extended to an extraordinary degree in comparison with the corresponding clause in other measures. It reads -

The Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act prescribing all matters which are by this Act required or permitted to be prescribed or which are necessary or convenient to be prescribed for carrying out or giving effect to this Act.

In nine out of every ten bills, the regulation provision usually stops at that point ; (but this clause continues - and in particular for -

  1. prescribing the terms and conditions subject to which pharmaceutical benefits shall bo supplied; (ft) prescribing the terms and conditions subject to which payment in respect of tho supply of pharmaceutical benefits will be mode and the method of making such payments ;
  2. prescribing the standards of composition or purity of pharmaceutical benefits subject to which payment in respect of tho supply thereof will bo -made; (rf) prescribing the functions and regulating the conduct of any Council or Committee appointed under this Act and for prescribing the fees and allowances to be paid to members thereof; and
  3. prescribing penalties not exceeding Fifty pounds or imprisonment for three months for offences against the regulations.

The hill will provide another feast for the bureaucrats. It will enable them really to spread themselves. By this clause, they will be able to draft regulations as a doctor drafts prescriptions; and such regulations, I have no doubt, will be almost unlimited. We are reaching an extraordinary position when, apparently, the Parliament itself is not prepared to accept the responsibility of laying down the terms and conditions of a measure of this kind, but prefers to surrender that responsibility almost entirely to the Public Service. In this case, we are saying, in effect, to the bureaucrats : “ In this measure we have set out in broad principle what we wish to do, and we now hand over to you full responsibility for its administration and extension.” Recently, I read a book en titled The New Despotism, in which I came across the following remarkable observation : -

Bureaucratic control is becoming one of the greatest menaces that the people of this country have to face.

That statement can be applied to Australia; but bureaucratic control is becoming a menace in this country only because the Government and Parliament are prepared to give increasingly greater powers to public servants. When we pass a measure of this kind which deprives Parliament of the right to set out the terms and conditions under which the bill should operate, we are simply asking for trouble; and I have no doubt that in due course we shall reap as we sow.

Whilst this bill is supposed to be designed to improve the health of the people, that, object could be achieved in many better ways than by providing the benefits here proposed. One of the ways which comes readily to mind is better hospitalization. More than 6,600 additional beds are required in general hospitals throughout Australia, whilst hospitals treating tubercular patients require an additional 3,000 beds. The Government designed this scheme without first having consulted the medical profession and others who have a profound knowledge of conditions affecting the health of the people. Without the advice of experts, the Government, produced this bill out of the blue, enunciated a few general principles and left the Public Service to “ carry the baby “. The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and the honorable member for Denison (Dr. Gaha) have emphasized the necessity for an increased flow of migrants to Australia, and we are told that the Australianborn are our best immigrants. The rate of maternal and infantile mortality is still too high and requires investigation and preventive methods. Instead of tackling that problem, the Government has introduced this bill, because it will be popular with the people, and, therefore, a vote-winner. In reality, it is a continuation of the dole, giving to the people something for nothing.

The purpose of the bill is to make the Government popular, and no regard has been paid to the method of financing the scheme. Representatives of the medical profession, whom the Government did not consult, declare that the proposal is unsound and unworkable, and limits the freedom of the medical practitioner in prescribing for a patient. Any action of the Government that will restrict the freedom of a doctor in treating his patient certainly will not benefit the patient. Being charged with the maintenance of the health of the community, doctors should not be subject to any interference in the discharge of their high obligations to citizens.- But the Government, in order to win votes, is prepared to restrict the freedom of doctors.

The Government has never attempted to explain its proposals for financing the scheme. The Opposition would like to know whether the cost will be £1,000,000 or £20,000,000, but the Government does not appear to know. It is asking the Parliament to present it with a blank cheque to cover the cost of the experiment. Unemployment and sickness benefits will absorb the whole of the £30,000,000 that is paid annually into the National Welfare Fund. How does the Government propose to finance its scheme for providing free medicines? The object of the Government is ‘ultimately to establish its own dispensaries and it will be quite happy in. distributing bottles of coloured medicine to the people. The colour of that medicine will certainly be red.

What benefits shall we receive from this indefinite and undefinable proposal? Clause 7 provides that the pharmaceutical benefits shall consist of “ uncompounded medicines, the names of which, and medicinal compounds the formulae of which, are contained in a prescribed formulary to be known as the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Formulary “. The public will be entitled to a free bottle of medicine. The bill provides also that a person shall not be disqualified from receiving any pharmaceutical benefit by reason of his sickness having been caused by his own misconduct. That is very interesting. A person will be able to make himself sick as many times as he pleases, and be certain of getting bottles of coloured medicine. I visualize anold man saying to his great-grandchild : “ You see, my dear, that red bottle of medicine on the shelf? It was given to me in 1944 when a Labour Government was in office. By 1947 a United Australia party government had replaced it, and gave me a blue bottle. The yellow bottle of medicine was given to me when I had jaundice, and the green bottle was presented to me when I had a neutral disease “. Great-grandfather will be able to recount his medical history from a glance at the coloured bottles of medicine on the shelf.

Clause 9 provides that -

Where any person has received any pharmaceutical benefit in accordance with a prescription or order therefor, that person shall not be entitled to receive the pharmaceutical benefit again on that prescription or order unless a direction to that effect in the handwriting of the medical practitioner concerned is included in or added to the prescription or order in accordance with the regulations.

When a doctor writes a prescription at the present time, the patient may use it as many times as he requires. The bill will alter that practice, because the patient will have to obtain a new prescription from the doctor whenever he needs another bottle of medicine. For the first prescription, the patient pays the doctor a consultation fee of 10s. 6d., and each bottle of medicine costs him 3s. 6d. When this bill becomes law, the patient will receive free medicine, but will pay the doctor 10s. Gd. every time he requires a prescription. The scheme appears to be so advantageous tothe medical profession that I marvel thai doctors have not hastened to accept it. Plainly, a patient may obtain only one bottle of medicine with one prescription. If the patient requires six bottles of medicine, he must visit his doctor half a dozen times The chemist will be obliged to enter that prescription half a dozen times in his books. There is no doubtabout the waste of man-power, that is likely to be caused by the bill. It is an extraordinary measure. I am rather concerned that the Minister has been so niggardly in setting out its merits. He should certainly have spread himself, whereas he has not done justice to it at all. Clause 16 contains the arrangements for the provision of medical services. It is as follows : -

The Minister may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, enter into an agreement (oi> such . terms as to remuneration, allowances and otherwise as he thinks fit) with any medical practitioner providing that the services of the medical .practitioner shall be available without charge to members of the public for the purpose of furnishing prescriptions and orders for the .purposes of this Act.

Here we visualize a doctor sitting at his desk, with his .pen behind his ear - and be will have plenty of time to put it there - with a line of people queued up outside. The doctor says to Johnnie, “What ‘is wrong with you, Johnnie?” and Johnnie replies, “I do not know, but mother says I have got adenoids”. So the doctor writes out a prescription for adenoids and turns to Sally, saying, “What is the matter with you, Sally?” Sally replies, “ I do not know, but mother says I have a terrible headache “, so the doctor writes out a prescription for aspirin. Then grandfather comes along and says he has rheumatism, and the doctor writes out a prescription for rheumatism. The doctor will not examine those people and find out their complaints, because he is only there to write out prescriptions, of which he will have a long list for the various diseases. When he thinks he has given enough of one kind, he may turn to another list for the sake of variety. The more I look at the bill, the more I marvel at it. Clause 17 provides -

Payments in respect of pharmaceutical benefits shall be made out of the trust account established under the National Welfare Fund Act 1943. and known as the National Welfare Fund.

One measure introduced into this House by the Treasurer and passed could take the whole £30,000,000, and when the pharmaceutical benefits under this bill had to be paid’ for, the Treasurer would simply say, “ We are sorry that we have not in the fund the money needed to pay you; the whole scheme is bankrupt”. This bill also- is bankrupt of any ideas to improve the health of the people.

Mr CHAMBERS:
Adelaide

– It was not my intention to speak on the bill, especially at this early hour of the morning, but I could not keep silent after hearing the paltry contribution of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) to the debate. After listening to his stupidity during the afternoon and again in the early hours of this morning, I realize more than ever the great necessity for free medicine or free pharmaceutical services. The first person who should seek to benefit from the provisions of the bill is the honorable member himself. If I were a pharmaceutical chemist I should prescribe for him a bottle of arsenic, and if I were a medical practitioner I should prescribe for him detention in a lunatic asylum. It is remarkable to hear such expressions regarding this bill from any members of this House. At one time I thought that it must have been an accident that brought the honorable member so near to political oblivion at the time of the last general election, but evidently the electors of Wentworth knew the capabilities of the honorable member, and probably that was the reason why he was almost excommunicated from this House. He said that this was an extraordinary bill. It is, because for the first time in the history of Australia it offers free medical service to the people. The extraordinary part is that at last, after 40 years, we have a government which is prepared to realize the necessity for building up a healthy and virile population. The honorable member for Wentworth spoke of hospitalization. We are putting first things first. By giving to the people a free medical service we shall in some measure be able to relieve our congested hospitals.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– The honorable member has great faith in the bottle.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– That is an insult to the pharmaceutical profession, which has rendered great service to the community for many years. I have complete faith in it; but I do not know of any great service rendered to Australia by the honorable member for Parramatta, either as member of Parliament or as Minister. The Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) was quite right in saying that the honorable member was the greatest humbug in the House. I am one who appreciates the services rendered to Australia by the medical and pharmaceutical professions. I am semi-associated with them, and I appreciate the benevolent bill which the Government has introduced.

Mr Harrison:

– The Labour party’s bosses do not.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– We have no bosses. The honorable member’s bosses were “ sacked “. . I have no doubt that the bill will be carried and appreciated by the people. I was compelled by the piffle uttered by the honorable member for Wentworth to speak on this measure. I have never heard a constructive speech from him during my short stay in this Parliament. I heard him speak of the blue bottle and the red bottle of medicine. The pharmacists of Australia have given great service to Australia and will continue to do so.

Mr Harrison:

– I did not say that the chemists would give different-coloured bottles. I said that the Government dispensaries would do so.

Mr CHAMBERS:

– The dispensaries will be controlled by the Government, and will not do such foolish things as the honorable member predicted. The opinions expressed by him were an insult to the honorable profession of pharmacy. I congratulate the Government on introducing the bill so early in the life of this Parliament. I am confident that the people of Australia who will receive benefits under it, will recognize the great services that the Government has rendered to them, and will for all time discredit the utterance of the honorable member for Wentworth.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– in reply - I wish to reply briefly to certain statements made by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page). First, I agree that in normal circumstances, a scheme such as this would not have been introduced as the first instalment of a comprehensive social security plan. However, I made it quite clear in my secondreading speech, that more important matters such as the provision of facilities for the treatment of tuberculosis, increased maternity ward accommodation, and improved hospitalization generally, could not be dealt with at the present time owing to shortage of man-power and materials. This scheme, however, is something that can be inaugurated now, and I cannot believe that the people of this country will refuse to accept free medicine just because the Government is unable at present to introduce a comprehensive hospitalization scheme.

The right honorable member for Cowper treated honorable members to a very interesting and instructive lecture about the need for certain types of food for children. That does not concern this measure at all. I remind the House that for twenty years at least another medical man in this chamber - I refer to the late Dr. Maloney - consistently advocated the provision of free milk for children, but his representations received little encouragement from the right honorable member for Cowper. We all agree that there is a need for certain types of foods for children, but the provision of these foods would not eliminate the necessity for a pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The right honorable member then proceeded to say quite confidently that there were half a dozen well-known and very necessary drugs which would not be included in the formulary provided for in this measure. How does he know that they will not be in the formulary? So far. nobody knows exactly what drugs and preparations will be listed in that formulary.

Sir Earle Page:

– That is what I said. The Government is completely in the dark.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– That is not so. The right honorable member is well aware that the formulary will be compiled by a leading member of his profession.

Sir Earle Page:

– All the doctors are opposing the formulary.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– No ; I say with a full knowledge of the facts that the formulary will be drawn up by the leading members of the British Medical Association.

Sir Earle Page:

– They are not in favour of it.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– The honorable member is hedging; he says now that members of the British Medical Association are not in favour of the formulary.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– We have a copy of the letter sent to the Minister.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I shall refer to that letter at a later stage.

It has been alleged also that this scheme was prepared without consultation with the medical profession; but how could I have given a promise to the British Medical Association had I not been in consultation with its representatives? That promise was made in 1942, and has been kept. The fear that is expressed in regard to clause 16 is that it is the first step in the nationalization of the medical profession; but I suggest that honorable members opposite are well aware that to-day hundreds of medical officers are working on a salary basis. In fact, quite a lot of them were appointed by the Governments of which the right honorable member for Cowper was a supporter. The right honorable member is well aware that last year I, myself, conferred with leading members of the British Medical Association and that those members agreed on behalf of their association to set up committees in the various States to consider the registration of refugee doctors. The result was that approximately 80 doctors were registered, and most of them are now providing a salaried service in certain areas of the Commonwealth which, owing to the lack of opportunity offered to a private practitioner, did not have the services of a medical officer available to them. For many years we have had salaried medical officers performing various duties. For instance, we have had a flying doctor service ona salary basis ; we have had salaried doctors doing quarantine work, serving on board ships, and attending to lighthouse staffs, and examining members of the various services when they go into camp and when they come out; yet the right honorable member for Cowper suggests that this is the beginning of a salaried medical service and apparently is prepared to fight clause 16 to the bitter end! The intention of clause 16 is to provide a medical service in areas in which no doctor is stationed at present. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) is inclined to be reckless in his statements, and one does not take notice of them; but I do take notice of the statement by the right honorable member for Cowper that I had made a promise to the president of the British Medical Association, and had put it in writing so that he could read it to a conference of the association, that there would be no nationalization of medical services during the war. I did make that statement. I stated the policy of the Government, and promised that the interests of the 3,000 medical men in the fighting forces would be protected. I said that the Government would ensure that the places of doctors who were away with the forces would not be taken by refugee practitioners. In my letter to Dr. Sewell, I stated -

In reference to the question of nationalization of the medical services or a complete salaried medical service, and the fact that such a scheme may be introduced in the absence of so many medical men abroad, I can only say that no comprehensive scheme could be put into operation with so many men away, even if other organizing and/or financial difficulties could be worked out during the war. Hence I can assure you that no complete salaried service will be inaugurated during the war. But because amongst other special circumstances there are so many medical men going away, it will be necessary to adopt emergency methods to meet the circumstances thus created, such as employment of refugee doctors now in Australia, the redistribution of members of the medical profession left in Australia, and in some cases, employment of such members in salaried positions, and the compulsory fixing of areas of practice or service, &c., if and when necessary. At the moment, such emergency methods and more look like being necessary to meet civil and war needs, and when they are they must be and will be resorted to.

That is the promise which I made, and there has been no violation of it. Speaking to the president of the British Medical Association in Melbourne, after he had asked me for this letter so that he might take it to a conference, I said : “ I can give the promise on behalf of the Government that there will not be a major nationalization scheme while 3.000 men are in the forces, but not that no unorthodox steps will be taken “. I pointed out to him that, whilst the Government could decide who should and who should not have steel, lead, copper and zinc, the principle of preference could not be applied when people were sick; all of them, whether they were civilians or soldiers, had to receive medical attention. I said that, when there was not a doctor in a district, we would find means of placing one there, and if he could not live on the fees that he received, we would pay him a salary. We paid salaries, bought motor cars, provided homes, and supplied instruments, in order that our people might have the medical attention to which they were entitled. If that be regarded as a form of nationalization, we have no apology to offer. If one more doctor is added to the 100 eminent doctors who are now salaried men in our service, the right honorable gentleman objects.

Sir Earle Page:

– Nothing of the sort.

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– That is all that this means, and the right honorable gentleman knows it. Two Commonwealth salaried doctors were employed in the Darwin hospital. When Darwin was raided, they, with three nurses, attended to 330 cases, after the first bomb fell and until darkness set in. That night, the hospital was bombed and the hot water and electric light services were put out of operation. Those two doctors completed what they had to do in the light given by hand torches held by the matron. Both of them received a decoration for the wonderful job which they did under fire, after many other persons had cleared out and left them, Whenever a doctor is not available, and it becomes necessary to implement this scheme, we will engage a medical man and pay him a salary.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee :

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.Can the Minister state when the Act is likely to come into operation?

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I cannot give the exact date, but I am certain that it will not he proclaimed in less than eight months, perhaps longer. The organization of the machinery, and the arrangement of staff, will take time. That is why the bill has been introduced now.

Mr Ryan:

– The Government will not wait until a general medical service has been introduced?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– There is no need to wait for that. The people will notrefuse a free pharmaceutical service because they cannot have free hospital treatment or a free medical service.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.

Clause 7 -

The pharmaceutical benefits referred to in this Act shall consist of -

uncompounded medicines the names of which, and medicinal compounds the formulae of which, are contained in a prescribed formulary to be known as the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Formulary; and

materials and appliances (not being uncompounded medicines or medicinal compounds) the namesof which are contained in a prescribed addendum to the Commonwealth Pharmaceutical Formulary.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I move -

That the clause be left out, with a view to insert in lieu thereof the following clause: - “ 7. For the purposes of this Act, the ex pression ‘ ‘pharmaceutical benefits ‘ means the right of every person entitled to claim such benefits to be supplied with all such medicines, drugs, prescribed materials, and prescribed appliances as are ordered for that person or for any member of his family by any medical practitioner in the course of providing any medical benefits or other benefits in accordance with this Act.”

I have taken that provision from the New Zealand act. That dominion has given effect to the claim of the medical practitioners that their right to prescribe should be unrestricted. On the 8th December last, representatives of the medical profession submitted this statement to the Minister for Health (Senator Fraser) at a. conference held in Canberra -

We, the representatives of the medical profession, recognize fully that the restoration to health and the alleviation of suffering should be our paramount considerations.

Holding this opinion we consider that it is . essential that in the acceptance of responsibility for the treatment of the sick the medical profession must be entirely untrammelled in regard to the therapeutic measures to be adopted.

For this reason we feel that the welfare of the sick would be seriously jeopardized by the adoption of any scheme which would limit the freedom of a doctor in prescribing for each of his patients exactly what medicine he regards as most suitable to restore him to health.

I understand that the only objection of the Government to the adoption of this policy is that the installation of a costing system which would enable it to make certain that the medicines prescribed were accurately dispensed, would involve an expenditure of £30,000. This scheme will cost at least £3,000,000 a year. As the honorable member for Flinders (Mr. Ryan) said, it may cost very much more than that. The experience of New Zealand was that the quantity of medicines dispensed and consumed increased by approximately 500 per cent, after the free medicine scheme was established. An expenditure of £30,000 would be reasonable in order to ensure that the drugs prescribed by the medical profession were dispensed in their entirety and without qualification by the chemist. That would constitute a really free medicine service. As the position stands, this will not be an all-free medicine service. The Minister has stated that payment will have to be made for any additions to the formula; the items prescribed may be reduced, but not increased. Medicines ought to be proscribed for individual cases. That has been the basis of the most successful practice. Success was achieved because more cures were effected, and in quicker time. The security and health of the community are paramount considerations. Nothing but the best is good enough for Australia. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept what is the practice in New Zealand, which is in complete accord with medical wishes and advice.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I support the amendment moved by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page). Two doctors might not prescribe the same medicine for a patient, because the condition of patients varies. Doctors should not be bound to use a formulary compiled by men unacquainted with the conditions under which medical men work. The scheme should be made flexible. The medicine required depends on the nature of the disease and the condition of the patient.

Question put -

That the amendment (Sir EARLE Page’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 11

NOES: 30

Majority 19

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Motion (by Sir Earle Page) proposed -

That, after paragraph (6), the following new paragraph be added: - “(c) Approved serums and vaccines.”

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- I support the amendment. I do not think that this provision should be confined to medicines, when the use of serums and vaccines play so important a part in medical practice.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– A committee will be appointed to consider what drugs are to be used, and honorable members may rest assured that this committee will compile one of the most up-to-date formularies in the world.

Mr Ryan:

– Can the Minister say whether the term “ drugs “ will include vaccines and serums?

Mr HOLLOWAY:

– I know that vaccines and serums are to be added to the formulary.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 (Approved hospital authori ties).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

– I ask the Minister whether steps will be taken to ensure that the hospital authorities shall have a properly qualified pharmaceutist to dispense medicines. I have in mind an incident that took place at a military hospital not long ago when a young woman was accidentally poisoned by being supplied by an unqualified person with the wrong drug. It is necessary to make sure that such a thing cannot happen again.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– The answer is “Yes”. An investigation will be made, and unless a properly qualified dispenser is attached to the staff of the hospital that hospital will not be registered for the dispensing of prescriptions.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 15 agreed to.

Clause 16 (Arrangements for provision of medical services).

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– In my second-reading speech. I asked the Minister a question regarding the implications of this clause, and he said in his reply that the provision would apply only to remote places where there was difficulty in obtaining satisfactory medical assistance. I am satisfied with his assurance. Apparently, the Minister gained the impression that I had said something derogatory about salaried medical officers. That is not so. I can speak in the highest terms of the work done by public health officers, but, regarding general medical practice, I am firmly of the opinion that the best results to the public will be obtained by the retention of the present system of individual practice. I do not doubt the high qualifications of public health officers, nor have I any doubt that they dp their work satisfactorily. I would be the last person to say a word against them.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (Consultative council).

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.This clause provides that there shall be a consultative council consisting of sis persons appointed by the Minister. Is it proposed that they shall be qualified persons? This will be an important council, and it is necessary that its members should be carefully chosen.

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I agree that this will probably be one of the most important committees of all, as it will have to advise the Government on matters of policy. On it will be members of the medical profession and the Pharmaceutical Guild, and representatives of the friendly societies. I assure honorable members that the British Medical Association is associated with this scheme, and it will have the largest representation on the committee that will decide the formulary.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 27 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill -by leave - read a third time.

page 2450

MATERNITY ALLOWANCE BILL 1944

Second Reading

Mr HOLLOWAY:
Melbourne PortsMinister for Labour and National Service · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This measure has been introduced for the purpose of enabling more liberal treatment to be accorded under the Maternity Allowance Act to mothers in respect of multiple births. Honorable members are aware that the Government last year liberalized the provisions of the Maternity Allowance Act for the purpose of assisting mothers to meet the heavy financial commitments inseparable from childbirth. The means test was removed, the minimum allowance was increased from’ £4 10s. to £5 and the intermediate rate was increased from £5 to £6. In addition, provision was made for the payment of an amount of 25s. a week in respect of each of the four weeks immediately preceding and following the birth of a child. This resulted in a total payment of £15 being made in cases where the mother had no other surviving children under fourteen years of age, £16 where there were one or two other children, and £17 10s. where there were three or more other children under fourteen years.

Section 5 of the principal act provides that a maternity allowance shall be payable in respect of each occasion on which a birth occurs and the child is born alive or is a viable child, but only one allowance shall be payable in cases where more than one child is born at one birth. Frequent representations have been made to the Government for additional payments to aid mothers in cases where multiple births occur, but in view of the provisions of the law it has not been possible to accede to the requests made. Expenses such as additional clothing and other equipment are undoubtedly much heavier than in the case of a single birth and there is greater necessity for employing domestic assistance. The Government now proposes that where a mother gives birth to twins the weekly amount of 25s. shall be increased to 37s. 6d., and in the case of triplets to 50s. This will result in an additional payment of £5 in the case of twins and £10 where triplets are born. The total amounts payable might be more clearly illustrated by the following table : -

The estimated additional expenditure in providing this extra benefit is £10,000 per annum.

As previously indicated, the rate of maternity allowance varies according to the number of “ other children “ born prior to the birth in respect of which a claim is made, who, on the date of that birth, are under the age of fourteen years and living, and are either the children of the claimant or of her husband by a previous marriage and are wholly maintained by the claimant or her husband or by both of them. The age limit of fourteen years is anomalous when compared with that of sixteen years for child endowment, widows’ pensions, war pensions, seamen’s pensions and allowance and compensation payments. It may appear more inconsistent if, as seems probable, the normal school leaving age throughout the Commonweatlh is eventually raised to sixteen years. The introduction of a uniform age for Commonwealth, benefits so far as children are concerned is most desirable, and to achieve this object for maternity allowance purposes would be comparatively inexpensive. At the most the cost would not exceed £15,000 per annum. The bill, therefore, provides for an increase in the age limit for “ other children “ from fourteen years to sixteen years.

Section 9a of the Maternity Allowance Act which relates to the payment of a maternity allowance to selected classes of aboriginal natives of Australia empowers the Commissioner to direct that payment of a maternity allowance to an aboriginal native shall be made to an authority of a State or territory of the Commonwealth controlling the affairs of aboriginal natives, or to some other person whom he considers to be suitable for the purpose, for the benefit of the claimant. The term “ aboriginal native “ is regarded as meaning one in whom there is a preponderance of aboriginal blood. There arc many cases in which half-caste aborigines and, in some isolated cases, white persons are living as aboriginal natives on government stations, reserves and settlements.. In such cases, it would frequently be in the best interests of the claimant if the maternity allowance were paid to some other person for the benefit of the mother rather than that she should handle the money which is at times misspent either by the claimant or her husband. Provision has, therefore, been made in the bill to give the Commissioner power to do this in such cases as he may deem desirable to ensure that the maternity allowance is used for the purpose for which it is intended.

Sir FREDERICK STEWART:
Parramatta

.- -After the lucid explanation of the bill by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) the Opposition will not oppose the measure. Increasing the age of the dependent child when calculating the benefit to the standard age of sixteen is perfectly logical. The increase of the weekly contribution in respect of multiple births is also a feature of the proposal to which serious exception cannot be taken, because undoubtedly there is increased expenditure associated with multiple births. The only point that arises is that the Minister is not optimistic enough when he stops at triplets. He might have saved trouble at some later date if he had allowed the bill to go further. The provision dealing with the payment of the allowance to a delegated person, instead of direct to the mother, is one to which exception cannot be taken. Speaking generally, the only fault that I can find with the measure - and I believe that I speak for others also - is that this bill is about 40 years too late.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and reported from committee without amendment or debate; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

Sitting suspended from 4.00 to 10. SO a.m.

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1944-45. (Substitute.)

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In Committee of Supply:

Mr FORDE:
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Army · Capricornia · ALP

– I move -

That there be granted bo His Majesty for or towards defraying the service of the year 1044-45 a sum not exceeding £51,050,000.

A few days ago, a Supply Bill covering essential requirements for the first two months of 1944-45 was agreed to by this House. That bill has not yet been dealt with in the Senate. The Government has decided not to proceed further with it, but instead to ask Parliament for Supply for a period of three months. Accordingly, a bill for £51,959,000, covering requirements for the first three months of 1944-45, is presented.

The provision may be summarized under the following heads: -

The provision in the bill covers only the estimated requirements to carry on the essential services on the basis of the provision in the Appropriation Act passed by Parliament for the current year 1943-44.

The amounts set down for ordinary services represent, with minor exceptions, approximately one-quarter of the 1943-44 appropriations.

Excluding special appropriations, it is estimated that, in the first three months of 1944-45, the total war expenditure will amount to £128,000,000. That is somewhat less than one-quarter of last year’s appropriations, as expenditure in the first three months is invariably below the average of the year. The sum of £37,000,000 provided for war services represents the estimated amount which will be available from revenue receipts for the (first three months of the year, after making due allowance for other obligations. The balance of war expenditure will be met from loan appropriations.

As in previous years, provision is made for “ Advance to the Treasurer “, the amount being £5,000,000. This amount, is required mainly to carry on uncompleted civil works which will be in progress at the 30th June, and also to cover unforeseen and miscellaneous expenditure.

No .provision has been made for any new expenditure except in respect of defence and war services, and there is no departure from existing policy.

Although the bill will .provide for requirements for the first three months of the next financial year, I give to honorable members the assurance that Parliament will be called together earlier if necessary. The provision of Supply for a period of three months will possibly obviate the necessity for another Supply Bill before the introduction of the budget.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– When the question of Supply was originally discussed between the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) and myself, the notion was that three months’ Supply would be asked for. I consider that that is quite reasonable. After all, as I said the other day elsewhere, the Prime Minister should not feel under any great pressure of time in completing his important work overseas. I can very well understand that he would feel uneasy if financial provision for the necessary services had not been made for a period completely adequate to cover all tho contingencies of his journey. So I have no objection whatever to the passing of this bill in substitution for that with which we dealt the other day.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.The Australian Country party takes no exception to the change of plans of the Government, and approves the proposal to grant Supply for three months. It is recognized that to seek from Parliament during March Supply for the months of July, August and September is to take an extraordinary step, and the granting of it can be justified on this occasion only by the circumstance of the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) abroad, coupled with the assurance given by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Forde) - which I would have sought had it not been given - that if the- circumstances of war, or any other circumstances of special national import, should require such a course, the Parliament will be called together before the end of the present financial year.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Resolution of Ways and Means, founded on resolution of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Forde and Mr. Frost do prepare and bring in a bill’ to carry out the foregoing resolution.

Bill presented by Mr. FORDE. and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2453

ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES 1943-44

In Committee of Supply: Consideration resumed from the 28th March (vide page 2117), on motion by Mr. Lazzarini -

That the following additional sum be granted to His Majesty . . . (vide page 2117).

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

– The purpose of the motion is to obtain parliamentary appropriation for the expenditure of an additional £10,000,000 of revenue for war purposes.

When the budget was presented to Parliament in September last, the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley) estimated that the total revenue would be £345,000,000. The budget was framed to provide an appropriation from revenue of a like sum, including £167,000,000 for war purposes and the balance for other expenditure. Some of the revenue items will exceed the budget estimate. The estimate of £64,000,000 for revenue from customs and excise may be exceeded by £3,000,000. Sales tax, as the result of a larger volume of trade, due to the increased purchasing power of the community, may show an increase of £1,500,000. Direct taxation, other than income tax, may bring in an extra £500,000. Post office revenue is likely to yield £1,500,000 in excess of the budget estimate. On the other hand, income tax cannot be reliably forecast at this stage. The Government hopes, however, that the budget estimate of £192,500,000 will be realized. Other sources of revenue, together with savings of expenditure, other than war, may make an additional amount of up to £3,500,000 available for war purposes. On the best estimates that can be made at this juncture, it is likely that the revenue budget will show an improvement of £10,000,000, and it is this sum which it is now proposed to appropriate for war purposes.

In the September budget, the Treasurer informed the House that war expenditure in 1943-44 would be £570,000,000. Notwithstanding that the rate of expenditure to date has been below the proportion of the budget estimate for the expired portion of the year, the Treasurer is inclined to the view that the actual expenditure will reach the budget estimate. If there is any increase, it should not be very great.

If the improvement of the revenue budget amounts to £10,000,000, the effect of the proposed, appropriation will be to relieve loan account and to charge revenue account with an amount of £10,000,000 without increasing the total expenditure.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– I desire to refer on this motion to a question which lias on two or three former occasions engaged the attention of Parliament, but still remains, so far as I can judge, unsettled. I refer to the internment of certain men because of their alleged association with the Australia First Movement. I am not concerned this morning to endeavour to determine the strength or weakness of the facts of any individual case. That is not my function, and probably Parliament would not consider that it was it? function, either. The circumstances which call for the closest and fullest inquiry by some properly constituted body are these: Right back in 1942, on the 26th of March, the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) made a statement - he was then the Minister concerned with internments - and that statement related to an allegation that sixteen or twenty persons, who were believed to have been associated with the so-called Australia First Movement, had been arrested and interned. Honorable members will recall the nature of the statement then made. I’-am nol for one moment saying that the Minister did not believe that the circumstances warranted the making of the statement. I merely point out that the statement indicated fifth column activity of the worst kind, including sabotage and conspiracy, and that was subsequently elaborated to include conspiracy to murder. On that date, with particular reference to the name of (his organization, the people of Australia were informed that a deadly plot bad been discovered, and that sixteen to twenty persons had been interned in order that the community might be protected.

Mr White:

– lt made very sensational reading overseas.

Mr MENZIES:

– 1 am sure it did. The story was published under streamer headlines. It became a topic of discussion among 90 per cent, of the people within 24 hours. In fact, at that time, a number of persons, about sixteen 1 believe, were interned in the eastern States. At the same time, several persons were detained and interned in Western Australia. The allegation against those who were interned in the eastern States was, apparently, that they were associated with the Australia First Movement, and that they could not be, with safety to the public, left at large. Subsequently, prosecutions were launched in Western Australia, and convictions obtained, but in the course of obtaining them it became abundantly clear that the small group of persons in Western Australia had no connexion with the Australia First Movement in the eastern States. What they had done was to concoct a scheme to get. affiliated with the larger body, their desire being to tag on to it.

After the internments had continued for some time, the Attorney-General made a statement in this House on the 10th September, 1942, in the course of which he made it clear that, on the material before him, there was no evidence that the Australia First Movement members in New South Wales were parties to the plans of the conspirators in Western Australia. He said - lt is reasonably clear that there was no guilty association between the Western Australia conspirators and the sixteen New South Wales internees.

I regret to say that the Attorney-General then went on to read a series of extracts from the correspondence of persons associated with the Australia First Movement in New South Wales, written from 1940 onwards until 1942 - each of a rather sinister kind, but not one of them, I am informed, written by one of the interned persons.

Dr Evatt:

– Every one was written by one or other of them.

Mr MENZIES:

– I understand not.

Dr Evatt:

– I say that it is so.

Mr MENZIES:

– What is the source of the Attorney-General’s information?

Dr Evatt:

– The departmental files. I should like to know the source of the right honorable gentleman’s information.

Mr MENZIES:

– I shall take one case to illustrate the gravity of the matter we are discussing - which is the right of the ordinary citizen to liberty in this country, unless deprived of it under due process qf law. One of the men interned is a solicitor. I happen to know him quite well, because he went through the university at the same time as I did. He had been practising as a solicitor in Melbourne for a long time. His association, so I am informed, with the Australia First Movement amounted to this : Some man who had secured appointment with the movement wrote to him and asked him to subscribe, and he forwarded 10s. 6d. as a subscription.

Mr White:

– He drew a big dividend ?

Mr MENZIES:

– He did, indeed. Never before was 10s. 6d. spent with more disastrous results. In due course, his name appeared as a member of the organization, on the strength of his having subscribed 10s. 6d. Then he was haled out of his home, imprisoned and put in an internment camp. He was there for month after month. In the camp he was compelled to perform the most menial tasks. Nothing worse could happen. All that time he was without charge and without trial. Subsequently, facilities were made available, and his case went before a tribunal. It recommended his unconditional release, and he was released - after being for months in an internment camp in his own country, of which he is a native of the second or third generation.

Dr Evatt:

– Will the right honorable gentleman write down the man’s name and hand it to me? I think there is a mistake. T do not think that he is one of these men at all.

Mr MENZIES:

– I hand to the Attorney-General the name of that person.

Dr Evatt:

– It is as I thought; he is not one of the Australia First internees.

Mr MENZIES:

– He will be interested to learn that. After. all, he is the man who has been interned.

Dr Evatt:

– The right honorable gentleman said that he belonged to this group, and he debated the matter on that footing. I say that he was not in .the group to which my statement referred.

Mr MENZIES:

– What the AttorneyGeneral says is illuminating. I have taken the case of this man, because it was explained to him that he had been taken up because he was associated with the Australia First Movement, and he was imprisoned and interned. So far as the charge was put to him, the whole occurrence arose out of his association with the Australia First Movement. He was interned for eight months, and then released unconditionally. Now the Attorney-General says that he was not one of the men to whom he referred. This means that not one of those letters cited by the Attorney-General contained a statement by the man I am talking about. I know this man, and I know something of the disaster which this has brought upon him. Other honorable members are more familiar with other cases, I know. Here is a man who for twenty-odd years was building up a practice as a professional man. He was taken out of his home, just as anybody might be. He was incarcerated in circumstances of immense notoriety. When he came out, what happened? His friends were gone, his practice was gone, his reputation was gone. Everything that was of importance to him had gone. We all are familiar with the cynical proverb which can do so much harm : “ Where there’s smoke there’s fire “. People will ask him, “ Where have you been ? Oh, in an internment camp? Well, you can’t tell us that you would have been in an internment camp unless the authorities had some reason for it. Were you mixed up with the Australia First Movement?” “Well, yes, I paid a subscription to it.” “Oh”, they would say, “ those are the people who conspired to murder, and who entered into a treasonable correspondence with the Japanese - to become, in the truest sense, the quislings of Australia.” Just imagine the position of that man. I might have been in that position myself.

Anybody might have been. So far as I know, it is not suggested that there was at any time any real reason for this man’s incarceration. That statement by me may be true, or it may be untrue. I believe it to be true. It may be accurate, or’ there may be inaccuracies as to detail; but, having regard to the notoriety of the occurrence, nothing will satisfy me and, I hope, other honorable members, which stops short of an independent investigation of these cases, with the payment of compensation, and the public clearing of their names, if it turns out that these persons have been unjustly used.

I have received correspondence from another man in this category, a man who fought in the last war, and who had engaged in business in Australia in a certain line of production. He was whisked out of his house without a moment’s notice, and now his business is gone, and he is ruined. It is nothing to the point to tell me that because, after months of internment, he is released, that washes out everything. There can bo no greater or more permanent stain on a man’s reputation and his name for generations than that he should have been thrown into an internment camp in time of war. That is the proper place for people guilty of conduct even remotely Treasonable if the community is to be protected. But if, in .point of fact, it is true that one, two, three, four or what you will, of these men who were interned in connexion with the Australia First Movement were wrongfully interned when they were innocent people, then I say that just as the injury was done with all the notoriety of headlines so must the clearance be established with equal publicity. I do not want to elaborate that. Two or three of those cases, on which I have received correspondence, are strange cases, and if one wanted to go into them one might speak for an hour, but my purpose is not to convert this House into a tribunal. ‘ My purpose i3 to ask the Attorney-General, who, after all, as I know, has an instinct for justice on these matters, whether he does not believe that, having regard to all the circumstances to which I have referred, he should set up a tribunal and say to that tribunal, “Go into the cases of these men. Determine whether there were ever real reasons for their internment, and, if you find that there were not and that some great error was committed, bring in a report and we shall publish their names and clear their names and compensate them for the ruin that has come upon them “.

Dr EVATT:
AttorneyGeneral and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

– >I do not intend to speak at great length, but I want to remind the committee of some of the facts about this matter. The details of this case are set out in a statement which I made to the House on the 10th December, 1942, shortly after my return to Australia from abroad. At that time there was a change of administration of the Security Service, and I took over from the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde). There were these men to whom I can conveniently refer as the Australia First group. It consisted in the main of sixteen persons from New South Wale.?. There were also, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) pointed out, other persons from Western Australia. First, in the case of the Western Australian internees, I said quite frankly -in that statement that there was no guilty association between them and the sixteen internees from New South Wales. I pointed that out for this reason: there had been a trial in Western Australia by the Chief Justice of the Western Australian internees. I think that four persons were tried before the Chief Justice.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– There would have been no need for the right honorable gentleman’s refutation if the Minister for the Army had not made charges of association.

Dr EVATT:

– At that time of extreme crisis early in 1942, the military authorities certainly had just grounds for suspecting this organization of being ready to act the part of quislings in the event of Japanese success in North Australia. I think that that is an under-statement.

Mr Abbott:

– To which ones is the Attorney-General referring- -the Western Australian lot or the other lot?

Dr EVATT:

– I shall answer questions about that in a moment. Internment matters are in the hands of the

Director-General of Security and thu State deputy directors. The only function that I fulfil is to look independently into cases about which special representations are made. Nearly every honorable member has approached me at one time or another about matters of internment. As I pointed out in my statement, I have always leaned, perhaps at times more than I should have, in favour of liberty. I have taken the view that no man should be detained or have his movements restricted unless security is really endangered. In “Western Australia, four persons were tried on a charge of conspiracy to take over the Government of Western Australia in the event of the Japanese successfully invading Australia. Nothing could have been more serious, especially at that time, and in such circumstances. The jury found that two of the accused persons were guilty and two not guilty. The two who were found guilty were imprisoned. It does not follow from that verdict that the persons who were found not guilty could safely be allowed their freedom at that time. I speak from memory, but I am confident that the Chief Justice of Western Australia, who was chairman of a special tribunal dealing with cases of internment, recommended the continued detention of the two persons who were acquitted, and they were kept in detention under National Security Regulations.

Mr Menzies:

– There is no quarrel about that at all.

Dr EVATT:

– The right honorable gentleman referred mainly to the cases from New South Wales. My view is that as danger to security becomes less in the course of the war, so the situation of every person under restriction must be reviewed from time to time. Detention of persons is a precaution. If the precaution is not necessary in the opinion of the competent authorities, the doubts should be resolved in favour of liberty. I stated that principle in the statement which I made on the 10th December, 1942. I ask honorable gentlemen at their leisure to read it. I have no intention to read the details of that statement now.

I come now to the action of the Army authorities. Any Minister must rely on recommendations made by his officers, because it is perfectly obvious that he cannot have at his personal command the full details of any particular matter, and when he ordered their internment, the Minister for the Army acted on the recommendation of military intelligence. There was correspondence between the Western Australian group and the New South Wales group, and, in a moment of great national peril, the military intelligence authorities recommended to the Minister for the Army the detention of the persons involved. The Minister acted on that recommendation. With regard to the New South Wales men, their ‘ case was brought up by the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), and I think other honorable gentlemen. The honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott) referred to some of the cases. I immediately caused a special inquiry to be made by a specially appointed committee consisting of the Director-General of Security, the Deputy Director of Security, New South Wales, the officer in charge of Military Intelligence in New South Wales, the Assistant Director at Canberra, and a member of the Security Service. They all joined in recommendations upon which I acted immediately. The result was that four of the New South Wales internees were immediately released. Only in four of the cases was it decided that full internment should continue. The majority were released under restrictions. Some of the reasons for the detention of the four were contained in the schedule of correspondence attached to my statement. The right honorable gentleman suggested that this correspondence consisted of extracts from letters written by others than those who were detained, but certainly the greater proportion consists of extracts from letters taken by the military intelligence authorities or the Security Service from the files of the persons who were detained.

Mr Menzies:

– Is it correct to say that those extracts were taken from the letters of one man?

Dr EVATT:

– No. I think that four, certainly three, were concerned. I do not want to mention their names, because T do not want to add anything to the seriousness of this matter. I checked the extracts, and I am quite satisfied that they were extracts from the files of at least three of the four persons whose detention was continued.

Mr Harrison:

– It is possible that by withholding the names of the four who were detained the Attorney-General by implication is challenging the whole sixteen who were interned.

Dr EVATT:

– I am not.

Mr Harrison:

– The right honorable gentleman is leaving it open for the public to reach unjustifiable conclusions.

Dr EVATT:

– I do not want to overstate this case. I am conscious of the fact pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition that it must be approached calmly and solely in the interests of national security. The extracts were from the letters written by those persons. There is no doubt whatever that at that time, judging by their own speeches and letters, a number of those people were not only ready, but were preparing, to act as quislings in the event of a Japanese invasion.

Mr Abbott:

– The whole lot?

Dr EVATT:

– No, some of them. The right honorable gentleman brought to my notice the case of one person whose association with the others was absolutely innocent. So far as I could tell from the file, which I remember reading one Saturday afternoon, he was not implicated in any subversive activities of the group.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– How then did he happen to be pulled in?

Dr EVATT:

– He was pulled in on the recommendation of military intelligence. I looked at his file one Saturday afternoon, and came to the conclusion that there was not one tittle of evidence on which one could justify hi§ detention.

Mr Menzies:

– That narrows the field. I have no suggestion to make that the right honorable gentleman has ever delayed the consideration of these matters. On the contrary, he has always acted promptly.

Dr EVATT:

– I was conscious of the seriousness of the charges made and also realized that no one should be detained unless it were necessary in the interests of national security.

Mr Menzies:

– I am concerned with what happened before that, when the internments were made and with the effect of internment on those who were wrongfully interned.

Dr EVATT:

– It is obvious that in time of war mistakes occur from time to time in action to ensure national security. Internment was not invented by this Government. As soon as the war broke out the Menzies Government commenced to intern people. National security is supreme. The previous Administration set up tribunals to deal with cases of mistakes and alleged mistakes. The cases dealt with by those tribunals included the one mentioned by the right honorable gentleman. The man whom he mentioned apparently brought his case before one of the appeal tribunals and was subsequently released. In some cases men have been released although the appeal tribunals have expressed doubt on the point. The whole matter is looked upon solely from the point of view of the interests of national security. It is only right that I should bring to the attention of the right honorable gentleman some of the statements on which the authorities acted at that time.

Mr Abbott:

– Of the three men?

Dr EVATT:

– True statements of the three men who were prominent in this organization. That is quite consistent with their followers not being persons who were controlling the whole organization. I shall read an extract from a letter written on the 4th March, 1942: -

Last night radio Tokyo said that Australia’s fate is sealed. I for one have no excuse to disbelieve them. I expect an invasion mainly because it is simply a .completion of grand strategy in the South-West Pacific. I expect because Germany may require Japan to cut ofl’ Australian and New Zealand supplies reaching the Middle East … By settling Australia Japan’s lines of communications will bc invulnerable.

That is not merely an objective narrative. It is the letter of a man who wants J apan to win, who hopes Japan will win, and who hopes, in that event, to advantage himself.

Mr Harrison:

– “Was that written by a member of the Western Australian group ?

Dr EVATT:

– No, these extracts were taken from letters written by members of the New South Wales group. For Australia, March, 1942, was the blackest month of the war. Singapore had fallen.

The situation was dreadful. There was very little war material in the north of Australia to defend the country against the Japanese. The position regarding aircraft and equipment was alarmingly bad. The Australian Imperial Force divisions had not returned to Australia. They were actually on the water at that time. The activities of members of the New South Wales group then warranted the attention of military intelligence. I quote another letter written on the 6th January, 1942 -

I have a tremendous contempt for Australians collectively-

An Australian wrote those words ! The extract continues - and will punch them hard on the chin while breath remains in my body.

Then follows a foul epithet against Australia -

Believe me I know them well, perhaps better than you, in all their social and economic shades.

That letter was written by one member of the group to another member of the group, a’ few weeks after Japan had entered the war, and when things were going very badly for the United Nations. One letter was written on the 31st December, 1941, by a man who joi.ied the Australian Imperial Force. It reads -

As I shall be enlisting next Monday in the Australian Imperial Force, and <«s I feel that little or no political organizational development will be possible, on a scale that matters outside the armed forces, there seems no reason for the continued existence of the Australia First Movement (as it is at present constituted ) : on the other hand, however, there appears to be excellent prospects of attaining a considerable degree of support for mil- political objectives within the ranks of the armed forces, therefore it is suggested that some form of semi-secret organization be established .between all branches of the Army, Militia and Australian Imperial Force . . . that will have a chance of accomplishing our complete national independence, if necessary by the force of arms. A meeting of some twelve members (selected) of the better elements in the Australia First Movement will be called early in the new year to discuss the proposal already suggested in the above few lines. It is hoped you will be prepared to co-operate with us in this new and perhaps difficult work.

Mr McEWEN:

– Is that man still interned ?

Dr EVATT:

– Speaking from memory, I believe that, after a long period of detention, he was released from full internment, but has been subject to heavy restrictions which require him to report to the authorities.

Mr McEwen:

– That requires some explanation.

Dr EVATT:

– This matter is dealt with by the security officers. The situation in 1944, thank God, is not the situation of March, 1942.

Mr McEwen:

– Surely it is the man’s state of mind that should be the test, not the security of the country.

Dr EVATT:

– It is partly the state of mind, but all the other surrounding circumstances have to be considered. Some persons write subversive letters, but do not give active effect to their ideas. It is perfectly true also that the situation in the country changes. I cannot answer offhand honorable members so fully as I should like to do. No notice was given to me of this matter. The extracts which I have read indicate a serious state of affairs at a time of national peril. That was the situation which existed when military intelligence officers took action and the nien were interned. The whole position is reviewed from time to time. I ask honorable members to note the two principles upon which the security officers have acted -

  1. The aim and sole justification of all restrictions upon individual liberty is to prevent injury to the war effort of the country, not to punish the individuals. In short, the objective is preventive rather than punitive. This objective is clearly embodied in the existing regulations. The sole ground for restricting liberty, is that the individual, if left unrestricted, might prejudice the successful defence of this country against the enemy.
  2. The second principle is that individual liberty is to be’ restricted only if there is a real danger that the individual will act in a way that prejudices the war effort. Therefore, restrictions, if imposed, should be imposed only to an extent sufficient to prevent the evil, full internment being reserved for cases where the possibility of injury to the nation is undeniable.

The difficulty in applying those principles is extremely great.

Mr Menzies:

– I have no quarrel with the principles and with the internment of the three men who wrote those letters. I am concerned about, the thirteen men who did not write such letters.

Dr EVATT:

– Not one of them is interned now. I understand that the right honorable gentleman contends that, as those men were subsequently released, some kind of publicity should be given to the facts of each case.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– Undoubtedly.

Dr EVATT:

– Honorable members must realize where that course would lead. Some of the men who have been released have behaved themselves not only within the restrictions imposed upon them, but also as loyal Australian citizens should do. The last thing that they would like is the ventilation of the facts of their internment. One man in this group is in a different category. Although he had the right of appeal to the constituted tribunal, he would not exercise it. He applied to the court for release by habeas corpus, and failed. He would not exercise his right of appeal, although he was repeatedly invited to do so. He wanted a public inquiry into all the circumstances of his particular case rather than appeal to a tribunal which did not sit in public. That privilege could not be granted to him in particular.

Mr Abbott:

– “Why was a public hearing granted to’ the Western Australian members of the group? Gould not this particular man have been tried for treason?

Dr EVATT:

– Perhaps he could have been tried for treason. Perhaps it is still possible for him to be tried for treason. I cannot deal with the matter in an offhand- manner. It is serious. This man has an action for damages pending in the courts against the Commonwealth. He claims that certain acts that were done amounted to illegalities, and, therefore, I cannot possibly discuss the whole facts of that particular case.

Mr Menzies:

– The facts of his case should not be discussed on such an action.

Dr EVATT:

– I should think not; but ic is quite possible that his bringing of the action is an attempt to have the facts of the case investigated.

Mr Menzies:

– The immediate and obvious answer would be that he was detained under an order of the Minister.

Dr EVATT:

– That is the immediate and obvious answer which occurs to the Leader of the Opposition and myself, who can see what the issues should be, but things do not always take the .course that is expected of them. While hi. action against the Commonwealth is pending, his case should not be discussed in public.

I deal with the whole of the Australia First group under two divisions. First, there is the Western Australian group, members of which were tried by the courts. Two were found, guilty of seditious conspiracy and two others were found not guilty, but their detention was subsequently recommended by the Chief Justice. The security officers are at present reviewing those cases. Some honorable members have written to me on their behalf. The second division is the New South Wales group, practically all of whom have been released, some of them unconditionally and others under restrictions. Finally, there is the case to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, namely, a solicitor who was not mentioned by me as belonging to this group. His was a case of which cannot, on the spur of the moment, give the House any details, but he appealed to the constituted tribunal. The Leader of the Opposition stated that the tribunal decided in his favour. I have no knowledge of that; but he was subsequently released. One important point which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned was the matter of compensation. Should the Commonwealth compensate persons who have been detained and who, when their cases are investigated by a tribunal, are released either unconditionally or under restrictions? Short of that. should the Commonwealth make a statement calculated to clear their names? I do not want the matter to be dealt with in a general or haphazard way. One must examine the facts of each case. Many of the persons concerned do not want the facts ventilated.

Mr Abbott:

– Some of the persons concerned have written to me demanding an opportunity to clear their names.

Dr EVATT:

– They were interned for a certain period on certain grounds. One could not clear their names without at the same time stating the grounds upon which their detention had been ordered. That is fair, i3 it not? They would have to take that risk.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– They are prepared to take that risk.

Dr EVATT:

– .Surely the honorable member does not speak on behalf of them all?

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– I oan speak on behalf of two of them.

Dr EVATT:

– I am prepared to consider the matter. I see the force of the contention. One man, an Australian writer, was released on my order immediately I became aware of the facts. I consider that the action taken in that instance was wrong, and T believe that the security officers were considering whether compensation should be paid to him. I am prepared to review the whole of the cases of men who have been released, when I get an opportunity to see ho,w they can be fairly wound up in the interests not only of themselves but also of the Commonwealth. That is how I approached the problem originally in dealing with difficult cases of security. One’s mind has to balance two things. First, there is the danger to the country of having at large persons who, at one time at any rate were prepared to act the part of quislings. Secondly, there is the presumption in favour of liberty, which is very dear to me. That is the position.

I have told the House frankly about these cases. Some honorable members opposite have asked me about individual cases, and I am unable to give the information without fuller consideration. But broadly, the position is that nearly every one of the persons originally detained has now been released. But the situation of the country has also changed. One might release them in 1944, but it might not have been safe to have them at large in 1942. Some of them, perhaps, should not have been detained, but that is a reflection, not upon the Minister for the Army, but upon the efficiency of military intelligence officers, on whose advice he acted. The matter was reviewed as soon as was possible and an attempt was made to apply to every case the principles that I have outlined. A few mistakes may have occurred, but if so, they were honest mistakes. A real attempt was made to meet the requirements of justice. I do not object to the Leader of the Opposition having raised the subject. He has frequently brought cases of detention to my notice. I believe he will confirm my statement as to my general approach to this subject.

Mr Menzies:

– I have no complaint of it.

Dr EVATT:

– These are difficult and delicate questions. Compensation has to be considered with the utmost care. Questions relative to publicity are also difficult. -The Government has to consider not only the desires of the individual concerned but also the interests of the whole community.

Mr Menzies:

– I understand that the names of these men appeared in a certain publication.

Dr EVATT:

– I do not know about that.

I believe that I have dealt with all the specific points raised by honorable members. I call attention again to my original statement on this subject in 1942. I assure honorable gentlemen that within the terms of that statement, I shall look into the cases they have referred to during the debate.

Mr HARRISON:
Wentworth

– Counsel for the defence holds a very difficult brief. He has been eminently fair in respect of his observations on the subject, though he has placed undue emphasis on the cases of three men to the exclusion of thirteen others who were charged with subversive action but against whom there was no case. The right honorable gentleman practically confined his remarks to the three men. That may be good legal argument, but it. does scant justice to the thirteen men who were unfortunate enough to be caught in the toils. Let us try to reconstruct the conditions that obtained during the fateful “ ides of March “ when the Minister for the Army became so excited. The honorable gentleman does not usually give way to excitement, but on that occasion he was panic-stricken. In his most melodramatic manner he stated in this House that these individuals were members of a subversive organization of great strength, that they were prepared to welcome the Japanese to this country, and that they had compiled a list of Ministers and other public men whom they proposed to murder. The honorable gentleman also said that in the interests of the security of the nation he had taken strong steps to intern the leaders of the movement. From that moment there began the greatest travesty of justice in the history of this country. Immediately after the Minister’s statement was made, the names of these individuals were published by some outside authority, although the Minister had not mentioned them in the House. Against most of the persons concerned there was no evidence whatsoever ; yet their names were published to the world, with the result that their lives have been ruined. They have been ostracized by their friends and acquaintances, they have been subject to public ridicule, and they have been interned. What has happened to these people is what happens to those who have been interned under Nazi and Fascist rule. They have been forced to perform the most menial tasks. In order to show how their lives have been affected, I shall read extracts from some letters that I have received. I do not propose to mention the names of the persons concerned, but I am prepared to furnish them to the AttorneyGeneral.

Mr Ward:

– The honorable member has received considerable correspondence from these people.

Mr HARRISON:

– If my correspondence had come into the hands of the Minister he would have had no compunction in opening the letters and reading them to the House.

Mr Ward:

– Quislings do not write to me.

Mr HARRISON:

– The first letter reads -

An indication of the damage our internment and the allegations by Mr. Forde have done to our reputations and their effects on public opinion is given by a paragraph in Dr. C. E. W. Bean’s recent book, “ The War Aims of a Plain Australian “, on page 77, which reads :

I am aware that some of our few organized Fascists stated an even more criminal attempt. It was not such a stupid one, since, if the Axis had won, these Fascists would have come into positions of power, whereas our communists, who gave much more real help to Hitler, would have been the first to be exterminated. But I cannot imagine that the “Australia First” movement (which, by the by, seems to have been at least once openly supported by the German wireloss) ever constituted any great threat to our safety.

Seeing that these events made such an impression on the mind of Dr. Bean, the Commonwealth official historian of the last war, and a man with a keen analytical mind, it can be imagined how they must have affected people without the same ability to form a judgment. The letter continues -

Since discussing this matter with me at the Canberra Summer School and afterwards, Dr. Bean has admitted that he has done us a very grave injustice, and in a letter to me dated Srd March has promised to delete this passage so that it cannot appear to reflect in any way on those who had no part in the Western Australian conspiracy, and to try to get something into the paper that may bc of help in getting justice done to us. You will appreciate that if so well informed a person as Dr. Bean (whose position as the official historian of the last war gives him such prestige) can be so badly mislead, the effect on the general public of the Government’s action against us could hardly be worse.

I believe that honorable members generally will agree with the sentiments expressed in that extract. The treatment of these men has been a travesty of justice. The lives of innocent people have undoubtedly been ruined. I desire to read another letter which I have received.

Mr Ward:

– What, another of them?

Mr HARRISON:

– If the Minister for Transport had a family record equal to the record of the family referred to in this letter he would be a fortunate man. The writer of this letter was an Army nurse of the last war who, with other members of her family, has done a remarkable job for Australia. She writes : -

Our story is this: - My husband joined the Australia First Movement in November, 1941, feeling it would bc good for Australia and anything that was good for Australia must strengthen the Empire.

Those are most commendable sentiments which would be held only by an Australian with high ideals of citizenship. Such a person would be most unlikely to engage in subversive activities. The letter continued : -

He always has been a loyal and second generation Australian - his eldest son was then a year in the School Cadets and now in the Royal Australian Air Force. At 5 a.m., March 10th, 1942, three detectives finecombed our home and took away a few copies of the Publicist (censored) plus my husband, we were told for a little further questioning. I was not in the least worried ae we had nothing to hide or fear. My husband was lodged in a cell in Paddington Police Court and later interned and I was never notified and only after exhaustive investigation late that night was I able to find out where he was.

Two weeks later baseless slanders were alleged against him and fifteen other New South Wales men by Mr. F. Forde. Mr. Curtin promised they would be tried for treason. This news was welcomed by us for we knew the Government must lose the case and pay us compensation.

Months passed - none of the men were charged for treason nor even questioned. Four months later my husband was recommended for release without a stain on his character - after appearing before a secret tribunal at which he was not even questioned <.ni any of the slanders alleged by Mr. Forde. Even after this he was held for six more weeks.

His solicitors’ bill was £113 10s. Id. I, a returned nurse, have been ostracized by numerous war acquaintances with whom I’d worked on every possible patriotic effort since the war broke out. I had attended 28 lectures at the University to enable me to conduct a citizens aid bureau. I lectured and examined in home nursing and first aid and was on the committee of the A.M.C. fund, Vaucluse, since its inception.

This stigma still remains on us and our children. My husband was ordered off the strength of Post 19 Air Raid Wardens.. Vaucluse, where he had been group warden before he was interned.

We were unable to publicly clear our name. Our mail was held up for ten days at times, our phone tapped - friends and neighbours questioned and a strict censorship put on the press. What all this has done to our health and nerves you can imagine. Some of the men interned were decorated men of World War 1. One man had put £500 in the First Liberty Loan and given a shop rent free to Red Cross for the duration and was negotiating with his bank to give the Government £1,000 free of interest for the duration when interned.

Tt is deplorable that a family with such a record should have been subjected to such humiliation because of a few moments of panic by a Minister. It is of no use for the Attorney-General to say that he released certain individuals as soon as he was aware that they had not been engaged in subversive activities. That does not meet the needs of the case by any means. As soon as the AttorneyGeneral realized that these men were guiltless he had a duty to perform in respect of them. He should have done everything possible to clear their name and to restore them to their former place in the community as decent citizens. But what happened? The men were treated in a most inexcusable manner. The

Attorney-General has been fair in bis approach to this subject, for he took certain action as soon as he became aware of the facts of the case; but he has not gone far enough. Something should have been done at once to restore the good name of these people. Moreover, there is a sinister aspect of certain happenings in relation to some of them. By devious means the Government has tried to placate certain individuals by offering them a cash payment in settlement of their claims. In one instance, I believe, the amount was £250.

Dr Evatt:

– That was the case of a person to whom I specially referred, who was immediately released. There was no other case of suggested compensation.

Mr HARRISON:

– There was another case of an individual whom the Government was prepared to release if he would enter into certain undertakings.

Dr Evatt:

– If he would accept certain restrictions, yes.

Mr HARRISON:

– If the individual was a person who should have been interned, and it appears that the Government had some evidence against him, he should not be granted his freedom in Australia. We are. not concerned about the welfare of individuals; men who were a menace to the community should not be given their freedom in return for pertain undertakings.

Dr Evatt:

– There would have been a restriction of the liberty of the individual in that case.

Mr HARRISON:

– This man, who had been sent to a concentration camp, was apparently to be asked to give certain undertakings, on which he would be released without any public statement having been made, or without having been given an opportunity to clear his name before a court. It would appear that a species of Dutch auction is being conducted in regard to the freedom and liberty of the people, the Government being prepared to restore liberty under certain conditions. These persons cannot regain the position which they enjoyed prior to their incarceration. Their release confers on them no advantage other than that of their liberty, because they have been robbed of their good name, ostracized by their friends, and held up to public criticism, disrespect and contumely. Men who have been wrongly arrested and interned can regain a measure of their former status only if a full statement be made clearing their names. They should also be reimbursed the cost of defending their honour and their good name, and should be paid compensation which would assist them to remould their shattered lives.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- After to-day, the Parliament will go into a long recess of probably five or six months. I deplore lengthy recesses. After the general elections were held last year, there was a short sessional period, followed by a recess of about four months. The present sessional period has lasted for seven weeks, and is to be followed by another lengthy recess. Many problems and grievances will arise between now and the next meeting of the Parliament, but rank-and-file members will not have the opportunity to ventilate them in the Parliament. There is a number of matters with which I have not so far been able io deal. I realize that, in granting Supply lo the end of September, honorable members gave consideration to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) will be out of Australia for many months. I give way to no one in my admiration of the personal self-sacrifice and devotion to duty of the right honorable gentleman during the present war, and I am sure that every honorable member wishes him well in the important mission that he is undertaking. But that is not a reason for the closing of the Parliament during his absence. The Prime Minister of Britain, Mr. Churchill, has travelled extensively on a number of occasions during the war, and the House of Commons has sat during his absences. The Government will have a good working majority in both branches of the legislature after the 30th June, and I know of no reason why the sitting should not be resumed shortly after the 1st July. The transaction of pub llc. business would thus be facilitated, and honorable members would be enabled to devote attention to matters which affect their constituents. The gesture of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) is generous on its face, but in the circumstances is not at all necessary, because the Government has a good working majority and does not need the assistance of the Opposition to enable it to carry on. Ministers should bear in mind that they are dependent on the rank and file of the party. If honorable members cannot meet the wishes of their constituents, they may lose their seats and the Government’s majority may disappear.

Honorable members opposite have referred to the Australia First Movement. Other more subversive forces are at work in the community, and they constitute a greater danger to the nation than do the few cranky individuals who constitute the Australia First Movement. Their influence is more sinister, particularly in industry. The supporters of an erstwhile renegade Labour leader - Trotsky-eyed revolutionaries - are seeking to obtain control of the key transport and food unions, with a view to paralysing industry completely. The Government has evidence that these disruptive forces are at work. For that reason, there should not be a long recess. If they had their way, this Parliament would never meet again. I hope that the Government will investigate their ramifications.

The Villawood estate, in my electorate, was compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth for the purpose of having erected on it a large government establishment. The Prime Minister has promised that the matter of valuations in respect of property compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth from private owners will bo reviewed, but the Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings), who has control of the matter, will not alter the existing system, even though it has operated unfairly against many persons whose properties have been compulsorily acquired. The Villawood estate was subdivided and sold to intending home builders in the boom period of 192S-29. These were not the only people who were adversely affected by the subsequent financial depression. Many of them had not completed the payment of their purchase instalments and,” being unable to continue to make them, were compelled to allow their blocks to revert to the ownership of the original holders and suffer the loss of the payments which they had made. Others who had completed the purchase were compelled to sell their blocks at a sacrifice, because they needed ready cash t,o enable them to live while the breadwinner was unemployed. The valuations placed on the blocks by the ValuerGeneral of New South Wales are considerably less than the purchase price. A married couple, who are constituents of mine, purchased two blocks at £120 each, intending to build a home on them. One of the blocks has been compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth, and the valuation placed on it for acquisition purposes is £43. These people had not completed their payments, and had to continue the instalments on the remaining block. What they had already paid on both blocks was appropriated in order to meet the deficiency on the block resumed. Thus the original vendors will derive the benefit of whatever payment may be made by the Commonwealth. Although the acquisition occurred a couple of years ago, the Commonwealth has not yet seen fit to make any payment, despite the representations that have been made in that regard.

A young lady who is contemplating matrimony had almost completed her payments, when her property was resumed at approximately one-third of the purchase price.

It may be contended that boom prices were paid for these blocks of lami. Whilst some of the purchasers sacrificed their properties during the depression, and “ cut the loss “, others continued to pay their instalments, in the expectation that eventually the land would regain its original value. This estate had a bright future, because the metropolitan residential area was extending in its direction. One gentleman sought a large site on it, intending to erect a factory, and provide homes in its vicinity for prospective employees. Had the Commonwealth not entered into occupation, the district would have become a settled suburb of Sydney. Therefore, it had an attractive value in prospect. Reasonable compensation should be paid for the land acquired, and the values should not be pegged at the low level of the depression years. The position would not be so bad if the intention were that the property should remain for all time in the ownership of the Commonwealth. But the control of the works is in the hands of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited, the big international chemical combine, and probably it is the only organization which will be able to take them over in the post-war period. As a matter of fact, there is already that tendency, because government employees have been dismissed and the permanent staff of the company has been increased. Eventually, the company will have the advantage of having obtained at a low cost properties compulsorily acquired by the Commonwealth from private individuals, and will derive the benefit of an enhanced value, whereas the dispossessed owners will have to seek elsewhere for land on which to build homes. They have lost their savings, and will have to provide from £100 to £150 in order to obtain suitable homebuilding sites in that district. Their experience furnishes strong evidence of the need for an alteration of the present system of fixing the values of properties which are compulsorily acquired by tho Commonwealth.

A widow or a retired person who may wish to purchase house property or a block of flats in order to obtain a regular income, is not permitted to do so unless the war loan investment is sufficient to warrant approval ofl the transaction by the delegate of the Treasurer (Mr. Chifley). Yet insurance companies, which have large investments in war loans, are permitted to purchase large blocks of flats at a cost of thousands of pounds. Recently, a brewery company in Melbourne purchased hotel property of a value of £500,000, without being obliged to make any further investment in a war loan. Constituents of mine, 1 have found, have not been able to purchase even a small block of land with a view to the erection of a home on it, because of the restrictions that are imposed. The question of valuations also comes into this matter. The ValuerGeneral of New South Wales makes valuations on an arbitrary basis, mainly for the purpose of rate collection. He does not attempt to examine the matter in detail; because, if a local governing body does not receive from the rates that are imposed the amount which it requires, it can increase the rate over the whole of the properties. Therefore, the ValuerGeneral’s assessment cannot he taken as a proper guide. I have here particulars of a very sad case, that of the wife of a serviceman. She resides in Bankstown, where, apparently, there are plenty of materials for the erection of buildings other than homes. This case was referred to recently in the Sydney Sun, which published a photograph of the woman and her four children who are living in a tent. The story in the Sun is as follows: -

page 2466

MOTHER IN TENT WITH 4 CHILDREN

A serviceman’s wife, Mrs. A. S. Cooper, and four children, have been living in a tent in Condell Park, Bankstown, for two weeks while waiting for a permit to buy a block of land.

Mrs. Cooper’s husband, a gunner in the R.A.N., is overseas.

Mrs. Cooper sobbed today as she told of the repeated difficulties she had faced in obtaining accommodation for herself and her children. “ We were ejected from the house we were renting in Bankstown because the owner was in the forces and wanted it for his own family,” she said. “My husband had spent all his leave earlier trying to find a house, but it was impossible, so we decided to buy some land and build a home. “We paid a deposit on the land, and had the plans drawn up and the foundations laid when I was told by Bankstown Council 1 could not go on with the building until a permit went through to buy the land,” she said.

Neighbours Help

Mrs. Cooper said she applied for the permit on 22nd February, but, in spite of repeated inquiries,. had received no reply as yet. “ I asked the council for permission to put up a temporary building while we were waiting, but it was refused,” she said. “ We didn’t have anywhere to live, so I just put up the tent without asking them.”

Mrs. Cooper said she has no facilities for washing, but receives help from her neighbours. Cooking is done over an open fire.

Mrs. Cooper and her four children ; Beverley (11), Maxie (10), Margaret (8) and Gordon (3) ; sleep on two stretcher beds and a cot. There is no room for her double bed in the tent. “ I never sleep much at night, anyway,” she said. “ I’m always frightened, because it’s so lonely here, and the tent has no door.”

A smaller tent, close by, serves as diningroom and storeroom, and contains Gordon’s cot. Both tents are lighted by oil lamps.

Those are the conditions under which a serviceman’s wife and family are living in my electorate to-day. From the woman herself I have received the following letter : -

It is with regret that I have to worry you with my troubles.

I have four young children and expect the fifth, and my husband is serving with the R.A.N, overseas.

I was evicted from the house we were in three weeks ago and we are living in tents and I didn’t know one had to have a permission to buy land; they told me under the conditions they would hurry it up, and on seeing them again a few days ago they told mc it couldn’t be helped as it was above the valuation, the valuation was ?30, the fence costing the man ?8 and he had paid rates and taxes for five years and he asked ?40. I had to pay an independent valuator and he said it was worth the money.

My health is failing through continued worry and they have applied for my husband to be returned on compassionate grounds. They have advised me the Navy to get i” touch with you. It certainly makes one wonder what a man is lighting for. He has served his country for four years. I am also enclosing the photo the Sun took last week. Hoping you can do something for me in the case. And would it be possible for an interview at a time convenient for you.

A brewery is able to get a ?500,000 property deal through without putting up any war bonds; but a serviceman’s wife is not allowed to purchase a block of land for ?40, because the price fixed by the Valuer-General is only ?30. Such a prohibition is ridiculous, especially when it is learned that the owner of the land has spent ?8 on fencing, and has paid rates and taxes for five years. The regulations should be interpreted with more flexibility by Treasury officials.

I trust that, during the parliamentary recess, the Government will pay some attention to the housing problem. The other day, I read that 30 people were living in one house. The Chief Commonwealth Architect has admitted that there is no shortage of materials for building, and, apparently, there is no shortage of labour, either. We read of members of the Civil Constructional Corps sitting around doing nothing. The other day, at St. Mary’s, men were sitting idle while waiting for .bricks to arrive on a job. The men themselves are worried at this waste, but they can do nothing about it. In the Northern Territory, Civil Constructional Corps workers were refused an interview with the Director-General of Allied Works when they sought to place before him details of the waste that was going on.

On the 28th March, the Sydney Sun published the following article: -

page 2467

HOMELESS FAMILIES IN LOOK-UP SHOPS

Many homeless families are living without the bare necessities of a bath, or cooking facilities, in one-room lock-up shops, it was revealed to-day.

In confined, windowless rooms, the families live quietly, fearing complaints that might lead to their ejection.

In Kogarah shopping centre, at least ten families are living under these conditions, agents report.

A mother and three children arc living in a window-fronted dressmaker’s shop in Montgomery-street; another family in a shop in Gray -street; two more inRegent-street.

From the outside, these shops look like vacant premises.

Mrs. E. E. Sainsbury, MonohanAvenue, Rockdale, is living with her husband and two children, aged three and eighteen months, in a former fish shop. “ There is no bath, and I do all my cooking on an electric toaster “, she said.

The space is so small we have almost to cat on our bed. There is no window, only a little grill ventilator. It is unhealthy for the babies, but we have to live somewhere.” rent of 7s.6d.

Mrs. Sainsbury said that her husband had purchased a block of land at Taren Point more than a year ago, intending to build a home.

He had money set aside for building, but was unable to get a permit.

The family has been living in the vacant fish shop, for which they pay 7s. 6d. a week, for more than four months. “ Health officers take a serious view of the situation “, said Rockdale health inspector, Mr. R. H. Orchard. “ Hundreds of lock-up shops, on inspection, were found to be sheltering mothers and children under shocking health conditions “, he said.

Even school-teachers are living under similar conditions, as the following newspaper report indicates: -

page 2467

QUESTION

GARAGE HOME FOR TEACHERS

Four women teachers were sleeping in a converted garage at Griffith and paying ?1 10s. a week for poor food, a Teachers Federation official said to-day.

Living conditions for many teachers had become primitive and deplorable, said the official, Mr. M. Kennett, assistant secretary.

The federation had now asked the Education Department to ensure that satisfactory accommodation was available before appointing teachers to country areas, he added. “ One girl teacher on the South Coast has to travel 23 miles a day in a derelict bus “, he said. “ At West Wollongong, another has no window in her bedroom. “ Single women are huddling in ramshackle flats, picking up food where they can, and paying exorbitant charges for everything.”

How can we expect the rising generation tobe properly educated when schoolteachers have to live under conditions of that kind? The Government should endeavour to prevent waste wherever it is occurring. The other day, I saw a photograph of lorry-loads of soldiers at Penrith carting sand to make an artificial beachbeside the Nepean River so that a surf carnival might be held there for one day, although a few miles away are our natural beaches. It is disgraceful that motor vehicles, tyres, petrol and man-power should be wasted in such circumstances.

I am disappointed that an interim report has not been presented to Parliament this session regarding the Government’s post-war housing programme. Who is supposed to be drawing up plans for post-war reconstruction? Certainly, Parliament has not been consulted in the matter. Members of Parliament are responsible to the people, and will eventually have to answer to them. We read in the press from time to time that it is proposed to do such and such a thing, but Parliament is given no information, nor are the Government’s own supporters. In January last, the annual conference of the Australian Labour party passed a resolution urging the appointment of a full-time Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, but nothing has yet been done to that end. We know that, in the United States of America, the Government’s post-war plans are well forward, and “ big business “ also has been drawing up its post-war programme. If the Government does not wish to appoint a full-time Minister for Post-war Reconstruction, it could, at any rate, appoint a parliamentary committee to deal with the subject. The State governments are making preparations now for the post-war period, and private members of this Parliament could be usefully employed on the same task. With the second front in Europe about to open, the war might be over before the House meets again. What a chaotic situation would exist if that were to occur, and our post-war plans were not complete. The men and women in industry, and in the fighting services, expect us to have plans made for their transfer from war to peace time occupations when the war ends. I urge that, although the matter has not been attended to during the present sittings, the Government shall give urgent consideration to it, because the people of Australia and the members of the forces look to the Government for a lead in that regard.

Mr RYAN:
Flinders

.- Two days ago when I asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) a question regarding the prices received by producers of .whole milk, I received what I consider to be a most unsatisfactory reply, one which indicated the complacency with which the Government views the situation of the dairying industry. The Minister said, among other things, that the price paid to suburban dairymen for home milk was at a record high level. I do not dispute that because I have not been able to go far enough back into the records to check the statement. But that is not the issue; the issue is that dairymen are not receiving enough. To say that the price is at the highest level ever reached proves nothing. All prices, whether of primary or secondary commodities, are at record levels.. The Minister also said that, generally speaking, this matter had not been affected by political considerations. I readily agree. I do not raise it for political motives. I recognize that the Government has done a lot to help the industry. But it has not done enough, and I want to ensure that more shall be done to make the industry more attractive. The Minister’s third contention was that the action taken by the Government in respect of this industry had proved satisfactory to the farmers. It may be commended by some farmers, but none in my district has ever done so. They are dissatisfied.

Mr Scully:

– I met some dairyfarmers from the honorable member’s electorate who said that they were satisfied and were prosperous.

Mr RYAN:

– I should like to know their names. I do not know them. The Government has produced evidence of what it calls the prosperity of the dairying industry by pointing out the large sums paid for dairy cattle to-day, particularly milking cows. We all admit that cattle prices are very high - too high.

Mr Scully:

– They are too high.

Mr RYAN:

– One reads of cows changing hands at £27 10s. and £29, and so on. In that connexion I point out two things. First, these prices are being paid by “ Collins-street farmers “, people who are not farmers in the real sense. They have country estates and they put their odds and ends of money into good stock, paying high prices. Secondly, I admit that dairy-farmers are paying high prices. But what does that mean?

Mr Scully:

– They are paying high prices for young stock, too.

Mr RYAN:

– I agree.

Mr Pollard:

– And in every country market.

Mr RYAN:

– I also agree with that, but what is the inference? It is not the inference drawn by the Government, namely, that the dairymen are paying these high prices because they are very prosperous. It is that they are paying high prices because they have to, as they have to pay high prices for bran, concentrates, hay and everything else they need. It does not follow that, because they are paying high prices, they are prosperous. They are not prosperous.

Mr Scully:

– The prices of bran and pollard are fixed.

Mr RYAN:

– At high levels. The price of hay is now £7 or £8 a ton and the quality is inferior. We had the example the other day of one of the Senate Ministers who had to pay about twenty guineas for a suit of clothes. That is not evidence of his prosperity. It is only proof that people have to pay high prices in order to get clothes. The Minister for Commerce and Agriculture will admit that the prices of all goods and services which the dairymen have to buy have risen appreciably since the war began. The cost of implements of all kinds has risen enormously. The cost of fertilizers is subsidized, but the subsidy is not sufficient to compensate farmers for the higher prices that they have to pay for fertilizers when they can obtain them. I have already referred to the increased prices of dairy cows. The new award has forced up the cost of labour. In his reply, the Minister said that the Government was helping dairymen to-day by subsidizing the cost of concentrates. Excellent as that assistance is in theory, it is of no use in practice, because the farmers cannot buy concentrates in anything like sufficient quantities. The price of oats was reduced to 2s.1d. or 2s. 3d. a bushel. That would be a real benefit if oats were obtainable, but no one can buy oats. Of what help is that?

Mr Scully:

– It will be a help when dairy-farmers can buy oats.

Mr RYAN:

– The war may be over before then, and I hope that prices of everything will then revert to something like the normal. Instead of following the practice commonly adopted in this chamber of talking in generalities, I shall present the Minister with some facts which I am sure he will be glad to get. Those facts are contained in the following statements of accounts, which all tell the same story, namely, that the price paid for whole milk is below the cost of production. Some of these statements were prepared by the Milk Board, so they should be authentic. The first two statements relate to two dairy farms of average size and the third relates to a large farm. With the consent of honorable members, I shall incorporate the statements in Hansard. They are -

Mr RYAN:

– In the foregoing statements, wages are costed in accordance with the award. In regard to farms A and B no account is taken of overtime worked by both men and their wives, amounting to about 30 hours of the week in each case. There is no question, therefore, that the dairy-farmers in general are having a bad time. That applies equally to the producers of whole milk and the producers of milk sent to butter factories. I believe that the price of milk for butter-fat should be raised considerably above what it is to-day, but I do not desire to go into that matter now, because my purpose is to refer to the plight of the whole-milk producers. I fail to see why there should be a difference of 3d. a gallon between the prices paid to dairymen who send their milk to the Milk Board in Melbourne and the prices paid to those who send their milk to towns which are outside the metropolitan area, but which, nevertheless, take large quantities. The Government should inquire whether the same price cannot be paid to all. I think, too, that early consideration should be given by the Government to increasing the price. Regardless of what the Government may think, the fact remains that the dairying industry i? going downhill rapidly. Every day, farms are being sold, and are ceasing to produce milk. They are being turned over to grazing, which is less productive

and necessary at present than is dairyfarming. Briefly, the industry to-day is nod attractive and its future after the war is being jeopardized. Great difficulty will be experienced in inducing people to return to dairy-farms because, after all, the work is hard and the reward is small.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- If the internment of members of the Australia First Movement were being discussed, not in this peaceful Canberra autumn, but in the atmosphere of danger that-prevailed in March, 1942, honorable members opposite would take a different view of the seizure of those persons during a period of dire national peril. The distinction drawn by the Opposition between quislings and “stooges” amazes me. The well-known Hitler technique is to have the brilliant man to do the propaganda work, and the “ stooge “ to pretend that nothing subversive is being attempted. The Opposition has fallen for that simple trick.

Mr Abbott:

– The Attorney-General admitted that the men were innocent.

Mr Ward:

– He did not.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) would have us believe that the members of the Australia First group were as gentle as a sucking dove, and he appears to believe that they were not conducting subversive activities against Australia. The honorable member is the man who, in a fury, suggested that striking coal-miners should be stood against a wall and shot. If these people with whom he sympathizes were reading the Tribune instead of the Publicist, he would have wanted them shot too. I have sympathy for the solicitor, the successful business man referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies), who was foolish enough to subscribe to a paper whose pro- Japanese attitude was so pronounced for years.

Dr Evatt:

– It was also pro-German.

Mr HAYLEN:

– This man, who amassed a fortune from his successful legal practice, subscribed to a paper which was delivered to him, but which, presumably, he did not open. He left himself open to be regarded as a “ stooge “.

Dr Evatt:

– The honorable member should not assume that those are the full facts of the case. I assure him that they are not. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Menzies) selected a few facts, and made a few assertions.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I was impressed with the gentleness in relation to the Australia First group of our own Gestapo, as it has been rather slightingly called. Members of this organization appear to have been given a wonderfully fair deal. The archconspirators stood revealed in their true colours. One of them, when the country was in danger of invasion, wore a soldier’s uniform and talked of “ action within the ranks “. He was a saboteur. But the shallow and misguided “ stooges “ must bear their share of the reprobation for having, been associated with a movement that proposed to sabotage our war effort. No good purpose is served in separating the saboteur from the “ stooge “.

Mr Abbott:

– Then the honorable member would treat the innocent as he would treat the guilty, and deny the accused the right of trial ?

Mr HAYLEN:

– The autumn calm of Canberra has moderated the honorable member’s attitude. For Australia, March, L942, was the blackest month of the war, and honorable members opposite would have been the first to squeal for gore if the conspirators had not been rounded up and put in a place where they could not harm the national interests.

Mr Abbott:

– All we demanded was that they should be given a fair trial. Why does not the honorable member read our remarks in Hansard^.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I have already done so.

Mr Abbott:

– Why not place the men on trial as traitors?

Mr HAYLEN:

– The AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) applied his wellknown liberalism and understanding to their cases.

Mr Abbott:

– These people were placed in an oubliette.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Hearing the protests of the honorable member, one would he excused for believing that these persons were members of a knitting circle. Their activities were investigated. The security officers are not foolish. Admittedly, they are liable to make an occasional mistake and intern an innocent person. I understand that one of the internees proposes to sue the Commonwealth Government in respect of his detention.

Mr Abbott:

– The honorable member assumes that the Government can do no wrong.

Mr HARRISON:

– The Government has offered compensation to interned men.

Dr Evatt:

– The honorable member should keep to facts. I’ made that statement in regard to one case only.

Mr HAYLEN:

– What would have happened in Broome if the Government had not taken swift measures to deal with these men? The Japanese planned to make a thrust down the coast of Western Australia. The plot “ blew up “ in that State because that was the key centre. I am satisfied that the members of the Australia First Movement were fully aware of where the Japanese planned to strike. This is not simply a puff of wind. The movement was well organized in New South Wales and Western Australia. Until the security officers gathered in these men a quisling walked down George-street, Sydney, every day, stick in hand, called at a certain place and obtained money for carrying on his activities. He spread a little gossip here and there, and made derogatory remarks about this and that. The proprietor of the Publicist went out of his way to shove the newspaper into the hands of the public. Copies were left in trains and on ferries. Even during the depression, when quite substantial newspapers were experiencing difficulty in carrying on, this man was printing more and more papers every week. Where was the money coming from ? In the heart of Sydney, a fifth column was formed comparable with similar organizations in other countries. Surely honorable members opposite do not think that the wily Japanese imagined that all Australians were incorruptible, or that the tide of victory would run so strongly in their favour that they would not require a fifth column in Australia? The fifth column was organized, and the Government deserves credit for having smashed it. The Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) was accused of having rushed panic-stricken into the chamber to announce the detention of members of the Australia First Movement. I consider that the Minister showed great judgment in informing the public, through Parliament, of their detention. If the Government had allowed these quislings and “ stooges “ to carry on their plotting, honorable members opposite would have been the first to squeal to high heaven in protest. The Government has a much more responsible job in conducting the war than in worrying about the Opposition. The Government has to interpret the feelings of the people, and ensure the safety of the country. The Government was completely justified in interning these people. Indeed, it has been very liberal towards the quislings. Honorable members opposite assert that innocent men were interned. They were undoubtedly Fascists, as every article that they wrote proves.

Mr Abbott:

– The Attorney-General said that some of them were innocent.

Mr HAYLEN:

– These people had a studied and deliberate plan to wreck Australia, and they received their rich deserts. Persons who were foolish enough to link themselves with the Juggernaut have also received their just deserts. The honorable member for Wentworth created a real atmosphere of the master spy of E. Phillips Oppenheim, when he tried to impress us with the story that some one hid a telephone underneath a rug, and that innocent persons were being whisked away in tumbrils to the internment camps. The Government is to be congratulated upon the sane and sober way in which it ensured the safety of Australia.

Mr ABBOTT:
New England

– The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) has adopted an extraordinary attitude towards the internment of some of the members of the Australia First Movement. Apparently he believes that in war-time, the civil rights and liberties of the people must be suspended, and that members of the public may be arrested on lettres de cachet and not be brought to trial. The honorable member believes that the Government can do no wrong, and’ that the innocent must suffer with the guilty. That is dictatorship. Autocrats have practised those methods since the beginning of time. Evidence of it is seen in the history of France, in the action of the Doges of Venice, and in the tyrannies of man over man throughout the ages. That attitude differs vastly from the views of a former member for Bourke (Mr. Blackburn), who said on the 27th March, 1942 -

One of the great glories of the British people has been their solicitude for a fair trial of persons charged with high treason. Long before anything was done to protect persons charged with committing felonies, the British law provided the greatest guarantees for the fair trial of persons charged with treason, particularly that they ‘should be defended at the expense of the Government. This House should not prejudice the trial of those persons. If they are alleged to be guilty of treasonable practices, their conduct should be investigated by a jury sitting under the direction and guidance of a judge.

During the same debate, the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) said -

I agree with the honorable member for Bourke that there ought to be no prejudicing of the fair trial of these people, and that they ought to be given every opportunity to establish their innocence, if they are innocent.

These men have never been brought to trial. They have never been told why they were interned. Every effort has been made to suppress the discussion of their cases in the House. When honorable members have endeavoured to secure for these persons an opportunity to exercise their civil rights, the correspondence from the internees has been held up by military censorship, in one instance for eighteen days.

Sitting suspended from 1245 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr ABBOTT:

– Certain extraordinary features of the Australia First case have a parallel in the Dreyfus case in France, which agitated French public opinion for very many years and almost wrecked the French nation. People are not likely to be satisfied in matters of this kind until justice is done. The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) has admitted that the sixteen internees of the Australia First Movement in New South Wales had no connexion whatever with the movement in Western Australia, except that certain letters had been forwarded from some people in Western Australia to them; yet they were suddenly arrested in their homes at. 4 a.m., hauled to various police stations in the suburbs of Sydney, and then thrown into Liverpool internment camp. Their wives did not know- where they were until two days after their arrest. Another curious feature of the case is that the internments were made on the 20th March under National Security Regulations, whereas the men had been arrested some days previously. On the Sunday following their detention, and before it was made public, the names of the mcn were read from a Communist platform in the Sydney Domain and then published in two illegal publications, the Tribune and the Wharfie. The heading in one of the newspapers was, “ These are the traitors “. The names were published in defiance of a direction of the Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin), and so became public property in Sydney and later throughout New South Wales and in other parts of the Commonwealth. The men have been treated with extraordinary severity. Not only were they detained on the slenderest of grounds, but they were kept in detention for many months, although the AttorneyGeneral has admitted that they were innocent.

Mr Ward:

– He has not done so.

Mr ABBOTT:

– In spite of the Minister’s remark, I say that the AttorneyGeneral has admitted that they were innocent. No one will take any notice of the interjection of the oracle at the table. The men were thrown into prison on the 10th March, 1942, and sixteen days later the Minister for the Army (Mr.

Forde) made the following extraordinary statement in this House:-

Certain people in Australia intended to make contact with the Japanese Army at the moment pf an invasion of Australia. The documents set out elaborate plans for sabotage at vulnerable points in this country . . Plans for the assassination of prominent people are set out . . . These documents indicate a fifth column activity of the worst kind by a very small band of people.

The men have demanded what the United Nations are fighting to preserve - the right of trial before a jury of their peers. They were quite prepared to have the charge of high treason levelled against them because they knew they were innocent and could prove it. Apparently, some honorable gentlemen opposite have made up their minds that all of these men were fifth columnists and that they deserve to be hanged or shot. They are prepared to deny to these men treatment similar to that which the British Government gave to Wolfe Tone, in Ireland, more than 100 years ago. He was court-martialled and sentenced to death, but when his solicitor applied for a writ of habeas corpus it was granted and Wolfe Tone was given a trial by jury. So far these members of the Australia First Movement’ have been denied such a trial, and it does not appear as though it will ever be granted, although the Prime Minister promised it in this House. Section 13 of the National Security Act provides that certain suspected persons may be held for ten days without trial,, but it proceeds -

If the Governor-General is satisfied that any arrest was made without any reasonable cause, he may award such compensation in respect thereof as he considers reasonable.

The Attorney-General should be prepared to give effect to that provision in relation to these men. They should be given a proper trial before a competent body, and if it should be shown that they were thrown into prison and interned without any evidence whatever to support such action, or on only the slenderest of evidence, it will be the duty of the Government to compensate them.

I ask honorable members to consider the characters of some of these men. The honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) had a good deal to say about Fascists, “ stooges “, and so on ; but I point out to him and to honorable gentle- men opposite that one of these men was an ex-bank manager and a man of letters, 73 years of age, who had no hostile intentions whatever against his country. Another was 57 years of age. Not any of them were young men. One was a returned soldier of the last war whose only connexion with the Australia First Movement was that he had at one time written some poems for the newspaper Publicist, which was published by the movement. Other persons interned also had no real connexion with the movement. It is difficult to understand why the request for a trial by jury has been denied these persons, or why they have been treated so rigorously. The only connexion one of the men had with the movement was that he attended a meeting at Adyar Hall, Sydney, which prominent Communists attempted to wreck. He has said that he took his wife to the meeting out of mere curiosity. When the riot occurred there, he and his wife got away. When he read in the newspapers the following day that the speakers had subsequently concluded their addresses at the meeting, he thought it was a plucky thing to do and he offered to take the chair at a meeting in another suburb. That meeting was advertised but was never held. That man was accepted for a commission in the Royal Australian Air Force, but at 4 a.m. on the same day he was dragged out of his bed and thrown into an internment camp. His wife was not told where he was for a couple of days afterwards. The man’s business was ruined; he had to take his children away from school, his life assurance policies lapsed, and, although he had been enjoying an income from personal exertion of more than £3,000 per annum, he was reduced to absolute poverty. After his release be accepted work in a munitions factory in the electoral division of Reid. He showed me a photostat of a letter signed by 170 of his fellow unionists who, being convinced of his innocence, had requested that he be given a proper trial. That petition was presented to the Minister for the Army by the honorable member for Reid.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

– That man had not even met his fellow internees until they met in the internment camp.

Mr ABBOTT:

– That is true. He was a reputable citizen of Sydney and he deserves a fair trial. Another of the individuals who was interned was a distinguished soldier of the last war who had contributed poetry to various Australian magazines and had also had some verse printed in the Publicist. His mother died while he was in the internment camp, but he was denied permission to attend her funeral except under an armed guard with fixed bayonets. Imagine such a scene around his mother’s grave and imagine such treatment of a fourth generation Australian who had served his country with distinction on the field of battle. I do not consider that the Attorney-General was particularly fair this morning in reading out certain extracts from his previous speech. He appeared to be quite prepared to allow those extracts to stand as a fair indication of the correspondence with which he was dealing until, by interjection, I extracted from him the statement that they were taken from the correspondence of three men to whom he devoted practically all his remarks.

Dr Evatt:

– I only read a few extracts, and they were by no means the worst that could have been selected’.

Mr ABBOTT:

– They were from the correspondence of the three men to whom the right honorable gentleman referred almost exclusively. To say that the members of the Australia First Movement in New South Wales were associated with the members of the movement in Western Australia and therefore deserved internment, would be just as reasonable as to say that because a man named Smith had murdered a person in Western Australia, all the people named Smith in New South Wales should be arrested. That, of course, is pure stupidity. The members of the Australia First Movement who were interned in New South Wales should be given a fair trial, and if they are found not guilty they should be compensated. Let us consider, for a moment, the position of some of the other members of the movement in New South Wales who were not interned. I have in mind a man who was a partner in a large professional firm and who, though deeply interested in the movement, was not arrested. Another man

I have in mind is also a partner in a big firm in New South Wales and he was not arrested. The Government would merely do justice if it provided the men who were interned with an absolutely fair trial, by jury, or an open inquiry which would clear their names and restore their reputations if they are innocent. One gentleman has advised me by letter that he has been living the life of a pariah almost up to the present time, scorned and abhorred by the people in the village in which he lives, because they do not believe that he is the innocent man he claims to be. One can well understand that, when one peruses the publicity in regard to these men which was given in the press when the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) made his announcement. One paragraph published by a Sydney newspaper carried the headlines : “ Treason plot charge to be laid - ‘House shocked by revelations.” It is very hard for these men to live down publicity of that kind. I ask the Attorney-General to see that they shall be given justice and fair compensation, so that they may be reinstated in their businesses and in the minds of the community at large.

Mr WARD:
Minister for Transport and Minister for External Territories · East Sydney · ALP

– There is no member of the Government party who does not believe that a fair trial should he given to anybody who is apprehended on any charge. Surely it is not suggested that the Government has not taken every step that was open to it to ensure that a fair trial would be given to anybody who might be deemed guilty of an offence. It is surprising that members of the Opposition should suddenly become concerned at the need for guaranteeing preferential treatment of quislings who were prepared to hand this country over to the enemy. The honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison) said that when, in March, 1942, the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) first raised this matter, the press reported that he entered this chamber in a panic. I do not admit that for one moment; the Minister had complete control of himself, and the Government has had complete control of the affairs of this country. But any member of this

Parliament in possession of the facts, who at that time was not greatly con- cerned as to the fate of this country, must have been sympathetically disposed towards the traitorous conduct of these persons. When the present Government assumed office, it found this country entirely defenceless and at the mercy of an invader. The very people who were responsible for that state of affairs now defend the quislings who were prepared to welcome the Japanese in the event of their arrival in this country. It is significant that these honorable members, who claim to have a mass of evidence-

Dr Evatt:

– They have not produced any.

Mr WARD:

– No evidence has been produced. They have merely made quotations from letters which they have received. If the men whom they defend were innocent of any offence, why did they select Opposition members as their correspondents in order to clear themselves? They knew that- certain members of the Opposition parties were in sympathy with the views which they were expounding, and that from those members they would receive a more ready acceptance of their statements than they would be likely to receive from the Government. The most amazing thing is that those honorable members have always endeavoured to make party political capital out of their professed consideration for returned soldiers. To-day, they are defending quislings and holding up the business of the House ; yet not one word have they said about approximately 18,000 Australians having been captured in Malaya at the time when these quislings were plotting against this country. They declaim : “ We must see that these men shall receive fair treatment “. What of thousands of Australians, left at the mercy of Japanese whom these quislings were prepared to assist ?

Mr Abbott:

– The honorable gentleman would not describe them as quislings outside this Parliament.

Mr WARD:

– If I were to quote from one of the documents seized, the honorable member for New England would find it very difficult to defend them outside. He is defending the whole of them in this Parliament.

Mr Abbott:

– I am asking that they shall he given a fair trial.

Mr WARD:

– The honorable gentleman criticized the Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) in respect of the quotations which that right honorable gentleman made from letters which these people had written.

Mr Abbott:

– Three of them.

Mr WARD:

– I now ask him whether he approves or disapproves of the internment of persons who were responsible for writing such statements in correspondence with each other. One document that was seized when the raids were made, purported to be a proclamation which was to be issued in a certain contingency. It proclaimed that these persons welcomed to this country as friends and liberators, the Japanese leaders and army. I am not surprised at the attitude of the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Harrison), because, quite possibly, the Australia First Movement with which these quislings were associated originated in the New Guard, of which he was a prominent member. That he should be one of the gentlemen whom they selected to champion their cause in this Parliament, is quite understandable. Let us consider whether or not there is any similarity between the activities of the Australia First Movement, and the New Guard of which he was a prominent member - an association that he has never denied. The New Guard held similar ideas in regard to the way in which matters should be handled in this country. Those who controlled it did not at that time suggest the assassination of prominent persons in this country, but they did prepare a list of prominent men with whom they disagreed, their intention being to place them in confinement in the old Berrima gaol. Some of them visited the home of a prominent trade union official in Sydney, and showed a disposition to do physical violence to him because they disapproved of views which he had expressed. The honorable member for New England recited the circumstances of case after case, without mentioning any names. He said : “ Here is one man, a retired bank manager, 73 years of age”. Could not a retired bank manager at 73 years ofage he a quisling?

Mr Abbott:

– Not with his record.

Mr WARD:

– The honorable gentleman also said : “ Here is another prominent business man.” A very pleasant feature of this discussion has been that, although it has been suggested that one of the men picked up was a Country party organizer, no coal-miners or trade unionists were found in the ranks of the quislings.

Let us examine the motives of these champions of liberty. At some time prior to the arrest of these quislings, two members of another political organization - Ratcliffe and Thomas - were interned. I cannot recollect the honorable member for New England and the honorable member for Wentworth having claimed that these men should be given a fair and open trial. They did not protest against their incarcerationby an anti-Labour government. Ratcliffe and Thomas were charged’ with an offence, taken before a civil court, and sentenced to imprisonment for six months. When they had served their sentences, they were interned by an anti-Labour government, without any further charge being preferred against them and without any public trial being given to them. The honorable member for Wentworth now takes a different line. He said : “ One of these men was an air-raid warden “. What does that prove? He also said: “ One was actually joining the Australian Imperial Force “. The reason was, not that he might assist to defeat the enemies of this country, but that he might have wider opportunities and greater facilities to do the nefarious work in which he was engaged. The honorable member further said : “ Some of them have made donations to loans “. Of course they have; that was a cunning way of covering up their activities. That does not prove that these men were not guilty of having engaged in the activities with which they were charged. That might be a very cunningly devised plan for the buildingup of evidence which would be produced at the appropriate time to clear them of any charge which might be made against them. Why does not the honorable member explain how he has been able to amass this pile of persona] correspondence with all these quislings? He and the honorable member for New England have evidently been on intimate terms with them, and were corresponding with them for a considerable time. If further inquiries are to be made, they might include an examination of the mass of correspondence that has been accumulated by these honorable members.

Mr Abbott:

– We will subscribe to that. We ask for a fair trial.

Mr WARD:

– I can quite understand now why honorable members opposite were afraid that their mail might be opened. The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) quoted some of the views expressed by those persons in correspondence. I shall quote others, which the right honorable gentleman omitted to mention. One reads -

The war is now hurrying Australians towards their deserved economic crash. Sooner or later I expect assassinations to “break out “ in Britain. I really do.

Another extract from the correspondence reads -

Your prophecy was correct. Adolf spent his 52nd birthday in Salonika. What a man! I suppose the British will have to “ cut their losses “ and “ save face “ the best they can. Their position is now very desperate indeed. I assume, if Germany wins, then Britain will lose Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Cyprus, Hong Kong, and perhaps Singapore. Northern Ireland will go to Eire, Canada to the U.S.A., South Africa and India -will become independent. Britain will be allowed to keep New Zealand and Australia. What do you think Hitler’s peace terms would be?

Some Opposition members pay lip service to the heroic men responsible for the defence of Australia, but while the troops are sacrificing themselves in battle, these champions of the returned soldiers use their position in Parliament to defend quislings, who want to hand the country over to the enemy. It has been said that the men had no trial. That is not true. The honorable member for Wentworth quoted from letters which suggested that there was something wrong with the way in which this matter had been handled by the Minister for the Army. Whom did he quote? A man named “Inky” Stephenson, who has been known for years-

Mr Harrison:

– I rise to a point of order. I ask that the honorable member withdraw that statement. I did not mention any one who wrote to me.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Riordan).No point of order is involved.

Mr Harrison:

– The Minister has no right to make deliberately misleading and false statements.

Mr WARD:

– Surely honorable members opposite do not suggest that any one suspected of being engaged in activities dangerous to the safety of the country should be at liberty, or that there should not be a proper inquiry before interned persons are released. Of course, we know what happened when honorable members opposite were in power. A man named Philip Raoul Hentze was taken up, but a Minister of the Crown, who is now sitting opposite me, intervened, and the man was released a few hours later, and was not again apprehended. When Italy came into the war, there was a general round-up of unnaturalized Italians, who were interned without being charged with any offence. It was a security measure. This was done so that inquiries could be made as to whether or not they should be allowed their liberty. The honorable member for Wentworth, however, believes that if a suspected person is a retired business man or a bank manager no one should dare to interfere with him. If he moves in a select circle of society he should be treated differently from everybody else. Honorable members opposite said that sixteen persons were apprehended, and only three have so far been found guilty. What about the other thirteen, they asked? They are not so concerned, however, when the coal-miners are involved in a stoppage of work due to an industrial dispute. They do not say, “ Let us find out who is guilty “. They say, “ Let us penalize all the coal-miners “. If the hank manager had received a better education than many others, that is all the more reason to believe that he knew what kind of an organization he had joined, and what were its activities.

As a matter of fact, every one of these persons had the right to appeal against his internment, and all but one exercised that right. He preferred not to do so because he was probably afraid that additional evidence might be brought to light, and the man who failed to appeal is the one specially defended by the honorable member for Wentworth. Appeals are heard by a tribunal presided over by a Supreme Court judge, and internees have the right to legal representation. Every effort is made by the Government to see that they are given a fair trial, but they are not given any sympathy if they are proved to have plotted against the safety of the State. If the Government has a fault in this matter, it is that too much leniency was shown. Honorable members opposite have had a lot to say at one time or another about those who allegedly make traitorous statements, but when their own political friends and supporters are involved, they rush to their defence, and assert that on no account must their liberty be interfered with.

I congratulate the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) on the action which he took in this matter, and upon the fairness with which the situation has been handled. He was confronted with a very difficult situation in March, 1942, when Australia was in imminent danger of invasion. And why was it in that danger? Because the honorable member for Wentworth, the honorable member for New England (Mr. Abbott), and others like them, were babbling about the sufficiency of the defences of the country when they knew perfectly well that Australia would fall an easy prey to any enemy which attacked it, because its defences had been so neglected. Instead of being concerned over the defence of . the country, they were concerning themselves with the protection of quislings. The Government has nothing to hide. When the facts are known, the people will realize that they made a wise choice in August last, when they returned the Labour party to power for what I have no doubt will be a period of many years.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
(Cowper

.- The Minister for Transport and External Territories (Mr. Ward) presents an interesting psychological study. He has demonstrated extraordinarily rapid progress in Empire sentiment and Australian loyalty. It is somewhat difficult to convince us of the genuineness of this change of sentiment during the period since the Defence (Citizen Military Forces) Act was passed. Listening to him now, one might think that he had always been the greatest protagonist of Australian defence, whereas everybody knows he was its greatest antagonist. One might think that he had always been in favour of the most active prosecution of the war, whereas everybody knows that he consistently opposed it. However, I do not propose to continue in that strain.

This is the last opportunity we shall have for many months to make certain that production in this country will be maintained. I appeal to the Government to co-ordinate the efforts of various departments in such a way that no conflict will occur and no effort will be wasted. This morning, I gave to the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) a letter stating that a man, who had been told by the man-power authorities that. hi would be exempt from military service, had been grabbed by the military police while he was ploughing in his field. He leaves on ‘his farm only his wife to milk 36 cows. She writes to say that she can get a schoolboy to help her during week-ends, but for the rest of the week she is without assistance. I told the Minister a fortnight ago that a warrant had been issued for this man’s arrest and on the 28th March he was taken away. In this instance, there was certainly lack of co-operation between the man-power authorities and the military authorities.

I again urge that something be done to provide motor tyres for primary producers who need them. I have here a letter dated the 27th March from a vegetable-grower at Port Macquarie. He says that he writes to me with reluctance, but that his application for two truck tyres has been refused, although he has a No. 4 priority. His property is 5 miles out of town, and 2 miles from the main road. If he has 2 tons of produce to transport, he can get a carrier to call for it if he himself takes it to the road. I beg the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) to take up this matter of the supply of tyres with the Acting Minister for Supply and Shipping during the recess, and try to arrange for the officials who control the issue of tyres to make exceptions in cases of extreme hardship or urgency. I have discussed this matter with various officials, and the suggestion has been made that increased facilities should be provided in the larger centres for the retreading of tyres, so that even if new tyres are not available, retreads may be obtained with which to keep vehicles on the road.

I also ask the Minister to confer with the Minister for Munitions and the Acting Minister for Supply and Shipping with a view to arranging for the establishment of pools of spare (parts in the larger country towns. In response to previous representations on the subject, I received a sympathetic letter from the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, who said he would get in touch with the official who handles this matter, but it seems to me that action is called for outside the department. In one northern district with a population of 52,000 people, most of whom are primary producers, all those concerned with the distribution of spare parts, such as farm machinery agents, garage proprietors, nominated one person to hold a stock of parts necessary to keep vehicles and machinery in operation. The suggestion was put to the authorities, but, so far, it has not been acted upon. In regard to this matter, and also in regard to the provision of producergas units, we consider that the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture and his officials should constitute themselves our champions. No one else understands our problems so well. All applications should be directed through his department, instead of having to go to a multiplicity of departments.

I wish also to say a word on the subject of potato-growing in the coastal districts, where crops are raised to meet a seasonal shortage of supplies from other places. One clause in the growers’ agreement provides that those potatogrowers shall give a fortnight’s notice of when they will dig their crops, but they are peculiarly the victims of the weather. They cannot comply with that provision because, having given that notice, they may have their calculations upset. Rain may fall for a week or ten days, making the ground too sodden for potato-digging. That provision, which causes them a lot of worry, should be either eliminated or so modified as to exempt them. Another aspect is that these growers arrange their sowing in order that they may crop in the off season in other districts. They may have a good season one year and a mediocre the next, with a lot of small potatoes called “ chaps “. They have a subsidy, but they would like an assurance of freedom to market when there is an absolute shortage.

Mr Scully:

– I have discussed that very point with the Potato Board, which assures me that it will be able profitably to dispose of all grades of potatoes this season. I understand that the board is making a special study of the particular problem mentioned by the right honorable gentleman, which is a real injustice to the potato-growers.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– I welcome the Minister’s statement, and I appreciate his sympathy. Another matter, which I have already discussed with the Minister personally, is the fact that potatogrowers in the northern districts are able to obtain certificates that their consignments are up to standard at every station to which they are consigned except Sydney. If similar arrangements could be made at Sydney, the growers would be immensely relieved. If the Minister will give effect to the suggestions I have made, constructively and not critically, the growers will be able to approach the coming sowing season with greater confidence.

Mr Scully:

– I have taken that matter up with the Potato Board. We are trying to arrive at a decision whereby the scheme outlined by the right honorable gentleman will be given effect. I concede that there is an anomaly.

Mr FRASER:
Monaro · Eden · ALP

– I direct attention to the fact that in Canberra a number of public servants and other Commonwealth employees are receiving substantially less than the basic wage. That is occurring within half a mile of Parliament House, and, I believe, inside Parliament House itself. The injustice of the position is increased by the fact that many of those who are being so employed are returned servicemen of the present war and married men with families to support. The basic wage in the Australian Capital Territory is £276 a year. That wage is based on the formula laid down by the Commonwealth Arbitration Court as providing the absolute minimum for a decent existence. Yet, in the national capital, public servants and other Commonwealth employees are being paid £264, some slightly more and some slightly less, £12 less than the amount which,, according to the Commonwealth Arbitration Court’s investigations, is necessary for a minimum of decent existence.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Is the honorable member referring to those who are non-unionists? Is that the reason for this reduction?

Mr FRASER:

– No ; the manner in which this is brought about is that these employees are classified by the Public Service Board as assistants, although some of them at least are performing duties foi- which their predecessors received £100 a year more. They are performing the work of clerks. The classification of “ assistant “ is contained in the Public Service determination governing the employment of members of the Public Service Assistants Association and the Amalgamated Postal Workers Union. There is also a classification of “ assistant “ under the determination governing the employment of members of the Federated Clerks Union who are employed as temporary clerks in the Commonwealth Public Service. But under that determination the classification of “ assistant “ applies only to females. However, I know of cases of married former soldier members of that organization who are being employed as assistants by the Public Service Board, although I can find nothing in the determinations covering them which allows their employment as assistants. I may be told that, although these employees are not receiving the basic wage which is appropriate to Canberra, they are receiving the Public Service base rate. I suggest that that is not an answer, because the fact remains that they are receiving substantially less than the amount which the Commonwealth Arbitration Court says is a minimum for a decent family existence. It is no satisfaction for a man to have said to him, “We admit that we are not paying you sufficient for you to rent a house, clothe your family, buy food, and so on, but we would point out to you that if you lived somewhere else, 600 miles away, this would be quite sufficient, and you would have no complaint “. That is not an answer. The policy is to ensure that any one employed by this Government shall receive at least the amount which is the decided minimum wage in the place in which he is employed, needed to provide him and his family with the amenities of a frugal existence. That principle is recognized by the Public Service Board in many other places than Canberra. District allowances are paid to Commonwealth employees who have to live in towns where the cost of living is higher than the average for Australia. For instance, to cite one case, in Balranald, a male employee receives a district allowance of £20 a year and a female employee £10 a year to compensate for the higher cost of living in Balranald. 1 think that if Canberra had a member in this Parliament this injustice would not have endured for a year, and that if. it had a member of the calibre of the member who represents Balranald, this injustice would not have endured for a day. But, because Canberra has no representative, this anomaly has continued year after year, notwithstanding various efforts which have been made to correct it. Various cases have been put for the establishment of a district allowance for Commonwealth public servants at Canberra. I ask that the Government review this position urgently, because to-day it is difficult enough for any one to exist on the basic wage, and it is a hardship and injustice to call upon any one to exist upon less. The matter is becoming more serious because the Public Service Board has increased over the months the number of persons it employs . under this classification as assistants. ‘Some men who are so classified to-day are doing really responsible work which was formerly recognized as being worth at least the salary of a clerk. 1 ask the Government to give attention to this matter because, as I say, some of the men who are being treated so unjustly have returned from active service in this war and have the right to employment which will give to them at least the minimum standard of .a frugal existence.

Mr BERNARD CORSER:
Wide Bay

– Some months have passed since the Government decided, in. the interests of the food requirements of this country and its allies, to establish plants for the dehydration of fruit and vegetables. I have made strong representations on behalf of the Gympie, Merivale and Maryborough districts of Wide Bay for the establishment of such plants in those areas, pointing out the extraordinary possibilities that exist, but without avail, notwithstanding that I have repeatedly endeavoured to impress upon the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) the opportunities that the Government is missing by its failure to comply with my request. Yesterday [ received, through the courtesy of the Minister, an answer to my inquiries as to how the policy of dehydrating green vegetables is working out. I have found that no dehydration plant has been established or is in prospect in Queensland. The numbers of dehydration plants that have been established by the Government for processing vegetables are as follows: - New South Wales, 6; Victoria, 6; South Australia, 5; Western Australia, 2; Tasmania, 5 ; and Queensland, nil; a total of 24.

Some months ago, the Minister told me in answer to a question that the position of Queensland was rather different from that of other States in that the presence of so many servicemen gave the Queensland producers a local market. That was offered as an excuse for Queensland’s having been overlooked. But that position does not exist to-day. Our servicemen have passed on to other areas. I asked the Minister how many dehydration plants were in prospect and he gave me the following figures: - New South Wales, 8; Victoria, 3; South Australia, 1 ; and Queensland, nil.

I cannot understand why Queensland is being neglected. Being regarded as a primary producing State, Queensland has been neglected when the Government has established new secondary industries. When 36 dehydration plants are being erected, why should Queensland be overlooked? The post-war implications of this policy are serious. Various Ministers have indicated that after the war, government factories, now engaged in war pro duction, will be utilized for the manufacture of peace-time requirements. Queensland will be forgotten again. In addition, plants for dehydrating fruit have been erected in various States - one in Victoria, four in South Australia, three in Western Australia, arid one in Tasmania. The plants in South Australia and Tasmania are capable of dehydrating either fruit or vegetables. This apparent discrimination against Queensland, which is not confined to the erection of the factories, is causing a good deal of concern. Replying to a question a few weeks ago, ‘ the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture declared that rice-growing would not be permitted in Queensland. He stated that State Ministers for Agriculture, at a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council, reached a “ gentleman’s agreement “ under which the production of sugar would be left to’ Queensland and the production of rice would be left to New South Wales. Why must Queensland not grow rice? The civil population is unable to get supplies. Queensland is as much in the war as the other States. Its men are fighting side by side with troops from other States. In entering my emphatic protest against this discrimination, I urge the Minister to review the position and authorize the erection of dehydration plants in Queensland. Great opportunities are being lost because these plants are not available. When I returned from abroad a primary producer in my electorate offered me his onion crop at £2 a ton on the farm, because he had no means of processing or marketing them. In other States, onions were bringing a much higher price. Queensland deserves more encouragement than it is receiving from the Commonwealth.

  1. do not adopt a parochial attitude and begrudge developments in other States, but I recommend the Government to consider the building of hydro-electric works throughout the country. Compared with the primary producers of other countries, our primary producers need hydro-electric power to reduce their costs of production, overcome man-power difficulties, and provide domestic amenities that are now lacking. Hydro-electric power would increase production, stimulate enterprise and enlarge the rural population. As a post-war plan, it should commend itself to the Government. The necessary machinery could he manufactured in Australia, thereby providing a great amount of employment, whilst the hydro-electric power schemes would absorb a large number of men for a considerable period.

I hope that the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. Holloway) will remember the promise that he made to me a few weeks ago to provide manpower for the sugar industry in Queensland. The Minister should make it his business to obtain that man-power in order to avoid a repetition of the waste and confusion experienced during the last crushing season.

Mr WILSON:
Wimmera

.- I regret that I was not present earlier this week when the House debated legislation dealing with the wheat industry. I impress upon the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture (Mr. Scully) the necessity for speeding up payments to wheat-growers for pool wheat. The payments which have been made, even on the guaranteed portion of the crop, have not been large. Indeed, some farmers find that the payments barely cover the cost of production, whilst other farmers complain that they are actually below the cost of production. Growers who suffered a crop failure last season urgently require assistance. I do not propose to repeat the remarks which I made on this subject on a previous occasion, because the facts are well known to the Minister. Briefly, the position is that many hundreds of growers, particularly in Victoria, are having the greatest difficulty in financing the sowing of wheat for the forthcoming season. They do not know how they will manage, because they had no returns last year. When I have tried to obtain assistance for them, I was reminded that the State governments have some responsibility in the matter. Whilst admitting that they have, I contend that the Commonwealth has the major responsibility and should make an approach to the States to assist, on a cooperative basis, those sections that are in need of help. Although the Parliament is about to go into recess, the Minister should not forget the plight of this unfortunate section and should take action to assist them as quickly as possible. TIme i?. of the essence of the contract.

Their problem is intensified by other problems arising out of the war, including man-power. I hope that sympathy will be shown to them by the Government.

The Minister is advocating increased sowings of wheat so as to ensure ample reserve supplies for the purpose of meeting the post-war demand, which, every one believes, will be very great for a few years after the cessation of hostilities. 1 shall not amplify this point, because I spoke on this subject at some length recently; but I remind the Minister that the regulations controlling the sowing of wheat are rather rigid, and the stabilization authorities are refusing to grant licences to many growers who have plant and equipment for the sowing of increased areas. As the Minister may not be aware of what is happening, I urge him to take positive steps, within reasonable limits, to remove the restrictions. Many municipalities in wheat-growing areas are asking for the complete removal of restrictions for the period of the war and for some time thereafter. The suggestion contains considerable merit, and T submit it to the Minister for consideration. If he considers that the proposal would be too drastic, I commend to him the intermediate course of granting discretionary powers to those bodies that are administering the stabilization scheme. As another incentive to increased production, I strongly recommend an increase of the guaranteed price under the Scully wheat plan. I do not advocate a high price. Indeed, too high a price is not always a blessing to the industry because it has a bad effect. It produces fluctuations of values.

Mr Rankin:

– Land prices are also inflated.

Mr WILSON:

– Too high a price leads to an increase of land values and working costs, which quickly offset any advantage that the farmer received from the high values. Farmers prosper when the price is moderate, and continues so for a period of. years. I believe that .the Minister realizes that, and will pursue that policy.

As a grower and as a representative of growers, I express my appreciation of the efficient work of the Australian Wheat Board in handling immense quantities of wheat. Recently, an election of growers’ representatives was held; they comprise the majority of members of the board. The Government has conceded this democratic principle of majority grower representation, and the producers themselves greatly appreciate it. While I am dealing with this subject, I desire to refer to the tactics that have been adopted by private enterprise, which is opposed to the continuation of the handling of wheat in Australia by the board. Some sections of private enterprise desire to revert to the old system. Under that system they had a wonderfully profitable time for many years and reaped rich rewards at the expense of the wheat-growers, who do not desire a return to such conditions. The farmers believe that they have achieved their objective, in part at least, by the establishment of the compulsory wheat pool. The methods that are being adopted by persons and1 organizations with a vested interest in a return to control of the wheat industry by private enterprise were revealed during the recent campaign for the election of grower representatives on the Wheat Board. The private firms did their utmost to defeat certain individuals who were strongly supporting the existing policy. This is shown by the following circular issued by the Victorian Grain Agents’ Association : -

page 2483

V.G.A.A

page 2483

VICTORIAN GRAIN AGENTS’ ASSOCIATION

Confidential

Grain Agents know they have been treated badly by the Australian Wheat Board.

Messrs. Everett and Pearse have been the Government’s nominees to represent the growers on the Board.

A change of representatives could not make the position of the agents or growers any worse, but should make it a lot better.

Messrs. Lily and Holland are two gentlemen who have been endorsed by the Wheat Growers’ Association to contest the election for the growers’ representatives on the Board. We recommend you to work quietly and effectively for the return of Messrs. LILY and HOLLAND.

See that votes are not split by voting or recommending votes for any of the other candidates.

  1. E. Lyle, President.
  2. H. H. Donn, Secretary.

Feb., 1944

I direct attention also to the following circular issued by the Grain Agents’ Association of South Australia: -

page 2483

THE GRAIN AGENTS’ ASSOCIATION OK SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Incorporated.) Circular.

G2 Gawler-.place, Adelaide.

page 2483

C.2T24

9th February, 1944.

Dear Sir,

In connexion with the election at present being conducted for the selection of a growers’ representative on the Australian Wheat Board, certain incorrect statements are being circulated which must be refuted.

In the issue of the S.A. Wheatgrower, dated 27th January, 1944, Mr. Maycock accuses the country agents of inefficiency. This accusation from Mr. Maycock is resented, as agents are doing all possible under trying conditions, to assist the Wheat Board to carry out its work in a satisfactory manner. In fact, the general manager of the Australian Wheat Board, Mr. J. H. Thompson, has expressed satisfaction at the manner in which agents have discharged their duties, and in the light of such statement, it is difficult to understand Mr. Maycock’s unwarranted attack on South Australian wheat agents.

Mr. Maycock’s attitude is rather conflicting when later in his paper he mentions it would be a tragedy if the present members of the board were not returned. In this regard, we enclose a copy of a sharp rejoinder from the Minister of Commerce and Agriculture, Mr. Scully, concerning the statements of one of Mr. Maycock’s colleagues on the board as being “Wild and Inaccurate”.

We cannot permit untrue statements reflecting upon the integrity of the service we render to growers to pass unchallenged, and would be pleased if you would take every possible step within the next few days to impress upon growers that agents are doing all possible to handle the business of farmers efficiently, notwithstanding that they are harassed with all forms of Government and arbitrary control, and are receiving less net remuneration than in pre-war days.

It is hoped that growers will not be misled by the reckless accusations of Mr. Maycock, but will select a representative who will not deliberately misconstrue the true position.

Yours faithfully. For and on behalf of the Committee, H. E. A. Edwards, Chairman.

Those circulars may be regarded as legitimate propaganda, but they certainly misrepresent the true position. From my inspection of wheat stacks throughout the wheat-growing States of Australia, I am able to say that the difference between the work done by the Australian Wheat Board and that done by private firms is all in favour of the board. Interests which are opposed to the pooling system carried their activities into the last federal election campaign and made a strong effort to secure my scalp. No expense was spared in publishing advertisements in country newspapers and in issuing circulars designed to withdraw support from me. Typical of these is the following circular -

page 2484

QUESTION

VICTORIAN WHEATGROWERS CORPORATION LIMITED

17 Queen Street,

Melbourne. 17th August, 1943. Circular

Dear Sir,

The Australian Wheat Board have informed us that in future it is their intention to themselves issue all Wheat Certificates, and themselves pay all growers for wheat delivered to the board.

In respect of bulk wheat, we have in the past received one-eighth of a penny per bushel for this work- one-sixteenth of a penny being paid to you for what you do. This amount will apparently not be available to you in the future.

In respect of bagged wheat, we presume that some reduction will be made in your and our commission.

This will entail a considerable increase in the staff of Government employees to do this work, and represents a further step towards the socialization of the industry and the elimination of private enterprise. .

In fact, it almost looks as if this is the sole motive for the change, as little or no saving in cost can be effected by the board, whilst there is a probability of an actual increase in cost.

On Saturday next you will have an opportunity of deciding whether we are to have socialization or remain free.

Yours faithfully, (Signed) R. Tilt, Manager.

There can be no doubt that the privately controlled firms interested in the wheat industry are doing everything they can, in both the political and commercial spheres, to regain the place which they once held, but I assure the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture that the wheat-growers desire the Australian Wheat Board to take over the whole of the handling and clerical work in relation to the wheat industry. I hope that the Minister will do everything in his power to ensure the success of these efforts.

I urge the Government to request the Department of the Army and the Manpower Directorate to make immediate and definite public statements concerning their future policy for the release of man-power from the Army for work in agricultural areas. A flood of statements of an indefinite and even contradictory character simply confuses the issues. The farmers do not know where they stand. I trust that all reasonable proposals for the release of manpower for work on the food front will be acceded to without delay. The mail of honorable members of this Parliament has been greatly increased by communications from people in rural areas who have been disappointed by the results of their requests for releases. I ask the Government to give prompt and sympathetic consideration to all requests for the release from war service of men who have been on the battle fronts for three and a half years or longer in order that they may return to agricultural work. Many of these men are war-weary, their health has been undermined by tropical diseases, and they are unable to perform their war duties as satisfactorily as they would desire to do. If they could be returned to their homes in rural areas they would regain their health and would be able to render far more satisfactory service to the nation. Their places in the battle line could be taken by younger men eager to see service. I am sure the people and the Parliament alike would approve of the release of such men.

Recently I directed attention to remarkable variations in the percentage of loans granted to applications made in the various States by the management of the Mortgage Bank Department of the Commonwealth Bank. In New South Wales between 47 per cent, and 48 per cent, of such applications have been granted, whereas in Victoria the percentage is between 12 per cent, and 13 per cent., and in the other States it is even lower than that. It would appear that there is a lack of uniformity in valuations, or that in some States the basis of valuation is far too conservative. Another reason for the variation is, in my opinion, that the Commonwealth Bank has many branches in New South Wales which engage in ordinary banking activities. These branches were formerly units of the New South Wales Government Savings Bank which were taken over by the Commonwealth. I am satisfied from my inquiries that the managers of these branches in New South Wales have a much better understanding of the needs of the rural community and make much more reliable valuations than do the authorities dealing with the Mortgage Bank Department of the Commonwealth Bank in the other States. I suggest, therefore, that the Government should take steps to develop the Commonwealth Bank as an ordinary trading institution in the other States, so that the work done there may be as satisfactory as the work that is being done in New South Wales. Unless the operations of the Mortgage Bank Department be related more definitely to the needs of the rural community in the States other than New South Wales the people generally will continue to be greatly disappointed, and the development of our rural areas will be hindered. So far, the operations of the Mortgage Bank Department of the bank have been a great disappointment to many people. A beginning has been made. From the assurances I have received, I anticipate very great improvements in regard to both the method of making finance available and the rate of interest that is to be charged.

I commend to the serious consideration of the appropriate Ministers, and to the Government as a whole, the matters to which I have referred. I trust that before we meet again the Government will have acquiesced in the changes I have suggested.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– There are only two matters with which I shall deal. One of them relates to an aspect of the argument concerning the Australia First Movement. The type of job which has to be done can always be recognized by the class of workman who is sent to do it. The remarks of the Minister for Transport (Mr. Ward) did no credit to the Government, and were quite beside the point. The question is whether or not certain men who were interned had a fair trial. During the progress of this war, I have always, from both sides of this chamber, pronounced the dictum that there is a vital distinction between men in Australia who were enemy aliens when war broke out, and men who are naturalborn. If a man who is natural-born has something alleged against him of the nature of the allegation of two years ago, the internment camp is no place for him; the appropriate place is in the dock of the criminal court. If the Government has sufficient evidence to warrant a fraction of what was said by the Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) on that occasion, then it had ample justification for preferring a charge under the Crimes Act, and in no circumstances should the man be dealt with by the softer but less understandable method of internment. A matter that has never been explained is how it happened that, as soon as these men were interned, their names were available to an illegal Communist paper ; all of them were published accurately in it. The hostility of the Communists to this particular section was well known. I am told by men who understand the position that in Sydney it was notorious. One is left with the awkward suspicion that perhaps the Communist party could tell the Government much more about how these people came to have charges made against them than the Government has been prepared to tell us. Perhaps the Government knows that. But that does not get away from the fact that there is a case to answer. The Attorney-General (Dr. Evatt) admitted that one man remaining in internment had been offered certain terms, upon the acceptance of which the Government was prepared to release him. Another man who was released, was offered a sum of money. For what purpose? There could be only one purpose, namely, that he should forgo any rights he might have at law against the Commonwealth. That is not a nice admission, coming from the Attorney-General, who in these matters must speak on behalf of the Commonwealth Government. The matter cannot bc left where it is. It cannot be shelved by a volume of abuse, vituperation and muck-raking by Ministers or any of their supporters. These people were either guilty or not guilty of the offences with which they were charged. If they were guilty, some of them should have forfeited their lives. But if they were not guilty, then there has been a very grave and unprecedented miscarriage of justice in this country. There I leave the matter.

The other subject to which I desire to refer, and that very briefly, is the use of some money during the recess. We have had one or two experiences during this sessional period which I hope will not be repeated. You, Mr. Riordan, as Chairman, will report in due course to the House. I suggest that the Government, during the recess, should make arrangements to have the Speaker’s Chair shifted from where it now stands. It should be absolutely in the centre of the Government benches. In place of the Speaker’s Chair, there ought to be something in the shape of a tombstone, with this inscription: “Sacred to the memory of Freedom of Speech, strangled 1.944, but not forgotten “.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- 1 hope that the Parliament will not be for long in recess. This is the place in which national matters should be discussed. It is not satisfactory to the people that they should be governed by fiats and codes issued by Ministers and by National .Security regulations churned out at great speed. Only in this place can matters be properly discussed with advantage to the nation. I hope that the Parliament will meet every quarter. A heavy burden will rest on the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Forde). It would be better for hi,m to have the Parliament sitting than to be subjected to criticism elsewhere.

I hope that the appropriate Ministers will give attention to several matters which, I believe, will arise during the recess. For many months, a report has been in the hands of the Government in respect of Australia’s future in relation to international and internal aviation. A summary of it has been published in the press, but no full statement upon the matter has been made to the Parliament. I have asked many questions, and have been told - and believe - that the report is held by the Minister for Civil Aviation (Mr. Drakeford), because he has not yet succeeded in getting the Cabinet sub-committee, or the Cabinet as a whole, to deal with it. 1 know that the present is a time of stress. Nevertheless, this is an important matter. It is closely related to Australia’s posi tion in the world in connexion with air communication and, in fact, generally. If we do not plan now for post-war civil aviation, we shall be “ left at the post “.

Hundreds of wives of Australian servicemen have been left in Britain, and questions have been asked in this Parliament with a view to learning when they will have the opportunity to travel to Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr. Curtin) has stated that rapacious shipping companies are requiring exorbitant fares. That may be. I hope that they are not, although I believe that they are. But these people should not be the victims of the fares charged by shipping companies. Some arrangement should be made for their early transport. The Government of New Zealand must have to pay equal fares, yet I understand that wives of servicemen have been brought to that dominion free. The task should not be beyond the ability of the Australian Government. A large number of the men concerned are members of the Forestry Unit. Some of them have been demobilized; yet their families are broken up and separated, simply because a proper arrangement cannot be made.

Certain Australians who are members of the Royal Air Force and have completed a period of service in Britain, and certain Australian civilians, wish to return to their native land. When they inquire at Australia House as to the possibility of obtaining a passage, they are told to return in two years’ time. 1 know that there is a long waiting list of persons who want to return to Australia. Nevertheless, that something is not done is evidence of considerable ineptitude. Australia can send troops overseas. Air crews leave this country regularly, and it is grand to see that they are taking part in operations in other parts of the world with great credit. When the vessels are sent back to Australia, passage on them should be granted to those Australians who wish to return home. May I suggest, too, that many hundreds of orphaned children of British servicemen be brought, to this country ? The Prime Minister has declared that he is sympathetic to that idea, but the matter seems to have been forgotten. I trust that at least the matters of stranded Australians and the wives of servicemen who have been left for so long in Britain will soon be adjusted.

  1. third matter which has been quite unsatisfactorily dealt with is that of land acquisition. The Commonwealth has compulsorily acquired, in the Essendon district, a lot of land mainly belonging to poor people who had paid deposits on it.

The Prime Minister was impressed when the matter was brought to his notice, and promised that an inquiry would be held. Honorable members on both sides of the chamber cited cases of people .who had not had a fair deal. Later, however, we were advised that the existing practice was to be continued. The Minister for the Interior (Senator Collings) claims that he acts on outside advice as well as on departmental values. If that be so, I can only say that the outside advisers must be twenty years out of date. Everybody knows that values have risen in that and other districts. The acquisition of the land of these people, who did not want to sell it and were left in debt in consequence, is altogether ludicrous. Just, if not generous, treatment ought to be meted out to them.

The Government has not a policy in respect of the building of homes for returned soldiers. I asked what had been the activities of the War ‘Service Homes Commission for a period of four years, and how many homes it had built, and received the amazing reply that thirteen homes had been built for men who had fought in the last war and two for men who had fought in this Avar. I asked what staff the department had, and was informed that, allowing for men who had gone on service, the number was 123. There are a commissioner, six deputy commissioners, six architects, and a large number of clerks and typists. When I raised the matter in this House the Prime Minister said, “ We cannot make bricks without straw “. We have heard lately of the intention to inaugurate a big building scheme in various States. Let us hope that that is true. Servicemen, when discharged on account of wounds or sickness, have to scramble with people who have more money, even to get a room in which to live. The Melbourne Sun has shown the squalid conditions in which people have had to live in that city. There has been much talk by the crystal gazers employed by the Government, in regard to a wonderful post war world. The world of to-day is the post-war world of men discharged from this war. So far as they are concerned, the war is over; and they are confronted with a state of affairs such as they had never experienced up to the time of their enlistment: I know that the War Service Homes Commission is efficient. It built thousands of homes for men who returned from the last war. I exhort the Government to see that materials shall be made available for building schemes and other works in different parts of the continent, at least for the benefit of these men who do not strike, who cannot sit down and complain, and who undertake any duty, however hazardous, yet do not receive the pay of the ordinary working man. They are our real defenders, and Australia’s right arm, despite all the talk of what is done by the working man. They should be given priority in connexion with whatever houses may be built, and the Commission should be allowed to proceed with this work.

I have emphasized matters to which reference had previously been made. This has been a strenuous sessional period. I hope that Ministers will not consider that during the recess they will be immune from criticism. I assure them that if matters of urgency are not finalised there will be a strong clamour in the community. I suggest that they go ahead with these matters in particular.

Many members of the air crews of the Royal Australian Air Force, who have been kept in Australia for two or three years, want to get into action. It should not be beyond the power of those who arrange such matters to see that there shall be rotation of service. Many men have been serving excellently overseas, some of them in rather isolated units in Burma and India. When they have had a long period of service, and have completed a large number of operational hours, they should be exchanged with other personnel who are in Australia, and are waiting to take their places. I realize that they form a part of a great machine, and that therefore Australia cannot claim that they should be brought back in large numbers to this country. But at least, if a policy were laid down, and it was stated that in three years these men would have the right to return, and that others would take their places after one operational tour or a specified number of hours, thatwould be heeded by the authorities overseas. The commanders of the Royal Air Force units in which Australians are serving would gladly, after the good service they have rendered, see that the change was effected. A generous attitude should also be adopted towards the mcn when they return. Because of the experience they have gained, they should be asked to submit reports in the light of what they have learned, and not be placed in more or less subordinate positions. Suitable positions should be kept open for them so that, when they return, full advantage may be taken of their experience.

Mr SMITH:
Wakefield

.- Honorable members are aware that medical practitioners in Australia have had heavy demands made upon them in recent years. A great many doctors are serving with the forces, and the places of some of them have been taken by refugees from overseas. I do not wish to cast any reflections on refugee doctors as a body. I recognize that we owe much to them, but there is cause for complaint against a few. I have brought this matter to the attention of Ministers, and have been told that it is a matter for the State authorities. Some of the refugee doctors who have come here to enjoy the shelter and amenities provided by Australia are now doing their best to pick the eyes out of other men’s practices. In one country town in the far north of South Australia, a refugee doctor entered into an agreement with a Statesubsidized hospital for a period of twelve months, but before the term was up he broke his agreement in order to take over the more profitable practice of a doctor who had joined the Army. I ask the Government to take the matter up with the .State authorities with a view to their ensuring that, when an agreement of this kind is entered into, it shall be honoured. In this case, great inconvenience was caused the local authority with which the refugee doctor had made an agreement which he subsequently broke.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- The Supply which was given to the Government earlier in the day will enable it to carry on, so far as finances are con cerned, until the end of September. 1 sincerely hope that this does not mean that Parliament is not to be called together for a long time. There is abroad in the community consider able- disquiet at what is felt to be the unreasonable and capricious behaviour of bureaucrats. Almost daily, honorable members have brought to their notice cases in which it is considered that some department or official has behaved unreasonably or unjustly. The recent revelations regarding the prying of the censorship authorities into internal communications, not for the purpose of discovering offences against national security, but to discover evidence of almost trivial offences against war-time regulations, have been very disturbing to the public. They believe that their only protection lies in a parliament which meets regularly, and expresses itself freely. When I speak of bureaucrats, I do not refer to members of the permanent Public Service, for whom I have a great respect. It is significant that most of the complaints are about officials in the newly created departments, for the most part temporary officers, who have little or no previous experience of- public service, and who have not developed that capacity and judgment which characterizes the permanent official. The Government has appointed a committee Which, during the recess, will conduct, I hope, a far-reaching investigation of all phases of censorship. If it does its job thoroughly, and is frank insofar as the requirements of security permit, the public will be much relieved.

Mr CALWELL:
ALP

– The newspapers will not get much out of it.

Mr HOLT:

– I hope that all aspects of censorship, including censorship of news items and of newspaper articles, will receive proper attention. I raise the matter now because some of the newer departments are apparently maintaining their own secret agents. The Government has taken the sound view that censorship is justified only on grounds of national security. The privacy of individuals should not be invaded by Commonwealth functionaries, and there should be no prying into mails m- telephone conversations, except in the interests of national security. In time of peace, the Commonwealth was being constantly pressed by State governments to make known silent telephone numbers, so as to make it possible to track down persons who were committing breaches of State laws. The Commonwealth consistently took the attitude that the paramount consideration was to preserve the confidence of the public in the privacy of Commonwealth communications, and it resisted the requests. Of late, information obtained by the censorship authorities has been used to launch prosecutions in respect of breaches, not against national security as it is generally understood, but against war-time regulations. That is an improper use of censorship, and one that cannot help but cause concern in the minds of the people.

The particular matter to which I wish to refer came to my notice only recently. [ have been informed by a lady, a constituent of mine, who owns a block of six flats, that she recently had a visit from two officers of the Prices Branch. In July of last year, she was taken to the Fair Bents Court by a tenant, who sought a reduction of the rent of £2 7s. 6d. a week for an unfurnished four-roomed flat with a garage, and the rent was reduced by 3s. a week. A few weeks ago, this lady, who owns the flats, and who lives in a villa next door, received a visit from two officers of the Prices Branch who arrived in a Government car, driven by a lady chauffeur. They asked if they could interview her and, though she was somewhat surprised, she assented. Then, to her astonishment, they put her through a sort of third degree on the ground that her next- . door neighbour had complained that she was creating a nuisance by playing the radio too loudly, banging an iron gate, and turning off the water, either to conserve supplies or to improve the pressure. One of the men took notes of everything she said. I suggest that if every department is to have a security branch of its own for the investigation of domestic complaints of this kind, which could very well be ventilated through the ordinary courts, if need be, we shall rapidly establish a gestapo-like organization of the kind which exists in Germany, Russia, Italy, &c. There should be an investigation of the activities of “ snoopers “ of this kind.

Dr Evatt:

– They are under the control of the Prices Branch.

Mr HOLT:

– I am not complaining that the Attorney-General’s Department is at fault, but I am telling the AttorneyGeneral that apart from the necessary organization that exists in that department and the service departments, we apparently have another department which is using its officers, not to check breaches of the prices regulations, hut to investigate domestic and trivial complaints.

Dr Evatt:

– It is in the nature of war departments to aggrandize themselves, and we have to watch them and check them. I am glad to have the honorable member’s support.

Mr HOLT:

– “Whenever members of Parliament see abuses of this kind, it is their responsibility to place them before Parliament or the Minister concerned.That is my sole purpose in raising this matter.

Dr Evatt:

– Hear, hear! I am glad the honorable gentleman has brought up the matter.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- There is one matter to which I wish to refer, and that is the referendum on the Constitution Alteration (Post-war Reconstruction and Democratic Rights) Bill. The electoral law provides for the preparation and distribution of a pamphlet presenting the case for and against any proposed alteration of the Constitution. The law contemplates that if Parliament decides that a proposal for the alteration of the Constitution shall be submitted to the people the instrument of government shall be used and public funds shall be employed to present equally to the people the case for the amendment and the case against the amendment. We know, of course, that within the command of the government of the day very wide opportunities of publicity and propaganda exist. I put it to the Government - and I hope that it will be proved from the treasury bench that it is not necessary - that just as the law provides that in the official pamphlet the cases for and against shall ‘be equally submitted, that principle should be applied in respect of all mediums of propaganda and publicity within the command or under the influence of the Government.

Mr Menzies:

– Hear, hear!

Dr Evatt:

– What does the honorable member want us to do?

Mr McEWEN:

– I want the Government to give that assurance. The right honorable gentleman may tell me that it is unnecessary, and that the Government has no other intention.

Dr Evatt:

– To do what? Does the honorable member think we are going to distribute propaganda to advocate a “ No “ vote ? Parliament has expressed its judgment on this matter.

Mr McEWEN:

– The right honorable gentleman cannot answer my question before he hears it.

Dr Evatt:

– Put it then.

Mr McEWEN:

– Parliament has not decided that there shall be an alteration of the Constitution.

Dr Evatt:

– Certainly it has.

Mr McEWEN:

– Oh, no! Parliament has decided that there shall be submitted to the people–

Dr Evatt:

– Parliament has decided that there shall be an alteration of the Constitution subject to the approval of the people; but I assure the honorable gentleman that provisions as to the statutory pamphlets will he carried out and that the “ Yes “ side and the “ No “ side will be equally represented in that official pamphlet.

Mr Menzies:

– Of course they will.

Dr Evatt:

– Does the honorable member for Indi think that the Government is going out to advocate a “ No “ case as well as a “ Yes “ case ?

Mr McEWEN:

– We are starting to get some elucidation of the Government’s intentions.

Dr Evatt:

– Does the honorable gentleman think that we are going to be neutral in this matter, after an absolute majority of both Houses of Parliament has declared in favour of the alteration?

Mr McEWEN:

– The right honorable gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.

Mr Menzies:

– This is a plain indication of what is going to happen.

Mr McEWEN:

– If the Government has a fixed intention in this regard it is as well that it be exposed. If the

Government considers that its intention is justifiable no doubt it will say so.

Dr Evatt:

-Certainly.

Mr McEWEN:

– My purpose now is to express my own view and to try to elicit from the Government an expression of its intention in respect of the expenditure of public funds and the employment of all mediums of publicity and propaganda at its disposal in connexion with the referendum campaign.

Mr Calwell:

– The Government will do exactly what every other Government has done in respect of every other referendum.

Mr Menzies:

– It will not. It will go beyond that.

Mr McEWEN:

– The Australian Broadcasting Commission is an instrument of the Government.

Dr Evatt:

– It is not controlled by the Chamber of Manufactures.

Mr McEWEN:

– On a certain occasion, Mr. Temporary Chairman, I was named.

Dr Evatt:

– Not to-day.

Mr Menzies:

– The honorable member for Indi is getting a very courteous reception.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not want to be provoked into a situation in which 1 shall be named again.

Dr Evatt:

– I am sorry for interrupting.

Mr McEWEN:

– In my opinion, the services of the Australian Broadcasting Commission should be employed to present equally to the people the case for and the case against the proposed amendment.

Dr Evatt:

– Is it the honorable member’s view that that should apply equally to commercial stations?

Mr McEWEN:

– I agree that insofar as government moneys are used.

Dr Evatt:

– Never mind about government moneys - any money?

Mr McEWEN:

– Insofar as government moneys are used, equal publicity should be given over commercial stations to both sides.

Dr Evatt:

– What about other moneys ?

Mr Menzies:

– The Government seems to think that government moneys belong to the Labour party.

Dr Evatt:

– They belong to the people.

Mr Menzies:

– The Government seems to have forgotten that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Martens:

– Order!

Mr McEWEN:

– I shall be asking the House to grant me an extension of time.

Dr Evatt:

– I promise that.

Mr McEWEN:

– I do not say that the funds of the Trades Hall should be used equally for the presentation of both sides. The Trades Hall has its own view, and it will use its own money to impress that view on the people. If some one else cares to use his own money to impress the opposite view over the commercial stations, there can be no argument, against such action. I hope that there is no suggestion implicit in what the right honorable gentleman says that there shall be a’ restriction on commercial stations or any other organizations in presenting whatever view they desire to support.

Dr Evatt:

– Surely the honorable gentleman has not yet made up his mind as to how be is going to advise the people to vote.

Mr McEWEN:

– The. right honorable gentleman need not be in any doubt about that.

Mr Calwell:

Mr. Calwell interjecting,

Mr McEWEN:

– My constantly interjecting friend, the Minister for Information, has under his control a department which expends hundreds of thousands of pounds. Are those funds to be used to present to the people only one side of the case?

Mr Menzies:

– Yes.

Mr McEWEN:

– Or both sides?

Mr Calwell:

– They will be used in the national interest.

Dr Evatt:

– It is not only the Government policy; it is the decision of Parliament.

Mr McEWEN:

– If the law provides that an equal number of words and an equal amount of space shall be provided in the official pamphlet for the presentation of the argument of each side, surely the principle is laid down that governmental expenditure shall be equally applied to the presentation of both cases by all’ other means? I have had some interjections from the treasury bench, but I do hope that my remarks will result in a clear-cut statement by the Acting Prime Minister or one of his Ministers as to the intention of the Government in this matter.

Dr Evatt:

– It is quite honorable.

Mr McEWEN:

– I find, for instance, that a Minister of the New South Wales Government, who happens also to be a member of the armed forces, Captain Martin, with all the authority of a commissioned officer, has already been engaged on a series of lectures to troops in New Guinea in favour of the Government’s proposal. How does the Government justify that? Is there to be an equal opportunity for my friend, the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron), to tour New Guinea, if that should be his desire, to present the case against the proposed amendment? If one officer who happens to be not only an officer but also a member of a State Parliament is able to present the case on one side, will the Government explain to the people why another member of Parliament will not be provided with an opportunity to present the other side - the case against the amendment?

Mr Calwell:

– There is no case against it.

Mr McEWEN:

– What a pitiable interjection. It discloses a lamentable state of mind. There is a case for the amendment and there is a case against it. This is not a matter to be treated facetiously. It is not to be bludgeoned through by a vote of the people as it was-

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Bludgeoned !

Mr McEWEN:

– Yes, bludgeoned through this Parliament. If I was disorderly in saying that it was bludgeoned through .Parliament I withdraw the expression.

Mr Ward:

– Are there no commissioned officers in the ranks of the Opposition who could put the other point of view to the troops?

Mr McEWEN:

– I ask that I be told whether Opposition- . members serving with the Army will be given the opportunity which apparently Captain Martin has been given. But we do not know in what guise he has been lecturing. Has he been lecturing as the emissary of the

Government? That question was put to the Acting Prime Minister and’ Minister for the Army (Mr. Forde) yesterday and it was not answered. We are entitled to the answer. We hope that he will tell us on what authority Captain Martin did address the troops in New Guinea in support of the referendum.

Mr Calwell:

– He is lecturing as a good Australian.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

– That is a trifle. The honorable gentleman is not the only good Australian.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Martens:

– Order! The Minister for Information, must cease interjecting, and the honorable member for Indi must not invite interjections.

Mr McEWEN:
INDI, VICTORIA · CP; LCL from 1940; CP from 1943

– ‘Captain Martin has not been lecturing troops in New Guinea on the Government’s case only since Parliament passed the powers bill. He has been on what must be tantamount to an electioneering campaign on behalf of the Government’s case since before the bill was brought before Parliament. By what authority has he been doing so? There does not seem to be any indication that I shall get a serious reply to this very pertinent question. If I do not, F shall be entitled to my own interpretation.

Mr Menzies:

– The Government feels that it has the money and the numbers.

Mr McEWEN:

– There is no doubt that it has the numbers here, but whether it will have numbers of the people behind it on this question I very much doubt. None of us has any desire but that the people shall be given an opportunity to ‘pass dispassionate judgment upon this question; we shall accept the verdict. But the people cannot pass a dispassionate judgment if public funds are to be used preponderantly to din their ears over the radio and dim their sight with newspaper propaganda expressing only one side - the case for the Government. The demeanour of members indicates that public funds are to be used to present the Government’s case and that the public funds will be expended, except on the official pamphlet, only on the presentation of the affirmative case. We have heard a great deal about freedom of speech and democratic rights. Those .are the things we are fighting to save. We are fighting to save ourselves from the experiences of certain of the peoples of Europe. What is the history of the rise to power of the authoritarian governments of Europe? Totalitarian tyranny had its genesis in one unscrupulous party achieving power. The Nazi party in Germany did not achieve power as the result of an overwhelming vote of confidence by the people. Hitler edged his way into office. But once he controlled the public purse, he used the funds in order to suppress political opponents, and propagate the views of the Nazi party. When the people of Austria and the Saar were asked to vote on the question of self-determination, the ballot ‘ papers issued to them enabled them to vote in only one way. What difference is there between that kind of ballot paper, and the almost exclusive use of public funds to present one’s point of view? The difference is merely one of degree. The principle is identical. And that seems to be the principle which this Government will embrace for the purpose of “ bulldozing “ the people into voting for an extension of Commonwealth powers. Amazingly enough, the bill is described as a “measure to guarantee democratic rights “. No greater abrogation of democratic rights is conceivable than the use of money raised from taxpayers opposed to the proposal, in order to present only the affirmative side of the case. If the Government desires the people to give reasonable consideration to its proposals for constitutional reform, it must be free of any. charge of bias in presenting its case.

Dr Evatt:

– We are biased in favour of the proposal.

Mr McEWEN:

– The AttorneyGeneral is biased in favour of his point of view. I do not challenge that. But bias to the point of exercising the opportunity, furnished by control of the Treasury, to present only one side of the case, will react against the Government. There will be a revulsion of public opinion against this practice, which we regard as most nefarious in authoritarian States. The Government would be well advised to reconsider its decision, if it has already determined to employ public funds to support the affirmative case. Tt will do its cause a great disservice.

Mr Ward:

– What is the basis for that charge ?

Mr McEWEN:

– I base that presumption upon the general demeanour of Ministers in the chamber.

Mr Menzies:

– And their interjections.

Mr McEWEN:

– I would have thought that the Government, in fairness, would consider my representations, but my remarks have been treated facetiously. This is not a humorous matter. The Government will not find anything to laugh at when the people cast their votes at the referendum. If the services of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are to be used almost exclusively for presenting the Labour party’s view, the people of Australia will not stand for it. If the public funds are to be used through the Department of Information to present exclusively the Labour view, again the people will not stand for it.

Mr Ward:

– But the Australian Country party voted for the referendum bill.

Mr McEWEN:

– This is not a matter to treat facetiously. The AttorneyGeneral amended the bill for the purpose of guaranteeing freedom of speech. How can there be freedom of speech when the Government does not allow an equal opportunity to present the case, for and against the referendum? Does the Government imagine that it is safeguarding democratic rights, if it uses the public purse exclusively to present one side of the case?

Mr Ward:

– No one said that the Government would do that.

Mr McEWEN:

– I would not have laboured this point if the Deputy Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, or the Minister for Information had announced that the Government would allow equal opportunities for presenting the pros and cons. Before there was a radio or a Department of Information, the normal means of presenting to the public the case for and against a constitutional - alteration was the printing and -distribution of a pamphlet. Such care was taken to ensure that both sides would be equally presented that the literature, for and against, had to contain an equal number of words. That was the spirit in which previous Commonwealth governments submitted to the people proposals for an alteration of the Constitution.

Dr Evatt:

– The first consideration is whether the States will carry out their part of the bargain. The honorable member suggested that the Spates should be given that opportunity.

Mr McEWEN:

– I thought that the Commonwealth Government had rejected that suggestion.

Dr Evatt:

– No. On three or four occasions I have invited the States to carry out their part of the bargain.

Mr McEWEN:

– I am glad to have that assurance.

Dr Evatt:

– Therefore, the question which the honorable member asks can be considered later.

Mr McEWEN:

– Whilst the explanation of the Attorney-General is most interesting, it misses my point by about 1,000 miles. If the States agree to transfer those powers to the Commonwealth, the referendum will not be necessary.

Dr Evatt:

– And, therefore, the questions which the honorable member has asked may not arise.

Mr Menzies:

– This Parliament has passed a bill which “ shall ‘.’ be submitted to the people.

Mr McEWEN:

– The AttorneyGeneral will not contend that the referendum bill is not awaiting Boya! Assent. The referendum may be avoided by the States transferring certain powers to the Commonwealth.

Dr Evatt:

– Certainly.

Mr McEWEN:

– The negotiations with the States will conclude long before this Parliament re-assembles next August or September. By that time the Government may have launched its referendum campaign. The AttorneyGeneral has not put me off the track. His red herring will not have a chance to perform its tricks - if a red herring can perform tricks.

Mr Menzies:

– It depends entirely upon the condition of the red herring.

Mr McEWEN:

– I have asked the Attorney-General a simple question. Does the Government intend to expend Commonwealth money in giving an equal presentation of both sides of the case?

Dr Evatt:

– The Government will decide that at the proper time.

Mr McEWEN:

– When will be the proper time?

Dr Evatt:

– The honorable member will learn that at the meeting of the Advisory War Council, three weeks hence.

Mr McEWEN:

– I emphasize that this is not a humorous matter. Nothing is more fundamental to the maintenance of a free democracy than the point which I am discussing. The Attorney-General, upon reflection, should recognize that he does himself less than justice in parrying my questions. This is a principle which has nothing to do with the negotiations with the States. It calls for a simple reply. If the Government will not give a simple answer, the people will have no difficulty in deciding that it plans to embark upon the preliminary stages of the course that has been followed by fascist governments. If that happens, it will be a sad day for Australia.

Mr HUTCHINSON:
Deakin

– The Government has been granted three months’ Supply, and that appears to denote that the Parliament will not meet until the end of August or the beginning of September. There is a widespread conviction among the public that a five months’ recess is not justified. By next August, the Government will have completed its financial programme for the next financial year.

I wish to refer briefly to the payroll tax which, as honorable members know, was introduced coinciden tally with the child endowment legislation. It was estimated, at that time, that £13,000,000 per annum would be required to meet child endowment payments, and it was proposed to obtain the money from the pay-roll tax. I do not desire to traverse the arguments that were then used to support that method of finance, except to say that they could not be advanced with like force to-day, because child endowment is the only one of our several social services which is financed in this way. All other forms of social service are financed from the proceeds of a graduated system of taxation. The payroll tax falls with particular severity on the employers in industry. All employers in the primary and secondary industries are labouring under the unfair disability of this tax. They have to contribute a larger share than any other section of the community to the fund from which child endowment is paid. Many of them are engaged in other than war industries, the returns from which are quite small in these days, yet they have to continue their substantial contributions to the payroll tax. Many employees in the community are drawing large salaries and high wages, but are contributing far less through this tax than are the employers. I urge the Government to investigate this subject for I am quite satisfied that the continuation of the pay-roll tax cannot be justified on any substantial grounds. 1 trust that when the Treasurer is considering the financial programme of the Government for the next financial year he will conclude that this tax should be abolished.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended ; resolution adopted.

Resolution of Ways and Means founded on Resolution of Supply, reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Lazzarini and Dr. Evatt do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out theforegoing resolution.

page 2494

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1943-44

Bill presented by Mr. Lazzarini, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2494

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment: -

Wheat Subsidy Bill 1044.

Wheat Industry (War-time Control) Bill 1944.

Wheat Tax (War-time) Repeal Bill 1944.

page 2494

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1942-43

Messages from the Governor-General reported transmitting Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure for Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c, for the year ended the 30th June, 1943, and recommending appropriations accordingly.

Ordered to be printed and referred to Committee of Supply forthwith.

In Committee of Supply:

Motions (by Mr. Lazzarini) proposed -

That the following further sums be granted to Bis Majesty to defray the charges for the year 1.942-43 for the several services hereunder specified, viz: -

Supplementary Estimatesfor Additions, New Works, Buildings, etc., 1942-43.

That there he granted to His Majesty to the service of the year 1942-43 for the purposes of Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c., a further sum not exceeding £413,872.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– It is most extraordinary that these proposals should be submitted to us in the last hour or two of this period of the session, because obviously the matter must have been prepared some time ago. “We have been presented with documents consisting of 92 pages of printed matter, which it would be impossible for any honorable member to examine at a moment’s notice. I have no desire to hinder the transaction of business, but I consider that honorable members are entitled to reasonable notice ofthe introduction of business, and to reasonable opportunities to consider the business that is submitted to them. These Supplementary Estimates have been, as it were, just thrown into the ring as the lights are going out, and we are expected to fumble with them in the dark as best we can. It is a little too rich for me and I emphatically protest against such methods. They are not fair to the committee. Honorable members are deprived of any opportunity to consider these proposed new works. Such a thing would not be done in a blacks’ camp.

Mr Lazzarini:

– The money has already been expended.

Questions resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions reported.

Standing Orders suspended: resolutions adopted.

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

– I move -

Supplementary Estimates 1942-43

That towards making good the further supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year 1942-43, there be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum not exceeding £1,971,670.

Supplementary Estimates for Additions, . New Works, Buildings, etc., 1942-43.

That towards making good the further supply granted to His Majesty for Additions, New Works, Buildings, &c., for the year 1942-43, there be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sum not exceeding £413,872.

The Supplementary Estimates (Works and Buildings) relate to expenditure on additions, new works and buildings for the year 1942-43. The amount is £413,S72. That sum was expended from the vote “ Advance to the Treasurer and it is necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of expenditure.

The original appropriation for new works totalled £4,902,000. The actual expenditure was £3,960,954, or £941,046 less than the total. Individual items of appropriation were, however, exceeded, and it is in respect of these additional amounts, covered by “ Advance to the Treasurer “, that authority is now sought.

The Supplementary Estimates give details of this additional expenditure. The chief items, approximately, were -

Any further information that may be desired will be given at a later stage.

The other Supplementary Estimates of expenditure also relate to the financial year 1942-43. The total is £1,971,670. That sum was expended out of a general appropriation from revenue, of £6,000,000, for “Advance to the Treasurer “, and it is necessary to obtain specific parliamentary appropriation to cover the several items of expenditure. The Supplementary Estimates give derails of expenditure by the various departments. The chief items, approximately, were -

The Estimates brought down by this Government in September, 1942, provided for an appropriation from revenue for war services, of £140,189,000. A further revenue appropriation of £20,000,000 was made in June, 1943. An additional amount of £74,169 was provided under special appropriations. The total revenue appropriation was, therefore, £160.263,169. Actual expenditure from revenue was £158,890,555, or £1,372,614 less than the total appropriation. No supplementary appropriation for war services from revenue is required, but it has been necessary in certain instances to re-arrange the war appropriation so as to provide for individual items in which the expenditure exceeded the original provision. The actual sum provided from revenue for war services in 1941-42 was £10S,635,000. The corresponding amount provided in the previous year was £65,092,000.

It is the practice to withhold Supplementary Estimates until the AuditorGeneral has presented his report on the accounts of the year under review. That report was presented to Parliament on the 22nd March, 1944, and is available to honorable members. If further information be desired on any item, it will be given at a later stage.

Questions resolved in the affirmative.

Resolutions reported and adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Lazzarini and .Dr. Evatt do prepare and bring in hills to carry out the foregoing resolutions.

page 2496

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION BILL 1942-43

Bill presented by Mr. Lazzarini, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2496

SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION (WORKS AND BUILDINGS) BILL 1942-43

Bill presented by Mr. Lazzarini, and passed through all stages without amendment or debate.

page 2496

CONTROL OP TEA

Notice of motion in the name of Mr. Spender for disallowance of Statutory Rules 1944, No. 13- National Security (Tea Control) Regulations - called on, not moved, and withdrawn.

Dr EVATT:
Attorney-General and Minister for External Affairs · Barton · ALP

.by leave - The honorable member for Warringah (Mr. Spender) has made to the Minister for Trade and Customs (Senator Keane) certain suggestions for the amendment of Statutory Rules 1944, No. 13. They will be considered. That is the reason for the absence from the House of the honorable member for Warringah.

page 2497

COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL (WAR-TIME) BILL 1944

Second Reading

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

Apart from a machinery clause which provides that, at a referendum, a copy of the text of the proposed law shall be exhibited at service voting places, the bill has only two purposes. First, by a slight addition to the principal act, it provides definitely that only those members of the forces who are British subjects shallbe entitled to vote under the special provisions of that act; and secondly, it extends the right of voting under those special provisions to members of the merchant navy, to accredited press correspondents, and to others employed or associated with the forces outside Australia or in Australia north of the 26th parallel. The reason for the first-mentioned provision is that, as the law stands, an alien member of the forces might lawfully claim a vote, although this wa3 never intended by Parliament. When the original war-time electoral bill was prepared in 1940, British subjects only were accepted for war service, and it was not then necessary specifically to set out that only British subject servicemen would be entitled to vote under the special provisions enacted. Latterly, however, certain aliens have been admitted to the forces, and as it is deemed proper that the franchise should be restricted to British subjects it is now considered necessary to insert this provision. The only other purpose is to permit sea-going members of the merchant service, and certain other civilian personnel in forward areas, to record their votes in the same manner as members of the forces, It is considered that, in time of war, Australian sea-going personnel, as well as accredited press correspondents and others closely associated with the forces in the war zones, who have no other means of recording their votes, should be given the right to vote under the special arrangements provided for members of the forces. I commend the bill to honorable members, and urge its passage without delay.

Mr MORGAN:
Reid

.- The proposals embodied in the bill are worthy of the consideration of honorable members. As they deal with voting at the forthcoming referendum–

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member is going outside the bill.

Mr MORGAN:

– I am keeping inside it.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The Chair will decide that matter.

Mr MORGAN:

– The bill deals with those persons who are to be allowed to vote at the forthcoming referendum. 1 am referring entirely to that subject.I propose to suggest that provision shall be made entitling all persons over the age of eighteen years to have a vote.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That matter is not within the province of the bill.

Mr MORGAN:

– The bill deals with the forthcoming referendum.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Is the honorable gentleman determined to defy the ruling of the Chair?

Mr MORGAN:

– I do not consider that I am defying the ruling of the Chair.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order ! The honorable gentleman may not discuss the question at large.

Mr MORGAN:

– I propose to deal with the persons who are to be allowed to vote at the forthcoming referendum.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable gentleman is dealing with persons who are not to be allowed to vote.

Mr MORGAN:

– But I intend to propose that they shall be brought within the scope of this measure. Am I not entitled to make suggestions in that regard, or to envisage amendments that might be moved?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order ! Future amendments do not concern the House.

Mr MORGAN:

– They may concern it.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! I have ruled that the honorable gentleman will be out of order in discussing that question in a general way.

Mr MORGAN:

– I should like the ruling of the Chair to be clear.

Mr SPEAKER:

– My ruling is perfectly clear. The honorable member has a remedy if he disagrees with it.

Mr MORGAN:

– Can I not go outside the four corners of this proposal, and suggest provisions that might well be included in the measure?

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have ruled that the honorable gentleman will not be in order in discussing the question at large. He quite understands what I mean.

Mr MORGAN:

– I am discussing servicemen and others who may vote. Surely that is permissible. Otherwise what is the purpose of a second-reading debate?

Mr SPEAKER:

– To debate the merits or demerits of a bill.

Mr MORGAN:

– It is proposed in this measure to provide facilities for certain persons to exercise a vote on the referendum proposals, and of that I approve. I now suggest that certain other persons, who may have been overlooked, should be included.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member must discuss the bill.

Mr MORGAN:

– I am glad that the Government recognizes the right to vote of some persons who would not ordinarily be given the opportunity to do so. Younger people, between the ages of 18 and 21 years are vitally interested in the referendum proposals, which may well affect their whole future. It is important that they should have an opportunity to vote. I should like to see this provision extended to munitions workers.

Mr SPEAKER:

– If the honorable member reads the bill he will soon see the limits of discussion permitted.

Mr MORGAN:

– I can see the limits, all right.

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- All those who are to vote should have an opportunity to learn what the referendum is about. Obviously, there will be serious practical difficulties in the way of making the issues thoroughly known. The Government has at its command a variety of service publications, through which it can make its views known to members of the services. It can arrange that key men holding particular opinions can move among members of the services, and place before them the opinion held by the Government. My enthusiasm for this measure is tempered by the fear that members of the services will not be given a fair presentation of both sides of the argument. The House should not be allowed to adjourn, perhaps until after the referendum is taken, without receiving an assurance on this point. There should be an opportunity for service personnel to study both sides of the argument in Government publications, and to hear them” discussed by speakers.

Mr McEWEN:
Indi

.- This measure provides, among other things, that the case for and against the referendum proposals shall be displayed in certain places where service personnel will vote. Such service publications as Sail., Wings, and the Current Affairs Bulletin, come into the hands of members of the forces, and are more readily read by them than would be a notice posted on the wall. Those publications have been carrying explanations of the proposals for the alteration of the Constitution. I should like to receive an assurance that an equal opportunity will be afforded in the same publications for the presentation of the cases for and against the proposals. A pamphlet posted on the wall will not excite the curiosity of the troops, but they will read with interest comments on the referendum proposals published in service journals. The pamphlets and service publications containing reference to the referendum proposals will come into the hands of service personnel between the ages of 18 and 21. They will be entitled to vote, but other persons of the same age, including those in reserved occupations, will not be entitled to vote. I understand that it is a part of the Labour party’s platform that persons eighteen years of age and upwards should be entitled to vote. It is surprising that the Government has not brought forward a proposal to enable them to do so. I was under the impression that this was the point which the honorable member for Reid (Mr. Morgan) was trying to make. For my part, I do not agree that persons under 21 should have a vote.

Mr SPEAKER:

– The honorable member is just as much out of order as. was the honorable member for Reid.

Mr Morgan:

– Freedom of expression is one of the proposals upon which the people will be asked to vote.

Mr McEWEN:

– I seem to have an entirely old-fashioned idea of what freedom of expression means.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I hope the honorable member is not reflecting on the Chair.

Mr McEWEN:

– No, No ! Perish the thought !

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- It would be distinctly unfair if the information given to service personnel regarding the referendum proposals were weighted on either side. The issue should be fairly stated in service journals, for, after all, they do not circulate everywhere and servicemen in the operational areas have not the normal access to newspapers. But, in practically all camps and service schools, there are discussion groups, where the referendum proposals will bc earnestly discussed. It would be absolutely unjust if the Government’s view were to be put forward unaccompanied by the opposing arguments. Salt, Wings, Guinea Gold and certain other literature containing articles presenting both sides should be distributed throughout the units in order that they may be used as subjects in study groups. I am quite prepared to accept a promise from the Minister for Information that this will be done.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (List of candidates to be posted

Mr HOLT:
Fawkner

.- Mr. Temporary Chairman–

Mr Sheehan:

– It is nearly dinnertime !

Mr HOLT:

– It would perhaps enable us to get away earlier if the Government would give some indication of what it proposes to do. There is something sinister in its refusal to reply to the request for an assurance that there shall be an equal presentation of both sides of the case to, not only the people generally, but also, and more particularly, the troops, whose chance of studying the effect of the referendum proposals will be limited. This referendum will be different from the common run of referendums, in which the people have been asked to say “ Yes “ or “ No “ to simple and isolated proposals. At this referendum the people will be asked to say “ Yes “ or “ No “, not so much to a proposed law as to a programme of political propaganda which is given greater weight by the fact that the Government has decided, with the approval of Parliament, to force the people to say “ Yes “ or “ No “ to the whole instead of, as on former occasions, to each proposal individually. It does not take much imagination to realize that lads of eighteen or nineteen, who see on unchallenged placards attractive proposals about repatriation, employment and unemployment, andso on, will consider them to be very desirable. Whilst I have no quarrel with the fact that the troops should be told the Government’s view, I consider that, at the same time, they should be told the other side and that both sides should be expressed in the various service publications and otherwise. Further discussion would be avoided and the convenience of honorable gentlemen opposite met if the Ministry would be frank with the committee and the people and show that it still possesses a spirit of fairness in its approach to a problem of this magnitude.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– I am afraid that the Government’s intentions as exposed this afternoon show that there is not going to be much opportunity for the Opposition case to be presented at all.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Clark:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! I think that the honorable member is getting beyond the clause, which deals only with the text of the proposals. He is dealing with the case to be presented from each side. The honorable member can deal only with the proposal.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– There cannot be an intelligent vote by any elector.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.It is too late to debate that point now.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– The train does not go till 9 o’clock.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member may not debate it on this clause.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Why not?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– The honorable member may only debate what is in the clause.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Am I to take it that we may debate only that which the Government wants us to debate ?

Dr Evatt:

– No.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– I have vivid recollections of a beautiful poster thatwas posted in my electorate last August. I should not be surprised if an equally good one were posted this time.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member knows as well as I do that he is entitled to debate only the text of the proposed law and whether it shall be or shall not be posted.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:

– Posters are what I am discussing. We might have a poster of the Prime Minister together with Mahomet. Both guaranteed free speech. With Mahomet it was a case of “ the Koran or the sword. Take the Koran or off comes your head “. I think that that is the attitude of the Government on this referendum.

Mr WHITE:
Balaclava

.- I am surprised that we have not heard a speaker from the Government in response to the representations that we have made. It is the responsibility of the commanding officers of units to ensure that the list of proposals shall be posted. I want to ensure that there shall be a proper presentation of the case for each side. It is not right that only the “ new world “ of the Government and its bureaucratic planners should be presented for the service voters to ponder. The other side must equally be presented. That is the responsibility of the commanding officers.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! That is not in the clause. ‘

Mr Rosevear:

– The only point is whether the text of the referendum shall be pinned up or not.

Mr WHITE:

– The simple answer to that is that we say that in addition to the Government’s text the text of the other side should be pinned up too. It is only common sense that it should be. If that be not done, there will be such a clamour outside that the Government will be forced to heed it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4 (Certain accredited persons and persons engaged on merchant vessels may vote as if they were members of the Forces).

Mr MORGAN:
REID, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

.- The provision contained in this clause is a contravention of the spirit of the Commonwealth Electoral (War-time) Act 1940-43. which provides that members of the fighting forces shall be entitled to vote at the age of eighteen years. The clause provides -

  1. After section twenty-three a of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: - “ 23aa. Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other Act -

    1. an accredited war correspondent, photographer or member of a broadcasting unit, or a person engaged in providing amenities or welfare services for members of the Forces or performing services for the Defence Force or any part thereof; or
    2. a person engaged in sea-going service on a merchant vessel, whose ordinary place of residence is in Australia and who is a British subject not under the age of twenty-one years and not subject to any of the disqualifications set out in section thirty-nine of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918-1940 and who is outside Australia, or in Australia north of the twenty-sixth parallel of South Latitude may, at any place where arrangements have been made for membersof the Forces to record their votes, vote in accordance with the provisions of this Act, in so far as those provisions are applicable,’ as if he were a member of the Forces.”

No age limit is placed on the persons mentioned in paragraph a, whereas it is provided that merchant seamen must be 21 years of age before they may vote. Why the diversion from the original act which recognizes that those who fight are also entitled to vote. Seamen run as great a risk as, if not a greaterrisk than, do soldiers. This clause is a retrograde step, and is a departure from the principle laid down in the original act by which a lad of eighteen who is entrusted with the responsibility of fighting for his country is also entrusted with the right to vote for those who shall administer it.

Mr Lazzarini:

– There is no interference whatsoever with that act.

Mr Martens:

– On a point of order, Mr. Temporary Chairman, this clause makes no reference to the right of eighteen-year-old soldiers to vote.

Mr MORGAN:

– I want to know why this bill, which purports to continue the policy laid down in the original act, rnakes a departure in respect of seamen?

Dr Evatt:

– This measure continues the policy laid down in that act.

Mr MORGAN:

– It is a backward step.

Dr Evatt:

– This bill gives in respect of the referendum the same benefit of a vote as is given in respect of general elections to certain members of the forces who are eighteen years of age.

Mr MORGAN:

– I am glad that the right honorable gentleman has opened up that. Because that is my point. The Government allows soldiers of eighteen to vote, but it disallows seamen of eighteen to vote although they incur equally great and sometimes greater danger. Why insist that a merchant seaman shall be 21 before he votes? A sailor of eighteen who braves the terrors of the seas is entitled to voting rights equally with a soldier who braves the perils of the land, especially on a proposal of this sort which involves his future. A sailor of eighteen is as intelligent as is a soldier of the same age and is equally able to absorb and analyse the propaganda that can so easily be placed before both by modern ingenuity. This is the time to interest these young men in the necessity for amending the Constitution.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Clark:

– Order! I ask the honorable member to address his remarks to the clause.

Mr MORGAN:

– I see no reason why we should depart from the principle previously laid down that age shall not be a bar. The bill restores the old order of limiting the franchise to persons aged 21 years and over.

Mr RANKIN:
Bendigo

.- The Government is not entitled to exclude the persons described in the clause, unless it has a good reason for doing so, and the Minister has not explained that reason. The case for the referendum will be explained to the troops by Captain Martin, who will have the prestige of being Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales. Many of our troops have been absent from Australia for four years, except for brief periods of leave, when they would not take an interest in politics. The Government will pay propagandists to present its case to the servicemen.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– This clause does not deal with the propaganda side of the referendum.

Mr RANKIN:

– Any attempt to spread propaganda in favour of the referendum, without allowing, opponents of the referendum an equal opportunity to present their case, will be most undemocratic.

Mr. WHITE (Balaclava) [5.4SJ.- The Government has not yet replied to the earnest requests of the Opposition for an assurance that opponents of the referendum proposals will be given an equal opportunity to present their case to the people. The proposed new section provides that the commanding officer of a unit may be the returning officer for the purpose of receiving the votes of members of the forces. Great responsibility will rest upon the commanding officer.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMANOrder ! Will the honorable member direct his remarks to the clause.

Mr WHITE:

– I am discussing the taking of the votes, for which provision is made in this clause.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.The honorable member is out of order.

Mr WHITE:

– It is easy for the Chair to twist the interpretation in that manner. I express my supreme disgust.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order !

Mr WHITE:

– I contend that I am in . order. If this Government tries to mislead the soldiers on active service it will be acting in a way that is neither cricket nor christian.

Clause agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2501

FORESTRY BUREAU BILL 194!4

Second Reading

Mr LAZZARINI:
Minister for Home Security · Werriwa · ALP

– I move -

That the (bill be now read a second time.

The Empire Forestry Conference, held in Australia in 192S, recommended that the Australian universities be approached with a. view to granting a degree to any man who successfully completed an agreed two years’ course in science at his university, together with the forestry course at the Australian’ Forestry School at Canberra. The universities agreed to the recommendation, subject to the condition that suitable steps be taken to safeguard the curriculum of the Forestry School. It was decided that the most suitable means by which the curriculum of the school could be safeguarded would be the establishment of a board, consisting of the principal of the school, who is the Inspector-General of Forests, and a representative from each of the universities concerned. The board was formed in 1930 and is known as the Board of Higher Forestry Education. It also includes a representative of each State government.

At a recent meeting, the board requested that regulations should be promulgated under the Forestry Bureau Act 1930-1932, setting out the constitution, powers and functions of the board. The act. in its present form does not, however, authorize such a course. The bill makes provision for the establishment of a Board of Higher Forestry Education, for the attendance at meetings of deputy members, the prescription of the powers and functions of the board, and the making of regulations regarding matters concerning the functioning of the board.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In committee:

The bill.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

.- This bill will place the Board of Higher Forestry Education upon a proper basis, and I hope that this body will perform successfully its task of protecting and extending our forests. For too long has the preservation of our forests been neglected. Re-afforestation, including the planting of softwood pines and other suitable timbers, has not been carried out upon a sufficiently big scale. I spoke of this matter a few days ago when I emphasized the necessity for preserving our forests and for preventing soil erosion. This bill is most opportune.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment: report adopted. Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 2502

LEAVE OF ABSENCE TO ALL MEMBERS

Motion (by Mr. Forde) agreed to -

That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.

page 2502

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr. Forde) proposed -

That the House, at its rising, adjourn to a date and hour to be fixed by Mr. Speaker, which time of meeting shall be notified by Mr. Speaker to each member by telegram or letter.

Mr MENZIES:
Leader of the Opposition · Kooyong

– The discussions earlier to-day have indicated that the House will be in recess for a considerable period. It may be that the House will not meet until after the referendum has been held. I do not know, and I do not suppose that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Forde) himself has positive information on that point. I shall not assume that the Parliament will necessarily rise for four or five months, but it is a very reasonable assumption that a great deal of the work of the referendum campaign will have been performed at least before this House meets again. I desire to take this opportunity to join in the protest that has already been made by at least five of my colleagues. Under the electoral law, as it stands, a pamphlet will be issued to each voter and both sides, for and against the referendum, will have equal access to that pamphlet. So far, so good ! That is a perfectly proper provision, and both sides will have an opportunity to state their views, which will go before each elector. But the course of the discussion and the interjections a little earlier, suggest that the AttorneyGeneral (Dr. Evatt) at least is under the impression that because this referendum is in relation to a bill passed by both Houses of this Parliament, it occupies some special position in relation to Government propaganda. It occupies no special position. It is quite true that the bill has been passed by both Houses; but that is only one step in the course of altering the Constitution. Standing by itself, it has no operative force at all. Nothing is complete; nothing has legislative effect until the people have spoken.

Consequently, it is idle to say that because the bill has passed through Parliament and, therefore, the first stage of the journey has been completed, the Government is entitled now to spend public money in support of the proposals contained in the bill, as if those proposals represented the will of the Parliament and should be supported as the law of the land. That view is quite wrong. The fact is, and it is of no use blinking our eyes to it, that each side has an equal right to present its views.

Dr Evatt:

– The Parliament or the Opposition?

Mr MENZIES:

-hI adopt the language of the Electoral Act, which speaks of the majority in Parliament and the minority in Parliament. So far we have had a rich experience of minorities which were wrong in Parliament, but right when the referendum vote was taken. It may happen again. When we are engaged in an election campaign, each side has its own access to all commercial instruments of publicity such as newspapers and commercial broadcasting stations. They are there to be used at will. But, in relation to the national broadcasting service, this Parliament has for many years endorsed a practice which I regard as sound that the leaders of parties, or their representatives, shall have equal access to the service. As that practice has been regarded as sound in principle in relation to general elections, I commend to the Government its application during a given period in the referendum campaign.

The next thing I wish to say is that no undue analogy can be drawn between the present and the past in regard to press publicity, because, when the last referendum was ‘held in 1936 there were no government publications that could he used for propaganda purposes. To-day, there are several such publications. I do not refer to avowed party publications such as the Digest of Important Decisions and Announcements, in (which speeches by the Prime Minister and other Ministers appear from time to time. I have in mind certain neutral publications such as Salt, Wings and Current Affairs Bulletin.

Mr Calwell:

– They are very good publications.

Mr MENZIES:

– They are highly propagandist in character. Recent issues have contained extraordinarily clever propaganda in favour of an affirmative vote at the referendum. I have a technical admiration for the persons responsible. They would be worth their weight in gold as propagandists.

Mr Calwell:

– 4Some of the right honorable member’s earlier speeches would be quite good propaganda.

Mr MENZIES:

– I am not worried on that account, nor am I worried about my prospects of securing audiences to hear the views which I desire to put to the people. But if avowedly neutral publications such as Salt, Wings and Current Affairs Bulletin are to be used to put to the people, at the public expense, a one-sided story, it will be regarded as scandalous by all fair-minded people. I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister does not desire to be unfair. He desires to go to the country secure in his belief in the strength of the Government case. I shall go to the country secure in my belief in the strength of the Opposition case. But the Opposition does not consider that publications printed and circulated at the country’s expense should put a one-sided case to the people. If these publications are used at all, both sides of the case should be printed.

Dr Evatt:

– ‘Would the Leader of the Opposition support a law or regulation providing that each side should have equal time for broadcasting on B class stations, as well as on A class stations ?

Mr MENZIES:

– I would not.

Dr Evatt:

– That is the trouble.

Mr MENZIES:

– I would not agree to it for the very good reason that I do not believe that we should tell the people how they may spend their own money. They should he allowed, within the limits of the law, to spend their own money on propaganda according to their own desires. Everybody knows that the Labour party controls larger political funds than do all the other political parties put together. If the Labour parity cares to expend £10,000 or even £100,000, on the referendum, I shall have no quarrel with it. It is entitled to spend its own money on its own terms. But when the expenditure of public money is in question, fairness requires and demands that the money shall be spent fairly and evenly in order that each side shall receive a hearing and that the people maybe qualified to give a calm and balancedjudgment.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2504

PRIVILEGES. COMMITTEE

Members of Parliament - Censorship of Mail Matter

Mr FORDE:
ALP

– I lay on the table the following paper: -

Report from the Standing Committee on

Privileges relating to Censorship of

Members’ Correspondence, together with minutes of Proceedings.

Mr Archie Cameron:

– Does the Minister intend to move that the paper be printed?

Mr Forde:

– I do not. Copies have been typed and are available for honorable members.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

.- Then I move-

That the paper be printed.

I have a special reason for doing so.

This afternoon, by air mail, I received a letter from the District Censor’s Office, Post Office-place, Adelaide, to which I desire honorable members to give their attention. The letter is dated the 30th March and reads -

It is with much regret that . I bring to your notice an unfortunate incident which occurred in this department.

The enclosed personal letter addressed to you was opened in error by a censor who has had some years of experience in this office and can offer no adequate excuse for the mishap.

Theletter was mis-sorted by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and escaped the vigilance of no less than three postal officials before it was diverted here, in error, for censorship, together with other service personnel overseas mail.

Instructions are very definite to all censorship officers that the greatest care must be exercised in scrutinizing the names and addresses on all envelopes before opening, as a precaution against the inevitable mis-sorts, which are of daily occurrence, whereby inland mails which are not the coucern of censorship are included in overseas mails and diverted for censorship. Unfortunately, your letter was not detected and was opened.

I am unable to offer any reasonable explanation for the lapse on behalf of that censor concerned, who has been suspended from duty, and I can only offer my sincere apologies for the regrettable mistake.

It would need a Philadelphia lawyer to read the signature. I raise the matter at this stage, because when the subject was being considered by the Privileges Committee at least one honorable member said that I should have had certain envelopes to support my contentions. I did not have one of this particular type. This is not the first occasion on which this has happened to my mail. The letter in question happens to be one written to me by my wife, and posted on the 28th March by my son at Nailsworth, a suburb near the centre of Adelaide, and it gets here to-day. I direct attention to the delay that has taken place in the transmission of the letter, and also to the opening of it. It was unfortunate that I had not kept the envelopes of other letters that had been opened by the censors from about last May when this sort of thing began, for I would then have been able to submit them to the committee. Although I did not happen to have one envelope of this particular type to submit to the committee, it is curious that, just as the report has been tabled, I have one to produce. At the moment I am not concerned about what is contained in the committee’s report, because I believe that the terms of reference agreed upon were extremely circumscribed and did not allow it to investigate certain aspects of this subject. But the matter cannot rest here. A fuller inquiry will have to be held. I now have indisputable evidence of the fact that I alleged prior to the appointment of the committee. What I said a month ago is actually taking place in the censor’s office to-day. Whether it is to be said that it is always, done by mistake, I do not know. No one has yet been able to explain why I alone among the honorable members who constitute the United Australia party in this House have been subject to this attention.

Sir Earle Page:

– I second the motion pro forma.

Mr. FORDE (Capricornia - Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for the Army) [6.13”. - The honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) told me about a half an hour ago what had happened. The letter which he received is now in my possession. In it the dis- trict censor has said that he can give no adequate excuse for the mishap. He goes on -

The letter was mis-sorted by the PostmasterGeneral’s Department and escaped the vigilance of no less than three postal officials before it was diverted here, in error, for censorship together with other service personnel overseas mail.

Instructions arc very definite to all censorship officers that the greatest care must bc exercised in scrutinizing the names and addresses on all envelopes before opening as a precaution against the inevitable mis-sorts, which are a daily occurrence.

That statement shows the complete impartiality of the district censor’s office. The final paragraph of the letter reads -

I am unable to offer any reasonable explanation for the lapse on behalf of the censor concerned, who has been suspended from duty, and I can only offer my sincere apologies for the regrettable mistake.

In view of those statements I do not suppose that the honorable member suggests any collusion on the part of personnel in the district censor’s office, South Australia Line of Communication, in order to have his letters opened. I suggest to him that he read the report of the Privileges Committer3 before he criticizes the procedure in the censor’s office. The committee included members of all parties in the Parliament and it submitted a unanimous report. As to whether the district censor was right in suspending from duty an officer who had made an error, that is a matter ou which honorable members must form their own opinions. We all know that letters addressed to other people come to us in our mail by mistake at times, and it is quite easy to open a letter without looking at the address on it if it is one of a pile of 20 or 30 letters. Letters addressed to other people are often opened in error. If we do it, we are sorry. The censor has expressed his deep regret that the honorable member’s letter should have been opened in error and has suspended the officer concerned.

Dr Evatt:

– What right had he to suspend an officer from duty over an honest mistake like this? It is a perfect outrage.

Mr Holt:

– The Attorney-General is expressing an opinion without knowing all the facts. He is reflecting upon one of his own officers.

Mr FORDE:

– The district censor took the steps that he thought advisable in the circumstances. I shall not pass judgment upon his action without a complete knowledge of the facts. What he has done shows the complete impartiality of the officer. I believe that the honorable member for Barker will be quite satisfied with the conclusions of the Privileges Committee on this point. Its report is unanimous. The committee took evidence from the communications censor and also the base censor. Surely that impartial report should convince all honorable members, as well as the people generally, that there has been no breach of the privileges of any member of this Parliament! I assure the honorable member for Barker that the Government stands for strict impartiality in connexion with censorship. When he has examined the report, he will be satisfied that all the members of the committee are of the same opinion as the Government.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

– I recall that this committee was set up to examine the question of the censorship of mail addressed to members of this Parliament. I understand that the report- states that the only censored letters placed before the committee had been sent from operational areas. The letter which the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) has just produced was not sent from an operational area and should be placed before the committee in order that a report in regard to it may be made.

Mr Forde:

– Has the right honorable gentleman read the report?

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– No.

Mr Forde:

– I suggest that he do so.

Sir EARLE PAGE:

– Had the motion for the printing- of the report been submitted earlier, we might have had an opportunity to study it. This matter of the censorship of mail of members of this Parliament should be cleared up. That has not been achieved by the evidence placed before the committee. Further evidence having been produced, it should be submitted to the committee. The preservation of the privileges of members in this respect is imperative.

Mr Holt:

– I wish to move the adjournment of the debate.

Dr Evatt:

– That is not acceptable to us, because we want to have the report printed.

Mr Holt:

– But we have not had an opportunity to read it; therefore, how can we debate it ? Will we have an opportunity to debate it after it has been printed ?

Mr Forde:

– If necessary, an opportunity to debate it will be given.

Mr ARCHIE CAMERON:
Barker · ALP

– in reply - There are only two observations that’ I wish to make. The first is, that I do not agree that the unfortunate person who was responsible for what has occurred should be suspended. The other is, that this is the first, occasion on which I have received a letter of apology when my correspondence in the civil post has been opened. On another occasion, it was quite clearly admitted a letter of mine had been opened in the civil mail.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2506

BILLS RETURNED FROM THE

page 2506

SENATE

The following bills were returned from the Senate: -

Without requests -

Supply Bill (No. 1) 1944-45 (Substitute)

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1943-44

Supplementary Appropriation Bill 1942-43

Without amendment -

Excise Tariff Rebate Bill 1944

Supplementary Appropriation (Works and Buildings) Bill 1942-43

page 2506

PAPERS

The following papers were presented : -

Customs Act - Proclamations prohibiting the exportation (except under certain conditions) of goods - Nos. 593, 594.

National Security Act -

National Security (General) Regulations - Orders- -

Brushware.

Control of bristles (No. 2).

Prohibited places (2).

Taking possession of land. &c. (38).

Use of land (12).

Regulations - Statutory Rules 1944, Nos. 52, 54, 55.

Postmaster-General’s Department - Thirtythird report for year 1942-43.

House adjourned at (1.20 p.m. to a date and hour to he fixed by Mr. Speaker.

page 2506

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated: -

Australian Army : Anzac Day Ceremonies ; Africa Star Ribbon.

Mr GUY:
WILMOT, TASMANIA · UAP; LP from 1944

asked the Deputy Prime Minister, upon notice -

In view of the great importance of the falling birth-rate in Australia and the announcement that the Commonwealth Government is to carry out investigations into this matter, will the Government meet the wishes of the Tasmanian Council for Mother and Child by giving representatives of that councilan opportunity to be heard personally during the course of the investigation, and grant travel facilitiesto these representatives for such purpose?

Union Secretaries and Organizers

Mr Archie Cameron:
ALP

n asked the Deputy Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. What immunities from national service are enjoyed by trade union secretaries and organizers?
  2. What extra supplies of petrol, tyres, &c., arc accorded them to enable them to fulfil their functions?
  3. What other privileges or immunities, &c., do they enjoy?
  4. How many men of these categories enjoy such privileges and immunities?
Mr Forde:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: - 1.The schedule of reserved occupations provides for the deferment of full-time officials (including executive and organizing personnel, but excluding general clerical grades) of employers and employees’ organizations 25 years of age and over. No persons in military age groups I., II. or III., however, are permitted to bo appointed to such positions unless they are unfit for military service.

  1. No precise information is available. Trade union secretaries and industrial organizers are rationed by the Liquid Fuel Control Board in each State on the same basis as other business users. Special applications have been received from time to time, and these would be dealt with on the merits of each ease according to the circumstances. The priority classification of cars used by industrial organizers for official purposes is No. 0. They would, on this classification, receive no special privileges in respect of purchase of tyres or retreads or mechanical service beyond that normally available to vehicles in this classification.
  2. In the matter of air travel, trade union secretaries and organizers would be granted government priority only in exceptional cases when required to travel on work directly affecting essential services of high national importance. Those who travel for the purpose of adjusting industrial troubles in munition or essential service plants are granted No. 4 preference by airline companies. If the industrial trouble is in non-essential plants, they are granted No.5B preference by the companies. With regard to rail transport no privileges or immunities are extended to trade union secretaries and organizers. All travel permits are strictly in accordance with the regulations.
  3. No information is available to show the number of men who may come within the categories mentioned in 1, 2. and 3 above.

Allied Works Council: Alleged Waste

Mr Fadden:
DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND

n asked the Deputy Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Has he seen reports in Sydney and Melbourne daily newspapers of the 27th March, by Mr. J. C. Arrowsmith, secretary of the Civil Constructional Corps Workers Committee, that thousands of pounds worth of tyres had for months been lying in the open at Alice Springs exposed to sun and rain?
  2. Has he seen Mr. Arrowsmith’s further statement that the Director-General of Allied Works, Mr.E. G. Theodore, had refused to receive a deputation representing Civil Constructional Corps workers on his recent visit to Alice Springs when he, Mr. Arrowsmith, was anxious toput the matter referred to in 1 and other evidence of wanton waste of public money in Alice Springs before him?
  3. In view of these statements and the criticism of the Auditor-General in his latest report to Parliament, will he ask the DirectorGeneral of Allied Works for an explanation of the matters referred to?
  4. Will he order a searching investigation into the activities and expenditure of the Allied Works Council throughout Australia?
Mr Forde:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Yes.
  4. The activities and expenditure of the Allied Works Council are constantly under review.

Beer and Wine Production.

Sir Frederick Stewart:

asked the

Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs, upon notice -

  1. . How much beer was produced in Australia in each of the months of August, September, October, November and December, 1942?
  2. How much of the beer so produced was supplied for consumption in Australia (a) by civilians, and (6) in military camps?
  3. How much beer so produced has been ex- ported (a) for the use of members of the Australian forces overseas, and (6) for other use?
  4. How much of the beer so producedhas been supplied for consumption on ships?
  5. How much beer was produced in Australia in each of the months of January, February. March, April, May, June, July, August. September. October, November and December. 1942 and 1943?
  6. How much wine was manufactured in Australia in the years 1941, 1942 and 1943?
  7. How much wine was sold for consumption in Australia during 1941, 1942 and 1943?
  8. How much wine was exported from Australia in the years 1941, 1942 and 1943’.’
  9. How much wine was stored in Australia in December, 1943?
Mr Makin:
ALP

– I am not certain whether the whole of the information desired by the honorable member is officially recorded, but I shall make inquiries and advise him later.

Wooden Ships.

Mr Guy:
WILMOT, TASMANIA

y asked the Minister for

Munitions, upon notice -

  1. Has any money been advanced or promised, either directly or indirectly, by the Commonwealth towards the building of wooden ships in Tasmania; if so, to whom was the money made available or promised, and under what terms and conditions?
  2. Have any ships been taken over by the Commonwealth from the builders?
  3. Is it a fact that the ships already launched are faulty in construction and that they are entirely unsuitable for the purpose for which they were built?
  4. Did the Commonwealth have any supervision over the construction of these vessels, and will the Government cause inquiry to be made into the allegation freely made as to the faulty construction of these vessels?
Mr Makin:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. The Commonwealth Government has advanced £30,000 by way of a loan to the Tas- manian Wooden Shipbuilding Board. It is intended, however that the Commonwealth will now take over the activities of the board under terms and conditions to be arranged.
  2. No. A number of vessels have been launched and several are in various stages of construction. They will not be taken over by the Commonwealth until completion, which has been delayed due to difficulties associated with the supply of engines.
  3. As might be expected in new designs, certain minor weaknessesof construction were discovered in the first ships launched. These have beenovercome and the vessels should now be entirely suitable for the purposes for which they are intended.
  4. The Commonwealth has carried out progressive inspections of the work. Any allegations of faulty construction probably allude to the weaknesses mentioned in 3 above. In addition, some difficulty has arisen from the use of unseasoned timber, a circumstance that has been unavoidable under the conditions existing. Reports indicate that the Army authorities interested in the vessels are satisfied in every respect and it is not proposed to institute any inquiry on the lines suggested.

Wireless Batteries.

Mr Makin:
ALP

n. - On the 22nd March, the honorable member for Wide Bay (Mr. Corser) directed a question, without notice, to my colleague the Acting Minister for Supply and Shipping regarding the shortage of B batteries. This is a matter which comes within the jurisdiction of my department and I now desire to inform the honorable member that the general shortage of batteries is known to my department and the disabilities resulting to residents of country districts are fully appreciated. The shortage, however, is due to the heavy requirements of the services and the difficulty in securing the man-power necessary to increase present production. J assure the honorable member that every effort is being made to increase supplies.

Dehydrating Plants.

Mr Bernard Corser:

r asked the

Minister for Commerce and Agriculture upon notice -

  1. How many dehydrating plants have been established by the Government since its policy in this regard was announced for the processing of (a) meat, (6) vegetables and (c) fruit?
  2. At what localities and in which States have dehydration plants (a) been established, and (6) been approved for establishment?
Mr Scully:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1. (a) Nine; (b) 24; (c) 9.

  1. Meat-

New South Wales - (a) Aberdeen, Bourke, Daroobalgie, Homebush, Newcastle, Orange; (6) Tarn worth. Victoria - (a) Bendigo, Portland.

Queensland - (a) Moreton; (b) Rockhampton, Winton.

Vegetables -

New South Wales - (a) Bathurst, Batlow No. 1, Kingsvale, Leeton No. 1. Sydney (2); (6) Batlow No. 2, Cowra, Leeton No. 2, Morpeth, Tamworth, Waterloo.

Victoria - (a)Colac, Dandenong, Fishermen’s Bond, Fitzroy, Irymple, Maffra; (b) Ballarat, Bairnsdale, Warrnambool.

South Australia - (a) Berri, Blackwood, Gumeracha, Hectorville, Lyrup; (b) Adelaide.

Western Australia - (a) Donnybrook, Perth.

Tasmania - (a) Devonport (2), Scottsdale, Smithton, Ulverstone.

Fruit-

Victoria- (a) Tongala.

South Australia - (a) Blackwood, Gumeracha, Hectorville, Nuriootpa.

Western Australia - (a) Bridgeton, Donnybrook, Mount Barker.

Tasmania - (a) Dover.

Wool

Mr Adermann:

n asked the Minister for Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the imperial wool purchase scheme applies only until one year after the defeat of Germany?
  2. If so, will the Government endeavour to extend the term of the scheme until one year after the completion of the war as a whole?

Mr.SCULLY. - The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. No.
  2. See answer to No. 1.

Income Tax

Mr Guy:

y asked the Deputy Prime Minister, upon notice -

Are the salary and the allowance, or either, paid to the Director-General of Agriculture, the Australian High Commissioner in New Zealand and the Australian Minister to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics exempt from income tax?

Mr FORDE:
Minister for the Army · CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND · ALP; FLP from 1931; ALP from 1936

– The Director-General of Agriculture receives a salary only. This salary is not exempt from income tax. The Australian High Commissioner in New Zealand and the Australian Minister to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics each receives, in addition to his salary, an allowance for representation to be expended in those countries on behalf of the Commonwealth Govern ment. Neither the salary nor the allowance is exempt from income tax, but, in regard to the allowance, a deduction is permissible for so much of the allowance as is actually spent for the purpose for which it was granted.

Department op War Organization of Industry.

Mr Rankin:

n asked the Minister for War Organization of Industry, upon notice -

  1. What salaryis paid to each of the following officers associated with the department: -

    1. Director -General,
    2. Deputy Director-General and Chief Economic Adviser,
    3. Assistant Deputy Director -General (Rationalization ) ,
    4. Assistant Director (Administration),
    5. Economic Adviser,
    6. Controller (Fisheries),
    7. Assistant Director (Public Relations),
    8. Assistant Director (Rationalization),
    9. Assistant Director (Regulations, Orders, and Enforcements),
    10. Assistant Director (Rural Industries ) ,
    11. Deputy Director, New South Wales,
    12. Deputy Director, Victoria,
    13. Deputy Director, Queensland,
    14. Deputy Director, South Australia,
    15. Deputy Director, Western Australia,
    16. Deputy Director. Tasmania,
    17. Chairman and Executive Officer, Books Publication Committee,
    18. Deputy Chairman, Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Control Committee,
    19. Deputy Chairman, Internal Combustion Engine Control Committee?
  2. Who are the other chief officers in each State and what salary is paid to each?
  3. What staff, (a) male, (&) female, is attached to each officer mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2?
  4. What is the total staff established with the department and what is the total of salaries paid?
  5. What was the total cost of the depart- . ment during the financial year 1942-43 and what is the estimated cost of financialyear 1943-44?
  6. Is it anticipated that this estimate will be exceeded, if so, by what amount?
Mr Dedman:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

The above officers are paid travelling allowance in accordance with Public Service rates.

  1. New South Wales-

In South Australia and Western Australia assistance other than clerical and typing is provided as and when required by utilization of the part-time services of State Government employees, without additional remuneration.

3.-

  1. Total staff employed - 406. Total annual salaries - £164,900.
  2. Total expenditure, 1942-43- £139,760- Estimated total expenditure, 1943-44 - £218,500.
  3. No.

Tyres and Petrol

Mr Anthony:

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

  1. Is it a fact that many tradesmen and business men in country districts are being severely restricted in, and in many instance: debarred from, rendering essential services to rural communities, owing to being denied tyres and petrol to carry out their tasks, such as repairs to milking plant, wireless repairs, repairs to farm buildings, &c?
  2. If so, will he investigate the practicability of relaxing the present restrictions imposed by the Liquid Fuel Control Board, so that sufficient petrol and tyres may be made available to the categories mentioned?
Dr Evatt:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. Cars and trucks used wholly or principally by skilled tradesmen engaged in the repair and- servicing of agricultural, dairying, shearing or sawmill machinery and in the repair and servicing of industrial plant beyond metropolitan areas are issued with motor spirit consumers’ licences marked priority four and with such priority would secure considerable preference in the matter of tyre replacements. The petrol ration allotted would be assessed in accordance with the same principles observed in the case of all other business users.
  2. The supply position of both petrol and rubber is such that it is not possible to relax the restrictions at present operating. However, I am quite prepared to examine any individual case where hardship is being experienced if the honorable member will supply me with full particulars.

Book Sponsorship Committee

Mr White:

e asked the Minister for War Organization of Industry, upon notice -

  1. What instructions and powers have been given to the Book Sponsorship Committee?
  2. How many books have been approved by it and to what categories do they belong’
  3. What Australian authors have had books approved?
  4. What proportion of (a) paper productions, and (6) imported paper is used for governmental papers and publications?
Mr Dedman:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. The Book Sponsorship Committee was appointed by the Government in December, 1943, to consider applications from publishers for the sponsorship of books of national importance for which the publisher is unable to secure paper through the ordinary trade channels. A procedure has been established whereby the Controller of Paper within the Division of Import Procurement provides paper for works which are recommended by the committee under the same conditions as those under which paper is provided for printing ordered by government departments. In making its recommendation, due regard is paid by the committee to the general paper supply position.
  2. One hundred and eleven of a total of 357 books submitted have been sponsored, including 86 by Australian authors. The books come within the following categories: -

School text-books - 102 out of a total of 213 submitted were sponsored, including 78 by Australian authors.

Technical, scientific, sociological - Five out of a total of nineteen submitted were sponsored, including four by Australian authors.

Literary works- - Four out of a totalof eight submitted were sponsored, all being by Australian authors. The titles sponsored were - Buffers, by Edwards; Happy Hours, by Anderson; Quiet Night, by Blowett; and Fountains Beyond, by Down, all of which were guaranteed by the Commonwealth Literary Fund.

The following cases were deferred, pending announcement by the Commonwealth Literary Fund of the titles which they are reprinting: -

Australian Loneliness, by Ernestine Hill; Water into Gold, by Ernestine Hill; Coast of Adventure, by Barrett; Six Posts, by Moore; Sky Saga, by Honorable T. W. White; Hectic Age, by Zora Cross.

  1. Sec answer to previous question.
  2. I have referred this aspect to my colleague, the Minister for Trade and Customs, since it concerns the Controller of Paper, who functions within his administration.

Meat Industry.

Mr Abbott:

t asked the Deputy Prime

Minister, upon notice -

  1. Apart from his formal acknowledgment, has he given any consideration to a letter addressed to him on the 8th February by the chairman of the Graziers Federal Council of Australia, Mr. Alex. Armstrong, in which he asked what steps the Government proposed to take to rectify the position created by strikes and absenteeism by slaughtermen and coal-miners, thus preventing the killing of fat stock ?
  2. If not, in view of the frequent appeals by the Government and the earnest desire of producers to assist in stepping-up meat production, does the Government intend to take action to ensure that meat producers are not let down and that supplies to Great Britain and the forces of our allies are fully maintained ?
  3. Because of the serious loss in killing stock due to absenteeism at Homebush abattoirs over a lengthy period, what action, if any, has the Government taken to deal with those responsible?
  4. How, in the future, does the Government propose to remedy this state of affairs?
Mr Forde:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : - 1 to 4. A reply to the letter from the chairman of the Graziers Federal Council of Australia, dated the 8th February, 1944, was sent onthe 21st March in the course of which a review was made of meat production in Australia and of the availability of manpower in relation to the industry; also an assurance was given that the Government would continue to take all steps necessary to ensure, as far as possible, that stock submitted for slaughter would be treated in the normal course. It is anticipated that the measures which the Government is taking concerning which reference was made in the letter to the Graziers Federal Council will rectify the position alluded to by the honorable member.

Public Service

Mr Harrison:

n asked the Deputy Prime Minister, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that there is a number of single women employed in different departments at Canberra on wages from £5 to £7 a week, whilst a number of returned soldiers, married, and with families, are employed at a considerably lower wage?
  2. What arrangements are being made by the Government for the absorption of returned soldiers into the Public Service in a temporary and permanent capacity?
Mr Forde:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. Females with the necessary qualifications are employedin various capacities on clerical, research. &c., work at varying rates of remuneration, while returned soldiers without the requisite qualifications for such work may be employed in positions carrying lower rates of pay. Remuneration isbased upon work value and returned soldiers who are competent for the work required are given preference in employment.No adult returned soldier is employed under Public Service conditions with remuneration less than £5 a week.
  2. In the notification of vacancies on either permanent or temporary staff which are open to persons outside the Commonwealth Service, it is stated that preference in appointment is given to returned soldiers and in meeting staffing requirements the legislative provision for preference to former members of the forces is strictly observed. The Public Service Board and the Man Power Directorate have an arrangement whereby the board’s recruiting representative in each State is kept supplied with particulars of ex-members of the forces desirous of and regarded as suitable for employment in the Public Service. The Commonwealth Public Service Board is continuing to apply the policy of restricting permanent appointments to the Service in order to protect the interests of persons who are serving with the forces and are thereby unable to submit their claims.

Apples and Pears.

Mr Ryan:

n asked the Minister for

Commerce and Agriculture, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the Apple and Pear Board has been charged by the Government with the duty of buying apples forthe Allied Forces in this country?
  2. Is it a fact that the board has been supplying to these forces, as well as other fruit, apples of an inferior eating variety from Tasmania ?
  3. If the above are facts, is it proper that the board which, having control of the Tasmanian and Western Australian apple crops and is itself a competitor on the market, should be entrusted with this duty?
  4. Will he consider transforming the responsibility for these supplies to a body loss directly interested, such as theCommonwealth Food Purchase Committee?
Mr Scully:
ALP

– The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows : -

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. The Commonwealth Government, having acquired 8,000,000 cases of apples, has first call on this fruit for all governmental requirements, but no fruit is accepted either by our Allies or our own services without independent inspection and approval.
  4. Deliveries are made under instructions issued by the Commonwealth Food Controller.

Potatoes.

Mr Scully:
ALP

y- On the 29th March, the honorable member for Darwin (Dame Enid Lyons) asked me a question, without notice, concerning potatoes. I have made inquiries and am now in a position to inform the honorable member that I would be greatly surprised to discover any feeling, such as that referred to. There is no discrimination against the Tasmanian grower and actually, the Tasmanian grower is in a favorable position. The value of potatoes must be based on the market in which they are consumed, and Tasmanian potatoes are exported mainly to New South Wales and Queensland. The Tasmanian growers’ price of £12 10s. becomes £15 15s. landed in Sydney, and £16 10s. in Brisbane. At present, import requirements ofNew South Wales and Queensland are being supplied from Tasmania. “Army”.

Mr Forde:
ALP

– On the 29th March, the honorable member for Newcastle (Mr. Watkins) referred to an advertisement which had appeared in the February issue of Army, dealing with Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited, and asked whether it was the policy of this particular magazine to take sides between industrial workers and employers. I advised the honorable member that this magazine was not a governmental publication, but that I would have the matter investigated and furnish him with a reply. I am now informed by the publisher of Army that available advertising space in the publication is limited by policy to seven pages per issue. Such firms as Atlantic Oil, Shell Oil, I.C.S., (&c., havebeen refused space because of this ruling. Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited have advertised in every issue of Army since the publication’s inception and have a right to space by contract. The publisher states that, when interviewed by the union representative, he indicated these facts, and added that the only variance to these rules to date would be in the April issue, when an extra advertisement would be carried for the war loan through a special representation which had been made by the Controller of Government Advertising. The publisher also states that the union representative mentioned a union advertisement in an exploratory manner, but no definite offer of advertisement was made by the representative, nor was it requested that special arrangements for such an extra advertisement should be considered by the publisher.

The publisher stated further that the union representative asked for an editorial paragraph to be printed in reply to the advertisement. The publisher stated that he refused this request on the ground that he had clearly and deliberately added the word “ Advertisement “ at the head of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited’s announcement, and that the publication would not enter the matter editorially, either for the Broken Hill Proprietary Company

Limited or the union. The publisher added that this is the normal and correct publishing practice, and concluded that any suggestion that the publication had taken sides in an industrial dispute is completely in error.

Tobacco Supplies.

Mr Makin:
ALP

n. - On the 24th March, the honorable member for Moreton (Mr. Francis) asked the following question, without notice: -

L a.«k Hie Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Customs whether or not permanently disabled soldiers of Australia, at their head-quarters in Brisbane, receive a maximum allowance of 2 oz. of tobacco a week, which is 1 oz. a week less than is issued to Italian prisoners of war? If so, will the honorable gentleman have investigations made, with a view to rectifying what appears to be a glaring injustice to these ox -soldiers?

As promised, the matter was brought to the notice of the Minister for Trade and Customs, who has now advised that, as previously stated in reply to other questions on the same subject, supplies of tobacco and cigarettes to Italian prisoners of war in Australia are issued on a maximum basis of 3 oz. a week, partly as a result of a reciprocal agreement between the Italian Government and various governments comprising the British Empire, and partly in accordance with the terms of the Hague Convention. Any attempt to reduce the scale of tobacco rations now applicable to prisoners of war in Australia would doubtless result in repercussions against Australian prisoners in enemy hands. The allowance of tobacco now drawn by disabled soldiers in Brisbane, namely, 2 oz. a week, is the maximum amount of privileged supplies approved for civilians in munitions and other war factories and for discharged Services personnel throughout Australia. Any increase in such privileged supplies would ultimately result in a reduction of the total qantities now available for ordinary civilian consumption, because of the fact that tobacco manufacturers’ output is at present definitely limited by shortage of labour and other contributing factors in the larger factories at both Sydney and Melbourne.

Canberra Transport Services.

Mr Ward:
ALP

d.- On the 22nd March, the honorable member for Balaclava (Mr. White) asked the following question, without notice: -

A recent National Security order gives the Minister for Transport pretty wide power.over transport, mid provides that hi* authority shall extend to any railway, road or air service. I ask him to take steps to ensure that a. better service is provided to Canberra. At the present time, it takes seventeen hours to travel by rail from Melbourne to Canberra. On the section between Goulburn and Canberra., an antiquated train covers the distance at the dizzy speed nf approximately 15 miles an hour. Will tl.tMinister arrange to place a few transport aeroplanes on the route to Canberra for the benefit of honorable members?

In reply, I find that this matter has been the subject of previous correspondence with the New South Wales Railway administration. I am arranging personally to discuss the whole matter with the New South Wales Minister for Transport and the Commissioner for Railways with a view to obtaining improvement in the service between Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra.

Chaff for Victoria.

Mr Ward:
ALP

d. - On the 28th March, the honorable member for Barker (Mr. Archie Cameron) asked the following question, without notice: -

I ask the Minister for Transport whether he will take decisive steps to remove the stupid ban on the transfer of chaff from Mount Gambier ‘to the fire-stricken areas of Victoria?

In November, 1942, action was taken to control the interstate transport of hay, straw and chaff, because of extensive cross-haulage resulting in unnecessary use of railway rolling-stock and engine power. Examination indicated that much of this traffic was of a speculative nature on the part of agents, and it was accordingly laid down that interstate transport would be subject to a permit under the National Security Regulations administered by the Commonwealth Department of Transport. It was further shown that in many instances such movement was made against the interests of the State in which the consignment originated, as the produce was required within that State and this movement did not have the endorsement of the State agricultural authorities. Railway transport permits are issued in all cases, endorsed by the Commonwealth and State agricultural authorities, and, in the case of chaff required for fire-stricken areas in Victoria, every assistance has been given, and I know of no case in which transport has been refused for that purpose. I am advised that only recently my department authorized the transport of 500 tons of chaff from South Australia to Victorian drought-stricken areas, but the firm responsible for this request now advises that the chaff cannot be obtained owing to the dry conditions in South Australia, the shortage of manpower and inability to obtain the chaff at an acceptable price. Similar approval has been given in respect to chaff from New South “Wales, and this traffic is actually moving.

The honorable member has referred to me a communication from Mr. J. O’Connor, of Wandilo, Mount Gambier, South Australia, in which he claims that he has no sale for 100 tons of prime oaten chaff, and that a firm in Hamilton, Victoria, has refused to take it owing to the transport restrictions. Enclosed with this letter is a communication from the Hamilton firm, which reads as follows : -

We have yours of the 14th instant. We regret that we are unable to do anything with the hay you mention for the reason that the transport authorities will not allow any fodder to go from South Australia to Victoria per rail at the present time.

We have straw and other lines there, and have had to cancel them all for this reason. Should the ban be lifted at any time we are interested in your hay.

Inquiry from both South Australia and Victorian Railways indicated that not at any time has a request been made for the supply of railway trucks to carry this traffic, neither has any request been made in my department in regard to the matter. My Director of Rail Transport has interviewed the general produce manager of the firm concerned, who admits that a request for transport has neither been made nor refused.

Manufacture and Distribution of Utensils.

Dr Evatt:
ALP

t. - On the 29th March, the honorable member for Fawkner (Mr. Holt), asked me whether or not the supplies of certain essential lines of hollow-ware are inadequate for the needs of the people of Victoria, and, if so, what are the prospects of lifting the existing ban on the export of hollowware from South Australia.

Surveys which have been made throughout Australia indicate that Victoria and New South Wales are in a relatively better position than the rest of Australia. Consequently, additional supplies could only be made available to Victoria at the expense of other States where shortages are greater. Production is being increased, and it is hoped a general improvement will be effected in the future. The extent of that improvement depends, however on such factors as the availability of man-power and materials, but the honorable member may be assured that everything possible will be done in the matter.

Petrol Supplies.

Dr Evatt:
ALP

t. - Yesterday, the honorable member for Cook (Mr. Sheehan) asked me if it were a fact that petrol supplies were now satisfactory and, if so, if I would see that priority is given to manufacturers and producers of foodstuffs.

As I informed the honorable member, the petrol stock position is not satisfactory and it is not possible to relax the restrictions now operating. However, supplies are made available under the ration scheme to enable essential users, including the manufacturers and producers of foodstuffs, to carry on their undertakings to the extent necessary in the national interest. Whilst the dangers associated with sea transport have decreased, the overall tanker and overseas petroleum supply position is not such as will enable any relaxation of existing restrictions on the use of petrol to be considered. The demand for petroleum products for operations not only in this theatre but also in other theatres of war is very heavy, and is increasing, so that the future supply position in respect of Australia may conceivably deteriorate, thus it is essential that we conserve our available stocks to the utmost. coal-mining Industry: Subsidies.

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

– On the 2nd March, the honorable member for Reid (Mr.

Morgan) asked the following questions, u pon notice : -

What has been the cost to the Commonwealth since the war began in respect of (a) subsidies or guarantees to the coal-mining industry; (b) administration in relation to such industry; (c) subsides or guarantees to other primary industries; and (d) administration in relation to such primary industries?

The answers to the honorable member’s questions are as follows: -

  1. Since the commencement of the ceiling prices plan on the 12th April, 1943, subsidies paid, through the Coal Commission, to owners of coal mines up to 20th February, 1944, totalled £55,042, made up as follows: -

In addition, refunds of basic wage increases made to owners by way of deductions from pay-roll tax for the six months to the end of January. 1944. amount to £36,501.

  1. Since the inception of the Commonwealth Cos) Commission on8th August, 1941, up to and inclusive of 29th February, 1944. administrative expenses amount to the sum of £39,619.
  2. In endeavouring to obtain this information for the honorable member, I have come, to the conclusion that it is not possible to bring together into a single estimate the cost to the Commonwealth of assistance to other primary industries byway of subsidies and guarantees as such assistance covers a wide field of production and marketing andhas often assumed an indirect as well as direct nature. The Budget Papers indicate that from the 1st July, 1939, to the 30th June, 1943, a total of £18,571,989 was expended as assistance for relief of primary producersand a further expenditure of £13,636,025 was estimated for the current financial year making an estimated total of £32,208,014 from the 1st July, 1939, tothe 30th June, 1944. However, under special conditions arising out of the war, direct and indirect relief has been afforded primary industries by subsidies and guarantees which it is not possible to segregate from other expenditure by various Commonwealth departmeats and to this extent the above figures arc incomplete.
  3. For similar reasons it is not possible to ascertain the total cost of administration in relation to such primary industries.

Whilst the above payments have been made to the primary industries they include very large funds due to the Government’s policy of the stabilization of prices and are designed to obviate the passing on of high production costs to the public which would involve anincrease in the cost of living. This does not apply except to » very minor degree to the coal industry. The figures quoted above in respect of the two industries are therefore not comparable.

Fencing Wire.

Mr Forde:
ALP

e. - On the 17th March, the honorable member for Bass (Mr. Barnard) asked me, without notice, whether I would consider releasing supplies of fencing wire under the control of the Department of the Army in Tasmania with a view to making it available fur farming. Arrangements are being made for the release throughthe Department of Supply and Shipping of approximately 20 tons of 8, 10 and 12 gauge black fencingwire which is surplus to Army requirements in Tasmania Lines of Communication Area.

Storyof Malayan Campaign.

Mr.FORDE. - On the 9th March, 1944, the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) asked a question regarding the suggested distribution to the Australian press of a condensation of a story by Sir George Sansom in relation to the campaign in Malaya.

I desire to inform the right honorable member that the article referred to has been examined, and as a result the opinion has been formed that it breaks no new ground. It is therefore considered that the narrative is now too late to have any value for re-publication in condensed form at this period. papua and New Guinea : care of Natives

Mr Fadden:

n asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact that the loyalty, co-operation and assistance of the “fuzzy-wuzzies “ of Papua and New Guinea have been oulogized by all Allied Army commanders and have won also the admiration and affection of all troops?
  2. Is it a fact that the attitude of the “ fuzzy-wuzzies “ in this war is attributable largely to the work of Sir Hubert Murray, whose outstanding services and policy have been acclaimed by the Commonwealth Government ?
  3. Is it a fact that upon Sir Hubert Murray’s death, his policy was carried on, until the outbreak of war with Japan, by his nephew, Mr. Leonard Murray, when he was ordered out of New Guinea by the Army authorities?
  4. Can the Ministersay why Mr. Leonard Murray and certain members of his staff have been largely ignored by him in favour of unfledged Sydney University personnel, university professors and former members of the British colonialstaff largely inexperienced in New Guinea conditions?

  5. Is it a factthat, the Honorable Camilla Wedgwood will, under the Minister’s policy, become responsible for post-war native education in New Guineaandthat the Govern men t, at the Minister’s request, has appointed her a colonel in the Australian Women’s Army Service for this purpose?

    1. If so, will the Minister say whether it is the policy of the Government to exclude, in favour of his present advisers, the former administrative staff of the New Guinea service, including Mr. Leonard Murray, both in an advisory capacity and from the post-war viewpoint of the New Guinea administration service?
Mr Ward:
ALP

d. - The answers to the right honorable member’s question? are as follows : -

  1. The loyalty and co-operation ofthe native population of Papua and New Guinea have been important contributing factors in the success of the Allied forces in these theatres of operations and have been fully recognized by the Commonwealth Government, the Allied commanders, and byall members of the armed forces.
  2. The favorable attitude of the natives to the cause of the Allied Nations is believed by the Government tobe due, to a great extent, to the sympathetic administration of native affairs by past administrations, and the splendid work of the late Sir Hubert Murray is fully recognized by the Government.
  3. When the Army assumed control of New Guinea and Papua, Mr. Leonard Murray, who succeeded his late uncle as Administrator, returned to the mainland and his services have been used by the Department of the Treasury in connexion with the work ofthe War Damage Commission. Upon the assumption of the position of Administrator by Mr. Leonard Murray there was no change in policy, but investigation by the present Government has established the need for protecting the natives against many of the abuses to which they have been subjected in the past, and against which the local administrators have struggled in the past. The welfare of the natives shall be a guiding principle with the present Government in its plansfor the postwar period.
  4. Future policy in regard to the territories has been entrusted to a committee of Cabinet which will obtain the best advice available. All the data in the possession of the Department of External Territories and the officers of that department will be available to the committee. The committee will also have at its disposal the valuable experience gained by the military Authorities during the past two years.

  5. Lieutenant-Colonel the Honorable Camilla Wedgwood is not responsible for post-war native education inNew Guinea. That isa Government responsibility, but any views which she or others may express will be fully considered bythe Government. Appointment? to any position in the Army are determinedby the Department of the Army, and no request was made by the Minister for External Territories for the appointment of the Honorable Camilla Wedgwood, or forher to be given any particular rank.

    1. See answer to question 4.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 30 March 1944, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1944/19440330_reps_17_178/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant