House of Representatives
10 September 1963

24th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 24th Parliament
  3. 1963

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

page 739

PETITIONS

Nuclear-free Zone.

Mr. CALWELL presented a petition from certain electors of the Commonwealth containing a prayer in relation to the partial nuclear test ban treaty, the strengthening ot the United Nations and the goals of total and general disarmament, the establishment of nuclear free zones, the independence of all nations, and the raising of living standards.

Petition received and read.

Aborigines

Mr. POLLARD presented a petition from certain citizens of the Commonwealth praying that the Government remove section 127, and the words discriminating against aborigines in section 51, of the Commonwealth Constitution, by the holding of a referendum at an early date.

Petition received and read.

Similar petitions were presented by Mr. Malcolm Fraser, Mr. Snedden and Mr. Fox.

Petitions severally received.

Social Services

Mr. LUCHETTI presented a petition from certain electors of the Commonwealth praying that the pension increase of ten shillings proposed in the 1963 Budget be granted to all age, invalid and widow pensioners.

Petition received and read.

page 739

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr CALWELL:
MELBOURNE, VICTORIA

– I direct a question without notice to the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that in the new coaxial cable between Sydney and Melbourne only two channels - one in each direction - are available for use by television stations? Is it a fact that the Post Office has entered into a three-year contract with television stations TCN Sydney and GTV Melbourne for the use of those channels for ten hours a day? If so, does! it mean that the Government has granted the use of this facility to two stations, both controlled by its friend, Sir Frank Packer, to the exclusion of all other television stations, both national and commercial? If these are facts, will the Minister explain how long this scandalous favoritism to one newspaper owner, whose newspapers are particularly friendly to the Government, is to continue?

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

– I am rather surprised to find the Leader of the Opposition mixing a lot of conjecture with a few facts that he has picked up and claiming that certain things have been done which have not been done. The coaxial cable between Sydney and Melbourne has been in operation now for a considerable time. When it was installed we stated that four of the six tubes would be utilized for telephone and telegraph services and that when a demand arose the remaining two tubes would be made available for use by television channels. It is rather remarkable that, although these two tubes have been available now for nearly two years, the only organizations which have approached my department with a view to some arrangement being made for their use are the two television organizations to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. In the discussions with those two organizations it was made plain that the Postal Department would not agree to any arrangement which would rule out the use of the two tubes by other television stations.

The present position is that an agreement has been reached - it is not an exclusive arrangement - for the two tubes to be used by channels TCN-9 and GTV-9 for a certain period each week. Within the last week or two, all channel 7 stations have approached my department to see whether a similar arrangement can be made with them. The discussions on that matter are proceeding. I want to make it plain that any arrangements which are made for the use of these tubes by television stations - that is why they have been installed - will reserve to the Post Office the right to use them at any time to cover important functions such as a royal visit or a nationwide speech by the Prime Minister. An arrangement has been made with certain organizations and discussions are proceeding with others. Additional tubes can be made available to organizations wishing to use the service.

page 740

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr ERWIN:
BALLAARAT, VICTORIA

– My question to the Prime Minister relates to certain criticism made by the Returned Servicemen’s League of one edition of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television feature “Four Corners “. Has he had an opportunity to read the script of that programme? Is he now in a position to make any comment?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– I received the script in question, and I discussed the matter with my colleague, the PostmasterGeneral, this morning. I have learned that this matter has been taken up by the acting federal president of the league directly with the chairman of the commission. That seems to be an appropriate way to discuss this subject. Therefore, at this stage I have nothing to add.

page 740

QUESTION

TRADE

Mr EINFELD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Trade. In view of replies he has given to previous questions in this House and of other public statements he has made, I ask: Does he still agree that many firms, either because they are controlled by overseas principals or because of agreements that they have with overseas companies, are unable to export their manufactured goods from Australia or, if they can export, may do so only to very limited areas? Does the Minister agree that this is a very dangerous limitation of Australia’s efforts to build up its export trade? Has he had a survey made recently of those companies in Australia which have agreed to such limitations of their export possibilites? Will the Minister make available to the House the results- of any survey made by his department? If no survey has been conducted, will he arrange for such an examination to be held immediately?

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

– It has not been my experience at question time to be asked to agree to something that a Labour member claims is a fact. However, the facts on the subject of the honorable member’s question are loosely known; I do not think they are known with precision. I am not able to say that the Department of Trade has conducted a specific survey on the matter referred to by the honorable member; but the department has a running knowledge and, I have no doubt, a fairly comprehensive knowledge of it. I will ascertain what facts are available and make them available to the honorable member and the House.

page 740

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr FALKINDER:
FRANKLIN, TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Air whether it is a fact that the British Minister for Air has had discussions with the Government on the subject of the TSR2 bomber as a replacement for the Royal Australian Air Force Canberras. Does the Minister expect to be able to make any early announcement of a decision as a consequence of those discussions and of the results of the R.A.A.F. mission which recently returned from overseas?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Air · FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have not yet had discussions with the right honorable gentleman. I met him at lunch to-day, and I am having discussions with him later this afternoon. The Government has not yet made a decision on this matter. When it is doing so, it will take into account every aspect of the aircraft available, including how they fit into the pattern required by the Royal Australian Air Force, their time schedule, range, cost price and date of delivery. When the Government makes its decision, it will inform the House.

page 740

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that in 1962-63 South Australia, with a population of 999,000, received £9,491,000 in Commonwealth housing loans, whilst Queensland, with a population of 1,500,000, received £3,900,000; and that in 1963-64 South Australia received £9,400,000 whilst Queensland received £4,300,000? Under what formula were those loans allocated, and what is the reason for those large disparities in the allocations between the two States?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– It is the practice at the annual meeting of the Australian Loan Council to determine the works programmes of the State governments for the financial year. The division of moneys between the State governments is on the basis of formulae and negotiations over a period of years. A total amount is available thereupon to each of the six State governments. It is for the State government concerned to decide how much of the total amount of funds available it proposes to apply to its housing programme. The Commonwealth Government does not determine that matter.

To the extent that a government applies its loan funds to housing purposes, it thereby reduces the amount available to it for other works purposes. I know that it suits some States, which do not feel that they have as acute a housing problem as other States have, to apply a rather larger proportion of their available funds to general works purposes other than housing purposes. I think it is within the knowledge of most of us that Queensland does not regard itself as possessing a housing problem as acute as that’ which exists in some other States. If figures relating to population increase are analysed, they reveal a rather slower rate of population increase in that State than in some other States. That trend is due partly, of course, to the flow of migrants to the various States of the Commonwealth.

In conclusion, I say that the disparity to which the honorable gentleman has referred is the outcome of the decisions taken by the two governments in the States concerned; it is not a fundamental disparity between the total funds available.

page 741

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister for Territories. Statements recently made suggest that opportunities exist for successful land settlement in New Guinea and Papua. Is this so? If the answer is in the affirmative, is it intended that a land settlement scheme will operate? If so, where can full particulars be obtained?

Mr HASLUCK:
Minister for Territories · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I cannot encourage the honorable member to hope that there will be large scale settlement of European settlers on the pattern of Australian land settlement. Our problem in connexion with the best use of land in Papua and New Guinea is one which is closely allied with the need for finding gainful occupation for an indigenous population of 2,000,000 people who are rapidly advancing. There fore, any settlement of European settlers there has to be related to the basic problem of re-settlement of and the provision of economic opportunities for the large local population. At the present time, there is no specific scheme in operation under which an Australian farmer is enabled to make application for a particular farm. From time to time, land which has been designed in farms may be thrown open for application and will be allotted by the Land Board. Further information can be obtained from my department.

page 741

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface a question addressed to the Postmaster-General by explaining that, because of the hilly terrain of the Newcastle area, a very big percentage of the television viewers there has never been able to select from a wide choice of programmes as thousands of viewers in other areas can do, although all viewers pay the same licence fee. I ask whether, before agreeing to the sale of 40 per cent, of the shares in television station NBN3 to persons outside the viewing area, the Minister studied the Australian Broadcasting Control Board’s report relating to television services for the Newcastle-Hunter River area? Was the licence granted originally to the Newcastle Broadcasting and Television Corporation Limited simply because it was a local independent company not associated with any Sydney company? Does the Minister now agree that, consequent upon the sale of these shares, the company is no longer a local one? If this is the case, does the Minister intend to proceed with the issue of a second commercial television licence for Newcastle, thereby complying with the recommendation of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board which apparently realized the viewing difficulties likely to be encountered by the Newcastle people?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– In his rather lengthy question, the honorable member for Shortland mentioned several points that I tried to note down. First, some of the difficulties to which he refers in connexion with the viewing of programmes from station NBN3 are difficulties which occur from time to time in the various areas as we develop them. They are difficulties which w endeavour to overcome as we go along. When we find out exactly the quality of reception being received from the various stations, we take such further steps as are necessary to improve reception generally.

As to the movements of shareholdings between certain Sydney interests and the local Newcastle interests, these were entirely within the scope of the act and to which I could take no exception. Let me say, however, that I have been informed that the control of the Newcastle station is still held by local interests. If the honorable member cares to come along to my office I shall give him information which will prove that what I say is quite correct.

Mr Jeff Bate:

– I will come along, too.

Mr DAVIDSON:

– Yes, you can come along, too. The question of a second licence is not being taken up by the Government at the moment because we are still proceeding with the development of television in country areas. Plans have been completed for the third phase which is now well under way. Applications are now being heard for the granting of licences in the fourth phase. Until such time as we extend television on a wider scale problems arising in areas already being served will not be taken up.

page 742

QUESTION

ARMY LAND HOLDINGS

Mr COCKLE:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for the Interior tell me whether there have been any further developments directed towards the release of the Army land at George’s Heights, Mosman? Has there been any indication of the actual area of land available for release, of the acceptance of such land by the New South Wales Government and of the likely date of the release of the land by the Commonwealth Government?

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

– I cannot give the honorable member any very recent information on this subject. The New South Wales Government was approached in October, 1962, I think, and asked whether it had any special interest in the land. We are still waiting for that government to say whether it has an interest. The area involved is about 32 acres, but the Army intends to retain a small portion, about 1 acre. This portion has not been precisely surveyed yet. As soon as I have any more information, I will convey it to the honorable member.

page 742

QUESTION

TRADE WITH COMMUNIST CHINA

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I would like to ask the Minister for Trade whether it is a fact that mainland China is pressing for Australia to accept more of its exports in reciprocation for the large volume of imports that it accepts from Australia. Does he agree that such a development would be consistent with the opinion, voiced often by Government supporters in this House, that if we export to a country we must expect to import from that country on somewhere near commensurate terms? Does he propose to accede to the Chinese pressure in order to preserve the large wool and wheat markets that Australia enjoys with China and from which this nation and its wool and wheat industries derive a worthwhile part of their prosperity? Does he believe it likely that Australia’s trade relations with mainland China will develop in a way similar to our trade relations with Japan?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The question seems to be hypothesized on a suggestion that the Government of mainland China has made some approach to this Government or has applied some pressure to this Government in respect of trade. There is no foundation whatever for any such suggestion.

page 742

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr KILLEN:
MORETON, QUEENSLAND

– I address a question to the Minister for Air. In explanation of my question I point out that recently I listened to a speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in which he said -

The Air Force is equipped, except for the latest Neptunes, entirely with aircraft ordered by the last Labour Government.

Can the Minister please give me the facts so that my own mind may be settled and so that the people may be able to judge whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was mistaken or was telling a whacking great fib?

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP

– I also heard the statement of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. As it disagreed with my understanding of the position I checked carefully with the files in my department. I found that - I am excluding the types of training aircraft used in Support Command - we have nine different types of aircraft in use by Operational Command. If the Bloodhound surface-to-air guided missile is counted, we have ten types. Nine of these ten types were ordered by the present Menzies Government and the tenth type - the old Dakota - was ordered by the first Menzies Government. In fairness to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I point out that a Labour government did quite a lot of the initial work in determining the suitability of one of the ten types - the Canberra. However, it was this Government that decided the type of engine that would be used in the aircraft and finally placed the order. I understood the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to suggest that the Government had ordered only twelve combat aircraft. I find in fact that we have ordered 430 and have received 300 of these.

page 743

QUESTION

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Mr McIVOR:
GELLIBRAND, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. What sum has been allocated for the preparation of pamphlets or other literature to explain the proposed restrictive trade practices legislation? Has the money so far spent on such documents been expressly authorized by the Government or the Treasury?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I have no direct knowledge of any sum so expended, but I shall treat the honorable member’s question as being on notice and see what information I can get for him.

page 743

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Government reached any decision on Australia’s defence commitments to the new Federation of Malaysia in the case of aggression against the federation by some other nation?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– This a matter upon which I expect that, before long, a positive statement will be made.

page 743

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Mr BRYANT:
WILLS, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. Does he approve of the efforts made to use political influence to interfere with the freedom of the Australian Broadcasting Commission? Will he make a forthright statement re-affirming the freedom of the national radio and television network to report on the same terms as the private enterprise communications systems? As the Australian Broadcasting Commission has been under attack, why has he remained silent when his ministerial responsibility must clearly be to defend his officers when they are carrying out their duties under a charter laid down by an act of this Parliament? Did he remain silent because he was afraid of the political power of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s critics?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– I would have thought that the fact that I have not issued a press statement about certain criticism which has been made about programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Commission would have been taken by any one as indicating that there was no political interference. That is the subject of my reply: It is perfectly obvious that there has not been any interference.

page 743

QUESTION

EGGS

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. It relates to the cost of the inquiry and the representations I have made on behalf of the egg-producing industry in Australia for the establishment of an orderly eggmarketing scheme throughout the Commonwealth. I ask the Minister whether any progress has been made in inducing South Australia to drop its dog-in-the-manger attitude to the proposed Commonwealth marketing scheme with a view to providing an orderly marketing scheme which will be of benefit to the whole of the egg producers in Australia.

Mr Beaton:

– I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to question No. 193 on the notice-paper, which deals with the same subject as the question asked by the honorable member for Moore.

Mr SPEAKER:

-The honorable member’s question is out of order.

page 743

QUESTION

RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES

Mr CLARK:
DARLING, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Is it proposed to bring down legislation implementing the restrictive trade practices proposals during the current session of the Parliament?

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

– As the honorable gentleman will know, the proposals of the Government have been the subject of discussion. I have received many representations. These I have been considering and when decisions are taken on them and Cabinet has decided the matter there will be the question of preparing the bill.

page 744

QUESTION

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the terms “ M.P.” and “ M.H.R.’” are both widely used in relation to members of this House, will he state which is the correct usage and what is the historical background?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– I heard, some little time ago, that this question had been raised. The facts are that in the first Commonwealth Parliament the first Prime Minister, Sir Edmund Barton, gave a ruling on this matter. The ruling was that the proper description of a member of this House was “ M.P.” and not “ M.H.R.” and that the proper description of a member of the other place was “ Senator “. I have no reason to doubt that those two pronouncements describe the correct usage. I occasionally see the letters “ M.H.R.” used in addressing articles to members of this Parliament. No doubt those articles are duly delivered by the Post Office. In reality, however, the correct suffix is “ M.P.”.

page 744

QUESTION

ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE

Mr JAMES:
HUNTER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Army. Has the Minister ever intervened to prevent the termination of the courses of trainees at the Royal Military College who have failed in their examinations or who have failed in other ways to meet the required standards? If so, how many times has he so intervened and what was the reason in each case? Does the Minister agree that ministerial intervention in such circumstances could seriously prejudice training at the college?

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

– I have not intervened in any case such as those postulated by the honorable member. In such cases recommendations are made by the commandant of the college, and his reasons are always given. I have had no occasion to disagree with any such recommendation.

page 744

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Mr TURNBULL:

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. No doubt the right honorable gentleman is aware that several members of this House requested, during the Budget debate, that he consider further the elimination of the practice of including freight charges on goods in the final computation of price for sales tax purposes. As this extra sales tax burden is borne chiefly by residents of decentralized areas will the Treasurer, despite the report of a certain committee, give further consideration to the requests that have been made by members?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– This matter has been examined from time to time as a result of requests similar to that now made by the honorable member. I have given detailed replies personally and I have also referred members to the lengthy statement which my colleague, the present Leader of the Government in the Senate, has made in the other place on behalf of the Government. I can assure the honorable member that the matter has been very carefully considered on previous occasions. It would not be appropriate for me to make any observations on policy at this time, and I can therefore merely make a note of what the honorable member has put to me in case any further review of the position is undertaken.

page 744

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr MONAGHAN:
EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Treasurer in his position as Leader of the House. The question concerns the rights of back-benchers, andI preface it by saying that members of the House did not know this morning what business was to be dealt with until they opened their morning newspapers. Indeed, on most sitting days members are in a similar state of uncertainty. Since many members wish to participate in particular debates, and to prepare for such participation, will the Government in the future give adequate notice to all members of the House, by circular letter, of the business that is likely to be dealt with from week to week?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I appreciate the interest shown by the honorable member in this matter and I can assure him that it is my earnest desire to ensure that members are given as much notice as is practicable of business that is likely to be conducted in the House. So far as the programme for this week is concerned honorable members should be in no difficulty. The legislation to be discussed was introduced some time ago and a second-reading speech was made on it. The details of the legislation have been available, therefore, for honorable members to study for some considerable time. The other business to be conducted - and which could well be expected at this time of the year - is consideration of the estimates. Details of the estimates have been available ever since the Budget was presented. I do not think that any honorable member would want to be a participant - nor would that be practicable - in the debates on the estimates of all departments as they come forward. Each honorable member probably has some special area of interest, and the details of that area have been available to him for study.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition keeps regularly in contact with me on the programme that the Government has in view. 1 try to keep him as fully informed as possible, and the Whips are in a position to give some notification of the business that is coming forward. It is the practice in the Government parties for the Whip to place on a notice board the titles of the bills that are to be considered and to ask members who wish to participate in the debates on these bills to put their names on a list. I have no doubt that the Opposition has its own method of dealing with such matters. I cannot give very long notice of forthcoming business because the programme is affected by the problems which the Government has to contend with day by day, but I give an assurance that it will be my continuing endeavour to see that the maximum possible notice is given to the Opposition.

page 745

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Did a deputation from the Australian Wool Industry Conference wait on him and other Ministers to discuss a proposal that the Government should make a contribution to wool promotion? If so, can the Minister indicate to the House the nature of the discussions that took place and the nature of the reply that was given to the deputation by the Government?

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

– A deputation from the wool industry did wait on the Prime Minister and other Ministers, including myself. The matters that the deputation submitted are now under consideration.

page 745

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR TRADE

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. I ask the right honorable gentleman whether he saw a recent letter, signed by the Minister for the Interior, calling upon him to resign? If the attack was justified, does the right honorable gentleman intend to take the advice of the Minister for the Interior and resign? If the attack was unjustified, does he consider that the Minister for the Interior should resign?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– I saw the letter referred to by the honorable member, but I am acting on my own advice.

page 745

QUESTION

WHALING

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister for Primary Industry relates to the disappointing whale catch for this season on the Western Australian coast. I ask the Minister whether he will institute an investigation to determine the reasons for the poor catch and, in particular, to discover whether whale catching ships from other countries have disregarded existing international whaling agreements.

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I think the reason for the poor whale catch on the Western Australian coast is simply that enough whales are no longer there: Twelve months ago the whaling stations on the east coast of Australia closed down because of a shortage of whales. Conditions are now much the same on the Western Australian coast. The only whaling station at present operating there is situated in the southwest of Western Australia. It cannot find enough humpback whales and is operating on sperm .whales., ,. , , . .

page 746

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Mr PETERS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– Has the Treasurer any idea when the committee inquiring into the Australian economy will submit its report? If not will he inquire of the committee whether a considerable time will elapse before its report is submitted? If that proves to be the position, will the Treasurer suggest to the committee that it make separate reports on various of the items submitted to it that could be considered independently and debated by this Parliament as urgent propositions?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– As I am responsible for this matter, perhaps I should answer the question. The committee, when it began its work, estimated that the preparation of a report would take not less than nine months, which seems a reasonable period of human gestation. The work may take longer. I do not know that I could agree that it would be desirable to have a few aspects of this matter made the subject of interim reports, because in a comprehensive view of the state of the economy any one aspect may have a bearing on another aspect. I do not feel disposed to ask the committee to give us interim reports or forecasts. I am perfectly certain that the members of the committee are working very hard in this matter. We have no desire to delay the presentation of the report, and I know that they have not, either. But, really, from the very beginning, it was quite clear that this could not be a quick job. This is not a catchpenny inquiry. This is an inquiry which involves very many aspects of the economy and a great deal of most scientific investigation.

page 746

QUESTION

FENCING WIRE

Sir WILFRID KENT HUGHES:

– I wish to ask the Minister for Primary Industry a question. Is he aware that farmers in Victoria are unable to obtain any fencing wire in that State at the present time? If this is to continue, will he confer with the Minister for Customs and Excise in order to see whether we can allow the importation of fencing wire free of duty until such time as the Australian manufacturers can supply the requirements of the farmers in Victoria?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– I have had no representations from any farmers in any part of Australia about a shortage of barbed wire or any other wire, but I shall look into the matter and see whether there is anything that I can do to help remedy the position. On a previous occasion, I approached the Australian manufacturers, who intimated that at certain times of the year they manufacture certain lines.I hope that they will be able to meet the demand.

page 746

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr LINDSAY:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

- Mr. Speaker,I wish to make a personal explanation. The honorable member for Watson (Mr. Cope) in his speech in the Budget debate on 27th August, quoted out of context a portion of the speech that I had made in that debate on 21st August. He left out the final half sentence of the portion that he quoted. The honorable member accused me and other Government supporters of careless indifference to the plight of the unemployed, and he failed to say that at the point in my speech from which the quotation was taken I had been explaining the difficulty of getting the right type of recruits for the Army and had pointed out that the unemployment situation would not alter this. The honorable member quoted me as having said -

I consider that 1.8 per cent. represents a very low percentage of unemployment. We have to remember that included in the 1.8 per cent, are a certain number of people who perhaps are unwilling to work, the sick and the invalid and also a large number of women.

He left out the concluding part of the final sentence, which, I think, would have told rather heavily against his point, and which read -

  1. . who, I think, would not be very useful in a fighting army.

The honorable member went on afterwards to make some libellous statements about me which had nothing to do with the Budget. As everybody knows them to be untrue, I shall let that go. I trust that in future the honorable member for Watson will restrain his flights of fancy and of eloquence and take care that he does not follow the same lines as were followed by his great friend, the late honorable member for East Sydney.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member is now entering into debate.

page 747

STATES GRANTS (ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE) BILL (No. 2) 1963

Assent reported.

page 747

COMMONWEALTH BANKS BILL 1963

Bill presented by Mr. Harold Holt, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

– I move -

That the bill bc now read a second time.

As I announced in my recent Budget speech, the Government has decided to provide a further £5,000,000 towards the capital of the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia. The bill now before the House provides for the necessary amendments to the Commonwealth Banks Act 1959-1962 to increase the capital of the Development Bank by this amount and appropriates the funds required for the purpose. The principal function of the bank, which was established under the Government’s 1959 banking legislation, is to provide finance to assist primary production or to establish or develop industrial undertakings, particularly small undertakings, in cases where, in its opinion, finance is desirable but would not otherwise be available on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions.

The Development Bank, since its establishment a little over three and one-half years ago, has made a significant contribution in its special field. By 30th June, 1963, the bank had approved nearly 7,000 loans to primary and secondary industries for a total amount of approximately £37,000,000. Of the total amount provided by way of loans, over £26,000,000 was for a wide variety of rural purposes, including pasture improvement, clearing, fencing, water conservation, the erection of farm buildings, and the purchase of plant, equipment and live-stock. In the industrial sector, the bank’s activities have extended to a large number of important industries, such as the engineering, chemical, transport, building material, food processing, textile and mining industries. In addition, the bank has provided extensive assistance for the purchase of equipment on hire-purchase terms by both primary producers and industrial concerns. The bank has also furnished a great deal of indirect aid through the supply of technical advice and the support of research efforts in the appropriate fields.

The Government is satisfied that the Development Bank is making a valuable contribution to Australia’s development. After carefully reviewing the bank’s resources, the Government has decided that the capital of the bank should now be increased by the further £5,000,000 provided for in this bill. This will raise the capital of the bank to nearly £31,000,000. In addition, the bank has substantial reserve funds and also has the use of sums borrowed from the Commonwealth Savings Bank. The total resources available to the Development Bank after the provision of the £5,000,000 additional capital will be about £70,000,000. The increase in capital will ensure that the bank is in a position to maintain its assistance to primary and secondary industry and should give the bank some scope to increase the level of that assistance.

This is one of a number of measures included in this year’s Budget for the promotion of developmental activity. I have much pleasure in commending the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Crean) adjourned.

page 747

LONSDALE EXCHANGE BUILDING, 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 tha Public Works Committee Act 1913-1960, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for investigation and report: - Construction of proposed Lonsdale Exchange Building, Melbourne.

Sir, the proposal provides for the erection at an estimated cost of £2,400.000 of a concreteencased steel-frame structure consisting of sub-basement, basement, ground and fourteen upper floors. The building will be situated in Lonsdale-street, Melbourne, and will provide for the expanding needs of the Melbourne local subscribers’ network and trunk-line communication systems. I table plans of the proposed building.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 747

REPATRIATION BILL 1963

Bill presented by Mr. Swartz, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Repatriation · Darling Downs · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to give effect to the Government’s repatriation Budget proposals, and to make other adjustments which will be of advantage to ex-servicemen and their dependants, and improve the effectiveness of repatriation administration.

The present repatriation system is the product of many years of development by successive governments. Its basis is sound in principle; and its evolution has kept pace with changing circumstances and needs, and, in the field of treatment, with developments in medical science. The present Government has regularly reviewed the system and from time to time has adjusted the rates of pensions and other benefits, and has introduced other measures to widen eligibility and improve services.

Among more significant recent changes in addition to progressive increases in the main pensions rates, are the provision of a full range of medical benefits for member service pensioners, provision of repatriation benefits for members of the forces on special overseas service which exposes them to risks beyond the normal conditions of peace-time service in the permanent forces, and extension of eligibility for service pension to Torres Strait Islanders. The measures with which the bill is concerned continue this policy of review and progressive development.

The Budget, of course, is not the sole instrument for giving effect to improvements within the repatriation system. This is illustrated by several changes, not related to the Budget, being introduced in the bill. Further, in the course of each year, many other adjustments and improvements, not requiring amendment of the act, are effected by regulation or administrative action. More recent developments of this sort include the grant, for member service pensioners, of a funeral benefit of £10, extension of medical benefits to war widows and children of ex-servicemen of the First World War who did not serve overseas but whose deaths have been accepted as due to war service, and removal of the limited means test which formerly applied to the rate of medicalsustenance paidduring periodsof in-patient treatment and essential convalescence. Continuing attention to administrative processes within the department has also resulted in speedier and more efficient service for those receiving benefits.

This year the Budget provision for repatriation services totals £120,500,000 - an increase of £12,800,000 on expenditure for 1962- 63. A substantial proportion of the additional expenditure reflects a projected increase in the number of pensioners and in the average percentage rate of pension payable for incapacity, as well as the cost for this year of the increased rates provided by this bill. It also includes substantially increased provision for medical treatment at both in-patient and out-patient levels to meet the estimated continuing upward trend in the numbers requiring treatment, as well as provision for new facilities and equipment.

In considering Budget proposals for 1963- 64, the Government has of course, had regard to the present economic situation, the general budgetary position, and the competing demands of the many sectors of the Commonwealth’s activities which must be reconciled and balanced.

As the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) has pointed out, the past year was one of strong continuous growth which seems likely to continue. Concurrently with that growth, we have achieved a gratifying stability of consumer goods prices. This is of particular importance to those having to live on fixed incomes, among whom are a substantial number of repatriation pensioners, notably those receiving the special or T.P.I. rate of war pension, most war widows, and service pensioners. The benefit of stable prices for this group needs no emphasis. Nevertheless, the Government has considered that further assistance by way of direct monetary supplement should be given this year to economic pensioners who are wholly or substantially dependent on their pensions, and to certain means test pensioners. The bill accordingly provides for a significant increase in the special or T.P.I. rate of pension, and in parallel with social service pensioners, new and increased benefits are provided for service pensioners. Of particular significance in this area are the new differential rate for single pensioners, and the provision being made for student children. The domestic allowance paid to the majority of war widows will also be increased by regulation.

An amendment to the second schedule of the Repatriation Act will give effect to the increase of 10s. in the special or T.P.I, rate of war pension bringing it to £13 15s. a week for a member pensioner. This rate is payable to those whose war-caused incapacities are such as to prevent them from earning more than a negligible proportion of a living wage, and to the war blinded. The new rate will also be paid to ex-servicemen who are temporarily totally incapacitated and to certain sufferers from tuberculosis.

