House of Representatives
25 November 1959

23rd Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 23rd Parliament
  3. 1959

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. John McLeay) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 3063

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Dr EVATT:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for External Affairs - whom I am glad to see back home again - relating to the conference on Antarctica in which he played a prominent part. Can he inform the House shortly of the broad executive arrangements under the proposed agreement? Do they concern Australia directly, that is to say, will any of the operations take place within Commonwealth jurisdiction? What responsibilities will Australia have under the agreement?

Mr CASEY:

– It is not possible for me to make any formal statement at this stage because the treaty is as yet a confidential document. It has not yet emerged from the Antarctic Treaty Conference in Washington. However, I think I can say there is every sign that the three principal purposes of the treaty - the purposes for which Australia took part in the conference - will be achieved in a satisfactory way. Those three principal purposes were, first, freedom of scientific research in the Antarctic; secondly, non-militarization; and, thirdly, protection of claims in the Antarctic. The great bulk of the remainder of the treaty is concerned largely with implementing those three principal purposes. There are other provisions in respect of accession, jurisdiction and inspection of all posts in the Antarctic to ensure that, in particular, the provision relating to non-militarization is being carried out.

I would think that the conference is now within a relatively few days of its conclusion, and that the treaty is likely to be signed within a short period, after which, of course, it will need ratification by the parliaments of the twelve countries concerned. As the Parliament is unlikely to be in session when the treaty is finalized, I shall take the earliest public opportunity to bring to the notice of honorable members and of the Australian people the provisions of the treaty and the extent to which Australia is involved. The southern coastline of Australia, which extends for some 2,000 miles, is within an average distance of not much more than 2,000 miles from the Australian sector of the Antarctic. So, from the stand-point of weather, defence and other considerations, Australia, I think, is the country most directly concerned with the successful consummation of a treaty of this sort. I believe that all Australia’s interests have been adequately safeguarded, and at a proper time I shall develop that aspect of the matter in detail when I have an opportunity.

page 3063

QUESTION

ROCKHAMPTON AIR TRAINING CORPS FLIGHT

Mr PEARCE:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Air. Is the Minister aware that accusations are being made by leading citizens of Rockhampton and central Queensland that Air Force officers have taken hasty and high-handed action in bringing about the closing of the Air Training Corps Flight in Rockhampton? The Minister will recall my representations on this subject over a long period - latterly, in conjunction with the Postmaster-General. Can the Minister for Air now inform me whether his investigations into the closing of the flight are complete and, if they are, what are the reasons for the action that has been taken?

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am aware that a number of complaints have been made by citizens and bodies in the Rockhampton district about the closing of the Air Training Corps Flight there. As the honorable member knows, it was proposed to close this flight over a year ago. At his own request, a further period was allowed for the flight to establish that it was being used to a reasonable extent. The facts are that, with an establishment of 60, the number enlisted has rarely been above 50, and the average attendance has been as low as 25 and never higher than 30 over the last two months. The Air Training Corps throughout Australia is strictly limited by the amount of the financial vote that can be devoted to it. I have received applications from all over the country for the establishment of new flights and the enlargement of existing ones, and I do not feel justified in allowing to continue in existence a flight of which full use is not being made. I have made the most careful inquiries into this matter, and I regret to have to tell the honorable member that I think the decision must be maintained and that the flight must be closed.

page 3064

QUESTION

ANTARCTICA

Mr MAKIN:
BONYTHON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I desire to direct to the Minister for External Affairs a question which is supplementary to the one which he has already answered. Will this Parliament have an opportunity to ratify the treaty in respect of Antarctica? It so, will -an opportunity for debate be afforded so that members of the Parliament may be Sully informed on what the Minister may submit from the official point of view, and may express fully the views of this Parliament on the matter?

Mr CASEY:

– The ratification of the treaty is a matter on which I must consult my friend and colleague, the AttorneyGeneral, but it is my personal belief - I do not want to be held to this, though - that the treaty would be brought before the Australian Parliament for ratification.

page 3064

QUESTION

AVALON AIR PAGEANT

Mr OPPERMAN:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Supply. Can the Minister inform me whether final arrangements have been made for the entry of the general public, on Sunday, 6th December, to the Avalon airport near Geelong, where the most outstanding aerial pageant and static display of aircraft and guided missiles in Australia’s history is being organized? I understand that the Minister has been making inquiries on my behalf as to whether the big crowd which is expected can be handled effectively and without detriment to security or to the general safety of the public.

Mr HULME:
Minister for Supply · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am pleased to tell the honorable member that my department has been able to make the Avalon airfield available for this display on 6th December. I believe it will be a display of outstanding merit. In addition to the assistance to be given by my own department, including a static display of the Jindivik and the Malkara, a number of Commonwealth departments will give their co-operation, particularly the Department of Air, the Department of Civil Aviation and the Department of the Navy. We shall also have the co operation of Qantas, the two principal internal airlines, British missile firms, and the Victorian Aero Club. I am pleased to say that the Victorian police also will cooperate. There will be no difficulty in relation to the admission of the crowd that is expected. There will be no danger to the people attending, and no difficulty in relation to security aspects.

page 3064

QUESTION

MOUNT ISA RAILWAY

Mr WARD:
EAST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister whether it will be necessary to import any equipment or materials in connexion with the Mount Isa railway project. If so, what is the general description of the items which cannot be procured in Australia? If no such imports are required, how does the Prime Minister explain the Government’s attempt to raise an overseas loan which, at one stage, was declared to be essential to the carrying out of this work? When did the Prime Minister first become aware that this railway work could be financed in its entirety from Australian sources? Finally, in future, when equipment and materials are available in this country to carry out any work project, will he ensure that local and not foreign capital is used?

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I literally do not know how much of the material needed will be imported. The Queensland Government will be attending to that work. The rest of the honorable member’s question seems to consist of an objection to the use of capital from overseas. I am bound to say that I will use as much capital from overseas as I can in this country because if we confine ourselves to the capital that we can generate internally we will slow down development very grievously. If the honorable member wants to hear a pretty frank opinion of his view on the importation of foreign capital he should go down and address the employees at the Ford works or the International Harvester works at Geelong, or at the General Motors-Holden’s works and see how they like the idea of cutting off supplies of capital from overseas.

page 3064

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT BANK

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– Can the Treasurer inform the House when the Commonwealth Development Bank will commence business?

Will it be allocated adequate funds to permit genuine applicants for finance under its constitution to take full advantage of its services?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– As honorable members are probably aware, a good deal of preliminary work has been proceeding since the legislation was passed in the Parliament to constitute the Commonwealth Banking Corporation of which the Development Bank is an element. As recently as yesterday, I had a discussion with the Secretary to the Treasury and the managing director of the corporation with a view to clearing up some of the administrative details which are still outstanding, and with a view to considering the policy directives which will eventually be issued, particularly in relation to the Development Bank. It is expected that the new structure will be in operation before the end of January next year although I do not want to be pinned to a particular date. I believe that the funds available to the Development Bank will be adequate for the purposes which the legislation has enumerated. Of course, the Government will watch that position from time to time and, if necessary, will bring to this Parliament proposals for increasing the supply of funds should it deem that to be desirable.

page 3065

QUESTION

TELEVISION PROGRAMMES

Mr HAYLEN:
PARKES, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, addressed to the Postmaster-General, reverts to his suggestion yesterday that very soon he would make a decision regarding the quality and quantity of Australian content in television programmes. I am now requested to offer him, from station ATN, Australian programmes which are waiting for sponsors, and I should like to enumerate them to him as follows: - Two half hours-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member is giving information.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Do you mean, Mr. Speaker, that I am not able to talk about Australian programmes?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member may ask his question, but he will be out of order if he gives information.

Mr HAYLEN:

– Then you are subediting my question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honorable member will resume his seat.

page 3065

QUESTION

HOVERCRAFT

Mr CHRESBY:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Prime Minister whether a Government survey is being made of the commercial potentialities of the hovercraft and the giant low-pressure-tyred diesel road train and their possible impact upon Commonwealth-State financial relations with respect to road grants. Would it be possible to have prepared for the information of Parliament a paper indicating major scientific, technological and mechanical developments and their possible impact upon the Australian economy over, say, the next ten to fifteen years?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– As to the second part of the question, I am sure my honorable friend will agree that that would involve producing many volumes. I will not undertake that task. As for the fabulous hovercraft, it is in its very, very early experimental stages. I do not think that anybody would imagine that the time has come to be considering seriously the hovercraft as an instrument of transport which could be used under certain circumstances in Australia. Our people concerned, of course, keep a close eye on these developments, bt« I would not like to encourage the idea that this new - what shall I call it? - vehicle has yet reached the stage of development at which one could consider its applicability in practical terms to various places and problems in Australia.

page 3065

QUESTION

SHOPPING HOURS

Mr KEARNEY:
CUNNINGHAM, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for the Interior refers to the laws operating within the Australian Capital Territory which permit trading after hours by retail commercial stores and the resulting effects of that permission upon the adjacent town of Queanbeyan and, indeed, New South Wales generally. Is the Minister possessed of any facts which would prove or disprove that the introduction of late shopping nights in Canberra was instigated by the firm of Rogers Proprietary Limited, a large Goulburn emporium financially controlled by the Burns Philp company

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member will direct his question.

Mr KEARNEY:

– I ask the Minister whether he will take action to eliminate late shopping practices in the Australian Capital Territory and thereby cease to encourage the defiance of the long-established, sensible and well-founded laws of New South Wales by commercial interests - principally large financial interests?

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior · FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I cannot recall to mind who first made the suggestion that there should be late shopping hours in Canberra; but it was examined by a committee consisting of all parties of this Parliament. That committee made a recommendation to which effect was subsequently given. There can be no doubt - whatever the honorable member’s views on this matter are - that the majority of people in this Territory at any rate thoroughly approve of the late shopping hours we now enjoy.

page 3066

QUESTION

AIR TRAINING CORPS

Mr HOWSE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Tn directing a question to the Minister for Air I refer to numerous representations that I have made to him for the provision of an adequate training establishment for the Orange air training corps. Is the Minister yet in a position to say when this centre will be established and in operation?

Mr OSBORNE:
LP

– As the honorable member for Calare states, he has taken great pains to ensure that I am aware of the need for a training establishment for the air training corps in Orange. It was intended to move a hut from Parkes to Orange but, unfortunately, the cost was found to be too great. I am glad to be able to tell the honorable gentleman, however, that funds have been set aside for the erection of a new building at Orange, and I understand that tenders will be called in January next.

page 3066

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is to the Minister for Primary Industry. Has he yet studied the report of the New South Wales inquiry into the manipulation of wool prices? As any necessary action that might be taken in any one State would not be so effective as Commonwealth action, will the Minister take immediate steps to initiate a Commonwealth inquiry in order to have some action on a Commonwealth plane?

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · FISHER, QUEENSLAND · CP

– As I indicated at an earlier stage, I am awaiting copies of the report of the inquiry in New South Wales, which I expect to receive by courtesy of the New South Wales Government. The copies have not yet arrived, so I have not seen the report. I remind the honorable member that the inquiry was conducted by the New South Wales Government, and I think it quite fair to give that government an opportunity to consider the report before it is suggested that other governments interpose in the matter. I also remind the honorable gentleman that wool auctions are conducted under the provisions of State legislation.

page 3066

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT PRODUCTION

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Defence: Is it true, as stated by the honorable member for Yarra yesterday, that Australia is not allowed to sell to other countries aircraft of overseas design which have been manufactured by the Australian aircraft industry? Will the Minister give an assurance that any aircraft to be manufactured in Australia in future can be sold overseas, thus reducing the unit cost of such aircraft to Australia?

Mr TOWNLEY:
Minister for Defence · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP

– A week or two ago the honorable member for Yarra asked me a question along the following lines: - Was it a fact that aircraft and aircraft engines made in Australia had been made under a contract which prevented Australia from exporting them? My reply was to the effect that I had forgotten what were the terms of the contract, because it had been reached several years ago. Yesterday, the honorable member for Yarra stated, quite categorically, that Australia was not allowed to export aircraft that had been made under licence. Just after the honorable member for Yarra asked his first question, I checked the contract, and I discovered that the honorable member was in error, and that the English Electric Canberra and the North American Sabre, and the Rolls-Royce engines that go with them, and indeed all aircraft made by Australia in the last ten years, are made under contracts which provide that Australia can make arrangements with the proprietors to export aircraft if desired. In respect of the Sabre and the Canberra, and the Rolls-Royce engines that power them, arrangements were actually made with the companies concerned, and there was nothing to stop Australia exporting those aircraft if we could have found some customers for them.

page 3067

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr E JAMES HARRISON:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the

Minister for Social Services say why the Department of Social Services adopts the principle that where an age pensioner loses his or her life partner and decides to keep on living in the home, and allows a young couple to share it for the payment of £3 a week - which goes towards payment of rates and so on - the survivor’s pension can be, and in some cases has been, reduced from £9 10s. a fortnight to as low as £4 2s. a fortnight? Is it the policy of the Government and the department to require age pensioners who have suffered the sad loss of their life partners to live alone in their homes for the remainder of their lives, if they want to continue to receive the pension at the maximum rate? If this is the Government’s policy is it not an inhuman one from the point of view not only of the pensioners but also of young couples seeking reasonable housing accommodation?

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– If the honorable member for Blaxland has in mind a particular case that he would like explained, I will be glad to give him an explanation after consideration of the case. I can say, in general terms, that it is competent for a person receiving an age pension, or, indeed, an invalid pension, to remain possessed of a home of any value, without prejudice to the pension, so long as the person concerned lives in that home. If such a person decides, for any reason, to subdivide the home and provide accommodation for other people on a rental basis, then the portion of the property rented to the tenants, and not the income received from it, since income from property is exempt, must be taken into consideration in assessing the property of the pensioner, and the pension may be altered accordingly.

page 3067

QUESTION

BUSH FIRE PREVENTION

Mr HOLTEN:
INDI, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Can the Minister say what progress has been made by the C.S.I.R.O. in the development of new methods of extinguishing bush fires? If new means of fighting these fires have been achieved, what action is being taken to acquaint fire-fighting authorities of such methods? I ask this question because of the concern that is being felt at the possibility that this summer will be one of extreme fire danger, and because of the fact that bush fires have a very damaging effect on our national economy.

Mr CASEY:

– Work has been going on at the Chemical Research Laboratories of the C.S.I.R.O. at Fishermen’s Bend for the last year or two. This is the first time, I believe, that a full-scale inquiry into the origin of, and means of coping with, bush fires has been carried out in this country or, I think, practically speaking, in any other country. It is being conducted in the usual patient and imaginative way in which C.S.I.R.O. scientists do their work. It is much too early yet to say that any positive results could be made public that would be of use to the relevant authorities. Until T left this country, briefly, a few months ago, I was in very close touch with the officer in charge of this research, and I think I can say with truth that the work is now very promising. But I do not expect that the C.S.I.R.O. will be in a position to make any positive and useful statement for another twelve months, although I believe that very positive and useful results will emerge in a year or two.

page 3067

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Mr JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. By way of preface, I may say that the shipbuilding industry in Australia to-day is in a very precarious position. None of the yards has any continuity of employment with the exception of the Whyalla shipyard of the Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. These facts prompt me to ask whether the Minister has, during 1959, permitted the Adelaide Steamship Company Limited, or any other company, to place an order overseas for the construction of a new ship or to purchase an existing vessel overseas. If the answer to either question is in the affirmative, what is the tonnage of the vessel concerned, and why was permission given? Furthermore, has the Minister had inquiries made overseas regarding the construction of refrigerator ships of some 14,000 tons? Will the Minister give an assurance that if it is decided to acquire such vessels, they will be built in Australian shipyards?

Mr HULME:
LP

– I do not know the details of the matter to which the honorable member has referred, and if he will place his question on the notice-paper I will obtain an answer from my colleague in another place. I would like to say, however, with relation to the honorable member’s preamble to the question, that I think no government could have been expected to do more than this Government has done to assist the shipbuilding industry in this country.

page 3068

QUESTION

EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION

Mr TIMSON:
HIGINBOTHAM, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Can the Minister confirm recent reports that Ministers representing seven European countries, namely Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, have agreed to a convention setting up a new economic grouping to be called the European Free Trade Association? Will the Minister indicate how the arrangements covered by that convention differ from the arrangements that have already been entered into by Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands? Will the Minister state what will be the effect of the arrangements made at Stockholm on the preferences Australia receives at present in the United Kingdom?

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– An announcement has been made that Ministers representing the seven nations named by the honorable member have signed a convention in Stockholm. It is designed to establish what is called the European Free Trade

Association. This so-called European Free Trade Association will not come into existence officially unless and until the governments of the nations named ratify the convention. It is designed to eliminate tariffs between member countries, but will apply mainly - I think almost entirely - to industrial goods. Because the free trade convention will apply to industrial goods, it will not impinge significantly upon Australian preferences with the United Kingdom. Indeed, I should say that the United Kingdom has been very firm in declining to enter into any arrangement that would necessitate the abandoning or serious impairing of the system which has been historically known as the system of imperial preference.

The free trade area differs from the socalled European Common Market, which is comprised of the six countries mentioned by the honorable member, in that a common external tariff is not intended to apply in the case of the free trade area, whereas the European Common Market group of six countries intends, over a period of twelve to fifteen years, to establish free trade within the group of six and also to establish gradually a common external tariff equally applied by all of the six. Those are the main distinguishing features of the two groups.

page 3068

QUESTION

COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to the Postmaster-General. As it has been the practice in the past to issue commemorative stamps to mark the centenary of Australian States, will the Postmaster-General issue another set of such stamps to mark the centenary next year of the Northern Territory?

Mr DAVIDSON:
Postmaster-General · DAWSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– I am glad to inform the honorable member for the Northern Territory that a similar request has already been made to me by my colleague, the Minister for Territories, and others interested, and the matter is at present under consideration. I shall be glad to let him know when we have made a decision.

page 3068

QUESTION

IMPORT LICENSING

Mr DRUMMOND:
NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Country Timber Merchants Association of New South

Wales, representing some 54 mills, is gravely concerned at the impact of the import restrictions, based upon a theory which was adopted by the organization many years ago. Will the right honorable gentleman ascertain whether there is any real ground for the worry of the association? Further, will he also consider a report by Mr. Justice Richards in 1955, following his investigation into the timber industry in New South Wales, in which he described conditions as approaching a monopoly, thus affecting the importing rights of country traders?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The honorable member has directed my attention to certain aspects of this matter, as indeed have a number of other honorable members of his party who represent New South Wales country areas. This is a matter which I am having studied at the present time. I can only say that I am hopeful that as the general circumstances that necessitate import licensing modify and the stringency in regard to overseas funds is abated, something may be done in the matter in the not too distant future.

page 3069

QUESTION

LONG BAY RIFLE RANGE

Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for the Army a question. In view of the proposed move by the Government to abolish National Service training, which will mean that the Army will have no further use for the Long Bay rifle range, will the Minister advise me whether the Government intends to turn the range over to the Randwick Municipal Council so that it may carry out a plan put forward by several of its aldermen to subdivide the range into building blocks for a municipal housing scheme?

Mr CRAMER:
Minister for the Army · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Mr. Speaker, I certainly admire the persistence of the honorable member. He has been talking to me about this matter for several years. He knows quite well that a thorough and complete investigation of this matter has been made recently and he has been informed of the whole of the circumstances. No, it is not possible to give him the land that he asks for.

page 3069

QUESTION

AMMUNITION

Mr BROWNE:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister tor Supply whether he has considered a request that surplus .303 ammunition be made available, at a reasonable cost, for the destruction of vermin. If so, what is the result of his consideration?

Mr HULME:
LP

– I know the problem that exists in the honorable member’s electorate in relation to pest destruction. I am not able to inform him that there is in fact any surplus .303 ammunition at the present time, nor do I think it likely that there will be any in the near future. However, I will discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister for the Army, ascertain the prospects and inform the honorable member accordingly.

page 3069

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr CLAY:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Does the honorable gentleman believe that the efficiency of his department would be lowered if he liberalized employment opportunities in the field of letter delivery, mail sorting and mail work by contradicting recent advertisements in Sydney newspapers for these positions which impose an age limit of 18 to 50 years for men and 25 to 45 years for women? Will the honorable gentleman endeavour to persuade his colleague, the Minister for Social Services, to liberalize social services for the too old at 50 in the case of men, and the too old at 45 in the case of women?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I shall need to look at the facts of the matter referred to by the honorable member before I can give any definite answer to the first part of his question. However, I am quite certain that any action the department takes along the lines mentioned by the honorable member would not in any way affect its efficiency. As to his reference to social services, that is outside my sphere and I do not propose to answer that part of his question.

page 3069

QUESTION

REDFERN MAIL EXCHANGE

Mr COPE:
WATSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister. The right honorable gentleman is fully aware that more than 200 people, including pensioners and children, are to be evicted from their homes in Redfern in February next to make way for a mail sorting branch. Will the Government, even at this late hour, reverse its previous decision and make a special allocation of loan funds to the New South Wales Housing Commission so that alternative accommodation can be provided for these unfortunate people?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I know that discussions have been going on about this matter, but as I am not completely up to date with them, I should be very glad if the honorable member would put his question on the notice-paper.

page 3070

QUESTION

GRETA MIGRANT CENTRE

Mr FAIRHALL:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question, relating to the proposed closure of the Greta migrant centre, to the Minister for Immigration. I am aware that alternative accommodation will be found for the residents of the centre, but I should like to know whether adequate consideration has been given to the desirability of keeping open country migrant centres so that the occupants may remain in the district, by establishing either homes or businesses there. The present proposals tend to overcentralize the migrant population.

Mr DOWNER:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– I well recognize the honorable member’s interest in this matter because I think that the Greta migrant centre lies within the district which he has represented in this Parliament for years with assiduousness and distinction. The honorable gentleman has had discussions with me from time to time during the last fortnight following my announcement that the centre would be closed. I want the honorable gentleman to realize that the proposal is not to abolish the Greta migrant centre but to place it, from the middle of January next, on a caretaker basis so that should economic opportunities offer in the future, and should it be desirable to direct more migrants to that part of Australia, the centre can be re-opened very speedily and accommodate up to 2,000 people.

I well realize, and agree in principle with, the honorable gentleman’s view of centralization, but I can assure him that that point of view is kept very much in mind so far as migrant centres are concerned. In the broad, it is not proposed to contract them and to direct this temporary form of accommodation merely to the big cities. Nonetheless, as I think my honorable friend will agree because of his own quite considerable administrative experience, these matters have to be considered in terms of what is desirable, what is reasonable, and what is economical. As I said at the time when I announced the closure of the centre, the Government will save £100,000 a year by the present proposal. I should hope that the Government’s decision, therefore, would commend itself to all honorable members on both sides of the House.

page 3070

QUESTION

REDFERN MAIL EXCHANGE

Dr EVATT:

– I should like to ask a question supplementary to that which the honorable member for Watson directed to the Prime Minister. The right honorable gentleman has indicated that he will look into the Government’s proposal as it affects the housing of people in the district with the object, perhaps, of intervention by the Commonwealth, which would, I believe, prevent tremendous hardship. Will the Prime Minister personally try to look at this matter as soon as possible?

Mr MENZIES:
LP

– I am very conscious of the fact that this is a matter of importance, and of urgency, because it was brought vividly to my notice by the honorable member for Watson. I do not propose, therefore, that there should be any delay in arriving at a conclusion. All I said in reply to the honorable member was that I am not personally in a position yet to express a conclusion. I know that this is a matter of importance, and there will be no delay.

page 3070

QUESTION

CRIMES ACT

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I remind the AttorneyGeneral that some time ago, in reply to a question, he stated to me that the Government was considering the recommendations of a recent royal commission relating to apparent weaknesses in the Crimes Act. Have those considerations been completed? Is it proposed to introduce legislation to cover the apparent weaknesses in the Crimes Act?

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Attorney-General · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I told the honorable gentleman on a former occasion that there was a current file in connexion with this matter, and that I had it before me. That is still true. The matter has not yet been concluded, and the honorable member can rest assured that there will be no legislation on it before the House goes into recess.

page 3071

FULBRIGHT REPORT

Mr CASEY:

– by leave - I lay on the table the following paper: -

Report of the Fulbright programme in Australia for the years 1949 to 1959. 1 remind the House that to-morrow, 26th November, is the tenth anniversary of the commencement of the Fulbright programme. Ten years ago to-morrow, the Fulbright agreement was signed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Dr. Evatt) in his then capacity as Minister for External Affairs, and the then United States Ambassador to Australia.

I believe that this report will be of value and interest to honorable members generally. lt covers a period of very successful implementation of the mutual reciprocal exchange of academic persons, teachers and the like, between Australia and the United States of America. I pay tribute to Senator Fulbright, now the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, who was the originator of the legislation which enabled the Fulbright programme to be carried out with Australia. The programme is worldwide in its operation. I think that over forty countries enjoy the privilege of exchanging academic and teaching personnel with the United States.

The programme in Australia was commenced by the agreement of the United States that about 5,000,000 dollars of surplus lend-lease funds remaining in Australia at the end of the war should be used for this purpose. In 1949, it was believed that the fund would last about ten years, but, through prudent management by the council of the Fulbright scheme, the funds are now believed to be sufficient to carry on the scheme for about another five years. Without wishing to give precise figures, I would say that over the last ten years about 500 Australians have been able to visit the United States and continue their studies there for the best part of an academic year, whilst about the same number of Americans have been able to visit Australia for the same period.

One can say with truth that the Fulbright scheme has been a great success, and that it must have resulted in the diffusion of a good deal of knowledge among individuals of some substantial intellectual capacity in Australia and the United States. I think that I can express, on behalf of all honorable members, the gratitude of the Government and the Australian people for this generous gesture by the United States Administration.

Dr EVATT:

– by leave - In supporting the right honorable gentleman’s statement, I should like to recall for the benefit of honorable members the basis of the Fulbright agreement and the subsequent arrangements. I think that the Australian Government alone, of all the allied governments which received substantial lend-lease assistance from the United States, made a comparable contribution in return by way of what was called reverse lend-lease. For instance, we supplied large quantities of equipment, including clothing, to the United States and other allied forces. Australia contributed so much that, when the accounts came to be looked at after the end of the fighting, there was almost a complete balance. Many other nations which had received great benefits from the United States of America were not in a position to make such a return, but Australia was. It was suggested by Mr. Chifley, who was then Prime Minister, that we would not ask the United States to forego the amount of the surplus funds held here. I think it was something like 5,000,000 dollars, although I cannot be sure of the exact amount. It was agreed that we would not ask the United States to forgive us that amount, although the contributions by the two countries were almost the same. There were tremendous contributions by Australia and tremendous contributions - greater, of course - by the United States.

Then came the agreement which Mr. Chifley himself negotiated - I think with Dean Acheson - under which the balance which we owed was to be made available for purposes like this and for other purposes such as the construction in Australia at Australia’s expense of buildings for the United States Government - as something that would help to confirm the ties of friendship which had been established during the war. Those are the facts. It was an arrangement of that kind. As the Minister for External Affairs (Mr. Casey) correctly says, it was completely negotiated by the Chifley Government. Mr. Jarman, who was then United States Ambassador in Australia, and I signed the agreement.

I want to mention another matter - not by way of complaint, but in order to point out that there has been an oversight. There is a board of directors which allocates these scholarships. On it, Australia and the United States are represented. But throughout the long period of its existence, not one representative of the present Opposition in this Parliament has sat on that board as an Australian representative, although the present Opposition party, when in office, negotiated the original agreement. I ask the Minister, not to decide immediately, but to look at the matter afresh and see whether it is possible to include a representative of the Opposition. It should be, because this scheme owes so much to the initiative of Mr. Chifley. If this were done, the administration of the scheme would be helped, and I think it would be strengthened in certain respects. I entirely agree that this is a great scheme. Senator Fulbright, Dean Acheson, various United States Ambassadors and others from the United States have done a great deal to make it successful. I just want to add the proposition which I have just put for the Minister to consider at his leisure.

page 3072

CANBERRA TO TUMUT ROAD

Report of the Australian Capital Territory Committee.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– On behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I bring up the committee’s report relating to the provision of safe all-weather road access between Canberra and Tumut, which was referred to the committee by the Government on 14th May last. I bring up, also, the minutes of evidence taken by the committee in connexion with this report.

I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the committee heard evidence from a number of people representing various interests in Tumut, Canberra, and the districts surrounding those two places, as to the require ments of this city in relation to supplies of milk, meat, fruit, vegetables and other farm produce, as well as its needs of hardwood and softwood timbers, bricks and other building materials, and inquired as to the possibility of supplies of these materials coming to Canberra from the Tumut area. The committee found - and it has so reported - that great advantage would accrue to the Australian Capital Territory from the supply of these farm products and building materials if a safe all-weather road between the two centres existed.

Having come down with that decision, the committee was then required to investigate the merits of possible alternative routes. In the light of all the evidence given before the committee, it has decided to recommend the route through Brindabella and what is known as Bondo Gap, connecting with existing forestry roads coming easterly from Tumut, in preference to other routes passing through Uriarra, Taemas and Wee Jasper. The committee has recommended that the Commonwealth would be justified in undertaking the expenditure required to develop the Brindabella route to a two-lane gravel highway at an estimated cost, exclusive of the proposed development in the Australian Capital Territory itself, of about £212,000. I hope that the report will meet with the approval of the Government.

Ordered to be printed.

page 3072

QUESTION

INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– by leave - I present the following paper: -

Inter-Parliamentary Union - 48th Conference, held at Warsaw, September, 1959 - Report of Australian delegation. and move -

That the paper be printed.

I commend this important document to all honorable members for their careful perusal in order that they may be in a position to debate it at an early date. I am sure that they will find it of very great interest, as it is a record of the thinking on important international questions by members of the parliaments of 56 countries represented at the recent conference. I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 3073

EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL (No. 2) 1959

Motion (by Mr. McEwen) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956, as amended by the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1959.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

In March last when I introduced amendments to this act to enable the liability and capital limits of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation to be doubled, I indicated that the functions of this corporation were being reviewed to determine whether its powers needed to be extended to meet the full requirements of exporters and to make the maximum contribution to export earnings. This bill is the result of that review, which has been made by the Government assisted by the advice of the Consultative Council of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation and of industry organizations, including the Export Development Council.

The bill proposes, first, that the corporation be authorized to offer a higher percentage cover in certain circumstances than the present maximum of 85 per cent.; and secondly, that the corporation be permitted access to the recently established short-term money market to enable it to make maximum use of its investible funds.

The functions of the corporation do not overlap with those of commercial insurers, as the latter do not cover the business of export payments insurance. The corporation commenced operations in September, 1957. Its value has been readily appreciated by Australian exporting industries. Policies to a value of over £40,000,000 have been issued. The steady growth of the corporation’s business is shown by the fact that on 30th June, 1959, the corporation had current at that date policies to a value of over £21,000,000, or almost twice the value of policies current at 30th June of the previous year.

At present the corporation is authorized under section 16 of the act to grant cover up to 85 per cent, of a loss. This maximum applies regardless of the nature of the cause of the loss. The first amendment proposes that that maximum should continue to apply where the loss arises from the insolvency of the buyer or from the failure, through protracted default, of the buyer to pay. These are classified as “ commercial “ causes of loss.

The other risks against which the corporation grants insurance are commonly referred to as “ political risks “, since they relate to acts of governments or situations of a political character. Examples of such risks are exchange transfer blockages, the imposition or variation of import restrictions, wars and revolutions. The bill proposes that in the case of such political risks, the corporation be authorized to grant cover up to 90 per cent, in the pre-shipment period and up to 95 per cent, in the postshipment period in the case of contracts relating to the sale and export of goods.

For commercial risks, the practice of other export payments insurance schemes is based on the view that to move above 85 per cent, for these risks could encourage an exporter to be less than prudent in export transactions which involve risks of this nature. The Government accepts this view and no change from the existing maximum permissible cover for this class of risk is proposed.

The political risks covered by Export Payments Insurance Corporation are of such a nature that, generally speaking, the exporter can do little to protect himself against them. For this reason, it is proposed to give the exporter in suitable cases a higher indemnity against losses occasioned by these risks than would be available against losses due to commercial causes.

The reason for the lower percentage maximum in the pre-shipment period for political risks is that the exporter is at that stage in a position to ensure that shipment takes place and all conditions are complied with by the importer. By bearing a minimum of 10 per cent, of any possible loss himself, the exporter is provided with an inducement to conduct his transactions on sound business lines. Moreover, in the event of the frustration of the contract before shipment of the goods as a result of the occurrence of one of the causes of loss covered, he still has possession of the goods and is in a better position to minimize the loss likely to be sustained. These considerations have less relevance after the goods have been shipped and are outside the physical and, perhaps also, the legal control of the exporter.

The distinction in time between preshipment and post-shipment cover does not apply to three types of guarantees insured by the corporation, namely stockholding guarantees, processing guarantees, and services guarantees. These kinds of guarantees are covered by section 16 (4) of the bill. In the first two of these types of guarantees, the corporation does not assume liability until after the goods are landed in the overseas country where the goods are to be processed or held in stock. In a services guarantee, that is one relating to royalty payments or, more commonly, payments due to an Australian firm for technical investigations and design or for the construction of projects overseas, the corporation assumes liability only after the contract has been signed by the parties concerned and approved by the corporation. The bill provides that in the case of these three types of guarantees, the corporation could issue cover up to 85 per cent, against commercial risks and up to 95 per cent, against political risks.

There is one other point in relation to commercial and political risks. When the overseas buyer is a governmental buyer or a buyer backed by a government guarantee, the concept of commercial risks is inappropriate. It would be impracticable for the Export Payments Insurance Corporation to determine in any particular case whether the failure or refusal of the government buyer was due to a capricious default, or whether it was really due to a government action or decision which might not be made apparent. Accordingly, it is proposed to treat all risks associated with this type of buyer as political risks. In this we would be following the same practice as the United Kingdom Export Credits Guarantee Department.

In proposing this amendment to the maximum percentage cover which the corporation is authorized to grant, the Government has acted in accordance with the recommendation of the Consultative Council of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation.

Mr Haylen:

– Are you referring to a buyer going back on his word in an official capacity?

Mr McEWEN:

– No. This relates to a variety of things that could occur as a result of action taken by another government. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation, a body of eight prominent business people and two senior government officials, was established by the Government in 1957 to advise on all matters relating to the corporation. Similarly, when the Export Development Council was recently examining the facilities available to Australian exporters, it too, recommended an increase in the maximum percentage cover. As honorable members are aware, the Export Development Council was created to advise the Government on matters relating to export. It has already amply demonstrated its value by the advice it has given the Government on many aspects of the drive to increase our export earnings.

I would emphasize that the percentages of cover specified in the bill are the maximum permissible limits. The corporation would determine, on the merits of each transaction, the appropriate percentage of cover to grant against the various risks. Of course, the corporation is free to decide from whom it will accept risks and in respect of which countries it will accept them or reject them.

The arrangements outlined in this bill should enable the corporation to increase its effective contribution to the export drive. The second amendment proposes that the corporation be given greater investment flexibility by enabling it to invest temporarily surplus funds on the short-term money market. Because of the nature of its business, the corporation will, on occasions, have funds on hand, whether from the proceeds of maturing securities, from recoveries or otherwise, which will not be required for the settlement of claims for a short interval.

Under the act as it stands, the corporation already has certain powers for the investment of such moneys in that they may be placed on fixed deposit with the Commonwealth Bank or with any other bank approved by the Treasurer, or they may be invested in securities of the Commonwealth. It will often happen, however, that the corporation will have funds available for such short periods that it would not be possible to leave them on fixed deposit with a bank for the normal three months minimum period, or to obtain Commonwealth securities of the appropriate maturity. There will thus be times when the corporation will have funds from which an income might be earned if a suitable avenue for their investment on a short-term basis were available. Facilities of the desired type are provided by the dealers on the recently established short-term money market. By lending funds to dealers in that market the corporation would be able to earn a reasonable rate of return on such funds.

The bill empowers the Treasurer to determine both the persons to whom the corporation may lend and also the conditions under which such loans may be made, provided always that the loans are made upon the security of securities of the Commonwealth. The Treasurer proposes, upon the passage of this bill, to give approval for the Export Payments Insurance Corporation to lend to dealers on the short-term money market approved by the Commonwealth Bank, such loans to be against Commonwealth securities with not more than three years to maturity.

In commending the bill to the House, I emphasize that the functions of the corporation will remain under review with the object of ensuring that, consistent with commercial prudence and the “ non-profit, nonloss “ basis on which this corporation was established, it will continue to operate to meet all reasonable requirements of the Australian exporter.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Haylen) adjourned.

page 3075

TAXATION ADMINISTRATION BILL 1959

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) - by leave - agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Taxation Administration Act 1955-1957.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953-1957 to create another statutory office of Second Commissioner of Taxation with powers and functions corresponding with those now vested in the single statutory office of Second Commissioner. The administration of the taxation laws of the Commonwealth, other than laws relating to customs and excise, is at present vested in a Commissioner of Taxation assisted by a second commissioner. Subject to some exceptions which are not material for present purposes, the second commissioner exercises all the powers and functions of the commissioner.

The administration of the taxing laws bv a commissioner and one second commissioner has continued, without substantial alteration, since 1916, despite the heavily increased responsibilities arising from additional taxes, such as sales tax, and the broadened field of income tax under the uniform system introduced in 1942. Experience over all these years, and more particularly in recent years, has amply demonstrated that the full discharge of the duties and responsibilities of administration is beyond the compass of a commissioner and second commissioner. Administration has been accomplished by delegating authority to assistant commissioners, directors and deputy commissioners to undertake duties and functions that normally would have been performed by statutory officers. Many other duties, such as regular visits to the States for discussions and inspections, have necessarily been curtailed, whilst attention to forward planning and development has had to be neglected in all but the bare essentials.

The Government considers that relief for this situation must be found and believes that this relief will be achieved if immediate steps are taken to create another statutory office of Second Commissioner. To this end, it is proposed that the Taxation Administration Act be appropriately amended to provide the additional statutory office required. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- It is not often that I agree with the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) on anything, but I do agree with him when he is right.

Mr Harold Holt:

– More often than you will admit, publicly.

Mr CALWELL:

– I agree with him privately with regard to the desirability of certain things happening. He does not always see eye to eye with me as to the practicability of a suggestion though he might see some merit in it. However, he has to deal with other people and, of course, he cannot be expected to get his own way in everything. But I do agree with him on this bill because he is right. 1 wish he would give me more public opportunity in that respect.

This bill, though simple enough in its wording, is very necessary. The Treasurer proposes that we shall have a second Second Commissioner of Taxation because of the increase in the work of the Taxation Branch. If inflation continues, of course, we might need, in the space of a year or so, a third Second Commissioner of Taxation, or maybe, a fourth. It is true that, since 1916, for a variety of reasons - most of them not under the control of anybody in this country - arising out of wars, depressions and the like, the taxation imposed on the people of Australia has grown very considerably.

Mr Bandidt:

– Australia has grown, too.

Mr CALWELL:

– Of course, Australia has grown. I am sorry that, in our time and generation, we have not 30,000,000 or 40,000,000 fellow Australians to share the burden of taxation and also to help by their contributions to make this country greater and greater still. The Minister has said that we have additional taxes. So we have. We have sales tax. I do not know whether it was by accident or design that he did not mention the pay-roll tax. That is not a very popular tax with a lot of people.

Mr Harold Holt:

– No tax is popular with a lot of people.

Mr CALWELL:

– Of course. No tax is popular with anybody. All taxation is confiscation; it is just a matter of degree. In 1941, the Treasurer was responsible for introducing the pay-roll tax. He has had to submit to a lot of criticism in recent times, but that tax was introduced for a very real purpose and that purpose still exists. However, pay-roll tax was not mentioned in the speech, but I can imagine that it occasions a good deal of work in the department, the same as other forms of taxation do.

Then, of course, there was the uniform taxation decision handed down by the High Court of Australia, to the great surprise and consternation of the Treasurer of the day. Nobody expected the High Court to declare that uniform taxation could be levied in time of peace. But that, too, has increased the work of the Taxation Branch, and I am very happy to know, and I hope all right-thinking Australians are, too, that uniform taxation is here to stay.

The Treasurer wishes this bill to go through very quickly, and we will give it all the support we can. I was intrigued by the observation in the Treasurer’s second-reading speech that -

Administration has been accomplished by delegating authority to assistant commissioners, directors and deputy commissioners to undertake duties and functions that normally would have been performed by statutory officers.

I presume that there is no need to have any validating legislation passed now or in the future to make sure that any decision made by those officers was in accordance with the law of the land.

May I say, even though it may seem to be a little outside the Standing Orders, that this will probably be the last bill which the present Commissioner of Taxation will be responsible for before his retirement next year. If we do not see him here, sitting in the precincts of the House and advising on taxation measures, we will still think of him as a very kindly, generous gentleman who always gave us as much assistance as the law would allow. He leaves his office with great credit to himself, and with the kind regards of all officers and members who have served in this Parliament in the nineteen years that I have had the honour to be a member of it.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– in reply - I rise only because of the favorable comments made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) on the Commissioner of Taxation. I do not think that this is necessarily the most suitable occasion, or the only occasion, on which we shall be able to pay a fitting tribute to the Commissioner, who is still very much with us.

Mr Wheeler:

– I do not want to pay any tribute to him.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! Regrets are out of order.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– Well, in any event, verbal tributes come very much more readily and with greater goodwill than the tributes which the statutes of the land require the Commissioner of Taxation to exact from us in the course of his duty. However, I am sure that we all endorse the tribute paid to the Commissioner. I am certainly not going to elaborate on that at present, because I am by no means sure that we have seen the last of him yet. I think that there will be a more fitting opportunity to add to the tribute expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

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 3077

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Mr. HAROLD HOLT (Higgins -

Treasurer) [3.52]. - I move -

That Government business shall take precedence over general business to-morrow.

I think that the main purpose of the motion is known to honorable members, because I have already foreshadowed a motion to be moved to-morrow to enable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) to speak to a motion which stands in his name on the notice-paper. I can only assume that the honorable member for East Sydney (Mr. Ward) is fully aware of my intention, as he has gone off and so cannot express his traditional outlook on this matter.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3077

SUPREME COURT BUILDING, DARWIN, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

– I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1953, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work, which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to this House, namely: - Construction of a Supreme Court Building at Darwin, Northern Territory.

The proposal provides for the construction at an estimated cost of £421,000 of a reinforced concrete framed building generally two stories in height and with a lower ground floor. The building will provide accommodation for the Supreme Court and two lesser courts, together with chambers for judge and magistrates and accommodation for their staffs, with a law library, reading room, &c. Separate accommodation is provided in an attached wing for the Crown Law office, the registrar’s office and the public trustee. The committee has stated in its summary of recommendations that there is an urgent need for the building, the site is adequate, and the proposed design is recommended. Upon the concurrence of this House in this resolution the detailed planning necessary for carrying out this work can proceed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3077

BOILER HOUSE AND LAUNDRY, CANBERRA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Approval of Work - Public Works Committee Act

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

– I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1953, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to this House, namely: - Construction of a new boiler house and laundry at the Canberra Community Hospital, Australian Capital Territory.

The proposal provides for construction in two stages of a single-story industrial type masonry building, designed in keeping with the proposed new main hospital block. The estimated cost is - £

Upon the concurrence of this House in this resolution the detailed planning for carrying out this work can proceed.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

.- When the Public Works Committee reported on this matter in 1956 it inquired specifically as to whether or not the boiler house was to be equipped with boilers fired by solid fuel or oil. Its only recommendation is contained in paragraph 43 of the report, in which the committee had this to say - . . the Committee recommends that attention be given to the evidence regarding the situation of the boiler house, the possibility of smoke nuisance, and the necessity to provide space for the ultimate requirements of a 600-bed establishment.

There was very considerable evidence before the committee during its hearings in Canberra in September, 1955, relative to the possibilities of smoke nuisance as a result of the use of solid fuel plant in the boiler house. I regret that there is nothing more definite on that from the committee than the reference in the paragraph I have just quoted. I hope that the Minister will have regard to that recommendation of the committee and study the evidence that was given. I refer particularly to the evidence by the former Director of Works, Mr. James James, who, in a long series of replies to questions by members of the committee, said -

  1. . we are unlikely to favour using solid fuel.

He went on to say -

If we did it would be fed mechanically to a boiler of ample size and there would be no visible smoke. We are much more likely to use oil fuel.

The director went on to say that his own office in the Department of Works was situated close to an oil-fed boiler which provided heating for the Barton offices, and no smoke nuisance was ever experienced from it. During the course of the inquiry there was evidence from other people, including a lady member of the hospital board, as to the possibility of a deleterious effect on the hospital and the equipment of the hospital, and on the health of the patients, if solid type fuel were used. Reference was made to experience in other hospitals, although that was to some degree countered by evidence regarding the prevailing winds in this area.

I should like the Minister, if he can do so at this stage, to indicate whether a decision has been made to use an oil-fired boiler or whether the decision is to use solid fuel such as coal or coke. I also ask him whether the committee’s recommendation will be considered in the light of the evidence given to the committee.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

– in reply - A decision, in principle, was reached on this matter between my predecessor and the Minister for Health after a close examination had been made of the pointsraised in the report of the Public Works Committee. After examining all aspects of the matter, the Minister for Health agreed with the recommendation of the Department of Works that solid fuels should be used.

There are two considerations involved in this decision. First, there is the question whether there will be any air pollution. I think the honorable member can be assured that the Minister for Health was vitally concerned with this aspect, particularly as it would affect the running of a hospital. An assurance has been given that if modern equipment is installed and solid fuels are carefully used, there will be no pollution of the air.

The other consideration was, of course, that of cost. An examination indicated that with the use of coal there would be a saving of £18,000 a year when the hospital reached the 472-bed stage, and a saving of £24,000 a year when it reached the final 600-bed stage.

Mr J R FRASER:
ALP

– Are fewer employees required for oil-burning equipment?

Mr FREETH:

– I have not the details of how these estimates were arrived at. As I have said, this matter was decided some time ago, before I took over the department, but all of these aspects, I believe, were considered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3078

NURSES’ HOME AND TRAINING SCHOOL, CANBERRA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr. FREETH (Forrest- Minister for the

Interior and Minister for Works) [4.2]. - I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1953, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for further investigation and report as recommended by the committee following a preliminary examination held in 1956, namely. - Construction of a new nurses’ home and training school at the Canberra Community Hospital, Australian Capital Territory.

The plans provide for the construction in two stages of a new nurses’ home and training school as part of the proposed development to enlarge the present hospital to an ultimate capacity of approximately 600 beds. The new home will be a seven-story steel-framed building connected by a covered way to a single-story dining and recreation block. The building will ultimately accommodate 345 nurses and will be complete with all the normal requirements of a modern nurses’ home.

The estimated cost of the proposal is -

I table plans of the proposed buildings.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3079

MAIN HOSPITAL BLOCK, CANBERRA COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

– I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1953, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for further investigation and report as recommended by the committee following a preliminary examination held in 1956, namely: - Construction of a new main hospital block at the Canberra Community Hospital, Australian Capital Territory.

The plans provide for the construction in two stages of a new main hospital block and supporting specialist departments to increase the present hospital to an ultimate capacity of approximately 600 beds, and to modernize the present hospital to a standard comparable with the proposed construction. The new block will be an eight-story steelframed building connected at the ground floor level to the existing hospital.

The new block is planned to accommodate ultimately 368 new beds and will be complete with all the specialist departments and facilities of a modern base hospital, the total capacity of which will then be 618 beds.

Estimated cost of the proposal is -

I table plans of the proposed buildings.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3079

CUSTOMS HOUSE, MELBOURNE

Reference to Public Works Committee

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

. -I move -

That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1913-1953, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report, namely: - Construction of a new Customs House at Melbourne, Victoria.

The proposal provides for the erection of a multi-story office building to accommodate the Victorian branch of the Department of Customs and Excise. The structure will be of steel and reinforced concrete carried on a piled foundation, and will comprise basement, ground floor and first floor, and fifteen typical upper floors and a penthouse floor.

The building will be faced variously with brick, stone and marble, and aluminium will be used for the windows. The preliminary assessment of cost is £1,400,000. I table the plans of the proposed building.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- This building is to be erected in the electorate of Melbourne, and whilst I approve the present proposal, and whilst I am pleased that the old Customs House building is to be preserved, I again urge on the Minister for Works (Mr. Freeth), as I have done several times privately, the need to push ahead with the erection of the second blockand, for that matter, the third block - of new Commonwealth offices in Spring-street, on the area of land which was acquired fourteen or fifteen years ago. There is a need for a new Customs House in Melbourne, but I believe that there is also a need, as there is in all other capital cities, for other government buildings. It would be a good thing from the point of view of the Treasury, and it would be in the public interest, if the two new blocks of offices that I have mentioned were proceeded with at the earliest possible moment. I trust that next financial year we will see the provision of at least one of these new blocks.

Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot

.- I was quite interested in the report concerning the new Customs House building in Melbourne. It is a sign of progress that we are modernizing our Government buildings. I noticed that the building is to be faced partly with marble. I may be wrong, but I have an idea that this marble is to be imported. I want to suggest strongly at this stage, if it is not too late, that a proportion of Tasmanian red granite should be used in the proposed building. Tasmania has the best red granite in Australia, and the industry is always short of markets. About £100,000 worth of granite is imported from Sweden and other European countries each year. I suggest that the committee consider using some of our beautiful red granite which is mined at Coles Bay on the east coast of Tasmania. It is already showing to great advantage in many buildings in Australia, including several banks. If the banks find this beautiful granite suitable for their needs, I feel sure that it is suitable for Commonwealth buildings.

Mr FAIRHALL:
Paterson

.- 1 do not want to join in this debate at any great length. I merely want to express sympathy with the point of view put by my honorable friend, the member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell). He was assiduous with me, in another capacity, in urging that the construction of the second and indeed the rest of the blocks of Commonwealth buildings in Spring-street, Melbourne, be continued. That is a view with which I had a good deal of sympathy and still have. In that capacity, I thought that the quickest, cheapest and certainly the best accommodation for a new Customs House in Melbourne would have been provided by going ahead with the second block in Spring-street. Now, of course, I act in another capacity and, as chairman of the Public Works Committee, I am bound to point out to the honorable gentleman that the committee took a good deal of specialist evidence on the question of the location of the Customs House. On balance, the evidence clearly indicated that the new Customs House should be constructed in something like the location now proposed for it. In other words, a difficulty of geography arose about shifting the Custom’s House across town in Melbourne, because of traffic problems, distance from wharfage and particularly because it would take the Customs House away from the commercial shipping districts and therefore away from the people who had most to do with the Customs House.

The Public Works Committee will look at this whole question again, but on a review of the previous evidence, which covered questions of location and so on, it is hardly likely that that matter will be looked at again. Nevertheless, I take the opportunity to join my honorable friend in suggesting that, for other and equally good reasons, the Commonwealth consider proceeding with the building programme in Spring-street.

I assure my honorable friend from Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) that his red granite from Tasmania has been looked at carefully in times past. It is, no doubt, a satisfactory building stone. All I can do is assure him that the matter will be kept in mind by the committee.

Mr Calwell:

– Is the marble coming from abroad?

Mr FAIRHALL:

– There is no thought about it; we do not know at this stage. The committee will inquire into these matters.

Mr FREETH:
Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works · Forrest · LP

– in reply - I wish to add briefly to the remarks of the honorable member for Paterson (Mr. Fairhall) in his capacity as chairman of the Public Works Committee. I assure the House that the Government is fully aware of the great need for Commonwealth offices in almost every capital city. I am at present considering the longterm planning for the completion of office requirements. It appears that possibly

Sydney and Melbourne have the highest claims for the construction of further offices. That matter is currently under examination and it is hoped that we will have some kind of programme to announce fairly soon.

Mention has been made of the materials to be used in the construction of this building, including the marble that has been suggested and the red granite for which the honorable member for Wilmot (Mr. Duthie) puts in such an enthusiastic plug. The decision as to the materials to be used, of course, is partly in the hands of the Public Works Committee and finally in the hands of this House. The proposals will be examined in great detail at all stages.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 3081

TAXATION ADMINISTRATION BILL 1959

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Freeth) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to amend the Taxation Administration Act 1953-1957.

Resolution reported and adopted.

page 3081

SUPERANNUATION BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th November (vide page 3027), on motion by Mr. Harold Holt-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr CALWELL:
Melbourne

.- On behalf of the Opposition, and, I hope, of many members of the Government parties as well, I desire to record a most emphatic protest against the contemptuous attitude of the Government for the Parliament in the way this important piece of legislation has been introduced and is being forced through both Houses of the Parliament within a little more than 60 hours. The bill has 69 clauses, covering 29 pages, and the schedules cover another 29 pages. The Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) has tried to brazen his way through all objections and protests at the cavalier attitude that he and his colleagues have adopted in rushing this legislation through without the slightest opportunity being given to any member of the Parliament to consult the Public Service associations affected - these will doubtless want to be heard on the matter - and without members of this House or of another place having time to give more than a cursory glance at the issues covered by the bill. The Treasurer disclaims any responsibility. He says that the parliamentary draftsmen found it very difficult to draft the bill.

Mr Duthie:

– The poor old draftsmen; they get blamed every time!

Mr CALWELL:

– I accept that very sapient remark by way of interjection from my honorable friend from Wilmot. I have no doubt that the parliamentary draftsmen found it difficult to draft this legislation, and indeed to draft any legislation for this Government. I am sure that these learned gentlemen could draft any measures in reasonable time, provided the Government knew what it wanted them to do and could make up its mind to issue clear and coherent directives. Blaming the parliamentary draftsmen for the Government’s failure to bring down this legislation with other bills arising from the Budget immediately after the Budget was presented some months ago, is in much the same category as the actions of other people who put the blame for their mistakes on to typistes’ errors. Neither excuse has any real validity. The Government could have got the job done if it had taken the time and trouble to make up its mind. In being asked to rush this legislation through, we are asked to do something which is a negation of democracy and something that is not appreciated by the persons affected by the legislation.

In the long years that many of us sitting in the Opposition to-day have sat in this Parliament, we have never before witnessed such a disgraceful exhibition of indecent haste by a power-drunk government such as we have seen and have had to endure with regard to this bill for an act relating to superannuation which, when it becomes law, will be cited as the Superannuation Act 1959.

I move the following amendment to the bill:-

That, all words after “ That “ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - “ the bill be withdrawn and redrafted because it fails to make provision for an increase in the value of the unit of pension and because it fails to come into operation from 1st July, 1959 “.

The bill, as I have said, is a big one. It recites the history of the superannuation fund, and I should like to add my few remarks about the history of the fund to what the Treasurer said when he brought down the bill. The first Superannuation Act was passed in 1922. I do not know whether that was in the days of the Hughes Government or the Bruce-Page Government.

Sir Earle Page:

– The Hughes Government.

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, the Hughes Government. Since that time, there have been 21 amending bills directly affecting the act, and three other pieces of legislation have affected it in certain respects. As the Treasurer said, the bill, when it was introduced almost 40 years ago, provided a contributory scheme of retirement benefits for government employees and their dependants. Originally, as the right honorable gentleman remarked, the act provided pension benefits only, which were payable on the retirement of the contributor on reaching the maximum age, or his prior invalidity or death. The amount set down as a contribution to be paid by the employee as from 20th November, 1922, when the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund was established, was 5s. per unit per week. The amount paid by the Commonwealth was 5s. per unit per week and the total value of each unit was, therefore, 10s. a week. Not until 1947 - a lapse of 25 years - were the positions of the employee and the Commonwealth altered in regard to the contributions they made to the fund. To-day, instead of the Commonwealth paying seven-fourteenths of each unit that a pensioner draws, it nays ten-fourteenths. The amount of contribution by the Commonwealth has been increased from sevenfourteenths to ten-fourteenths. To-day, the employee, who once paid seven-fourteenths, pays four-fourteenths.

It may be interesting to honorable members to know, so that it will be included in the record for future reference, that there have been three increases in the value paid by the Commonwealth for pension units per week and that the total amount of each unit has risen from 10s. in 1922 to 17s. 6d. to-day. It may also be of interest to honorable members to know that the maximum number of pension units available has been varied over the years. In 1922, the maximum number of units was sixteen. In 1947, the number had increased to 26, and in 1954 the number had been further increased to 36. Under this bill it is proposed to increase the number still further to 54. If inflation continues to depreciate the value of our money at the rate of 7 per cent, annually - that is what some economists say is happening - the maximum number of units will need to be further increased by eighteen each succeeding five years; and every time the Government brings down a measure of this kind it will strike trouble with the great majority of public servants and will meet with opposition from those who believe that any benefits to be given should be given to as many as possible and not to as few as possible. When I say that every five years the maximum number of units will need to be increased, I do not for a moment envisage that this Government will be in existence five years, ten years or fifteen years hence. But assuming the worst - that the people of Australia will not see the light and return a government that will do something worth while for them - this tendency of increasing the number of units will continue.

The original scheme provided for a definite number of units - sixteen units - but the whole thing has got out of focus, as it were, since then and the government of which I was a member made the first move to increase the maximum number of units back in 1947. The increase at that time was ten units. There were people in those days who thought we were acting wrongly, but whatever the government of the day did, it was supported by all its members. I am not saying that I did not agree with what was done, but I remember a good deal of the criticism that occurred at the time. Some of that criticism can be directed at this particular measure. So few people in the whole of the Public Service will receive any benefit from this legislation. There are about 100,000 people in the Commonwealth Public Service entitled to benefits from the superannuation fund. About one-half of the 30,000 people in the first, second and third divisions of the Service will benefit from the legislation, but the other 15,000 people in those divisions will not benefit additionally to the present pension entitlement of 70 per cent, of their salaries on retirement. The reason why these people will not benefit is because the benefit is designed for those in receipt of £1,300 a year or more. There are 49,000 people in the Fourth Division of the Commonwealth Public Service but only 3,000 of them are in receipt of £1,300 a year or more, and therefore only those 3,000 will benefit.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Have the others no hope of promotion?

Mr CALWELL:

– Well, there does not seem to be much hope for them. If only 3,000 out of 49,000 will benefit, there could not be too many of the remaining 46,000 who will benefit ultimately, because the number of positions carrying a salary of more than £1,300 a year is not so very large even in the Commonwealth Public Service. The Treasurer believes that the other 46,000 people in this particular division are already provided for adequately and so he does nothing for them in this legislation. There are 15,000 females contributing to this fund, but they will not benefit additionally either. So we get down to the position where only a small proportion of the present contributors to the fund will get any benefit at all.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Are the more senior and responsible members of the Commonwealth Public Service not entitled to justice?

Mr CALWELL:

– I accept that portion of the Treasurer’s observations relating to the more senior and responsible officers of the Commonwealth Public Service. They will receive the benefit that this bill proposes to give them. Now he asks, “ Are they not entitled to justice? “ They are entitled to justice, but so are all the other people who will not get justice because they will not be able to take out these additional units to the same extent as will the people on the higher salaries. This legislation provides that eighteen additional units may be taken out. A person receiving £1,300 a year will be able to take out only one additional unit, but persons on the higher range of income will be able to take out the eighteen units.

Sir Earle Page:

– But they will pay for them, will they not?

Mr CALWELL:

– Yes, but they are in a position to pay for them. The other people would pay for them, too, if they received the salary to enable them to do so. The original scheme of superannuation has been slanted in such a way that under this bill some people will retire on a pension of £2,400 a year, which is not too bad at all, particularly as the Commonwealth will pay five-sevenths of it and the contributor will pay the remaining two-sevenths. If we are to do justice in this way to the public servants in the higher grades, what about doing a little more justice to age, invalid and widow pensioners? They have been asked to accept an increase of 7s. 6d. a week and have been told that they are getting justice. Both the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton) and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon) have stated that the pensioner to-day is better off than he was ten yearsago. If the pensioner cannot be given a greater increase in his pension, how doesthe Government justify its claim that the top ranks of public servants are not adequately provided for by superannuation?

Let me deal now with the public servantswho have retired - those whose working days are over but who, during their working days, contributed to the fund. They will receive no additional benefits under this bill. The value of their units will not be increased retrospectively. There are 8,318: male beneficiaries of the fund, and not one of them will receive one penny under this bill. Of the female public servants whohave retired, 957 will receive no benefit. However, widows of public servants will’ have their pension increased from one-half, or four-eighths, of their husband’s salary while he was alive to five-eighths of that salary. That is a magnificent increase!

Mr Harold Holt:

– It is a 25 per cent, increase.

Mr CALWELL:

– That magnificent increase does not compare in any way with the increases that will flow to public servants on the higher salary ranges who will retire in a year or two. The Treasurer has said, in effect, “Why not make it sound better and say that the widows will receive a 25 per cent, increase? “ But I remind honorable members that it is the value of the increase and not the percentage rate that matters.

Mr Anderson:

– Do not forget that public servants earning £2,400 a year pay income tax.

Mr CALWELL:

– Of course they do, as do people earning £20 a week and people earning a little over the basic wage. I do not know that the tax contribution on £2,400 a year is particularly heavy when you consider what people earning that amount in other countries pay in income tax. The Government proposes also that upon the death in retirement of a public servant his widow will receive this 25 per cent, increase in pension. The Treasurer hopes that this gesture of goodwill will afford some encouragement to retired public servants to believe that the Government thinks kindly of them and wishes them well. It almost seems as if the Treasurer believes that he is playing Father Christmas in 1959 to the forgotten people - forgotten by this Government - who once were public servants, and many of whom received comparatively low salaries.

We do not oppose the benefits that will be given to the widows. In fact, these benefits are the main reason why we do not oppose the second reading of the bill. We have adopted the other course of making our protest in the form of an amendment to the motion for the second reading and, if that amendment is not accepted, we shall not vote against the second reading of the measure.

In his narrative of events the Treasurer told us of the various small increases that were granted between 1922 and 1954. I suppose it could be said truthfully that because of inflation the Government feels compelled to do something about this problem. This legislation is not the result of the seventh quinquennial investigation of the fund which showed a surplus in the fund, part of which, I think, is being used to meet the cost of the proposed increases. The Government is responsible for this legislation and would have introduced it whether or not there had been a seventh quinquennial investigation. To use the Treasurer’s own words -

The principal purpose of this bill & to provide a new table of pension entitlement for contributors to the superannuation fund. The proposals are designed to restore the basis of pension entitlement adopted by the Government in the 1954 legislation when it was decided that the pension entitlement of officers on lower and middle salary ranges should be stabilized at 70 per cent, of salary, of which the Commonwealth would meet an amount equal to 50 per cent of salary, and that for those on higher salaries the proportion of pension to salary should reduce to a limit which, in relation to the scale of pension units, was 40.9 per cent, of the salary for those whose salary was £4,000 per annum.

Therefore, in 1954 the Government established a standard of superannuation rights for persons receiving over £4,000 a year. It said, “ Those people are entitled to approximately 41 per cent, of their salary on retirement “. Now the Government has said, “ We wish to alter that situation and place public servants who receive such salaries on a higher limit, but we want to bring about the same position as obtained in 1954 for those on the lower and middle class salaries “. Why is the Government so concerned about the people on the higher salaries as to discriminate in this way in their favour? The people who receive high salaries can, to a large extent, make their own provision for their retirement by purchasing annuities and by taking out life insurance policies. But the Government has said, “We shall do better than that. We shall allow you to retire on 70 per cent, of your salary and we shall pay five-sevenths of the cost of your pension “. The Opposition wants a better explanation than that afforded by the Government as to why it has introduced this proposal and has not done something for people who receive £1,300 a year and less.

We have proposed that the bill be withdrawn and amended so that the value of all units can be increased, thereby allowing all contributors to the fund to become beneficiaries under this legislation. So that honorable members will understand what the Treasurer was driving at, I shall quote his remarks verbatim. He went on to say -

It is proposed to restore the 1954 position by applying the principles laid down at that time to present-day salaries. This results in an increase in the scale of units of pension from 36 to 54 providing a new maximum pension of £2,457 per annum, representing 40.9 per cent of a salary of £6,000 per annum, which is the salary payable to officers who in 1954 received £4,000 per annum.

An adjustment is also proposed in the salary level up to which the maximum percentage of pension entitlement to salary - 70 per cent. - is available, so that additional units of pension will be available to all existing contributors whose salaries exceed £1,365 per annum. The pension value of each unit will remain unchanged.

I repeat what I have already said: A person on £1,300 a year will be able to take up only one additional unit, and not the whole eighteen additional units. The maximum of eighteen additional units can be taken up only by those on the highest salaries. To us, that is obnoxious.

The Minister went on to say that not only will there be no alteration in the value of each unit, but also there will be :no alteration to the present basis of financing pensions. The right honorable gentleman then went on to cover a number of points which are not of very great consequence. In the process, he used a wonderful phrase to which I shall refer later and which I defy him or whoever wrote it to interpret to the satisfaction of ordinary people. Speaking of the Provident Account, he said - . . there is provision in the Superannuation Act 1922-1958 for contributions to a provident account providing lump sum benefits. The contributions of employees are accumulated at interest and supplemented by the Commonwealth.

I think that the rate of supplementation is ls. in the £1 of salary. One-twentieth of a person’s wage is paid into a fund; so that a person in receipt of a salary of £2,000 a year would pay £100 a year. “Those contributions are accumulated and they earn interest. In the end, the person on whose behalf they are made receives a lump sum payment. Such a payment is very small indeed in comparison with superannuation benefits. The Minister explained that the rate of interest at which contributions are accumulated is to be increased from 3 per cent, to 31 per cent, per annum, and then he used the language which, as I have remarked, defies interpretation. He said -

This will increase the ultimate benefit to con.tributors to the Provident Account by three times the increase resulting from the higher rate of interest as the lump sum payable from the Provident Account is equal to three times the amount of contributions paid by the contributor plus interest thereon.

Then, trying to make it somewhat clearer, he said -

Of this amount the Commonwealth contributes two-thirds.

The problem is to find what one-third represents. If one can ascertain that, one will know how much the person contributing to the Provident Account will receive.

Again I say that the good feature of the bill is the provisions in regard to widows. One of these provisions will enable married women whose husbands are incurably insane to become contributors to the Superannuation Fund. The Treasurer pointed out that widows may also contribute to the fund and indicated that the Government had decided that married women whose husbands have been placed in mental asylums also should be allowed to contribute on a similar basis.

A further provision relates to widows receiving a pension under the act who become permanent employees of the Commonwealth and therefore become entitled to contribute for a pension under the act in their own right. At present, such a person loses the whole of the Commonwealth share of her pension on becoming an employee of the Commonwealth. A male pensioner who is re-employed by the Commonwealth has his pension reduced to £500 10s. per annum, or half of the pension, whichever is the greater, and it is proposed that a comparable restriction be applied to widows who become employees of the Commonwealth.

As I have said, Sir, the bill has a few good features. But it is wrongly based. The Government is trying to look after those persons whose salaries at one time were £4,000 and are now £6,000, and others on big salaries. Those salaries have had to be increased, not because of increasing responsibilities, but because of the inflation which the Government cannot control. The Government now proposes to look after those people specially. We on this side of the House think that a lot of other people ought to be looked after, too. I know that a number of the Public Service associations are very much concerned and disturbed at the Government’s action in rushing this measure through without giving any of them an opportunity to study it or to come to the Treasurer and suggest amendments. I have already received communications from some of these organizations. They would like an assurance from the Treasurer that, during the coming Parliamentary recess, he will give them an opportunity to discuss with him or his officers the changes now being made in the superannuation scheme, and hear from them representations on amendments which they may have to suggest. I am not necessarily supporting anything that they will put forward. I do not know to what extent the value of each unit should be increased, and I cannot stipulate any amount. I know the financial cost involved, for one thing, and I know that other anomalies may be created if we settle on a certain sum instead of another.

Some of the Public Service organizations have made a complaint, and I put it forward without necessarily endorsing it, that single men will not opt to become contributors for increased benefits for widows and dependants at higher rates of contribution, and that they will pay the lower contributions. At present, all contributors on similar salaries pay similar amounts for equal benefits, although the single man, owing to the lack of dependants, cannot obtain all the benefits. In the view of some of these Public Service organizations, the proposed change in this respect needs further consideration.

The bill contains a provision under which officers who become contributors at more than 40 years of age will not be allowed to take up the full number of units of pension in future. The representatives of the Public Service organizations say that officers who are admitted as contributors to the Superannuation Fund after they reach the age of 40 will in future be forced to accept a lower pension than will be received by those who become contributors to the fund at an earlier age, even though the same salary has been attained in each case. At the present time, a person over 40, whose rate of contributions for each unit is high, can elect not to take up the units to which his salary entitles him. The association representatives understand that this freedom to choose is to be discontinued.

I ask the Treasurer to consider fully and carefully any representations which he may receive now or in the future concerning the operation of the proposed changes in the superannuation scheme, and, indeed, to repeat the assurance which he gave last evening when explaining another measure that, if any members of the Parliament find certain provisions to be harsh or burdensome, he will provide an opportunity during the coming parliamentary recess or afterwards, for the matters concerned to be reconsidered. Such an assurance is all to the good.

Again, I deplore the great speed with which the Government has brought this legislation down. The failure of the Government to do anything other than protect those on the higher salaries, the failure of the Government to provide for easier admission to the fund of temporary employees, and the maintenance of the provision that retired persons shall accept a reduction in their pensions if they are re-employed in the Commonwealth Public Service are unsatisfactory features of this legislation. I suggest that retired persons who are re-employed should be entitled to receive their full benefits.

I think that greater provision should be made than has been made for widows and children. In fact, it looks as though not much consideration is being given to children at all and very little to widows. All the benefits are being concentrated upon those people who, to-day, are in receipt of big salaries. People who occupied those positions previously and who have been living on the smaller pensions to which they were then entitled, are not to have any increase provided in their pension rates, even though those who have succeeded them, in some instances, are not carrying the same degree of responsibility that those persons had to carry. In saying that, I am thinking of the responsibility which the top public servants of the day carried during the war.

Mr BURY:
Wentworth

.- Any hurry that there may be with this legislation is, of course, due to the fact that the Government wishes the beneficiaries under these arrangements to enjoy the benefit at the earliest possible moment. But because the bill has been brought down in rather a hurry it does not mean that it will not be effective. The principles on which the bill is based are not new. They go on from year to year. They are revised constantly. No doubt, if any particular anomalies arise from this measure, the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) as he has indicated, will listen sympathetically to representations. It ill behoves the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) to preclude rush legislation in circumstances which may be inevitable when the alternative would be to withhold well merited benefits from those who are affected.

The main objection of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition seems to be that, on this occasion, people on higher salaries are looked after relatively more than others. The clear reason for this is that, in adjustments subsequent to 1954, the multitude of public servants has benefited relatively more than those in the higher brackets. It is a perverted idea that we should never do justice to those on higher incomes in the Public Service. If one thing is certain in the long term it is that we should attract the hardest working people in the country to the top ranks of the Public Service. If we do not provide proper salaries, pay and retirement benefits those people will not be forthcoming.

The conditions which public servants enjoy to-day are certainly not as good, in most cases, as those enjoyed by people in comparable positions of responsibility who are most successful in the business world. The one way in which public servants are most effectively recompensed is in the payment of superannuation to themselves, and, in the event of their death, to their widows and families. Thus the uncertainty which clings to the lives of even the most successful people in many branches of private industry is for them removed. This remains a very powerful inducement to public servants. I suggest that the longterm interest of the country in recruiting the very best people to the Public Service and keeping them there demands that we do all that we can to make the service attractive.

There are, however, still some unfortunate anomalies in the overall superannuation scheme. One feature which badly needs to be brought up to date concerns people who leave the Public Service in order to do other work before their retirement age. They receive only the bare sum that they paid in. Although they may have paid into the fund for many years, they receive no interest whatsoever, nor do they receive any subvention from the Government. Probably, they have been receiving rather lower salaries than they might have otherwise earned. One of the inducements to be in the Public Service is superannuation rights, yet these are virtually wiped out if people leave the service before their retirement age.

I suggest sincerely to the Treasurer that he go into the question of making it possible for people to move in and out - certainly out - of the Public Service and take with them a proper actuarially assessed benefit to which they are entitled for the service that they have given. This is a very common practice in the United States of America. It would be to the benefit of Australian industry, apart from governmental services, if there were a freer flow of top-grade people between the different industries and occupations. It could be hastened too much but, undoubtedly, Australia would benefit from the practice. A lead from the Government in this respect might induce some of our private companies and organizations to adopt the same feature in their own superannuation schemes.

An incidental effect of the current superannuation scheme is a great injustice to a large number of permanent public servants who are women. Although a woman may have contributed for many years to the superannuation fund, if she marries and leaves the Public Service she loses the rights that she accumulated over a lifetime. Such anomalies, I hope, will gradually be removed. Anomalies are almost inevitable in legislation that covers so very many employees. For some years past, the value of superannuation benefits to public servants has been steadily improved. The relative contributions made by the Government have been increased. This measure very properly brings up to date the kind of improvements that we like to see for that very important sector of our Public Service, the higher income group.

Mr COSTA:
Banks

.- I do not think that the excuse given by the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Bury) for the restricted time allowed by the Government to members to study this bill is valid. He said that the Government wished the beneficiaries to receive the benefit as soon as possible. ‘ lt is easy to make retrospective provision to overcome that difficulty.

I support the amendment of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) to withdraw this bill to enable proper consideration to be given to it and also to insert provisions for other benefits. One is that the unit should be increased from 17s. 6d. to £1, and another is to make the benefit to widows retrospective to 1st July last. That would not be an uncommon provision. It was not uncommon when parliamentary salaries were increased to make the increases retrospective. It would be fitting to treat these widows in the same spirit.

I join with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in protesting against the short time allowed to honorable members to study the contents of this large and very important bill. We do not know really how important it is because we have not had time to examine it properly. It consists of 58 quarto pages, and in addition there is the Minister’s second-reading speech of eleven pages. When we are dealing with such measures honorable members should have at least seven days in which to study them. If a bill is presented during the week it should not be dealt with again until after the following week-end. Honorable members might then have the opportunity to give it closer study and to confer with contributors and pensioners to ascertain what they think about it. This would enable us to state their point of view during the debate. This is a big matter and we should be able to give it more mature examination.

The Superannuation Act provides for a contributory scheme of retirement benefits for Government employees and their dependants. This act was first enacted in 1922. At that time values were different, because the basic wage was £4 a week. Now, the Commonwealth basic wage is £13 16s. a week. The value of the superannuation unit in 1922 was 10s. After this legislation was first implemented it was the normal custom for qualified contributors to contribute for eight units at 10s. each which was the equivalent of the basic wage at that time. They thought that by providing for a retiring pension round about the basic wage level or a little better they would be able to retire on what they and everybody else considered to be a reasonable standard of living.

Since that time, our economy has been affected by periods of steady inflation as well as periods of galloping inflation. Prices have never been stable. Therefore the standard of living planned and hoped for by many public servants has never materialized. Unfortunately, many other people who invested for their retirement have had their ideas of a reasonable standard of living smashed by inflation. At that time they made genuine investments in a home and probably an extra real estate property which would bring them in an extra income. But these benefits have been absolutely destroyed by inflation. It is not profitable for a single person to own a house to a value of £2,250, or for a married couple to own a home worth £4,500, because on the basis of present-day values, they are placed in a worse position than a pensioner, as they are disqualified from receiving the age pension. The suggestion to increase the superannuation unit from 17s. 6d. to £1 is reasonable. I support the amendment to withdraw the bill and redraft it to effect such an improvement.

I now wish to discuss the relative value of the superannuation unit of 10s. in 1922 and the present unit of 17s. 6d. I have already pointed out that in 1922 the basic wage was £4 but to-day, when the unit is 17s. 6d., the Commonwealth basic wage is . £13 16s. Although the nominal value of the unit has increased by 75 per cent, the basic wage has increased by a little more than 337 per cent. The relative values of the units are easily seen. As I have already said, the great expectations of the contributors in 1922 and of those in the following years have been smashed by inflation. The principal act was introduced 37 years ago, and some of the original contributors to the scheme who are still living find themselves adversely affected because of the depreciated purchasing power of their superannuation benefits. This has been caused by the tremendous increase in prices. I have already indicated that inflation has destroyed many other values in the assets of people who tried to provide for their old age.

Two further points I wish to make clear. The first is that the value of the unit should be increased in order to raise the purchasing power of the superannuation pension. It is up to the Government, knowing what has happened over the last 37 years, to take precautionary action to prevent future depreciation in the value of superannuation. But if prices and costs are allowed to run along haphazardly there is little doubt that in 37 years’ time present contributors will find themselves in a predicament similar to that in which original contributors find themselves to-day. The Government has a responsibility to maintain value in this scheme, and that can be done by making a proper effort to stabilize costs and prices.

I wish to advance some arguments as to why the unit should be increased. The first is that the fund itself is buoyant, according to the Auditor-General’s report. Secondly, there has been a big increase in the number of contributors to the fund. It keeps on increasing, and the pool is sufficiently large to finance some improvements such as I have suggested. The investment earnings of the fund could also be increased by wiser investment. I know that investments now made by the board are wisely made and that it invests in giltedged propositions. But possibly ways could be found to earn a greater return. A further argument is that contributors to the superannuation fund save the Government many millions of pounds in social service payments, because .as recipients of a superannuation pension, they are disentitled, in many cases, from social service benefits. The average superannuation pension is £12 6s. 9d. a week. A single age or invalid pensioner is allowed to supplement his pension of £4 15s. a week by earnings of £3 10s. a week without affecting his pension. His permissible income, therefore, totals £8 5s. a week. A Commonwealth public servant who contributes for a pension of £12 6s. 9d. a week thereby disqualifies himself from receiving an age or invalid pension of £4 15s. a week. He saves the Government that amount every week as a result of his having contributed during his working life for a pension of £12 6s. ‘9d. A married couple of pensionable age may have a total income of £16 10s. a week. If the husband is a Commonwealth superannuation pensioner who has contributed for a pension of £12 6s. 9d. a week, he is saving the Commonwealth .£9 10s. a week in pension, because he and his wife are disqualified from receiving an age or invalid pension.

I should say that the Government possibly saves in many ways because Commonwealth public servants contribute for superannuation pensions. Not only do the public servants contribute to their own superannuation, but they also pay the same rates of income tax as other people. The Commonwealth public servant, in effect, pays twice. He pays into the superannuation fund, and he pays income tax. So, there is every reason why the Government should treat superannuation pensioners more generously than they are being treated, because their standard of living is being affected. In considering this measure, we ought to have regard to the existing superannuation pensioner rather than to the present contributor to the superannuation fund.

I wonder why the Government has taken no notice of the submissions of the Joint Council of Public Service Organizations, the Commonwealth Public Service Board and the Superannuation Board in regard to an increase in the value of the superannuation unit. The Joint Council was established many years ago for the purpose of studying matters of common interest to various Public Service organizations. In August, 1957, it recommended to the Government an increase of the superannuation unit from 17s. 6d. to 20s. I am certain that that body would have given very deep consideration to the matter before making such a recommendation. The Labour Party thought so much of this recommendation that it incorporated the suggestion in its last policy speech, and undertook that if returned to office it would increase the value of the unit from 17s. 6d. to 20s.

I shall show honorable members how buoyant the Superannuation Fund is by referring to the figures in the AuditorGeneral’s report. I know that the Government is very generous in its treatment of the fund, and I do not complain about that. The fund has a great future, as is evidenced by its buoyant position. At 1st July, 1958, the amount in the fund was £56,114,755. Contributions by officers during the previous financial year amounted to £6,456,253 and the Commonwealth’s contribution to £4,798,266. Interest on investments by the fund amounted to £2,620,416, making a total income for the year of £13,874,945. Pension payments from the fund in the year ended 30th June, 1958, amounted to £5,547,566 and lump sum payments to £895,518. Refunds, &c., accounted for £702,537. So the total payments from the fund amounted to £7,145,621 against an income of nearly £14,000,000. That is quite a substantial surplus. The balance in the fund at 30th June this year was £62,844,079.

Those figures indicate that the fund is very buoyant. It appears to me that its investments could possibly be improved. It is quite likely that in the next ten years the present investment by the fund will be more than doubled, and the interest receipts by the fund could rise from £2,600,000 to nearly £6,000,000. I think that the Government should consider this in relation to the recommendation that the superannuation unit be increased by 2s. 6d.

The number of contributors to the Superannuation Fund is increasing steadily.. In 1953-54 there were about 78,000 contributors. At 30th June last year the number had risen to 91,914. In the same period contributions increased from £3,700,000 to £5,400,000. We know that the Commonwealth Public Service will not stop growing. We are a young country, and the Public Service must expand, and the number of contributors to the Superannuation Fund will increase accordingly. So the fund has a great future. In the circumstances, the Government should have increased the unit in accordance with the recommendation I have mentioned.

I notice that the rate of interest being received by the fund on its investments is at a record level of £4 10s. 8d. per cent. The fund invests its money in Commonwealth Government loans and Commonwealth bonds, which are, of course, giltedged investments. Commonwealth public servants have suggested from time to time that some of the money in the fund be used for the building of homes for public servants. I do not know whether this proposal has ever been considered by the Government, but I think that its adoption would provide a wise form of investment, because a permanent Commonwealth public servant who needs a loan to build or buy a home is just as reliable an investment as a Com monwealth loan. Not only would adoption of such a scheme help to provide homes for people who need them in those days of housing shortages, but Commonwealth public servants would be delighted to be able to borrow money at 5 per cent, from the fund. As all honorable members know, many returned soldier public servants who are entitled to loans under the War Service Homes Act have had to wait for lengthy periods before getting them, and have had to obtain temporary finance from firms charging hire-purchase rates of interest, of 10 per cent, or more. Public servants in that position would be delighted to borrow from the fund some of their contributions, even at interest rates of 5 or 6 per cent., to enable them to build homes.

Mr Curtin:

– It would also curb the real estate sharks.

Mr COSTA:

– Yes, and the hire-purchase sharks as well.

Let me now refer to the provisions regarding pensions for widows. Public Service associations have been arguing for many years that an amount equal to half of the pension paid to the contributor himself was not good enough for a widow. At last it seems that this proposition has been accepted, and the proportion is being increased from one-half to five-eighths. I believe, as we have suggested in our amendment, that this provision should be made retrospective to 1st July in the case of existing pensions being received by widows.

There is one other point regarding these increased widows’ pensions to which I wish to refer. A contributor who wants to ensure that his wife will receive the benefit of the increased pension if she survives him will have to pay increased contributions. I do not complain about that; in fact, I think it is a provision that may even improve the fund. What I do not like is the fact that it is not compulsory for a contributor to increase his subscriptions. The contributor will have six months in which to make up his mind whether he will increase the provision for his wife. I believe that every contributor should be made to increase his contributions under this provision.

Mr Harold Holt:

– All new entrants will have to pay at the higher rate.

Mr COSTA:

– I think it should apply to existing contributors.

Mr Harold Holt:

– They will be given the option. We do not want to make it too difficult for those who may not wish to increase their contributions.

Mr COSTA:

– I realize that in these times, when every penny counts, the breadwinner hesitates to spend an extra two or three shillings, but I think, nevertheless, that it is a sound proposition to make this kind of provision compulsory.

I am pleased to see that the Government has improved the provisions relating to the Provident Account, which provides for lump sum payments to officers who, perhaps on medical grounds or for reasons of age, cannot become permanent. They are not eligible to contribute to the Superannuation Fund, but they may have the benefits of the Provident Account, which entitles them to a lump sum payment on their retirement. They contribute to this account at the rate of ls. for every £1 of their wages, and as their contributions accumulate interest is added at the rate of 3 per cent. I am pleased to see that this interest rate is being increased to 31 per cent. But if the lump sum payment, in the case of a single man, exceeds £2,250, that person is ineligible to receive the age pension. As I have said before, these superannuation contributions save the Government considerable sums of money in social services, and for that reason it should show more generosity to the persons who contribute to superannuation funds.

I am pleased to see that provision has been made to increase the number of reserve units that may be held by a contributor. This is something that I have always advocated. The maximum number has been increased from four to eight. Every young man who goes into the Commonwealth Public Service has. I am sure, an ambition to make progress. In my opinion all these young people would be wise to invest in the maximum number of reserve units available. In many cases it is better to have money in this fund than in the bank. If a person is promoted and has to take extra superannuation units, he can draw on his reserve units and continue to pay for them at the cheaper rate. This represents an excellent investment for young officers, and I am pleased to see that the provision has been made more liberal.

I think I have submitted substantial1, reasons why the value of the unit shouldbe increased. The important point to beremembered in administering a fund of this kind is that the pensioner should get something out of it. At the present time the: pensioner is getting nothing substantial out of it at all. I support the provision in the bill for increasing the amount payable to a widow. In fact, I support all the good features of the bill, but I believe that many provisions have been omitted that should have been included. I think that the unions, the Superannuation Board and the Public Service Board should have a look at the administration of this fund and se: how it can be improved. I believe the Commonwealth public servant would not mind increasing his contribution in order to ensure an adequate pension on retirement. I am not in favour of increasing charges as a general rule, but I think that this fund should be investigated, because it is possible that agreement could be reached on various ways in which the fund could be improved. The amount of money in the fund is substantial, and it appears to have a very good future, and, as I have said, the contributors save the Government many millions of pounds in social service payments.

I have given many reasons why the fund could be improved and why the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) should be accepted.

Sir EARLE PAGE:
Cowper

.- Everything that has been said by those who have spoken in this debate, on both sides of the House, seems to stress the importance of passing the legislation that is before us. From very lengthy experience in this Parliament I have found that if you do not accept a measure that ameliorates an existing position when it is put forward, it is often many years before you get another chance to look at it. I remember an occasion when I brought down a seamen’s compensation bill. Every one wanted to amend it in some way or other, and finally it was not passed. About seven years later another bill in precisely the same terms was brought down by a Labour government.

This legislation undoubtedly improves the present position materially in certain respects. It certainly represents an improvement for those persons in the Public Service occupying the higher positions. This is very important, because with the extent and magnitude of public undertakings in Australia at present we must attract the best possible men into the Public Service. I believe that the Government is taking the right steps to do so.

There are many good features of this bill, such as those relating to widows, which have been referred to. I believe the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) made a worthwhile suggestion when he said in his secondreading speech -

I suggest that, over the period of recess between now and the next session, honorable members from both sides of the House give such study as they can to the more technical and detailed provisions of the bill. For my part, I shall make myself, and the officers of the Treasury, available in the New Year for discussions with honorable members, who may be interested, to see whether, out of our consideration of the legislation together, there are improvements which can usefully be adopted.

The Treasurer has made a definite offer. He has said that some points may have been omitted or points already in the bill may be improved, and these matters will be discussed with honorable members who wish to raise them. Surely, no good reason exists for opposing what is offered now. In my experience, if you do not take the fish when it is on the hook, you will not see it again. – =v

Some features, other than those already enumerated, should be considered. One is that the contributor to the superannuation fund should not receive merely the money that he has put into the fund; he should get some interest from the Government for the time that his contributions have been available to the fund. As the honorable member for Banks (Mr. Costa) pointed out, this fund has reserves of many millions of pounds. This is invested in many lucrative ways, and the contributions of members of the fund are not lying idle. Therefore, it would be reasonable if interest at 3 per cent, or 3± per cent, were paid on the contributions. After all, this money is earning 4 per cent., 5 per cent, or 6 per cent, for the Superannuation Fund. If interest were paid on contributions, young people would be encouraged to become members. Even if they left the fund after a short time, a fairly substantial amount of money would be available to them and could be used by them to go into some other vocation, if they wished to do so. This suggestion could be examined during the period suggested by the Treasurer.

I see no advantage at all in deferring consideration of the bill for six months, as Opposition members have suggested. If that were done, we may not get it back again. If a measure improving an existing situation, as this measure does, is rejected, the advantages which would flow from it may be lost for ever. I suggest to honorable members, therefore, that they permit the bill to become law, and accept the assurance of the Treasurer. I think that it is the best assurance that I have ever heard given by a Minister to an Opposition. He has said that he is ready to work with honorable members and, if improvements are needed, to bring down something better at a later stage. I suggest that we should take what we are given at this time and, if necessary, make certain that we get something better later.

Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports

.- I support my colleagues in opposing this measure. Our main reason for moving our amendment is that many contributors to the Superannuation Fund are discontented with what they consider the inadequate value of the present unit. At present, it is valued at 17s. 6d., and has been at that figure for some time. As was indicated by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), the bill does not alter the value of the unit. It allows some contributors, in certain circumstances, to take more units. The maximum number has now been raised from 36 to 54. It is also recognized, apparently, that the costs of two persons are not exactly double the costs of one person. In future, widows having no other support will have their entitlement raised from one-half of the pension entitlement of their husbands to fiveeighths of that amount. That principle could well have some application in other fields of the economy. Apparently, the Government realizes that two people living together have a number of joint costs and that, when one person dies, the costs of the other do not fall to half of the former amount. Recognition of this fact is shown in the provision of a pension of five-eighths of the total pension instead of one-half.

This is a good principle, and could be applied to other sections of the community.

We should occasionally consider the role played by superannuation in community life to-day, as compared with the role it played when superannuation schemes were first introduced. My colleague, the honorable member for Melbourne (Mr. Calwell), has pointed out that about 92,000 people are in the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund and some thousands contribute to the Provident Account. This means that about 100,000 people are interested in the Superannuation Fund. When this number of breadwinners is related to the work force of some 3,500,000 or 4,000,000 persons, it will be seen that a fairly significant part of the community is covered by the benefits that will flow ultimately from the fund. The tendency in the community in recent years has been for private superannuation funds to develop. I was interested to note in the latest survey made by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics that some 202,000 people contribute, either themselves or through their employers, to private superannuation schemes which are taken wholly through life assurance companies, and that a further 185,000 people are covered by what are called separately constituted funds. I am sorry that I have not figures showing the number of people who contribute to State and semi-governmental superannuation funds. However, the 100,000 in the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, the 202,000 in private schemes administered by life assurance companies and the 185,000 in what are called separately constituted funds total almost 500,000 working people. In many instances, the contributors are married, and this means that perhaps 400,000 families are entitled to benefits from superannuation schemes.

In the immediate future, we should consider the effect of superannuation schemes on the community in relation to age and invalid pensions and the means test. All of these factors have become so entangled that in the near future we should make some serious examination of the problem. Quite a few vested interests are involved, and sometimes there are implications that are very difficult to sever one from the other. Of every £7 that is ultimately paid out of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund, £5 comes from the Government, and only £2 from the contributions of the beneficiary. The statistics relating to private funds conducted by life assurance com’panies and separately constituted funds show that the pattern tends to be that twothirds of the contribution comes from the employer and one-third from the employee. The contributions, both of employees and of employers, up to a given level are allowable deductions for taxation purposes; so we must realize that most of these funds, in an indirect way, are subsidized by the Government. All this has some implication when you come to examine the very vexed question of either modifying or eliminating the means test. I suggest that in the next year or two we should have a committee or commission comprised of actuarially qualified people to assess all these private schemes, State government schemes and local government schemes and to relate them to the potential work force in the community. Separately, such a committee or commission could also consider the question of modifying or eliminating the means test.

At least let us get some idea of the nature of the problem. There are all sorts of side issues. One is rather intrigued when one looks at the way in which the funds of the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund are held. Out of a total investment of some £57,000,000 in government securities of one kind or another, only £16,000,000 is held in Commonwealth securities, and £40,000,000 is held in local government securities. The reason for that is because of the arrangements that exist in the Australian Loan Council. Any fund that is not subject to tax - and the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund is an example - is better off taking one-half of 1 per cent, greater yield offered by local government securities. Other people in the community, because they are given a tax concession on Commonwealth securities, prefer to invest in that form of security, because, taking the tax concession into consideration, they are a better proposition even though the interest rate is one-half of 1 per cent, less than is offered by local government securities. You have a rather interesting case study here. By reason of this cross-flow of financial policy it pays the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund to invest in securities issued by local government or semi-government bodies in the States because it gets a higher return; and the trustees, being prudent men and being interested to get the greatest rate of return possible, have a duty so to do. But on the other hand, other sections of the community prefer to invest in Commonwealth securities because they get a rebate of 2s. in the £1 in income tax as a consequence. All I am trying to indicate is that we are getting a very tangled skein in the Australian economy, and it is time that some of these strands that intertwine were untangled to see where we are getting.

At one time superannuation was undertaken because people thought the age pension was inadequate to provide for them, but gradually the ratio of disparity between the basic amount of the pension and some of the benefits that flow from these private superannuation schemes is becoming less; and for certain people in the community I suggest ‘.hat the main thing that should concern them in the future should be to take superannuation only to an extent over and above the base part of the pension. The point is that the more one contributes to these superannuation funds the more in one sense one deprives oneself of eligibility for the age pension. Tensions of this kind are at work in the community all the time. It pays some people, because of their income, to go the whole hog in an insurance scheme. But when a government is paying £5 out of every £7 of the benefits that flow from a superannuation scheme, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether it is just to provide superannuation pensions over a certain level on that basis of subsidy. Perhaps the subsidy should be fifty-fifty. or at a lesser ratio. Here we are really subsidizing a very select section of the community, a section that is already better able to look after itself than some other sections. I doubt if that is an equitable policy for any government to pursue. At least it is one aspect that requires examination.

With those few words I again express regret that such an important measure is being debated at less than 24 hours’ notice. Yesterday the Treasurer indicated that if honorable members had any ideas on this subject they could bring them to him for consideration. I do not think that is quite how our ideas flow. Generally we have so much business before us that we tend only to look at the matters immediately to hand and we do not have time to reconsider what we have not been able to deal with immediately. But perhaps the Treasurer may find some machinery for making an exception on this occasion.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– I will be brief, the more so because honorable members have shown so much consideration in the way they have dealt with this matter, appreciating, 1 think, on all sides of the House the importance so rightly stressed by the right honorable member for Cowper (Sir Earle Page) of getting these benefits into operation and then taking advantage, I would hope, of the offer put forward quite genuinely by me to provide an opportunity to both sides of the House to confer with me or with the appropriate officers of the Government in the early part of the next session. That offer goes also to the organizations which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) said had been in touch with him and which had asked that they might confer again, either with me or with the officers more knowledgeable on these matters than myself, when an opportunity arose some time next year. Although it may be true, as the honorable member for Melbourne Ports (Mr. Crean) asserted, that such representations by an individual member usually do not produce positive results, that was not quite what I had in mind. I had in mind a group of interested members being brought together and these matters being discussed with them.

I will deal with one other point before turning to the terms of the amendment. My colleague, the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr. Bury), urged that greater flexibility be introduced into the superannuation scheme to assist people who had contributed over a period and who had changed their employment, subsequently returning to the Commonwealth scheme. I shall study his comment, and it too can be one of the matters that we can take up together in 1960.

On the points raised specifically in the amendment, first perhaps I should say that the Government, for reasons that I will try to indicate, cannot accept the amendment. The provisions of the amendment go to two particular points. The Opposition has urged that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted because it fails to make provision for an increase in the value of the unit of the pension. The unit to-day is valued at 17s. 6d. No doubt, if it were valued at £1 honorable gentlemen opposite would have recommended that it be increased to £1 2s. 6d. In fact, whatever the unit had been, the Opposition, acting in the best traditions of an opposition, would have wanted it increased in an endeavour to curry a little favour with those who would benefit under the legislation. But remote though the prospect may now appear to honorable members opposite, perhaps at some future time they may have the responsibility for government in this place. They should appreciate, therefore, that an increase in the value of the unit from 17s. 6d. to £1 - presumably that is the smallest increase that they would have contemplated - would cost about £800,000 in the first year of operation, and would create a contingent liability for the Commonwealth of the order of £60,000,000.

The effects would go further because the pension would rise from the present 70 per cent, of salary in the lower ranges about which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made so much to-do. He stated the position in quite an inverted way. He claimed that we were ignoring the people on the lower salary ranges and were doing something to benefit those in the higher brackets. In point of fact, we are restoring the basis which the Parliament decided in 1954 was a fair basis. At that time the Parliament decided that on the lower ranges the pension should be 70 per cent, of salary. We are continuing that formula. No one on the lower salary ranges will be placed in a worse position as a result of anything that we are now proposing to do. In 1954, the Parliament decided that 70 per cent, of salary was a fair and reasonable pension for persons on the lower salary ranges. We now seek to apply that basis to people on the higher salary ranges, that is, that the 40.9 per cent, of pension which was to have operated then should operate in the future instead of the present rate which, because of movements in wages, salaries and cost levels, has been eroded over the years between.

I think that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition exhibited a poor spirit by seeking to make some invidious distinction between the more senior and responsible members of the Commonwealth Public Service and those on the lower salary scales. No one can allege fairly that persons on the lower ranges are being dealt with unreasonably. I repeat that the same basis as commended itself to the Parliament in 1954 is being restored. Why should we not deal fairly and reasonably with public servants who occupy the higher positions and have to exercise higher decrees of skill and responsibility in the performance of their tasks? This is not merely a matter of justice within the Commonwealth Public Service. We, as the Commonwealth, must be a good employer and we must have regard to comparable conditions outside the service if we are to retain the best talent that we have and attract other talent to the service of the Commonwealth. However, we must not be an irresponsible employer who is prepared to squander the taxpayers’ money beyond what is reasonable in the circumstances. We have met both those tests squarely and reasonably in the decisions that we have put before the Parliament.

To increase the unit value from 17s. 6d. to £1 would take the pensions of persons on the lower salary ranges from 70 per cent, of salary to 80 per cent. I think that most honorable members would agree that that would be an unduly liberal revision going beyond the provisions in the most generous schemes that obtain in outside industry. The Government feels that it cannot accept such an amendment.

The Opposition has suggested that we should make the application on the proposal retrospective to 1st July. What is the logic or the justice in that? If the proposal is to meet the case of people who would have qualified at that date, I point out that we would merely be moving the border of discontent and that those who would have qualified just prior to 1st July would feel aggrieved. Certainly any scheme which has* to set a date of operation entails some inconvenience^ - perhaps some hardship - for those who just fail to qualify. But we are not unfamiliar with that kind of problem. We have had to face up to it in other directions and the course which we have adopted. previously is, I believe, the correct course to adopt in this instance. The Government, therefore, cannot accept the amendment that has been proposed by the Opposition. However, I have noticed with some satisfaction that the Opposition proposes to support the motion for the second reading of the bill.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Calwell’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. John McLeay.)

AYES: 63

NOES: 36

Majority . . . . 27

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act relating to Superannuation.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

The bill.

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- I move -

That progress be reported.

It is absurd to rush the measure through at this time of the day. I disagree most strongly with what is being done. I oppose the bill in its present form.

Mr Lucock:

– On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The honorable member for Macquarie is not in his proper place, and I submit that he is out of order.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– The honorable member for Macquarie is in order.

Question resolved in the negative.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Sitting suspended from 6.8 to 8 p.m.

Third Reading

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) - by leave - proposed -

That the bill be now read a third time. [Quorum formed.]

Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie

.- This bill relating to superannuation forms part of a torrent of legislation which has been brought to the Parliament in the last two days of the session.

Mr Harold Holt:

– You can come back next week if you like.

Mr LUCHETTI:

– The Treasurer has invited honorable members to come back next week. If that is necessary for the adequate consideration of this and other legislation before the Parliament I will welcome the opportunity.

I take the unusual course of speaking on the third reading of this bill because I failed to obtain an opportunity to speak at an earlier period of the debate. My special concern is the inadequacies of the bill. It fails to deal with the continuing and growing inflation which is affecting Australia. Therefore, I consider that it does not meet the requirements of those who are on superannuation and those who will be compelled to accept superannuation in the near future. This bill, Mr. Speaker, helps those on the higher range of salary. I am concerned with those in the lower income bracket - those on the lower rung of the ladder who have great difficulty in meeting the challenge of life to provide a competence for when they retire. They will suffer because adequate provision for them is not being made in this legislation. I have referred to the continuing and growing inflation in Australia. It is well known that the Menzies £1 is worth approximately 6s. when compared with the Chifley £1. If fair consideration is given to this legislation I think it will be admitted that it fails to pay due regard to that deterioration of purchasing power.

Another matter on which the Government does not deserve to be congratulated is that the provision being made for widows in this legislation is shockingly inadequate, paltry and miserable. It falls far short of the requirements of the womanhood of this country. We have been told that there is equality in this country. We subscribe to the principle of equality of the sexes. Equal pay in employment is becoming the accepted thing. But when the bread winner dies the widow receives, under this legislation, only five-eights of the pension! And this is being submitted to us by the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) as a reasonable proposition! The Treasurer said -

The five-eighths widow’s pension will be a basic feature of the superannuation scheme for all future contributors who will be required to pay contributions at an increased rate in order to provide this new benefit. Those who are now contributing to the fund will have an option to take up the additional widow’s pension provided they meet their proportion of the additional cost in extra contributions.

The widow, when her bread-winner has been taken from her, when her life’s partner has been removed from this world, still requires to maintain the home, still requires to maintain her position in society, and she should receive no less than her late husband was receiving at the time of his demise. Her difficulty in meeting her obligation to society is well known. It is known, also, that this Government is not prepared to pay an additional pension in view of the iniquitous means test which is in operation at the present time. This bill fails to do a very important thing, and, in my opinion, it is an insult to the womanhood of Australia.

The Government proudly proclaims that the widow’s superannuation payments will be increased from one-half to five-eighths of the amount that her husband would have received. In the higher salary ranges, this represents a slight improvement and will help the widow. In the lower salary ranges, however, it is only a pittance and is unworthy of this Administration. There are a number of widows whose payments from superannuation are about £8 per week, which disqualifies them from receiving the age pension. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, as a responsible man with full appreciation of these matters, that these widows suffer a disadvantage in their community and in society generally.

The Government should give the widow a superannuation payment equal to that received by her late husband. But because it has been traditionally accepted that the widow should receive only half of the husband’s superannuation, the Government persists with this cruel imposition. I suggest to the Parliament that we should be able to leave the past when a woman was a chattel, something inferior, and not entitled to the same kind of consideration as the husband who, generally, went out to earn the living. This Government is adopting a mid-Victorian, backward and unenlightened attitude in this important matter. It costs just as much for a widow to keep herself as it would cost the husband to live if his wife were to pass away.

I know of instances in which widows receive about £4 a week, and this miserable increase will give them only about 10s. extra. Because of this and other features of the bill I take my place in this Parliament to protest. I speak at an unusual time - on the motion for the third reading of this bill- because I think that we ought to be vocal on matters of this kind.

Another matter to which I desire to address myself deals with the pensioners and superannuated public servants, those stalwarts of other days who have rendered exceptional service to this nation in the Public Service in war-time, particularly during the Second World War, taking all the great responsibilities of that time, administering departments, conducting post offices and discharging their duties in a thousand and one ways. These people profit nothing under the legislation which is now before the House. I have in my hand a letter which I received from a retired public servant, a man whose worth to this nation would be very difficult to estimate or compute because of his outstanding qualities and qualifications. This man will not profit by this legislation. Those people who have gone out of the Public Service and have been compelled to meet the challenge of present-day living costs deserve consideration. Legislation which omits thought of them will certainly fail lamentably in meeting the challenge which now faces the Government.

It is not surprising that this situation has not been faced for although the Government professes that it has been working for twelve months trying to draft a measure of this sort of value to those who will be retiring from the service on superannuation, it gives to the Parliament but a few days to deal with this and a variety of other important measures vitally affecting the people of this country. In the course of this letter my constituent writes -

It is absolutely essential that the unit value of those who retired prior to the end of 1954 be increased from 17s. 6d. to £1 per week for at least the first 18 or 20 units. There is no necessity to increase the unit value of those still in service after January 1955. They are provided for by the large salary increases which naturally increased their units. Thus the cost to the Government will be infinitesimal and can be amply borne by the Superannuation Fund.

Two things should be, and I consider must be, done in fairness to us forgotten few.

Our unit value increased to £1;

Our superannuation be tax free.

I am taxed £1 18s. 6d. per pay leaving my superannuation only £14 odd. And this after 45 years service and second highest in grade in the postmasters.

Mr. Speaker, that speaks for itself. There is no need for me to address myself further to this subject. I leave it to the House, in anticipation that the Treasurer might be moved, not so much by my words but by the plea of those who have served this country and have retired from the Public Service, to give them justice even at this belated time. I support the attitude of the Opposition in this matter. I felt that the comments I have made in respect of these matters deserved to be made, and again 1 voice a most vigorous protest against rushing legislation through the House.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– in reply - I have already explained to the House the circumstances which made necessary the procedure that has been pursued. The overwhelming majority of members on both sides of the House have accepted that explanation and have concurred in the course which we have followed. I express again my appreciation of the consideration which honorable members from all sections have shown in this particular matter.

As to the points raised by the honorable member for Macquarie (Mr. Luchetti), I attempted to cover them substantially in my comments at the second-reading stage of the bill. To the exent that he has raised any point not previously considered, I will see that it is examined closely. I repeat the assurance I gave earlier in the course of the debate that should honorable members from either side or, for that matter, from both sides of the House, wish to have some reference with myself and my officers in the new year with a view to taking into consideration aspects of the legislation now before us, which, for reasons that are convincing, most honorable members desire to give a speedy passage in order to make available its benefits to members of the Public Service who are affected, that conference will be held; and I will look forward to receiving any constructive contributions which honorable members may make.

Mr Crean:

– Will the Minister consider the mechanics of the scheme apart from generalities?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I do not say that the substance of the Government’s policy will be revised; we have come to that quite carefully and deliberately. But in a bill of this dimension, it would be surprising if there were not constructive suggestions which could be presented from either side of the House, and they will be carefully examined.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 3099

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS BILL 1959

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24th November (vide page 3030), on motion by Mr. Harold Holt-

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- This bill is another superannuation measure which has been examined by the Opposition. It is fair enough to tell the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) that it has caused us some anxiety to gauge it by the multiplicity of bills on superannuation and their ramifications. That is the only complaint we make, and we do so in a reasonable way, not with any histrionics. We have been able to examine these bills and the one that has already been passed, and they will not lack proper oversight on the part of the Opposition. But we were definitely pressed for time and this occasioned us some anxiety for the time being.

With regard .to defence forces pensions, I have to thank the Government Actuary for his kindness, and also the Treasurer for allowing us to have access to the relevant papers and information so that we could make a case - as we hope to make from this side of the House - with regard to the important matter of defence forces retirement benefits. Here is an ancient matter, an old story. Superannuation has been long in the land, and an adequate and sufficient superannuation for the men who are in the services in peace time has never been actually achieved although, within recent years, a solid framework has been erected. We concurred in the decision of the Government that Sir John Allison should report on two problems of the defence forces. One was the question of a pay code and the second was the question of superannuation.

As early as 1947, the late Mr. Chifley, when he was Prime Minister, invited the Chiefs of Staff of the British Commonwealth of Nations to visit and confer with us on the rehabilitation of the serviceman in peace time so that he would not be regarded as a sort of Cinderella on the perimeter of a world at peace but as a citizen who was prepared to undergo some hardship, privation, separation from family and some loss of the possibilities of income earning to defend his country as a permanent soldier. I use the word “ soldier “ in relation to the definition in the Repatriation Act, meaning a man who serves in the forces - in the Navy, Army, or Air Force.

It had been one of the dreams of the Australian Labour Party’s planning committee in relation to defence to be able to create for the serviceman a proper background. First of all, there were his amenities, which have now been brought up to date. Credit must be given where it is due, and the Minister for the Army (Mr. Cramer), the Minister for Defence (Mr. Townley) and those who went before them did apply themselves to the task of giving some semblance of standards to the men in the services in peace-time. We have them to-day and they are reasonably good.

The next point was to get a proper code of salaries. . The general feeling appeared to be that the man who went into the Army was a sort of fellow who drifted. He was on the perimeter of industry, and while he might have courage and be a chevalier in time of war, in time of peace he was just one of the fellows who bobbed around. He belonged to this or that unit, and there was no organization. The Labour Party felt that we had not got a proper appreciation of his needs. What has happened? The serviceman to-day has dropped into the professional, industrial or training classes of the community with his own well-conducted camps and barracks, with his own social services, superannuation and very good salary and conditions.

The private of World War I. received 6s. a day, with a little more for a corporal, and still a little more for a sergeant. You can imagine such a man looking at the position to-day, when a young buck private gets £956 a year, or something near £19 a week, and after a full term of service can draw superannuation of £340 a year. The corporal - the man who led us on those rather diverting and extraordinary fatigues for which corporals are famous - mow gets £1,000 a year. Down the arches of the years the conditions of servicemen have changed in regard to finance, living conditions and many other things in a way that is almost a romance in itself. That is the background against which the Allison report was made.

We approve in principle of the decisions. We think that a careful and painstaking job has been done. We think that some of the class-consciousness has been rubbed out of things. We approve of the principle of fixing a man’s pension on the basis of his actual service. Sometimes in the past perhaps too much notice was taken of the man’s rank and too little of his time in. the services. Now, whatever capacity a man serves in, all his service to the nation is reflected in the pension he will receive. I think that that is all to the good. So we approve of the first part of the Allison report, which deals with the code of salaries. The second part deals with the code of superannuation, and we direct the attention of the House and of the Minister to the fact that the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund is extremely buoyant. I see by the document provided for us that there is an accumulated surplus of £9,500,000 in the fund, and that collections this year amounted to £1,296,106 9s. 2d. Pension commitments amounted to £841,692 3s. Id. Included in that was a government subvention of £391,000. So even the superannuation fund for servicemen reflects the buoyancy throughout the world which the Prime Minister referred to only a little while ago as fantastic.

If economic progress is fantastic for the civilian outside, we also want it to apply to the man who has to watch the wards of the outer marches, the man who is helping to hold the front line in the piping days of peace. We believe that the best way to do that is to deal as we did with the Superannuation Bill a little while ago, and move for retrospectivity. The retirement benefits provided in the bill have been planned on civilian superannuation principles in the main, except that cognizance has been taken of the fact that the man in the Services retires much earlier than the civilian, and as a result the period of payment of contributions is shorter and naturally the pensions are foreshortened. We believe, however, that with a buoyant fund which is likely to be more financially powerful in the future, with the barometer set fair for greater contributions, and with the accumulation of credit in the fund, the Government could well accept an amendment, in the following terms, which I now intend to move. I move -

That all words after “ That “ be omitted with a view to inserting the following words in place thereof: - “ the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the benefits under the act to be made available from a date not later than the 1st July, 1959 “.

Mr SPEAKER (Hon John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Is the motion seconded?

Mr Bryant:

– I second the motion.

Mr HAYLEN:

– The contention of the Opposition is that this can be done with benefit to present servicemen and without disability to those who, during this last year or so, have withdrawn from the fund and have, as Housman said, “ Have taken their wages “ and are gone. We believe that to correct an anomaly, to make sure that we have not been too parsimonious with this money in the fund - at least 22i per cent, of which was contributed by the servicemen - we ought to be a little more generous. The same applies to the pension for a serviceman’s widow, which will amount to five-eighths of the husband’s pension. However, if the retirement benefits under the act are lifted, the figure represented by five-eighths of the pension will ride automatically with any increase, so we have decided to leave that alone. We press now the question of retrospectivity so that something can be done in this matter.

Before Analysing what we consider to be good in the two features of this bill, I shall tell honorable members why I move, on behalf of the Labour Party, the amendment that I moved a few moments ago. The Allison report has made an agreeable difference in our defence forces, in regard to both the ordinary salaries of the servicemen and other payments such as retirements benefits, invalidity payments, compensation and gratuities. We believe that a good national job has been done by the committee, and for that reason we are prepared to thank the Minister for the Allison report and ask him to put our thanks on record. However, we feel that the Government could have been a little more speedy in letting us know more about the two features of the report, which was delivered in two parts. But that is a mere quibble, and we are not pressing it.

We are pleased to see that the question of the other ranks has been dealt with. A private is to have £956 a year, and if he serves a term of 22 years from the age of eighteen to the age of 40, during which time he pays 5 per cent, of his salary in superannuation, he will receive a pension of £340 a year at the end of his service while he is still a young man. If he dies, his widow will receive five-eighths of his pension. The other pension bracket applies to men who serve from the age of eighteen to the age of 60. After 42 years’ service, the serviceman would receive a pension of £682 a year, and if he dies his widow would receive five-eighths of that amount. These are set-up figures. They are figures collected by the authority to indicate the sweep and movement of salaries in accordance with the lessened value of money arising from inflation, and also in accordance with the tightening up of the plan generally. We approve of that. But our research shows that the private soldier usually retires by the time he is 55. At that age he has completed his service while still a fairly young man. He could have served for a long term of twenty or 30 years. If he served from the age of twenty to the age of 55 be would receive a pension of £565 a year, and his widow would get five-eighths of that amount. But in most cases such a man would not remain a private for all of that time, and the difficulty is to get before us a notional military man of whom we can say, “ This is it; he pays so much and gets so much in pension “. He is a moveable target, because, as he moves up to corporal, to sergeant, or even to commissioned rank, the figure must change. If he remains static he will come out a private at the age of 55, and it is easy to say what he will receive in pension. But the real picture we can create - and I think the Allison report wanted to create it - is that of the private soldier in the repatriation sense of the term. When he retires at 55 years of age, his pension will he £565 a year. We find that to be all right. It seems reasonable enough, and we think that in all the circumstances there is no need for us to oppose it, provided other arrangements are made concerning aspects of this bill which we will deal with at the committee stage.

We note also that there is a considerable tightening up in regard to deaths on service. Deaths, disabilities and invalidity in a peace-time army are much higher in incidence than one would imagine, and provision has been made in this case in respect of a man who dies while still in the service. His widow will receive five-eighths of his pension and £52 a year for each of his children up to the age of sixteen. Where the child loses both its mother and father, provision is made for payment of £156. We find this reasonable, but we feel that these are provisions that should be closely watched, in case a decline in the value of money necessitates a further adjustment at a later stage. Such an adjustment could be made in a much simpler way than the Government has adopted in preparing this very lengthy bill, which is long overdue.

Let me now refer to the matter of invalidity. It has been rather difficult to get invalidity payments and specifications set out in a clear way, but I think the report has made the position reasonably clear. The ordinary soldier who contributes for a pension of £565 per annum upon retirement at 55, will, should he become totally incapacitated before that time, be entitled to draw his full pension as from the date of invalidity. Similarly the serviceman who is contributing for a pension of £682 per annum upon retirement, will be entitled to the full pension in the event of 100 per cent, invalidity. That seems to be fair enough. The important point is that payments of superannuation are graded in exactly the same way as the payments for civil servants. With this nobody could find fault, because it means that we are treating our service personnel in the same way as we treat our most highly protected individuals - the servants in the Government in civilian employment. We believe that the rights of the servants of the Government in the defence forces should be protected. We agree with this principle and we hope that in the future the superannuation payments can be increased and the facilities extended to include all those people who are guarding our country in time of peace.

There are several odd little suggestions in this legislation which underline the fact that the Government, like all governments in time of prosperity, is not having a great deal of success in inducing young men to join the forces. Some of the advertisements I have seen urging men to join the Navy, the Air Force or the Army are completely ludicrous. If a man decides to join one of the defence forces, it is only after he has argued the matter out with himself. He does not need some kind of Hollywood slapstick to induce him to join the Army. The illustrations in some of the advertisements leave a great deal to be imagined as to what the members of the forces actually do. I am not going to try to teach the department how to conduct its advertising campaign, but I suggest that the plainer, the more sensible and the more factual you are in your advertising, the better. I suggest that advertisements should mention all the amenities that are available, the security, the training and the remuneration. You do not have to doll your advertisements up like Yankee film posters. I believe this is one of the things that have militated - if I may use that word in relation to an army situation - against the maintenance of a satisfactory rate of enlistments.

Here is a rather quaint passage in the Minister’s second-reading speech -

As an incentive to inducing other rank members to re-engage, the bill makes provision for a payment of £300 in cash to be made to all other rank members at the end of their initial six-year engagement, provided they have agreed to serve for a further six years.

This is a most attractive piece of burley.

Mr Harold Holt:

– No!

Mr HAYLEN:

– I have quoted from the Minister’s own speech.

Mr Harold Holt:

– There is a very important reason for this provision.

Mr HAYLEN:

– I realize that. The reason is that having trained a man for six years you think he should return for another six years service. In the meantime you will advance him £300 of his own money, because when he signs up for another six years the £300 is part of his superannuation or gratuity in advance. I suggest that this is a major weakness in the bill.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Not according to the Service advisers.

Mr HAYLEN:

– That may be, but it reminds me of giving the shearer his cheque at the finish of a shed and saying to him, “ Go along to the shanty and have a good time, and when you have flashed out there is another big shed back of the Darling “. The psychology is not good. I would be the last to object to a member of the forces getting £300 at the end of six years service, but the proposition is not put forward in the way it should be. It is a sort of shanghai arrangement. You say to the serviceman, “You can have £300 if you carry on for another six years “. I think you should get at him in a different way. The Australian can be spoken to. If be has had a good time in the Army and has been trained well, he might accept the offer of the £300, which will provide him with a certain amount of money for re-settlement, as we are told, although there is no resettlement because he is going back into the forces.

This is not a provision that could be called extremely dangerous. It merely shows that in regard to the matter of gratuities we have got a little bit off the rails, while the other provisions seem to be extremely good. With regard to the payment of the £300, if a serviceman accepts it and goes back for another six years service, during which he is invalided or dies, leaving a widow, no charge is made on that £300. Despite this, however, I still think the provision is rather odd, and I direct the Minister’s attention to it.

I now turn to the subject of a pensioner’s right to work after retirement. The Minister said -

Briefly, a pensioner may now receive pension up to an amount of £300 10s. per annum and become employed by the Commonwealth, without suffering any reduction in his pension. The comparable pension for a widow is £312 16s. 3d. per annum.

Much could be said about that, but I will say only that it is a wider and more reasonable provision, and it shows the trend of thinking on both sides of the House towards some kind of framework involving a widening generally of means test provisions, and a more common sense approach to these people who are useful to the community after retirement, and who are receiving benefits largely as a result of their own contributions over the years. They cannot be looked upon as scrap-heap personnel, and they should be re-absorbed in industry if there is any truth in the stories we hear from Government supporters about our great progress.

The final question that arises with regard to superannuation concerns the new rates. Are they safe? Can they be easily met? Can the serviceman or the civilian pensioner contributor pay them? Again I think the Minister was fair when he said -

The bill provides that if a member is within eight years of retirement he has the right to elect as to whether or not he takes up the whole of or part of his increase in pension. In addition, if he elects to take up any part of his increase and his total contributions would exceed 10 per cent, of his present salary if an officer, or 5 per cent, if another rank, he may enter into an arrangement with the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board to defer payment of his additional contributions until retirement.

Those are sensible provisions, and we have no objection to them.

I have said all I wish to say about the bill, except that we are objecting on the matter of retrospectivity. Let me say to the Minister that the whole of the defence forces code of payments and pensions is going to have a direct and powerful influence on the rate of enlistment and the attitude of young men and women of this community to their defence responsibilities. I believe that an improvement in these matters will have a much more powerful effect than a gorgeous, colourful travesty of advertising with no elemental background to it. What I mean is that you must have standards. If the man in the services feels that he is a citizen, that as an officer he is a professional man, or that as another rank he is just as important as the man outside the forces, then he is a happy and progressive man and will be of assistance to us in the defence services.

I believe that the salary range is reasonable without being by any means extravagant and the superannuation payments represent reasonable proportions, when compared with the rates we dealt with in the previous bill. Defence personnel should be reasonably happy with what has emerged -from this lengthy bill of some 79 pages.

With re:ara to the Minister’s desire to have this measure rushed through, I know that much of it is a repetition of provisions in the existing legislation. We are effecting only a change in the rates, and although the whole of the bill is thrown on the table for discussion, quite a lot of it need not be debated. Therefore, we approve of the provision being made in this bill; it is a step forward and our servicemen should have standards equal to those available to civilian employees. We take some credit for originally providing better amenities for servicemen, and we believe that these amenities are now available. We believe, further, that a superannuation scheme which puts them on a par with their colleagues in civilian industry is a most potent psychological factor in creating for them the proper peace of mind and appreciation of their task, and it also provides a proper atmosphere in which to seek recruits in the future.

This fund has been successfully conducted and is now richly endowed. It is almost as well off as our own contribution fund, which I shall not discuss now. However, one does look at the way in which these superannuation schemes have been handled scientifically, and we say that when the fund is substantially in credit, the value of the benefits should be reviewed. If investment is wise and money accruing so that the fund has more resources available to it, we should try to improve the benefits.

I have submitted an amendment to the effect that the provisions of the legislation should operate from a date not later than 1st July, 1959. This is a new business year, and the Budget has been brought down. Money has been provided for a superannuation scheme, but it has taken until the end of November to bring this measure before the House. In common justice, the suggestion that payment be made retrospective should be adopted. We adopted it in relation to our own salaries some little time ago, and I hope that I can leave it to the good judgment of the House to support my motion, which is an honest attempt to help servicemen and to ensure that justice is done by insisting that payment of the increased benefits be made retrospective to the beginning of the financial year.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

.- I suppose it is a compliment to Opposition members that this bill should have been brought in at this late stage in the session. It is a complicated bill, and I assume that the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) introduced it at this time because he was confident that Opposition members had the ability to handle it without a good deal of time for study being allowed. Perhaps he is regretful that honorable members on his own side have not this ability.

Mr Harold Holt:

– The honorable member for Parkes has shown that it can be done.

Mr BRYANT:

– That is so, but he is a man of great experience. He has obviously caught up to and passed all members of the Government.

This is an especially complicated bill, and it approaches in a new way the problem with which it deals. This may overcome the difficulties that have bedevilled the act since it was first introduced. The foot-note on the first page of the bill shows that the principal act has been amended each year. I have no doubt that this bill will not be able to cope with all the problems of the future, but at least it will make fair progress towards doing so. The complications of the legislation can be gauged by an examination of the schedules. Servicemen and women are divided into some 116 categories and benefits are provided for people with ages ranging from 40 years to 60 years. Accordingly, the schedules look very complicated at first sight. However, they give a serviceman an opportunity to estimate exactly how much he will pay and how much he will receive. I agree with the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) that this is a very important contribution to efforts to improve the recruiting rate and will give service men and women the feeling that they are taking up a professional career and that the nation is prepared to accept responsibility for them. The complicated nature of the bill can be seen from some of its provisions. Clause 55 (3.) provides -

The amount of pension per annum payable in pursuance of the last preceding sub-section is an amount ascertained in accordance with the following formula, that is to say

where -

A is the amount of pension per annum that, but for this section, would be payable under the Principal Act as amended by this Act to or in respect of the contributor;

That clause shows the difficulties that face honorable members in attempting to give proper consideration to the measure. One thing that is essential - perhaps even more essential than giving immediate justice - in this kind of measure is that honorable members should be able to give it proper consideration. I suggest to the Treasurer that in the New Year he bring to the planning of the activities of the Parliament some of the zest that he brought to the discharge of his duties when he took over from his predecessor as Leader of the House.

I am not completely enamoured of all the principles that are contained in this bill. I know that the bill has been actuarily designed. In his second-reading speech, the Treasurer said -

As I have explained, the original contribution basis was not founded on any actuarial assessment of the various risks of mortality, &c, experienced by the forces. The committee has recommended that the time is now opportune, in view of the knowledge gained under the present legislation, to place contributions on a proper footing.

I agree that the rate of contribution should bear some relation to the benefits that accrue. I agree, also, that the actuary in this field has a particular role to play, but I believe, particularly with people serving in the Defence Forces, that the actuarial basis is not the most important factor. The most important factor is that justice should be done. Special duties devolve upon servicemen and women. They serve away from home for a considerable portion of their career and they face, perhaps, exceptional dangers, even in the pursuit of their ordinary training. Servicemen and women are a special case. Therefore, we should not place so much emphasis on whether the fund will balance or whether it will be self-supporting, but we should consider whether we can be a little less mean in our approach. I put this to honorable members in the House - many who are not in the House may read it later: Is there any need for us to be mean? I use the word “ mean “ with due consideration to its exact meaning in this context. Why should we be worried about the fund being on a firm financial basis? The payments into the fund, as outlined by the honorable member for Parkes, since the last war-

Mr Bury:

– Is that-

Mr BRYANT:

– It is good to see you awake. I hope you will take part in this debate.

Mr Bury:

– You put me to sleep!

Mr BRYANT:

– If you apply your economic understanding to an interpretation of some of the clauses of the bill, you will be doing better than you have done in the past.

In the last year for which a report is available, £1,200,000 was paid into the fund. That is a very small part of the total defence expenditure. So, even if the fund were to lose at the rate of 5 per cent., 10 per cent., or 15 per cent., only a very small burden would be placed on the resources of the fund. But the pensions payable-

Mr Harold Holt:

– Is that your idea of sound finance?

Mr BRYANT:

– I pointed out that we should approach this question, not so much on the financial or actuarial basis, as with our thoughts directed to the special conditions that prevail for servicemen. If you will take the trouble to read one of your own reports, you will see that the refund of contributions and the total pension payable do not amount to the total payments into the fund. In other words, this is a co-operative undertaking by the people in the forces just as is the case with every superannuation system in the country. It is a co-operative undertaking by which those at present serving, in whatever category they may be serving, pay for the pensions of the people who have retired or who are receiving benefits.

I believe it is a fallacy to base any superannuation fund on the idea that everybody must be able to withdraw his contributions’ from the fund and still leave the fund solvent. If £1,200,000 is being paid into the fund each year, you have £1,200,000 as a basis upon which to pay benefits. In this instance, although the Government is paying, in theory at least, a certain proportion into the fund, in fact the contributions from service men and women more than equal benefits being paid to pensioners. Of course, in the services there are special cases. People serve for short periods. Therefore, an arrangement slightly different from that in ordinary superannuation funds is necessary. But even in this case of a new Navy, Army and Air Force, only ten or eleven years old, with all the problems of people failing to re-engage for service, payments into the fund by contributors at this stage greatly exceed any possible pay-out. Therefore, I see no need to be mean with regard to some of these benefits.

I make a special appeal on behalf of the children of pensioners. This bill, as is the case with the Superannuation Act and the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Act, provides for a payment of £156 a year for a child orphaned by the loss of both parents. Three pounds a week is a miserable sum, taking into account the amounts that are contributed to the fund. I feel much the same way about all these superannuation funds. The sum of £3 a week is completely inadequate for the maintenance of a child. It is nothing like the amount payable by the Department of Territories, which makes an allowance of £300 a year to any person prepared to take an aboriginal child into his home and provide him or her with schooling in the south. Apparently the Minister for Territories or his advisers feel that £6 a week is needed to maintain an aboriginal child. Yet we, with all the resources at our disposal in these funds - £56,000,000 in the Commonwealth superannuation fund and about £10,000,000 in this fund - treat children in this niggardly fashion. To be a little more generous would not cause a very great drain on the fund. I think we should give consideration to a realinement of values in this respect.

I have similar feelings about the treatment of widows. It is interesting that the general attitude with regard to superannuation funds is to up-grade the benefits payable to widows. When this fund was first introduced widows received one-half of the pen sion formerly payable to their husbands.

That amount has now been increased to fiveeighths, and in some schemes in this country the amount is as high as threequarters. The tendency seems to be in the direction of granting the widow the full pension available to her husband; and that is a principle of which I approve. Therefore I suggest that we give consideration in the future to a revaluation of the principles upon which we run these funds. We should be looking at the total amounts contributed to the funds and the possible benefits to be paid. We must consider the soldier who, at age 60 or 65, may qualify for an age pension. He would get a pension payment of £200 or £225 a year. In the first instance, if he did not contribute to the pension fund he would have a flag-fall of some £200 a year. Many people who contribute to these funds are unhappy because they are disqualified from receiving an age pension. That is another matter which I think should be taken into account when these superannuation funds are considered.

There are several other matters which I think we should consider. The act at present provides that in the case of a person who marries after he has qualified for the pension and subsequently dies, his widow does not qualify for any pension. That situation cannot arise very often, but it is a matter of great moment to all contributors. We must consider not so much what it means actuarially but what it means to the individual citizen on the receiving end. That is a provision that I would remove from the act.

There are several other points with which I should like to deal but generally speaking the bill is a great advance. Therefore I have pleasure, in a way, in applauding the Government’s introduction of the bill. However, I feel very keenly about the point made by the honorable member for Parkes as to retrospectivity of payments. This bill has been on the stocks a long time. Anybody who associates with service men and women must know that they have felt great anxiety about the previous provisions and have been waiting anxiously for this bill to do something to relieve their anxiety. In view of the solvency of the fund and in view of the importance a measure such as this is to the future recruiting rate of the services, there can be no justification for denying retrospectivity. I support the amendment and I commend to all honorable members the ideas that we have advanced from this side of the House. In the future let us approach these matters with a little more generosity.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm

– I congratulate the Government and Sir John Allison and his committee for the work that they have put into’ this problem. The bill may have somedefects - I do not know, because I havenot had time to study it - but everybody in this House feels that it is a great improvement on the existing provision. But there are one or two matters that I should like to refer to briefly. The honorable member for Higinbotham (Mr. Timson)> has reminded me that the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) in his Budget speech said that this bill would be brought down at an early date.

Mr Whitlam:

– That was fourteen weeks ago.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:

– That is so. I know that the Treasurer had to attend to other business, and I also know that the draftsmen have been busy with many other bills; and perhaps they are short staffed.

Mr Harold Holt:

– They have been busy on this bill.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:

– They may have been busy on this bill, because it covers about 76 pages as well as a schedule. But I do not think the fact has been sufficiently stressed that some officers and some other ranks may have retired since the Budget was introduced and they will, therefore, be in an unfortunate position.

Mr Whitlam:

– Seventy people have retired from the services since the Budget was introduced.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:

– I thank the honorable member for Werriwa for that information. I know the circumstances but nobody has had time to look at the bill or find out the details. I take it that the honorable member for Werriwa has been busier than J have been in ascertaining the position. There are 70 people who have retired from the services since this announcement was made in the Budget. I ask the Treasurer to look at the position of those people. The provisions of the bill should operate from the date of the introduction of the Budget, and I would not care if the 1st July were chosen as the operative date. But to have 70 persons affected in the small defence forces that we have is an important factor to be considered. I feel very sympathetic towards those people because, although this bill will improve conditions for those who are at present serving in the forces, it will not help those who were retired after the war in accordance with the provisions of the 1948 act. Some were retired even compulsorily at a very much earlier age than they expected and, therefore, their pension was very much smaller than they had anticipated. They “have had to cope with the problem of inflation. I think that the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) was wrong when he said that the bill did not apply to widows of the retired members of the forces. Whether he was right or wrong, the Treasurer, in his Budget speech, said -

Careful thought has been given to the position of existing pensioners, many of whom retired a number of years ago with pensions that were a proportion of the salaries being paid at that time. Legislation will be brought down to provide, in respect of all existing pensions, an increase in the benefit for widows from one-half to Aveeighths of the full pension. The cost of this proposal, which will diminish in later years, is estimated at £300.000 in its first year.

In his second-reading speech on this bill the Treasurer said -

The Government has also decided that the increased widow’s pension will be available to existing widows and to widows of existing pensioners. The cost of this increase will be met by the Commonwealth.

I am not quite certain how one interprets “ widows of existing pensioners “, but I think I would be right in assuming that the term refers to wives of existing pensioners who become widows. While a small alteration has been made with regard to existing pensioners, I should like to ask the Treasurer

Mr Harold Holt:

– It is an increase ot 25 per cent. - hardly a small increase.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:

– Yes, for the widows. It does affect the pension. I know the difficulties confronting the Treasurer and I sympathize with him. Would the Treasurer consider asking the Allison committee to turn its attention to inquiring into what can be done for pensioners who were retired after the war at a much earlier age than they otherwise would have been? The terms of reference under which the Allison committee operated on the last occasion did not include this subject and, tor that reason, I think that it should now be asked to submit recommendations to the Government as to what should be done for the people to whom 1 have referred. Even in the short time that it takes to read the introductory remarks in the report it becomes perfectly obvious that the penalties that are being suffered by those who have been already discharged under the scheme had a great influence on the thinking of the committee and on the recommendations which it submitted to the Government and which, in turn, the Government has adopted. If the committee were asked to review the existing pensions and to recommend something that is fair and equitable in all the circumstances, having regard to the effect of inflation on the pensions and the fact that persons who retired before 1958 received none of the advantages under the rehabilitation scheme, I am sure that it would submit a report which would be of great value to the Government and to this Parliament.

I should like the Treasurer to give this matter very serious consideration. I know several men who are suffering considerable hardship as a result of the existing legislation. It has been suggested that there will be no delay in finding the increased amount to cover the persons to whom I have referred because it is available in the canteen fund and in the present Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund. I realize that difficulties will arise in applying those funds for this purpose, but I do not think that the Government would be involved in a greatly increased expenditure. Now that we have done a large amount of justice to those who are at present serving in the forces, I am certain that every honorable member would like to see something done for those who were retired after the end of the war at a very much earlier age than they would have anticipated.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- Twenty-four hours ago the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) introduced the Defence Forces

Retirement Benefits Bill which consists of 86 clauses and five schedules and extends over 79 pages. The bill amends the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1958, which consists of 86 sections and eight schedules and extends over 67 pages.

Mr Harold Holt:

– Can’t you understand it?

Mr WHITLAM:

– I believe that I can understand it, and I hope that every honorable member can understand it. This is one of four bills which the Treasurer introduced 24 hours ago and, even if honorable members had not gone to sleep in the intervening period, it would have been impossible for them to have read all those bills and the acts they amend. As far as one can tell from a necessarily cursory look at the bill, it represents an improvement in many respects on the scheme of retirement benefits for members of the forces which was introduced by the Chifley Government in 1948. Added experience has enabled us to be more generous in our treatment of the officers and men who make the armed forces their career while they are in the prime of life.

I propose to confine myself to clause 2 on the first of the 79 pages, which is in these terms -

This Act shall come into operation on the fourteenth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine.

I support the amendment that has been moved by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen), and supported by the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) and the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes), which provides that the bill shall date from 1st July last. If the Parliament were to accept this amendment we would ensure that officers and men who have retired since the Government made up its mind to implement these improvements will receive the benefit of these improvements. To put the matter in another way, we shall see that officers and men in the armed forces are not penalized by the Government’s delay, however it is explained or justified.

Before giving the chronology of the Allison committee, I should like to say that all honorable members are indebted to the committee for the careful consideration which it gave to the problem with which it was commissioned to deal - a very complex problem which, as far as one can tell, has been dealt with in a very clear and just manner. The committee was appointed on 5th September, 1957. It was commissioned to inquire into the rates of pay of officers and men, and into the rates of pensions and other benefits that officers and men receive on retirement. The section of the report dealing with rates of pay was considered by Cabinet on 18th June, 1958, and the suggested increases in pay were approved and made effective from the first pay period in July, 1958. On 23rd September, 1958, the then Minister for Defence, Sir Philip McBride, replied to my question relating to officers’ retirement conditions in these terms -

The benefits appertaining to service members are at present being considered by the committee, and I hope to receive a report and recommendation from it in the not far distant future.

On 9th April last, the present Minister for Defence (Mr. Townley) told me -

The report was received by me within the last few days and is in my hands now. At the present time I am studying it. Subsequently, of course, it will go to Cabinet with my recommendation.

The report was considered by the Cabinet on 21st July last. Its approval was announced in the Budget speech made by the Treasurer fifteen weeks and one day ago. We now find that the recommendations in the Allison report are to become effective from the 14th of next month.

An ascertainable number of people will be affected by the amendment. The Treasurer has been good enough to give me figures indicating the number of officers and men who have retired since the committee was appointed and since the Government approved its report, and who, in each case, are receiving pensions. There are, of course, many officers and men who have retired and who are not eligible for pensions. But these figures which I shall now cite - and some of which I interpolated while the honorable member for Chisholm was speaking - relate to officers and men who have retired and are now receiving pensions and who, if the bill were implemented retrospectively, would be receiving greater pensions. Since the committee was appointed on 5th September, 1957, 158 officers have retired on pension because of age and seventeen because of invalidity, and 120 other ranks have retired because of age and 110 because of invalidity.

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:

– Since what date?

Mr WHITLAM:

– Since the committee was appointed on 5th September, 1957 - two years and two and one-half months ago. Since the Government considered and adopted the report of the Allison committee - that is, since 21st July last - so the Treasurer has told me, 22 officers have retired on account of age and one on account of invalidity, and 23 other ranks have retired on account of age and 29 on account of invalidity. All told, 75 men have resigned or retired and gone on pension since the Government accepted the report. Some 80 officers and men would benefit if the House agreed to the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition and supported by the only speaker on the Government side so far apart from the Treasurer. It may be that, in some circumstances these do not seem to be very great numbers of officers and men. But that should not deter us. They all are human beings, and most of them would be heads of families. If only one man is being treated wrongly we should remedy that treatment. The total number of pension payments under the present act is not great compared with pension and superannuation payments under the terms of the various other acts which this Parliament has passed. The report of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Board for the financial year 1957-58 shows that, at 30th June, 1958, 705 officers, 270 commissioned’ warrant officers and quartermasters and 1,982 ratings, other ranks and airmen were in receipt of pensions. I should point out that widows and children are included in those figures.

Retirement benefits concern members of the forces at a vital stage in their lives, because they follow an occupation from which one has to retire in the prime of life. I propose to give the establishment figures for various ranks of officers in the Army. I shall not give the figures for the Navy and the Air Force, which, in each case, are smaller. I shall give the number concerned and the compulsory retiring age for Army officers. There is an establishment of three at the rank of lieutenantgeneral, and officers of that rank must retire at 60. There is an establishment of ten major-generals, and they have to retire at

  1. There is an establishment of 61 colonels and brigadiers, with retirement at 55; and an establishment of 196 lieutenantcolonels, with retirement at 50. All other commissioned ranks, Mr. Speaker, have to retire at 47. In the Australian Army, all officers of the rank of brigadier or below have to retire in the prime of life. They have to retire at an age when they cannot manage on the money they have saved or on the benefits payable under this act. They have to retire after having held positions of responsibility, authority and professional status for a couple of decades. They have to retire at an age when their commitments for the education, accommodation and establishment of their families are at the maximum. One may be pardoned for thinking that an officer in the Australian Army would be foolish indeed to beget children after he was 30 years of age, because he could not be sure of doing justice to them in the sphere of life in which the Australian community expects him to rear them.

In those circumstances, Sir, we feel that it is bare justice to make this measure retrospective to the beginning of this financial year - to approximately the time when the Government at last accepted the report of the committee which inquired into the matter. The Government has had the report for nearly eight months. The Cabinet adopted the report four months ago, and that adoption was announced in the Treasurer’s Budget speech three and one-half months ago. The Government does not intend to make the report effective for another three weeks. It would not cost the country very much to make these provisions retrospective to the beginning of this financial year. The country would be ashamed’ to begrudge the extra few thousand pounds involved.

Mr Harold Holt:

– It is not just a few thousand pounds.

Mr WHITLAM:

– How much is involved?’

Mr Harold Holt:

– If the honorable member calculates the actuarial equivalent in respect of a man retiring with his lifetime ahead of him, and not having paid contributions for his retirement benefits, he will find that, spread over the number of persons involved, the cost would be more than a few thousand pounds.

Mr WHITLAM:

– All we ask is that this measure be made retrospective to 1st July, 1959.

Mr Harold Holt:

– But the retirement benefit has to be carried on for the pensioner for an indefinite period.

Mr WHITLAM:

– The same argument would apply to an officer who retires on the 15th of next month.

Mr Harold Holt:

– But he would be liable to contributions and lump sum payments out of his retirement benefit.

Mr WHITLAM:

– If the bill is made retrospective as we ask, officers and men who have retired since 1st July last will be given the same opportunity to make deferred payments for the period that they remained in the forces after 1st July. We are making that privilege or right available to men who retire within the next eight years - or eight days, for that matter. If their payments to the fund exceed 10 per cent, of their pay in the case of officers, or 5 per cent, in the case of other ranks, we are giving them an opportunity to make deferred payments out of their pensions. We should at least see that a similar right or privilege is given to officers and men who have retired since the Government adopted the Allison committee’s report.

At all events, the Treasurer has given no explanation for deferring the operation of this measure until the 14th of next month. If pensions have to await legislation, they should become operative as soon as the two Houses of the Parliament have passed the legislation. But this measure will not become effective for a couple of weeks after that time. What we suggest is that rights similar to those which the Government proposes to give to men who retire after the middle of next month should be given to officers and men who have retired since the Government made up its mind on the matter. We just want to give justice to men who, we asserted over two years ago, required it, who, the committee advised eight months ago, should have it, who, the Government decided four months ago, could have it, and who, the

Parliament was told three and one-half: months ago, would have it. We should at least see that this measure is made retrospective to the date of the Government’s announcement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– I shall not detain the House for long. The Opposition has moved an amendment to provide, in effect, that the Government should give retrospective effect to this legislation back to 1st July. The honorable member for Werriwa (Mr. Whitlam) and the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen), who spoke for the Opposition on the bill, have both paid a tribute to the work of the Allison committee on this subject. They both commended what the honorable member for Werriwa described as the clear and just manner of determination by the committee. But they have both sought to vary the Government’s decision to the extent of the amendment proposed.

Mr Whitlam:

– The committee did not stipulate that the date should be 14th December.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I am not suggesting that it did. I am suggesting that you are seeking to vary what the Government has prescribed although you have seen fit to commend the committee’s own deliberations and findings. I am putting out of the area of controversy what the committee itself has recommended. We are all agreed that the committee dealt fairly, thoroughly, clearly and to the satisfaction, it transpires, of all sections of this Parliament, with the problem as the committee saw it. So the argument revolves around whether or not the very considerable benefits of this legislation should operate from 14th December as prescribed in the legislation or from 1st July as recommended by the Opposition in its amendment.

Mr Whitlam:

– And supported by the only Government speaker.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– It has been supported by the only speaker from the Government benches, other than myself, who has addressed himself to this measure. But I think that I can safely assure the honorable member for Werriwa that although my followers are silent they are still supporters. He does not always enjoy the same happy experience. Frequently he finds that his alleged supporters are vocal, but not necessarily followers.

Mr Bryant:

– In the Labour Party we are not followers. We are all in front.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– It is difficult to know where the centre of power resides at any point of time. However, I am contesting the words of my articulate friend from Parkes, who has given us a very clear and graciously worded account of the attitude of the Opposition on this matter. In a relatively short space of time he apparently absorbed, without too much difficulty, the intricacies of the legislation. I content myself with dealing with the one major point of substance raised for the Opposition which is that the benefits of this measure should date back to 1st July. I can assure the House that the problem is very much more complex than that proposition, on the face of it, would suggest.

It is not merely a matter of finding a few thousand pounds extra, as the honorable member for Werriwa has indicated to the House. The Government has not shown itself to be niggardly in its approach to this problem, nor has anybody on the other side sought to make out a case that the benefits proposed under the legislation are unreasonably low. They have been commended as satisfactory. Therefore, if we do not accept the recommendation from the Opposition it cannot be held against us that we reject it because of parsimony.

The fact of the matter is that, in any scheme of pension or superannuation payments or, as we call it here, retirement benefits, any date that is selected will not be a happy selection for some people. Wherever you select your date, whether you take it from the time at which the Allison committee began its consideration of the matter, the time at which the committee presented its report, the time at which the Government adopted the report, or the time at which the draftsmen applied themselves to the task of producing a draft bill - one of the most complex tasks in all their experience - there will be some people who are so close to that point that they will feel that you might have gone a little further back along the line. In other words, as I said in talking about the superannuation measure which preceded this one, whatever date we select we merely move the boundary of discontent from one point to another.

Whatever date we had chosen for the operation of the measure, there would have been advocates, particularly from the other side, for a date somewhat earlier. That is one problem - the selection of a date which is supportable in terms of logic and of justice. In the case of a contributory pensions scheme it becomes all the more important that the date selected will enable contributions to be made and to be continued. I suppose that it is not beyond the bounds of human capacity to chase after people who have retired in order to recover from them contributions which would necessarily be very substantial and which I believe would have to be lump sum contributions, so that they may qualify for higher pension benefits. But nobody has deprived these people of anything which they expected to get. They were in the forces contributing to a retirement fund and were aware of its details. They have gone out of the forces at a time prior to that at which some supplementary plan or some scheme with better benefits has been produced. They have not been deprived of anything to which they were entitled under the schemes which applied earlier.

We say that the only sensible and practical course is to fix the date in a contributory scheme and make the benefits apply from then onwards in return for contributions which are made. We recognize that it would be unreasonable to expect people who will retire in a short time to make contributions out of their current earnings proportionate to the benefit that they will get. Provision has been made in the bill to meet that kind of situation. A lump sum can be paid out of the retirement benefit as it becomes due.

Taking the whole problem into consideration, we feel that this is a sound and practical course. It is, in essence, similar to that which the House of Representatives has already adopted in relation to the superannuation scheme. I suggest that it is the course which should now be followed by the House in relation to this measure. I do not want to detain the House further. I merely say that, for these reasons, the Government does not find itself able to accept the proposed amendment.

Question put -

That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr. Haylen’s amendment) stand part of the question.

The House divided. (Mr. Deputy Speaker - Mr. P. E. Lucock.)

AYES: 61

NOES: 38

Majority . . . . 23

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and committed pro forma; progress reported.

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of GovernorGeneral’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to -

That it is expedient that an appropriation of revenue be made for the purposes of a bill for an act relating to retirement benefits for members of the defence forces of the Commonwealth.

Resolution reported and adopted.

In committee: Consideration resumed.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
holm · Chis

– I shall be very brief. I regret that the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) felt that he was not able to make the date of commencement retrospective to 1st July as was proposed by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) in his amendment. I did not vote for the amendment because I did not want to delay the bill further. That would mean that more people who will retire shortly would not be able to enjoy the benefits of this bill.

I realize that there is some force in the argument of the Treasurer that people who have retired since the Allison committee made its report and before the date from which these new provisions will operate, knew the terms of service under which they enlisted, and therefore they can have no real cause for complaint. But I do not see why members of the services should be treated exactly the same as anybody else, because there is a lot of difference in their particular form of service. However, I accept that; but in doing so, I direct the attention of the Treasurer to the fact that those people who retired early had the whole of the terms of service under which they enlisted altered. Their permanent careers were arbitrarily shortened by up to thirteen years, and no compensation was paid to them. Contributors to the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund were transferred without option to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme, and superannuation contributors for full pensions were in 1948 forced to accept the frugal pensions provided by the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Scheme. So, applying the same principle, I think consideration should be given to the suggestion I madeearlier that a special committee or some form of committee should look into grievances, which I think are very real.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The reason why the Opposition did not press for any further discussion on this clause was that we had tested in the House the question of whether this matter could be resolved. We did so by moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading to provide for the bill to be withdrawn and redrafted and its provisions to be made retrospective to 1st July. I suggest that the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes) had a golden opportunity then to live up to his speech by voting with us on our amendment. However, we will support him in regard to this clause if he feels that he would like to drive his argument to a conclusion although we think that what he proposes has already been tested and has failed in the House. I agree with him that the Minister’s attitude to the matter seems to be, “You have to be on the right side of the wire when the wire descends, or you don’t get anything “. That is not a completely valid proposition, except perhaps so far as a Treasury official or the head of the Treasury is concerned, but I suppose it is the philosophy that exists in all departments handling money or handling matters involving money. We do not want to hold up the improved pension plan for members of the services, and for that reason we propose to allow the rest of the bill to go through unopposed.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– I wish to add a few words to what has been said. I have already said why the Government could not accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) at the second-reading stage, the substance of which has been discussed again by the honorable member for Chisholm (Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes). I wish to add the comment that what we are doing is entirely consistent with what this Parliament has always done, so far as I can recall, in relation to the great body of pensioners in this country. Prior to the bringing down of the Budget each year the government in office, whether it be a government formed from the parties now on this side of the House, or a Labour government, decides on the rates of pension to apply later in the financial year. That decision is usually made in June or July. Weeks later, or even a month or two later, depending on when the Cabinet discussionsoccur, the Government announces its decision in the Budget. Weeks or even months after that announcement the Parliament, during the Budget session, debates the Government’s proposals and usually adopts them. During the Budget debate and the debate on the enabling legislation, there is always a suggestion made from one side of the chamber or the other that the increase of pensions be back-dated to 1st July or some other date. Consistently we have rejected that proposition, as other governments have done. We have said that the increased benefits are to operate from the day following that on which the legislation becomes law. My colleague, the Minister for Social Services (Mr. Roberton), is here. He is much more closely in touch with these matters than I am, but I think my recollection is accurate on the point I have mentioned. So, Sir, it is not as though we were violating some practice of the Parliament. What we have asked the Parliament to do is entirely consistent with the former practice of the Parliament.

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
Chisholm

– When I spoke earlier, I said I accepted the principle mentioned by the Treasurer as valid, and that there was something to be said for it. But I also said that I should like to see an alteration in this particular case. The real reason I wanted to discuss this clause was to point out the position of the existing pensioners whose terms of service, which had been guaranteed, were arbitrarily altered. Many of those pensioners are now in a very difficult position as a result. I did not want to argue on the question of whether or not the increases should be made retrospective.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of bill - by leave - taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Bill - by leave - read a third time.

page 3113

QUESTION

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1959

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 5)

In Committee of Ways and Means: Con sideration resumed from 13th May (vide page 2116, vol. H of R. 23), on motion by

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933- 1959 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, . . . (vide page 2115, vol.

  1. of R. 23).

Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 2)

In Committee of Ways and Means: Consideration resumed from 13th May (vide page 2116, vol. H. of R. 23), on motion by Mr. Osborne -

That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921- 1959 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that . . . (vide page 2115, voL H. of R. 23).

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I ask for leave of the committee to withdraw the motions described as Customs Amendment No. 5 and Excise Amendment No. 2, which I moved on 13th

May. I should like to explain to the committee the reason for withdrawing those two motions. The two amendments dealt with the exemption from customs and excise duties of stores used by an aircraft in the operation of an internanational air service or flight. The Parliamentary Draftsman has pointed out that adequate provision already exists in the Customs Act 1901-1959 and in the Excise Act 1901-1958 to exempt aircraft stores from duty, and that it is not necessary to make special items in the Tariffs to cover these goods.

Motions - by leave - withdrawn.

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 9); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 11); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 12); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 13); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 2); Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 5)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 9).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that on and after the twenty-sixth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 as so amended. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 10).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 introduced into the House of Representatives on the twenty-fifth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-sixth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 as so amended. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 11).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-sixth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 as so amended. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 12).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-sixth of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 as so amended. [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 13).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-sixth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff 1933-1959 as so amended. [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 2).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1959 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-sixth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Customs be collected in pursuance of the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1959 as so amended. [Excise Tariff Amendment (No. 5).] That the Schedule to the Excise Tariff 1921-1959 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that on and after the twenty-sixth day of November, One thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine, at five o'clock in the forenoon, reckoned according to standard time in the Australian Capital Territory, Duties of Excise be collected in pursuance of the Excise Tariff 1921-1959 as so amended. The tariff proposals which I have just introduced propose to alter the Customs Tariff 1933-1959, the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1959 and the Excise Tariff 1921-1959 as from to-morrow morning. The alterations arise mainly from the Government's consideration of fourteen Tariff Board reports. There are also two amendments of departmental origin. The Tariff Board reports concerned are those dealing with woollen goods, which I tabled earlier this year, and with plain clear sheet glass; antimonial and lead compounds; electrically operated cloth-cutting machines; marking and stamping devices; slide viewers, slide projectors and bulb-type flash guns; mosquito repellents; carpenters' planes; human hair-clipping machines; abrasives; circuit breakers and switch units; the shipbuilding industry; canvas and duck and cotton substitutes therefor; and waterproofed piece goods. I shall table these reports shortly. I would, however, like to give honorable members the following general information on the changes involved. On antimonial and lead compounds, no change in the incidence of tariff duties has been recommended by the board and the primage duty has been incorporated with the existing duties chargeable under the customs tariff. On cloth-cutting machines, increased duties are proposed for portable electric types, the rates being 221 per cent, ad valorem under the British preferential tariff and 30 per cent, ad valorem otherwise. Bench and other types of cloth-cutting machines remain admissible at nonprotective rates of duty. Carpenters' planes will now become, either through the customs tariff or customs by-laws, free of duty under the British preferential tariff, or dutiable at 71 per cent, ad valorem otherwise. The Tariff Board has recommended that the substantive rates of duty for metal planes remain unaltered, but the by-law provisions operate in lieu of these protective duties for the time being. Plain clear sheet glass now becomes dutiable at protective, rates of 171 per cent, ad valorem less ls. 6d. per 100 square feet British preferential tariff, and 171 per cent, ad valorem otherwise. Mosquito spirals and coils are at present covered by protective duties, and these are proposed to be removed. In this case the: Tariff Board found that there has been a change in consumer demand from combustible mosquito repellents to the new spray-type insecticides. The board found, that very high rates of duty would be required to give effective protection to the local product and that this could not be. justified on economic grounds. The rates of duty now become free under British preferential tariff, and 71 per cent, ad valorem otherwise. Protective rates- of 5 per cent. British preferential tariff and 221 per cent, otherwise are now imposed on slide viewers and slide projectors, and also on single-flash bulb type photographic flash lights. Increased protection from 40 per cent, ad valorem to 45 per cent, ad valorem is imposed on marking and stamping devices when entered under the mostfavourednation tariff, but as primage duty of 5 per cent, is now removed the net result is that there is no change in the amount of duty payable on importation. There is no change proposed for the British preferential tariff rate, which remains at 171 per cent, ad valorem. A complementary amendment to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) is proposed which will maintain the level of duty on these goods at 221 per cent, ad valorem when qualifying for admission under that tariff. Protection is imposed for the first time on vibratory type electrically operated hairclipping machines. Duties of 321 per cent. British preferential tariff, and 50 per cent, otherwise, are proposed. The British rate exceeds that recommended by the Tariff Board, but is the lowest rate possible consistent with Australia's overseas commitments. Rates of duty on other types of hair-clipping machines, e.g. shavers and motorized hair clippers, remain unchanged at free under the British preferential tariff, and 121 per cent, ad valorem otherwise. Following inquiries on abrasives the Tariff Board recommended that a protective tariff at rates of 171 per cent, under the British preferential tariff, and 30 per cent, otherwise, be imposed on abrasive cloth and abrasive' paper. However, concessional tariff ' treatment is given to jumbo rolls- of certain abrasive papers and cloths which are further processed by Australian manufacturers of abrasive products. Jumbo rolls are rolls of abrasive material at least 100 yards long and exceeding 12 inches in width. The Tariff Board has recommended increased tariff protection for certain types of circuit breakers and switch units. The general protective rates on outdoor circuit breakers rise by 10 per cent, ad valorem on goods entered under the British preferential tariff. The board also proposed that out-door circuit breakers in the 15,000/38,500 volt class be given concessional entry only when the rated breaking capacity is 2,500 megavolt-amperes, instead of 1,500 MVA as was previously the case. This means that outdoor circuit breakers in this voltage range exceeding 1,500 MVA but less than 2,500 MVA become dutiable under the proposed increased protective rates of 32) per cent. British preferential tariff, and 50 per cent, otherwise. Changes are also proposed affecting the shipbuilding industry. The existing customs and primage duties on vessels not exceeding 500 tons gross register will be amalgamated. Some drafting changes have been made but there is no variation in the level of tariff assistance given to the Australian shipbuilding industry. Following consideration of recommendations made by the Tariff Board in its report on this industry, which I will table later to-night, the Government has decided to continue the existing measures of assistance to the Australian shipbuilding industry. As honorable members are aware, these measures include the payment of a subsidy of up to 33) per cent, of the cost on trading vessels of over 500 tons gross built in Australia for employment on the Australian coast. The Government has decided that it should not aim at a shipbuilding industry of greater capacity than would be needed to meet the likely level of orders for the coasting trade. The Tariff Board made certain observations on measures which could assist to generate demand if it was decided to have a greater level of occupied capacity in the industry. The Government has considered these observations and does not propose to take any special action on them, but the existing subsidy assistance will be continued until the end of 1964 and will be reviewed not later than 1962. In its report on cotton canvas and duck, the Tariff Board recommended additional protection in the form of a deferred duty. The Government has decided, however, to operate the recommended duties forthwith and to refer the matter back to the board for further inquiry and report. In a further report on waterproofed canvas and duck, the Tariff Board recommended that the same rates of duty apply to waterproofed as to unwaterproofed canvas and duck. The Government has accepted this recommendation. Honorable members may recall that I tabled the Tariff Board report on woollen goods on 13th May last. In respect of woollen piece goods, the board's finding was that the general level of tariff protection should be maintained, but that two existing tariff items should be combined to remove administrative difficulties. At that time, I informed honorable members that international negotiations had been commenced to secure certain changes in trade treaty obligations. These negotiations have been successfully concluded, and the rates now proposed give effect to the board's recommendation to combine the two tariff items. The excise tariff is being amended to facilitate the establishment of a new industry in Australia, the manufacture of sodium cyclamate, and to permit its delivery free from excise duty when to be used for medicinal purposes. A complementary amendment is made to the Customs Tariff. I take this opportunity to assure honorable members that the proposal involves no reduction in the duties applying to sugar substitutes when used for other than medicinal purposes. I understand that sodium cyclamate is a saccharin or sugar substitute. In October, 1958, I introduced a tariff proposal in which provision was made to permit concessional treatment to be accorded certain drugs and chemicals in retail packages. It has been found necessary to extend these provisions to morphine, strychnine and caffeine, and accordingly subdivision is now proposed for Items 281 (Q)(2), 281 (u) (2) and 281 (v)(2). I formally commend the proposals to honorable members, but at the same time would point out that I shall shortly introduce in the House, due to its impending adjournment, legislation to validate the collection of duties imposed under these proposals until 30th June, 1960. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 3123 {:#debate-40} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #debate-40-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
LP -- I lay on the table reports of the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Cotton canvas and duck, > >Waterproofed cotton piece goods and waterproofed canvas and duck, > >Plain clear sheet glass, > >Antimony and antimonial products, > >Electrically operated human hair-clipping machines, > >Circuit breakers and switch units, > >Electrically operated cloth-cutting machines, > >Marking and stamping devices, > >Slide viewers, slide projectors and bulb type flash guns, > >Shipbuilding industry, > >Abrasive cloths and papers, > >Mosquito repellents, and > >Carpenters' planes. I am also tabling three other Tariff Board reports on - >Flax fibre, > >Radiants, and > >Passenger type motor cars. These last three reports do not call for any legislative action. The board's findings have in each instance been adopted by the Government. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 3123 {:#debate-41} ### CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1959 Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** - by leave - agreed to - >That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of customs under customs tariff proposals. Bill presented, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP -- by leave - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. **Mr. Speaker,** the bill now before the House proposes to validate duties of customs in respect of the tariff proposals which I tabled earlier this evening and one proposal which I tabled on 1 9th November last. Because the Parliament will shortly go into recess and could be prorogued, in which case the proposals would lapse, it is necessary to validate the collection of the proposed duties. This bill validates the collection until 30th June, 1960. I would expect, however, that before that date expires, the proposals will be reintroduced in order to be passed into law. If they are so te-introduced they will be required to be enacted or again validated before the expiration of six months from the date of the second tabling. As honorable members are well aware, the Government, with the full co-operation of the Opposition, has been able to give honorable members ample opportunities in recent years to debate tariff legislation, and I see no reason why this happy state of affairs should not continue in the New Year. I commend the bill to honorable members. {: #subdebate-41-0-s1 .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD:
Lalor .- I direct the attention of the House to the fact that on 19th November a set of tariff proposals, which were the outcome of a review of an agreement between Australia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, was brought before the House. It was expected that the Parliament would have an opportunity to discuss the merits of the proposals before the end of the session. I take it that that opportunity is offered now. But something else has happened. The Minister for Air **(Mr. Osborne)** has to-night presented to the Parliament a sheaf of tariff proposals which are additional to those presented on 19th November. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- There is nothing unusual in that. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- Yes, there is. They will operate immediately. We now have two separate sets of proposals - those presented on 19th November, which were associated with the Rhodesian trade agreement, and those presented to-night, which are the outcome of Tariff Board reports. The Minister to-night throws on the table of the House a large bundle of Tariff Board reports dealing with the proposals that are now. to all intents and purposes, operating. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- That is the invariable practice, and it has been followed for years. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- The Minister talks about the invariable practice, but the fact remains that this is altogether undesirable. Here, in the dying hours of the session, with not more than twelve or fifteen members present out of a House of 120 members, the Parliament is confronted with a fait accompli. These proposals operate from to-morrow. It is of no use the Minister being funny; the fact remains that they will operate from to-morrow, and he does not deny it. We are now in the dying hours of the session, and the reports on which these tariff proposals are based are tabled for the first time to-night. They include - Cotton canvas and duck, Waterproofed cotton piece goods and waterproofed canvas and duck, Plain clear sheet glass, Antimony and antimonial products, Electrically operated human hair-clipping machines, Circuit breakers and switch units, Electrically operated cloth - cutting machines, Marking and stamping devices, Slide viewers, slide projectors and bulb type flash guns, Shipbuilding industry. The shipbuilding industry is of profound importance to the community, to employees in the industry and the proprietors of the shipbuilding yards. The industry is at present confronted with very serious difficulties. Surely, the Parliament is being treated with contempt when, in the closing hours of the session, all these Tariff Board reports, which have not been seen by any member of the Parliament, are laid on the table with proposals that operate from tomorrow, but no opportunity is given to the Parliament to decide whether they are desirable. As a protectionist party, the Australian Labour Party realizes that, although we have not an opportunity to debate the desirability of the tariff proposals, they should be given effect. We have enough knowledge, gained from our own resources, to know that the Australian shipbuilding industry is confronted with a difficult situation. The honorable member for Newcastle **(Mr. Jones)** has information on this situation and further information will be gleaned from the Tariff Board report. We have a pretty fair idea of what is contained in the proposals. It is most undesirable that we should be deprived of an opportunity to discuss these proposals before they are given effect to. Yet it is true that in the normal process of parliamentary procedure we could have the recommendations of the Tariff Board presented to us a month after the new rate of tariff is levied; and we could have tariff proposals brought down in this Parliament accepting, rejecting or modifying the recommendations of the Tariff Board just before the Parliament went into a long period of recess. That is why I protest now. In effect, the Government is contemptuous of the right of honorable members to discuss these all-important proposals. Speaking for the party that I represent, we resent that attitude. Whilst we are protagonists of the protection of Australian industry against foreign competition, and although in the main - I make the reservation " in the main " - the Government's proposals involve an increased measure of protection to Australian industry, nevertheless we have no alternative but to support the proposals. The fact is that the Parliament is treated with contempt. We should have had these proposals placed before us earlier in the session. The Tariff Board reports upon which these proposals are based have not been seen and examined by honorable members, and we protest against this attitude of the Government, Involved in these proposals and associated with them is the recently concluded review of the trade agreement with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. No outline of that review has been tabled for the information of this Parliament. This Parliament is simply informed that the Government has completed a review of the trade agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and as an outcome of that review, in respect of which no legislative enactment has been provided, the Government introduces tariff proposals to-night to give effect to the agreement. The agreement inevitably involves a series of tariff alterations which are now before the Parliament for discussion. Those alterations are aperative from 19th November. I want honorable members to note the marked difference between those proposals and the new proposals brought down by the Minister to-night. These proposals, apart from the Rhodesian proposals, will lie dormant, as far as debate is concerned, until the House meets again. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr Osborne: -- Both sets of proposals are in exactly the same position. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- They are not. The Rhodesian proposals have been before the House since 19th November. They are operative and at least, before the House goes into recess, we are now taking the opportunity to debate them. What are the factors surrounding this reciprocal agreement with the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? We find that in this agreement Rhodesia undertakes to reduce duties in respect of fifteen Australian commodities. There will be a lower rate of duty imposed on all those items with the exception of felt hats. In return, the Federation will be given a tariff preference over most other suppliers to this country; it will enjoy the preference enjoyed by the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. The particular items include biscuits, which are of profound importance to the Australian biscuit manufacturing industry and, following that product to its source, also of importance to the wheat producers of Australia. In the same category are cakes, which are of importance to the wheat industry and the dried fruits industry. Puddings and pastry are in the same category, and here I am afraid that margarine will be used instead of butter. That will affect the dairying industry and will be of interest to the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Bowden).** Jelly powders are another item, which will affect the gelatine interests and, because they are manufactured from the hooves of cattle, the cattle industry. We find that lamp fittings are included in the agreement. We all know that the Australian lamp industry has for many years been employing Australians and turning out a product second to none. Also, employees in that industry are consuming the products of our rural industries. Outstanding among the items to be admitted to the Federation at a lower tariff rate are Australian lawn mowers. I occasionally watch television, and I have noticed that Victa lawn mowers are extensively advertised. They are just the cat's whiskers for cutting your lawn. Here we have something that originated in the mind of the Australian worker and has become popular all over the world. To-day Australian manufacturers are selling Victa lawn mowers and other brands in the markets of the world in competition with manufacturers in other countries. Their product is covered by this trade agreement. Pens and pencils I do not know much about. It is quite obvious that they are being manufactured in Australia - probably under licence from overseas firms. We know all about felt hats. Apparently insulating, film, masking and adhesive tapes are being made in Australia, and the Department of Trade thinks it desirable to seek preferential treatment for their entry into the Rhodesian market. All those items, innocent as they may look, not only have gained access to the markets of the world under difficult circumstances but also offer excellent prospects for entry in ever-increasing quantities to the market of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It is obvious that you do not conclude a trade pact with another country unless you are prepared to give something in return. We are told by the Minister that in return Australia will give to Rhodesia British preferential tariff treatment in respect of six items imported into Australia. First, let me deal with copper. At present we do not produce sufficient copper to meet our own requirements. Indeed, despite the fact that we pay a bounty out of revenue to assist the Australian copper producers at Mount Isa, Lake George and Mount Morgan, we still import this commodity. As a quid pro quo to Rhodesia for the concessions that have been granted to us, we have said, "The British preferential tariff will apply on copper that is imported into Australia ". I come now to the second of the six items, passionfruit pulp, and I should like the attention of members of the Australian Country Party, and of the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Wheeler)** and the honorable member for Robertson **(Mr. Dean).** Due to the limitation of time that this Government has placed upon consideration of these items, I have not had sufficient opportunity to pursue my research into this problem very deeply, but I recall that the honorable members to whom I have referred have sought assistance for the passionfruit-growing industry. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- But they only want to penalize the New Guinea producers. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr POLLARD: -- Exactly. But, be that as it may, we in this Parliament must be careful that in return for concessions that are granted to us by another country we do not show a willingness to sacrifice what may appear, in the eyes of the Minister, the departmental officers and even members of Parliament, to be unimportant Australian industries. We must always have in the forefront of our thinking the fact that the small man, the pioneer of the small industry and the proprietor of the small agricultural holding are as important as the controllers of any major industry in this country. I am apprehensive that in the reciprocal benefit that has been granted by Australia to the Federation of Rhodesia the passionfruit-producers of our territories, and indeed of New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, may have been sold down the river by this Government. The Opposition wants an assurance that the Government, to gain benefits for fifteen sources of production and progress in Australia, has not acted at the expense of what may appear to be minor productive activity. If the Government is not prepared to give this assurance, this Parliament will see to it that the injured parties are fully compensated by some form of protection, perhaps by a bounty or something of that character. I should like the Minister to deal with this aspect, because I have a distinct recollection that some time ago an appeal was made on behalf of the passionfruit-growers of Australia. Dealing with the agreement, we find that we shall give some concessions to Rhodesia on graphite. I am not sure, but I do not think that the production of graphite is a substantial industry of an indigenous character. Then we come to unsweetened lime juice. In this instance, the producers of lime juices may have been sacrificed in this trade pact with Rhodesia. The same remarks apply in relation to nicotine sulphate and to some selected essential oils. I know the character of these negotiations. I know that Ministers and responsible officers negotiate with their opposite numbers and take into consideration the ultimate advantage to their country's industries as a whole. But I believe that there is a tendency to sell the small fellow down the river in order to gain advantage for the big fellow. We must always be on guard against that kind of operation. The Opposition wants some elucidation of this particular problem and some assurance from the Minister that these little fellows - little in the sense of the magnitude of their industry as compared with the other fifteen industries which are receiving concessions from Rhodesia - are fully protected. In his second-reading speech, the Minister stated that some time ago Rhodesia asked to be relieved of a previous undertaking that it had given in relation to dried full-cream milk powder. The federation decided that it wanted to protect its own dried full-cream milk powder industry. The Australian negotiators, with the consent of the Minister, finally acceded to the federation's request only on condition that it agreed to give to the dairying industry concessions equivalent to those which had been intended formerly in respect of dried full-cream milk powder. As far as I can see - and, as the Minister knows, I am always fair in these things - that proposal is unexceptionable. It is true that the arrangement may adversely affect a particular dried full-cream milk factory, but the industry as a whole, by virtue of the manner in which it conducts its marketing operations - mainly on a co-operative basis - will not be at a disadvantage. I have no other comment to make except to repeat that the Opposition wants some assurance from the Minister that these little fellows are amply protected and are not being used as pawns in order to gain an advantage for the much more powerful wheat, biscuit, pudding, cake and other industries which are gaining concessions under this tariff item. I repeat also that when I refer to these little fellows. I do not mean that they are little in the sense of their personal importance and their production, in the sense of their individual contribution to the overall production of Australia, or in the sense of their individual interests. T leave the matter at that. T hope that the Minister will give us the assurances that we have sought. {: #subdebate-41-0-s2 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP -- in reply - The honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** began by complaining that the Government was treating the Opposition unfairly and, I think1 he suggested, even contemptuously by tabling Tariff Board reports to-night and, at the same time, presenting tariff resolutions which will come into operation to-morrow giving effect to the recommendations in those reports. There is no substance whatever in the honorable member's complaint. The Government is following the procedure which has been in effect for years. It was followed, also, by the government of which the honorable member for Lalor was a member, and, for all I know, it goes back to the very beginning of federation. There is a very good reason why this procedure is adopted and why a Tariff Board report which the Government intends to adopt, involving a tariff change, should not be made public before it comes into effect. It is necessary to prevent people from taking advantage of foreknowledge of proposed tariff changes. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- I did not argue about that at all. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- That is what the honorable member appeared to do. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- The important thing is, not what one appears to say, but what one says. {: .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE: -- I have listened in the past to a great many objections by the honorable member that tariff proposals are allowed to remain too long undebated before being passed into law, and I direct his attention to the fact that the Parliament is about to go into recess with only one outstanding tariff proposal earlier than those which I have tabled to-night undebated - that is the one that was tabled on 19th November, only six days ago. What does the honorable member want? Does he want Australian industries to be deprived of the advantage, until the Parliament meets again, of the protection intended by these changes in tariff rates which have been proposed tonight? Quite frankly, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I do not understand the honorable member's complaint. As I have said, there is no substance in it. On the matter of passionfruit pulp, I should just like to point out to the House that Rhodesia already receives British preferential tariff treatment for passionfruit juice, which is a much more important import into Australia than is passionfruit pulp. At this late hour, I have not been able to obtain statistics for a date more recent than 30th June, 1958. Until that date, Rhodesia had not supplied any passionfruit juice at all to Australia. So one may reasonably draw the conclusion that Rhodesia will not be a considerable supplier of passionfruit pulp. Kenya and Tanganyika already receive British preferential treatment for passionfruit pulp. We are now extending this treatment to Rhodesia, but the figures suggest that that country will be a much less important supplier. I confidently expect that the extension of this treatment to Rhodesia will not materially harm Australian producers of passionfruit pulp or producers in Papua and New Guinea, who produce by far the greater part of Australia's imports of this product. 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-start } page 3127 {:#debate-42} ### EXCISE TARIFF VALIDATION BILL 1959 Motion (by **Mr. Osborne)** - by leave - agreed to - That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to provide for the validation of collections of duties of excise under Excise Tariff Proposals. Bill presented, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-KMD} ##### Mr OSBORNE:
Minister for Air · Evans · LP -- by leave - I move - >That the bill be now read a second time. **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** the reasons for this bill are similar to those associated with the Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1959 which the House has just passed. This measure provides for the validation until 30th June, 1960, of the collection of excise duties made in pursuance of Excise Tariff Proposals No. 5, which I tabled this evening. As was the case with Customs Tariff Validation Bill 1959, this bill is purely a machinery measure. I commend it to honorable members. 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-start } page 3128 {:#debate-43} ### COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION BILL 1959 {:#subdebate-43-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 24th November (vide page 3021), on motion by **Mr. Harold** Holt- >That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** the Opposition wishes to record its protest against the manner in which the Government has proceeded with this rather complex measure. We saw this bill for the first time last night. In the time that has elapsed since, we have not had a proper opportunity to consult the trade union movement, which is so much affected by it. Yet we are expected to come into the House to-night, a little more than 24 hours later, without having had an opportunity to consider the bill properly, and be in a position to move any amendments which we think are necessary. Having looked at the bill as well as we could in the brief time available, we say that we have discovered in it enough to satisfy us that the Government does not propose to give adequate compensation for death or incapacitation, and its failure to adopt the reasonable proposals that were put to the Treasury by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, I believe, leaves us in a position in which we must attempt, at the committee stage, to remedy the oversights in the measure by moving suitable amendments. I think we can say at once that workers' compensation benefits are a manifestation of society's recognition of the rights of man - rights which were won only about 50 years ago after more than a century of agitation by the trade union movement, with the support, later in the piece, of its political voice - the Australian Labour Party. I think that I can begin at once by explaining to the House some of the criticisms of the bill that the Opposition has to offer. I hope that the Parliament will not feel that it is obliged to follow blindly the proposal now before Parliament if it is satisfied with my explanation. That was the spirit of the Matrimonial Causes Bill - a spirit which I think did the Parliament great credit. I hope that the Government will be big enough to accept whatever amendments we put forward that are, in its opinion, fair and reasonable. In my view, all those that we are putting forward are fair and reasonable, but I am hoping that at least the Government will be prepared to meet us on the points that have already been submitted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions for consideration but which, so far, have evidently been overlooked. I believe that, instead of paying a limited amount of compensation to a worker while he is incapacitated, he ought to be paid his ordinary average weekly earning. Payments should not be restricted as they are under this measure to a maximum of £10 per week plus £2 10s. for a wife and £1 2s. 6d. for each child, with the proviso that where the addition of the wife's allowance and the children's allowance to the £10 would provide a person with more than his average weekly earnings, he shall receive the lesser amount. I believe that that is wrong in principle. The incapacitated employee has the same rent to pay, the same hire-purchase commitments to meet and the same family obligations to discharge as he had when he was working. His wife and children do not stop eating, nor do they stop wearing out their clothing just because the bread winner has stopped working. They do not pay reduced fares to and from school or lower charges for recreational activities during his incapacity. Indeed, it is true to say that the aggregate cost of maintaining the household is not less, but is more, than it is when he is well and working. Several countries in Europe already recognize the justice of this principle and provide full wages for injured workers during incapacitation. Bulgaria introduced the principle nearly twenty years ago, and it has since been adopted by several other countries in Europe, particularly in eastern Europe. It would appear that the defenders of the status quo believe that workers are fundamentally dishonest and that unless some financial penalty is imposed upon their incapacitation they will malinger themselves into receiving compensation long after incapacitation has ceased. This argument, wittingly or unwittingly, presumes that Australian workers are less honest than Bulgarian workers and that the Australian medical profession cannot be trusted to report truthfully on am injured worker's state of health or incapacitation. The Opposition rejects both propositions and we now ask the Government to take the lead among the governments of the southern hemisphere by establishing the principle that what is good enough for the workers of so many European countries is also good enough for Australian workers. I now turn to the question of medical expenses. The Government proposes that the allowance for medical expenses and hospitalization should be increased from £200 to £350, with a further proviso that the commissioner may, in special circumstances, increase the figure beyond £350. On the surface, that seems reasonable. It might be argued that the commissioner has discretion to increase the amount beyond that figure if he so desires. But the Opposition objects to that on the grounds that it should not be left to the sole discretion of the commissioner to determine what amount of compensation is to be paid in respect of medical expenses and hospitalization. We believe that the right to completely free medical treatment and hospitalization for injured workers should be written into the act, just as it is provided in the law of Victoria. There, an injured worker has a right to have these expenses paid. Payment of medical expenses in full or in part does not rest upon the discretion of the commissioner. I know of a case in which a worker who suffered from an injured spine had to lie on his back for twelve weary months in hospital before he was allowed to get out of bed and sit in a wheel chair, lt was months before he was finally allowed to work again. Some hospitals charge fees of £28 or £29 a week. However, it is not necessary to exaggerate when one has a good case to present so I shall base my calculations on a hospital charge of £20 a week. At this rate, the worker to whom I have referred would have had to pay £1,040 for his year in hospital. One could safely add to that amount another £200 for medical expenses and pharmaceutical requirements and such things as dressings. It is easy to see that under those circumstances a worker could find himself committed to medical and hospital costs of £1,200. Yet this Government proposes that all that he should be entitled to, as a right, is £350. Whether he gets any more of the £1,200 that he has spent depends entirely on the discretion of the commissioner. Under a common law action for damages for the very same kind of injury an employee could claim, not only full wages lost during the period of incapacitation, but also the full cost of medical attention and hospitalization. In addition, he could also claim a substantial sum for pain and suffering. No such right is provided for in this legislation and, at this stage, the Opposition is not proposing that such a provision should be inserted in the bill. We simply point out that if negligence could be proved on the part of the employer, the employee, in a common law action for damages, would get all these things plus a considerable sum of money in compensation for pain and suffering. So surely it is little enough to ask that the cost of medical and hospital attention should be paid in these cases without quibble. Again, it seems that the only reason for not accepting this principle is that the Government doubts the honesty of the medical profession. Apparently the Government believes that if the bill were to provide for the payment of unlimited medical expenses, doctors would at once make exorbitant and improper charges for services that they render. I think that we ought to judge the medical profession by our own standards and give them the benefit of being honest and honorable men instead of regarding them as a bunch of crooks. However, it is clear that the only reason why the Government has failed to give unlimited benefits for medical expenses is its fear that the doctors cannot be trusted to make reasonable charges. Therefore, the workers are being penalized in order that doctors will not be able to run amok with the taxpayer's money. I have no doubt that there are one or two dishonest doctors just as there are, perhaps, one or two dishonest lawyers, dishonest politicians, or dishonest people in some other walk of life. But I say that there are fewer dishonest men in the medical profession than there are in many other professions. We have to be prepared to take the risk and to treat doctors as being reasonably honest in this regard. In any event, the circumstances can be readily checked. A charge that is excessive can easily be detected by the Government's own medical officers of the Department of Health. Now I want to turn to the principle which the Government has perpetuated for arriving at the maximum payment for specified injuries. The Government proposes in this bill that the maximum amount for specified injuries shall be increased from £2,350 to £3,000. That appears to be a considerable increase, as, indeed, it is; but it is not arrived at by a scientific or proper method. The Opposition believes that this proposed maximum of £3,000 provided irrespective of the injured workers' earning capacity is entirely wrong. We believe that it should be related to the earning capacity of a particular worker for a period of five years; and at the committee stage we propose to move an amendment to give effect to such a principle. We will propose that a proviso should be included that if the injury results in permanent, total incapacitation, the injured worker should have the right to elect to accept a life pension equal to his full average earnings at the time of injury in lieu of the lump sum. In the case of a permanent partial incapacitation he should have the right to elect to accept a pension proportionate to the extent that his full earning capacity is impaired by the injury. I now turn to the schedule which sets out the compensation for the various specified injuries. Fixed amounts are stated. It ignores the fact that a worker who was earning, say £20 a week at the time of his injury, loses much more than one who was earning only £16 a week. To whatever proportionate extent a scheduled injury reduces a worker's earning capacity it represents a greater loss of income to a worker receiving £20 a week than to one receiving £17 a week. By adopting the formula of 260 times the average weekly earnings which I have just mentioned for fixing the maximum compensation, and using percentages of that amount as compensation for the various specified injuries instead of the flat specified sums of money for particular injuries, a means would be provided for ensuring justice for each kind of injury and for each classification of wage earner affected. Let me give some examples. On this basis an employee receiving average weekly earnings of £18 would be entitled to a maximum of £4,680. An employee whose average weekly earnings amounted to £20 would be entitled to maximum compensation of £5,200 instead of the £3,000 provided in this bill. May I say at this point that in New South Wales and Victoria the maximum amount of compensation, though lower than the figures I have quoted to illustrate my point, is £4,000. That is £1,000 more than the new proposal in this measure and nearly double the amount provided in the principal act. The principle I have suggested would surely be preferable to the present system which fixes a set amount for specified injuries, regardless of changes in cost of living or earning capacity and which remains rigid until varied by act of Parliament. The principle of using percentages rather than stated sums of money for specified injuries is not new in Australia. For many years now the South Australian Workers Compensation Act has provided the principle of quoting percentages of the maximum amount rather than specified sums of money for particular injuries. Another aspect of the schedule is that certain injuries are not even covered by the existing act. When I mention the kind of injuries I have in mind, honorable members will recognize that here is a serious defect in the legislation which should have been rectified under this bill. There is nothing in the present Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act to cover employees of the Commonwealth who suffer serious facial disfigurement. Provision for this benefit is made in the Queensland act. This happened as a result of a man being injured in an explosion in a quarry. He was brought to the Minister in charge of the legislation and because he presented such a sad and pitiful figure the Minister was moved immediately to have the act amended. The whole of the injured man's face had been blown away and the bare bones were held together only by thin tissues of skin. He was hardly recognizable. One of his eyes was blown out, but the only compensation he received was the amount payable for the loss of an eye. He received no compensation at all for the terrible damage to his face. He could not close his mouth, and will not be able to do so until the day he dies. He received no compensation for these terrible disfigurements simply because the act recognizes only injuries affecting his earning capacity. The compensation authorities argued that the disfigurement to the worker's face did not affect his earning capacity as a quarryman; and they were thus able to escape responsibility for paying compensation. It is true that if a theatre usherette or a receptionist at a hotel suffered facial injuries as a result of acid burns or from some other cause she could claim some compensation if she could show that as a result of being disfigured she was no longer acceptable for that position. She could get some form of compensation. But I am talking about the person suffering a form of injury which does not affect his earning capacity and as a consequence he is denied any compensation at all. I believe that there ought to be provision in this bill to cover that kind of injury. The Commonwealth does employ men in factories handling dangerous acids and they could be seriously disfigured if they met with an accident in those occupations. But if they were disfigured they would have no claim for compensation if their earning capacity was not affected. It is a wrong, inhuman and an entirely uncivilized approach to the injuries that unfortunate people suffer. No compensation is provided for loss of speech or the senses of taste or smell. It is argued that if a worker is injured and loses his senses of taste or smell his earning capacity is not affected. If a worker loses his power of speech he has no claim for compensation unless it can be shown that speech was necessary for his occupation. A man doing any sort of work in which speech was not essential would not receive compensation if, as a result of shock or injury, he lost his power of speech. No compensation for such injury is provided in this bill. I turn now to other forms of injury, such as injury to internal or external organs. Although such an injury may not affect a person's earning capacity it may have a grave effect on his future happiness and that of those surrounding him. But again the principle is applied that unless it can be shown that such an injury affects his earning capacity, he has no claim for compensation. I believe that that is entirely wrong. I turn now to another matter which may appear to be less important, but which is quite important to those who are affected. I refer to damage to a worker's artificial limb, artificial teeth, glasses, hearing aid, or clothing and so on, in an accident in which the worker himself is not injured. I believe that, irrespective of whether or not the worker himself is injured, if it is proved that he is involved in any pecuniary loss as a result of an accident causing damage to clothing, hearing aid, false teeth, a glass eye, glasses or an artificial limb, he ought to be fully compensated. Suppose a man with a wooden leg was in an accident at his working place which smashed his wooden leg to pieces. Had it been his other leg which had been struck, it would have been smashed and he would receive compensation, but because it is his wooden leg that suffers the damage, he receives no compensation. Perhaps that is only a small matter, but the ordinary worker who lives from day to day finds the cost of this kind of accident a very serious financial handicap. I realize that it is too late for the Government to do anything about such a position at this stage, but I hope that as the Minister is not an unsympathetic person he will instruct his officers to give serious thought to my remarks so that perhaps next year it will be possible for the Government to make the provision that I suggest. I want to deal now with a more serious aspect of compensation. I am referring to cases of workers who sustain at work injuries resulting in death. Here again I believe that the present principle is completely wrong - the fixing of a specified sum of money as compensation irrespective of the earning capacity of the worker who has been killed. Some two or three years ago the Opposition set up a committee to study workers' compensation, and that committee unanimously recommended to Caucus - and the recommendation was adopted unanimously - that a new principle ought to be injected into workers' compensation legislation. The committee recommended that the new principle ought to be the payment of a life pension to the dependents of a worker killed while at work. The committee recommended that in the case of a widow with dependent children the life pension should be an amount equal to the full average weekly earnings of the deceased employee. It recommended that where there were no longer any dependent children the pension ought to be 75 per cent, of the average weekly earnings of the deceased breadwinner. Because we realize that, unfortunately, an amendment to give effect to that proposition would involve such tremendous difficulties in drafting, we have shrunk from the task of moving the amendment, and have decided, for the purpose of improving the bill, to compromise on the basis of 260 times the average weekly earnings of the deceased employee to be paid to the dependants. I repeat what I said earlier - that it is entirely wrong to say to the wife of an employee whose training and skill enabled him to bring home £20 every week, " You are going to get no more compensation than the widow of a worker whose income was only £16 a week". We believe that in order to compensate the dependants of a worker adequately, it is necessary to have some regard to the worker's earning capacity, and we have taken 260 times the average weekly earnings as the basis of the formula for fixing the maximum amount, because 260 weeks is five years, and we believe that five years is a reasonable time to provide for. Many lives have been lost, and many men have been maimed, through lack of safety precautions, because the industry in which they were employed had not given sufficient attention to safeguarding against accidents and deaths. Some firms have done a magnificent job in this respect. The very fact that some firms have practically eliminated fatal accidents while other firms in the same industry continue to have the same high rate as they had 30 or 40 years ago, indicates that it is possible to eliminate or reduce very substantially the number of fatal accidents in industry. To do so it is necessary only to take enough care to prevent such accidents. I believe that the Government ought to establish, through the Department of Labour and National Service, a special research bureau to go into the question of safety precautions in industry. Such a bureau could perhaps invoke the assistance of the Department of Social Services or the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Such things as lack of light, lack of ventilation, lack of proper temperature control and lack of guards over moving machinery cause high accident rates in industry. Bad ventilation causes a man to become a little less alert than he would normally be. Bad light prevents a man from seeing danger as sharply as he could see it in proper light. Bad temperature control, with extreme heat in hot weather and extreme cold in cold weather, can also cause a high accident rate in industry. If the Department of Labour and National Service branched out into this form of activity I am certain that the majority of employers - and I know that the whole of the trade union movement - would be glad to co-operate. By so doing they could save industry hundreds of thousands of pounds, and perhaps over a period of years millions of pounds, by cutting down losses in manhours and the need to pay compensation. No worker wants compensation. He would sooner be fit and well and able to earn his full average weekly wage doing a worthwhile job. I believe that carelessness leading to death or injury should be heavily penalized. Every incentive should be given to safety research and to the encouragement of safety precautions in industry. It is far better to save life than to compensate for its loss. The adoption of such a proposal as I have made, given Government support, would mean that tremendous steps could be taken towards eliminating the high accident rate which occurs in some branches of industry although other branches of the very same industry, whose employees are doing exactly the same class of work, have a very low accident rate. There is one matter which, unfortunately, we cannot include in the bill by way of amendment, but which I shall mention for the Minister's benefit. It concerns the failure of this act and, so far as I am aware, all other compensation acts in Australia, to make provision for men who lose their lives or are injured in the course of saving life or property. It seems to me to be a pretty tough thing that a man who voluntarily, and without any prospect of remuneration, goes into a bush fire to try to save life and property, can lose his own life without any compensation being paid to his dependants. That kind of thing happens frequently. I know that in South Australia some time ago three policemen were burned to death while trying to save lives. These policemen had no compensation rights. They were not covered by workers' compensation, and they were not insured in the ordinary way. That their widows received anything at all was the result of a public appeal. What about the floodings that occur in parts of Australia? Courageous men risk their lives in floods in order to save other people's lives and property. They rush in without thought of reward or remuneration, or of the danger involved, and try to do their part to save other people. If those brave men are injured or drowned in the course of that exercise, their widows are left without any compensation. I believe that the Commonwealth ought to take upon itself the responsibility of paying compensation for any person who in any emergency and without remuneration or reward, voluntarily and without obligation assists in saving or attempting to save life or property, and, while so assisting, suffers injury or is killed. For the purposes of this legislation, such a. person should be deemed to be working under a contract of service with the Commonwealth or with the Administration of the Territory of the Commonwealth, as the case may be, where the emergency occurred in any case considered proper by the Commissioner. This would not place a very big financial obligation on the Government but it would show that the Government is willing to recognize the man who risks his life in a flood, a bushfire or in the case of a drowning, to save the lives of others and to save property - and every person in Australia is sympathetic towards these men. A move by the Government on these lines, I am sure, would meet with the unanimous acclaim of every one of Australia's citizens, because it would show a recognition that so far has not been given to people who act in this way. If the Government decides in the next session of the Parliament to deal again with worker's compensation, I hope that it will direct its attention to this matter. If, for constitutional reasons, it is not able to assume responsibility for people acting in this way in the States - though I cannot see any reason why it should not - the Government should at least assume responsibility for people who act in this way in the Commonwealth Territories. I come now to another matter that I believe has not been properly covered by the provisions of the bill, and that is the cost of burial or cremation. I do not think that the act at present deals with cremations, but the cost of burials is limited to £60. That amount has been in the act for a long time, but the cost of burials and cremations has increased over the past few years. This £60 may have been the proper amount when the provision was first inserted in the legislation, but it is certainly most inadequate now. I do not think that any sum should be specified for burials; the cost of a burial or cremation varies from time to time. If the trend continues, in the way that has been evident in the past three or four years, burial costs will continue to rise steadily. The Government should adopt the Victorian proposal which does not limit the amount that the dependants of a deceased worker can claim for burial expenses. There, the full cost of burial is met by worker's compensation, and that provision ought to apply in the Commonwealth legislation. Surely, it is bad enough for industry to deprive a woman and her dependants of the company, protection and maintenance provided by the husband, without their having to pay even a part of the cost of his burial. As I said before, £60 is quite inadequate, and in fact no amount should be set as the limit for burial expenses. Another matter that has caused much concern with the trade union movement arises from the administration of the act as it is and as it probably will be after this bill becomes law. We are not happy with the delays that have occurred in dealing with matters that have been raised. I, myself, cannot speak too highly of the attention that I personally have received from **Sir Roland** Wilson when I have written to him on compensation matters. If one were to speak of the administration of the department as one found it, I personally would have to say that I have no complaint to offer. But, nevertheless, I have seen correspondence from union secretaries which indicates that the attention I have received is not the general rule. In many instances, union secretaries have had to wait for months before a decision has been conveyed to them. I understand that that is not perhaps the fault of the Treasury, but is possibly the fault of the Public Service Board for not giving to the Treasury the staff that it has sought. I know that the Treasury has tried for a long time to obtain additional staff, which, it is felt, is necessary for the expeditious handling of claims for compensation. Although staff is just beginning to be appointed, by the time the appointees are processed and trained, and advertisements notifying the filling of the positions inserted in the " Gazette ", some months will elapse before the staff that is needed is available. The act gives the delegate of the Commissioner the right to vary a determination once it is made. The only recourse now available to an employee who is dissatisfied with the determination is to appeal to the court. He may brief counsel to handle his appeal. After he has involved himself in this expense, he learns that the delegate to the Commissioner, on discovering that an appeal is to be made, amends the determination and raises the amount to a higher figure. If the employee is still dissatisfied, he must commence his proceedings all over again in order to challenge the second figure. These alterations to determinations could, in theory, go on ad infinitum. T am not suggesting that they do, but it is wrong that a determination should be altered even once. In committee, the Opposition will move an amendment to provide that, once a determination is made, it shall not be varied or revoked without the permission of the employee concerned. This will mean that, when proceedings are necessary to challenge a determination, the determination cannot be amended unless it is amended in a way satisfactory to the employee. If the employee does not consent to the amendment, the matter will have to be adjudicated upon by the courts. This matter, of course, requires serious consideration. The question of costs also needs consideration. We have had cases where a union, on behalf of its members, or members of their own volition, have appealed against determinations by the Commissioner. If the appeal is lost, the appellant has to pay not only his own expenses, but also the costs of the Commonwealth. Out of the cases dealt with in recent times, 22 appellants who lost their appeals had costs awarded against them, and the costs amounted to about £300 in each instance. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** should use his good offices with his colleague, the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** and ask him to persuade the Treasury to forgo claims that it now has against those 22 unsuccessful contestants for workers' compensation entitlement. Two of the 22, I understand, have already paid the costs. It seems entirely wrong that ordinary working men, with only their labour to sell, should have to involve themselves in the risk of litigation in order to get what they believe to be fair compensation, only to find that when they lose, they not only lose what they considered was their just claim but they must pay their own costs and the costs of the Commonwealth as well. This, I believe, is entirely wrong. **Mr. Speaker,** another thing that we will ask honorable members to consider at the committee stage is the proposal put forward by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Minister for Labour and National Service, who is a lawyer, will at once recognize the importance of this proposal when I explain it. The present act states that any worker suffering an injury as a result of an accident arising out of or in the course of his work shall be entitled to certain benefits. The legislation in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria makes no stipulation about the injury arising out of an accident. The acts in those States simply state that any employee suffering an injury arising out of or in the course of his work shall be entitled to certain benefits. The employee is not required to prove that there was an accident, because it is possible to suffer injury without being involved in an accident. I can recall when I was a shearer and the cold winds would blow through the chutes of the shearing shed on to my back, which was always sweaty because of the nature of the work. Every shearer's flannel, once he begins to work, is saturated with perspiration. Shearing under those conditions I suffered a mild form of pneumonia. 1 could not work for a fortnight, but I got no compensation because I could not show that there had been an accident. Being unable to show that I had been involved in an accident, such as being kicked by a sheep, or falling out of a chute, I had no claim. Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria recognize that weakness and say that so long as you can prove an injury irrespective of accident, you should be entitled to the benefits of compensation. Many injuries, some of a serious nature, can be brought about without any actual accident. At the committee stage we will move for alterations to the definitions of injury and of disease. We also wish to propose certain amendments with regard to the travelling provisions. We want to alter that part of the act which talks about death caused by an accident and add the words " or is materially contributed to by the accident " so that one does not have to prove that the accident was the sole cause of the death. We think it should be sufficient to prove that the accident did in fact materially contribute to the death. I regret that my time has almost expired. This is an important measure. I regret that we have not had time to deal with the matter as thoroughly as we would like to have dealt with it, but at the committee stage we will move certain amendments in order to give effect to the improvements in the bill that I think should be made and in order to deal with the criticisms of the bill that I have made in the course of my remarks. {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo **.- Mr. Speaker,** I support the statements that have been made by my colleague, the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron).** First I desire to express my very great regret that this legislation has been brought down in the dying hours of the session. Workers' compensation has always been a matter requiring very careful consideration, particularly in view of the fact that the Commonwealth act, in some respects, is so far behind some of the State acts. To do proper justice to any legislation that comes before this House the fullest opportunity should be given to all honorable members properly to analyse the bill to see exactly what it means and to take the necessary steps to see that an informed discussion takes place. It is essential that honorable members should understand and be able to acquaint the public at large with the real position with regard to controversial legislation. Because of that, I must protest against this measure being introduced so late in the sessional period and then, by a process of exhaustion, being pushed through. I sincerely hope that during the next session a comprehensive Commonwealth Employees Compensation Bill will be introduced to remedy the many anomalies that now exist. It is a pity that the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act has fallen far below the standards that applied in days gone by. Ten or fifteen years ago legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in respect of employees' compensation was the best in Australia and was always an inspiration and an example to the States, encouraging them to introduce legislation to improve the conditions of injured workers in the States. But one regrets to find that during the last ten years, instead of the Commonwealth forging ahead and bringing down legislation that was a guide to the States, at least three States, if not four, afford substantially greater benefits to injured workers than does the Commonwealth. This Government has claimed on many occasions that it has introduced legislation of far more benefit to the workers than the Opposition would have introduced had it been in power; but the fact remains that the Commonwealth is lagging far behind New South Wales and Victoria in regard to to workers' compensation legislation. The act that we are amending is far from perfect. It probably covers 70,000 or 80,000 wage and salary earners employed by the Commonwealth. Every day of the year a proportion of those persons is suffering either from disease or injury and is receiving the benefits of this act. Those persons depend on the provisions of the act for their economic security during the time that they are laid off as a result of the injury they have suffered or the disease they have contracted in carrying out the normal duties of their occupation. I suppose the first questions that anybody would ask are: Why is the income of a person who has suffered injury or contracted a disease in faithfully carrying out the duties, obligations and responsibilities of his position reduced? Why in certain circumstances must he bear the cost of restoring himself to health? I think it is a truism that industry should pay for its own wastage and that where wastage occurs as a consequence of industrial activities, the employee who is employed for a specific purpose should not have to share the cost of restoring himself to health and at the same time lose some of his income and have his standard of living and that of his family depressed. That, I think, is one of the greatest defects of this legislation. Sitting suspended from 11.30 to 12 midnight. Thursday, 26 November 1959 {: #subdebate-43-0-s2 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had been dealing with the lowering in the standard of living which takes place in the family of a worker when he is injured or contracts a disease as a consequence of his employment. Right along the line it has been necessary for the trade union movement to fight for the protection of the injured or diseased worker whose condition results from his employment. The fight has been long and bitter. When I went to work as a lad I can remember that there was no workers' compensation act in Victoria. That legislation did not come into operation until 1st January, 1914. Even when it did come into operation, an incapacitated worker received 30s. a week or two-thirds of his weekly wage, whichever was the less. When an increase in this amount was suggested to the representatives of the Government of the day, and of the insurance companies which undertook the insurance of workers on behalf of employers, one of the arguments that was advanced as to why a worker who was entitled, under the determination of a wages board, to sums varying from £2 8s. to £2 12s. a week, should not receive a greater amount in compensation was that it would be wrong to encourage employees to become malingerers and to make a profit out of an injury, a kind of reasoning that one finds very difficult to understand in these modern days. The further argument was advanced that a worker might belong to a friendly society, and the payment that he would receive from the society would help to bring his income up to his wage level. In those days, the unfortunate part about the whole affair was that not only did the worker receive a very small amount of compensation, which was far from sufficient to meet his requirements as a family man, but also that no provision was made for payment of medical, hospital or other expenses that were bound to occur as a consequence of the injury. The fight has continued, not only in Victoria but also in all States and in the Commonwealth service, to have an employees' compensation act which, at least, will recognize the human rights and the needs of the employees, and ensure that if something happens to a worker in the performance of his employer's work and while looking after the employer's interests, the worker will not be the loser. So, over the years the workers' compensation acts of the States and the employees' compensation act of the Commonwealth have improved steadily. I think that we are reaching the stage at which it will be recognized that the Commonwealth has a responsibility to see that the employee who has given faithful service and who meets with an injury or contracts a disease in the course of that service, shall not be put in an inferior economic position. That is one of the reasons why I hope that in the not far distant future the operation of this legislation will be investigated thoroughly and that the many anomalies that now exist will be rectified. I want to lodge my objection to the present practice in relation to the determination of claims for compensation. Under the bill the Commonwealth Actuary and Insurance Commissioner, as the permanent head of the relevant Treasury section, has the power to delegate his responsibility in relation to insurance to one of his officers. I understand that throughout Australia there are numerous officers who hold this delegated authority. These officers make a decision on every application for compensation that is lodged by an employee. The decision is made by a representative of the Government, which in this case is the employer. In other words, the determination of the right of an employee to receive compensation is made by a representative of the employer. Unfortunately, in recent months quite a large number of applications for compensation have been rejected with the result that the employee, under the terms of the act, has to go before the county court in the State in which he is resident in order that his claim may be considered. That immediately involves the employee in a great deal of expense. It is wrong in principle that the determination of these matters, before they go to the court, should be in the hands of the representative of the employer. New South Wales and Victoria have overcome this difficulty by the creation of what are known as workers' compensation boards. The insurance companies, which handle all questions of workers' compensation, assume the liability of the employer. If the insurance company refuses to recognize, or disputes, a claim, the employee then has the right to go before the workers' compensation board which consists, at any rate in Victoria, of a county court judge, a representative of the employer and a representative of the employee. The judge determines all matters of law, but each member of the board decides the facts for himself and makes a decision accordingly. I agree that it is very hard, in matters that affect both employer and employee, to give satisfaction to both, but I am sure that the boards in Victoria and New South Wales are giving entire satisfaction in a field in which feeling very often runs high. There is no proposal to abolish these boards. This bill should contain a provision which will enable matters to be determined by an independent authority on which both the workers and the Government will be represented. This will be an improvement on the present unwieldy system of the employer's representative first determining whether he will recognize the claim and then the claim going to a judge of the county court, who probably is not experienced in workers' compensation matters, for final decision. Unfortunately, inordinate delays frequently take place in the determination of claims. In Bendigo we have an ordnance factory, and periodically a case comes under my notice of an employee who has applied for compensation but, for some reason or other, an inordinate delay has occurred in the determination of the claim. Very often, weeks pass before the matter is finalized, and in the meantime the employee, as a result of the injury or accident, does not receive any income whatever. Unless his union or some other authority comes to his assistance, he is in a very difficult economic and financial position. If the task is too big for the Treasury to handle because of shortage of staff, I agree with the suggestion of my colleague, the honorable member for Hindmarsh, that the appropriate Commonwealth authority to deal with matters of workers' compensation is the Department of Labour and National Service. There you have a staff that is constantly in touch with the problems of industry - a staff that has been trained in matters relating to industry generally. If the consideration and determination of applications under the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act were placed in the hands of that department, these claims could be determined on a proper basis, I believe. I think that decisions could be arrived at with expedition and that injured workers would receive much greater satisfaction than is the case at present. I sincerely hope that the Government will consider this proposal. What the worker wants is that his claim, whether it arises from injury or from disease, be dealt with as rapidly as possible in order that there shall be no difficulties in the ordinary conduct of his home. It is a very serious matter when people are left without any income whatever for four, five, six or seven weeks, merely because the determination of a claim for compensation is delayed. I greatly regret that this bill does not remove from the existing act the provision that a worker may obtain compensation for injury only if he has been injured in an accident. Persons sustain injuries in the course of their employment, but not necessarily as a result of accident. I recall a case in which I was concerned as a union official. A man working in an extremely hot part of a cannery on a very hot day was sent to the cool store to do some other work. He worked there for some time, contracted a chill and went down with pneumonia. Medical evidence was to the effect that the pneumonia was due to the chill which he had suffered as a consequence of going from an extremely hot place to a place with a very low temperature. Under the Victorian act, compensation was paid. I call to mind other cases with which 1 dealt in my early days as a union official when I was concerned in solving some of the difficulties experienced by wheat lumpers. Fortunately, wheat lumping as we knew it in old days has now disappeared. I recall men of great strength and of excellent physique who, year after year, stacked wheat in huge stacks down near the waterfront. Hour after hour, they carried heavy bags of wheat. The time of which I am speaking was about the time when the Chapman bag was introduced. Wheat lumpers carried these very heavy bags on their shoulders, often up ladders. The number of men doing that sort of work who developed aneurisms in their shoulders was remarkable. As men became older, aneurisms became more prevalent. In the end, an aneurism usually burst and caused the death of the employee. Although there was no doubt whatever that the physical injury was caused by the nature of the work done, because it was not an injury by accident compensation was not payable. One must bear in mind that many new processes are coming into industry as a result of technological and scientific progress, and many of these new processes give rise to new disabilities and diseases. Unless the act is broad enough to ensure that employees receive compensation, they may find themselves without any relief at all. I suppose that one of the best illustrations of what happens is to be seen in the rubber industry, where the adoption of new mixtures and processes caused many of the workers to contract dermatitis. This disease is becoming more pre valent in industry because new raw materials are coming into use and some workers are allergic to the new materials. As a consequence, this kind of industrial disease is assuming proportions of considerable magnitude for the employees. All of these things indicate that there is need for the constant overhaul of the legislation that governs the rights of employees who suffer as a consequence of the service given to their employer, whoever he may be, in the course of his business. The honorable member for Hindmarsh pointed out, among other things, that the scale of medical expenses provided for in this bill will still permit the possibility of an employee having to pay medical ex penses in respect of an injury sustained in an accident. Under the Victorian law, at one time, there was a provision similar to this provision in the bill now before us. A limit was fixed, but, if the limit was exceeded, there was a discretionary power in respect of the payment of a greater amount. With rising medical and hospital charges, it was found that almost every case had to be dealt with by the exercise of discretion. As a consequence, the Victorian legislature decided that medical expenses incurred, whether in respect of a doctor, dentist, masseur, physiotherapist or somebody else engaged in trying to restore people to health, or a hospital, should be wholly paid by the employer in order that the employee could be restored to full health as soon as was practicable. I cannot understand why the Commonwealth proposes, in respect of its own employees, to limit to £350 the rights of an injured worker with respect to medical expenses. T know that the Minister for Labour and National Services **(Mr. McMahon)** may say, "The bill provides that more than £350 may be paid in certain circumstances ". The question is not whether discretion should be exercised. The question is: What are the rights of the injured worker? Is he entitled to receive whatever treatment is needed to restore him to health, or is an employer to be entitled to say, " I shall pay medical expenses up to a certain amount, and, if they exceed that amount you will have to pay the excess even though your income has been reduced as a consequence of your accident ?" I desire to leave with the Minister another thought in respect of workers' compensation. In certain parts of the world, there is a growing tendency to consider that the payment of a lump sum to a permanently incapacitated employee, or to the dependants of an employee whose death has been caused, does not satisfactorily determine the issue. It is considered that you cannot satisfactorily clear up the whole thing simply by paying a lump sum to a man whose physical or mental health has been ruined, or by paying a lump sum to the dependants of an employee whose death has been caused and saying, in effect, " Here is a sum of money. Make the best of it. We have fulfilled our obligations, and our responsibility and liability end here". There is a growing tendency in Canada, the United States of America and elsewhere to regard the welfare of an injured worker whose physical or mental health has been broken beyond redemption, or of the dependants of a deceased worker, as being a permanent charge on either the community or the industry concerned. This means that a widow is considered to be entitled to a pension sufficient to support her in reasonable comfort for the rest of her life. It would mean, in the case of dependants, that proper provision is made for them until they eventually go into industry and are able to look after themselves. I think it was evident from the remarks of the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** that when one gets to know cases in which people are permanently injured in accidents, and realizes the hopeless physical condition they are in and what they have suffered, one feels that no lump sum, no matter how great, could be adequate compensation. In those cases, a person should receive something after the style of the pension received by the totally and permanently incapacitated man from World War I. or World War II. Industry or the employer should see that while life remains in the body, the person's economic condition will not deteriorate, and he will have no further worries about his own security or that of his dependants. Those seem to me to be the essential facts that have to be considered in dealing with human beings and human lives. None of us can forget that any person who is employed in industry, whether in a manufacturing process or in a service section, may, through no fault of his own, become the victim of an accident. These employees are performing an essential service for the community, and should they be injured, they should not be denied the right to live as human beings under the same circumstances and conditions as they enjoyed prior to the accident taking place. This Parliament should recognize the need for humanity in connexion with Commonwealth employees' compensation. It is essential that we, as the people's representatives, should have human rights foremost in our mind and that people shall not be denied the right of protection when they meet with an injury. It is our duty to provide this protection and until we have done so, I do not think that we will have carried out the duties that have been thrust upon us as representatives of the people. I believe that the amendments which will be moved by the honorable member for Hindmarsh will improve this legislation and give a greater measure of security to injured and diseased workers than they have at the present time. They will represent a step in the right direction to bring about a better Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act. {: #subdebate-43-0-s3 .speaker-JRJ} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Bowden:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-43-0-s4 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa -- This bill is the shortest of four bills which the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** introduced on Tuesday night. It covers only eight pages and it amends an act which covers only nineteen pages. Nevertheless, it deals with a matter which is the subject of a greater amount of Commonwealth and State legislation than any other subject that I can call to mind. These various State and Commonwealth acts are more different and divergent one from another than any other acts upon which the various legislatures have to pass similar legislation or legislation in pari materia. A score of workers' compensation acts have been passed by the Commonwealth and State Parliaments. In New South Wales, to take the most complicated example, employees generally are covered by the Workers' Compensation Act 1926. Exceptions, however, are made by other State acts with respect to employees who work in the Broken Hill area or who suffer from lead poisoning or silicosis or who act as bush fire fighters. Alternative remedies are made available by other New South Wales acts in favour of employees of the State transport services. Again, exceptions are made by Commonwealth acts with respect to Commonwealth employees and seamen. Many thousands of employees now live on one side of the Murray River and work on the other side. Many employees live on one side and work on the other side of the borders between New South Wales and Queensland or between New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. The man who lives on one side of the border and who is injured on his way to work on the other side has different rights to damages or compensation according to the side of the border on which he sustains his injury. Again, seamen are covered by the State Workers' Compensation Act if their ports of departure and destination are within the one State, by a Commonwealth act if those ports are in different States, and by another Commonwealth act - the one now to be amended - if employed on one of the ships of the Australian National Line. A Commonwealth act such as we are debating could set the highest possible standard for workers' compensation in this country. It could provide a model which the States and Territories could adopt. The Commonwealth itself could consolidate the various workers' compensation provisions in its different acts and ordinances in one act because the Commonwealth could, as in this act, provide for workers' compensation for its own employees, it could, as in the companion act, provide for workers' compensation for persons employed on ships between different States or between one State and a Territory or on an Australian ship travelling between Australia and an overseas country and it could, as in its ordinances, provide for residents of the Territories. Similarly it could provide, although the Commonwealth has not yet done so, for workers' compensation for employees in the interstate road hauling industry or the interstate aircraft industry. It is doubtful, of course, whether the Commonwealth could pass a general workers' compensation act for the whole of Australia. The social services powers of the Commonwealth, under the Constitution, are sufficient to provide for the disbursement of all benefits that any workers' compensation act provides, but there seems doubt whether the Commonwealth's power over insurance could provide for the compulsory method of insurance hitherto used to finance workers' compensation liability by all private employers. If, as we all hope, the proposals of the Parliament's all-party Constitutional Review Committee that this Parliament should be given power, by referendum, over industrial matters are adopted, the Commonwealth Parliament could pass one workers' compensation code for all employees in Australia and the divergences and anomalies that I am about to illustrate would no longer occur. I have referred to legislation because workers' compensation has hitherto been provided by State and Commonwealth legislation. Few people realize that workers' compensation provisions could be provided by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If employers or employees created an interstate dispute on the question of workers' compensation and the commission made an award concerning it the award would displace the provisions of any State legislation. I have stated that I would illustrate the divergencies and anomalies of the present acts. I will do it under the headings to which the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** referred in his second-reading speech 27 hours ago. The figures that I give will be those relating to 1st January last. I know that some of the States have passed subsequent acts; perhaps the Minister for Territories **(Mr. Hasluck)** has revised some ordinances in the Territories. I have the figures for all the States and Territories as at 1st January last. They are contained in an excellent annual Conspectus of Worker's Compensation Cases prepared by **Mr. W.** F. Nicholls, Acting Chief Industrial Officer of the Department of Works. I shall first of all give the amounts of lump sum benefits payable upon death. The present bill proposes to increase the amount now payable under the principal act from £2,350 to £3,000. Corresponding amounts under State and Territorial legislation are as follows: - New South Wales £4,000, Queensland and South Australia £2,500, Victoria and Tasmania £2,240 and PapuaNew Guinea £1,500. Only in Western Australia, at the beginning of the year, was the amount the same as in the Commonwealth. Thus, if a Commonwealth employee and an employee of a State government, or an employee of a private employer were going home together from work and, while crossing a street, were killed in the same accident, the widow of the Commonwealth employee would get £3,000. If they were crossing the street in Sydney the widow of the other employee would get £4,000. If the accident happened in Brisbane or Adelaide she would get £2,500, in Melbourne or Hobart £2,240 and in Port Moresby £1,500. Although the circumstances were entirely the same and there was the same degree of dependence on the part of the widows there is this inexplicable and irrational anomaly in the amounts they would receive. Next, the Treasurer referred to lump sum benefits for specified injury. The present bill proposes to raise the maximum amount so payable from £2,350 to £3,000. In New South Wales the maximum is £2,100, in Victoria and Queensland £2,800, in South Australia £2,750, in Western Australia £2,400, in Tasmania £2,340 and in Papua-New Guinea £1,750. Thirdly, the Treasurer referred to the weekly payments in respect of incapacity for work. First of all for the worker himself under this bill the amount will be raised from £8 15s. to £10. Tasmania is the only State where the amount is also £10. The corresponding amounts in the other States and Territories are: New South Wales £9 15s., Queensland £9 12s., South Australia £9 5s., Victoria and Western Australia £8 16s. and Papua-New Guinea £6. I quote, in each case, the male rate because in the States the female rate is sometimes lower. The weekly payments for a wife are being increased in the Commonwealth from £2 5s. to £2 10s. In New South Wales they are £2 15s., in Victoria they are £2 8s., and in Papua-New Guinea £1 15s. But in the other four States they are the same as are now being provided by this bill. Lastly, there is the dependent child under sixteen, who will now receive £1 2s. 6d. instead of £1. At the beginning of the year in Tasmania the amount was £1 4s. 6d.; in New South Wales it was £1 2s. 6d., the same as is now being provided in this bill; in South Australia it was £1; in Victoria it was 16s., and in Queensland and in Papua-New Guinea 15s. It will be seen that not only are there differences between the various States but also between different areas of the Commonwealth's own jurisdiction. It is true that this Parliament has always seen that there are corresponding benefits under the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act and the Seamen's Compensation Act. Usually, soon after these rates have been fixed, equivalent benefits have been provided under the Australian Capital Territory ordinance and, at a greater remove, under the Northern Territory ordinance. It will be noticed that in every case the Papua-New Guinea ordinance provides only two-thirds of the amount that the Commonwealth act provides. The various Commonwealth instrumentalities do not keep in step one with the other. There is no reason why the Commonwealth could not pass one act to deal with everybody in its jurisdiction, its Territories, its employees and interstate trade. Lastly, I come to the limit on medical expenses. This bill will raise the normal limit. I refer to it as " the normal limit " because greater amounts can be allowed in exceptional circumstances. But the amount will be raised by this bill from £200 to £350. At the beginning of the year in Victoria and South Australia there was no limit on the amount of the reasonable medical expenses which could be paid under workers' compensation. In New South Wales the normal limit was £625; in Western Australia is was £275, in Tasmania £200, and in Queensland £140; Papua-New Guinea, in this case alone fails to afford the lowest amount, £150 - £10 more than in Queensland. The whole method of providing workers' compensation is an extravagant one. The Statistician says that for 1957-58 the premiums, less returns, rebates and bonuses which were paid for workers' compensation, amounted to £33,772,000. The claims, less amounts recoverable, which were paid as workers' compensation amounted to £24,473,000. Employers paid very much more - roughly 40 per cent. - by way of workers' compensation premiums than employees received by way of workers' compensation benefits. That is not the only unsatisfactory feature of workers' compensation as the States manage it. In every case the State, like the Commonwealth, provides so small an amount by way of workers' compensation that employees, whenever they can, resort to the hazard, expense and delay of actions for negligence which are compensated for by lump sum verdicts. If the amounts payable by way of workers' compensation were more nearly comparable to the amounts which the employee was making before the injury and which he requires to maintain his family, then we would not have so much of the time of the superior courts taken up in the determination of liability for industrial accidents flowing from the accommodating tort of negligence. This bill does produce many reforms and many improvements. By and large, one can say that this measure will give greater monetary benefits than any act except the New South Wales act or, 1 believe, the Tasmanian act which was passed this year. It will continue, however, to restrict the liability of the Commonwealth more severely than the liability of employers is restricted by any State act with which I have acquaintance. I cannot pretend to know them all. At least it is quite plain that employees, quite irrespective of the amounts they can recover by way of workers' compensation, can more readily recover compensation under the workers' compensation acts of New South Wales and Victoria than they can under this act. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- I do not think that the Minister for Labour and National Service agrees with that statement. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I think he does, and when he looks up the cases to which I am about to refer I think he will see that interpretations that have been given by the High Court of the existing act, and which this bill leaves unaffected, will still make it more difficult for Commonwealth employees to secure benefits than it is for workers to secure benefits under the New South Wales and Victorian acts. I cannot pretend always to agree with the Minister for Labour and National Service, but I give him credit for being an assiduous student and not being loath to do his homework. So I think he will agree with the proposition I am putting to him. We do not oppose this bill; it does make considerable improvements in the money amounts available. Although they are still behind those in some States, the bill is still a great improvement over the existing act. However, we are taking the opportunity to criticize the bill, and in the committee stage to move amendments, because it is in other respects out of line with the New South Wales and Victorian legislation. The criticism we make is that the Government knows this fact. It has had this fact brought home to it in the last year. There have been at least three appeals to the High Court in the last year which have not only turned against the employee making the claim under this act, but have, of course, affected a very great number of pending applications. The High Court has given interpretations of the act which the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation did not always apply previously. As a result of these decisions of course he will not only be entitled to apply these interpretations of the High Court, but also be bound to apply them. We cannot criticize the commissioner if he does apply them, but we can criticize the Government if it refuses, in the light of these decisions, to amend the act by this bill. We will give the Government an opportunity to support the amendments which we will move at the committee stage. The Commonwealth Public Service section of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has considered these decisions and has made submissions to the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt).** I think it made them in plenty of time before the Budget was presented. In the Budget we were told that there were to be amendments to this act. It was assumed by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Federal Labour Party that the submissions would be accepted. They have not been accepted, and we now intend to move the amendments that I have referred to. There is no doubt that the administration of the present act is unsatisfactory. There is a time given within which an employee must appeal from a decision or action of the commissioner, to a county or district court. I am glad to see that this bill does correct one anomaly. The 30 days within which the employee has to appeal now dates not from the date of the determination but from the date on which the employee is given notice of the determination. But there is still no time stated in the bill within which the commissioner or his delegate must act - and the commissioner has used his power of delegation profusely. In a reply which the Treasurer gave to me on 30th September last, it appeared that there were 143 people to whom the commissioner has delegated all or some of his powers and functions under the act. I will give two recent instances of the delay there has been in such cases. They concern the Services departments which there is no need for me to name. In one case an employee died on 27th September, 1958. The matter came to my notice at the beginning of June this year. Things then got moving, and payment was finally made on 19th June - about nine months after the death of the employee. The service Minister concerned wrote to me detailing the delays which had occurred. In reading the letter I shall omit the name of the -department and the name of the widow Concerned. The letter reads - >In particular there was a delay of 22 days between the time when (the widow's) claim was received by the Sydney office of (the department) and the time when that claim was forwarded to the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation. Some of this time was consumed in obtaining statements from witnesses in order to substantiate the claim. There was a delay of 53 days between the date (28.11.58) when the Commissioner asked (the department) to arrange for the Department of Health to examine the medical evidence and the date (20.1.59) when that request was passed on to the Department of Health by (the department). And there was a delay of 27 days between the date (27.2.59) when the Commissioner asked (the department) to seek information as to whether (the widow) was a fit and proper person to receive a lump sum payment and the date (25.3.59) when (the department) passed on that request for information. In addition there were other lesser delays which appear to have been unnecessary. (The department) received the Commissioner's favorable decision on 8.6.59 and effected payment on 19.6.59. You will notice, **Sir, the** unconscionable delays that occurred within this particular Service department through the commissioner's delegates in that department. I apprehend that the commissioner himself could have been more energetic at keeping pressure on the Service department concerned. But this sort of thing can happen, and there is nothing that a widow can do to speed up the process. All a woman can do in those circumstances is to go to her federal member. Of course, if there were court proceedings in the first instance instead of purely bureaucratic treatment of these applications under this act, those delays could be dealt with or ventilated. I give the other case. It concerns another Service department one of whose members on 12th November last year lost an eye. The department did not send on the claim to the commissioner until 18th September last. On 30th September the commissioner then started the medical reviews which were necessary, and the determination was given on the 12th of this month - a year after the accident. In this instance there was no death, but the man had a just claim, having lost an eye, and the sight of his other eye was affected. He could not pursue an occupation during that time. His retirement benefits under the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act were not determined during that period. This service pay had ceased and he had not received Commonwealth employees' compensation. There was no way that the timetable could be accelerated except, once again, by approaching a member of this Parliament. I said that I would give references to the cases on this matter which have been decided in the High Court this year. One is the case of the Commonwealth v. Ockenden, reported in volume 32 of the " Australian Law Journal Reports ", at page 235. This concerns the application of the section of the act which makes compensation payable in respect of personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of employment. The facts, very briefly, were these: A member of the Navy was discovered to have defective working of the aortic valve as a result of a gradual process following rheumatic fever during childhood. The time when the valve became defective was unknown, and the court held that there was a necessity for a sudden and distinct physiological change in order to establish injury by accident, and also that it was necessary to prove that the change took place while the employee was engaged in the duties of his employment, and not, for example, while he was on leave. The decision which had been made in this man's favour by a county court judge in Victoria on appeal from a decision of the commissioner was reversed by the High Court on the Commonwealth's appeal. We now know, therefore, that the presence of the words " by accident " in this act prevents an employee from receiving compensation in this kind of case, although there are many cases in which employees who have been similarly affected have secured compensation under State acts, the difference being that in the State acts the words " by accident " do not occur. 1 should not think that the Commonwealth would want to persist in this anomaly. The States do not persist in it. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- In that case it is well worth reading the full judgment. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- It is, indeed. The Minister, I think, would agree that as a result of this decision the commissioner will have to refuse compensation under this act in many cases in which, under all the State acts, compensation would be payable. One is not reflecting in any way on the court's decision in this matter, but what one does say is that the Parliament, when given the first opportunity to review the act, should remove this anomaly and bring the legislation into line with the State acts. If our amendment along these lines is to be resisted by the Government, I should think that the Government would reasonably have to state why it wants Commonwealth employees to be in a less advantageous position than employees covered by the score of other compensation acts in Australia. {: #subdebate-43-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-43-0-s6 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP . It should be said at the beginning that the Commonwealth Government, when dealing with legislation of this kind, acts in the most generous way that it can, taking into consideration all of the circumstances associated with the legislation; in other words, it considers how much benefit it can pay to the employee and what burden will be imposed on the Australian taxpayer. I have said that we deal with the question in the most sensitive way, and I am certain that we deal with it also in a most comprehensive way. There is a special Cabinet committee, of which I happen to be a member, and which is presided over by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** himself. I can assure you, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** and the House that the most loving care was given not only to this act but also to the associated acts, the Superannuation Act and the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- How can you give loving care to an act? {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON: -- The other acts associated with the one now under consideration were carefully looked at in order to ensure, as far as practicable, that anomalies were eliminated and justice, done to the employee. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** need not giggle his head off and make a silly ass of himself. This matter is quite serious. Secondly, I would like to meet the criticisms that have been voiced to the effect that these bills have been introduced in the dying hours of the session. I think it is fair to say that if it had been practicable to introduce these measures earlier that would have been done. But the Government, the Crown Law officers, and the Treasury officials have worked on these bills diligently for at least the last four months. They have been supported, to the best of their abilities, by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** and members of the Cabinet committee. The real truth of the matter is that these measures have been introduced because their purpose is to give increased benefits to Crown employees, whether they are defence personnel or whether they are covered by the Superannuation Act or the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act, and we wanted to permit the granting of the benefits as soon as possible. The criticism that the bills have been introduced in the dying hours of the session is therefore, I think, a little absurd. My friend, the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron),** criticized the principles of this measure on two grounds. He claimed that one of the reasons why the employee did not get the equivalent of his remuneration prior to his illness or injury was that in the Government's view if this were given it might be an inducement to the employee to malinger. The honorable member made a second statement to the effect that perhaps the medical profession was not trusted. Both of these statements are incorrect. In other words, neither of the statements, in terms of principle, is true. The real question that the Commonwealth asks when it is deciding on increased benefits is: What is fair to the employee himself? That is the guiding principle. We do not think of any precise mathematical formula. We do not think in terms of a fixed and rigid relationship to the man's salary. We look at all the benefits of the act as they affect a particular employee and ensure, as far as we can, as a Government, that justice is done to the employee and that he is treated fairly. I think this answers the objections, from the point of view of principle, that were raised by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. The honorable member also asked whether special compensation could be given, not so much because an injured person might lose his salary or wages, but because of the kind of injury that he suffered. A particular kind of injury to a person's face might lead to disfigurement, or damage to the vocal cords, or some other particular disablement. It would not mean normally that the person affected would lose the capacity to earn money in the future, or would lose the capacity to progress in whatever employment he might have undertaken. To that suggestion I say again that while we give these matters the closest and most careful consideration, and while we deal with them always on a sympathetic basis, this proposition would mean introducing a new principle, and at the present time it is not thought appropriate to introduce a new principle. The real principle - and I regard it as a fair one - is that justice to the employee must be done. That is the criterion that has been adopted in this case. Let me comment on some of the main arguments. First, the honorable member for Hindmarsh dealt with Bulgaria. Let me point out that it is quite clearly no use extracting one particular item from the whole of the law of Bulgaria and suggesting that it should apply to Australia, without considering comparisons of wage rates and all the laws relating to compensation and superannuation of employees. In other words, if you are to have a comparison, it must be on a fairly wide and general scale and cannot be limited to one particular feature of the law of another country. The honorable member's suggestion about research and safety is one that the Department of Labour and National Service is constantly considering, and I hope to be able to announce quite soon that a research scholarship will be established to discover further facts on which we can act in the future. That is a worthwhile suggestion, and I thank the honorable gentleman for it. My friend from Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** claimed that, in respect of superannuation and compensation, the Commonwealth was falling behind the States not only in the model of the legislation, but also in the payments that were made. That error, I am glad, to say, was corrected by the honorable member's colleague and friend, the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr.** Whitlam), who gave the comparisons between the Commonwealth and the States. The comparisons made by the honorable member for Werriwa are correct and, consequently, the criticism of the honorable member for Bendigo is incorrect. If we look at it broadly, the true picture that emerges is this: From a comparison of the various figures relating to the Commonwealth and the States, the figures for the Commonwealth are better than those for all the States except New South Wales. If an analysis is made, this will be seen to be so. I do not want to go over all the figures. They have been presented by the honorable gentleman from Werriwa and they are accurate. Those who heard them will come to the conclusion that not only is the bill now before the House an improvement on existing legislation, but it keeps the Commonwealth to the front in terms of model legislation and the amount of compensation that is paid. I think, **Sir, that** that is enough to reject the arguments put by the honorable gentleman from Bendigo. The next matter with which I would deal concerns delays. The Treasury officials deal with this matter administratively well and efficiently. They would be the first to admit that it is not always practicable to have perfection and that delays in such matters as this are sometimes inevitable. But they are constantly attempting to improve the procedures and the administration. An examination to-day would show that they are up to date and that many improvements have been made in the course of recent months. If the honorable gentleman from Werriwa were to inquire from the Treasury officials, he would be pleasantly - I nearly used the word " surprised " but it would be incorrect to use that word, even at this hour - he would be happy to find that they have been making conscientious efforts to reduce delay, and that they have been successful. Lastly, I shall deal with the question of rejections. This has been fairly effectively dealt with at page 2886 of " Hansard " of 18th November, 1959, in answer to a question asked by the honorable member for Werriwa. If the number of rejections and the number of appeals are examined, the conclusion is reached that the department is acting reasonably and fairly. The number of rejections in relation to the number of applications is comparatively small, and the number that are successful on appeal would certainly be less than SO per cent, of the number of appeals that are lodged. For those reasons, I support my colleague, the Treasurer, who has asked me to handle this bill for him. This subject is dealt with on the basis that it applies to human beings and that we must be sensitive in this sense: We must be prepared to give the persons concerned the fairest deal that is practicable. We believe that this is done. As one who has been pretty closely associated with the Treasury in the preparation of this legislation and in trying to find out the facts that lie behind it, I am prepared to pay my compliments to the Treasury officials not only for the detailed way that they have explained the bill to us but also for the genuine spirit they have in trying to see that the legislation is administered with sympathy and to the benefit of Commonwealth employees. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In committee: >Clauses 1 and 2 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to Clause 3 (Medical Benefits). {: #subdebate-43-0-s7 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I move - >Omit the clause, insert the following clause: - " 3. Section eleven of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - > >-- (1.) Where a worker sustains personal injury arising out of or in the course of his employment, the Commonwealth shall, subject to the next succeeding sub-section, pay the cost of such medical treatment in relation to the injury as is reasonably necessary. (2.) The sum for which the Commonwealth is liable under the last preceding sub-section is such sum as the Commissioner considers reasonably appropriate to the medical treatment afforded, having regard to the reasonable necessity for such treatment and the customary charge made in the community for such treatment. (3.) Where any compensation is payable by the Commonwealth under this Act to, or m respect of, a worker, any payment under this Section shall be in addition to that compensation. (4.) Where, for the purpose of medical treatment, in relation to which the preceding subsections apply, a worker incurs expenses on account of travelling or living away from home, including the expenses of an attendant where that is reasonably necessary, he shall be reimbursed for such amount of that expense as the Commissioner considers reasonable and necessarily incurred.'.". The amendment concerns medical expenses. The bill proposes that the maximum amount of medical expenses allowed to an injured worker shall be increased from £200 to £350, unless the Commissioner considers that exceptional circumstances warrant payment of an amount in excess of this sum. The amendment that I have moved on behalf of the Opposition places no such limitation on the amount that an employee may claim to cover the cost of medical treatment. In addition, the amendment proposes that - >Where, for the purpose of medical treatment, in relation to which the preceding sub-sections apply, a worker incurs expenses on account of travelling or living away from home, including the expenses of an attendant where that is reasonably necessary, he shall be reimbursed for such amount of that expense as the Commissioner considers reasonable and necessarily incurred. To illustrate the purpose of this paragraph, I shall refer to a man who is blind and who has to travel from a country district to the city for specialist treatment to his eyes. It may be necessary for him to bring his wife or some other person to the city. The two of them have to take hotel accommodation and to pay fares, and they have their ordinary living expenses to meet for two people. One could think of other injuries which would render it necessary for an attendant to accompany the injured person. In these circumstances, we think it not unreasonable that the costs of the attendant be met. I repeat that perhaps the prime purpose of the amendment is to remove the limitation of £350 imposed by the bill on the amount that may be paid for medical expenses. {: #subdebate-43-0-s8 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP -- Perhaps I should mention, although it is already well known to honorable members, that the purpose of clause 3 is to increase the monetary payment for medical expenses to £350. However, the important reason why the Government would reject the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** is that it will still be possible to exceed the limit of £350 where the Commonwealth Commissioner for Employees' Compensation considers that exceptional circumstances warrant the extra payment. This is not out of line with the general State position. Consequently, we reject the amendment for two reasons - first, that if there are special circumstances, the commissioner may pay the extra amount, and secondly, that in this case the payment is in line with those made by State governments. {: #subdebate-43-0-s9 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. The Minister for Labour and National Service, when replying to the second-reading debate, made a statement to the effect that the Government had given loving care to the act. I am not sure what he meant by that, but I should imagine that he was trying to convey that the Government was very sympathetic to the people who were likely to be beneficiaries under the act. Why should there be any limitation? The Minister admitted that there is some weakness in the provision, because he talked about the limit in respect of medical expenses being extended now from £200 to £350. Then he said that the commissioner had a discretion to grant more than £350 in special circumstances. What are the special circumstances that the commissioner would recognize as warranting a payment of more than £350? Surely We are entitled to know that. In my opinion, what the honorable member for Hindmarsh is proposing on behalf of the Opposition is reasonable. If a worker suffers injury, he is, in my opinion, entitled to be recompensed for any expenditure incurred in the treatment of the injury. Is the allowance to be cut off at £350 at a time when he still requires medical attention? What are the special circumstances that the commissioner is obliged to take into account? The Opposition feels that it is not sufficient to leave an injured worker at the mercy of the commissioner. We think that he should be protected by the act. I think the amendment is reasonable and that it should be accepted by the Government, in view of the Minister's speech in the second-reading debate. {: #subdebate-43-0-s10 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The Minister said that this was a quite generous provision, having regard to what the State acts provide. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- I said that it was not out of line with the general State position. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I accept that correction, but I do not agree with that statement of the position. In Victoria, there is no limit whatever. In New South Wales, there is a limit of £625, with a provision that in special cases extra amounts may be paid. I think the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** made a telling point when he asked the very pertinent question: What circumstances could one visualize in which the commissioner would step in and say that the amount should be increased? The provision presupposes that £350 is ample to cover all normal cases, but in special cases - to use the wording of the act - the amount may be increased. I should like to know what are the special cases. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- Can you give me one single case where the commissioner has refused to give the extra amount? Perhaps the honorable member for East Sydney may help. It would be just nonsense toask for an amendment unless it were based on facts. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- May we put it in another way? Can you give us one single casewhere the commissioner has increased the-, amount? {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- Yes, I can, but I have-, asked you to give a case. You, not I,, are putting up thfi amendment. You cannot give a case to support your amendment. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Yes, we can. I have cases,, but I have not got them in my pocket, as you have the unemployment figures,, which you promised to give to me beforethe House adjourned. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- I am glad that this lsbeing recorded, because your veracity can now be tested. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- So can yours - and that isnot said in the vernacular. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- A worker could suffer serious injury to the spine, and quite conceivably - this is no exaggeration - could find himeslf lying on thebroad of his back for a year before even, getting into a wheel-chair. It might beanother year before he was fit even towalk. No one would say that the cost. of hospital and medical treatment for a year or more would be less than £1,000. Must such a man rely upon the goodwill of the commissioner to determine whether he is to be paid the difference between the £350 and the £1,000, say, that is the actual cost? I think it is quite wrong. Unless there is a valid reason for limiting the amount to £350 when injuries can occur which involve the expenditure of, perhaps, double, treble or four times that amount, there ought not to be any such limitation. {: #subdebate-43-0-s11 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- I am rather interested in the Minister's statement that the commissioner's delegate has a discretion in regard to increasing the amount allowed for medical expenses. If that is so, the proposed amendment should be accepted. This should not be a matter of the commissioner's delegate having a discretionary power to pay an amount in excess of the maximum amount stated in the act in respect of medical fees. There ought to be in the act a provision that the injured worker has a right to recover whatever medical expenses are incurred in his recovery to health. If it is the intention of the Government that the commissioner's delegate shall exercise that discretion, and that in all cases the full amount of medical expenses - whatever it is - will be met, there is no need for the limitation of the payment to the amount specified in the bill. If there is a discretion, some injured employees may get full medical expenses, whilst others may not. Should the employer's representative have the right to say, " I will not give A his full medical expenses, but I will give B his ". Either the right is there, or it is not. If it is there, it should be exercised to the fullest extent in respect of every employee. The Minister's argument is wrong. The other point I want to make is that this is one of the provisions that indicates the manner in which the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act is falling behind the corresponding State acts. It has been my contention that the Commonwealth act is falling behind. Generally speaking, instead of being superior to all the State acts, the Commonwealth act is now becoming inferior to some of the State acts, both in respect of benefits and in respect of its ambit. It is desirable that we put into the Commonwealth legislation a provision that will make it at least as good, in relation to medical expenses, as the best act in the States. When there is a limit and a discretionary power to exceed it, somebody may not receive his full medical expenses, whilst another person may receive them. I submit that an employee is entitled to all his medical expenses. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- Before you sit down, I should like to put to you that there has never been a case of rejection, and so there has never been a case of injustice. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- Why not provide a rate? {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- There are administratively very good reasons. Secondly, the honorable member directs attention to the New South Wales legislation and points to that as being a model, but in New South Wales medical expenses are £300 and hospital expenses are £300, with power to admit the excess in both cases. {: .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY: -- The fact that the Minister cites New South Wales does not destroy the principle. Medical expenses are paid in Victoria also. If, as the Minister says, the Commonwealth has never refused to pay up, why not let the injured worker know that he has a right to full medical, hospital and other expenses connected with his injury or illness? As it is, he does not know where he stands because some day some delegate may tell him that he will not be paid. {: #subdebate-43-0-s12 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .I do not think that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** can derive any comfort from comparing the normal £350 limit on medical expenses provided under this bill with the corresponding provisions in the State acts. As pointed out in the Conspectus of Workers' Compensation Cases in Australia as from 1st January this year, issued by the Department of Works, there is no limit in Victoria and South Australia on the amount of medical expenses that may be paid. In New South Wales there is a normal limit of £625, with provision for excess in several cases. That leaves only Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia with normal limits at 1st January last below the limit provided in this bill. I have not before me the new Tasmanian act, but it may be that the limit in Tasmania is now above this limit. I know, to take one example, that the lumpsum payment available in Tasmania in the event of death is now £4,250, which is higher than provided under any other workers' compensation act in Australia. It is quite likely, therefore, that the normal limit, if a limit is still retained, for medical expenses would be greater than the limit under this bill. The Minister has said how this act is administered, but we must remember that the act itself does not make an end of the matter, because the commissioner issues rulings under it to his 143 delegates. On 19th March last the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** gave me the wording of such a ruling as follows: - . . the commissioner advised his delegates that payment of any increased costs due to the admission or transfer of an employee to an intermediate or private ward - Honorable members will remember that medical expenses are defined in the act to include treatment and maintenance as a patient at a hospital - should be authorized only if treatment in such a ward is reasonably necessary in relation to the injury or the disease suffered by the employee, that is, where suitable treatment cannot be given in a public ward or where public ward accommodation is not available. The Treasurer's reply to me arose out of my question concerning the fact that many physicians and surgeons can only secure proper treatment in a hospital for an employee by having him admitted to an intermediate or private ward. The waiting period for a public ward is too great. Accordingly, the commissioner issued a ruling that medical expenses should only normally be paid in respect of hospital expenses where those hospital expenses were incurred in a public ward. If the hospital expenses in a private or intermediate ward were deemed reasonable in the terms of the commissioner's ruling and were in excess of £350 together with other medical expenses, the commissioner should not pay the excess unless exceptional circumstances applied. Treatment in intermediate or private wards cannot be accounted exceptional circumstances. It is a perfectly normal, usual and reasonable circumstance to-day. So we get this position. If the treatment- {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- Can the honorable member give me an example? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- No, I have not one with me now and I do not recollect having come across such a case myself; but I assure the Minister that I asked the Treasurer this question as a result of representations made to me by a Public Service union, which quoted cases but not names or addresses. The union quoted cases where medical expenses for hospital treatment had been disallowed because the commissioner said it was not reasonable for that treatment to be undertaken in an intermediate or private ward, although the doctors found that the best way to obtain prompt treatment was to admit the patient to a private or intermediate ward rather than wait for a bed in a public ward. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- The Minister said that there are no such cases. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- If there are no such cases the ruling was made in empty air; it was an academic proposition. The Treasurer states that hospital expenses in a private or intermediate ward may be paid if they were reasonably incurred, but the bill now says that such reasonable expenses in a private or intermediate ward cannot be paid except in exceptional circumstances. It is obvious that there are no exceptional circumstances in being admitted to a private or intermediate ward. So if your medical expenses do not exceed £350 and some of them were reasonably incurred for treatment in a private or intermediate ward, they may be paid. If, however, they exceed £350, the excess will not be paid. Question put - >That the clause proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Clyde Cameron's amendment)** stand part of the bill. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 52 NOES: 30 Majority . . . . 22 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 4 (Maximum compensation). {: #subdebate-43-0-s13 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I move - >Omit the clause, insert the following clause: - " 4. Section thirteen of the Principal Act is amended - > >by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - (1.) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the amount of compensation payable in respect of an injury or injuries caused by any one injury shall not, except as provided by this Section, exceed an amount calculated by multiplying the worker's award rate by two hundred and sixty, but in so calculating that amount any amount by which the worker's award rate exceeds £25 per week shall be disregarded. If no Award rate is applicable, the amount shall be calculated by multiplying the worker's weekly wage at the date of his injury (but disregarding any amount in excess of £25 per week) by two hundred and sixty.' ; and > >by inserting in sub-section (2.) after the words ' results in ' the words ' or materially contributes to.'.". The clause in the bill provides that the amount of compensation that shall be paid in the cases that we are dealing with shall be increased from £2,350 to £3,000. The proposal that I have submitted on behalf of the Opposition deals with the maximum amount of compensation that should be paid in the case of injuries. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- This applies only to those who are not permanently and totally incapacitated? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is so. We are dealing now with the maximum amount that shall be paid to the other types of people. The amendment provides that instead of specifying a flat figure of £3,000, the maximum amount should be expressed in the terms of my amendment. The effect of the second part of the amendment is to provide that where an injury results in, or materially contributes to the death, or the total or permanent incapacity of the employee for work, sub-section (1.) of this section shall not apply to limit the total amount of compensation payable under this act. Dealing with the first point, I wish to explain, as I indicated at the second-reading stage, that the Opposition believes that it is quite wrong and unjust to fix a flat rate of compensation for a worker irrespective of what his earning capacity was at the time of his injury. We recognize, on the other hand, that there has to be some limit and we have decided upon the limit of £25 as being the figure beyond which the multiplication shall not operate. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- If inflation continues you may have to increase that amount. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- That is a very serious thought and something that might very well have to be done. There are employees in the Commonwealth Public Service whose salaries amount to perhaps, £60, £70 or £80 a week, and some limit would have to be fixed in their case. We have fixed the limit of £25. If a worker is capable of earning £20 a week and is suddenly incapacitated as the result of an injury at work, surely the maximum amount he is entitled to claim ought to be more than the maximum amount which the worker would be entitled to claim who is earning only £16 a week? By the use of this formula it would never be necessary again to amend the act unless it was desired to alter the formula itself in order to meet increasing costs of living, or inflationary trends, as the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** suggested. It would then be necessary for us to have a look at the maximum of £25 that it is suggested should be fixed. It will be noticed that the word "accident" has been omitted. Careful attention has been given to this section and it is suggested that " injury " be used instead of the word " accident ". I explained earlier that a person can suffer a serious injury or disability without such injury having been caused by an accident. Similarly, in the second part of the amendment where I seek to alter sub-section (2.) of section 13 in the manner indicated, it is quite possible also that an injury may not result in the death of a person, but may materially contribute to his death. In such cases where it could be proved that although the injury did not cause the death, but materially contributed to it, we believe that ought to establish a ground for a claim for compensation. **Mr. WARD** (East Sydney) fi. 40 a.m.].Surely the Government is not so anxious to rush through this important legislation that we are to receive no reply from the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** who is at the table. Are we to assume that the Minister does not understand either the bill or the amendment, and is incapable of giving any effective reply to the arguments that have been raised by the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)?** {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- You are trying to rewrite the act. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- The honorable member for Hindmarsh has submitted a very convincing argument as to why the amendment should be accepted. With him, I believe that the present provisions of the bill cannot be regarded as satisfactory. If the Government has some reason for not accepting the amendment, I think that we are entitled to hear it. **Mr. McMAHON** (Lowe - Minister for Labour and National Service) 11.41 a.m.]. - I shall state fairly, clearly, and succinctly the reasons why the Government rejects the proposed amendment. The suggestion that has been advanced by the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Cameron)** is sheer fantasy. What is the logic behind it? I have been trying to work out on a piece of paper just what the suggestion means, and I have come to the conclusion that the honorable member has said, in effect, ' Let us give the injured worker five years' wages at £25 a week, which will come to something like £6,500 ". That is the only piece of logic that I can find in the suggestion. The honorable member has given no reason in logic or commonsense as to why his amendment should be accepted. What I have said is a complete answer to the suggestion which should be obvious to the committee without the necessity for the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** to intervene. I do not regard it as one of my functions to attempt to point out to the honorable member that the argument that has been advanced by one of his colleagues has no basis in logic. Having said that, I think it wise again to point out to the committee that the purpose of this change is to improve the position of the person who will receive a benefit under the amended act. It means that the limit of the total weekly payments to those who are not totally and permanently incapacitated will be raised to £3,000. Other lump sum benefits for specified injuries will be increased proportionately. I would mention also that there is no limit on the amount that may be received by those who are totally and permanently incapacitated. If one listened to the remarks of the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam),** one would be driven to the conclusion that in the overall position, and with the exception of New South Wales, the Commonwealth benefits are more favorable than those received by workers in any State. We reject the amendment because we believe that the present proposals are fair and just to the person who will receive the benefit. We can see no logical reason for the acceptance of the proposal that has been advanced by the Opposition. {: #subdebate-43-0-s14 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .I do not think that the Minister for Labour and National Service dealt with the second part of the amendment to clause 4 that was proposed by the honorable member for Hindmarsh who sought to have the words " or materially contributes to " inserted after the words "results in" in section 13 (2.) of the act. If this amendment were adopted the relevant sub-section would read - >Where an injury results in or materially contributes to the death or the total and permanent incapacity of the employee for work . . . This is the first of several occasions on which the honorable member will seek to insert words that I have quoted, and therefore I think that I should deal with the proposal in some detail because nothing illustrates these facts as well as does a decided case. During the second-reading debate I referred to Ockenden's case. The amendment that has been proposed by the honorable member for Hindmarsh is designed to cure the fault that has been shown to exist in the legislation by the decision of the High Court in The Commonwealth of Australia v. Butler, which is reported in Volume 32 of The Australian Law Journal at page 320. I shall read the facts of the case as stated by **Mr. Justice** Fullagar in his decision in which, incidentally, the Chief Justice concurred. His Honour said - >The deceased man was at all material times employed as a clerk in the Department of the Navy. He died on 12th July, 1957, as a result of a coronary occlusion. He had suffered in the course of the preceding five years or thereabouts three attacks of a similar nature, and it is necessary to refer briefly to the circumstances of each of the four occlusions, the last of which was fatal. > >The first occasion was in April, 1952. It would appear that before this date the health of the deceased had appeared to be normal, but on a day in that month he complained in the morning that he had been awake during the night with a severe chest pain, and his wife summoned a doctor. He did not go to work on that day, and was away from work for about three months. At the end of that time he appeared to have recovered his former health. The second attack occurred in September, 1955. He went to work as usual on that day. Before leaving home in the morning he had complained that he " did not feel very well", and during the morning he complained of a feeling of " listlessness ", and of pain in the chest and difficulty in breathing. He went home about lunch-time and his wife helped him to bed and telephoned for a doctor. On the doctor's advice he entered Prince Henry's Hospital, where he remained for about three weeks. After this he remained at home until 23rd December, 1955, when he suffered a third attack and, on his doctor's advice, entered Prince Henry's Hospital again, where he again remained about three weeks. After that he remained at home until he returned to work in February, 1956. During the next eighteen months or s->. his wife said, he complained at times of the pain in his chest, and, as time went on, these complaints became moTe frequent. He remained at work, however, until 10th July, 1957. On that day he appears to have returned home at the usual hour saying that he did not feel very well. During the evening he had another attack of severe pain, and on the morning of the 11th his wife summoned the doctor, on whose advice he remained at home in bed. In the afternoon of the 12th, being still in bed, he complained that the pain was very severe, and the doctor was again summoned. Before the doctor arrived, however, he died. I have quoted His Honour's succinct blowbyblow description of the man's disability. His Honour goes on - >The case has, however, been conducted throughout on the assumption that the illness which affected the deceased while he was at work in September, 1955, did amount to an injury by accident arising in the course of his employment. The ultimate question in the case is, therefore, whether his death in July, 1957, " resulted from " that assumed injury. **His** Honour concludes in these terms - >In the present case the evidence could not be said to establish that any prior occlusion " contributed to " the death in the sense that the death " resulted from " it - which is the only relevant sense. To overcome that decision, to cure the fault in the Commonwealth act and to procure the same result for Commonwealth employees as has been achieved for employees covered by State compensation acts it is proposed to include the words " or materially contributes to " after the words " results in " where they appear in the bill. Those words occur in the Victorian act and have been applied by the Supreme Court of Victoria and by the High Court "of Australia to entitle persons covered by the Victorian legislation to compensation in this kind of circumstance. The Commonwealth act lags behind the State legislation. This portion of the amendment that has been proposed by the honorable member for Hindmarsh is not concerned with amounts. It is true that in most respects this bill will leave Commonwealth employees when they obtain compensation, in a better material sense than the position in which employees under State acts are placed, but this is one of the instances where the bill still leaves Commonwealth employees in a more difficult and disadvantageous position to obtain compensation than are workers covered by the State acts. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** a little while ago, interjected to say somewhat testily that we were trying to re-write the act. All that we are trying to do in this instance, **Sir, is** to take the first opportunity provided by an amending bill to cure faults in the act which have been revealed. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- You have had eight years in which to cure them. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- The right honorable gentleman cannot have been following the argument. If he were familiar with the interpretations which have been given of the acts for which he is ministerially responsible, he would know that the decision in relation to the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act, which has shown the faults of the act, was given eleven months ago, on 12th December, 1958. This is the first time since that decision that a bill amending the principal act has come before the Parliament. The Treasurer seeks to perpetuate the injustices which are now revealed as being possible under the terms of the act, and we are taking the first available opportunity to test his bona fides and sense of justice in these matters. Is there any good reason why Commonwealth employees should be in a less advantageous position with respect to compensation than are employees under the State acts? We are not re-writing the act in any sense except to bring it into line with the interpretation which we always thought it used to bear and which all the State acts still bear. {: #subdebate-43-0-s15 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP -- **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** as the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has asked for explanations by the Minister in answer to the arguments put forward by the Opposition, I should like to state that there are two reasons for rejecting the amendment. First, the amendment has been put to us only to-night, and we cannot at this moment state what its implications may be, how it may affect other acts, or what total liability it may impose on the Commonwealth. In short, **Sir, we** do not know what its effect may be. The second reason is that we think that the whole of the present act, as amended by this bill, will have a consistency that would be upset if the amendment were agreed to. I think that is a fair statement. I do not accept the statement by the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** that injustices will be done unless the provisions of the act are amended. The High Court of Australia, after all, has made a decision on this matter. In our view, it has made quite a sensible decision. What the honorable gentleman from Werriwa is asking us to do is not so much to place a different interpretation on the act as to amend it in order to reverse a decision that has been made by the High Court. I repeat what I have already said, Sir: The amendment will be rejected. Question put - >That the clause proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Clyde Cameron's amendment)** stand part of the bill. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 54 NOES: 30 Majority . . 24 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 5 - (1.) Section sixteen of the Principal Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section - Section proposed to be amended - {: type="1" start="16"} 0. -- (1.) The Commissioner shall not admit a claim for compensation under this Act for an injury unless notice of the accident has been served upon him as soon as practicable after it has happened, and before the employee has voluntarily left the employment of the Commonwealth, and unless the claim for compensation has been made - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. within six months from the occurrence of the accident; or {: #subdebate-43-0-s16 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** I move - >After " amended " insert " (a) by omitting the word ' accident ' (wherever occurring) in subsection (1.) and inserting in its stead the word injury' and (b) ". The purpose of the amendment is to strike out the word " accident " wherever it occurs in section 16 (1,) and to insert in its place the word " injury ". This amendment was adequately outlined at the second-reading stage. I shall state the purpose once again briefly. It is to make it clear that a compensable injury shall not be an injury requiring the claimant to prove accident, and that it shall be sufficient for him merely to prove an injury without an accident. If he can do that, he will be entitled to compensation. If that is to be regarded as a fair proposition, it will be necessary to make this amendment so that, instead of accident being the key upon which claims for compensation rest, injury shall be the basis upon which claims are determined. {: #subdebate-43-0-s17 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP -- The amendment is rejected because, frankly, I do not understand it, and the departmental officers know nothing about it. {: #subdebate-43-0-s18 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I am surprised that the Minister for Labour and National Service does not understand the amendment and that none of the departmental officers seems to know anything about it, because the secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has written to me stating that he had sent the proposition to the Department of the Treasury quite some considerable time ago - some weeks ago, at any rate - and it seems rather odd to me that a communication from an important body like the A.C.T.U. directed to the department which is responsible for the administration of Commonwealth employees' compensation has not yet been seen by the Minister or by any of the officials of the department. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- I did not say that. Explain the effect of it. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The fact is that the Minister was under the impression that this was the first he had seen of it. I simply say, in reply, that if this is the first that the Minister has seen of it, that is understandable because the Minister who is handling the bill is not the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** and it is quite possible that he, having just taken over the position, may not know as much about this as the Treasurer knows. But I understood the Minister to say that none of the Treasury officials present had seen the proposal before us. What I simply put now to the committee is that, seeing that the A.C.T.U. has already informed the Treasury of its views on this matter, and having regard to the fact that the proposition is quite fair, quite reasonable, and ought not to take very much grey matter to understand, I can only assume- {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- First of all, you are asking us, in relation to clause 5, to omit the word " accident " and insert in its stead the word " injury ". Is that what you want? The word in the clause is " injury ". Section 16 of the principal act provides that the commissioner shall not admit a claim for compensation under this act for an " injury ". Originally, you were right; now you are wrong. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- No. The word " accident" appears in section 16 (1.), which reads - >The Commissioner shall not admit a claim for compensation under this Act for an injury unless notice of the accident has been served upon him as soon as practicable. . . . If there has been no accident, the employee is not able to serve him with the required notice. We ask that the word " accident " be struck out and the word " injury " substituted for it. Paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) reads - within six months from the occurrence of the accident; or We ask that the word " accident " be struck out and that the word " injury " be inserted in lieu thereof. {: #subdebate-43-0-s19 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HiginbothamTreasurer · LP -- What is being proposed is a basic policy alteration, and it gives point to the interjection I addressed to the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam),** or whoever was on his feet a little while ago, when I said that what the Opposition is trying to do in relation to this bill is to re-write the whole legislation which the Government has brought forward on this occasion. This is not the normal Opposition process of registering opposition to certain provisions. It is an attempt to take the business out of the hands of the Government and to re-write the whole bill. Here is the test of the bona fides of the Opposition on this matter: The Government bill is a bill of eight printed pages. The Opposition comes along with a string of amendments running into just on ten pages; in other words, the Opposition wants a measure of its own. If the Opposition wants a workers' compensation bill of its own to be considered by the Parliament, it can bring forward a private member's bill and deal with it in the normal way. But when we are being asked, **Mr. Temporary Chairman,** to accept what are basic policy alterations then I say, **Sir, the** Government will not adopt that course. If there are matters brought forward in debate that are worthy of subsequent consideration, they will receive that consideration, but we certainly will not re-write carefully studied and carefully prepared legislation in this manner simply to produce an Opposition bill. {: #subdebate-43-0-s20 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .The Government evidently has now changed its attitude to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron).** The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** did not say that it was an alteration of basic Government policy that we were proposing; he said he did not understand it, nor did the officers of the department understand what the amendment meant. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- You do not understand it, either. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD: -- Evidently, the Government did understand what was intended, because the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** has now, almost immediately on the heels of the Minister for Labour and National Service, said that the objection of the Government is not because it does not understand the amendment but because the Government regards it as an alteration of the basic policy of the Government in this matter, and it therefore rejects the amendment. What is wrong with what the Opposition proposes? According to the Minister for Labour and National Service, when the Government considered the requests of the Australian Council of Trades Unions it did so very sympathetically - or, at least, that was the impression that we gained from the words of the Minister for Labour and National Service. But evidently those requests were given very little consideration by the Government. What does the honorable member for Hindmarsh now propose on behalf of the Opposition? All he proposes is that any worker working on a job whose health becomes affected as a result of the conditions under which he is working, or the nature of his employment, shall receive compensation; that it is not necessary for an accident to occur, but if his health is undermined as a result of the conditions under which he is working, he gets full protection under this clause. What is wrong with that? The Treasurer, when he occupied the portfolio of Minister for Labour and National Service, talked about how closely he was working with the A.C.T.U., and the good relationships that existed between them. As a matter of fact, it is proved conclusively that the Minister's previous statement could not have been true, because all of these amendments, with the exception of one, have been submitted by the A.C.T.U. Not one of them is contained in the legislation. What is the use of the Minister trying to pretend from time to time that the Government is working closely with the unions in regard to these matters and that it is anxious to effect improvements to working class legislation? I hope that we will get a better explanation than that which has been furnished by the Treasurer or that by the Minister for Labour and National Service. I think that on this occasion we ought to do what the Minister told us was done in respect to the Matrimonial Causes Bill. We were told on that occasion that what the Minister's advisers did was to go to the States, study the States' legislation, take the best out of each act and produce it here in the form of a bill. If the Government can do that in regard to the matrimonial causes legislation, what is wrong with doing it in regard to workers' compensation? Let the Government take the best out of the State legislation. The Government will then find it will have a worthwhile piece of legislation. Therefore, I commend the amendment that has been proposed by the honorable member for Hindmarsh to the reasonably intelligent members of this chamber. {: #subdebate-43-0-s21 .speaker-JUP} ##### Mr CLAREY:
Bendigo .- 1 think that the remarks of the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** call for a statement on the part of the Opposition. The honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** has already addressed himself to the statement that was made by the Treasurer, but I want also to bring to the Treasurer's notice the fact that if measures of this description are brought on in the dying hours of the Parliament, the Parliament itself is not given an opportunity to discuss various things - in this instance, various provisions of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act - that need amendment. I stress also that the Australian Council of Trade Unions made representations some time ago for the amendment of this act on the lines of the amendments moved by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. The Government has had an opportunity to consider the basic alterations in respect of policy that were then suggested. I strongly support the suggestion that is contained in this amendment. If adopted, it will bring the Commonwealth act into line with the Victorian act and certain other State acts. Employees, in the course of their employment, meet with injury in other ways than by accident. In Victoria, we had a very long fight in days gone by to get a certain disease covered by the workers' compensation legislation of that State. People who were handling fruit contracted dermatitis, but because it was not defined as an industrial disease, they were not able to secure compensation. However, if, after they had contracted the disease - which was also known as fruit poisoning - they happened to cut a finger and the finger became infected, they became entitled to compensation, because they had met with an accident. This indicates the necessity of having workers' compensation legislation so framed that any injury which the employee suffers shall be covered. This principle has been recognized in certain States. If a basic alteration of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Act is required, the Government should not hesitate to make that alteration in order to protect the economic interests of employees. There is an exceedingly strong case in favour of this amendment, and I hope that, on further consideration, the Government will accept it. **Mr. McMAHON** (Lowe - Minister for Labour and National Service) 12.12 a.m.]. - The honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** has not said anything that has not already been dealt with by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt).** The very basis of this act is compensation for an injury caused by an accident. If there is an injury from some cause other than an accident, it is not covered by the act. Acceptance of the proposal made by the Opposition would involve a fundamental change in the legislation, and the Government is not prepared to accept it. I can add nothing to that. I regret to say that in the copy of the document which was given to me the words of the provision had not been changed to accord with the way in which they would read if we accepted the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Hindmarsh. They have now been changed, and I have the purport of the amendment before me. Previously, the change had not been made, and I could not understand the purpose of the amendment. {: #subdebate-43-0-s22 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa .We propose the substitution of the word " injury " for the word "accident " in two places in this provision, and later we shall propose that in other places the word " accident " be omitted or replaced by words such as " disease " or " injury ". The reasons for omitting or replacing the word " accident " arise from the decision in Ockenden's case, to which I was referring at the end of my speech in the second-reading debate. In the definition section of the principal act, the words "disease " and " injury " are defined - and the honorable member for Hindmarsh will move amendments designed to amplify those definitions - but there is no definition of the word " accident ". It has, therefore, been left for the courts to say what " accident " means. They have given their decision in Ockenden's case. The facts, very briefly, were these: A man was discharged from the Royal Australian Navy because of a rheumatic heart condition which had developed during his service with the Royal Australian Navy, but not because of it. Normally an employee is entitled to compensation if his injury arises out of or in the course of his employment. This man's rheumatic heart condition did not arise out of his employment, but it arose in the course of his employment. If the wording normally used in every other comparable act in Australia had applied, this man would have been entitled to compensation, but this act entitles a man to compensation for personal injury only as the result of an accident arising out of or in the course of employment. Therefore, even if the injury occurs in the course of his employment, not out of it, you still have to show that it was caused by an accident. The High Court has said that something can only be described as an accident if it is a sudden and distinct physiological change which has taken place while the employee is engaged in the duties of his employment, and not, for example, while on leave. The High Court has just interpreted the words inserted in the act by the Parliament. At an earlier stage, the Minister for Labour and National Service seemed to imply that the High Court, in giving its interpretation, was saying that the interpretation was the just position. The court was saying nothing of the sort. The court was merely interpreting the words used by the Parliament. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- I said that we thought that the decision of the court was a just one. I read the decision of the court to you. I then made a comment as to what I personally thought about the court's decision. Do not misinterpret me by saying that I stated that the court said it was a just decision. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- That narrows the point of difference between us. The Minister says that it is just that Commonwealth employees should secure compensation only if their injuries arise as a result of a sudden and distinct physiological change which takes place while they are engaged in the duties of their employment. We say it is just that a man should receive compensation if his injury arises out of or in the course of his employment. We say that, m that way, the Commonwealth act should be brought into line with the State acts. There is clearly a difference of view about what is just to employees. We say that the Commonwealth will not give justice to its employees as long as it continues to leave this act in its present form. The commissioner for Commonwealth employees' compensation now has to apply this decision of the court. We say that, in those circumstances, no Commonwealth employees in this situation will receive justice until the act is amended - until a word which is undefined, except by the courts, is omitted from the act and replaced by words which are either defined by the act or are interpreted by the courts in a way acceptable to the Parliament. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clauses 6 and 7 - by leave - taken together, and agreed to. Clause 8 - >Section twenty of the Principal Act is amended - > >by adding at the end thereof the following sub-sections: - " (2.) Where the Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner has caused notice of a determination made, or of any action taken, by him under this Act to be served on a person affected by the determination or action, an appeal under the last preceding subsection shall not be instituted by that person except within a period of thirty days from the date of service of the notice or within such further time as the Court allows. " (3.) A notice for the purposes of the last preceding sub-section may be served on a person by post at the address of the person last known to the Commissioner, or the delegate of the Commissioner, as the case may be.". {: #subdebate-43-0-s23 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I move - >Omit paragraph (b), insert the following paragraph: - " (b) by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: - (2.) After any person affected by any determination of the Commissioner has appealed against the determination, the Commissioner shall not, without the consent of the person affected, alter, amend or revoke the determination.'.". As I explained during my second-reading speech, this amendment is necessary if we are to stop what has become a practice, in some cases, of the commissioner altering his determination after the employee has gone to the expense of briefing counsel for the purpose of appealing to a court against that determination. All that the commissioner has to do, without any cost to himself, having been notified of an appeal in train, is simply to change the determination, usually by increasing it to a slightly higher amount, but an amount still lower than that which the employee considered proper. In that case, the employee is faced with the proposition either of accepting the slightly higher amount determined by the commissioner in his second bite at the cherry, or of going to the expense of preparing a second appeal, this time against the second determination. I believe that where the commissioner makes a determination, that determination should stand unless the employee affected by it gives his consent to an amendment of it. Unless that position is accepted, the employee is in the invidious position of finding himself faced with the expense of litigation in trying to have an appeal determined by a court, knowing all the time that before the matter is disposed of by the court the commissioner can circumvent the whole proceedings by, on his own motion, altering his original determination, so that the appeal which was perhaps prepared at great expense by the employee, is of course of no further use in those particular proceedings. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- That is reasonable. The Minister will no doubt accept the amendment. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- In that case, I shall say no more. {: #subdebate-43-0-s24 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP -- I merely make the statement that there is no reason why the commissioner should not amend his determination prior to the appeal being heard. It could well happen, and it sometimes does happen, that additional information comes to the notice of the commissioner after an appeal has been lodged. If he feels, in his wisdom, that the determination should be varied and that justice demands that it be varied, then it is sensible that he should have the right to do so automatically and quickly. If it so happened that he did not have the right to vary the determination - although I have just heard the honorable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** say that it could be varied with the consent of the employee - then, of necessity, it would mean that the employee would be compelled to go on to appeal. We must always assume that the commissioner will act in good faith. I personally accept that he does. The Chief Justice recently stated that we must base our actions on the assumption that the commissioner does so act, and that he personally was not worried by any suggestion that the commissioner would not act properly. If, at a hearing, fresh evidence is available, on which the commissioner should act, we feel that he should have an automatic right to act prior to the appeal being heard, if he thinks it is correct to do so. For that reason, we reject the amendment. {: #subdebate-43-0-s25 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .It is not a question of the good faith of the commissioner. He may act quite honestly and may think he is doing the proper thing, having regard to changed circumstances which may exist; but that does not alter the fact that the Government is putting the worker to considerable additional expense and inconvenience in preparing subsequent appeals. If a worker has the right to appeal against a determination of the commissioner, I believe that that position should only be varied with the approval of the worker concerned. That is what the amendment proposes. If the commissioner and the person concerned can reach agreement, there is no need to proceed any further. I understand that there have been cases in which an appeal has been prepared and counsel briefed, and that there has been a variation of the determination which has put that appeal aside. If the employee concerned still wants to persist with his appeal he has to prepare a fresh appeal and go through the whole expensive and wearisome process again. We think that it is completely wrong to put an employee in that position. We have submitted the amendment because we think that it would improve the Government's proposal and be of great benefit to the people affected. Question put - >That the paragraph proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Clyde Cameron's amendment)** stand part of the clause. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 49 NOES: 27 22 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 9 (First Schedule). {: #debate-43-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I move - >Omit the clause, insert the following clause: - "9. The First Schedule to the Principal Act is amended - > >by omitting paragraph (1.) and inserting in its stead the following paragraph: - (1.) The amount of compensation shall be - > >where the death of the employee results from or is materially contributed to by the injury - > >if the employee leaves any dependants wholly dependant upon his earnings, an amount calculated by multiplying the worker's award rate by two hundred and sixty, but in so calculating that amount any amount by which the workers' award rate exceeds £25 shall be disregarded. If no award rate is applicable, the special compensation shall be an amount calculated by multiplying the worker's weekly wage at the date of his injury (but disregarding any amount in excess of £25 per week) by two hundred and sixty and, in addition, an amount of one hundred pounds in respect of each child who, being a dependant under the age of 16 years at the date of either the injury or the death of the employee, was at the date of the injury wholly or mainly dependent on the earnings of the employee; > >if the employee does not leave any dependants wholly dependent upon his earnings, but leaves dependants in part dependent upon his earnings, - such sum, not exceeding in any case the amount payable under clause (i) of this subparagraph as is considered by the Commissioner to be reasonable and proportionate to the injury. > >such sum as is necessary for the cost of the employee's funeral, burial or cremation. > >Where the employee is totally incapacitated for work by the injury - a weekly payment during his incapacity equal to the worker's award rate up to £25 per week. If no award rate is applicable, the weekly payment shall be an amount equal to the worker's weekly wage at the date of his injury (but disregarding any amount in excess of £25 per week). > >Where the employee is partially incapacitated for work - by the injury - a weekly payment during his incapacity - > >of the amount - (if any) by which the weekly amount he is earning, or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business, after the injury is less than his weekly pay at the date of the injury. > >of the amount (if any) by which the weekly amount he is earning, or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business, after the injury is less than the weekly amount that would have been payable to him under paragraph (b) of this paragraph, if he had been totally incapacitated. whichever is the greater.'; > >by omitting sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (1a.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-paragraph: - > >Where death results from or is materially contributed to by the injury, any amount paid or payable before the death of the employee by way of weekly payments in respect of his total or partial incapacity for work shall not be deducted from the sum payable under clause (i) of sub-paragraph (a) of that paragraph, or shall be disregarded in determining the sum payable under clause (ii) of that sub-paragraph, as the case may be.'; and > >by omitting clause (iii) of sub-paragraph > >of paragraph (1a.).". Schedule proposed to be amended - (1a.) Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph (1.) of this Schedule - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. where death results from the injury - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. any amount paid or payable before the death of the employee by way of weekly payments in respect of his total or partial incapacity for work shall not be deducted from the sum payable under clause (i) of subparagraph (a) of that paragraph, or shall be disregardedin determining the sum payable under clause (ii) of that subparagraph, as the case may be; but 1. The amount by which any lump sum, paid to an employee in pursuance of paragraph (10a.) or paragraph (11.) of this Schedule or section twelve of this Act before the death of employee, exceeds the total of all weekly payments which would have been payable under subparagraph (b) or sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph, if they had continued until the date of his death, shall be deducted from the sum payable under clause (i) of sub-paragraph (a)of paragraph (1.) of this Schedule, or shall be taken into account in determining the sum payable under clause (ii) of that subparagraph, as the case may be, provided that the sum so payable is not reduced to less than Four hundred pounds; 1. where the employee is totally or partially incapacitated for work by the injury - {: type="i" start="iii"} 0. if the employee is a minor who is not entitled under the terms of any award, order or determination of an industrial authority, any industrial agreement or any law toreceive the same rate of pay as an adult, the words " Six pounds ten shillings " shall be deemed to be substituted for the words "Eight pounds fifteen shillings" in the application of the provisions of sub-paragraph (b) or sub-paragraph (c) of that paragraph in relation to the employee while he remains such minor; and This amendment deals with the first schedule of the principal act and has the effect of making the changes which I will now set out to explain. In the first place, it adds to sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph (1.) of the first schedule the words - or is materially contributed to by Sub-paragraph (a) will then begin - >Where the death of the employee results from or is materially contributed to by the injury - This, of course, has already been explained in an earlier amendment and I will not weary the committee with any further explanation of that part of the amendment. But the sub-paragraph then goes on to say - {: type="a" start="i"} 0. if the employee leaves any dependants wholly dependent upon his earnings, an amount. . . . The act provides for the payment of a lump sum of £2,350 which the bill proposes to increase to £3,000, in addition to an amount for a wife and child. Here again the Opposition injects into the first schedule the new formula which we have already talked about - that the amount should not be a set, flat sum of money for compensation but should be a sum arrived at by multiplying the average weekly earnings of the employee by 260. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- The committee has already disposed of that. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I realize that; but there are other principles inserted into this schedule which I will have to explain. The Opposition is asking that instead of a flat rate of £3,000 being prescribed as the amount to be paid, the amount be unspecified but be arrived at by multiplying the average weekly earnings of the employee by 260 - which would be the equivalent of five years' earnings - with the proviso that where the average weekly earnings are in excess of £25, then £25 shall be the amount to be used to calculate the maximum amount of compensation payable. The same principle is introduced in subparagraph (b) of paragraph (1.) of the first schedule. Sub-paragraph (b) relates to an employee who is totally incapacitated for work by an injury and states that a weekly payment of £8 15s. shall be made. The bill proposes to increase this sum to £10. It provides, in addition, that a sum of £2 10s. for the wife and 22s. 6d. for a child under sixteen years of age shall be paid weekly. In our proposal we omit the reference to £10 and in its place we use again the formula that I have already explained. We are now dealing with weekly payments, not lump sums, and we suggest that the weekly payment shall be the award rate up to the figure of £25 a week. If there is no award rate applicable then an amount equal to the worker's weekly wage at the date of his injury shall be taken, but disregarding any amount in excess of £25 a week. Reference to an additional weekly amount for a wife or dependent child is not necessary because we are now insisting, as an Oppositon, on the principle that while an injured worker is incapacitated he ought to receive his full average weekly earning or the full award rate where there is an award rate and not a lesser amount. I should like to state the position of a man and wife where he was earning say £18 a week. Under this proposal, and even under the bill, they would receive not more than £12 10s. a week during the period of his incapacity. No one can justify that. It is true that if he has a large family a man on £18 a week would probably still get that sum weekly, but if he were earning £25 a week, he would have to have a very large family indeed before his weekly compensation payments would reach that figure, or the amount represented by his award rate, whichever the case may be. For those reasons we believe that the committee ought to adopt the proposals which we are now putting forward. Now I come to sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (1.) of the first schedule. It reads - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. where the employee is partially incapacitated for work by the injury - a weekly payment during his incapacity - 1. of the amount (if any) by which the weekly amount that he is earning, or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business, after the injury is less than his weekly pay at the date of the injury, or of the amount of Eight pounds fifteen shillings, whichever is the less; or Honorable members will see that the amendment reads - {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Where the employee is partially incapacitated for work - by the injury - a weekly payment during his incapacity - 1. of the amount - (if any) by which the weekly amount he is earn ing, or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business, after the injury is less than his weekly pay at the date *oi* the injury. But the act adds the words " or of the amount of Eight pounds fifteen shillings, whichever is the less." In the bill that sum of £8 15s. is increased to £10. In our amendment the second proviso is deleted because we are not prepared to accept a sum less than that which we have indicated to be fair and reasonable. We find it is necessary to make some drastic alterations to sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (Ia.) of the first schedule as it now reads. First of all, there are the words again " or is materially contributed to by the injury " which have to be inserted in the first part in order to follow consistently the view that we have taken in this debate - that where death results from or where death is materially contributed to by an injury, then compensation ought to be paid. But we have deleted also from the principal act the proviso that in the case of death the commissioner may deduct from the total lump sum payable on death whatever lump sum payments may have been made in respect of the injury which led to the death prior to the death. The only qualification is that the amount allowed after the deductions have been made from the lump sum payment for death shall not be less than £400. There are other laws, such as the New South Wales and South Australian acts, under which, no matter what lump sum payments were received by an employee prior to his death, those lump sum payments cannot be deducted from the lump sum payment to which his wife is entitled upon his death. This bill does not alter that position one iota. It still allows the commissioner to deduct from the lump sum payment payable upon death any other lump sum payments paid to the worker with respect to an injury sustained prior to death, or which led to the death itself. We say that the provision as to the right to deduct those lump sum payments ought to be deleted from the act, and our amendment seeks to do that. {: #debate-43-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP -- This amendment is rejected also. I cannot add anything to what has been said already about the proposal to amend subparagraph (a) (i) of paragraph (Ia). There are so many sub-clauses that I find that the only way to identify the proposal here. The amendment is rejected because there is no logical basis for it other than an attempt to pay a man something between £20 and £25 a week for five years. We can see no logical basis for that idea. As to paragraph (b) relating to weekly payments, it is now contemplated that, instead of the provision of what is considered to be a fair sum, the full weekly wage that has been paid to the employee should continue to be paid to him. Under no other legislation, nor, for that matter, in private employment, is there provision for payments as generous as the full amount a man was receiving immediately prior to the date on which he was injured. For that reason, the second proposed amendment will also be rejected. {: #debate-43-s2 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I want to explain subparagraph (c) of paragraph 1 (a). I have not dealt with that yet. We seek to amend subparagraph (iii) of paragraph (b) of subclause 1 (a) because it provides that if the employee is a minor who is not entitled, under the terms of an award, to the adult rate, the compensation to which he shall be entitled shall be limited to £7 5s. a week. What about a minor who, though not entitled to the adult rate under the award under which he is working, is in fact receiving the adult rate? It frequently happens in the shearing industry, the industry with which I am most familiar, that rouseabouts who are not legally entitled to the adult award rate are considered to be so useful and perhaps even so much better than adults at their work of picking up that the average squatter is happy to pay them the adult rate for a picker-up even though they are minors. I know that the honorable member for Hume **(Mr. Anderson)** does it. Under the Government's proposal, if an employee was receiving the male rate under an award which did not in fact entitle him to that rate, then, from that male rate which he was receiving prior to the injury, he would be reduced immediately to the proposed new rate of £7 5s. a week. Here again we say that the amount which the minor should receive is the amount that he was receiving at the time of the injury, and no less. Without belabouring the point - it has been mentioned several times already - we trust that the committee will see the justice of our proposal and accept it. Question put - >That the clause proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Clyde Cameron's** amendment) stand part of the bill. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 52 NOES: 26 Majority . . . . 26 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Clause 10 (Third Schedule). {: #debate-43-s3 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I move - >Omit the clause, insert the following clause: - " 10. The Third Schedule to the Principal Act is repealed and the following Schedule inserted in its stead: - The Third Schedule - continued. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce the new principle of percentages. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- I rise to order, **Mr. Temporary Chairman.** This amendment was dependent upon an earlier amendment which was rejected. Therefore, even if the committee agreed to this amendment it could have no effect. In fact, it would make the act unworkable. I merely point that out to the honorable gentleman. He can go ahead with his amendment if he wishes because he is perfectly entitled to, but it does seem absurd to endeavour to amend the clause when the amendment could have no effect. {: #debate-43-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- It is not for the Chair to judge the effect of the amendment. The honorable member has the right to move the amendment, as the Minister has said, if he desires to do so. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I have moved it, and it would not be ineffective as the Minister will agree in a moment. The previous amendment, which was rejected, merely sought to alter the figure of £3,000, which is proposed by the bill, to an unspecified amount arrived at by multiplying the average weekly earnings by 260. It does not matter whether you have that figure or £3,000; it is still in my view a much better proposition to have the amounts of compensation for specified injuries expressed in terms of percentages than to express them in flat sums of money. The South Australian act adopts this method of dealing with these specified injuries. I believe it is preferable to having all these flat rates, because whether we have £3,000 as the maximum or the figure that would be arrived at under our formula, by adopting percentages we will have a schedule which will not require further alteration whenever there is an amendment in the maximum amount allowed under section 12 of the act. The other important thing to which I want to direct attention here is that there have been added to the schedule some items on which I will briefly touch. One is under the heading "Eye Injuries " and is " Loss of binocular vision ", carrying a compensation of 40 per cent, of the maximum amount. Under "Other Injuries " we wish to include in the schedule " Loss of Speech " which would entitle a person to 52 per cent, of the maximum amount and " Loss of or the loss of the use of any other faculty, organ or part of the body not covered elsewhere in this Act ". This, too, is an important addition. Suppose a person suffers from a ruptured spleen as a consequence of an accident. He could find himself in the position that, because the ruptured spleen did not effect his capacity to work although the loss of the use of the organ perhaps seriously affected his health, he would have no claim for com.pensation, having merely lost the use of an organ which was not included in the schedule of specified injuries. {: .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton: -- Nonsense! {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It is not nonsense. There are all kinds of injuries that could be suffered internally as the result of an accident; but if an injury is not specified in the schedule the worker gets absolutely nothing for it at all, unless it causes him to be permanently incapacitated. A man would not necessarily be totally or even partly incapacitated, although an injury sustained in an accident caused him to suffer seriously in health for the rest of his life. I believe that where that can be proved there should be some provision made in the bill to meet the situation. {: #debate-43-s5 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP -- I make this statement merely to explain that the amendment proposed by the honorable gentleman for Hindmarsh **(Mr. Clyde Cameron)** would, in effect, introduce a fundamental change in the method of computing compensation, and would also mean fundamental changes in the principles that now guide the Government in amending the legislation. It would also mean that a new section would have to be incorporated in the act to define " special compensation " and how that special compensation was to be computed. For those reasons the Government has no alternative but to reject the amendment. Question put - >That the clause proposed to be omitted **(Mr. Clyde Cameron's amendment)** stand part of the bill. The committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman - Mr. P. E. Lucock.) AYES: 51 NOES: 25 Majority . . . . 26 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Clause agreed to. Proposed new clauses - Proposed new clause 2a. "2a. Section four of the Principal Act is amended - Proposed new clause 2b. " 2b. Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting the words ' by accident ' from subsection (1.).". Proposed new clause 2c. " 2c. Section 9a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: - (1.) Without limiting the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1.) of section nine of this Act, an injury to an employee shall be deemed to arise out of or in the course of his employment by the Commonwealth if the injury occurs - >while the employee on any working day on which he has attended at his place of employment pursuant to his contract of employment - > >is present at his place of employment; or > >having been so present, is temporarily absent therefrom on that day during any ordinary recess and does not during any such absence voluntarily subject himself to any abnormal risk of injury; or (b) while the employee is travelling to or from - > >his employment by the Common wealth including any school in relation to which sub-section (2.) of the last preceding section applies; or > >any place which it is necessary for him to attend to obtain a medical certificate or to receive medical treatment or compensation in respect of a previous injury.'.". Proposed new clause 3a - " 3a. Section twelve of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - " 12. - (1.) Where an injury sustained by a worker arising out of or in the course of his employment is an injury specified in the first column of the Third Schedule to this Act a lump sum of compensation equal to the percentage of special compensation specified, in relation to that injury, in the second column of that Schedule is, subject to this Act, payable to the worker. (2.) For the purpose of the last preceding subsection, special compensation is an amount calculated by multiplying the worker's award rate by two hundred and sixty, but in so calculating that amount any amount by which the worker's award rate exceeds £25 per week shall be disregarded. If no award rate is applicable, the special compensation shall be an amount calculated by multiplying the worker's weekly wage at the date of his injury (but disregarding any amount in excess of £25 per week) by two hundred and sixty. (3.) For the purposes of this Section and the Third Schedule of this Act, the permanent loss of the efficient use of a joint, limb or member shall be deemed to be the loss of that joint, limb or member. (4.) Where before the injury the worker habitually used his left hand and arm to perform his work and that work is usually performed by a person with his right hand and arm, the compensation payable to the worker under this Section is - >for the loss of his left arm or any part of his left arm - the amount prescribed by sub-section (1.) of this Section as payable to a worker for a similar loss in respect of his right arm; and > >for the loss of his right arm or any part of his right arm - the amount prescribed by sub-section (1) of this Section as payable to a worker for a similar loss in respect of his left arm. (5.) Where an injury sustained by a worker arising out of or in the course of his employment is the partial but permanent loss of speech, eyesight or hearing, or of the use of a faculty, organ, limb, member or joint, a lump sum of compensation equivalent to such percentage of the amount of compensation payable under sub-section (1.) of this Section in respect of total loss of a similar nature as is equal to the percentage of the diminution of the efficiency of the faculty, organ or part of the body concerned is, subject to this Act, payable to the worker. (6.) Where an injury sustained by a worker arising out of or in the course of his employment is the partial and incurable loss of his mental powers, or the partial and incurable paralysis of, or damage to, any part of his body not otherwise covered by the preceding provisions of this section, such worker may elect to accept a lump sum of compensation, assessed according to the percentage of the diminution of the worker's full earning capacity in respect of work of the nature of that in which be was employed at the time of the injury, is, subject to this Act, payable to the worker. For the purpose of this sub-section, the value of the worker's full earning capacity shall be assessed as if it were special compensation as provided in this Section. (7.) Where an injury sustained by a worker arising out of or in the course of his employment is a severe facial disfigurement, or permanent, partial or total loss of the use of any part of the body, a lump sum of compensation, assessed according to the degree of the severity of the injury, shall, subject to this Act, be payable to the worker. (8.) Where a worker sustains more than one injury in relation to which this Section applies, he is entitled to payment of a lump sum of compensation equal to the aggregate of each lump sum payable under the preceding provisions of this Section in respect of each of those injuries." Proposed new clause 5a - " 5a. Section 17a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) the words ' by accident Proposed new clauses - by leave - taken together. {: #debate-43-s6 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- The first part of proposed new clause 2a seeks to alter the definition of the word " disease " to make it clear that when we talk of pre-existing diseases we are speaking of diseases that are specified in the first part of the definition. We then seek to alter the definition of the word " injury " in order to include the word " disease ", so that when we talk of injury we talk also of a disease as defined in the previous definition of that word. Proposed new clause 2b seeks to omit from Section 9 of the principal act the words " by accident ". I will say no more about that. Proposed new clause 2c is long. It seeks to make it clear that an employee travelling to and from work shall be covered by workers' compensation, and also that an employee shall be covered during a recess or during his lunch hour. If he goes out to buy his lunch and is knocked over in the street, he will then be entitled to compensation. This is not a new provision. It is already included in other acts. As the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Clarey)** said quite correctly, the Commonwealth for many years led the field in workers' compensation, and now it is far behind some of the States. I think it is a shame that this should happen, and we feel that if these amendments are accepted they will once again place the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act in the vanguard of reform in this field. Proposed new clause 3a deals, among other things, with the way in which the maximum amount, upon which the percentages fixed in the third schedule to the act are calculated, shall be applied. That is to say, instead of having £3,000 as the maximum of which the prescribed percentages shall represent the compensation payable, the amount will be the figure arrived at by multiplying the average weekly earnings by 260. Then we go on to make it quite clear that for the purposes of the third schedule the permanent loss of the efficient use of a joint or limb or member shall be deemed to be the loss of that joint, limb or member. We repeat the provisions about a left-handed man having the right to claim the same amount for the loss of his left hand as a right-handed man can claim for the loss of his right hand. We then go on to deal with the position of a worker who suffers the loss of, or the loss of the use of, any part of his body as a consequence of accident. We deal with the right of that worker to claim compensation in respect of that loss, whether it be the loss of a faculty, a limb or an organ or of any part of the body. We go on then to a matter that has not yet been discussed during the committee debate. 1 refer to the proviso that where an employee suffers serious facial disfigurement, or partial or total loss of any part of the body, he shall get compensation for it. I want to dwell for a moment on the question of facial disfigurement. Here, surely, is a case that the Government should not resist. When a man is injured in an explosion or by the spilling of acid and suffers serious facial disfigurement, with unkind people perhaps making a laugh ins stock of him for the rest of his life, surely it is not enough for him to be told that he will get no compensation at all because his facial disfigurement does not affect his earning capacity. That is an inhuman approach to the problem confronting such a person. I do not expect that anything will be done about it to-night, but I hope that in the future our suggestion will be adopted by the Government. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Why not to-night? {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- It would be difficult to-night because the Government, in depriving us of proper opportunity to consider its *proposals,* has deprived itself of proper opportunity to consider our proposals. {: .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: -- We are mutually dissatisfied. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- As my deputy leader says, we are mutually dissatisfied, and in that regard we are in agreement. Sub-clause (5.) of proposed new clause 3a is similar to the amendment that we have so frequently referred to already. We omit the words " by accident " so that the injury stands alone as the basis for compensation. I hope the committee will adopt the new clauses that I have proposed. I therefore move - >That the proposed new clauses be inserted in the bill. {: #debate-43-s7 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Lowe · LP -- To show how difficult it is to accept amendments of the Opposition without giving them most careful consideration, I draw attention to the changes suggested to the definition of " disease ". In substance, the present definition is changed so as to read, " the word ' disease ' shall include diseases ". That is the real substance of the amendment. It has no meaning and can have little or no significance. So, I suggest immediately that the proposal should be rejected. Each of the other proposals, I suggest, will be rejected for these reasons: First, each of them proposes a fundamental change in the policy of the Government. If the amendments were accepted, it would mean that the Labour Opposition was taking out of the hands of the Government its right to determine what the laws should be. Secondly, each of the amendments, with one exception, has already been considered and has been rejected by the committee. Finally, the third recommendation - for the insertion of new clause 2c - is unacceptable to the Government because again it involves a change of policy. The change is that a person would become entitled to compensation or to payment of a weekly amount if he sustained an injury that was not due to his work. He could be standing in a room and burst a blood vessel in a way not associated with his work, and he would be entitled to obtain compensation. For those reasons, the Government is unable to accept the Opposition's proposals. I put one other point, and that is that most of the amendments, particularly proposed new clause 3a, relate to amendments that have already been rejected. They could have no effect, even if they were passed, because of the previous rejection. For that reason, I hope the Opposition will not push this to a division. Proposed new clauses negatived. Title agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-43-1} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Mr. McMahon)** - by leave - proposed - >That the bill be now read a third time. {: #subdebate-43-1-s0 .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr CLYDE CAMERON:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- I want very briefly to express my appreciation of the assistance given to me by the Clerks in the very difficult matter of these amendments. Too often, we tend to grizzle when things are not done to our satisfaction and forget to give a word of praise when they are done far beyond our expectations. I cannot speak too highly of the assistance given to me by **Mr. Turner.** He did not get the amendments until very late to-night, and though they were in pretty ragged shape, he was able to knock them into form within about an hour. He was able to have sufficient copies roneoed for each member to have a copy of the amendments before him. I want to place on record my deep appreciation of his efforts. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 3168 {:#debate-44} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM THE SENATE The following bills were returned from the Senate: - Without amendment - >Canning-Fruit Charge (Administration) Bill 1959. > >Canned Fruit (Sales Promotion) Bill 1959. > >Canned Fruits Export Control Bill 1959. > >Income Tax and Social Services Contribution > >Assessment Bill (No. 3) 1959. > >Income Tax (International Agreements) Bill 1959. Without requests - >Canning-Fruit Charge Bill 1959. > >Income Tax and Social Services Contribution (Non-Resident Dividends) Bill 1959. > >Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Bill (No. 2) 1959. {: .page-start } page 3168 {:#debate-45} ### SEAMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL 1959 {:#subdebate-45-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 24th November (vide page 3022), on motion by **Mr. Harold** Holt- >That the bill be now read a second time. 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. House adjourned at 3.20 a.m. (Thursday). {: .page-start } page 3168 {:#debate-46} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - Import Licensing. {:#subdebate-46-0} #### Parliamentary Committees {: #subdebate-46-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On what dates and subjects have ad hoc committees been set up by the Parliament or the Government in the last ten years? 1. On what dates were reports received from the committees? 2. What legislative or administrative action has been taken on the reports? {: #subdebate-46-0-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Mr Menzies:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 to 3. The compilation of a list of all ad hoc committees set up by the Parliament or the Government over ten years and a statement of the results which have flowed from them, would require a great amount of work including consultation with all departments and authorities. If the honorable memberis interested in the activities of any specific committee or of committees in any particular field, I shall be glad to arrange for information to be furnished to him. {:#subdebate-46-1} #### Banking {: #subdebate-46-1-s0 .speaker-BV8} ##### Mr Calwell: l asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are the taxable income figures of the trading banks for the financial year 1955-56, which are published in the 37th Report of the Commission of Taxation, the latest which are available? 1. Will he, under the powers conferred upon him by section 47 of the Banking Act 1945-1953, in order to disclose the effect of the Government's financial policy on bank profits, direct the Commonwealth Statistician to prepare and publish, to the nearest possible date, the taxable income and other information relating to the Australian income and expenditure ofthe trading banks as supplied under Form C of the second schedule of the act? {: #subdebate-46-1-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The figures in question are the latest published figures of the Australian taxable income of banks which are subject to Australian income tax. It is pointed out, however, that the balance-sheets and statements of profit and loss furnished by individual trading banks in accordance with Forms A and B in the second schedule to the Banking Act 1945-1953 are published regularly by the Commonwealth Statistician. The latest such publication was in respect of the year 1957-58 and appeared in " Gazette ", No. 24, dated 16th April, 1959. 1. From the time when the Banking Act was first enacted in 1945, no direction under section 47 of the act has ever been given to the Commonwealth Statistician for the publication of figures derived from the returns furnished by trading banks in accordance with Form C in the second schedule to the act, and I am not disposed to consider issuing such a direction without thoroughly examining all the implications of doing so. I shall, however, look fully into the matter when considering what directions, if any, should be given to the Commonwealth Statistician under section 59 of the Banking Act 1959. Greta Migrant Hostel. {: #subdebate-46-1-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Greta Migrant Hostel in New South Wales to be closed down? 1. If so, has the Government accepted the responsibility of finding alternative accommodation for the present occupants of this hostel? 2. What are the details of any alternative arrangements? {: #subdebate-46-1-s3 .speaker-KCK} ##### Mr Downer:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Greta Migrant Centre is to be closed on a caretaker basis as from 15th January, 1960. 1. The present occupants of the centre are being encouraged to move into the community but, where this is not possible, alternative accommodation will be offered in other Commonwealthoperated establishments. 2. The locations at which the accommodation will be offered will be governed by the circumstances of the families concerned but the following general principles will be followed: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Those families where the breadwinneris working in the Newcastle district will be offered accommodation at Mayfield Migrant Workers' Hostel. 1. Where the husbands are already working and are living in private accommodation at Sydney or on the South Coast, the dependants will be provided with accommodation at Scheyville Migrant Centre. 2. Those breadwinners requiring employment, e.g. former staff members, will be moved to migrant workers' hostels at Sydney or on the South Coast and allocated to employment from there. Their families will also be admitted as residents of these establishments. {:#subdebate-46-2} #### Television {: #subdebate-46-2-s0 .speaker-K97} ##### Mr Galvin:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA n asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the reason for the long delay in the commencement of the operation of the Australian Broadcasting Commission's television station ABS2? 1. When did planning for the construction of the station begin, and when will regular programmes commence? 2. Will ABS2 be equipped with (a) a videotape recorder, (b) an automatic film processor and (c) a crane camera? 3. Is this range of equipment installed at the Commission's stations in Melbourne and Sydney and also at the two commercial television stations in Adelaide? 4. Will ABS2 have only one studio, and will this equal in size only some of the rehearsal rooms at ABV2? 5. If so, does this indicate that few live shows will be produced? 6. Have sufficient funds been made available to provide ABS2 with offices, studio, equipment and other facilities to enable it to compete with its two commercial competitors? 7. Will he ensure that ABS2 is not to be treated as the Cinderella station to the Commission's television stations in Sydney and Melbourne? {: #subdebate-46-2-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The commencement of the ABS2 service has not been delayed. It was planned to begin in February-March, 1960, and deliveries of equipment were geared to this date. 1. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is responsible for equipping the studio centre and providing the programmes for ABS2 and the Postmaster-General's Department for providing the transmitter. The studio and transmitter buildings were constructed by the Department of Works. Tenders for the equipment for which the Australian Broadcasting Commission is responsible closed on 20th March, 1958. It is expected that the regular programme service will begin not later than mid-March, 1960. 3 (a), (b) and (c). No. 2. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has at present no videotape recording equipment at any of its television centres. Tt has one camera crane each in Sydney and Melbourne and equipment for processing telerecordings in both these centres, but this equipment is not used for processing cinecamera films, as it is fully occupied with telerecordings. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is not in a position to provide information about the equipment owned by the Adelaide commercial television stations. 3. ABS2 will have one studio which will be larger than one of the studios in regular use in Melbourne and Sydney. 4. Live news bulletins as well as other local programmes will be produced regularly in the Adelaide studio. ABS2 will also have - as in Sydney and Melbourne - a single OB unit for the coverage of sporting and other events outside tha studio. 5. Yes. 6. The service provided by ABS2 will contain the best of the programmes available to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The honorable member can be assured that viewers of ABS2 will have a programme service of the same standard as that available from the national TV stations in Sydney and Melbourne, with a suitable proportion of Australian, including South Australian, material. {:#subdebate-46-3} #### Lakemba Post Office {: #subdebate-46-3-s0 .speaker-KUX} ##### Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES t asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Are any extensions, repairs or alterations to the Lakemba Post Office to be undertaken during this financial year? 1. If so, what work is proposed? 2. What is the estimated date of (a) commencement and (b) completion of the work? 3. What is the estimated cost of the proposals? {: #subdebate-46-3-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. Subject to available resources, alterations and additions are proposed for the adjacent telephone exchange building during the financial years 1960-61 and 1961-62. 3. (a) December, 1960; (b) December, 1961. 2. £34,000. {:#subdebate-46-4} #### Sydney to Melbourne Coaxial Cable {: #subdebate-46-4-s0 .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr Costa: a asked the Postmaster-General, upon notice - >What is the estimated cost of laying the coaxial cable from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra? {: #subdebate-46-4-s1 .speaker-KCA} ##### Mr Davidson:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >A contract to the value of £2,115,000 has been placed for the supply of coaxial cable for the Sydney-Melbourne project and a contract for the supply and installation of the equipment necessary for the operation of the cable has been placed at a cost of £1,575,000. Other expenditure will be incurred on laying the cable, construction of buildings and the purchase of mechanical aids which will bring the net cost of the whole project to about £4,400,000, after taking into account the value of materials which will be recovered from the existing aerial wire trunk-line route. {:#subdebate-46-5} #### Therapeutic Substances Act {: #subdebate-46-5-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Why has the Commonwealth not drafted a model State therapeutic substances act as (a) recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council on 19th November, 1952, and (b) proposed by the Minister's predecessor on 12th November, 1953? 1. Which Slates have passed acts on the manufacture and intra-state distribution and use of therapeutic substances, pursuant to (a) the recommendations of the National Health and Medical Research Council on 19th November, 1952, and 20th May, 1954; (b) the speech of the Minister's predecessor on 12th November, 1953; and (c) the Minister's reply to me on 27th August, 1958? {: #subdebate-46-5-s1 .speaker-JU8} ##### Dr DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Health · OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows - 1 and 2. All States have expressed their willingness to co-operate with the Commonwealth in providing any necessary legislation complementary to the Therapeutic Substances Act. To date, during the development and consolidation of the Commonwealth organization in this field, no necessity for immediate amendment of existing State law has been disclosed. As the need for supplementary State legislation is revealed, the scope and detail of any necessary amendments will be discussed with the States concerned. Discussions between Commonwealth and State officers subsequent to the National Health and Medical Research Council recommendation have shown that differences in existing law and in the division of departmental responsibility in the several States render inappropriate a draft uniform bill as originally contemplated. {:#subdebate-46-6} #### Trans-Australia Airlines {: #subdebate-46-6-s0 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury: y asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the item " Unearned Revenue, £219,862 ", which appears in the balance-sheet of Trans-Australia Airlines of the year 1958-59, represent passenger and freight bookings paid for in advance; if not, what is its nature and is it excluded from revenue shown in the profit and loss account for 1958-59? 1. Does the balance of payments in respect of aircraft amounting to £1,300,000 which is mentioned in the third last paragraph on page 32 of the fourteenth annual report of Trans-Australia Airlines, refer to payments due in the near future; if so, from what source is it proposed to meet this obligation? 2. Does Trans-Australia Airlines attach any significance to the considerable excess of current liabilities over current assets as shown in the balance-sheet? 3. Is this position expected to be a temporary one? 4. What interest charges were Trans-Australia Airlines required to meet on loans for purchase of aircraft? 5. What was the estimated loss due to the " rolling " strike by airline pilots in November, 1958? {: #subdebate-46-6-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Unearned revenue appearing in the balancesheet as at 30th June amounting to £219,862 represents passenger and freight bookings paid in advance and is excluded from the revenue shown in the profit and loss account for 1958-59. 1. Payments in respect of aircraft amounting to £1,300,000 will be met during 1958-59. The funds for these payments will be provided from loan moneys and overdraft accommodation arranged in connexion with the purchase of aircraft within the provisions of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945-59, the Airlines Equipment Act 1958 and the Loan (Australian National Airlines Commission) Act 1958. 2. The relationship of current liabilities to current assets varies in different types of industry, and in the particular circumstances Trans-Aus tralia Airlines does not attach any significance to the excess of current liabilities over current assets as shown in the balance-sheet. 3. No. 4. For loans under the Airline Equipment Act interest charges are at the rate of 41 per cent, under the Loan (A.N.A.C.) Act (1958) 4* per cent., and on bank overdraft at negotiated rates varied from time to time in accordance with normal banking policy. As most of the loans for aircraft purchases shown in the balance-sheet were incurred at the end of the financial year, interest payments in 1958-59 were relatively small. 5. £60,000. {:#subdebate-46-7} #### Timber {: #subdebate-46-7-s0 .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney:
PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA y asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has consideration been given to the representations made to **Mr. G.** A. Rattigan, Assistant Secretary, Department of Trade, on 24th July last by a deputation of representatives of the major Australian timber-producing States? 1. Is it a fact that timber production in Western Australia has declined by approximately 20 per cent, or 37,000,000 super, feet, in the last four years, and that producers have been selling Karri on the South Australia market at a figure below cost in an endeavour to retain at least a portion of the market in competition with North American timber? 2. In view of the position of the timber industry in Western Australia, will he give consideration to a review of the import licensing retrictions on overseas timber or have the matter again referred to the Tariff Board? {: #subdebate-46-7-s1 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Total production of timber in Western Australia, including sleepers, has declined by approximately 6 per cent, in the last four years. The production of sawn timber, excluding sleepers, has declined by approximately 17 per cent, or 30,000,000 super, feet in that period. It is not known whether Western Australia producers are selling Karri below cost on the South Australian market. Exports of timber from Western Australia to South Australia have been increasing and exports of Karri have more than doubled in the last four years. 2. The position is under consideration. {:#subdebate-46-8} #### Imports of Tiles {: #subdebate-46-8-s0 .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury: y asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When were tiles transferred from category B to category A for import licensing purposes? 1. Why were tiles not put on a replacement basis, as were many other items in a similar position, when import licensing was recently relaxed? 2. Did all or any group of tile importers, at the time of this relaxation, obtain an increase in their quotas for the current import licensing period? 3. Was any differentiation made between the various groups of importers when granting any increases; if so, why? {: #subdebate-46-8-s1 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. On 1st January, 1953. 1. Insufficient overseas funds were available to permit the transfer of all items to the Replacement licensing category. 3 and 4. The quotas of those " traditional " importers whose quotas were less than 120 per cent, of their imports in 1950-51, were increased to that level. This adjustment, together with the issue of special licences in some circumstances, was designed to correct a situation in which the share of total tile quotas held by many importers had declined as a result of concessions previously given to other importers. Trade with Japan. {: #subdebate-46-8-s2 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: e asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the Fifteenth Session of the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade be held in Tokyo during the next few weeks? 1. If so, is it expected that at this meeting, Japan will press for recognition as a full member under the Agreement? 2. Has Japan endeavoured to persuade Australia to abandon the use of safeguard Article XXXV. in the General Agreement which entitles this country to discriminate against Japanese trade by the use of tariffs or import quotas; if so, what was Australia's attitude? 3. Is he in a position to indicate, at this stage, the attitude the Australian delegation will adopt in relation to Article XXXV.? 4. If not, will he make a statement to the House on the matter before the Fifteenth Session commences? {: #subdebate-46-8-s3 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Fifteenth Session of the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was held in Tokyo from 26th October to 20th November. 1. The agenda for the session, like the agenda for previous sessions, included the question of the use of Article XXXV. of the General Agreement by a number of contracting parties in the case of Japan. Japan has continued to urge that those contracting parties cease to use Article XXXV. 2. The trading relations between Australia and Japan are being conducted in accordance with the Australia/Japan Trade Agreement. Japan has conveyed to Australia its desire that Australia should withdraw its application of Article XXXV. In accordance with the arrangements provided for in the Trade Agreement with Japan, Australia has undertaken to enter into discussion with Japan before July, 1960, with a view to exploring the possibility and examining the basis of applying the G.A.T.T. to our mutual trade relations. In reply to Japanese representations, the Australian Government has confirmed this undertaking. 3. At the G.A.T.T. session in Tokyo, the statement made by the Australian representative was in accordance with the position as I have just stated it. 4. See answers to 3 and 4. {:#subdebate-46-9} #### Import Licensing {: #subdebate-46-9-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has **Mr. Somerville** Smith been granted any licences since import licensing was first introduced? 1. If so, what was the value and classification of goods covered by each licence? 2. Upon what basis was **Mr. Somerville** Smith granted import licences? 3. Is **Mr. Somerville** Smith in business on his own behalf as an importer? {: #subdebate-46-9-s1 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- In answer to the honorable member for East Sydney, I suggest that if he refer to pages 230-231 of " Hansard" of 12th August, 1958, he will see that in a reply to a similar question he then asked, I said that **Mr. Somerville** Smith had received no licences from the department which any other citizen similarly placed had not received. I also said that certain commodities are freely licensed and any licences for these commodities which **Mr. Somerville** Smith may have secured were equally available to any other citizen. This was a comment on a statement publicly made by **Mr. Somerville** Smith. I must respect as confidential the business relations between any person or firm and the Department of Trade. I am not prepared to depart from this long-standing practice. {: #subdebate-46-9-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many prosecutions have been launched against individuals or companies deemed to have been guilty of infringements of the law in respect of import licensing? 1. How many convictions were recorded? 2. What is the amount of fines imposed by the court? {: #subdebate-46-9-s3 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Since March, 1952, prosecutions have been launched against sixteen individuals or companies involving seventy-four different charges. 1. Convictions were recorded against twelve of the defendants. Of the four, two were found not guilty, one died before hearing of the case and cases against one have not yet been heard. An appeal which has not been heard has been lodged against one conviction. 2. £795. In addition, penalties of imprisonment with hard labour were imposed on four individuals as follows: - Two years, fifteen months and two of nine months each. {: #subdebate-46-9-s4 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What appeal boards have been established to deal with appeals against the decisions of Commonwealth officers in respect of applications for import licences? 1. What is the composition of these boards and from what date did each commence to function? 2. On how many days have these boards sat since their establishment? 3. How many appeals have been received and dealt with by the boards? 4. In how many instances has the decision favoured the appellant? 5. What subsequent action is taken where the decision is to uphold the appeal? {: #subdebate-46-9-s5 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. An Import Licensing Advisory Review Board has been established in each State to hear appeals against departmental decisions refusing applications for import licences. These boards report to the Minister for Trade. 1. The boards consist of a chairman, who is a senior officer of the Department of Trade, and two non-governmental members chosen for their wide experience in the commercial field. The boards commenced to function in July, 1957. 2. 238. 3. 805. 4. Following recommendations by the boards, 27 appeals have been upheld in full and 178 have been upheld in part 5. Import licences are authorized in accordance with the decision. {: #subdebate-46-9-s6 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - >What scale of penalties is provided for offences committed in connexion with the import licensing scheme? {: #subdebate-46-9-s7 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The licensing of imports into Australia is carried out under the provisions of the Customs Act 1901-1959 and the Customs (Import Licensing) Regulations. Any penalties for offences committed against the Customs Act or regulations made thereunder are imposed in accordance with the provisions of the act. For example, section 233 provides for a penalty of £100 in respect of the importation of prohibited goods. {: #subdebate-46-9-s8 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - 1, Is an applicant for an import licence required to state precisely the goods which he proposes to import? 2, If so, is the holder of a licence permitted to import goods other than those stated in the licence without any further approach to the issuing authorities? 3, If permission is necessary, what is the procedure for securing an alteration of the licence? {: #subdebate-46-9-s9 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. An applicant for an import licence must state precisely the category item under which the goods are classified and give a description of the goods sufficient to enable the goods to be identified. 1. No. 2. An application should be forwarded to the Collector of Customs at the port where the licence was originally issued. Permission is generally refused. {: #subdebate-46-9-s10 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - >Is it an offence for the original holder of an import licence who fails to make use of the licence himself to (a) import goods on behalf of another person for a fee, commission or profit or (b) allow another person to use the licence for monetary gain? {: #subdebate-46-9-s11 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. If the licence holder imports the goods himself, and I stress the word imports, this action in itself would not be contrary to administrative procedures of the import licensing system. 1. A holder of an import licence cannot make that licence available to another person, whether for monetary gain or not. {: #subdebate-46-9-s12 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it possible for a person who is unable to satisfy the condition that he was an importer during what is referred to as the base year to secure an import licence? 1. If so, what conditions must be satisfied before an application in these circumstances is approved? {: #subdebate-46-9-s13 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. Licences have always been issued for goods in the Administrative category irrespective of whether the applicant was a prior importer or not, whenever essential need was established. The imports have been chiefly raw materials and equipment for industry. As pressure on our overseas balances has lessened, a wide range of goods has either been freed from licensing controls or put into the replacement category. There are now 430 such items representing approximately half of all our imports. All these goods are open to importation by any person regardless of his previous importing activity. The extent to which applicants, who did not import in the base year, can be admitted into the importing field for goods licensed under the so-called quota categories is mainly dependent on two considerations. The first is how much exchage is available for that purpose at the relevant time. The second is the concept of equity to traditional importers who would have imported much more in the absence of licensing. This must not be impaired. The Department of Trade receives many applications from newcomers for licensing facilities for quota goods. In examining these applications every endeavour is made to isolate the genuine case from the applicant who is merely seeking to take advantage of a restricted supply situation and who would not be a genuine stockholding importer in the absence of import restrictions. It is against this background that the Department of Trade and the Import Licensing Advisory Review Boards operate. They have a difficult task, but concessions are being made to bona fide new importers where they can be made without inequity to traditional importers. Applicants who are unsuccessful in their approach to the department have full right of appeal to the review boards, upon which sit two prominent businessmen and one official. {: #subdebate-46-9-s14 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that for certain classes of imports a licence is technically required although there is actually no restriction operating? 1. If so, what are the details and why is this practice adopted? {: #subdebate-46-9-s15 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Licences are required to import any of the wide range of goods included in the "Replacement " category. In brief, importers may apply for fresh licences every time they import these goods. Thus although the import of goods in the " Replacement " category is virtually unrestricted importers are not able to accumulate a " stack " of unused import licences. Licences are also required for the few items licensed under the Z category. Goods in this category are licensed freely but they are not suitable for Replacement licensing. The issue of licences enables a close watch to be kept on the likely future level of imports. {: #subdebate-46-9-s16 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was import licence No. J.135024 issued *to* an importer of soft goods? 1. Was this licence used, in part or in whole, for the importation of musical instruments? 2. Has he made an inquiry into this matter? 3. If so, what was the result? {: #subdebate-46-9-s17 .speaker-009MB} ##### Mr McEwen:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - >I have said on a number of occasions that I must respect as confidential the business relations between any person or firm and the Department of Trade. I am not prepared to break this confidence. I have also said that where any specific information is given concerning alleged import licensing irregularities the matter will be thoroughly investigated by the Department of Customs and Excise, and, if warranted, appropriate action will be taken. I have been informed by my colleague, the Minister for Customs and Excise, that the usual course has been followed in this particular case. {:#subdebate-46-10} #### Laos {: #subdebate-46-10-s0 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: n asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to an editorial in the Laotian Premier's paper " L'Independent " which was published as a Reuter's dispatch by the "Washington Post" of the nth October which stated that the Laotian Government would effect a compromise with the rebels and release eight jailed left-wing leaders, and guarantee the future existence of their Neo Lao Haksat Party, in return for an end of rebel activity and of North Vietnamese aid for it? 1. Can he state whether any military influence was used by the United States of America to urge the Laotian Government to outlaw leftists, and whether this precipitated the trouble in Laos? 2. If any military influence were used, was this in violation of the Geneva accords? 3. Will he arrange for the compromise peace offer by the Laotian Government to be communicated to, and fully examined by, the Australian Delegation to the United Nations? {: #subdebate-46-10-s1 .speaker-JWE} ##### Mr CASEY: -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No such peace offer has been made. 1. The suggestion is without foundation. 2. See answer to 2. 3. See answer to 1.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 25 November 1959, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1959/19591125_reps_23_hor25/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant