Senator MISSEN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. I draw the Minister's attention to a letter, a copy of which I have supplied to the Minister, which appeared in the Australian of 9 February 1981 and related to the invalid pension paid to handicapped people living in State institutions. I ask the Minister to comment on the letter and in particular the following claim:

Since the 1 January, 1981, any handicapped person of pensionable age admitted to an institution run by the State will receive the princely sum of $17.80 a fortnight to buy clothes, personal effects, toiletries, to spend on any outings and to save for long range events such as holidays.

Will the Minister inform the Senate why the pension received by such handicapped residents has been reduced from $44.80 to $17.80 a fortnight when at the same time the amount for maintenance going to the State has been increased from $93.40 to $120.40 a fortnight? Will he also inform the Senate what improvements in board might be effected as a result of the increased maintenance being paid to the State institutions? Does the Minister agree that the main goal of these institutions should be the rehabilitation of its handicapped residents into community living? Does the Minister also agree that in this the International Year of Disabled Persons the Government must take the lead if it is to achieve an enlightened attitude by the public towards handicapped people? If so, will he assure the Senate that consideration will be given to removing this Commonwealth-State arrangement which makes the rehabilitation of handicapped people living in State institutions even more difficult?

Senator CHANEY —The honourable senator did provide me with a copy of the letter which appeared in the Australian but I had in fact seen it when it was published on 9 February. The matters raised in the letter in fact relate to charges which are made in State institutions in Queensland and relate to the net income which is available to invalid pensioners after they meet those charges. I think many honourable senators would be aware that the level of those charges is determined by the State and does not come within the Social Security portfolio. On the other hand, the social security legislation which applies to benevolent institutions does provide that where a pensioner is living in an approved benevolent home an amount equal to 87 1/2 per cent of the pension should be paid directly to the home in respect of his care and accommodation. In fact there are no benevolent homes in Queensland which are caught by that legislation but the State Government has tied the charges made in State nursing homes to the level specified for benevolent homes under the Commonwealth legislation. In fact, it is Commonwealth policy to achieve as great a uniformity as possible in the charges levied in respect of long term nursing home patients.

Whilst the matter of these charges referred to in the letter and referred to by Senator Missen in his question is a matter for the State, it is a fact that there is no uniformity of charging among benevolent homes, non-government nursing homes, public hospitals and most State nursing homes. The point which I think is the central point of Senator Missen's question is whether the charges and the amount which is left for the people concerned are in line with their need for rehabilitation. That is a particular point to which I have not given consideration. It may be that different considerations ought to apply in the circumstances of those institutions. In the case where full board and lodgings are in effect being provided in other forms of institutions, perhaps for the very old people who are in them, it may well be quite appropriate. Perhaps for others it is not. I will examine that aspect of the honourable senator's question and see whether I should add to that reply.