The second schedule to the act also enables the Repatriation Commission to determine a rate of pension for sufferers from tuberculosis who, whilst not being totally incapacitated, are capable of only light or intermittent work. This rate, which is known as the Class B rate for tuberculosis, will be adjusted to provide an increase of 7s. 6d. to £9 15s. per week. The special rate of medical sustenance will also be increased to £13 15s. per week. This rate is payable, subject to certain conditions, where the ex-serviceman is receiving inpatient treatment for a war caused disability, and during a peroid of essential convalescence immediately following discharge from hospital. The limited means test which formerly applied to this rate of sustenance was recently abolished. To correspond with the increase in the special or T.P.I, rate pension the additional amounts payable to certain amputees under the first six items of the fifth schedule to the act are being increased by 10s. to £8 per week. A substantial number of exservicemen will benefit from these increases in the special rate, and from consequential adjustments.

The domestic allowance payable to certain war widows is to be increased by 7s. 6d. to £3 10s. per week. This allowance is payable to war widows who are over 50 years of age, who are permanently unemployable or who have a child under the age of sixteen years, or over that age but receiving approved education. More than 90 per cent, of war widows are in this class, and the increase in the domestic allowance will benefit more than 35,000 of the approximately 38,000 war widows. The increase will be provided by an amendment to the repatriation regulations under which this allowance is paid. Widows of deceased ex-servicemen whose deaths have not been accepted as due to war service will, of course, benefit from the social services proposals in relation to civilian widows with children. As a matter of passing interest, I might mention that all such widows with one or more children will receive an increase of £3 a week in the Social Services pension now payable to them. An amendment to the Native Members of the Forces Benefits Regulations will extend the new special or T.P.I, rate, and the new rate of domestic allowance, to eligible Torres Strait islanders under the Native Members of the Forces Benefits Act.

There is to be also an overall increase of 15 per cent, in the rates of education allowance payable to students, other than professional students, who are already catered for separately, under the soldiers* children education scheme. The minimum rate will now be 19s. per week for a child of twelve to fourteen years living at home. Higher rates are paid to older children, and to those who have to live away from home. The maximum rate will now be £4 17s. 9d. per week. These allowances are payable from the age of twelve years, while education or approved training is continued, to children of an exserviceman whose death has been accepted as due to war service, or who is receiving the special or T.P.I, rate of pension, or who is blinded as a result of war service. The allowances are also paid to children of ex-servicemen suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, and receiving the special rate of pension which is likely to continue for a period of three years. There is a substantial rise in the rate of allowance when the child reaches the age of sixteen years and its war pension ceases. Where the parent is also receiving a service pension, student children will also benefit to the extent of a further 15s. per week from the increased service pension benefits to which I shall be referring later. More than 7,000 children will benefit from the proposed increases in education allowance.

There will be increases for certain service pensioners in parallel with the increases for social service pensioners.’- In particular, the innovation of a special, and higher, rate for an age or invalid pensioner who is single will be incorporated in the Repatriation Act in relation to member service pensioners, giving them an additional 10s. per week. This will provide a useful supplement to the income of those means test pensioners who may have special problems by reason of living alone.

There are two changes, both of which provide additional benefits, in service pension eligibility relating to children. A member service pensioner, permanently unemployable, who has two or more eligible children now receives an addition of 10s. a week to his own pension in respect of the second and each such subsequent child. That amount is to be increased by 5s. a week to 15s. a week for each such child. Hitherto only children under the age of sixteen years have been eligible children for this purpose. For the future a child over that age, while he or she is a full-time student, will also be regarded as an eligible child up to the end of the year, 31st December, in which the child attains 18 years. Likewise service pensions which are paid, as well as the addition to the member’s pension, to a first, second, third or fourth child and which now cease at sixteen years of age will be payable during full-time education until the end of the school year in which the child reaches eighteen years. Children who have already reached the age of sixteen, but have not yet reached the end of the year in which they turn eighteen, and to whom a service pension is not now being paid will be eligible provided they meet the other conditions for this benefit. The addition to the member’s pension in respect of such children will also be restored. Those who are in this position will be invited to make an appropriate application to the Deptuy Commissioner of Repatriation in the State in which they reside. Finally, in the service pension field, the service pension payable to a wife is to be increased by 12s. 6d. to £3 per week.

The bill includes the amendments necessary to give effect to the proposals for the increased rate for the wife of a service pensioner, and for payment of the service pension to a student child after the age of sixteen years. No amendment is necessary to give effect to the other service pension proposals, including the differential rate for single service pensioners, since the legislation provides for these to follow automatically from the relevant amendments to the Social Services Act. The new service pensions arrangements will apply, of course, to eligible Torres Strait islanders under the Native Members of the Forces Benefits Act. For the convenience of those who are interested in the details, I have prepared a table which summarizes the repatriation budget proposals. With the concurrence of honorable members, I incorporate this table in “ Hansard “.

REPATRIATION BUDGET DETAILS 1963-64.

The following statement shows proposed variations in certain war and service pension rates, domestic allowances for war widows, and education allowances payable under the Soldiers' Children Education Scheme: - Notes. - (a) A " student child " will, for the purposes of the addition to member's pension, be regarded as a child under sixteen years. A child will be regarded as a student child from the age of sixteen years, until the end of the year in which it turns eighteen, if it - {: type="i" start="i"} 0. is stiff receiving *full-time* education; and 1. is not receiving invalid pension. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Payment of service pension to a wife or widow is made in cases where the member is or was receiving service pension on the grounds of permanent unemployability, or of suffering from tuberculosis, lt is not paid where the member's service pension is or was payable on the grounds of age. The effect of the measures which I have outlined is to allocate funds which are available for development of the repatriation system to areas of greatest need. Economic and means test pensioners who will benefit from the additions to their own pensions or allowances will also, if they have children under the soldiers' children education scheme, have the additional advantage of the increased rates of education allowance. With one exception, all of the amendments made by the bill will come into operation from the date on which the act receives the Royal Assent, and the bill provides for pension increases to be paid on the first pension pay day after that date. The exception is the payment of the new rate for single member service pensioners, which is to come into effect on a later date. This will be related to the date of operation of the relevant provisions of the Social Services Act, which are to operate from a date to be proclaimed. In conformity with the Government's policy of continuing review of repatriation administration, the opportunity is being taken in the bill to make certain other adjustments. The first of these will extend the right of appeal in cases where a member seeks acceptance of a sequela of tuberculosis which is pensionable under section 37 (3.) of the Repatriation Act. That section provides that if an ex-serviceman has served in a theatre of war and after discharge suffers incapacity or dies from pulmonary tuberculosis, the incapacity or death gives entitlement to the member himself and his dependants where appropriate as though the tuberculosis had been due to war service. Normal appeal rights exist in the case of tuberculosis for which acceptance is sought under the section. However, if there is a claim that a subsequent disabling condition is a sequela of hat tuberculosis, and a repatriation board rejects it, the appeal right does not extend beyond the Repatriation Commission. Likewise, in the case of a claim under the section in respect of death, where the primary cause of death was not tuberculosis but a sequela of tuberculosis, the right of appeal stops short at the commission. The bill provides for appeal rights in these cases to extend beyond the commission to the level of an entitlement appeal tribunal. The bill also includes an amendment which will provide for re-hearing by an entitlement or an assessment appeal tribunal of an appeal decided in the appellant's absence in cases where the absence is due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. An appellant to either type of tribunal is not compelled to attend at the hearing of his case, but is given notice of the date of the hearing and may attend or be represented if he wishes. It can happen that after an appeal is decided in an appellant's absence the appellant claims that, although he desired to attend or be represented, his absence or that of his representative was due to causes outside his control and which did not give an opportunity to seek adjournment; for example, a sudden illness. To prevent possible injustice the bill provides that a tribunal, on application within a prescribed period, may set aside a decision at which the appellant was not present or represented by an advocate and re-hear the appeal. The rate of pension colloquially known as the "double orphan's rate "-£311s. 6d. per week - is paid to a child under the Third Schedule to the act if the " member's " death was due to war service and the " wife " of the member is also dead. In this context the " wife" would normally be the child's mother, but this is not always so; for example, where there has been a divorce and remarriage. The existing legislation does not adequately cover the case of a child of a " deceased member " of the forces who is not in fact being maintained by its surviving parent, a step parent, or an adoptive parent. The bill therefore recasts the schedule to preserve the basic eligibility, and to allow a discretion to the Repatriation Commission to pay the " double orphan's rate " of pension to children in such circumstances. The bill includes a minor adjustment which relates to the date of lodgment of applications or appeals to the commission. It also recasts existing provisions for noti fication of changes in property or income by service pensioners, and for the recovery of overpayments which result from the pensioner's failure to carry out his obligations. The amended provisions will accord with similar provisions which are already included in the Social Services Act. Consequential amendments will also follow in some cases from the substantive provisions I have mentioned. All of these amendments are of a machinery character and will be explained more fully in the committee stage should further details be required. As I have indicated, the measures to which the bill gives effect continue the evolution of the repatriation system according to principle and need, and I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Haylen)** adjourned. {: #subdebate-29-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Is it the wish of the House that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day? There being no objection, that course will be followed. {: .page-start } page 752 {:#debate-30} ### APPROPRIATION BILL 1963-64 In committee: Consideration resumed from 29th August (vide page 715). Second Schedule. {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-KIH} ##### The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Is it the wish of the committee to consider first the proposed expenditure for the Department of External Affairs, as suggested by the Treasurer? There being no objection, the Treasurer's suggestion will be followed. The question now before the committee is, " That the proposed expenditure for the Department of External Affairs £13,502,000, be agreed to". {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- May I ask a question at this stage? I understand that the Treasurer, who is also the Leader of the House, has made this suggestion, which the Opposition supports, in order that there may be an opportunity to discuss the estimates for the Department of External Affairs before the Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** leaves to-night orto-morrow for his engagements, in respect of which we have agreed to pair him. 1 wish to suggest, **Sir, that** we might take the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department in conjunction with the estimates for the Department of External Affairs, since the AttorneyGeneral, in his other capacity of Minister for External Affairs will be absent from the country during the period when it would be expected that those estimates would come up for debate. We have agreed to the estimates for the Department of External Affairs being dealt with out of the usual order. {: .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt: -- The committee can deal with the proposed votes for both departments together, as far as I am concerned. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- That is what I suggest. {: #debate-30-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Is it the wish of the committee to consider the proposed expenditure for the Department of External Affairs and the proposed expenditure for the Attorney-General's Department together, as suggested by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Department of External Affairs. Proposed vote, £13,502,000. Attorney-General's Department. Proposed vote, £3,181,000. {: #debate-30-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- The question now before the committee is: "That the proposed expenditure for the Department of External Affairs, £13,502,000, and the proposed expenditure for the Attorney-General's Department, £3,181,000, be agreed to." {: #debate-30-s3 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr CAIRNS:
Yarra **.- Mr. Chairman,** the Department of External Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department are of very great importance. They contain for the Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** - one and the same person - problems that seem to have a great deal in common. I often wonder whether the solution of the problem of the restrictive trade practices legislation is any easier for the Minister than is the problem of South Viet Nam for the Government of the United States of America, with which we are associated. I do not envy the Minister, in his attempt to introduce restrictive trade' practices' legis lation into this Parliament, any more than I envy the Government of the United States in its attempt to find a democratic, progressive government in South Viet Nam. Both problems seem to me to be of the same order; and, when all is said and done, the last five or six years have produced no more towards a solution of one of them than towards a solution of the other. The Attorney-General has been no more successful in his attempt to introduce restrictive trade practices legislation into this Parliament than has the Government of the United States in its attempt to secure a democratic government in South Viet Nam. That makes the job of the Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General an unenviable one. Rather suddenly in the affairs of this parliamentary session, we are being asked to discuss external affairs. Very rarely does the Parliament have an opportunity to discuss external affairs. Rarely, if ever, does the Parliament have an opportunity to discuss a decision before it is actually made. The introduction of external affairs into this Parliament by the Minister invariably takes the form of his telling the House about something that has already happened and informing the House of a decision that has already been made, when the House and the people have had no real part in the making of the decision and the decision has been made by the Minister, some other members of the Cabinet and perhaps some of his advisers, but no one else. This is even thought to be a characteristic of external affairs because the matters are supposed to be so delicate and so important. I think that attitude is very much overdone. It is very necessary for matters of foreign policy to be discussed as openly as possible by the Parliament and the people. History in this field shows that governments have made mistakes and have gone wrong in proportion to the extent to which they have attempted to confine the decisionmaking to a narrow field. A book written by Joseph Frankel and called " The Making of Foreign Policy " has been published recently. In that book this matter is discussed theoretically. Of course, none of these questions is ever raised in this Parliament. I often wonder whether the Minister and his officers consider them at all. I am bound to think they must do so, but they never so much as hint to the Parliament that they are aware of this question. Our attitude to foreign policy is invariably a simplified one. Indeed, I think it is fatally over-simplified. There are a number of respects in which people approach matters relating to external affairs with over-simplified assumptions. The most common one is that the appeasement of the 1930's, the policy of going along with and failing to stand up to Hitler in his continuous march across Europe, was a calamitous failure and led inevitably to the Second World War. This is identified as a fact, and from this fact is assumed the kind of attitude that we should exhibit completely towards external affairs to-day. It is said that the Second World War was the consequence of appeasement in the 1930's and therefore we must be tough, strong and uncompromising to-day. Misleading parallels are drawn between men like Hitler and Soekarno. Misleading parallels are in fact drawn between the Communist system and the Nazi system, two totally different systems altogether. It is interesting to find now that, with the change in the balance of Communist power between China and the Soviet Union we have a conclusion like that which I read in the " New York Times " as recently as last week-end. Indeed, what I read was actually an assertion that the Soviet policy has always been conservative, that it has always been concerned primarily with the security of the Soviet Union itself and that the Soviet had struck out beyond its borders only when it considered that that security was endangered. It was an assertion that in fact there is no record of aggression associated with the Soviet Union in any way parallel to that of Hitler before the last war. So this over-simplified assumption that appeasement failed in the 1930's and therefore we should be aggressive and strong to-day is very misleading. This assumption is carried into problems that most materially affect Australia - the problems in what are called the revolutionary areas of the world. Those problems do materially affect Australia. It is of no use for any one to say that Australia should not be concerned about or interested in these matters because not only is there a possibility of involvement in a world war from incidents like those that happened in Cuba at the end of last year, but there is also the more direct question of the effect on Australia's position in Asia of events in countries like Indonesia, of the establishment of Malaysia, and the conditions obtaining in South Viet Nam. I submit that the Western attitude to this revolutionary situation has been oversimplified in terms of a military solution. That is not merely my own idea; nor is it that solely of the Australian Labour Party which has expressed the proposition in its policies over the last eight or nine years now. One finds that it is also the opinion of most of the people who are experts on the question. Here again, we hardly ever find any one in this House who has the slightest knowledge of what the experts have written about South Viet Nam. I am sure the Minister for External Affairs and some of his advisers must have such knowledge, but they never impart it to the House; they never tell us anything of their background knowledge of the situation, if in fact they possess such knowledge. In a very useful book called " Modern Guerilla Warfare " published last year, the whole field of anti-guerrilla activities in South-East Asia and other parts of the world is touched upon. This book is treated as a special text book for study in the armed forces of the United States of America and elsewhere. But it has been taken out of the National Library only three times in the last six months, and I myself took it out on two of those three occasions. Who the other member is who happened to get on to it, I do not know. It contains some of the best expert study on this question that is available to-day. Has the Minister ever heard of it? I do not know. An excellent article in the book was written by the Melbourne " Herald " writer, Denis Warner, who is recognized in most parts of the world as a solid expert on this subject. Unfortunately his employer, the Melbourne " Herald ", hardly ever publishes any of his work that is fundamentally critical of Western policy in countries like South Viet Nam. In his article he discusses the nature of Western policy in South Viet Nam and expresses this conclusion - >Diem was not alone in interpreting the Communist threat in conventional military terms. This was Seato's interpretation and Washington's also. He concludes - and the importance of this is that most other experts have come to the same conclusion - >This problem was seen and considered essentially as a military question in which a military remedy was sought for in a situation that was economically, socially and politically explosive. In this article which he wrote in 1961, he said - >Yet there are many causes for disquiet. Saigon rumbles with discontent, an abortive paratroop coup last November lowered the flash point and Diem's failure to respond to advice since the coup had brought about some profound changes in what passes in Saigon for public opinion. The Government has not become more broadly based, is not more liberal, and remains, in effect, in the hands of an extremely limited group centering on Diem, his brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, and the secretary of the presidency, Nguyen Dinh Thuan. Diem still commands personal respect and even admiration, but many Vietnamese have lost confidence in his leadership. Then Warner gives us some idea of what goes on in these countries, for he says - >Certainly military action is necessary against the Viet Cong. It is also inevitable that of the approximately 400 Viet Cong killed each month-- Four hundred killed each month! - many should be innocent bystanders. So many camp followers and women guerillas are mixed up with the Viet Cong that any estimate of the numbers killed in error is at best only a fairly wide guess. How many can be " killed in error " and for how long can such killings continue? The question that arises is how any policy of that kind can ever succeed. Is it not now thoroughly established that in order to provide an effective answer to communism in any of these parts of the world it is essential to follow the policy which goes to the economic, social and political roots of the situation? During my studies of the debates of this Parliament, I found that this was stressed more thoroughly by the late **Mr. Ben** Chifley than by any other person in this Parliament. Indeed, this has been the foundation of the Australian Labour Party's policy and attitude towards foreign affairs. We said that unless some action was taken to deal with these underlying social and political questions no possible military attack on the problem would ever lead to a solution. We have been saying that for five or six years now in relation to South Viet Nam. We find, too, that influentual Americans have said the same thing. We know that now from reading the recent report of the committee led by **Senator Mansfield** of the United States of America. In his report, which was published at the end of last year after some 2,000,000,000 dollars worth of economic and military aid had been poured into Laos, **Senator Mansfield** came to this conclusion - >It is most disconcerting to find that after seven years of the republic. South Viet Nam appears less, not more, stable than it was at the outset. Less stable now, after a period of seven years in which 2,000,000,000 dollars worth of economic and military aid had been poured into that country! The Opposition says that the adoption of such a policy in the revolutionary areas adjacent to Australia has failed to provide the very thing that the Government and its Western allies profess to want - an effective answer to communism. We say that unless some effective change is made in those areas, then, one after the other, they will go the way that South Viet Nam is going. We challenge the Government to say whether it proposes to continue to support these essentially military methods of dealing with what is an economic and social problem, or whether it proposes to submit alternatives. It may well be that in a case like South Viet Nam no alternative is possible to the reactionary police state which the Diem Government controls. In recent times we have seen that government's haphazard killing of people extend beyond those who are called the Viet Cong. It is being extended to priests and nuns of the Buddhist faith and to students of the schools and universities. The Government of South Viet Nam can survive only with the aid of the military force provided by the United States of America. It may well be that there is now no alternative. If this is so, we must remember that the continued support of this regime for seven long years has produced the present situation in which there is no alternative. Other countries are in a similar position. It is pretty clear that if the Western powers, with Australian support, continue in this way, the outcome in these areas will be the same as the experience in Viet Nam. This policy is not in the interests of Australian security; it is striking at the fundamentals of Australian security. We want to know whether this Government of ours, with its advisers, ever takes into account the evidence that has accumulated over recent years that this kind of policy is a failure. Are the Government and its advisers aware of this, or do they in their private and secret consultations, which are so much a part of external affairs, use the same kind of general platitudes that they use in public? Do they know any more about the subject in private than they reveal in public discussions. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #debate-30-s4 .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr MACKINNON:
Corangamite -- 1 think it is rather significant that the opening speaker for the Opposition on the estimates for the Department of External Affairs should be the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Cairns),** who is notoriously a very left-wing thinker. We agree that the problems of South Viet Nam should concern us very deeply and are the problems of a country that is relatively close to us, but the honorable member did not suggest any solution other than destruction. He said that the Australian Government was thinking purely in terms of a military solution, but surely most honorable members of this committee realize that Australia's approach to <he problems of South Viet Nam, and to the problems of other countries in SouthEast Asia, is based on economic and social possibilities. I think any one who has given any thought to this matter will realize that our main effort is designed entirely for that purpose. We have made some military contribution. We have, I believe, through assisting the fortified hamlet system, made it possible for the country to produce a type of society that is not so subject to subversion and attack as the previous society was. Surely the honorable member for Yarra will realize the impossible situation that faced the country, with subversive agents constantly infiltrating the boundary areas. It has been necessary to devise some powerful rural administration in an effort to solve the main problem. The honorable member is quite right to raise this subject. However, it is easy enough to talk in generalities but not so easy to get down to fundamentals. I believe that most people in Australia at the moment, quite rightly, are concerned with what is happening to our immediate north. We think in terms of the setting up of the Federation of Malaysia and the attitude of the Indonesian Government and the Philippines Government to the formation of the federation. As the honorable member for Yarra mentioned, we think also of the very unfortunate happenings in South Viet Nam. But I think at this time in discussing our external affairs policy we should direct our attention to the shadow of Chinese Communist expansion - to the threat which is hanging over all the countries of SouthEast Asia and, indirectly, hanging over Australia. After all, we do not have to look very far to see what happens to people who try to placate. We know the unfortunate effect of the conflict between India and China on relations between India and Pakistan, which were never good at any time. All these events have created tremendous pressures which have reverberated throughout the whole of South-East Asia. I suggest to honorable members that our main pre-occupation at the moment, and one that will stay with us for some time, is the shadow of Chinese Communist expansion over that area. I think it was a particularly wise decision of the Government recently to arrange for a parliamentary delegation to visit the areas to our north. It visited countries of South-East Asia which many of us talk about and of which few of us have any practical experience. I hope that this visit will be the forerunner of many similar visits in the future. It gave honorable members an insight into the local conditions of these countries, particularly their economic conditions. The members of the delegation also had an opportunity to meet personally many of the people who are responsible for the policies of these countries. The information obtained by the delegation will help to keep Australia well informed of what is happening to our north. We will also have a better understanding of the problems of these countries and will be able to turn our minds to logical and practical ways of helping them. The visit was extremely valuable to all the members of the delegation, not excluding the members of the Opposition, whose pre-conceived ideas, possibly formulated by their left-wing colleagues, have been considerably dispelled. I believe that they returned with more understanding of the problems and are now in a better position tb give leadership to the people of Australia on the subject of foreign relations. After all, until comparatively recently, Australia had only an academic interest in foreign affairs, but, mainly as a result of the withdrawal of the stabilizing British, French and Dutch influences in the countries to our north, foreign affairs have become a personal matter for every Australian. I do not propose to speak in detail about these problems. I believe it is unfortunate in a way that only this occasion is available to honorable members to discuss foreign affairs, and I hope that the Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** and the Government will arrange for a general debate, particularly on the subject of SouthEast Asia. However, I do not want to waste the opportunity given at this time to discuss what I believe is a very important matter for the people of Australia, and that is our representation overseas. My remarks are based purely on my own observations and do not arise from my position as chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. I believe that we owe a great debt of gratitude to those who serve us overseas. Visits overseas give honorable members and others who travel an opportunity to see what is being done for Australia by these people, who work under conditions of no great ease. They suffer a certain amount of discomfort in areas where many problems present themselves. Our officers overseas must have common sense and the power to absorb ideas. I think all honorable members will agree that our representatives should be the best that we can obtain. If we believe in the strength of our overseas representation, we must also believe in obtaining the best representation that we can. Honorable members who have gone overseas must have concluded that we are being very capably, efficiently and wisely represented, particularly in the area to our north. I mention this area particularly, because I visited it recently. We should examine the conditions under which our representatives work and I want to address my brief remarks to this theme. It is quite reasonable to say that prior to World War II. there was no career in the British foreign service unless an officer had a private income. I hope this circumstance never applies to the officers of our Department of External Affairs. I believe that our overseas officers should be able' to carry out their tasks without the constant economic pressure of difficult living conditions and salary complications. However, there is no real yardstick for measuring what is too much or too little or what is enough. I am quite satisfied that the methods of arriving at the determinations that apply to our overseas representatives, as carried out by the Public Service Board, do not really take full recognition of many of the factors which occur in regard to that type of employment on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia. I feel quite certain that there are many features which have been ignored. It would be extremely difficult for anybody going away from Australia, without a wide knowledge of conditions overseas, to arrive at a logical solution of the problem. I hesitate to express my views on this subject because they might be taken as a reflection on the qualities of our officers overseas. Nothing could be further from my thoughts. I believe that all who have been abroad - myself included - and have had eyes and ears must be impressed by the general standard of those who represent us. I believe that in this we must also give some recognition to the wives of our officers overseas, who play such a very important part in the complicated task of representing national opinion and of representing the best things that we stand for. Going back a few years, I recall that after the war there was a very rapid expansion of the Department of External Affairs. There was, at that time, built into the job, a certain amount of glamour attached to foreign service. The department was able to secure many first-class recruits - both men and women - who, if not already there, are now getting to the top of the department. But with the prosperous conditions that came in the early 1950's and with the general world inflation which took place at the time of the Korean war and afterwards, difficulties were immediately manifest. The first was a strong competition from industry and commerce on the question of remuneration. Quite obviously, commerce and industry were in a position to offer very attractive terms to the type of men and women that we would like to have in the Department of External Affairs. Another problem which followed on world inflation was that of fluctuating currency values in overseas countries and the cost of living variations which, at that time, were very prejudicial to the position of those officers whose conditions had not been completely determined under the Public Service Board's formulas. I have seen specific instances of this in my own experience, and I know it arouses in the officers concerned quite a degree of uncertainty - an uncertainty which, while I am not suggesting it actually did so, could have had some detrimental effect on the quality of their work. Both of these influences acted against recruitment to a certain extent. 1 believe that at the moment the problem is being overcome and that we are again attracting very suitable candidates in adequate numbers to the Department of External Affairs. I believe that the difficulty caused by the fluctuation of the values of currencies could be overcome to a certain extent by giving the Minister some financial power to adjust any immediate problem that occurred. I have not had an opportunity of finding out to what extent this power would be available, but I understand there is no such power at the moment and any adjustment of this nature has to be made through the Public Service Board and also through the Treasury. When examining this problem I think it is just as well to realize some of the implications of overseas service. Admittedly, it has a degree of glamour, but there is also a tremendous responsibility to the people of Australia. In the area we are discussing, there is the problem of maintaining face, which is always a consideration, particularly in South-East Asia. When it comes to looking after our nationals who visit these areas we can only say, with a unanimous voice, that our officers are extremely generous and extremely thoughtful in making every consideration available to visitors and seeing that they are instructed and that their stay is made enjoyable. There is another consideration in this matter. How often does it happen - we have seen it ourselves - that when parties of Australian politicians or official or semi-official visitors arrive, somebody has to look after them during the outofhours period or what would be regarded as the out-of-hours period under Public Service working conditions. This is going on the whole time and is occurring more and more now that the advancement of air travel makes it so much easier for people to pay these places a flying visit. Visitors expect everything to be turned on entirely at the expense of the time and quite often of the pocket of our representatives in the area. It occurs at all levels, too. It applies not only to the men at the top, but throughout the whole range of these officers. This is a matter which deserves very serious consideration and honorable members who enjoy this feature of overseas travel should give it some thought. I suggest, in all seriousness, that it is quite impossible for those who determine Public Service conditions, based entirely on their knowledge of Australian conditions, to have any real appreciation of the problems which occur overseas. I have mentioned these few items because I think this is a matter in which we have a responsibility to our overseas representatives to see, not only that their work is not interfered with by their own personal problems, but also that they have a decent standard so that they can bring up their children and look after their wives under conditions such as we would expect of them as representatives of Australia. {: #debate-30-s5 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle .- I should like to speak about certain organizational questions and one that might be regarded as a point of high policy. The honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Mackinnon)** referred to the calibre of Australia's representatives abroad. 1 wish to comment on an angle of this question which has not been discussed, that is, the way in which the Department of External Affairs treats foreign nationals who are employees of the Commonwealth of Australia. I am referring to people who are chauffeurs, gardeners and servants at our embassies abroad and whose position may well affect the prestige of our country. In my travels, I found that some of these men were bitter about their wage levels, which were not living wages. It appeared to be the practice of the department to pay the market rate for labour. One would even find that our diplomats abroad say, " If we were to pay a living wage in this area the other embassies would complain that we were attracting servants from them and that the Australian Embassy was operating as a competitor with them ". I believe that the Commonwealth Government should pay no man less than a living wage anywhere in the locality in which he is employed. I am not saying that it should necessarily be the Australian basic wage level of payment. There are differences in the cost of living in various countries, but it is not beyond the wit of our representatives abroad to know what is a living wage. Some of us were in African countries recently and met chauffeurs who were paid £11 a month. Having observed the cost of living in those localities, we knew such amount was not a living wage. In my opinion this practice of the Department of External Affairs is disgracing Australia. If the present Government will not remedy the position I hope that when the Labour Party comes into power it will see that the people who are serving Australia abroad - the nationals of foreign countries - are properly paid, and, what is more, that when they have a long period1 of service they have something equivalent to superannuation rights and the knowledge that this country stands for the dignity of their conditions of labour, which at the present time it is not doing. The second matter I wish to speak about is language training. I think it is unenterprising of the Department of External Affairs, which finds among our citizens a lack of knowledge of oriental languages, to allow this situation to continue from year to year and do very little about establishing scholarships in Australian high schools or making possible a study of foreign languages, and especially oriental languages, in which our educational system is weak. I think the Department of External Affairs could be more enterprising in this matter. It is not merely a question of training the people who will actually be its employees, it is a question of encouraging a knowledge of oriental languages and civilizations within Australia, since we are a neighbour of oriental civilizations. I am not quite sure what the honorable member for Corangamite was driving at, but I think he may have been suggesting that recruits for the Department of External Affairs are obtained too young, and that there is a case for the recruitment of men who have made their mark in some other walk of life. {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: -- No, no. {: .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY: -- If that is not the honorable member's point, it is the one that I wish to make. It seems to me that we have a very high calibre of representation abroad on the part of our Trade Commissioners, who very often are men who made their mark in some other walk of life and were then attracted into the Commonwealth Government service. If the Department of External Affairs becomes more and more attached to the idea of recruiting men who have just graduated, giving them an inservice training and then sending them out after they have served only in the Department of External Affairs, it will lead, I believe, to a kind of professional narrowness which could well be alleviated by the selection of men who have made their mark in other walks of life. They may even have made their mark in the field of arts and letters. We have, of course, always followed the practice of appointing former ministers of the Crown to certain ministerial positions abroad. Our Ambassador in Washington and our High Commissioner in the United Kingdom are two cases in point. I am not referring to that kind of appointment; I am referring to appointments at other levels, although I do not exclude those high levels. I know that in the past appointments have been made from outside the Department of External Affairs, but I believe they have not been made often enough. One of the interesting points about Australian procedure at the United Nations has been the use of distinguished indigenous inhabitants of Papua and New Guinea to speak at meetings of the United Nations. These people have made a very good impression. Complimentary references have been made to them by the representatives of the Afro-Asian powers and of the Soviet bloc. It is quite clear that they start off with certain advantages in speaking of various subjects, because they have, perhaps, a greater facility for speaking to the heart of Asia and to the heart of Africa and of many under-privileged parts of the world than Europeans have, or Australians of European descent. But although we have followed this procedure with people from Papua and New Guinea, we have never had the imagination to follow it with persons of the Australian aborignal race. There are some very distinguished persons of that race who could well serve this nation, in the Department of External Affairs, at meetings of the United Nations. I am not necessarily referring to permanent appointments. Many people overseas would be very interested to meet such persons. I know that we would not want to have them discussing at length the status of the aborigines, although if they did it might provide quite a stimulus for us to change that status. I believe that such persons would be well-received. I know that a distinguished aboriginal lady from Victoria was received as a queen in the Philippines a couple of years ago. There are men of the aboriginal race, as well as women of that race, of very high quality and very high standards of conduct whom we should consider in this regard. Another point I want to refer to is one that was raised, in part, by the honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Cairns),** who spoke of the lack of emphasis upon social standards when discussing our foreign policy, and in our acts of foreign policy. He was referring in particular to the position in South Viet Nam. I do not want to refer to a country which may well be on the verge of communism, and then come hastily to decide whether there are certain things that may produce social stability in that country. I think there is a longer-term consideration involved than that of simply buying off people from communism. Not only has the present Government not spoken through its Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** on this sort of subject; it has, in fact, spoken through its Minister for Trade **(Mr. McEwen)** in a recent debate against the sort of policy that should be adopted. In the Lok Sabha in India, where the Nehru Government has been under censure on the question of social conditions in India, it has been stated that there are 270,000,000 people in that country living on an income of 6d. per day or less, and that of this 270,000,000 there are 150,000,000 living on an income of 3d. a day or less. I am not looking at India as a country that is likely to go Communist; I am merely suggesting that this is a situation that ought tb conce'rn this nation. It has been the practice on the Labour side to regard Viscount Bruce as one of the ultra-conservative figures of Australian history, but that gentleman did campaign for world food trade, for the capacity of under-privileged countries to buy, and for food production. One senses that the Food and Agriculture Organization has faded out as a force and that Australia's main fear, expressed through its Minister for Trade, is that somebody might make gifts which would cut into our trade. We hear nothing from the Minister for External Affairs which would show a real recognition - as a stimulant to action - of the fact that massive poverty, malnutrition and social injustice can cause a complete collapse of social sanity and lead to chaos. It is not a question of fear of revolution. We often mistake the relationship of starvation to revolution. I think it was the historian, Lord Acton, who once said that revolutions were born of hope, not despair, and who pointed out that the French peasants were far better off and had far more prospects of getting their land in 1789, and before, than Polish peasants who were in a state of desperate, downtrodden poverty that was beyond any sort of reaction. I do not expect revolution from people dying in the streets in Calcutta; it is far more likely to come from Indian university students who at the moment are alienated from the Communist Party in India by the actions of China. When China was testing out India it was China's belief that a very minor military action might lead to a complete social collapse induced from the outside and not the inside. Such instability comes from this massive poverty which can lead so quickly to chaos. I do not know of any Australian action with regard to this matter. I know of the campaign of the Minister for Trade against Public Law No. 480 in the United States of America and of his campaigns against American gifts. I think his whole attitude has been completely mistaken. The rehabilitation of various countries, such as Japan, by American gifts, has made our market. We have no need to fear rising living standards anywhere. We have no need to fear that if somebody is saved foreign exchange by the United States of America, what we lose on the swings we will not make'- 'up on the' roundabouts. ' But, leaving all those considerations aside, there seems to be a complete lack of any impulse in Australia to bring back into the Food and Agriculture Organization the kind of drive it had when Lord Boyd-Orr in the immediate post-war years was its main spokesman. Somehow or other the ideas that prevailed in those days have been steadily stifled, I think for the kind of considerations that have sometimes been uttered in campaigns such as that directed against Public Law No. 480 of the United States of America. This is not a question simply of dealing with countries that are under immediate threat, such as South Viet Nam and elsewhere. The question is whether we stand for the survival of the people in other countries, whether we are to participate in a programme for the rehabilitation of the under-privileged countries, or whether we are concerned exclusively with a very short-term view of what are our interests in trade, which I feel has been characterized by the utterances of the Minister for Trade. I think that he is a very efficient Minister in many respects, but when he deals with questions such as Public Law No. 480 he is dealing with external affairs, and with the wrong motives. We would like positive contributions from the Minister for External Affairs rather than exhibitions of trade rivalry. {: #debate-30-s6 .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES:
Barker .- As the honorable member was concluding his speech, he might have added that if we did something about the enormous barrier that we have erected around our textile industry in Australia - an industry that produces commodities which countries like India are in a position to produce - and allowed the Indians to sell their textiles here, many more of them would have the money - particularly the foreign exchange - to buy their food. They would then gain the sort of self-respect that comes from such transactions and which cannot be gained from the acceptance of gifts made in circumstances such as the workings of Public Law 480. I take this opportunity, as did the honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Mackinnon),** to say one or two things about the recent parliamentary delegation to South-East Asia. I had the honour to be a member of the delegation. I believe it was of great value, not onlyin giving mem bers of the delegation an insight into the countries they visited, but also in terms of the goodwill created for Australia in this very important area. I am sure that the Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** will have received reports from his staff overseas which support the accuracy of my judgment. I hope that the Minister will be impelled to make such visits annual events. If so, I suggest that the parties should be smaller and that fewer countries should be included in the itinerary. I want to commend the Opposition members of the delegation, and particularly the deputy leader of the delegation, the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen),** for the way in which they threw their weight behind the leader of the delegation in order to present a united Australian front. In doing that, they were working in the best interests of their country. I have no doubt that on occasions this involved them in the exercise of a great deal of self-restraint, but in this they served their country well. The same cannot be said of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** He was not a member of this delegation but he chose the time when his colleagues were away to make remarks in his Roy Milne Memorial Lecture at Armidale which, for sheer irresponsibility, can seldom have been equalled by the remarks of a leading member of an Australian political party His remarks were widely reported in the countries we visited and in some quarters they tended to cancel out the goodwill and the impression of unity we were able to create. The honorable gentleman is nothing if not ambitious, as all honorable members realize. We know him as a supreme political opportunist. I am prepared to be charitable and to believe that some of the views he expressed are not the views he really holds, but were views he thought it necessarv to express to enhance his standing in his own party. {: .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury: -- Expediency. {: .speaker-KFH} ##### Mr FORBES: -- As my honorable friend reminds me, they were made from expediency. But what can be said of a man who, in the name of opportunism, expresses views on delicate international subjects, without any regard whatsoever to the effect they will have on hiscountry's policy and standing? At a time when honorable members from both sides of this chamber were discovering from first-hand accounts in Malaya and Singapore the great value that responsible leaders of those countries put on the continued presence of Australian troops in Malaya, this tyro, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, took the opportunity to criticize the presence of our troops there. At a time when we were being told of the valuable work our troops were doing, together with other Commonwealth troops, in containing Communist terrorists on the Thai border, the honorable gentleman was saying that the emergency for which the troops were sent there was ended and that they should be brought home. At a time when we were receiving irrefutable testimony - I challenge Opposition members of the delegation to deny this statement - of the vital importance to the forward defence of Australia against Communist aggression of the continued presence of our troops in Malaya, and at a time when we were learning something of the delicacy of the situation in relation to their use for Seato purposes, what did this patriot, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, see fit to say with all the authority his office gives him? He saw fit to say, in a sneering way, that Australia regards Malaya as a useful training ground for her Seato forces. This statement must have sounded splendid to the Malayan and Singapore Governments, who were utterly convinced, as they told us, of the importance of the continued presence of our troops, but were wrestling with internal political difficulties in relation to them. Are these the regimes that were referred to by the honorable gentleman when, later in his lecture, be said that our support was too uncritical and too unqualified? Was the honorable gentleman referring to the Governments of Malaya and Singapore? He could not have done those Governments more harm by his remarks if he had deliberately set out to harm them. At a time when members of the delegation were gathering some of the facts about Seato and the Communist threat to South-East Asia, the honorable gentleman was sneering at and disparaging Seato. From the battlefront in Armidale, he was making the lofty generalization that "military containment has proved a demoralizing failure". This came at a time when the Thai foreign minister was telling us how disappointed Thailand had been with the failure of Seato to take resolute action in Laos, but was expressing approval of the action taken by Australia and other countries to meet the threat of overt Communist aggression in northeastern Thailand. The leaders of South-East Asia are practical men, faced with ensuring the security of their countries. They are not impressed by cliches uttered in the cloistered atmosphere of Armidale. They are not impressed by statements such as that economic development schemes offer the only hope of containing communism. If the honorable gentleman had bothered to find out what was going on in north-eastern Thailand he would have known that a tremendous amount of economic development has been initiated there by the Thai Government, including a very valuable feeder roads project carried out under the aid programme which he, in his lecture, affected to despise. He would have found also that the only thing which makes economic development possible in northeastern Thailand is the protection afforded by the deterrent effect of the Seato forces, including our own Royal Australian Air Force squadron at Ubon. The delegation also visited this station. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had spoken to the Prime Minister of Malaya, he would have found out that the Tunku is a passionate believer in the value of economic development in frustrating peaceful penetration by the Communists. But the Malayan Prime Minister has no illusions about the importance of adequate armed force when peaceful penetration turns into open armed aggression. The difference between the honorable gentleman and the Tunku is that the Tunku and his people had to fight for their existence for twelve long years. The Tunku, unlike the honorable gentleman, knows from bitter experience of Communists what he is talking about. I think that the major impression that I got from this visit was that the old patterns of attitudes that have developed in SouthEast Asia in the post-war years, and particularly since most of the countries there have become independent, are disappearing and re-forming into new patterns. This is particularly true of the non-alined countries, but also, in another sense, of a country like the Philippines, for instance, which, while retaining its defence relationship with the United States of America, has moved to a position of greater independence of that country. The biggest single factor in this change has been a growing consciousness of the menace of Communist China. This has brought the non-alined countries closer together, with an inclination to seek a regional solution to their problems. We discovered with pleasure that in this they quite naturally think of Australia. In this situation, India, though she would not become a member of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization, is now disposed to recognize its value, and Burma refuses to be critical of it. **Dr. Subandrio** went to great lengths to explain to us the situation that had led to Indonesian opposition to Seato in the past - a situation that he was at pains to point out no longer exists. Malaya, as is well known, has always given the activities of Seato its tacit support. Thailand and the Philippines, of course, are members of the organization. This situation, as I say, has been brought about principally because the countries concerned have become increasingly conscious of the danger of imperialist or Communist China. The adjective used depends on the country in which it is used, but it adds up in the long run to the same thing. This consciousness of external menace is reinforced for most of the countries by the existence of substantial Chinese minorities in which Chinese chauvinism grows as China becomes more powerful. I have sketched this situation at some length, **Sir, because** it seems to me to be the most important influence at work in South-East Asia to-day. It is also the situation in which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, in typical fashion, chooses to make a passionate plea, in the lecture that I have already mentioned, for the recognition of Communist China and its admission to the United Nations. What utter irresponsibility! There is not one country in Asia or South-East Asia to-day, with the possible exception of Burma and Indonesia, that would not curse us for recognition of Communist China. What would India, whose policies the honorable gentleman professes to admire so much, have to say about it? What would Malaya, struggling to build a Malay nation from a multi-racial society, have to say? Or Thailand, struggling to keep Chinesesupported Communists out of her northeastern frontier? Yet, **Sir, this** jewel in the Australian Labour Party's crown - this apostle of moderation - has the hide to say, " A Labour government in Australia would much more deliberately and wholeheartedly enter upon the policy which Australia's neighbours desire "! Which neighbours? What policy: Recognition of Communist China? Withdrawing Australia's support for Seato and our troops from Malaya? Publicly criticizing what he believes to be unpopular régimes? Non-alinement? Are these the policies that we should pursue and that our neighbours desire? Let the honorable gentleman point out the neighbours that want them. Or perhaps he means that we should wholeheartedly support Indonesia's more extreme attempts to wreck the proposed Federation of Malaysia. **Sir, the Deputy** Leader of the Opposition should remember that his office carries responsibilities as well as rights. The least he should do before he gives a lecture that is quoted and reported all over SouthEast Asia is to be sure that he knows what he is talking about. Perhaps he could go to South-East Asia. He was given a trip at the Government's expense last year. Did he call there on the way abroad or on the way back? I do not think so. He preferred to wallow in the flesh-pots of Europe. Failing a visit to Asia and SouthEast Asia to find out for himself, he could at least, if he were a responsible person, have waited until our delegation came home so that he could check whether his assertions would bear scrutiny. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- I wish to make a personal explanation, **Sir. The** honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes)** has just- {: #debate-30-s7 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- (Hon. W. C. Haworth).- Order! What is the personal explanation about? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- The misrepresentations made by the honorable member. THE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN. - The honorable member has not yet spoken. He will have an opportunity to speak if he wishes. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- I do not have to make a speech in order to correct misrepresentations, **Sir. If** any honorable member misrepresents me in his remarks in this chamber I am quite- {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! Has the honorable member been misquoted? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Yes. The honorable member has quoted, I assume, from newspapers in South-East Asia- {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- I rise to a point of order, **Sir.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not yet spoken and therefore there could not have been any misquoting or misunderstanding of remarks already made by him in this debate. Remarks made by the honorable member for Barker are objected to by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who, if he wishes to speak on the estimates for the Department of External Affairs, will have an opportunity to do so. Or, by leave of the committee, the honorable gentleman may make a personal explanation. Does he wish to make a personal explanation by leave? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Yes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Is leave granted? Government Supporters. - No! {: #debate-30-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Leave is not granted. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: -- Then I shall make a speech, **Sir.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. {: #debate-30-s9 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa **.- Mr. Temporary Chairman,** the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes)** devoted most of his remarks to statements which he alleged I had made in the Roy Milne Memorial Lecture at Armidale on 9th July of this year. He quoted, apparently, from newspapers published in South-East Asia. I have not seen those newspapers. I do not know whether he has correctly quoted them. If he has, they have not, it seems, correctly quoted me. But there is no excuse for the honorable member when he misquotes menow, because the lecture which I gave at Armidale, like all the Roy Milne Memorial Lectures, has been printed by the Australian Institute of International Affairs. The lecture which I gave was printed a fortnight ago and it is available to every citizen of this or any other country who is interested in the subject. I say no more about this except that I think it is grossly irresponsible and unfair for any honorable member to quote from inaccessible newspapers the views of another honorable member when the views of the honorable member being quoted are readily available in this country. The honorable gentleman has had certain academic training and certain opportunities in life which should make him much more responsible than he is in these matters. We all make certain allowances for the honorable gentleman when he speaks in the evening, but there is no reason for him not to be responsible at this time. There is no excuse for his failing to arm himself with the actual text of the lecture, which has been available. I had not proposed to speak in this debate, **Sir, and** I hope that I shall not have to take up the full time available to me. I shall not deal with the general matters concerning Seato, Indonesia, China, aid to developing countries and so on, on which the honorable gentleman spent less time. The greatest part of his time he spent on views which he said I had expressed concerning Malaya and I will deal with that subject alone. His concluding remarks were of regret that I had not acquainted myself with the position in Malaya when I went abroad last year. **Sir, my** trip was made available to me to ascertain the prospects of the pending application by the United Kingdom to join the European Economic Community and the effect that that application might have on Australia's trading and political relations. I visited every country of the Common Market except Luxembourg. On the way to Europe through Asia, and on the way back through America, I visited as many Commonwealth countries as I could. I visited no countries other than Commonwealth countries, European Economic Community countries and the United States, whose influence in the trading and political matters then current was crucial. I did visit Malaya, Singapore and India. I had the privilege of a frank and full conversation with the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaya - Tunku Abdul Rahman and Tun Abdul Razak. I believe that I understood their point of view. I believe that they understood my point of view. In fact, our views on all relevant matters were in agreement. I have not criticized the Government of Malaya. Only a fortnight ago, when given leave to speak after the Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** had spoken on the subject of South Viet Nam, I said - >The Malayan Governmenl is a democratic government - certainly as much so- {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr Jeff Bate: -- Is the honorable member quoting from " Hansard " of the current period? If he is, would he not be out of order? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN.Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is in order. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Yes, I am quoting from " Hansard " of this current period. I said - >The Malayan Government is a democratic government - certainly as much so as any government in South-East Asia. . . . {: .speaker-JTP} ##### Mr Bury: -- More so. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I believe it is a more democratic government than any in SouthEast Asia. I agree with the honorable member for Wentworth. Singapore has a more democratic government than Malaya but it is not an independent state. Of all the governments in the independent countries in South-East Asia, in my view the Government of Malaya is the most democratic. I will read in full what I said on the subject of Malaya so that honorable members may place their own interpretations on my words and may judge for themselves whether the honorable member for Barker has correctly represented me or whether the newspapers, which he has quoted wholly or partly, correctly or otherwise, have represented me correctly.In the general section of my lecture under the heading " Alliances and Commitments " I said - >Australia's commitment to Malaya is in very veiled and vague terms and cannot be verified from any public documents. During the recent dispute between Indonesia and Malaya, the Malayan Prime Minister said that Australia would support her in the event of war. Only an embarrassed silence came from the Australian government. > >The strongest opposition to sending Australian troops to Malaya was on the ground that they were sent by agreement with a colonial power and without consulting the Malayan people who were shortly to achieve independence. The same criticism must be made of the recent assistance which Australia gave to the British following a request to them from the Sultan of Brunei. The assistance was not provided under any treaty arrangement whatsoever. Nor were the Australian people informed. I can tell the Minister for Defence **(Mr. Townley),** who is interjecting, that in this passage of my lecture I was relying on a reply which the Minister for External Affairs had given to my colleague the honorable member for Hunter **(Mr. James).** The Minister said that the Royal Australian Air Force provided a Hercules transport to the Royal Air Force in Brunei without any treaty between the two countries. The Minister for Defence is again interjecting. I do not resent his interjections. This is a matter that should be cleared up. Our troops first went to Malaya before Malaya was independent. They went there without consultation with the Malayan Government. They went there by arrangement with the British Government, which was the ruling power. My lecture continued - >Just why our troops are still in Malaya is at times hard to understand. They were used in an emergency which has been declared at an end. Britain is reassessing the scope of the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. Malaya has refused to accede to S.E.A.T.O., has refused to accept S.E.A.T.O. bases and has not been designated by the parties to S.E.A.T.O. Our forces there cannot be used for S.E.A.T.O. purposes without the approval of the Malayan government. R.A.A.F. units on the way from Butterworth in Malaya to Ubon in Thailand had to be regrouped in Singapore. When Singapore becomes part of Malaysia, this regrouping point will be lost. At least until about a year ago, the Malayan government did not care whether our forces in Malaya stayed or went. To put it crudely, Australia regards Malaya as a useful training ground for her S.E.A.T.O. forces. As the Minister for the Army recently subtly put it, " They do not get at Canungra the atmosphere that they get in Malaya." > >Australian troops should not be stationed overseas unless Australia has an effectivevoice inthe policies of the countries where they are stationed. Any treaty arrangement should be clear and public and. if possible, involve mutual aid. The parties to the treaty should know their rights and obligations with precision; the countries which are not parties to the treaty should also know the implications of the treaty with precision. The concluding three sentences of that lecture, which I delivered on 9th July this year, were incorporated in Australian Labour Party policy by the biennial federal conference of the party in Perth at the end of that month. {: .speaker-4U4} ##### Mr Killen: -- Would you bring the troops back home? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- My answer to that query is perfectly clear. Unless a clear, public and, if possible, mutual treaty is formed, I would bring them back. But I do not believe it is beyond the wit or ingenuity even of this Government to devise and publish specific arrangements with another Commonwealth country, such as Malaysia. We on this side of the chamber believe that it is just as possible, just as necessary and just as fair to have a public and clear treaty with Malaysia or any Commonwealth country as it has proved to be to have treaties with the United States of America or New Zealand or with other interested countries such as the Anzus treaty or the Seato treaty. Those two treaties and the treaty relating to the North West Cape communications station are available for everybody to see. The first two are registered with the United Nations. All three are annexed to acts of this Parliament. The parties to the treaties know their rights of decision and consultation, they know when they have to act and they know when they may consult. The same should happen with Malaya or Malaysia. It is unsatisfactory to have troops or aircraft going, as originally happened in Malaya, to countries which do not govern themselves and which, therefore, were not consulted. It is unsatisfactory to have aircraft going to Brunei, which is not even under the jurisdiction of the British Government, which is a mere protectorate, which is not a democracy, which is not vital to resist encroachment by mainland China, and which has not yet supported Malaysia. Australia's interests are not served by a private exchange of letters. Why is it that we cannot have a clear, public and mutual treaty with Malaysia or with any of our neighbours, particularly countries within the Commonwealth, when we have the Anzus and Seato pacts and the arrangement with the United States relating to the naval communications station at North West Cape? This is not only a matter of relations between Australia and Malaysia or other parties. It is also a matter of the reaction of other countries which are not parties to such arrangements. Honorable gentlemen should know our obligations to Malaya, let alone Malaysia. The honorable member for Moreton **(Mr. Killen),** who has interjected, may adopt the same attitude as that adopted by the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** and the Minister for External Affairs, who in effect have said: " Malaysia is not in being yet. We will not jump our hurdles before we come to them." Why is it that we cannot do precisely the same in the case of Malaya as we have done elsewhere? Why should not other countries know the implications of such arrangements for them, as I asked in the lecture? The present position is demoralizing. The Prime Minister was asked at a press conference in July what our commitments were to Malaya and he replied, " We are not associated. We have no direct obligation to Malaya ". The Prime Minister of Malaya thought that we had in March and the Minister for External Affairs replied then that we had not. The Australian Labour Party believes that all the arrangements which this country makes with other countries should be made public for the Australian public to support, for this Parliament to debate, for our allies to rely upon and for third parties to note. {: #debate-30-s10 .speaker-KDN} ##### Mr ENGLAND:
Calare .- As is to be expected when dealing with the estimates for the Department of External Affairs, the debate has wandered over a very wide field. I intend to take it a little further but in a direction different from that taken by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** I address my remarks to Division No. 142, which relates to the appropriation for the Antarctic Division. I note that the estimate of expenditure for 1963-64 is £813,000, which is £940 less than the appropriation for 1962-63. Division No. 141 - Administrative^ - covers an appropriation of £800 for the Scott Polar Research Institute. Australia has a growing population, increasing wealth and is occupying a more prominent position in international affairs than has been the case in the past. Therefore, it is a disappointment to many to see that the appropriation for this purpose has remained more or less at a standstill. It could be wrong, however, to refer to the work as being at a standstill, because the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition is performing very creditable work in the continent of Antarctica, which is about one and a half times the size of Australia and in which, it is worth noting, we have laid territorial claims to a very large area. The efforts of our explorers and scientists over the years have been second only to those of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America. What is the value to us of the continent of Antarctica? In the first place, it already has a definite strategic value and, as we make further technical advances and learn to live in the area better than we can at present, it will increase in strategic value. But that is not the aspect to which I wish to direct my remarks. The significant feature is that the Antarctic continent to a very great extent is similar geologically to the continent of Australia. In the opinion of the experts it is conceivable that eventually there could be tapped in Antarctica vast mineral wealth similar to that which we have uncovered in Australia, even to the extent of oil-bearing deposits. The tenor of my remarks is that any race to exploit the resources of that continent will be led by the nations which have the highest standard of technical competence. At this stage I should like to pay a tribute to all members of the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition. We know that every year some 70 Australians winter in the Antarctic and carry out various functions at Mawson, Wilkes, Davis and Macquarie Island. They are under the leadership of **Dr. Law,** who has begun the long and gradual process of building up an organization with a competent staff. A top-level organization is already functioning in relation to a wide range of subjects. We are handicapped by a lack of trained manpower and funds but work is being carried out in the fields of zoology, botany, geology and glaciology. It is worth noting also that Australians in Antarctica are making a name for themselves in the field of meteorology in cosmic research. The medi cal branch is also contributing to world knowledge by its researches in the area. Medical officers attend to the normal medical requirements of the expedition and they have an opportunity second to none for conducting certain phases of research. **Dr. Law** spends a certain time each year in Antarctica and eight or nine months in Australia preparing for the next expedition by recruiting and training selected staff. After each expedition to Antarctica his department has the huge task of preparing reports and attending to the various specimens and so on which have been obtained. I have referred to this aspect because I am led to believe that great pressure is being borne by the specialists, due to shortage of suitable staff. We could well make some further effort to afford them relief. Naturally it is not fair to compare the terrific backing which the United States gives to its expeditions and the use it makes of its Navy with the contribution which we make. By comparison our contribution appears to be very small, but that is not a fair comparison to make. Men have learned to live around the fringe of the continent, where the temperatures, we are told, vary from freezing point to 30 degrees below. Techniques and special clothing must be developed to enable people to live in the interior of the continent where temperatures fall to as low as 100 degrees below freezing point. I think that the lowest temperature ever recorded was 127 degrees below freezing point. Those are not just dramatic figures. Those are temperatures which have been recorded and which will be repeated. We have to be able not only to live in those conditions but also to work in them. I am told that no country has solved the problem of living and working in such conditions throughout the winter. That is one of the tasks ahead of us. Australia is making distinct advances under this Budget. A lot of research is being carried out. On the mainland we have installed a cold room in which temperatures down to minus 60 degrees centigrade can be attained artificially for the testing of clothing, metals - which under the temperatures behave quite differently from their normal behaviour - and plastics. Throughout the world very little research has been done on this type of work. Australia can be proud to be up with the leaders in this field. Nobody has set out to design a snow vehicle. The snow vehicles that are known to us now are generally adaptations of other vehicles or makeshifts of some description. It is interesting to note that Australia is working on a completely new design of a snow vehicle for these conditions. It will be all-Australian in design, all-Australian in construction, and all-Australian in materials used, with the exception of an engine which will be imported. We need to work on a number of other things. One of the problems that we must face up to - I emphasize this particularly - is that the expeditions which are in situ at the moment are dependent for their communications on chartered ships. We have no ship owned by Australian capital for use in this work. We rely on such ships as the " Thala Dan " and the " Magga Dan " going there once a year to relieve the expeditions and to supply them. Occasionally, when we get into trouble, we have to call on the Navy. If the Navy is required, the only ship that is available and which has the range to get to the Antarctic and back is one in the cruiser class. Therefore, one of the tasks ahead of us is to consider building our own ship for this work. This is a suggestion. In my opinion, it could be manned by naval personnel. In the offseason, when it was not required in the Antarctic, it could be used by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization or some other organization for fisheries research and other types of research, even in equatorial waters. I am told by people who should know that once a ship is air-conditioned for polar work it can be used equally as well in tropical areas. A while ago I referred to medical work done by the Antarctic Division. That work is carried out under completely isolated conditions. Normally there are only six weeks of the year in which transport can get in and out. Therefore, there is very little opportunity for evacuation work. To sum up, I say that I look forward to an increase in the allocation of funds to the Antarctic Division in order to help these men, to encourage them and to improve communications generally. I lay particular emphasis on the provision of an Australianowned and Australian-designed communications vessel for this work. **Mr.** BRYANT (Wills) 15.191. - I was astonished at the contribution by the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes).** He entered this Parliament with a couple of distinctions which most people could only regard very highly. Yet, in this debate, when one would expect his contribution to be of a high order and generally aimed at raising the level of the discussion and adding something to it by his speech, he decided to descend to what I think was low and unworthy abuse of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** It is all right to take the arguments that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition adduced, to criticize them and to answer them; but for the honorable member to descend to the level to which he went in this debate was highly unworthy of both the Parliament and himself. I hope that he will not do that again. There were several points in his speech which I felt were worthy of some criticism. For instance, he referred to Thailand. We were discussing the general structure of the governments of Asia, the kind of people who govern that part of the world and what our relations with them ought to be. He referred in a very friendly way to the Foreign Minister of Thailand. Off-hand, I do not know who the Foreign Minister of Thailand is; but I do know that the Government of Thailand is undemocratic even by South Australian standards; that Thailand is a feudal State; and that to give aid to Thailand under its present government is to subsidize a feudal system and an outmoded and undemocratic system which has no place in the modern world. The honorable member for Barker referred to the Foreign Minister in terms of extreme friendship. Unfortunately, that is indicative of the picture that this Government and its supporters are giving to the people of the world; namely, that if a government is reactionary, if it is out of touch with modern developments and if it is keeping its people suppressed, either wittingly or unwittingly, that is the kind of government that earns our support. Unfortunately, that is the picture that we are managing to give to the people of the world. That is one of the reasons why we on this side of the chamber oppose very strongly most aspects of the foreign policy - or what goes for foreign policy - of this Government. The honorable member spoke, obviously with strong conviction, about the need for Australian troops to be in SouthEast Asia. Perhaps this part of the debate would be better discussed under the estimates for the defence departments, because I believe it is a defence question more than a foreign policy question. It seems to me that it is illogical to think that any contribution from Australia at the point of arms will contain the might of China or anybody else. I put a question to honorable members opposite and the people who are keen on keeping young Australians scattered around South-East Asia. I hope the mothers and parents of Australia will take heed of the eagerness of the honorable member for Barker to commit their sons to unknown military ventures in South-East Asia. I ask honorable members who have some sense of history: What has happened in every instance in which we have allowed our troops to be isolated as our troops are in Malaya? What happened in the Second World War to every single isolated contingent of Australian troops at Rabaul, Malaya, Ambon or Timor? Every contingent was lost almost to a man. This is a fundamental weakness in the defence conception. It is a weakness inasmuch as these troops are the spearhead of Australia's defence power and they are isolated from us. I am trying to look at this matter rationally, as a member of this Parliament and one of the people who are responsible for these young Australians. Fortunately, I do not think there is going to be a war. I think the world has moved towards a stage where we will keep the peace. But, as a fundamental piece of defence strategy, are our lines of communication to our forces in South-East Asia absolutely guaranteed? Are those lines of communication as secure as they were in 1941? I doubt it. The present state of South-East Asia can be debated from both the defence and foreign policy angles. On questions of foreign policy - more precisely, there is an almost complete lack of foreign policy - this Government seems to show extreme discourtesy to this Parliament. That is exemplified by the fact that at this stage, after months of silence and after recesses, when the world is in a state of change in so many spheres, the Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** thinks so little of us that he does not make a considered statement to us now so that we can discuss it in the debate on these estimates. I believe that this is an extreme discourtesy to the Parliament and I register my strong disappointment at his attitude. But there is nothing wrong with the public relations section of his department. It is working full time. It is turning out sheets and sheets and sheets of paper. I have samples here. It is turning out exercises in syntax, exercises in grammar, exercises in superficiality and in the abstract. It is turning out exercises in trivia. I have some of the Minister's statements here. The first one is headed, " Australian kangaroos for Ghana ". But he has nothing to say to the Parliament! Australian kangaroos for Ghana! The next one refer to Antarctic seals. The honorable member for Calare **(Mr. England)** will be pleased about that one. It states that seals have been discovered 600 feet up above sea level. He can tell us something about seals, he can give something for the press, but nothing for the Parliament. The next one relates to Colombo Plan badges. The Minister for the Navy and Acting Minister for External Affairs **(Senator Gorton)** pinned lapel badges on some Colombo Plan students. The public relations officers are turning out this material day after day. But Parliament is ignored session after session! We come now to one that could be regarded perhaps as a little more weighty contribution from the philosophers of the Department of External Affairs or the Minister himself. It relates to the meeting in Manila of the foreign ministers of the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaya. It is a statement by the Minister for External Affairs, a man who has achieved great distinction in his professional field in the past. But if we look through his report of this rather historic meeting, with all its implications for Australia, we find it but an exercise in the superficial and perhaps in condensation. The Minister welcomed the successful conclusions, he said. He was in a very happy frame of mind when this statement was issued. Throughout it he expresses the hope that the problems that had arisen in recent months would prove susceptible of solution - not that they would be solved but that they might be susceptible of solution. And he glows with satisfaction! I am glad he is satisfied with something because in his next paragraph he says, " We have enjoyed the friendliest relations ", and he also notes with pleasure that during the conference all three countries referred to the part which Australia can play. It is the part which Australia could play that I wish to deal with now. I think it could play a much different role in world affairs from the one which it is playing at the moment under this Government. Honorable members opposite seem to be confused about what is aid and what is not aid. The honorable member for Corangamite **(Mr. Mackinnon)** made what I thought was a measured contribution to the debate but I do believe he was in error in suggesting that the aid we are offering to the people of Asia, in Viet Nam and so on, at the moment is economic in character. It is purely military. There are experts who say that it is purely military. The honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Cairns)** quoted them. He referred to statements by **Senator Mansfield** of the United States Senate and by Denis Warner, one of the more notable Australian writers on this question. Those people say that it is military in nature. It must be military in nature. If you spend 1,000,000 dollars supporting a feudal system which is military in its own concept, then you are advancing a military attitude. I am afraid that at this stage in world affairs we are perhaps unaware of what should be done for the great sea of poverty and misery in Asia. I suppose 2,500 years ago Asia and Europe progressed almost in unison. In the last 400 or 500 years, Europe has been the dynamic continent of this planet. For lots of reasons, Asia has gone through a period of cultural and social stagnation. We shall not get anywhere in Asia unless we can achieve some kind of social and economic change, some cultural advance. It is significant that the two countries which have perhaps advanced more than the others socially and economically - Malaya and the Philippines - are more stable and more able to cope with the current position at the moment than perhaps Viet Nam, South Viet Nam, South Korea and so on, which have not advanced so far. Therefore, it is the industrial base, the cultural support, that has to be supplied. The 1,000,000,000 people in Asia need a lot more than wishful thinking, a lot more than the few troops that Australia can contribute. I suppose this is a great moment in history when the peoples of the world in general are co-operating to assist one another, when the Colombo Plan and other similar plans are crossing frontiers and the people of the world are coming together, but I think it is disappointing to a great proportion of the people of Australia that this Government's approach to nearly all questions of foreign policy is so abstract in many respects and so reactionary wherever it is required to take direct action. I turn now to the question of Australia's behaviour in the United Nations. Is it not true that at the United Nations we have acted with singular abstruseness? Is it not a fact that we have continually associated ourselves in all sorts of legalistic arguments with the Government of South Africa? Why is it that we should abstain from voting on a matter like the arms ban on South Africa? Why cannot we put up a few sign posts around the world? What is wrong with this nation? Admittedly we number only 11,000,000 people, but does that mean that we have no contribution to make? I remind honorable members of history. I remind them of the actions of the few million people in Britain 300 years ago and of the people of Athens 2,500 years ago. Were those people inhibited in their contributions to history by the meagreness of their numbers? Of course they were not! I believe that Australia has a particular role to play because, whatever European dynamics our actions might cause. I think we are free of most of the disabilities that a European nation would suffer in its dealings with Asia. Unfortunately, we are associating with all the worst aspects of European past history. I want to see the Minister take Australia into the United Nations and other international conventions and conferences with a more positive policy. For instance, he has issued stronger statements than usual about the French tests. I want him to say quite categorically to France that nuclear testing by France in the Pacific will constitute an act of aggression against Australia and all humanity. I want him to take whatever steps he may to prevent France from conducting these tests. I believe that France is' discarding its historical role in human affairs in proceeding in the way she is. I suppose one can sympathize with the nationalistic purposes of General de Gaulle, but at the moment he is out of step with what the world needs. I am rather pleased that sometimes one is quizzed from the other side of the House about peace movements, and so on. T associate with people who are interested in peace. Having been shot at once upon a time, I did not like it. I do not want anybody to shoot at anybody else, and I certainly do not want anybody to shoot at my sons. The Government and honorable members opposite have been very loud in their criticism and very hearty in expressing their contempt for the people who favour banning the bomb, but, strangely enough, as soon as the great powers come to some agreement on the matter we are the first in the field in expressing our accord with their views. I suppose that is an achievement for somebody, but I would like to think that the Government has recognized at last that, on this question, it can adopt a moral standard equivalent to that which other people in Australia have been espousing for a long while. There are other matters on which the Government could take a firm stand. One is the recognition of China. How long can the world go on with one of the largest nations isolated in the way it is? I do not think that the question whether we favour the type of government the Chinese have is important. If it were, I am sure that even the most reactionary members opposite - and there are quite a few of them - would be cutting off diplomatic relations with a number of governments with whom we are in accord at present. Somehow, we have to take whatever steps we can to bring China to her senses. In dealing with China, I think we were very remiss and very slow on the uptake in connexion with the Indian incident. The honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes)** said that the people of Asia, except perhaps those of Indonesia and Burma, would not look with favour upon our recognition of China. I point out that Indonesia is one of the largest nations in the world and surely we cannot treat that country in such an offhand fashion. So I say that the first element of our foreign policy ought to be to promote friendship with Indonesians and to find some sort of rapport with them. Again, as an act of sentiment, we ought to do our best for India. We ought to step into the United Nations in a forthright way and uphold a standard for human advancement, a standard that will give some sort of dignity to the suffering people on this planet, of whom two-thirds will go to bed hungry to-night. {: #debate-30-s11 .speaker-LLW} ##### Mr DEAN:
Robertson .- The honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant)** and other honorable members have referred to the type of government in the countries of South-East Asia. No one for a moment suggests that the governments ot some of these countries are democratic within the meaning of the term as we know it. We have had the privilege of inheriting a form of government that took many hundreds of years to evolve, and no one for one moment would believe that such a form of government could be instituted, say, within the space of fifteen to twenty years on the presentation of a ballot box. The honorable gentleman complained about the assistance we are giving to Thailand. One of our main reasons for being allied with the Government of Thailand is that it is a nonCommunist government and, like ours, wishes to contain the Communists within their present boundaries. We find there is a great difference between the views of Opposition members and ourselves on the question of membership of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization. The honorable gentleman referred also to the agreement for the partial banning of nuclear tests and to the change of the balance of power because of events in Russia and China. The honorable member for Yarra **(Mr. Cairns)** also referred to these subjects this afternoon. The honorable gentleman from Yarra referred to the policy of appeasement that prevailed before the Second World War. He said that some people wrongly thought this had led to the Second World War because Hitlerism had not been stopped, and the same people therefore thought that a strong policy should be taken against Russia. The honorable member suggested that this was entirely wrong. He suggested that there is not a record of aggression by Russia comparable with that of Hitler. The honorable gentleman seems to forget Poland, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, to mention only a few nations that have suffered from Russian action. I wish to reply particularly to the remarks of the honorable gentleman regarding the agreement for the banning of nuclear tests and the conflict that is going on presently between Russia and China. I believe that we must not be lulled into a false sense of security by the recent agreement on nuclear tests. It is certainly a most Important contribution towards world peace and men of good will everywhere will support it. But it certainly does not mean that Communist pressure in other parts of the world, especially in South-East Asia, will ease. The democratic countries must remain on guard and seek to contain communism within its present bounds. Although the honorable gentleman from Wills said that the stationing of our forces in the Commonwealth Strategic Reserve or our commitments with Seato are more properly discussed when dealing with the estimates for the Department of Defence, I would remind him that a full, wide and good defence policy includes good neighbour policies in our external affairs and also continuous national development. When we are considering the deep ideological dispute between Russia and China, we must realize that the objective of the leaders of those countries is still the defeat of the democratic countries. I think it is wise for us to have constantly in our minds when discussing the subjects before us at the moment the trouble spots on the periphery of mainland China. I referred in brief to these in my remarks on the Budget a little while ago, but I want to refer to them again because I think it is appropriate to do so in this debate. Recently northern Koreans have been crossing the demarcation line in Korea and we know that some American soldiers have been killed. There is a continuing tension in the Strait of Formosa. There are the activities of the Communist Pathet Lao in Laos. There are the increasing activities of the Viet Cong and the increasing troubles within Viet Nam itself. These we know are being directed mainly from north Viet Nam under the regime of Ho Chi Minh. There are the problems in the formation of Malaysia. There is the serious situation and uneasy peace along the Sino-Indian border and the reports of the massing of a large number of Communist troops in that area. There is the deterioration of the economic situation in Indonesia. I want to speak specifically about Australia in the Asian region. I have never thought of Australia as being a part of Asia, as some people do, but I realize that Australia is in the Asian region. I want to speak also of our increasing responsibilities because of our position in this region. I believe that as each year goes by the future of Australia is becoming more closely connected to events in and the future of Asia. In this context I would like us to consider also the future role of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Not so very long ago, during my own younger days, we talked of the British Empire. When we spoke of the British Empire, we thought of a group of countries that were mainly white, the majority of whose people were Christian and which possessed stable governments. These days, when we think of the British Commonwealth of Nations, we think of a group of nations, the majority of whose people are non-white and the larger number of whom are non-Christian and I regret to say that many of these nations do not enjoy stable forms of government. Many of the member nations are called emerging or developing nations. In this context, Australia is called a developed nation, I think in some ways quite wrongly, because of the need we all realize for the continuing and strong national development of Australia. The emerging nations are proud of their independence, but in some instances it is an unusual type of independence. For example, the former African colonies which have recently gained their independence have a free vote at the United Nations and they have a free choice of policy in some of their domestic responsibilities, but they are dependent on other countries for many things. We find that many of the newly independent countries depend on the United Kingdom to a great degree and to a lesser degree on the senior members of the Commonwealth of Nations. They are dependent on other nations for money for their national development. They are dependent on their friends and allies for their protection - protection given by the navies, armies and air forces of their friends. One of the interesting features that I have discovered in my discussions with representatives of these countries is that in general they have a strong wish to remain in the Commonwealth of Nations. I believe that this is a challenge to the senior members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and particularly a challenge to Australia, in the Asian region, to show continued leadership as one of the senior partners. We must, through our Department of External Affairs and by other efforts, achieve even greater co-operation with these countries than we have enjoyed in the past. There is also the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I know from my own experience that the delegates to this association have very much in mind the importance of the role that the Commonwealth can play in bringing these nations together in mutual co-operation and in the continued and strong development of the member nations. In the few minutes remaining to me I want to speak in particular of one of our stronger partners, Malaya. In doing so I wish to pay tribute to the Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, because I believe not only that Malaya owes him a great debt but also that those who are Malaya's partners realize we have had in the Tunku a good and strong statesman and a man who has been most reasonable in his approach to these difficult subjects and problems. To use a homely phrase, he is doing a good job for the Commonwealth of Nations. I am very glad that owing to the foresight which he and the Prime Minister of Singapore have shown, these two countries will be working as partners in the proposed Federation of Malaysia. It must be remembered that the problems of Malaysia will not end when the federation is formally proclaimed next week, but will continue for quite some time. We know of the strong objections lodged to the formation of Malaysia by neighbouring countries - by Indonesia in particular and, to a certain degree, by the Philippines also. I notice that Indonesia has been careful not to say that it will not accept the report of the United Nations observers, although Indonesian spokesmen have said they were not given opportunity properly to observe the survey being carried out by the United Nations team. I think that is an unreasonable attitude for Indonesia to take. Honorable members will recall that the context of the Manila agreement, to which the Indonesians referred, provided for observers. Indonesia asked for a large number of observers but Britain - in my opinion quite rightly - considered those demands to be unreasonable and said she would make arrangements for four observers and four clerical assistants from each of the countries concerned. It will be recalled that the Indonesian observers did not attend the first days of the work of the United Nations commission. I quote those facts as some examples of the problems associated with the formation of Malaysia and to give strength to my view that the problems will continue for a number of years during the time when the Malaysia proposals will be coming into actual force. I conclude by saying - this is my personal view - that it is the responsibility of Australia to take an even greater interest in the problems of Malaysia and, to the best of her ability, to give stronger assistance and co-operation in solving them. {: #debate-30-s12 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN:
Reid .- I believe that the important matter we are now considering under these departmental estimates should be discussed objectively and that most honorable members who have spoken have approached the subject in that manner. In a debate on international affairs, an honorable member should not indulge in personal remarks, such as the honorable member for Barker **(Mr. Forbes)** directed at the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** Unless we can solve problems of international relations objectively, without descending to personal remarks, there is very little chance of attaining peace elsewhere, as well as within this chamber. In this regard, the Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** and his department form the front line defence of Australia. It is important that we set out, in matters of diplomacy, to build up goodwill between the nations so that we can break down the threat of war. Under the Menzies Government the administration of the important Department of External Affairs is regarded as only a part-time occupation and I condemn the Government for this view. Despite the fact that the Minister is only a part-time Minister I am not for one moment condemning him or saying that he is not a hard worker. Although small in stature he has a lot of energy and, as all honorable members of this House know, he works particularly hard. I have recently been able to find myself in agreement in certain respects with the Minister, but that is not to say that I am particularly happy with all the things he has done. In fact, I am diametrically opposed to many of his actions, but he is hard working and is trying to build up in his own way a basis of goodwill between the Austalian people and those of the Asian countries to our immediate north. On 22nd August, the Minister made a forthright statement in this House regarding religious freedom in South Viet Nam. He is to be commended for that statement. In a well reasoned reply to the Minister's statement the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** as reported at page 428 of " Hansard ", said: - >It must be a matter of great concern to Australians in particular to know that they are involved, obviously and overtly, in support of a regime which is not receiving the support' of its own subjects. Those words were sufficient to make the Minister for External Affairs rise again at the table and speak a second time. During that discussion the Minister, referring to what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had stated, had this to say - >I would like to say that my information, which is fairly direct and not derived from newspapers, does not agree with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's assertion that the government of South Viet Nam does not have the support of its people. He went on to say - >My information would not lead me to go as far as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition did in asserting that the government of South Viet Nam lacks the support of its people. There seems to be some doubt in that regard in the second half of that statement. The Australian Labour Party gave this matter a good deal of thought at a special federal conference and again at the federal conference when the question of South Viet Nam was discussed. I will quote briefly from what is called the majority report of the special federal conference. The report has been printed and is available in the Library if any honorable member wishes to read it. The special federal conference was held in Canberra in March of this year and the three people who drew up the report, Messrs. Oliver, Mulvihill and Dunstan, had this to say - >There has been no sign of development of democratic regimes nor adequate social or economic development in South Viet Nam or Thailand. The existing regimes of those countries appear to use Seato as a military support under whose cloak they are protected from the demands of their people for such development. The recent report to President Kennedy of a visiting bi-partisan group of U.S. Senators headed by **Senator Mansfield** pointed to " Chaos, intrigue and widespread corruption " in Viet Nam a protocol state. **Senator Mansfield** said: " It would be a disservice to my country not to voice a deep concern over the trend of events in Viet Nam in the seven years which have elapsed since my last visit (1955). What is most disturbing is that Viet Nam now appears to be, as it was then, only at the beginning of a beginning in coping with grave internal problems ". **Senator Mansfield** noted that in the course of seven years and despite the expenditure of 2,000,000,000 dollars of U.S. aid the republic of Viet Nam is faced with substantially the same difficulties. In the recent dispute in relation to the religious freedom of the Buddhists in South Viet Nam there was a counter rally staged by the Diem Government. The only news representative permanently stationed in Saigon, or in South Viet Nam, was a representative of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In a recent " News Review " programme, broadcast after the news, this gentleman said that on the orders of the security police of the Diem Government every family in Saigon was required to have at least one member in attendance at the rally. This is the kind of regime that the Australian Government is supporting, a regime that holds the gun at people's heads. I read an article eighteen months ago by a " Sydney Morning Herald " correspondent named John Shaw, who pointed out then that the opposition to the Diem regime in South Viet Nam was not by Communists alone, but that there was a broad national movement, with many sections in the community opposed to the Diem Government. This was eighteen months ago, and I have no doubt that if the "Sydney Morning Herald" saw fit to print that article then, the situation must already have been in existence for a long time. Why are we committed in this way? Why should we, knowing the situation that exists, commit our Australian prestige in this manner and bolster up a regime in South Viet Nam described by Walter Lippman as being based on force, patronage, corruption and intrigue? It is true that we have only a token force in that country, only a matter of about 30 men giving military training, but the fact remains that they have gone there in the name of Australia and that the Australian Government has committed itself to bolstering up this regime. I believe, and I think most sane Australians and eventually the American Government will realize, that by helping the Diem Government the Americans have held down the best elements of the community in South Viet Nam. In foreign policy America has made mistakes time and time again. History will show, of course, whether we have been right or wrong on this issue, but I do believe that Australia should not be committed to support the Diem regime. I ask for leave, **Mr. Chairman,** to continue my remarks at a later stage. Leave granted; progress reported. Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 775 {:#debate-31} ### SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1963 Bill presented by **Mr. Reberton,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · Riverina · CP -- I move - That the bill be now read a second time. During the last fourteen years there have been many fundamental changes in the general scheme of Commonwealth social services, but perhaps the most significant have been made in the last seven years when the Government, having created the economic atmosphere for progress, could accelerate the pace and deepen the penetration to include countless thousands of people - men, women and children - for whom no adequate provision had ever been made in nearly half a century of social service legislation. [Quorum formed.] I refer, particularly, to the additional pensions payable for dependent children - not introduced until 1956; to supplement ary assistance designed to improve the circumstances of qualified pensioners who pay rent - introduced in 1958; to the extension of all social service benefits to the aborigines of our country - not introduced until 1959; to the merging of the means tests which brought into balance the property and income of pensioners for the first time in our history - introduced in 1960, and to the reduction of the residence qualification from the traditional twenty years to ten years for the new and naturalized citizens of our country who may apply for any of the entire range of social service benefits - not introduced until 1962. But each year since 1949 successive Ministers for Social Services have brought into this House measures to provide assistance, in one form or another, for those who are in need of assistance, measures to extend social service benefits to include a greater number of people, measures to expand the provisions of the Social Services Act to include new services, or measures to increase the rates from time to time when, after a considered judgment, increases could be justified and the community could be expected to meet the additional cost. This year it is my special privilege to introduce legislation which transforms the traditional pattern of pensions - which has prevailed for fifty-five years - and removes a serious flaw which has weakened the pension structure of our social welfare programme since its inception in 1908. If that is the main feature of this bill, then let me say that it is not the only feature. The bill before us has many purposes, all of very great importance, and it is now my pleasure to refer to them in general terms. This bill introduces a new standard rate of pension which will be paid to single persons. It provides for the payment of a mother's allowance, as an addition to the pension, to widows with children. It brings into uniformity the additional payments made for all children of pensioners and brings these payments into line with the additional benefits payable to unemployment and sickness beneficiaries. It provides for the additional payments on account of children to be continued in the case of student children up to the end of the year following their eighteenth birthday. A further amendment increases the rate of wife's allowance to £3 a week bringing- that payment into uniformity with the additional benefit payable to a married unemployment or sickness beneficiary. Dealing with the new standard rate which is proposed for single pensioners, let me first explain that, in most other countries, there is a general or base rate of pension for single persons to which is added a lesser amount for a wife or other dependants. If we were starting a pension scheme now, for the first time, I am tolerably certain that we would establish a basic rate pension for single persons and elaborate all other rates, as for example, rates for married couples, from that standard rate. The standard rate of pension would then be, as it is in most countries of the world, the rate payable to single persons. History has, however, taken us along a different and a much more difficult path. The founders of our pensions system in effect determined a rate of pension for a person considered as a single unit in society and regarded a married couple as two units entitled, in consequence, to twice the amount of the pension. That was the original basis of the pension scheme and, from the very beginning, it limited the variation in pension rates to movements which could only have a general application and confined the entitlement of a single person within the fixed limits of one half the married rate. No increase could ever be considered or contemplated which did not have a general application, and, as a direct consequence, it took 40 years for the general rate to move from 10s. a week, to £2 2s. 6d. a week for a single person, or £4 5s. a week for a married couple, in movements frequently as low as 6d. a week, when it is obvious that a shilling a week concentrated on those in greater need would have been of much greater value. It has moved far from there during the last fourteen years - farther than any of us ever believed to be possible. To-day, a married couple may have in terms of pension - £10 10s. a week - and maximum income or means as assessed - £7 a week before the general rate is affected - a total amount up to £17 10s. a week. But, when a married couple is bereaved - and, sooner or later, every married couple must be bereaved - the household's pension income, payable to the survivor, is immediately cut in half and, in that most catastrophic way, the circumstances of the survivor are reduced to the level of the single pensioner without any compensating reduction in the fixed charges of normal life and living. These are the stark realities of the present situation. If there are those who cannot understand the tragedy of that situation, then they can have no comprehension of the inexorable processes of old age and the economic consequences which follow in their train. It is expressed in different terms when it is argued that two can live cheaper than one, that a married couple can share many of the fixed costs which are common to both and that a single pensioner must accept the grave disadvantages inherent in the traditional pattern of our pension system. The Government has always believed that the situation is remediable. To that end, and to some extent, the comparative disadvantage of single pensioners, including pensioners who lose their husbands or wives by death, was met in 1958 by the introduction of supplementary assistance. This, however, was specifically designed to assist those who pay rent, and did not take into account the other living costs which are proportionately higher for a single person than for a married couple. To remove the disadvantage at present being suffered by single pensioners a further fundamental change in our pensions structure is necessary. The bill before the House provides for this change by introducing a new standard rate of pension for single persons, who, for this purpose, will include widows and married pensioners where the spouse is not in receipt of a pension, wife's allowance, service pension, an unemployment or sickness benefit, or a tuberculosis allowance. Under the bill, the rate of age and invalid pension for single persons will be increased by 10s. a week to raise the maximum rate from £5 5s. to £5 15s. a week, which, in future, will be the new standard rate in such cases. All single pensioners, and married pensioners whose spouse is not in receipt of a pension, allowance or benefit, numbering in all approximately 454,000, will benefit from this proposal by the full 10s. a week. Widow pensioners without children, numbering some 35,000, will also receive the full increase of 10s. a week. Some 27,000 widows with children, to whom 1 shall refer later, will receive much greater increases. In all, **Mr. Speaker,** some 516,000, or approximately two-thirds of all pensioners, will benefit from increased pension rates. These will include all persons in receipt of supplementary assistance who will receive the further 10s. a week in addition to supplementary assistance. Moreover, a number of people previously excluded from pension by the operation of the means test will become eligible for some payment for the first time. This is because the effect of the increase will be to extend the upper limit of a person's means as assessed before entitlement to pension is eliminated. Thus, where a single or widowed person without children has property, the value of which does not exceed £209, his entitlement to receive some age or invalid pension will not cut out until his income reaches £9 5s. a week. Where he has no income, other than income from property, entitlement to receive some pension will not cut out until the value of the property reaches £5,010. This latter figure does not include the value of the home, furniture, personal effects including a motor car not used for business purposes, and certain other exempt items. In the case of a married person who has no children and whose spouse is not in receipt of a pension, allowance or benefit, the upper income limit, if there is no affecting property, will be £18 10s. a week, and the upper property limit, if there is no affecting income, will be £10,020. I must stress at this point that the consumer price index has remained more or less stable over the last two years and is, in fact, slightly lower to-day than it was two years ago. The index, rightly or wrongly, has some sort of acceptance as the measure of the purchasing power of the pension and an increase in the index has been used traditionally as an argument for an increase in the rate of pension. With the index remaining constant, that traditional argument has no place this year. The significant fact is that a pensioner married couple to-day receive £2 4s. 2d. more a week than would have been payable if the rate of pension payable when this Government took office had been adjusted in accordance with the index. The Government is therefore seizing the opportunity that arises, through its success in stabilizing prices, of establishing the new standard rate for single pensioners, which is more than half the rate of £10 10s. a week payable to a married pensioner couple. In reviewing social services in connexion with the preparation of the Budget, particularly in deciding how available resources should be distributed, the Government carefully considered the position of all pensioners. An increase in the rate of pension payable to single persons is not all the bill proposes to do for our age and invalid pensioners. I mentioned earlier that among the outstanding achievements of the present Government in recent years was the introduction of additional pension for children after the first child. That measure gave, for the first time, practical recognition to the needs of the pensioner with a family and represented an important advance in our pensions system. In 1961, it was my privilege to introduce in this House amending legislation which resulted in those payments being increased from 10s. to 15s. a week for each child after the first of a class A widow. This year I am grateful for the opportunity given to me by the present bill to introduce a further measure designed to extend this same increase to invalid pensioners and permanently incapacitated age pensioners who have more than one child in their custody, care and control. The bill achieves this by raising the amount of additional pension payable in such circumstances from 10s. to 15s. a week. In future, therefore, **Mr. Speaker,** the rates of additional payments in respect of the children of widow pensioners, invalid and permanently incapacitated age pensioners and unemployment and sickness beneficiaries will be at a uniform level. Additional pension for children after the first forms part of the pension and is subject to the means test. The effect of the increase of 5s. a week for each such child of invalid and permanently incapacitated age pensioners will therefore be to extend the limit of income which a pensioner may have before entitlement to pension entirely ceases, by a further £13 a year on account of each child in excess of one. This year, in addition to granting this increase in the rate of payment for children the Government has directed its attention to ways of assisting and encouraaging pensioners to keep their children at school beyond the age of sixteen years. Anything that can be done towards this end will, I am sure, receive the approbation of this House. Honorable members will know that under existing legislation additional payments in respect of a child cease when the child reaches sixteen years of age. The result is that an invalid or permanently incapacitated age pensioner with more than one child suffers a loss of 10s. a week pension, which would be 15s. a week on the passage of the present bill, when any child other than the youngest turns sixteen. When the youngest or only child turns sixteen the loss is 15s. a week child's allowance. In addition, the deduction of 10s. a week which is allowed from a pensioner's income on account of a dependent child, also ceases when the child reaches sixteen. Consequently a further loss of income by the pensioner of 10s. a week could occur at that time. To assist pensioners to keep their children at school up to matriculation standard, or even beyond, the bill before us provides for a child who is undergoing full-time education and is dependent on the pensioner to continue to be treated as a child under the age of sixteen up to the end of the year in which he or she attains the age of eighteen. The effect of this will be to maintain the pension payable when a student child reaches sixteen years of age. Pensioners may, therefore, subject to means, receive additional pension of 15s. a week for each student child and may have an additional 10s. a week of private income making a total additional income of 25s. a week for each student child. Some pensioners will have had their pensions reduced, and in a few cases their pensions will have been cancelled, because they have a student child who had attained the age of sixteen years before the bill we are considering comes into operation. My department will, of course, be unaware that such a child is still a student and will be unable to make automatic increases in the rate of pensions in such cases. Pensioners, and those whose pensions have been reduced or cancelled because the child has attained the age of sixteen years, who have a student child over the age of sixteen years, who will not attain the age of nineteen years until 1964 or after, should write to the Director of Social Services in the State in which they reside. This will ensure that any adjustment in the rate of pension, or restoration of the pension is made as soon as possible. I mentioned earlier that the bill provides for the wife's allowance payable to the wife of an invalid or permanently incapacitated age pensioner to be raised to the rate of £3 a week. This represents an increase of 12s. 6d. a week which, on the passage of the bill, will become payable immediately to all wives in receipt of the allowance. In 1961 the Government increased the rate of the wife's allowance by 12s. 6d. a week which was the largest increase made since the allowance was first introduced in 1943. The increase proposed this year maintains that high level and will have the effect of bringing the rate of the allowance into line with the rate of additional benefit payable in respect of the dependent wife of a sickness or unemployment beneficiary. **Mr. Speaker,** this concludes my resume of the main provisions of the bill so far as they affect age and invalid pensioners. Members of the House will appreciate the significance of the liberalizations proposed if we consider for a moment the case of an invalid pensioner with a wife and three children. On present rates, the total amount of pension, additional pension for children, wife's allowance, child's allowance and child endowment the family could receive is £10 12s. 6d. a week. Under the bill this will be £11 15s. a week - an increase of 22s. 6d. If the pensioner is a widower the increase will be 20s. a week. Moreover, the additional payments for each child will continue up to the end of the year in which the child turns eighteen, while he remains a full-time student. Let me now turn to widows' pensions and begin by considering the proposals we are making for class A widows - that is, widows with one or more children. Here again the Government is breaking new ground - and breaking it with the most spectacular increases ever made to our pension system - by introducing, for the first time in the history of this pension, changes of fundamental and far-reaching importance for the widowed mother. The bill proposes that the new standard rate of pension for single persons that I have already mentioned in connexion with age and invalid pensions, shall also be paid to widows with children, thereby increasing the basic maximum rate of the class A pension from £5 10s. to £5 15s. a week. It further proposes - and mark this - that the basic rate of pension will be increased by the payment of a mother's allowance of £2 a week. In addition, for the first time, provision is made for an allowance of 15s. a week to be paid for the widow's eldest child. These provisions will provide all existing class A pensioners with a direct and immediate increase of £3 in their weekly payments. The pension payable to a widow with one child will be increased from £5 10s. a week to £8 10s. a week - an increase of over 50 per cent. This will be increased 15s. a week for each additional child, including student children and to this must be added, of course, child endowment. It must be remembered, too, that the majority of pensioners and their dependants are entitled to free medical treatment and free pharmaceutical benefits under the Pensioner Medical Service. The Commonwealth also provides pensioners with wireless and television licences at reduced fees. In addition, of course, the States grant concessions to pensioners in a variety of ways. The mother's allowance of £2 a week will form an integral part of the pension and as such will be subject to the normal operation of the means test. The allowance of 15s. a week for the first or only child, however, will be paid on the same basis as the similar allowance already payable for the first or only child of an invalid or permanently incapacitated age pensioner - that is, it will be at a flat rate and not reduced by the operation of the means test. It will be payable at the full 15s. a week to all widow pensioners with a child. In the application of the means test provision already exists in the Social Services Act for any income, other than pension and child endowment, received by a widow to be reduced by 10s. a week on account of each child. Under the act as amended by the present bill a class A widow whose property, apart from her home, furniture and personal effects, does not exceed £2,250 in value may, in addition to the income from that property - which is exempt - have a total income from pension, child's allowance, endowment and other sources of up to £12 15s. a week before her entitlement to some pension is extinguished. If she has two children she may have up to £14 10s. a week; if she has three children up to £16 5s. a week; if four children up to £18 a week and so on. Since income from property is exempt and since a widow may have property up to £2,250 without affecting her rate of pension the figures I have given would be increased by any income from that property which, in the case of a widow with property worth £2,250, would probably be in the order of £2 a week. On the other hand a class A widow who has no income, other than income from property, may have property apart from her home, furniture and personal effects, to the total value of £6,850 before her entitlement to some pension cuts out. This is £1,170 more than a widow in these circumstances can have to-day. It will be seen, therefore, that apart from the immediate and substantial gains to all existing widow pensioners who have dependent children, the amending legislation will also enable many widows, previously excluded from pension by the operation of the means test, to qualify for some payment for the first time. The provisions of the bill under which additional payments in respect of each child of invalid and permanently incapacitated age pensioners may be continued up to the end of the year in which the child reaches the age of eighteen years, while he or she remains a full time student, are also extended to widow pensioners. This is a valuable provision for those widows who desire their children's education to continue up to matriculation standard or beyond in some cases. The Government hopes the measure will assist and, indeed, encourage widows to pursue this course. Widow pensioners, with student children in this age group, should write to the director of the State in which they reside setting out the facts so that any necessary adjustment can be made in the rate of their pensions. Similarly widows who have recently had their pensions reduced or cancelled because their student child attained the age of sixteen years should write to the director so that the possibility of restoration of pension can be investigated. Class B widows - that is, widows over 50 years of age who have no dependent children - also benefit under the present bill to the extent of 10s. a week. The new maximum rate of this pension will be increased from £4 12s. 6d. to £5 2s. 6d. a week. The same increase will apply to a class C widow - that is, a widow under 50 with no dependent children but who is in necessitous circumstances immediately following her husband's death. To complete the outline of the provisions of the bill before us I should mention that, where an age or invalid pensioner to whom the increase of 10s. a week is payable, or a class B widow, is an inmate of a benevolent home, the bill provides that 3s. of the increase in the basic pension will be payable to the pensioner. This means that when the legislation is amended an age or invalid pensioner inmate of a benevolent home will receive 40s. a week of his pension, and a class B widow inmate will receive 36s. 6d. a week. As at present, the balance of the pension will be paid to the authorities of the home. In order to allow the Department of Social Services to make the necessary administrative arrangements, it is proposed that the new standard rate of pension for single invalid and age pensioners will be paid on a date to be fixed by proclamation. All other increased rates of pensions and allowances proposed will be paid on the appropriate pay-days following the date of commencement of the amending act. **Mr. Speaker,** this completes the outline of the provisions of the bill. Over 570,000 pensioners and their dependants will benefit from its provisions and some persons not now eligible for pensions will become entitled to a pension for the first time. Honorable members will wish to know something of the cost involved. First I should mention that, quite apart from this bill, expenditure on social services for 1963-64 is estimated to rise by some £12,000.000 over the expenditure for the previous year. This will be brought about mainly through a natural increase in the number of pensioners and the fact that an extra widow's pension pay-day falls due during 1963-64 and also an extra pay-day for mothers whose child endowment is paid quarterly to bank accounts. It is estimated that the combined effect of the proposals contained in the bill will be to increase expenditure by approximately £18,000,000 for a full year, of which approximately £11,500.000 will be spent in the current year. Total expenditure from the National Welfare Fund in the year 1962-63 was over £379,000,000. It is estimated that expenditure from the fund will pass the £411,000,000 mark this year - a remarkable advance when it is considered that in 1949 when the Government first took office the rate of expenditure was only £81,000,000 a year. It is a phenomenon of the twentieth century in communities which had their origin in the western world that the benevolence of man is both anonymously and frequently expressed through what is popularly called the welfare state. That, of course, is without prejudice to the claims of the great variety of more intimate and more individual charities which still excite the compassion of sensitive people. It is true to say that no modern society in that part of the world which subscribes to western civilization can be indifferent to the well-being of the more lowly people, but it is quite wrong to imagine that social welfare is a concept exclusive to the people of any particular country, any particular age or generation, or any particular spiritual or political ideology. On the contrary, social welfare in one form or another has been the concern of man since the very beginning of human history. Indeed, it was enjoined upon mankind by all the religions, and invariably accepted by mankind as a duty. " It is hard to find the true principles of social justice ", wrote Aristotle, " and harder still to get men and women to act upon them. " Although much has happened to the world since then - and much has happened in our own country - these prophetic words are as true to-day as they were when they were written nearly 2,500 years ago. Changes are inevitable, and when the wealth of nations came to be the subject of systematic study - now embraced in the fierce and generic term " economics " - that study related wealth to the welfare of the community as a whole. No nation could be rich if sections of the community were condemned to penury and squalor. Even if the early economists applied themselves to the study of the conditions which make for prosperity and well-being, and even if their caution caused them to fear any expansive advance in prosperity and earned for them the name of " students of the dismal science ", these things did not dull their sense of social consciousness or reduce the responsibilities which are inseparable from that consciousness. There were the charities and the Poor Law traditions which had their origins in the past, and from them came the pattern of social welfare as a progressive movement towards the emancipation of the victims of social and economic circumstances regardless of their cause - a movement in which the modern State, perhaps for the lack of any other adequate apparatus, was called upon to play a dominant role. Human nature being what it is, there have always been those who have opposed the intrusion of the State, and there have always been those who have suggested that the poor and the unfortunate should accept their fate and that they should be left to the tender mercies of the traditional charities with all their palpable imperfections. There have always been those who have urged the State to accept full responsibility for the social welfare of the entire community by confiscating the property of the rich and those who have believed that social welfare should be used as a punitive weapon to avenge the social excesses, abuses and wrongs of the past by the impoverishment of the future. All these conflicting groups of people emerged from the nineteenth century to do battle in the twentieth century when, providentially, their extreme opinions were sublimated by the awakened sense of social justice which sought the elimination of the worst of the social barbarities visited on the poor by the sheer weight of their misfortunes. State intervention, designed *to* promote the social well-being of the less fortunate people in the community, was for all practical purposes a revolt against the doctrine of laisser-faire, a protest against the indignities of extreme poverty and a reaction from the imperfections of traditional charity which, in so many of its forms, invariably imposed some kind of prior condition of humility. If we were not to be " our brother's keeper " in the personal sense of the term, there was no valid reason why the State should not be " our brother's keeper ", within certain statutory limits, since there appeared to be general agreement that " it is the duty of a government to do whatever is conducive to the welfare of the governed ". Modern society went a great deal farther. It defined the statutory limits in terms of the willingness and the ability of the governed to pay the ultimate cost. And so modern society has come to rely upon the State to defend the defenceless not only against conventional enemies but against the normal hazards of life and living and, within certain pre-determined limits, modern society is willing to provide assistance for those who are deemed to be in need of assistance - and pay for it. In that way payments from the National Welfare Fund - the resources of which are provided by the taxpayers of our country - have increased from £81,000,000 in 1949 to an estimated £411,000,000 in the current financial year. That, in terms of pounds, shillings and pence, is the measure of our social service progress during the last fourteen years; and that does not include a sum which approximates an additional £18,000,000 expended during the last eight years under the provisions of the Aged Persons Homes Act. I commend this bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Daly)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 781 {:#debate-32} ### REPATRIATION BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed (vide page 752). {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes **.- Mr. Speaker,** the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Swartz)** presented this bill this afternoon and asked the Opposition whether it would debate it immediately after the resumption of the sitting this evening. The Opposition agreed to do so in order to facilitate the payment of pension increases under the Repatriation Act. I remind the Minister that Opposition members agreed to hurry on the debate with pleasure because the bill contains some good provisions. The submissions that will be presented from this side of the chamber will not be weakened by the fact that we have been asked to debate this matter very much sooner than would normally be the case. We have made a thorough examination of this bill. The Labour Party has never defeated a repatriation measure. Its members have moved many amendments to, and found many defects in, repatriation measures; but in the final analysis there is a bi-partisan approach to what can be done under the Repatriation Act for ex-service men and women. Finally we have acquiesced in those matters, although we would have liked to see more generous benefits. In this case, with the bi-partisan attitude that is adopted, we acknowledge certain very important improvements, a certain breaking down of regulations and a rephrasing of forms which will make for smoother working. In that respect we are not totally denouncing the bill by any means. Anything that is forward thrusting, anything that gives additional pensions where they are needed, anything that will assist the children, anything that will help Legacy in its care of children, anything that will correct anomalies has our support. However, we present certain differences of opinion to the Minister for his consideration. They relate to general aspects of repatriation. Where we and the Minister differ, where we diverge on this matter is in relation to his approach. The Minister, early in his second-reading speech, said - >The present repatriation system is the product of many years of development by successive governments. Its basis is sound in principle; and its evolution has kept pace with changing circumstances and needs, and, in the field of treatment, with developments in medical science. We agree with that to a certain extent, but we think that in a general sense the definition is too smug and too self-satisfied. We say that we should not start off that way because we believe - we intend to move amendments accordingly in the committee stage - that there is still a great deal wrong with the Repatriation Act and that there is a great deal wrong with the way in which it is administered, not perforce by those who administer it but because of the language and intention of the act itself. We have certain suggestions to make to honorable members to-night. The Minister's rather smug reference - perhaps it is not his - that things are all right in the Repatriation Department, that we are moving along slowly, that we are doing fairly well, and that we are catching up with modern trends, is not good enough - not by any means. After World War I. and then World War II. we ought to have had as near perfect documentation of repatriation as we could get, but we have not got it. Since World War II. we have slid steadily down hill. There are problems with which we are unable to cope and the machinery of the Repatriation Act does not give us an opportunity to cope with them. We believe that the act is not constructed in a modern way and does not provide the flexibility that is required in these days. Consequently, we intend to move a series of amendments which I shall merely forecast now and which will be debated in the committee stage, because a repatriation bill is usually a committee bill. The first point that we make is that there ought to be another wide survey of and close look at the Repatriation Act as it exists to-day. We intend to suggest by the process of moving an amendment that the Government establish a joint select committee on repatriation, as was done in 1943 - twenty years ago. On that occasion we had a complete look at this matter. A copy of the report of that committee is being read at the moment by the man who was the chairman of that committee, the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard).** Great work was done. That was during the war years. Our approach was somewhat restricted because we did not know what our casualties would be, nor did we know what our commitments were, but our re-examination of the repatriation machinery in 1943 was a very fine job indeed. A former Speaker of this House was a member of that committee. He, with several who are not now members of this House and others who are still with us, did a very fine job of reviewing our repatriation machinery. Because I had just newly come into the House at that time, I read with avid interest the way in which the old machine had been made to function again in consonance with the times. Therefore, when we are discussing the bill in committee, we propose to move for the appointment of a joint select committee of responsible Parliamentarians, again representative of both sides of the House, to have a good, close look at the Repatriation Act in all its ramifications, the administration of that act in all its ramifications and the bureaucracy which has grown round it in all its ramifications. At this time, almost twenty years after one war has ended and 45 years after the conclusion of the previous one, we ought to have a repatriation system which works instead of one which breaks down in so many vital particulars. Now is the time for the House, the Minister for Repatriation and the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** to agree to the appointment of a joint select committee on repatriation. Let us have another look at our system; let us patch it up; let us co-operate to do something for which we are pressing, for which the servicemen's organizations are pressing, something which the servicemen desire and something which the people think we should do. That is the salient point of our approach to repatriation. Other speakers will deal with and analyse other aspects of our present machinery. They will discuss standards, pensions and what has been done to date, but for the moment I shall debate the subject in the round and discuss general aspects of repatriation as we see it. What I am about to say applies to honorable members on both sides of the House. In one's electorate, one meets with repeated demands for certain things to be done. Service organizations, individual returned servicemen and welfare organizations all ask that certain aspects of the repatriation law be looked at. We have collated all these representations and framed a series of amendments which I believe the Government must accept. I hope that the Government will not be dogged about this and make these requests a party political matter because, sooner or later, the injustices to which they refer will have to be remedied. The paramount request, of course, is for the establishment of a joint select committee to look at the whole of the repatriation machimery. Good results must come from such an examination, because a review of our repatriation machinery is long overdue. In saying this I am not in any way casting reflection upon the very fine men who administer repatriation matters as our servants, the servants of the House and the servants of the public. They, too, are seeking some aid, some new analysis, and some new interpretation of the law to rectify the anomalies which have become almost heartbreaking. One of these anomalies, of course, relates to the onusofproof provision. I intend personally to move an amendment relating to the onusofproof provision in precisely the terms recommended by the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. I want to put the Government on the spot in connexion with this matter because 1 think it is about time Government members stood up to be counted when the vote is taken in connexion with the onus-of-proof provision which is one of the most carking, one of the most rigid and one of the most difficult of the provisions of the act to interpret. If at this late stage we are to be genuine in our proposals for improving the repatriation law, we must do something interpretive and solid about the onus-of-proof provision. The suggestion made by **Mr. Osmond,** the State secretary of the R.S.S.A.I.L.A. in New South Wales, for a re-draft of the provision is a simple one. Because it is simple, and because it is easily understood, we would not change one word of it. It reads - >In alt cases a doubt shall be deemed to exist where the origin of any disability cannot be properly determined *or* where authoritative medical opinion conflicts as to the origin of the disability. The onus of proof will be the main subject of my opening of the case on repatriation for this side of the House. We need a clear statement. We want a final and irrevocable pronouncement on section 47 of the Act. The legal position has been propounded, as I shall show later, by eminent counsel and by the legal authorities. The department's case has also been propounded through official documents released from time to time. But they do not meet; they are working from conflicting angles, and, as a result, the serviceman concerned is jammed between two schools of thought. Let us face it, the very essence of section 47 was that the law should be bent so that the onus of proof would rest not on the ex-service man or woman but on the department. It has never honestly so rested, and that is the argument we are putting in this House. As I said, I should like to make the burden of my complaint in the House the question of the onus of proof, but I should like also to deal with a series of amendments which we propose to submit. For a long time now, it has been possible to put a good case for the issue of medical entitlement cards to the wives of totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen. This case should be pressed. I think that the estimated cost of granting the request has been mentioned already. It is not excessive, and the Government should give favorable consideration to it. Every servicemen's organization has asked that the matter be looked into. If the Government accepts our proposed amendment and decides to issue medical cards to the wives of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen the cost would be £736,000. In answering a series of questions addressed to him by the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Beaton),** the Minister for Repatriation gave that estimate of the cost. That is merely a flea bite in a budget of the size of the present Budget and it should be done. There is no doubt that our totally and permanently incapacitated ex-service men and women are dying rapidly. One has only to peruse the long lists of deaths printed in the monthly issues of the magazine published by their organization to appreciate that they are a vanishing race, that the old diggers of the 1914-18 war and some of the young diggers of World War II. who are totally and permanently incapacitated are terribly vulnerable and are slipping away from us. The Government has recognized the urgency of the need to care for them. The justice of issuing medical cards to the wives of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen is incontestable, and the fact that to grant the request would cost less than £1,000,000 should induce the Repatriation Department and the Government to assure us that the matter will be attended to, if not now, then at least soon. We are debating the question from the point of view of what we can logically do for our servicemen. We are not making a party political approach to it. We realize that in framing its Budget the Government must base its allocations of money on the resources available to it. If it makes its decisions according to its wisdom, surely, in its wisdom, this Government can see its way clear to meet this very real need of the wives of totally and permanently incapacitated service pensioners. We propose to press our claim for medical cards for these women. I expect the ex-servicemen on the Government side of the House to support us in this request because representations that it be granted have been made in their electorates. From a humanitarian point of view alone, quite apart from the sacrifices made by the husbands concerned, this request cannot and must not be ignored. The granting of another request which we propose to make will cost very little money in the long run. It is that free hospitalization be granted to returned service men and women from the 1914-18 war. As honorable members know, we have pressed this claim before. The chairman of our repatriation committee, the honorable member for Bass **(Mr. Barnard)** and the secretary of that committee, the honorable member for Lang **(Mr. Stewart)** have moved amendments from time to time in an effort to gain this benefit, but they have always been defeated. We propose to group all the requests, to submit them all by way of amendment to this bill and to ask the Government to look at them. If it dares to refuse to accept them, then we ask its members how they can claim to be the champions of the ex-servicemen. None of our requests is extravagant and none of them is political in the sense that anybody may be said to be gaining something out of them to which he is not justly entitled. We are prompted to move in the way in which we propose to move because we feel that the granting of justice to these people has been delayed for far too long. We ask the Government to look at the repatriation machine as it exists and make it an instrument that will work in 1963. We ask the Government to provide medical entitlement cards for the wives of totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen, to provide hospital treatment for servicemen from the 1914-18 war, to provide for the automatic acceptance of cancer as a war-caused disability and to appoint a judge as the final arbiter on decisions of law arising in appeals. This last provision is related to the onus of proof and we have been battling for this for years. We want the Government to accept its full responsibilities on these matters and to declare where it stands. We want the Government to make the onus of proof provision perfectly clear. That is why these points have been mentioned. Let me repeat our points for the benefit of the Minister for Repatriation and honorable members. First, we foreshadow an amendment to provide for the establishment of a joint select committee, as I have already explained. Our second point is the provision of free hospital and medical treatment for returned ex-servicemen of the 1914-18 war. Our third point is the provision of medical entitlement cards for the wives of totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners. Our fourth point is the old contemptible, the removal of any doubt about the onus of proof. Our fifth point is the automatic acceptance of cancer. Where do these requests come from? They come from every ex-servicemen's organization in Australia. At Budget time or at other appropriate times, the exservicemen's organizations send circulars to honorable members and attend on the Prime Minister. Ex-servicemen attend conferences, and totally and permanently incapacitated or blinded ex-servicemen visit Canberra. All these people are unanimous that we should press for the benefits I have mentioned, and we will move amendments seeking to have them provided. I think in the course of time we will get these benefits, but I see no reason why they should not be provided immediately. There will be a big battle on the question of the onus of proof. As I said before, there is a curious conflict on the interpretation of the provision, and we cannot agree with the department's interpretation. I have been a member of this House for a good while and I have heard the statments of **Senator Spicer,** who was Attorney-General at the time, of **Mr. Joske,** Q.C., who is now **Mr. Justice** Joske, and of my former leader, **Dr. Evatt.** I read a very fine article in " Reveille ", which is the official organ of the R.S.L. The article was written by **Mr. Kevin** Starr, who has done yeoman service on this question of onus of proof. It contains the comments of **Mr. Joske** and **Dr. Evatt,** and I will read them. After I have read what these two legal gentlemen have said on the onus of proof, honorable members will have a good grasp of the position. I point out that at the time the statements I shall read were made, one gentleman was a member on the Government side of the House and the other was a member on the Opposition side. The statements were made in 1952 and 1956 and they are well worth quoting. The whole burden of the onus of proof provision is explained clearly and distinctly. The article written by **Mr. Starr** states - >In 1956, Joske, Q.C., laid down four rules for the guidance of Repat. M.O.'s and Entitlement Tribunals as follows. > >There is a presumption that the claim- That is the claim for a pension - is to be allowed even though the claimant calls no evidence. This is a very important point and bears out our contention that section 47 was intended to veer to the side of the digger and that the onus of proof was clearly to be discharged by the department. The article continues - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. It is for those opposing the claim to produce evidence to establish that the claim should fail. Unless this evidence is provided the claim must succeed. There is no equivocation and no beating about the bush. There is no legalism about this clause. It is in clear, honest, dynamic English. It means that an ex-serviceman can go into court with the presumption that he will have his claim allowed and that the onus of proof is elsewhere. If the claimant does not produce evidence and those opposing the claim do not produce evidence, the claim should be allowed. But we all know that this does not happen. The article goes on - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. A finding that the claimant has not satisfied the Tribunal that his claim should succeed is a bad and inadmissible finding. 1. Unless the Tribunal finds that the evidence establishes that the claim should not be allowed, the Tribunal must allow the claim. That is the whole essence of the matter. But the onus-of-proof provision is not being applied as it should be applied. I have read what **Mr. Joske** had to say. I heard him make that statement and I remember it distinctly. It is a clear exposition of the onusofproof provision, without a superfluous word, and it lays down clearly what should be done. But it has never been followed. In 1952, **Dr. Evatt** said- >Unless it is proved by the Repatriation Commission that the war service could not have contributed to the claimant's disability, then the presumption must be made in favour of the claimant. . . . There is no other way in which the relevant section can be read. Therefore, the onus is on the department and the departmental doctors to prove that the claim should not be allowed. I have read the comments of two legal luminaries, two great men. In unequivocal language incapable of misinterpretation they said that the provision went further than most of us thought it did. They said that, when a man goes into the tribunal, the tribunal should start with the presumption that he is entitled to a pension and that those hearing the claim should not ask the claimant to prove his case. Those opposing the claim must prove the case against him. But that is the reef on which repatriation cases have been wrecked for nigh on twenty years. Repatriation is foundering because of this. It is why 62 per cent. - that is a figure I saw some years ago; it may de different now - of claimants fail to receive a pension. Perhaps late in life, many years after the termination of their service, they seek a pension, but the facts are not available and the onus of proof is moved from the department to the claimants. The claimants walk away from the tribunal, sometimes never having said a word. They are tossed out into the hard, cruel world and do not understand what it is all about. They certainly do not understand why the onus-of-proof provision has been applied against them. They feel that they have been defrauded. They were told that section 47 meant that they had merely to say: " I have been in action in a war. I suffered this injury. I am now 60 years of age and the injury is coming against me. It was warcaused and I ask for a pension ". When they go to the tribunal, the departmental authorities produce the medical officers - a galaxy of talent. They must of necessity make out a case for the Government so that every one does not receive a pension just as a matter of course. The departmental authorities find against the claimant and he is left in the dark as to the reasons. He wonders about this and feels that he has not had justice done to him. But there is an injustice and he is not able to fathom out why the onus-of-proof provision is applied as it is. I have read to the House the statements of two legal men, which show quite simply and reasonably that the onus of proof is always on the department and the department's medical officers. I am amazed to find that the general run-of-the-mill medical officer, highly compentent though he may be, is too often referred to as a specialist. The department has a wide choice of specialists and uses them freely. But when it comes to an argument with the Minister - not necessarily the present Minister for Repatriation - on the question of onus of proof, he reads the statement of an ordinary general practitioner on the man's condition as if he were reading holy writ, as if he were quoting a specialist of the highest order. We do not always know who the doctor is. When the doctors called in a case disagree, something else happens. The tribunal, having learned that an outside medical authority of great repute disagrees with the Repatriation doctors, does not say, " The onus of proof is on the department". It refers the case back to the Repatriation Commission as a face-saving device. I think in this situation we should be entitled to move in and say: " No, do not refer the case back to the commission. There is a difference of opinion and as the department has not discharged the onus of proof, the case must be decided in favour of the digger without any further ado". However, this is not done and much time is taken in referring the case back to the commission. Unless the member of Parliament who handles the case is sharp enough for the moment, he might lose it, because of this manoeuvre. There is the point. That is the point in regard to Joske and Evatt on this matter - in my view the final, impregnable and irrefutable authority. What is the reply of the Repatriation Department? What is the reply that the general repatriation tribunals give to this matter? Again I quote **Mr. Kevin** Starr. He cites a case in the 1956 annual report of the No. 2 entitlement tribunal which opposes the view of Evatt and Joske and puts forward a proposition of its own. It says - >It is not a reasonable inference that the claimant has a good case when he does not put that case up. How in the name of God can he put his case up? He puts up his misery, his disability, his service and his demand for a pension and then it is up to the rest of us to find out where the onus is. We should not put it on him to provide his own case. That is where there is a definite conflict. The quotation continues - >Unless he puts some sort of a case to answer, some fact or theory or suggestion from which a reasonable inference in his favour can be drawn - there surely can be no onus on the commission to disprove his case. That is completely against the intention of the act and the pronouncements made on it by **Mr. Joske** and **Dr. Evatt** in this House. The other opinion is, in effect:" You have to prove your case. You have to give some theory." What rubbish! You have to give some theory! You have to suggest some fantastic story so that they can say: " That is no good. We do not believe that and you are out ". That is nonsense. You have to look at the relevant facts as submitted and find them out and see where the onus of proof lies. It lies upon the tribunal. Until we get a committee to sit down and work out this extremely difficult situation we are lost ourselves. We are not really going to give very many honorable men who deserve the pension a fair go at all. They are afraid of the tribunals now. Sometimes they are represented by members of this House and sometimes the very efficient legal service bureau appears for them. They are taken in and out of tribunals and are told to say nothing. They stand outside, after it is over, bewildered and wondering what it was all about. **Mr. Speaker,** we have to get an entirely new system because this three-tiered system - the board, the commission and the entitlement tribunal - drives the average man up the wall in the long battle for a decision. We must do something about this question. It is irritating and dangerous in its effect. But the tribunal says "No" to the legal authority and that is where we come in with our suggestion that the onus of proof should be thrashed out as I have propounded in my speech. Other aspects of our decisions will be debated by other honorable members of the Opposition, each taking a special line. I want to tell the Minister that we had a committee meeting on repatriation to-night. We have taken this matter very seriously and we want to thrash it out. I also want to tell this Minister, if he can spare a moment that we have made a complete case on this matter and want him to answer, in the committee stage, the charges we make, and the suggestions we make on this matter. Because we have a limited amount of time I will conclude, so that other honorable members on both sides of the House can get some words in to-night. I hope we can get two speakers for and two against the propositions we have put and later, when we resume the debate, I hope that this matter will be considered in all its aspects. I hope the Minister will not be so engrossed in conversation, in the committee stage, that he does not hear what I am saying. I hope that we get a better go in the later stages. **Mr. Minister,** will you please listen? This is a serious matter, yet you are chattering to members who have come to the table. Why don't you listen to what is being said to you? You are under indictment on this matter. {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: -- You are asking questions. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- Of course I am, and you have been talking for the last five minutes. That is typical of the attitude you take in this matter. We have put five propositions to you and you should be listening to them. I was trying to be courteous by curtailing my time by a quarter of an hour so that other people might debate the bill to-night. You put a proposition to us to-day which has not been put in this House for years. You asked us to debate the bill just a few hours after you made your second-reading speech. {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: -- That was arranged. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- I do not care whether it was arranged or not. I am telling you that such procedure is not normal, but we were prepared to agree and naturally we expect you to listen to what we are telling you. I am told that the arrangement was made- {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- Order! I ask honorable members not to interject. The honorable member for Parkes has the floor. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr HAYLEN: -- What is the point we are trying to drive home? We are trying to analyse the stupid attitude which has been taken in regard to the onus of proof. We leave the Government with this thought. We are asking it to make five decisions and support five amendments - the establishment of a joint select committee on repatriation, free hospital and medical treatment for the 1914-1918 diggers, medical entitlement cards for the T.P.I., a proper knock-down drag-out debate on the onus-of-proof clause and the automatic acceptance of cancer as a war-caused disability. Those things figure in every report of every exservicemen's organization. It is about time the Government woke up and recognized the validity of their claims. In the committee stage, we will press them to the limit. In the matter of onus of proof, which we have taken in its entirety from the resolution of the Returned Servicemen's League in New South Wales, we demand that the Government supporters stand up and be counted and let us know just where they stand on this matter of a complete overhaul of the repatriation machine. {: #subdebate-32-0-s2 .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON:
Sturt .- The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** used the old trick of an Opposition when dealing with a good bill. He avoided reference to every clause in the bill realizing, of course, that it is an excellent measure providing splendid benefits for returned men. Before dealing with the amendments which the honorable member has foreshadowed, I want to discuss the bill itself. It provides for an additional expenditure of £12,800,000 on repatriation, over and above the amount spent last year. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- How much did you say? {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- It is £12,800,000 more than the amount spent last year. The Government has adopted the very desirable policy of providing that additional money for those most in need. All of us would have liked to see a general increase in all rates of repatriation pensions, but I think every fair-minded person will realize that, if there is only a certain amount of money to spend on repatriation benefits, preference in that expenditure should be given to those most in need. That is what is being done under this bill. I will not list all the additional benefits which are being provided, but will describe the main ones. First, there is an increase of 10s. a week in the pension payable to the totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman and to the temporarily totally incapacitated. There is not any honorable member in this House who is prepared to get up and say that those two classes are not a needy section. Therefore, the Government has carried out the policy, which is to be seen right through this Budget, of providing for those most in need. The second main benefit is the increase of 7s. 6d. in the domestic allowance to war widows, bringing it to £3 10s. a week. Is any member of this House prepared to say that war widows with children do not need the additional 7s. 6d.? The third great benefit under this bill is an additional £3 a week for widows with children of servicemen, who do not qualify for the war widow's pension. This is a break-through for this group, the members of which are often called civilian widows. A great many of them are widows of servicemen who served overseas and suffered during that service, but whose deaths could not be established as having been due to war service. These widows of servicemen will receive an extra 5s. a week in pension, they will also receive 15s. a week for the first child and they will receive a mother's allowance of £2 a week. I am sure that every member of this House, and particularly those who are members of Legacy, will realize that these widows in the past have suffered very great hardship, and that the extra £3 a week will make all the difference to their manner of living. Fourthly, there is to be a 15 per cent, increase in the student's allowance. Those honorable members who are continually raising in this House the subject of education expenses will know that there has been a real need for an increase in the student's allowance. Then, fifthly, we have the service pension increased by 10s. a week in cases in which there is only one pension coming into the home. I will deal with that benefit in a little more detail later, but I do not think any one in this House would say that a service pensioner, in a home where only one pension is received, who has to pay rates, taxes, insurance, perhaps interest on a mortgage or perhaps rent, is not definitely in need of this increase of 10s. a week. Sixthly, there is an increased benefit for a service pensioner who is permanently unemployable. There is to be an increase of 5s. a week for the second and each subsequent child, bringing the benefit to 15s. a week in respect of each child. This benefit, which formerly was withdrawn when a child reached the age of sixteen, will now be payable until the child reaches eighteen years of age, so long as such child is undergoing full-time education. Then there is the general overall provision in relation to the extension of children's allowances while such children are undergoing full-time education. Then we come to the case of the allowance payable to the service pensioner's wife, who is not of pensionable age. This matter has been referred to by honorable members over a period of very many years, and it has been pointed out that if the wife of an age or service pensioner is not of pensionable age it has been very difficult for the couple to live on the pension plus the wife's allowance at the rate at which it was formerly paid. This allowance has now been increased by 12s. 6d. a week, bringing it up to £3 a week. I now want to come to the reform that has been effected in connexion with the service pension, by the provision that when there is only one pension coming into the home there shall be an increase of 10s. a week. The honorable member for EdenMonaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser)** referred to this proposal when he was speaking in the Budget debate on the social service provisions. He attacked this proposal on the flimsy ground that it was, he suggested, an attack upon marriage. Nothing could be further from the fact. The honorable member's suggestion was cruel and unjust, and it was unfortunate that certain irresponsible sections of the press took up the parrot cry started by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro. The first answer I give to the honorable member is that this pension is payable to married people as well as single people, if there is only one pension coming into the home. In other words, if the wife or husband is below the age of qualification for a service pension, the extra 10s. is paid. Secondly, I suggest that this benefit is quite similar to the supplementary pension that was introduced by this Government some years ago, and which, while receiving the support of the Labour Party, was criticized by the honorable member for EdenMonaro and other members of the Labour Party because it was suggested that there were too many restrictions upon the benefit. In the case of the proposed increase of 10s. a week the Government has now removed all those restrictions except one. Now we' find members of the Labour Party coming along and criticizing what they themselves suggested a few years ago. I think many members of this House, and the general public, would like to know who the Leader of the Labour Party is. The Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell),** when moving his motion of want of confidence a few weeks ago, praised' the proposed reforms introduced by the Government in respect of social services. His motion contained the following words: - >While approving of such benefits as arc contained in the Budget, and particularly those" for primary producers and social service' beneficiaries - One voice of the Labour Party says that that party approves of the increase of 10s. payable to social service pensioners andservice pensioners. The Leader of the' Opposition told us that. {: .speaker-KYC} ##### Mr Pollard: -- Of course he did. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- " Of course he did 'V says the honorable member for Lalor. Let us have a look at what the honorable member for Eden-Monaro said. After all,he is usually recognized by the Labour Party as its leader on social services.The Leader of the Opposition supports'' the Government's proposals but the honorable member for Eden-Monaro1 criticizes them severely. He says that they are an attack on marriage. While he was speaking, I interjected and said, in effect,that the honorable member had previously asked for this kind of thing to be done. In his normal rude way, he said that: evidently I was doddering - using the sneer' that he usually sees fit to use. I said' then that I would refer the House to the statements made by the honorable member in relation to this matter. I will do that"now. On 10th April, 1962, the House was5 dealing with an amendment of the Social' Services Act to provide for single persons1 10s. a week supplementary assistance. Atpage 1482 of "Hansard" the honorable1 member is reported as saying - >I refer to the undue restrictions which' become apparent in the payment of supplementary' rental allowances ... A pensioner with a1 dependent wife . . . That is a wife under pensionable age - must live far below the standard of what we can regard as a decent human existence. Yet they cannot get supplementary assistance. The honorable member was criticizing the Government because too many restrictions were imposed upon the payment of the supplementary assistance. Now that the Government has provided for a payment of 10s. a week without the restrictions he criticized, he says that it is making an attack on marriage. He did not offer that criticism previously. I continue the quotation - >I think that the conditions governing entitlement to rental allowance could be substantially and liberally modified. That is just what the Government has done. The supplementary assistance was payable only to single persons who paid rent and did not have an income in excess of 10s. a week or assets in excess of £200. The Government has now removed the restrictions of which the honorable member for Eden-Monaro was previously so critical but he now criticizes us because we have provided for an increase of 10s. a week without the conditions that formerly applied. When I interjected and pointed out to the honorable member that he had previously advocated this type of payment, he implied that I was not quoting him correctly. The honorable member has been found out in an untruth. He told this House an untruth. I do not expect him to resign, as a member of the United Kingdom Parliament resigned when he was caught out in a lie. I rather think that the honorable member will do what he is in the habit of doing. He likes to climb on the band-wagon whenever he sees that something worthwhile has been done. From the time when the supplementary assistance was introduced, members of the Liberal and Country parties urged the Government to help the people who are loosely called single people by giving them additional assistance, but without all the restrictions that applied to the supplementary assistance. I am delighted that the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Swartz)** has been able to announce the payment of an additional 10s. a week for service pensioners where only one pension is coming into the home. I am sure that the public generally supports this proposal wholeheartedly and is thoroughly shocked at the attitude of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro in describing this most valuable form of assistance as an attack on marriage. That is absolute nonsense. It does not matter whether or not a person is married. If there is only one pension coming into the home, the additional assistance is available. I congratulate the Minister for Repatriation and the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton)** on securing this extremely valuable reform. I pass now to the totally irrelevant matters introduced by the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen).** He referred to matters that are not dealt with in the bill because he realized that the bill is so good that there is nothing in it that he can really criticize. The honorable member scratched his head and asked himself, "In this good bill what could we have included that is not already in it? " He decided to deal with the onus of proof provision, which he stated has been wrecked for twenty years. I point out to the honorable member that for seven of those twenty years the Labour Party was in office and for most of those seven years, had control of both Houses of this Parliament. During that period, according to the honorable member, the so-called onus of proof provision was wrecked. The honorable member quoted the excellent opinions given by **Senator Spicer,** now **Mr. Justice** Spicer; by **Mr. Joske,** now **Mr. Justice** Joske; and by **Dr. Evatt,** Q.C. I think that he also mentioned the present Attorney-General **(Sir Garfield Barwick).** Each of these gentlemen has given a definite and clear opinion as to the proper interpretation of this provision. Members of the entitlement appeal tribunals are all ex-servicemen. They are appointed as judges to decide repatriation cases. They are aware of the opinions expressed by the eminent jurists mentioned by the honorable member. None of us has been happy about what appear to be the facts of particular cases, but we are not always happy with the decisions of an umpire at a football match. Members of the entitlement appeal tribunals are aware of the onus of proof provisions of the act. These competent people say, in effect, in some cases, "Knowing where the onus of proof lies and having heard the evidence in this case, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that this ex-soldier is not entitled to a pension. " I would like to see something better than the provisions of section 47 introduced into the act. For twenty years, as the honorable member for Parkes has said, people have been trying to find something better. It is not that the question has not been studied. All the most eminent jurists who have been mentioned have studied the matter most carefully and no one has yet been able to find a form of words that would meet the situation as all of us would like to see it mct. The honorable member for Parkes has simply proposed something that the Labour Government failed to put into effect in the period of almost nine years during which it was in office. This is something that has been discussed in this House over the last twenty years, and there is no need for a further joint select committee to inquire into it. If the suggestion of the Returned Servicemen's League is right, that suggestion can be put into effect. But we shall not get any further by appointing another joint select committee. Indeed, in view of the opinions that have been given on this matter by many excellent jurists, I do not know whether the suggestion of the R.S.L. will get us any further than section 47 of the act gets us to-day. The honorable member for Parkes just wastes the time of the House by avoiding all the substantive provisions of this bill and dragging in this old matter that has no relation to the measure. If the honorable member wants to deal with the matter, he should deal with it in isolation, because it has nothing to do with the benefits that are provided under the terms of this bill. Similar considerations apply to the provision of hospitalization for all exservicemen of the 1914-18 war. We all want to see that benefit extended to those exservicemen, but we know that at present the repatriation hospitals in many of the States are filled to overflowing. Recently, their doors were opened to service pensioners. In many States, this has placed a great strain on hospital accommodation. I suggest that if we are to provide hospitalization for all service pensioners it is quite impossible and quite impracticable to open the doors of repatriation hospitals to further groups at the present time. {: .speaker-KBH} ##### Mr WILSON: -- They go to other than repatriation hospitals. But all hospitalization provided by the Repatriation Department for ex-servicemen is provided in repatriation hospitals. You cannot just pluck this proposal out of the hat and say that we would like to see hospitalization provided for all ex-servicemen of the 1914-18 war. The introduction of such a proposal into the debate on a bill as valuable as the one now before the House does not get us any further. The question of the automatic acceptance of cancer as a war-caused disability has been dealt with by many honorable members on both sides of the House. Although we all would like to see cancer accepted as being war-caused, the great difficulty is that if it is so accepted we are met with the question: Can you then refuse to accept heart disease and a great many other disabilities? If we are automatically to accept one disability after another as being war-caused, perhaps we should say that all hospitalization should be provided free for ex-servicemen by the Repatriation Department. Every time automatic acceptance is extended, the door is opened to further claims for automatic acceptance. I have such a horror of cancer that I would like to see it automatically accepted as a warcaused disability, but I appreciate quite readily that such acceptance would immediately give rise to claims for acceptance of other serious illness and disabilities as being war-caused. Where is the limits? I suggest to honorable members that this bill will give tremendous benefits to ex-servicemen and their dependants where help is most needed. I believe that the Government's philosophy is right and that when only a certain amount of money is available - that, unfortunately, is always the case in politics - that money should be used where it is most needed. I wholeheartedly support that policy on the part of the Government. As I have mentioned, this bill will help to achieve such a result. {: #subdebate-32-0-s3 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD:
Bass **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** began his speech very badly in my opinion and, I am sure, in the opinion also of honorable members on both sides of this House. He described this as a splendid bill. That, of course, is a matter of opinion. I hope to be able to show that the bill is not a splendid bill, as it was described by the honorable member, and that its benefits fall far short of what the Australian people, particularly those who represent the ex-servicemen of this country, expect this Government to provide in a measure of this kind. The honorable member for Sturt stated quite emphatically - I hope that the mistake was not intentional - that the provisions of this bill would provide for additional expenditure of £12,800.000 on repatriation this financial year. Obviously, the honorable member has not taken the opportunity to study this aspect of the measure. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** presenting the Budget recently, at the conclusion of his outline of the Government's repatriation proposals, said - >These proposals are estimated to cost £2,173,000 in a full year and £1,581,000 in 1963-64. How much in error was the honorable member for Sturt? I say at once that the returned servicemen's organizations hoped that the recent Budget would increase repatriation benefits by a sum far in excess of that proposed by the Government in this measure and probably nearer to the amount erroneously stated by the honorable member. The honorable member for Sturt went on to deal with various aspects of this measure, but concerned himself principally with the additional 10s. a week that will be paid to service pensioners in certain circumstances. In the way in which the honorable member dealt with this matter, it could well have been related to the Social Services Bill 1963, which was introduced earlier this evening by the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton).** No honorable member on this side of the House has at any time critized the Government's action in providing an additional 10s. a week, whether to a service pensioner or to those people who will qualify for the additional sum under the terms of the Social Services Bill.' What we do criticize is the fact that the Government has entirely ignored married pensioners, whether repatriation pensioners or social service pensioners. That, as the honorable member for Sturt understands, is the Opposition's quarrel with the Government in this matter. I do not intend at this stage to refer to the anomalies that exist in legislation of this kind - legislation which discriminates, as the honorable member for Eden-Monaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser)** has. properly pointed out, between single and married pensioners. I am sure that the honorable member for Sturt really understands this situation. At this stage I think I should confine my remarks to the bill that is before the House. All honorable members on this side of the House agree that no ex-servicemen's association, including the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldier's Association, would claim that this bill provides a fair measure of justice to its members. In its 1963-64 Budget the Government is providing for an expenditure of more than £2,000,000,000 but is providing only slightly more than £1,500,000 extra by way of repatriation benefits. I am sure that the present Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Swartz)** must be one of the most unhappy Ministers ever to hold the portfolio since this Government took office. The Minister took over the portfolio in 1962. The only repatriation legislation that flowed from the Budget brought down in that year was a small provision which extended the time limit which applied to persons appealing to repatriation tribunals. The Budget brought down in 1962 did not provide for any increases in repatriation payments. This year, for the second successive year, the Minister has brought down legislation which, with the exception of very few benefits, ignores completely the submissions that have been made not only to the Minister but also in some instances to Cabinet by returned servicemen's organizations, such as the Totally and Permanently Disabled Soldiers' Association, the blinded ex-servicemen's association and the association of ex-service tuberculosis sufferers. The bill now before the House provides some very small increases to certain recipients of repatriation benefits. The great bulk of repatriation pensioners will not receive any increases at all. Having regard to what the honorable member for Sturt has said, I intend to demonstrate the degree to which repatriation benefits have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of living since this Government assumed office. I will not go back to the years when the Government first assumed office. I shall take as my measuring stick, knowing that a measuring stick is necessary and desirable, the year 1951-52. Before dealing with the rates of repatriation pensions - I acknowledge that what are adequate rates will always be the subject of debate when measures such as this come before the Parliament - I want to refer to a matter that was raised to-night by the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen).** This legislation was introduced into the Parliament only this afternoon by the Minister for Repatriation. Within a few hours the Opposition is obliged to debate what is in my opinion, and I am sure is in the opinion of all honorable members, one of the most important pieces of legislation that come before this Parliament in any session. {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: -- The arrangements were made more than a week ago. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr BARNARD: -- I am not concerned with any arrangements that may have been made. I did not take part in them. I am not prepared to accept the Minister's reasoning that to delay the passing of this legislation would delay the payment of the additional benefits to repatriation pensioners. To delay the resumption of the debate on this bill for two days would have meant very little difference to the payment of the benefits. As the. Minister well knows, the date on which the payment of repatriation benefits becomes effective will be the same as the date on which the payment of the additional social service benefits becomes effective. What does the legislation provide? First it provides for an increase in the special rate of pension, commonly referred to as the totally and permanently incapacitated pension, from £13 5s. a week to £13 15s. a week. When the Treasurer in the course of his Budget speech announced this increase there was no applause from Government supporters. All of us, including the Minister for Repatriation, know why there was no applause from the Government side of the House. The Minister and his colleagues are aware that the 10s. increase will not apply to all totally and permanently incapacitated exservicemen. Most totally and permanently incapacitated pensioners supplement their incomes with the service pension on the basis of permanent unemployability. They are thus able to increase their incomes up to the maximum of £17 10s. a week. This legislation makes no provision for raising that ceiling. Therefore if the totally and permanently incapacitated pensioner receives an increase of 10s. a week and also is in receipt of the service pension, or if his wife is in receipt of an age pension, a corresponding amount of 10s a week will be deducted from his service pension or from his wife's age pension. If I have wrongly stated the position let the Minister or any of his colleagues on the other side of the House say that this will not be so. I claim that what I have stated are the facts. The Treasurer in introducing his Budget and the Minister in introducing this legislation should have pointed out that the majority of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen will not benefit by an increase of 10s. a week in their pensions. That 10s. will be deducted from their service pensions or from the age pensions received by their wives. Secondly, the Government has provided that the domestic allowance payable to war widows over 50 years of age who are permanently unemployable, or who have a child under the age of 16 years, shall be increased by 7s. 6d. a week from £3 2s. 6d. to £3 10s. a week. Thirdly, the bill provides that some service pensioners, that is, service pensioners who are permanently unemployable - I ask my colleagues to note that point; it applies only to those who are permanently unemployable and not to the bulk of service pensioners - will receive an increase of 5s. a week for second and subsequent children under the age of sixteen years. The Minister should explain fully why the increase will apply only to service pensioners who are permanently unemployable. Fourthly, the wife's allowance is to be increased from £2 7s. 6d. to £3 a week. A great deal can be said about this proposal, and if time permits I shall enlarge upon it later. Fifthly, the educational allowance has been increased. The Opposition acknowledges at once that in some respects this Government has been generous in its application of the Repatriation Act, but what I have said already shows clearly that in the Opposition's view the Government's proposals fall far short of the requirements of the Returned Servicemen's League and other organizations. In my opinion, the bill is notable for what it does not do rather than for what it does. To substantiate my statements relating to the decline in the value of these pensions, let me turn to the average male earnings in Australia, taking the financial year 1951-52 and comparing it with 1963-64. In 1951-52, when the average male earnings in Australia were £11 lis. a week, the special rate pension was £8 15s. a week, so it represented 75.7 per cent, of the then average male earnings. In 1963-64, by the measure we are now debating, which will give effect to the Budget repatriation proposals, the special rate pension will be increased to £13 15s. a week. However, the average male earnings now are £23 9s. a week, so the special rate pension will be 58.9 per cent, of the average male earnings. In twelve years the value of the special rate pension, taken as a proportion of the average male earnings, has declined by 16.8 per cent. At this stage Government supporters should be reminded of what was said in 1949 by their leader. When putting to the people of Australia the case for the Liberal Party he said: " Repatriation is a proud responsibility. We shall see to it that the purchasing power of pensions is maintained." I have shown a considerable decline in the purchasing power of the pensions payable to one section of the recipients. The Opposition has advocated consistently in this House that the special rate pensioner has a special claim to sympathetic consideration by any government, irrespective of its political colour, but he has not received that sympathetic consideration from this Government. Time and again we have argued that the special rate pension should be at least the equivalent of the basic wage, but at no stage of this Government's term of office has it reached that level. In point of fact, as I have shown, it has declined substantially in twelve years, measured against average male earnings. Another serious aspect of repatriation benefits is the pensions paid to war widows, who can look only to the Government for the measure of justice to which we all feel they are entitled. All members of Cabinet are fully aware of the increases requested in the plan which was submitted to them by the R.S.L. That organization requested that the war widow's pension be increased from £5 15s. a week to £6 10s. a week. No increase is provided by this legislation, nor was there any increase in 1962. Similar remarks apply to the wife's allowance, which has not been increased during the last nine years. Yet this Government tells the people that it understands and is prepared to accept its responsibilities towards ex-servicemen. Let me return to the average male earnings. As I have said, in 1951-52 average male earnings were £11 lis. a week. At that time the war widow's pension was £3 10s. a week, so it represented 30.33 per cent, of the average male earnings. In 1963-64 the pension of £5 15s. a week represents 24.5 per cent, of the average male earnings. In twelve years it has fallen in value by not less than 6 per cent., measured against the yardstick which I think is a reasonable one for the Opposition to use. If the Government granted a pension to war widows comparable in value with that paid in 1951-52 the pension would be not less than £7 2s. 3d. a week. The Government has ignored the requests of the federal executive of the R.S.L. and for the past two years has ignored the war widows. I acknowledge that the Government has made some increase in the domestic allowance, but the domestic allowance does not cover all war widows. Some will not receive any increase under this legislation. The Minister has an obligation to give an explanation, not only to this House but also to the war widows and the people of Australia generally. Now let me turn to the 100 per cent, general rate pensioner, who received no increase in 1962-63 and will not receive any increase in this financial year. One wonders how much influence the Minister for Repatriation exercises on the Cabinet and how much influence the members of the Government's returned servicemen's committee have, remembering that there has been no increase in important repatriation benefits in the last two years. The pension paid to the 100 per cent, general rate pensioner who suffers a disability which in many instances prevents him from engaging in normal employment but which, in the opinion of the Repatriation Department, is not sufficient for him to be classified as a special rate pensioner, will not be increased. It is sometimes said that if there is some doubt about the extent of his disability he may apply for a service pension, if he so desires. But the fact remains that his pension rate will remain at £5 15s. a week. He will receive no increase. Therefore, what I said about the decline in the war widow's rate in comparison with average male earnings in this country applies also to the 100 per cent, general rate pensioner. The figures are exactly the same. If the pension is to be restored to a level equivalent to that of 1951-52, it should be £7 2s. 3d. a week. But this Government has decided that the 100 per cent, general rate pensioner does not deserve any increase at all. Much could be said about service pensioners. The anomalies in respect of this class of pensioner were dealt with very adequately by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro recently. Married service pensioners will receive no increase at all; single service pensioners will receive an increase of 10s. a week. I do not want to point out to the House the anomalies that that type of legislation will create in the Repatriation Act. They have been fully explained to the House already. I am sure that they are understood and appreciated by honorable members opposite. What was said by the honorable member for Parkes, who led for the Opposition in this debate to-night, in my opinion sums up very adequately the feelings of honorable members on this side of the House on this legislation. I hope that I have said enough to convince honorable members opposite who recognize that there is some injustice in this legislation that they should take the opportunity to support the amendments that we will move during the committee stage. Unfortunately, we are not in a position to convince the Government that it should give a measure of justice to the pensioners to whom I have referred to-night. This Government does not believe in maintaining pension standards. Despite the fact that in 1949 the leader of the present Government parties said that pension rates would be maintained, they have dishonoured that promise as they have dishonoured many promises that were made to and accepted by the people of Australia in that year. Despite what has been said by the honorable member for Sturt, what the honorable member for Parkes said to-night about the onus-of-proof clause is only too true. Every honorable member who has had an opportunity to deal with section 47 of the Repatriation Act knows that that section should be overhauled. The section is not being applied correctly. I make no criticism of the Repatriation Department. I certainly make no criticism of the tribunals. I believe that the Repatriation Department and its officers are very sympathetic in their approach to these problems, but they are limited by an outmoded and outdated repatriation act. The tribunals can only work within the scope of the sections that apply to their responsibilities. I have said before, and I repeat now, that section 47 is not being applied in the generous way in which this Parliament originally intended it to be applied. I move on to another point made by the honorable member for Parkes, namely the need for an all-party select committee of this Parliament to examine the Repatriation Act and to advise the government of the day - whatever government may be in power - of the difficulties and anomalies that are apparent in the act. Those anomalies have been referred to frequently by honorable members not only on this side of the House but also on the Government side. If honorable members opposite and the Government want to revise this act and correct many of the anomalies to which I have referred already, they should seize this opportunity and support the Opposition's amendment when it is proposed during the committee stage. In conclusion I say that the Opposition does not regard this measure as one which provides the measure of justice that we believe is due to recipients of repatriation benefits. I refer particularly to special rate pensioners and war widows who have very special difficulties which are known to and appreciated by this Government. The Government has refused to accept the challenge that those difficulties present. It appreciates the difficulties, but it does not accept the challenge to remove them. I suggest to the Minister for Repatriation, in all sincerity, that this bill should be withdrawn and redrafted to provide that measure of justice to which I have referred. {: #subdebate-32-0-s4 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN:
Indi .- The honorable member for Bass **(Mr. Barnard)** made an extremely impassioned speech on this bill. I have never doubted the honorable member's sincerity, but I doubt the accuracy of some of the statements that he made to-night. The first one that I should like to correct is his statement that the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** said that the increases in pensions granted by the Government this year would cost an extra £12,800,000. The honorable member for Sturt did not say that at all. He said that this year the Budget provision for repatriation services totals £120,500,000, an increase of £12,800,000 on the expenditure for last year. Those are overall figures. The increases granted by the Government do not amount to £12,800,000. The honorable member for Bass said that the Government had ignored the requests of the Returned Sailors, Soldiers and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- So it has. {: .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN: -- The Government did not ignore them at all. It considered them, but it certainly did not agree to all of them. The Government agreed to two of the requests, but it did not agree to the other eight or nine requests contained in the R.S.L.'s pensions plan. Not even the most optimistic member of the R.S.L. executive expected the Government to agree to all of them. The honorable member for Bass said that the Opposition did not have any notice of this bill coming on. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** mentioned that, too. An agreement was reached with the Opposition last week on this matter. Everybody knows that in order to pay the increases to the recipients of pensions this bill must come before the House as soon as possible. The honorable member for Bass implied that honorable members on this side of the House are pretty uninterested in the repatriation set-up generally and in the welfare of ex-servicemen as a whole. Of course, that is terribly untrue. There are many ex-servicemen on this side of the House, just as there are on the Opposition side. Do not let any member of the Opposition tell me that I have not a deep interest in the problems of exservicemen. I intend to be frank with exservicemen's organizations. I will not just say something that they want to hear if I do not honestly believe that it is fair, that the Government can accede to their requests, or that there should be some discussion of the requests. The honorable member for Bass also said that the Government has never made any attempt to increase the pension of the totally and permanently incapacitated serviceman to a figure in excess of the basic wage. According to my information, that is not correct. It was certainly the position when an Opposition government was in office for, during the regime of the Labour Government, a T.P.I. pensioner was entitled to only one pension. Under this Government, he is entitled to receive not only the T.P.I. pension but also a service pension, which is subject to a means test. Under our system, he may receive up to a maximum of £17 10s. a week, which is certainly in excess of the basic wage. I agree with the honorable member's statement that the proposed increase will not be payable to all T.P.I. pensioners, but it will certainly be enjoyed by 19,000 out of a total of approximately 25,000 recipients of T.P.I. pensions. The honorable member for Bass said that section 47 of the act should be overhauled and that the tribunals and repatriation bodies which deal with applications and appeals should be given a clear explanation of where the onus of proof lies. I understand that an explanation of the onusofproof provision was made in 1943 by the then Attorney-General and a former Leader of the Opposition, **Dr. Evatt,** but no clearer instruction was given to the tribunals between 1943 and 1949 under a Labour government than has been given in the last thirteen years by this Government. Both the honorable member for Parkes and the honorable member for Bass admitted that the wording of the provision presents an extremely difficult problem. We all appreciate this and, if there was a simple way of solving it, if there was some way of setting out a simple explanation that would make perfectly clear to the independent tribunals just how these matters should be resolved, then, surely, over the twenty years during which this provision has been in existence, some one would have thought of that simple way of phrasing the provision. Until the last ex-serviceman and the last ex-serviceman's dependant are here no more, whoever may be in government, this country will owe a tremendous responsibility to those service personnel who did such a wonderful job for Australia. It is not easy to find words to describe adequately the job that our service men and women did in two world wars, but, to put it simply, it was a wonderful job and as a consequence many of them and their dependants suffered great hardships. Opposition members cannot honestly believe that the Government and its supporters do not realize their responsibility to the ex-service men and women. It is most important that the members of the Government should not forget that responsibility either this year or in the ensuing years. As time goes on, it will be even more necessary for members of the Government to keep this obligation in mind because there will be new generations of young people who know little of the sacrifices made by those who served in the two world wars. It is possible that, as time goes on, pressure will be brought to bear on the government of the day to appropriate moneys for other purposes instead of continuing to make a fair allocation for the payment of repatriation pensions. I do not like the word "pensions"; I would prefer to call them entitlements. In future years increasing pressure will be brought to bear on the Government to appropriate revenue for purposes other than the payments of repatriation entitlements. With the passage of time most people will not only want to forget, but will actually forget, the wars through which we lived in this century and it is the responsibility of those who are in the Parliament of this country to remember their obligations in connexion with the payment of repatriation entitlements. I should like to refer now to the Returned Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Imperial League of Australia. Reflections have been cast upon this organization and its members over the last week or so. Like every other member in this chamber, I attend many R.S.L. functions and I am sure every one will support me when I say that the R.S.L. sub-branches as a whole do a magnificent job for the ex-service men and women in the communities in which they are established. Often the service rendered by them does not receive much publicity. Individual members and the R.S.L. subbranches generally perform countless deeds that add much to the happiness of exservicemen, their children and other dependants. It reflects little credit on people when they criticize the R.S.L. on the basis of a few isolated instances of departures from the high principles of the organization that might have occurred in various parts of Australia. The league provides scholarships and does much to further the general education of the children of ex-servicemen. I thought that the pension plan submitted to the Government by the R.S.L. was reasonable, that excessive increases were not being sought for the particular sections covered by the application, but, as many people to whom I spoke prior to this debate realize, there are financial limitations to what the Government can do. All sections of the community must be considered. The Government must have regard to the overall economy. I am certain that those members of the fighting forces who did not return from the two world wars would not expect their widows, children and other dependants to be looked after completely by the taxpayers of this country. I am certain that all they would ask would be that the overall economic situation be considered and that the recipients of repatriation entitlements be treated fairly having regard to the overall economic position. I should like just to touch briefly on three points that have been mentioned quite frequently in this debate and others that have taken place over past years. The first has been referred to a number of times this evening. It is the onus-of-proof provision. As I said earlier, both the honorable member for Parkes and the honorable member for Bass have said that interpretation of the onus of proof posed an extremely difficult problem. As one who has had personal experience of preparing cases for presentation to entitlement appeal tribunals, I have no doubt in my mind that the most sympathetic consideration is given by these tribunals to every claim submitted to them. We may ask why they would not receive sympathetic consideration. Every member of the tribunal is an ex-serviceman and would naturally be sympathetic towards a claim made by another ex-serviceman. The provisions of section 47 have been explained at various times by Ministers. They have said that the section provides that the claimant or appellant is to be given the benefit of any doubt and that all reasonable inferences are to be drawn in his favour to the exclusion of all other inferences. The claimant or appellant does not have to prove his case, but the determining authority - that is the tribunal - must allow the case unless the Commonwealth proves to it the claim should not be allowed. Where there is any doubt in the mind of the determining authority, the claim is allowed. I cannot think of words more simple than those. The honorable member for Parkes and the honorable member for Bass said that there should be a clearer explanation, but they did not suggest one. I will be interested to hear whether any other Opposition members can suggest a better description than the one I have given. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- Should not claimants have the right of appeal? {: .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN: -- They already have the right of appeal. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- Yes, but to whom? They appeal to the body that refused the claim in the first place. {: .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN: -- The honorable member for Watson forgets that the claimants have already had the chance of appearing before a repatriation board and the Repatriation Commission. {: .speaker-KFG} ##### Mr Griffiths: -- No, they do not appear before a board. {: .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN: -- I repeat that the procedure is this: If an ex-serviceman wants to receive a pension, he can appear before a repatriation board, the Repatriation Commission and an appeal tribunal. I note that both honorable members who are interjecting come from New South Wales. I know that is a backward State because of the State Government there. Ex-servicemen are able to go before two other bodies before they come to the appeal tribunal. I would like to pass on to the suggestion that cancer should be automatically accepted as due to war service. It is very easy to argue, as I have often heard it argued, that no one knows what causes cancer and therefore we do not know that war service does not cause it. There are hundreds of different types of cancer. I have never heard the Opposition define the type of cancer that should be automatically accepted. Whilst the precise cause of some cancers is not known, a great deal is known about certain forms of this disease. It has been proved that cancer need not necessarily be related to war service. Expert opinion is that there is no evidence to suggest any connexion between general war service and any condition of cancer. In any event, to generalize about service conditions can be as misleading as to generalize about a particular disease. Conditions of war service, as we all know, varied widely. I shall deal now with the suggestion that ex-servicemen of World War I. should be entitled to hospital treatment. I am sure that we would all like to accede to this request, but once again we face many difficulties. There are not only economic difficulties but also the difficulty of providing accommodation in hospitals. About 100,000 ex-servicemen from the First World War are still alive. Many of them are already entitled to admission to repatriation hospitals and to medical attention and medical benefits. Let us assume that those who are not entitled to be admitted to repatriation hospitals number 40,000. If suddenly 30,000 of them wanted to be admitted to hospitals, an extreme strain would be thrown on the finances of the hospitals, which would have difficulty in providing accommodation and in obtaining the necessary nursing and medical staff. We all feel sympathetic towords exservicemen and I hope that one day the Government will be able to provide this benefit. However, for the present the position must remain as it is. I think that the Government, in the present financial situation, has done a good job in providing repatriation benefits. The Minister and the departmental officers have been very helpful in presenting us with a lot of detailed information with this bill. This is the first time I can remember such detailed information being provided, and I am sure that all honorable members appreciate it. **Mr. Speaker,** it gives me great pleasure to support the bill. {: #subdebate-32-0-s5 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
Hughes -- The honorable member for Indi **(Mr. Holten)** has clearly shown the need for the Parliament to adopt the amendments which the honorable member for Parkes **(Mr.** Haylen) has foreshadowed in general terms. The honorable member for Indi, who as a member of the Parliament has a much better opportunity to specialize in repatriation matters than have ex-servicemen generally, has shown conclusively that he is unable to understand the repatriation legislation. He and other honorable members on the Government side of the House have shown that they are confused. There is a great deal of merit in the suggestion that the repatriation legislation should be brought up to date. Twenty long years have passed since this was last done. It was done by the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** who is an ex-serviceman. I put it to the House that the amendment to be proposed in committee, which would result in the act being revised completely, is worthy of wholehearted support. The total cost of repatriation benefits for the financial year 1963-64 is £1,581,000. This is a comparatively small amount when one takes into account the thousands of millions of pounds that are involved in the Budget. All honorable members in the House should rate the Returned Servicemen's League pension plan a reasonable proposition. After all, it has been put forward by an organization which enjoys the patronage of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Gloucester. In fact, it is very interesting to look through the last annual report of the league. One ascertains that of twelve members of the national executive no fewer than nine have received honours from the Crown. This is a body which must surely be rated responsible in respect of these matters. It is significant that the Government must concede that it is aware of the desires and aspirations of the league in regard to pensions. On 28th March, 1963, a very eminent panel of representatives of returned servicemen met Cabinet and put proposals to it. The deputation comprised **Mr. Lee,** the national **president, Mr. Yeo,** C.B.E., **Sir Charles** McKay, C.B.E., **Mr. Elliman** and **Mr. A.** G. W. Keys, the national secretary. Yet, as the honorable member for Indi indicated from the other side of the House, the Government had substantially denied the submissions put to it by the representatives of ex-servicemen. I will not have time to discuss this question thoroughly, and need not do so, because most of these matters are pretty well comprehended by many members of Parliament However, there is need to emphasize some of the more dramatic instances where exservicemen's pensions have been allowed to deteriorate. I will refer first to a matter about which the Government is inclined to feel smug and complacent and about which the R.S.L. probably is fairly satisfied, but which, in my view, is still in need of careful consideration. I refer to the special or total and permanent incapacity rate of war pension. The Budget proposes to increase this rate by 10s. a week, bringing it from £13 5s. to £13 15s. This affects no fewer than 23,000 ex-servicemen. I am told that the basic wage was £14 lis. 3d. at the end of 1962. Therefore, it is staggering to find that this Australian Parliament which, like the honorable member for Indi, justifiably pays tribute to our ex-servicemen, is prepared in 1963 to give the T.P.I, pensioner a rate so substantially less than the basic wage. We can just imagine servicemen going away on whistling troop trains or troopships, and the Minister for the Army of that time saying: " Farewell, chaps, you have no need to worry. If you get bowled over so that you can never work again we will bring you back and give you a pension which is substantially less than the basic wage." I put it to the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Swartz)** that if we did have the misfortune to be involved in yet another war this Government would not take such an attitude. It would promise all servicemen that in the event of incapacity they would be granted a reasonable pension. After all, we can hardly describe any payment less than the basic wage as reasonable. Many T.P.I, pensioners are something like apologies for what they might have been if they had not gone to the war. Many of them could easily have been in this place. Some might have become leaders of industry and others might have been in the high income brackets. Yet this Government is prepared to pay them only £13 15s. a week by way of pension when the basic wage is £14 lis. 3d.! At the end of June, 1962, the average rate of male earnings in Australia was said to be £23 19s.. The R.S.L. pension plan calls for a modest 10s. increase, and this is the amount which has been conceded by the Government. Surely this is T.P.I, is the first point- of the fact that the league's pension plan is a reasonable proposition, because it asks only for £13 15s. a week while the average rate of male earnings amounts to £23 19s. If we can accept the premise that here is a reasonable proposition - taking this first item as typical of others to follow - we can go on to demonstrate the manner in which this Government has really let the exservicemen down by faling to give effect to so many of the requests contained in the pension plan. In 1951 - this period has been mentioned by the honorable member for Bass **(Mr. Barnard)** as a good period for comparison - the T.P.I, pension was 75 per cent, of the average rate of male earnings. To maintain in 1963 the ratio of the T.P.I, pension to the average rate of male earnings as prevailed in 1951, the T.P.I, rate to-day should be £17 15s. a week. So the Minister has good cause to hang his head in shame when the T.P.I, rate, during the lifetime of this Government, has fallen so dramatically in relation to the average rate of male earnings. The totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen of all people! If the ratio had been maintained the T.P.I, pensioner to-day would be getting £4 more than is proposed under this legislation. Let me now turn to the wives of T.P.I, pensioners. After all, they have the right to be animated as a consequence of their pension rate, which is £1 15s. 6d. a week! Such a woman may be sacrificing her life to the care of an ex-serviceman who needs special attention and consideration. The wife has often to become something like a nurse or physiotherapist and has to acquire all sorts of skills and specialties. By her care and devotion, she is probably keeping her husband out of hospital. If he were in hospital, the Commonwealth would incur considerable expense. Yet she is paid the princely sum of £1 15s. 6d. a week, and no increase in that rate is proposed under this Budget. If we look at the relationship of this payment to the average rate of male earnings we find that she is being denied the consideration to which she has been entitled during the lifetime of this Government. If we were to maintain the relationship, the payment should be raised to £3 ls. lOd. The R.S.L. asked for an increase of 24s. 6d. The league hoped to bring' the rate for T.P.I, wives up to £3 a week. That increase has been completely denied by the Government. I must remind the House that when we talk of 1951 or 1949 we never regarded the rates then paid as the zenith, the ultimate or the pinnacle of our hopes and aspirations for compensation for ex-servicemen. When Labour went out of office in 1949 we were in the process of building the welfare state and providing genuine compensation for exservicemen and others. We should always think of pensions for ex-servicemen as compensation. We are giving incapacitated ex-servicemen rates well below those which many incapacitated workers in industry receive. This was not the limit of our hopes in 1951, but this shocking deterioration in the lifetime of this Government indicates, in my view, substantial neglect of ex-servicemen. There is no reason for the Minister to be either complacent or smug about the special or T.P.I, rate pension or that payable to the wives of totally and permanently incapacitated ex-servicemen. {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: -- Why do you not give the 1949 figures? {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- I think it is reasonable to cite figures which are related to this Government's expression of concern in the matter. I should be interested to hear a supporter of the Government deny the truth of what I have said, or of what the honorable member for Bass has said. I hope that the Minister for Repatriation will take the opportunity to have a careful look at the figures that have been put to him. I come now to the position of war widows. I know a little about war widows, **Mr. Speaker,** because I have been the son of one from about the age of seven years. It is rather appalling to see that under this Budget the rate of pension is to remain unaltered at £5 15s. a week. The R.S.L. asked for an increase of 15s. a week, to make the pension £6 10s. a week. Will any honorable member of the Government side of the chamber contend that that was an excessive or unreasonable request? Surely it is not unreasonable to ask for a pension of £6 10s. a week for a woman whose husband sacrificed himself in the service of his country. After all, this is not a matter of infinitesimal concern, or one which calls for light-hearted consideration. There are 38,917 war widows in Australia at the present time. In 1951, to use this period of comparison again, the war widows' pension was £3 10s. a week, or 30.33 per cent, of the average male weekly earnings. In 1963, the war widow's pension of £5 15s. a week represented 24.51 per cent, of the average male weekly earnings, so that again there has been a sharp deterioriation in the relationship to average male earnings. On the basis of that relationship, the war widow should be receiving to-day, not £5 15s. a week, but £7 2s. 3d. In 1951, every one hoped that the relationship would not just be maintained as the years went by, but that the value of the pension would gradually increase. The war widow has lost ground to the extent of 27s. 3d. a week since 1951. Let the Minister for Repatriation have a look at that position and deal with it, since war widows have been given no consideration at all in this Budget. The margin of benefit which the war widow had over the civilian widow is being steadfastly dissipated, because under the provision of the Budget, civilian widows have been granted certain increases. It is true that those increases are both long overdue and well justified. Nevertheless, the little advantage which the war widow had in terms of compensation for the loss of a husband in the service of his country is being progressively undermined. The R.S.L., in its reasonable submissions, asked for an increase of 15s. a week to bring the pension of the war widow to £6 10s. a week, but the request has not been acceded to. As honorable members know, a domestic allowance is paid to widows over 50 years of age, to those permanently unemployable and to those who have children under sixteen years of age. In other words, in general terms, it is paid to widows who cannot go to work. Under the Budget provisions, it is proposed to increase the allowance by 7s. 6d. a week, from £3 2s. 6d. to £3 10s. The R.S.L. asked for £4 a week. Here again, we find that there has been neglect. These women will receive the war widow's pension of £5 15s. a week and the domestic allowance of £3 10s. a week, or a total of £9 5s. a week, as against the £10 10s. a week for which the R.S.L. asked. Of course, there are in this Budget some features of repatriation benefits about which the Opposition has some enthusiasm. For instance, there is the increase of 15 per cent, in the rates payable under the soldiers' children education scheme. We welcome this innovation because we know the extent to which the children of ex-servicemen have been denied opportunities in the past. The increase is long overdue. Nevertheless, we applaud the Government for this small measure of justice. Let me turn to service pensions. Single pensioners are to have an increase of 10s. a week, which will bring their service pension to £5 15s. a week. Married service pensioners will not receive any increase at all. We have heard all the arguments of the honorable member for Sturt **(Mr. Wilson)** in reply to those of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro **(Mr. Allan Fraser),** and so no. Maybe there is a case for discriminatory pensions, but I think it is fair to say that if we put the matter on the basis that single people are qualifying for an additional benefit we disregard the fact that many single people live together. Some of them live in aged persons' homes. Many service pensioners take advantage of the Aged Persons Homes Act. The old adage that two can live as cheaply as one is substantially true, but conversely, it is difficult for one person to meet living expenses, to pay rates, rent and the rest. Would it not be fair to put this matter on the basis that this discriminatory pension should be paid, not to single people, but to people who are living alone. I suggest that that is the proper way to look at it, but the Government has failed to do so. The increase should apply to the age pensioner and the invalid pensioner as much as it does to the service pensioner. We shall have the anomalous position in which some service pensioners who are single but are living with other people will be enabled to live better, because they have more money, than married couples who are pensioners. Such a position cannot be supported by logic or even common sense. I turn to the allowance which is paid to the wife of a service pensioner which is to be increased by 12s. 6d. a week, from £2 7s. 6d. to £3 a week. This, of course, is ridiculous. The wife of a service pensioner obviously should be entitled to exactly the same consideration as is the service pensioner himself. It costs just as much for a wife to live. Then there is the children's allowance, which is 15s. a week for the first child - no increase here - and 2s. 6d. a week for the second, third, fourth and subsequent children. A lousy 2s. 6d. a week in these days! It is the price of two middies of beer. We can equate it to all kind of things which do not count for very much by our standards to-day. I ask the Minister for Repatriation to bestir himself for a moment and say whether he thinks that that allowance is not deserving of some consideration- Is not the second child of a service pensioner worth just a little more than 2s. 6d. a week? We believe so. I shall not embark on a comparison between the 1951 and 1963 rates again because time is racing away and I wish to deal with several other matters. The general rate war pension has been left unchanged in this Budget. It is in need of review. The R.S.L. asked for an increase to bring it to £6 10s. a week. At the present time it stands at £5 15s. a week. The R.S.L. is able to show statistically that the value of this pension also has been dissipated since 1951, when it was £3 10s. a week or 30.3 per cent, of the male basic rate. To-day, it is 24.5 per cent. The loss is £1 7s. 3d. a week. There is a good case to increase the general rate war pension, and a very substantial increase is needed to overtake the loss in value. The same comment applies, of course, to the wife's portion of the general rate war pension, which stands to-day at £1 15s. 6d. a week. To maintain the 1951 relationship to the male basic wage she would need to receive, not £1 15s. 6d. a week, but £3 ls. lOd. The R.S.L. and the Opposition in this Parliament have consistently asked for free hospitalization and medical benefits for diggers of the First World War. Of course every member in this chamber has been visited many times by old diggers who cannot find any mates to substantiate their claims that their disabilities are due to war service. It is a long time now since the 1914-18 war. The youngest digger who served in that war would be 63 years of age to-day. Is there not something to be said for giving these chaps the benefit of the doubt and letting them go into repatriation hospitals to get free treatment? In this connexion the pension plan of the Returned Servicemen's League has been completely ignored by the Government. The principle was established when the Government decided in 1960 to give service pensioners free treatment in repatriation hospitals. There are not many others who need to be covered, and it would be a very kind gesture to grant this concession and thus give these old diggers a feeling of security. We strongly urge that consideration be given to this suggestion. All the reasons which prompted the Government to give free treatment to service pensioners apply with equal force in the case of diggers generally who served in the 1914-18 war. As the cost of granting this concession would be of such little consequence the Minister for Repatriation **(Mr. Swartz)** ought to be sympathetic about it. Then I come to the funeral allowance. This is, of course, an annual grizzle on the part of the Returned Servicemen's League. We of the Opposition raise the matter consistently. We ask that the allowance be raised from £25 to £50. After all, many ex-servicemen leave their families in fairly difficult circumstances. The R.S.L. has made very extensive inquiries and has shown that the cheapest funeral costs about £50. The cost is very much greater in my electorate. However, the allowance is less than 50 per cent, of the cost. The amount of the allowance was last increased, from £20 to £25, in 1952, the reason being that increased costs were in evidence. Increased costs are again in evidence today, and I believe that we should double the existing funeral allowance as soon as possible. In 1951 the allowance of £20 which was then payable represented 173.11 per cent, of the average male earning rate. If the ratio had been maintained the allowance would now be £40 lis. The R.S.L. has asked that it be raised to £50, and who can argue against such a reasonable submission? In the limited time available to me, **Mr. Speaker,** I want to raise another couple of matters. The first relates to the medical card for the wife of a totally and permanently incapacitated ex-serviceman. Here we have another of these periodical bones of contention. I believe the Government's attitude cannot be sustained or justified. We all know the story, I think. In 1955 the wives of T.P.I. 's were entitled to hold a pensioner medical card, which gave them free hospital treatment and free treatment by doctors. Then the British Medical Association brought its influence to bear, as a result of which the Government imposed a means test. The effect of the means test was that if a single pensioner had an income of more than £2 from other sources, of if the outside income was more than £4 in the case of a married couple, the entitlement to the medical card would be withdrawn. It was quite silly not to take into account assets in formulating the means test. Assets were completely disregarded, and the means test was based solely on income. Those who had been entitled to the medical card prior to October, 1955, were allowed to continue such entitlement. Others were told, by means of advertisements in the press, if they were lucky enough to see them, that they could apply for such cards. Those who missed out on seeing the advertisements have missed out on their entitlement ever since. We have seen the figures in connexion with this matter. There is not a lot of money involved, and if the Minister showed any appreciation at all of repatriation affairs he would get stuck into this problem with the least delay. One matter that will be given a good deal of attention by the Opposition will be that which concerns the onus-of-proof provisions. We will submit an amendment in the committee stage which will provide that an ex-serviceman may appeal to the Supreme Court or a special judicial authority if he feels he has not been given a fair go by the repatriation authorities. It is quite staggering to have a casual look - and that is all I have had the opportunity to take - at the Repatriation Commission's annual report for 1962-63 and see the number of applicants for pensions and the number of frustrated and disappointed exservicemen. On page 29 of the report we find a table giving the number of claims received and determined by repatriation boards and the commission. The total for action - giving the figures in round thousands - was 46,000, the number accepted was 19,000 and the number rejected 20,000. Surely all these people are not humbugs or malingerers, claiming something that they do not honestly feel they are entitled to. Yet we find that half of the claims were rejected. Then there is another table giving figures relating to appeals to the Repatriation Commission. The total for action was 16,000, of which 2,000 were accepted and 12,000 rejected. Then we have appeals to Entitlement Appeal Tribunals, and we find that there were 12,990 for action, of which 1,000 were allowed and 7,000 disallowed. No one in the wide world could seriously contend that there is not need for a close look at the onus-of-proof provisions. The R.S.L. has made a very detailed submission about this matter, and I hold in my hand a letter addressed to me from the New South Wales State secretary of that body. It is headed, " Proposed Amendment to Section 47 of the Australian Soldiers' Repatriation Act." As this is a detailed submission, incorporating the opinion of Queen's counsel, and as I have very little time left at my disposal, I ask the Minister for Repatriation to be good enough to allow me to have this incorporated in " Hansard". {: #subdebate-32-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Is leave granted? {: .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz: -- No. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- Here we see the measure of the Government's concern about this matter. We have a detailed submission from the R.S.L. written by the State secretary of that body, which every ex-serviceman should have the right to read in " Hansard ". Yet the Minister deliberately sets out to inhibit the publication of it. In the committee stage we will show the Minister how the exservicemen of Australia feel he has let them down, particularly in respect of section 47 of the Repatriation Act. Debate (on motion by **Mr, Howson)** adjourned. House adjourned at 11.8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 803 {:#debate-33} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Overseas Investment in Australia. (Question No. 16.) {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amount of foreign capital was invested in Australia (a) prior to 1946-47 and (b) annually from that year until 1961-62? 1. What amount is portfolio investment? 2. What amount is invested in subsidiary industries (a) completely owned by the overseas parent company and (b) jointly owned by the overseas parent company and Australian investors? 3. What is the annual profit earned by these investments? 4. What amount of this profit is returned annually to the country of its origin? {: #subdebate-33-0-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. Precise information as to the amount of foreign capital invested in Australia prior to July 1947 is not available. Particulars are available as to the paid-up value of shares, debentures, &c. held by overseas individuals and companies, intercompany accounts owing by Australian sub- sidiaries to overseas parent or associated companies, and the book value of net assets in Australia of branches of overseas companies as at 30th June, 1947. The sum of these three components at that date was £232,800,000, of which £28,200,000 represented the paid-up value of portfolio investment. It should be noted that the total given above does not include the equity of overseas investors in the reserves of Australian companies and that paid-up or book values may differ from market values. The annual inflow of private overseas investment, including portfolio investment, in companies in Australia since 30th June, 1947 has been as follows: - {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The information requested is not available. 4 and 5. The following table shows investment income payable overseas by undistributed income (income retained in Australia by branches and subsidiaries of overseas companies) and other income payable overseas, including income payable on portfolio investment: - {:#subdebate-33-1} #### Finance. (Question No. 21.) {: #subdebate-33-1-s0 .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What sums had been lent for housing at the end of each month during the past year by (a) trading banks, (b) savings banks, (c) assurance societies and (d) co-operative societies? 1. What sums had been lent to (a) the Commonwealth Government, (b) State governments and (c) public authorities at the end of each month during the past year by (i) trading banks, (ii) savings banks, (iii) assurance societies, (iv) money market companies and (v) individuals? {: #subdebate-33-1-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Reserve Bank publishes monthly figures of loans approved for new. housing by major lending institutions and the Commonwealth Statistician publishes figures of new loans (in respect of both new and used housing) paid over by life insurance companies. Most other statistics in this field relate to advances outstanding and movements in the figures consequently reflect repayments as well as new loans made. Loans approved for new housing by cheque-paying banks, savings banks and major life offices for the erection of houses and flats and for the purchase of houses and flats not previously occupied, have been as follows: - The amounts of new loans, in respect of both new and used housing, paid over by life insurance companies have been as follows: - Statistics of certain housing advances and loans outstanding are set out below. {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Trading Banks. - Outstanding advances of the major trading banks to building and housing societies and to individuals for housing purposes are available at half-yearly intervals and have been as follows: - 1. Savings Banks. - Housing loans outstanding, including loans to individuals and to building societies, are available in respect of the end of each month, and have been as follows: - 2. Life Insurance Companies. - Outstanding loans of life insurance companies in respect of mortgage loans on housing and loans to building and housing societies are available as at the end of each quarter, and are shown below. The information does not include two Government Insurance Offices (New South Wales and Queensland). 3. Building and Housing Societies. - In addition to advances from the institutions already mentioned, building and housing societies obtain funds from their members, the general public and under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreements. Comprehensive information on their operations in recent months is not available. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Statistics of certain government security holdings and advances to public authorities are set out below. 4. Cheque-paying Banks. - (a) The average monthly holdings of Commonwealth and State Government securities and local and semigovernmental securities by the cheque-paying banks have been as follows: - {: type="a" start="b"} 0. Outstanding advances by the major trading banks to public authorities, not including Commonwealth or State Governments, at half-yearly intervals have been as follows: - {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. Savings Banks. - Holdings of Commonwealth and State Government securities and local and semi-governmental securities by savings banks as at the end of each month have been as follows: - {: type="i" start="iii"} 0. Life Insurance Companies. - Government security holdings of life insurance companies, excluding the two Government Insurance Offices (New South Wales and Queensland), are available at quarterly intervals and have been as follows: - {: type="i" start="iv"} 0. Authorized Dealers in the Short-term Money Market. - Average monthly holdings of Commonwealth and State Government securities have been as follows: - {: type="a" start="v"} 0. Individuals. - A detailed classification of holdings of Comonwealth and State Government securities at the end of the financial year is published in the Reserve Bank Statistical Bulletin and the Treasury Information Bulletin. No other information is available on lending by individuals to the authorities mentioned. {:#subdebate-33-2} #### Citizen Naval Forces - Compensation. (Question No. 33.) {: #subdebate-33-2-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is a person who is injured whilst undergoing training in the Citizen Naval Forces covered by a Treasury ruling that he may be retained on naval pay for a period not exceeding 28 days from the date of the injury and, if his incapacity continues for more than 28 days, that he shall receive compensation at a weekly rate of £10 for himself, £2 10s. for his wife, and £1 2s. 6d. for each child? 1. If so, will he consider extending the payment of naval pay to the full period during which the trainee is incapacitated? {: #subdebate-33-2-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The Minister for the Navyhas supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Consideration has already been given to extending this provision and a statutory rule is at present being drafted, the effect of which will be to increase from 28 days to six months the period of sick leave on full naval pay available to members of the Citizen Naval Forces who suffer injury during a period of training, and whose claims for compensation have been admitted. {:#subdebate-33-3} #### St. Mary's Filling Factory. (Question No. 58.) {: #subdebate-33-3-s0 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: e asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the cost of operating the St. Mary's ammunition filling plant during the year 1962-63? 1. How many employees are engaged at the plant? 2. What was the value of production of the plant for the year 1962-63? {: #subdebate-33-3-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
Minister for Supply · PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Approximately £1,272,000. 1. 844 persons as at 31st July, 1963. 2. Approximately £1,226,000. The difference of £46,000 between total operating expenditure and the value of production represents the cost of keeping reserve capacity in excess of peacetime needs. It is made up of additional overheads plus the cost of maintenance of non-operating plant. Pay-roll Tax. (Question No. 64.) {: #subdebate-33-3-s2 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >What was the amount of pay-roll tax paid by local government authorities during the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63? {: #subdebate-33-3-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- Statistics compiled from pay-roll tax returns do not indicate precisely the amount of pay-roll tax paid by local government authorities. However, on the basis of such statistics as are available, it has been estimated that the amounts of pay-roll tax paid by local government authorities during the financial years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 were approximately as follows: - {:#subdebate-33-4} #### Civil Liberties. (Question No. 68.) {: #subdebate-33-4-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to the appointment by the New Zealand Government of a Parliamentary Commissioner modelled on Sweden's Ombudsman? 1. Will he consider appointing a similar authority in Australia in order to safeguard our civil liberties? {: #subdebate-33-4-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. No. Citizens with administrative problems or individual grievances have ready access to their own senators or members of Parliament, who make many representations to Ministers and departments and, in practice, secure many necessary adjustments. This is a democratic process. Parliament itself always has a watchful eye on the protection of civil liberties. I see no reason to create a special official and department. {:#subdebate-33-5} #### Prices of Drugs. (Question No. 146.) {: #subdebate-33-5-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: son asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he able to state the names of the pharmaceutical companies at present being investigated under anti-trust laws in the United States of America on charges of monopoly practices or conspiracy to fix prices against the public interest? 1. If so, can he say whether any of these companies have subsidiary companies or branches in Australia or possess large shareholdings in Australian companies? 2. Is it intended to ascertain whether similar practices are being followed by these firms in Australia? {: #subdebate-33-5-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - 1 and 2. I have not received official reports of the investigations referred to, which, I understand, arc not finalized. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. My department is constantly engaged in negotiations with drug companies regarding prices charged for drugs which may be supplied as pharmaceutical benefits, and, wherever possible, within the limits of its legal powers, to secure agreements to prices for these drugs on a fair and reasonable basis. Graves in Malaya. (Question No. 103.) {: #subdebate-33-5-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: son asked the Minister for the Army, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it a fact that inquiries were made about the mass graves recently found in Malaya? 1. What are the results of the inquiries, and has it been conclusively established that Australian servicemen were not buried in these graves? 2. Were any relics of Australian military equipment found in proximity to the mass graves; if so, what type of equipment was identified? 3. If there is any evidence to show that the remains are those of Australian servicemen, what arrangements have been made to provide a Christian burial and a suitable shrine of remembrance? {: #subdebate-33-5-s3 .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Inquiries have been made into the alleged discovery of the remains of a number of Australian soldiers in Singapore. 1. It has been established that the reports have been greatly exaggerated. The bones unearthed have been examined by pathologists and shown to be those of not more than six humans. It has not been possible to identify the remains as those of any particular nationality nor that they were even of European origin. 2. All the equipment discovered is of a type which was issued to all Commonwealth troops defending Singapore in 1941-42. 3. There is no evidence to show that the remains are those of Australian servicemen. Approval has been given for the remains to be re-interred at Kranji War Cemetery as those of unknown soldiers. {:#subdebate-33-6} #### Gold Mining. (Question No. 114.) {: #subdebate-33-6-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard:
KALGOORLIE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has any recent consideration been given to the extension of the provisions of theGold-mining Industry Assistance Act so as to include gold recovered from tailings irrespective of who should be the producer? 1. If so, is there any intention of bringing down an early amendment of the act? 2. If the matter has not been considered, will he make an early investigation of the proposal with a view to introducing such a provision? {: #subdebate-33-6-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - >This matter has been considered on a number of occasions, the last occasion being during the preparation of the 1962-63 Budget when the Government made a comprehensive review of proposals for the provision of additional assistance for the gold-mining industry. The decision on each occasion has been that, as the recovery of gold from abandoned tailings dumps does not constitute the production of gold from gold mining, it would not be appropriate to extend the provisions of the Gold-mining Industry Assistance Act to include gold recovered from abandoned dumps by persons who did not produce the materials contained in those dumps. {:#subdebate-33-7} #### Banking. (Question No. 124.) {: #subdebate-33-7-s0 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Following an almost twelve-month period of operation of the altered bank charges introduced on 1st October, 1962, is he able to say whether the banks have obtained increased revenue from those charges? 1. If so, what are the comparative figures for a similar period prior to the introduction of the new charges? {: #subdebate-33-7-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - >When the new basis of bank charges was introduced in October, 1962, the banks stated publicly that they expected the overall impact on current income to be marginal. I am informed by the Reserve Bank that experience to date gives the banks no cause to alter this view. {:#subdebate-33-8} #### Shipbuilding. (Question No. 129.) {: #subdebate-33-8-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones: s asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Minister able to state whether the management of an Australian shipyard submitted a tender to the New Zealand Government for the construction of two anti-submarine frigates similar to one recently completed at Cockatoo Island Dockyard? 1. Was the Government approached to pay a subsidy on these ships? 2. What was the price quoted by the Australian shipyard? 3. Is he able to state the price submitted by the successful tenderer? {: #subdebate-33-8-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No Australian shipyard submitted any tender to the New Zealand Government for the construction of a naval ship or ships in Australia for New Zealand. 1. At one stage exploratory discussions were initiated by an Australian shipyard to discover whether a subsidy or other assistance could be made available by the Australian Government if a tender for a Leander class frigate were submitted. 2. Because of various factors including lack of final Admiralty specifications for the ship, uncertainty as to what royalty would be required by the United Kingdom, uncertainty as to availability of plans, uncertainty as to what should be included in any tender price, no firm quotation was ever made. However, a tentative price indicated, and this has been subsequently confirmed, that a final price would have been greatly in excess of that for which the ship is being built. 3. The New Zealand Government has recently announced the purchase of a Leander class frigate from the United Kingdom at a firm tender price of £6,300,000 sterling. This price includes the provision of all the outfits of Naval armament stores, including Seacat guided missiles and reserves, dockyard spares, trials, &c, and is not the price for shipbuilding and Admiralty supply items only. The latter price is confidential as a transaction between the New Zealand Government, the Admiralty, and the shipbuilder. {:#subdebate-33-9} #### Repatriation. (Question No. 135.) {: #subdebate-33-9-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: n asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice - >Does a period of service in Thailand during the past two years entitle an ex-serviceman to seek benefits under the Repatriation Act? {: #subdebate-33-9-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >No. The Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act which came into operation on 28th May, 1963, provides for the extension of appropriate repatriation benefits to Australian servicemen who have " special service " in prescribed areas outside Australia. On the advice of the Minister for Defence the prescribed areas presently comprise an area in the north of Malaya and the southern zone of Viet Nam. The broid basis of the legislation is to provide appropriate benefits for servicemen who are subject to risks beyond the normal conditions of peace-time service in the permanent forces. A more detailed explanation is to be found in the second-reading speech on the introduction of the legislation (" Hansard "-House of Representatives - 29th November, 1962, pages 2815 to 2818). {:#subdebate-33-10} #### Shipbuilding. (Question No. 139.) {: #subdebate-33-10-s0 .speaker-KGH} ##### Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND n asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for the Navy, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many ships are under construction or are on order, (a) in Australia and (b) overseas for the Royal Australian Navy? 1. What is the tonnage of these ships? 2. Who are their builders? {: #subdebate-33-10-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The Minister for the Navy has supplied the following information: - 1. (a) Two under construction - {: type="a" start="i"} 0. H.M.A.S. "Derwent", A/S frigate. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. H.M.A.S. "Moresby", survey vessel. One on order - escort maintenance vessel. {: type="i" start="b"} 0. (i) Two D.D.G.'s are under construction and one on order in the United States of America. 1. Tenders have been called in the United Kingdom for the construction of four " Oberon " class submarines. 2. The displacement tonnage of these ships is as follows:- H.M.A.S. " Moresby ", approximately 2,300 tons. H.M.A.S. " Derwent ", approximately 2,650 tons. Escort maintenance vessel, approximately 15,000 tons. D.D.G. destroyer, approximately 4,500 tons. " Oberon " submarine, approximately 2,030 tons. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. H.M.A.S. " Moresby "-Newcastle State Dockyard, New South Wales. H.M.A.S. " Derwent "-Williamstown Naval Dockyard, Victoria. Escort maintenance vessel - Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Company. Two D.D.G.'s - Defoe Shipbuilding Company, Bay City, Michigan, United States of America. Employment - Shipbuilding Industry. (Question No. 148.) {: #subdebate-33-10-s2 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: son asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice - >What was the work force engaged in the Australian shipbuilding industry in each year since 1945? {: #subdebate-33-10-s3 .speaker-KMB} ##### Mr Opperman:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The figures for the years 1945 to 1953 inclusive are not available but are estimated at between 2,000 and 3,000. Shipyard employment on merchant shipbuilding at principal shipyards is given below, as at 30th June for each year: - These figures do not include sub-contractors, ship repairs, marine engineering or naval construction. {:#subdebate-33-11} #### Taxation - Zone Allowances. (Question No. 154.) {: #subdebate-33-11-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is sub-section (4.) of section 79a of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act worded in such a way that taxpayers can reside for almost twelve months in either zone A or zone B and still not qualify for the zone allowance? 1. Also, as a result of this wording, can taxpayers reside for almost three years in the area and only qualify to claim the allowance for two years? 2. If so, if there any intention of amending the act so that in such cases a qualification will apply; if not, why not? {: #subdebate-33-11-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's' questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. Yes, it is possible for a taxpayer to reside in a zone area for almost twelve months in a period covering part of two successive years of income without residing in that area for more than one-half of one or either year of income. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The requirement that persons seeking entitlement to the zone allowance reside in or be actually in a zone area for more than one-half of the year of income has existed since the allowance was first introduced by the previous Government in 194S. Consideration has been given on a number of occasions to amending this requirement to meet particular anomalies but to the present no alternative has been found which would not either produce further anomalies or open the way to exploitation of the allowance by persons visiting zone areas for brief periods for holiday and similar purposes. The question will, however, continue to be examined. {:#subdebate-33-12} #### Taxation - Zone Allowances. (Question No. 155.) {: #subdebate-33-12-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has any further consideration been given to amending the Second Schedule of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act to include the town of Geraldton in zone B? 1. If so, what was the result of such consideration? 2. If this matter has not been recently considered, can this be taken to mean that the Government is not prepared I'o extend the boundaries of zone B to include Geraldton? {: #subdebate-33-12-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - >The question whether the income tax legislation should be amended for the purpose of including Geraldton, Western Australia, in zone B has been considered on several occasions. However, the claims of residents of Geraldton to be included in zone B cannot be considered in isolation from the claims of residents of other towns and areas of Australia not included in the zones and all such representations will receive full consideration when a general review of zone boundaries is undertaken. Of course, any boundaries, wherever drawn, are almost certain to produce border-line cases. {:#subdebate-33-13} #### Pig Meats. (Question No. 156.) {: #subdebate-33-13-s0 .speaker-KGH} ##### Mr Hansen: n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What quantities of carcass pig meat were imported into Australia from New Zealand each month during the past two years? 1. What rate of tariff was imposed on these imports? 2. What quantity of this meat was imported duty free under any by-law provision? {: #subdebate-33-13-s1 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr Fairhall:
LP -- The Minister for Customs and Excise has furnished the following answers to the honorable member's questions: - {:#subdebate-33-14} #### Repatriation Benefits. (Question No. 157) {: #subdebate-33-14-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice - Will he arrange for radio and television receiving licences to be made available to war widows at reduced rates similar to those which apply to age pensioners? {: #subdebate-33-14-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - Reduced rate radio and television licences are provided under the Broadcasting and Television Act to certain classes of war and civilian pensioners. This concession, is of course, outside the general repatriation scheme, and its extension to additional classes cannot at present be accorded any priority in possible adjustments within the repatriation system. {:#subdebate-33-15} #### Tobacco. (Question No. 167) {: #subdebate-33-15-s0 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice; - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he received representations from tobacco growers in the Gunbower district alleging discrimination against their product by buyers at the Victorian sales? 1. Did leaf from this area sell at prices far below leaf from other areas at the first Victorian sales recently? 2. Did Government tobacco experts at any time appraise leaf from the various areas? 3. If so, was there any marked disparity in leaf quality? 4. Was it evident at the opening sales in Victoria that bids for the Gunbower district tobacco were discriminatory and that competition for the leaf was almost non-existent? 5. If so, did the quality or lack of quality justify this discrimination? 6. What were the comparative prices received for tobacco leaf from the various growing districts? 7. Will he examine the possibility of giving tobacco growers greater protection by legislating for an orderly marketing scheme? {: #subdebate-33-15-s1 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr Adermann:
CP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. However, I have received letters on this matt er from some members of Parliament. 1. Although I have not the full particulars, I am told that the average sale price of leaf from the Gunbower district was below the overall Victorian average price. 2. There are no Commonwealth officers expert in the commercial appraising of tobacco leaf. 3. See 3 above. 4. The question as to whether there has been discrimination against Gunbower district leaf is dependent on the assessment by manufacturers and growers on the commercial usability of the leaf in question, a matter on which I am not qualified to express an opinion. 5. See 5 above. 6. I understand that this information is being compiled by the growers' selling organization in Victoria but that details for all sales to date have not yet been completed. If these figures should be given to me by the growers I would, under normal circumstances, expect that I would be able to release them to the honorable member. 7. It is not open to the Commonwealth to legislate in the way suggested as the marketing of tobacco leaf within the States is constitutionally a matter for State Governments. However, the Commonwealth is at all times prepared to consult with the parties concerned where this can be be of assistance and, in any event, already makes a considerable contribution to the orderly disposal of the Australian tobacco leaf crop through the operation of the statutory percentage usage arrangements. Under this scheme manufacturers, on condition of their using a specific percentage of Australian leaf in their manufactured blends, qualify for a concessional rate of duty on the imported leaf component in those blends. Taxation - Companies Registered in New Guinea. (Question No. 178.) {: #subdebate-33-15-s2 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is it possible for a company, of Australian origin and whose manufacturing or trading operations are carried out predominantly in Australia, to register in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea? 1. If so, how many such companies to his knowledge are registered in New Guinea? 2. Would such a company registered in the Territory avoid the payment of any Commonwealth taxation? {: #subdebate-33-15-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. As at 30th June, 1963, 80 Australian companies were registered in Papua and New Guinea. Of these, 26 were then engaged in commerce, manufacturing or building in the Territory. 2. Commonwealth income tax is payable on profits derived from sources in Australia. If a company qualifies as a resident of Australia for income tax purposes, profits earned in the Territory are also subject to Australian tax. In order to relieve double taxation, a credit for Territory tax on the profits is allowed against the Australian tax on the profits. In consequence, the total liability for Australian and Territory taxes is the same as if the profits had been earned in Australia. In the case of a company not resident in Australia, profits earned in the Territory are free of Australian tax but subject to Territory tax. {:#subdebate-33-16} #### Brisbane Airport. (Question No. 171.) {: #subdebate-33-16-s0 .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What influence determined the building of a modern international airport at Perth in preference to the building of a similar airport at Eagle Farm, Brisbane? 1. As it is the considered opinion of many leading citizens and builders in Brisbane that the continued maintenance of the present war time buildings at Eagle Farm is a sheer waste of money and the replacement of them with new and modern structures similar to those in use in other capital cities would be much more economical, will the Minister visit Brisbane at an early date and, accompanied by the Lord Mayor of Brisbane and myself as the member for the area, make a personal inspection of the igloo type terminal building now in use? {: #subdebate-33-16-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
Minister for Defence · DENISON, TASMANIA · LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The development of the international airport at Perth has not been carried out in preference to the building of a similar airport at Brisbane. Both airports have been used by international services for many years and both are classified as international airports. As I pointed out on 14th May, in answer to a previous question regarding Brisbane airport, the runway, which is almost 8,000 feet in length, was the second runway in Australia constructed to handle the large jet aircraft which are now commonly used on international services. This runway was completed at Brisbane in 1958. Some years later, in 1960, when it was apparent that there would be a requirement for large jet aircraft to operate through Perth, a decision was made to bring the Perth airport up to the standard required for them. It involved the lengthening and strengthening of the runways and the provision of facilities to handle the passenger traffic. At this time the Perth pasenger terminal consisted of a small and quite inadequate group of war-time structures which were too small for even the existing traffic and which involved heavy maintenance expenditure. A new terminal building at Perth was developed to come into operation at the same time as the extended runways in October. 1962. 1. The maintenance of the existing buildings used as terminals at Brisbane airport is not heavy and their continued use is not a sheer waste of money. During the past three years the total maintenance costs for the three buildings, including re-painting, the few repairs to the roof which have been necessary, an alteration to the roof ventilation and a detailed checking and re-nailing of the roof trusses, where necessary, has cost less than £3,500. I am well acquainted with the terminals at Brisbane and their condition and I do not think that any good purpose could be served by inspecting them at an early date, as suggested. I recognize the desirability of having more modern terminal facilities at Brisbane; but, as pointed out in my answer on 14th May to the previous question on this matter, the provision of new passenger accommodation at Brisbane airport involves considerable work on apron and taxiway development as well as the buildings themselves and the whole project would run into some millions of pounds. It is not thought that the need for this is as great as the need for runway extenions at Sydney, a new airport to serve Melbourne and many other projects, both large and small, throughout Australia. Improvement of passenger facilities at Brisbane must take its proper place in the priority of works to be done throughout Australia. In the meantime the present buildings will be kept in good and satisfactory condition. {:#subdebate-33-17} #### Australian Retail Stores. (Question No. 175.) {: #subdebate-33-17-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly:
GRAYNDLER, NEW SOUTH WALES y asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is any record or report available concerning the number of " takeovers " or amalgamations of retail stores which have taken place in Australia during recent years? 1. If so, will he provide full details of these transactions? {: #subdebate-33-17-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - >No comprehensive information regarding the number of " takeovers " or amalgamations of retail stores which have taken place in Australia in recent years has been compiled for official purposes. {:#subdebate-33-18} #### Civil Aviation - Legislation. (Question No. 179.) {: #subdebate-33-18-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice - >What progress have the States made towards uniform legislation to cover (a) surface damage caused by aircraft, and (b) the liability of air carriers? {: #subdebate-33-18-s1 .speaker-KWH} ##### Mr Townley:
LP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has furnished the following information: - {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Legislation relating to surface damage caused by aircraft has been enacted in New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania and the remaining Slates still have the matter under consideration. 1. Uniform legislation relating to liability of air carriers based on the draft model bill prepared by the Commonwealth is now in force in South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia and Victoria. Advice has been received that favourable progress is being made in New South Wales and Queensland. Attention is invited to page 15 and also Appendix 8 of the Minister's annual report for further details. {:#subdebate-33-19} #### Hepatitis. (Question No. 185.) {: #subdebate-33-19-s0 .speaker-JZX} ##### Mr Collard: d asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - >How many cases of infectious hepatitis occurred in each State of Australia during the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63? {: #subdebate-33-19-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - >The following cases of infectious hepatitis were notified to this department for the years 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63:- {:#subdebate-33-20} #### Importation of Processed Foods. (Question No. 191.) {: #subdebate-33-20-s0 .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In view of the large amount of processed foods being imported into Australia, is the Minister completely satisfied that the processing methods used in relation to these foods are equal to the standards laid down under the pure foods acts operating in Australia? 1. Will the Minister give an assurance that the health of the public is adequately protected against contaminated food being imported and offered for sale on the Australian market? {: #subdebate-33-20-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - >The sale of foods is controlled by State health authorities. Both imported and locally produced foodstuffs must comply with the standards laid down under the pure foods acts in force in the various States of Australia. {:#subdebate-33-21} #### Imported Smoked Cod. (Question No. 192.) {: #subdebate-33-21-s0 .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP n asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is the Minister able to say whether the imported fish commonly called South African smoked cod is actually smoked or treated with a chemical dye? 1. Has his attention been drawn to a recent report that this fish is treated with a chemical dye and that certain doctors have expressed their opinion that the dye used could be a cause of cancer? 2. If a dye has been used in treating this fish, will he investigate the matter and have tests carried out on this dye? 3. If the dye is found to be in any way harmful, will he have an import ban placed upon this fish now sold as South African smoked cod? {: #subdebate-33-21-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The Minister for Health has furnished the following reply: - 1 and 3. The control of food quality is vested in the States. I am informed that in all States the only dyestuff which is permitted to be added to smoked fish is annatto. This substance is a harmless vegetable dyestuff. I am not aware of any contravention of this relative to South African smoked cod. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. No. 1. The States maintain a constant check on food quality. If an imported food does not comply with any State food legislation, the import of such a food can be banned. Northern Territory. {: #subdebate-33-21-s2 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP n. - On 20th August, the honorable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr. Nelson)** asked a question in the following terms: - >My question is addressed to the Minister for Air. Can the Minister say whether the Government intends to proceed with plans for the rehabilitation of the Tindall air strip at Katherine in the Northern Territory so that it will be suitable for use by the Royal Australian Air Force as a major base? The question is asked because there are reports current to the effect that the project may not proceed. I am now able to add the following information to the answer I then gave to the honorable member - >The Royal Australian Air Force is to build a second major airfield in the Northern Territory. > >The site of the airfield will be the old war-time strip at Tindall, 170 miles by air from Darwin and seven miles south of Katherine. The R.A.A.F.'s airfield construction squadron will construct a 9,000 feet runway with associated parallel taxiway and hardstandings designed to sustain operations by all aircraft in service in the R.A.A.F. and possible replacements. Any development of the airfield beyond the provision of these basic facilities will be a matter for future consideration. The estimated cost of the airfield is about £3,500,000. An advance party of 30 A.C.S. members will arrive at Tindall next month to commence preliminary work, which will be stepped up progressively until by early 1964 the squadron's major effort will be concentrated in the area. {:#subdebate-33-22} #### Commonwealth Railways. (Question No. 7.) {: #subdebate-33-22-s0 .speaker-K6T} ##### Mr Costa:
BANKS, NEW SOUTH WALES a asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the capital indebtedness of the Commonwealth railway system at 30th June, 1962? 1. What is the annual amount of interest payable on loan money in respect of this system? 2. What percentage of total Commonwealth railway earnings does this interest represent? 3. What was the capital indebtedness of each of the State railway systems at the same date? 4. What is the annual amount of interest payable on loan money in respect of each of these systems? 5. What percentage of total earnings of each of the State railway systems does this interest represent in respect of each State? {: #subdebate-33-22-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1, 2 and 3. It has not been practicable to provide earlier answers concerning Commonwealth Railways because, at the time the question was placed on the notice-paper, a major review of the commercial accounts of this organization was in progress. As a result of the review, now completed, the final report for 1961-62 of the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner introduces a revised form of annual financial statements and includes explanations of the changes made. This report, to be tabled by my colleague, the Minister for Shipping and Transport, should provide all the information sought by the honorable member as to the position at 30th June, 1962. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. Figures of the capital indebtedness of the State railway systems are not available on a uniform basis for all States. However, published statements indicate that the aggregate net loan expenditure on railways of each State to 30th June. 1962, was - 5 and 6. Hie answers are given in the following table, which has been compiled by the Commonwealth Statistician from published sources of information: - {: .page-start } page 815 {:#debate-34} ### STATE GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS 1961-62 fa) Excludes Government grants. (b) Includes exchange borne by railway departments. Excludes interest paid by State treasuries which is 'lot charged against railway revenue. (c) Includes particulars for the New South Wales portion of the uniform gauge railway from Grafton to South Brisbane. (d) Under the Railways (Funds) Act 1961 of Victoria interest and other charges on borrowed moneys are not charged to railway accounts. (et Includes particulars for the Queensland portion of the uniform gauge railway. {:#subdebate-34-0} #### International Agreements. (Question No. 120.) {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-KCU} ##### Mr Drury: y asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - >Is he able to state what treaties and other international agreements have been broken by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since 1917? {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >The question of treaties and international agreements which the Soviet Union may be said to have broken since 1917 is a wide and complex one. Much depends on interpretation and I am not aware of any pronouncements by judicial bodies on the matter. The honorable member might however refer to the contents of a United States Foreign Affairs Committee Print of 27th September, 1961, entitled "Background Information on the Soviet Union in International Relations ", which gives a number of instances in which the committee regards the Soviet Union to have violated treaty obligations. {:#subdebate-34-1} #### Indonesian Independence Day Celebrations. (Question No. 163.) {: #subdebate-34-1-s0 .speaker-KEE} ##### Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes: asked the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Was the Australian Ambassador to Indonesia present on the diplomatic platform at the Indonesian Independence Day celebrations? 1. Did the celebrations include a procession in which there was an effigy of Tunku Abdul Rahman with a rope around his neck at the end of an Indonesian soldier's bayonet? 2. If so, and if the Ambassador was present, did he withdraw in protest at the insult to an Australian friend and ally; if not, why not? {: #subdebate-34-1-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. 2. The Ambassador did not withdraw in protest. Australian representatives abroad have not been instructed to withdraw from an official function in circumstances such as the question describes. {:#subdebate-34-2} #### Taxation. (Question No. 189.) {: #subdebate-34-2-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he advise me that he would give consideration to amending the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act to provide that verifiable fares or reasonable transport costs incurred by workers in travelling to and from their places of employment would be allowable deductions for income tax purposes? 1. When is consideration going to be given to this matter? {: #subdebate-34-2-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - 1 and 2. In my reply of 30th April, 1963, to an earlier question asked by the honorable member, I indicated that consideration would be given to this matter when the 1963-64 Budget was being prepared. This consideration was given in the context of the many other requests which the Government had received for taxation relief. In the event, the Government decided that taxation concessions should be limited to those I announced in my Budget speech. {:#subdebate-34-3} #### Tobacco Advertising. (Question No. 204.) {: #subdebate-34-3-s0 .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Jones: s asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >Can he say how much is spent annually on (a) television, (b) radio, and (c) press advertising of cigarettes, tobacco and cigars? {: #subdebate-34-3-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The information requested by the honorable member is not available.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 10 September 1963, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1963/19630910_reps_24_hor39/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant