Senate
8 April 1965

25th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 25th Parliament
  3. 1965

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 369

QUESTION

QUESTION

(Senator Dittmer having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer) -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question obviously is one that should be placed on the notice paper.

page 369

QUESTION

CITRUS FRUITS

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister in charge of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation inform me what action he has taken or intends to take regarding the requests made to him by citrus growers at Griffith, New South Wales, who are greatly concerned about the future of citrus research undertaken by the Organisation, following reports from Canberra of inadequate financial provision for that body? If the reports are correct retrenchments in many spheres, including that of citrus and other crop research, will result. In view of the great services rendered to the whole of Australia by the C.S.I.R.O. researches in this area, can the Minister assure the citrus growers of Griffith that adequate finance will be made available and that no retrenchments will take place in the establishment there?

Senator GORTON:
Minister for Works · VICTORIA · LP

– The member for the district and the members of the Citrus Growers Association, or those who wrote to me, have received replies from me indicating what the situation is. As the honorable senator couches <his question, it is a matter of interpretation as to what is adequate finance. Nobody would say that all the finance that some people might think is adequate is supplied. There is no doubt that this station will continue in operation.

page 369

QUESTION

SUGAR

South Wales school children are taking part in an experiment which, it is hoped, will drastically cut tooth decay. The experiment is a special sugar diet in which a certain chemical substance, normally present in sugarcane but lost in the normal refining process, is added to refined sugar. It is stated that this substance could arrest decay in the teeth of adults if it were included in their diet. Will the Minister please inform the Senate whether he has any information regarding this experiment?

Senator MCKELLAR:
Minister for Repatriation · NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable senator was good enough to indicate that he would be asking this question and I was able to obtain some information for him from the Minister for Health. It is understood that the chemical substance in question is known as calcium sucrose phosphate and that clinical trials under strict medical supervision are currently being undertaken in New South Wales to evaluate the use of this substance in preventing dental decay. The initial experimental work on the effects of calcium sucrose phosphate was carried out by the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. in conjunction with the University of Melbourne, and they were able to establish that this substance was non-toxic. The present clinical trials will have to continue for a further two years before any real evaluation of the efficiency of this chemical compound in preventing tooth decay can be made.

page 369

QUESTION

SMOKING

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. What has been done to honour the undertaking given by the late respected Minister for Health, Senator Wade, that the Government would direct its energies towards educating youth about the dangers of smoking?

Senator MCKELLAR:
CP

– I have an idea that I saw something relating to this matter a little while ago, but I do not have it in my mind at the moment. I will contact the present Minister for Health and see what reply can be given to the honorable senator.

page 369

QUESTION

AVIATION

Senator MCCLELLAND:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Have any approaches been made to him by the New South Wales Ambulance Transport Service Board relating to the provision of ambulance air services to country districts of that State? If so, what is the latest situation so far as obtaining aircraft for this purpose is concerned?

Senator HENTY:
Minister for Civil Aviation · TASMANIA · LP

– It is some months now since the Ambulance Transport Service Board approached me with a proposal that the government airline might undertake some ambulance work for the Board. The matter was considered by the executive of that airline and was rejected. That is all I know.

page 370

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– In addressing my question to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General I refer to the legal requirement imposed upon American television manufacturers by the Federal Communications Commission that all current television receivers shall be capable of reception in the ultra high frequency region as well as in the very high frequency band. Bearing in mind the fate of frequency modulation broadcasting in Australia, and with a view to minimising existing and future frequency difficulties, will the Minister discuss with his technical advisers the possibility of imposing a similar provision in Australia?

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– This is a technical question which requires a reply from the Postmaster-General. I will certainly draw his attention to it.

page 370

QUESTION

TRAINING OF PILOTS

Senator LAUGHT:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation whether his Department has interested itself in training persons who desire to qualify as pilots of aircraft.

Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Commonwealth Government makes scholarships available to aero clubs and so forth, but as far as I am aware the Department of Civil Aviation has no interest at this stage in the actual training of pilots.

page 370

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

(Question No. 371.)

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister re presenting the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -

  1. Has the Government considered the injustice to retired Government employees in South Aus tralia, resulting from the 1964 bonus payments accruing to these pensioners from the State superannuation scheme being taken into account for the purposes of Commonwealth age, widows’ and invalid pensions?
  2. If the bonus payment amounts to £14 10s. per year, is an amount of5s. 6d. per week deducted from Commonwealth pensions, and if the State bonus payment is less than1s. weekly, is the amount of1s. per week being deducted by the Commonwealth department?
  3. What action does the Minister propose to initiate to ensure that Government employees subscribing to a State Government superannuation scheme will benefit from such superannuation schemes instead of being penalised because of provisions of Commonwealth social service legislation?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answers -

  1. The 1964 bonus payments received by retired Government employees in South Australia are taken into account in the assessment of their age, invalid or widows’ pensions in accordance with the provisions of the Social Services Act 1947-64.
  2. Fortnightly instalments of pension are calculated to the nearest1s. and the rate of payment is determined on the total of the recipient’s means as assessed.
  3. State superannuation pensions, and other superannuation pensions, are “ income “ for the purpose of the Social Services Act. Any amendment to the Act is a matter of Government policy.

page 370

QUESTION

ALLEGED ILL TREATMENT OF YOUTHS

(Question No. 372.)

Senator BENN:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Territories, upon notice -

  1. Has the Minister had an investigation made into a press report of the 7th March concerning the ill treatment of three seventeen-year-old youths on Delamere Station,Katherine, by a man named Millwood who was manager of the station?
  2. Does the Minister know if the Administration of the Northern Territory has provided any facilities for employees who have not been paid their wages to lodge complaints with government officers?
  3. Has any government authority in the Northern Territory commenced proceedings against Millwood for the offences he is alleged to have committed?
Senator GORTON:
LP

– The Minister for Territories has now suplied the following answers -

  1. Thorough investigations into the allegations by the youths were made by the Northern Territory Police. The allegations were made at a Children’s Court hearing following the detention of the youths at Finke on 28th November 1964 on charges of “ evading railway fare “ and being “ idle and disorderly “.
  2. Where employment is regulated by Federal awards complaints by employees of failure to be paid their proper wages are handled by the Department of Labour and National Service which administers the Federal Arbitration Inspectorate. Where the employment is not covered by an award the employees have their normal remedies in the Northern Territory, as elsewhere, of proceeding through the appropriate courts.
  3. No. It has not been possible to obtain sufficient evidence supporting the allegations to enable proceedings to be commenced. The person concerned has left the Territory and has not been located.

page 371

HEALTH

(Question No. 382,)

Senator McKELLAR:
CP

– On 23rd March,

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

asked me a question upon notice. I have now received the answer from the Minister for Health. As the honorable senator is not present, I ask for leave to incorporate his question and the answer in “ Hansard “.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice -

  1. In view of the recent publicity on the use of influenza vaccine as a public health or preventive medicine measure, will the Minister issue an authoritative statement on this subject?
  2. Has the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories given great publicity to the use of its own influenza vaccine simply for commercial reasons? If so, is this not more unethical than the action allegedly taken by certain drug companies so often criticized by the Department of Health?
  3. Is it a fact that mass immunisation for influenza cannot be advocated as a public health measure?
  4. Is immunisation to those at risk not wholly successful?
  5. Does artificial immunisation only give protection for six to twelve months whereas acquired immunisation gives protection for four years?

Senator McKELLAR furnished the following reply from ‘the Minister for Health:-

  1. The pattern of epidemic influenza is becoming better understood. Every 10 to 15 years there appears to be a major antigenic change, the last having been Asian influenza (type A2) which appeared in 1957. Since then there have been minor changes in the antigenic structure of the A2 virus and these have been accompanied by epidemics of lesser extent at intervals of two or three years.

Type A2 influenza was identified earlier this year in Russia and Czechoslovakia. It would appear that the epidemic has been mild and has attacked children in the main. It is not possible to forecast with any certainty as to whether Australia will be visited by epidemic influenza this year. The Epidemiology Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, however, considers that the likelihood is present because of the fact that the infection already has occurred in the northern hemisphere. Based on the experience in these countries, any such epidemic is not likely to be severe.

The committee considers that vaccination with polyvalent influenza vaccine would be efficacious, particularly in the following groups -

  1. Those with chronic debilitating diseases (particularly chronic pulmonary or cardiovascular disease, diabetes, mellitus or Addison’s disease);
  2. Pregnant women; and
  3. Persons over 60.

The National Health and Medical Research Council at its fifty-seventh session last year recommended that children under the age of two years should be included in the above groups. Notwithstanding that this group is at risk, the Epidemiology Committee considers that, because many such children have experienced severe reactions after the vaccine, the existing vaccine should not be used on children of this age group.

The Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, in collaboration with the Australian National University, are exploring avenues for the production of a vaccine which will eliminate this danger and it is hoped that a safe vaccine for young children and infants will be available in the near future.

  1. No. The functions of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories are to manufacture and have available for the Australian community immunising vaccines against infectious diseases. When a vaccine is available for a specific disease which has a seasonal incidence, it is necessary to make this information widely known to those who may wish to use the vaccine for protection against a specific disease. This course has regularly been followed by the laboratories in relation to their influenza vaccine.
  2. Mass immunisation for influenza can be advocated as a public health . measure but, in most cases, it is not warranted for various reasons. There are special groups and communities where immunisation should be advocated as a public health measure.
  3. Immunisation with influenza virus vaccine will give about 75 per cent, protection from influenza to those at risk who have been immunised.
  4. Artificial immunisation with influenza virus vaccine gives protection from influenza for at least 12 months. It is assumed that “ acquired immunisation “ in the honorable senator’s questions means naturally acquired immunity. Protective antibodies produced by immunisation are the same as those produced by natural infection and the decline in these protective antibodies is the same in both instances.

page 372

QUESTION

LUNG CANCER

(Question No. 391.)

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister rep resenting the Postmaster-General, upon notice -

  1. Is it a fact, as reported in the Press, that the Government of the United Kingdom intends to prohibit cigarette advertising on television and that the Government of the United States of America intends to watch the results of this policy?
  2. Is this action being taken because of the alleged connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and the use of sport, athletics and sex for the purpose of advertising cigarettes?
  3. Does the Government, on the advice of its medical advisers, agree that there is a connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer?
  4. Does the Government make available the daily reports of the Meteorological Branch to the manufacturers of Edinburgh cigarettes or the manufacturers of any other brand of cigarettes for use on television and/ or radio, and are these daily reports used in association with cigarette advertising depicting sporting and athletic events and sex?
  5. Are these daily reports made available to the said manufacturers free of charge; if not, what is the amount charged?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– -The PostmasterGeneralhas supplied the following answers - 1 and 2. The Postmaster-General has no information other than thatreported to the Press and referred to by the honorable senator.

  1. This matter has already been covered in recent statements by the Minister for Health. 4 and 5. I understand that weather reports are made available to broadcasting and’ television stations by the Meteorological Bureau as a public service and that the Bureau makes no charge for such information.

page 372

QUESTION

TOBACCO

(Question No. 394.)

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice -

How much tobacco, in quantity and value, has been imported over the last five years and from which countries?

Senator HENTY:
LP

– I ask for leave to have the answer to this question incorporated in “ Hansard “ as it contains extensive statistical tables.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection leave is granted.

Senator HENTY:

– The answer to the honorable senator’s question is contained in the following table extracted from import statistics prepared by the Commonwealth Statistician.

page 373

QUESTION

MAIL FREIGHT

Senator McCLELLAND:

asked the Minis ter representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice - (Question No. 404.)

  1. What is the amount per lb. of mail paid by the Commonwealth to the Department of Railways in each State and to the Commonwealth Government Railways for the cartage thereof?
  2. What is the amount per lb. of mail paid by the Commonwealth to each of the airline operators for the cartage thereof?
  3. How long is it since these rates were last altered?
  4. What was the total amount paid to each of the States and to each of the airline operators over the last five years for the cartage of mail?
Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– I ask for leave of the Senate to have the answer which contains several columns of figures incorporated in “ Hansard “.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

Senator ANDERSON:

– The PostmasterGeneral has supplied the following answers -

  1. Payments to the railways are based on rates per lb. in agreed zones. The number of zones in each railway system varies and ranges from one zone to six zones. The following amounts per lb. paid by the Commonwealth to the Department of Railways in each State and to the Commonwealth Government Railways for the conveyance of mail have therefore been derived from the total weights and total payments in respect of the mail carried during a full year -
  1. Payments for the conveyance of mail by air are made on a weight distance basis and are quoted in terms of pence per lb. mile. It is not practicable for the Post Office to express them in terms of rates per lb. However, based on mail uplifts as shown in statistics of Australian regular air transport services for the year ended 30th June 1964 which are issued by the Department of Civil Aviation and the actual payments made by the Post Office in respect of the mails conveyed during that year, the following rates per lb. paid by the Post Office to the domestic airline operators have been derived -
  1. In the case of the railways the rate structure was last altered on 1st January 1962 for each system. In the case of the airlines the rate structure for all operators was determined as from the introduction of “ Post Haste “ on 1st November 1959. Since then, the rate for MacRobertson Miller Airlines was reduced on 1st July 1964 and the rate for Connellan Airways Ltd. was increased as from 1st January 1963.
  2. The total amounts paid to each of the railway systems for mail conveyance over the last five years were as follows -
Senator O’Byrne:

– I rise to a point of order. As the Senate has limited time on the air, I feel that in having answers to questions incorporated in “ Hansard “ instead of having them read in the chamber we are depriving the people of Australia of an opportunity to hear this information. This practice reduces the amount of time given to the rebroadcasting at night of questions asked in the Senate and I should like to have your ruling, Mr. President, as to whether it is in order.

The PRESIDENT:

– As I see it, the position is that it is the responsibility of the Senate to carry out its business efficiently and understandably. As far as the broadcast of proceedings is concerned, it is a very important part of the work of the Senate but the Senate is not here for the purpose of broadcasting. I think most of these long and involved statements with masses of figures are completely unintelligible to listeners and are of no interest to them.

page 374

QUESTION

THURSDAY ISLANDERS

(Question No. 412.)

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice -

  1. How many men from Thursday Island are employed on the Australian mainland as tracklayers for the standard gauge railway?
  2. Are they employed at award rates?
  3. Are any of the men married; if so, how many, and are any wives or families with them?
Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has supplied the following answers - 1, 2 and 3. The persons referred to are employed by a private contractor on tracklaying for the standard gauge project in Western Australia. My Department has been advised that the position is as follows -

  1. Ninety-five Thursday Islanders are employed on tracklaying for the standard gauge project.
  2. All these men are being paid at award rates.
  3. Some of these men are married and six have their families living with them in Western Australia.

page 374

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 415.)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -

  1. Did the Minister representing the Treasurer assure Senator McKenna last year that the Taxation Branch would give advice on proposals being considered by taxpayers?
  2. Is it a fact that the “Taxpayers’ Bulletin” has drawn attention to a case where the Taxation Branch has declined to give such advice?
  3. Will the Treasurer examine this matter and advise whether this service is available or not?
Senator HENTY:
LP

– The Treasurer has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -

  1. An assurance was given that, so far as it is possible, the Commissioner would give advice on matters arising out of income tax legislation then being debated. It was stressed that it would be necessary for anyone seeking such advice to place all the relevant facts before the Commissioner. 2 The “Taxpayers’ Bulletin” of 27th February 1965 mentioned a letter that had been sent to an inquirer from the office of a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. The same journal, in its issue of 27th March 1965, referred again to this case and published the Commissioner’s comments. The Commissioner said that the letter had been sent without the personal approval of the Deputy Commissioner and did not reflect the policy of the taxation administration. He also pointed out that the particulars received from the inquirer had not been sufficient to give a firm answer to the question asked.
  2. The Treasurer has advised that the Commissioner of Taxation will, where all the issues involved in a question are clear and interpretation of the particular point is established, give information sought by inquirers. The Commissioner is currently extending the scope of his assistance to interested persons. He is issuing public information bulletins, which will give answers to questions arising from the more important of the discretionary powers included in the income tax law last year. The objective of these bulletins is to answer questions falling within the particular pattern of known cases. Cases not covered by the bulletins will be dealt with in accordance with the policy on inquiries already outlined.

page 374

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY

(Question No. 420.)

Senator MURPHY:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply, upon notice -

Has the practice indulged in by the Central Drawing Office of the Department of Supply of seeking work from other departments and offices been discontinued, as was recommended by the Joint Select Committee on Parliamentary and Government Publications?

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– The Minister for Supply has supplied the following answer to the honorable senator’s question -

The Central Drawing Office is continuing to accept work within its capabilities, at the request of other authorities, particularly where the delivery and other requirements of those authorities cannot be met elsewhere.

page 374

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator PALTRIDGE:
LP

– On 23rd

March 1965 Senator Wright asked a question without notice of the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport concerning applications for permits and freight rates for the carriage of petroleum products. The Minister for Shipping and Transport has furnished the following answer -

In considering applications for permits to allow unlicensed overseas vessels to ship petroleum products or other cargoes, my Department inquires whether a licensed vessel is available and whether the service it provides is adequate. If a licensed ship is not available, or if the service it provides is not adequate, it is then necessary to consider whether it is desirable in the public interest to grant a permit.

It is not my Department’s function to inquire into the freight rates charged by the overseas vessel concerned, or by any licensed vessel that may be available. Contracts for the carriage of oil and other cargoes are normal business transactions between private enterprise companies, and the Department does not exercise supervision over prices charged.

From time to time the oil companies have given examples in complaints to the Department of what they claim to be excessive charges by R. W. Miller and Co., but they have in each case been advised that the Department can take no action in the matter.

page 375

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Senator ANDERSON:
LP

– On 25th March Senator Cavanagh asked me the following question -

Can the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral inform me as to the reason why a telephone call from Adelaide to the eastern States is delayed an hour and a half from the time it is booked, and why it is necessary for the telephonist to ask the caller to limit the conversation to six minutes? Can he assure me that immediate remedial action will be taken?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply-

Telephone calls from Adelaide to Sydney, and to a lesser extent to Melbourne, ure subject to some delay during business hours, because of the exceptionally heavy growth of traffic.

To provide short term relief on both routes, twelve additional circuits are to bc provided between Adelaide and Melbourne and these should be in operation before the end of this year.

Full scale relief will be possible when a radio system has been completed between Adelaide and Melbourne in a little more than two years from now.

Restriction on the length of calls between Adelaide and the eastern Slates is not usual. On only two occasions recently, namely, 9th and 17th March, has it been necessary to limit calls to six minutes’ duration.

page 375

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Reports

Senator WEDGWOOD:
Victoria

– On behalf of the Committee, I present the following reports of the Public Accounts Committee -

Sixty-ninth report - Index to the First to the Sixty-eighth Reports of the Committee.

Seventieth report - Reports of the AuditorGeneral Financial Year 1963-64.

I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator WEDGWOOD:

– For many years successive Committees have recognised the need to provide members of the Parliament, departments, universities and other institutes of research with a current index of their reports. With this in mind, reports have been presented by your Committee in 1958, 1959 and 1962 which have provided a progressive index of its reports brought before the Parliament. The sixty-ninth report, which consists of a revised index, covers the first 68 reports submitted by the Committee. The method of compilation of this index is similar to that adopted previously. Topics have been listed under main headings, and the number of the report and page, or the first of a succession of pages, in that report where the topic concerned may be found is then indicated.

The seventieth report relates to the reports of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30th June 1964. As honorable senators will know, your Committee is specifically directed by the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951 to examine .each statement and report of the Auditor-General. The seventieth report relates to a detailed examination of criticisms raised by the Auditor-General and public inquiries subsequently held by the Committee.

The seventieth report relates to only four matters referred to by the Auditor-General in his reports for 1963-64. We believe that this reflects the value of the work of the Committee in this field in recent years and indicates generally that improvements have occurred in the quality of the work subject to audit by the Auditor-General. At the same time, however, the present inquiry has highlighted the need for your Committee to continue, each year, to examine the reports of the Auditor-General as provided under the Act. But for the present examination, the matters relating to telephone debtors of the Postmaster-General’s Department which are referred to in chapter II of the report may have passed unnoticed.

In regard to telephone debtors we found that, commencing in 1960, the Department had taken a decision to abolish a system whereby telephone services were transferred from one subscriber to another. In making the change, however, the Department failed to collect telephone rentals in advance from successive subscribers to the service. Your Committee is of the opinion that, in setting aside this important principle which has characterised Post Office services generally over many years, the Department lost its valuable deterrent against defaulting subscribers, permitted accounts to be established without the protection of any prepayments and placed an undue strain on the resources of the Commonwealth Police Force and the Crown Solicitor’s Office due to their involvement in the recovery processes.

The other matter of major importance arising from this report to which I would refer is your Committee’s inquiry into the financial statements of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits, Board and the Superannuation Board. This inquiry showed that for many years these boards have operated under considerable difficulties occasioned by large fluctuations of work loads, arising mainly from changes in legislation and pay codes. Your Committee undertook a thorough examination of the circumstances of the boards and it believes that, apart from dealing with the problems of immediate concern, this chapter of the report will be of considerable interest to honorable senators and those sections of the community which have a direct and continuing interest in the operations of both boards. I move -

That the papers be printed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 376

CASUARINA SUB-DIVISION, DARWIN, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

I present the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to the following proposed work -

Provision of engineering services to the Casuarina Sub-division, Darwin, Northern Territory.

I seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator PROWSE:

– The summary of recommendations and conclusions of the Committee is as follows -

  1. There is a need to provide additional services to residential blocks in Darwin.
  2. The work proposed in this reference should be put in hand as a matter of urgency.
  3. There is a need to expedite the design and programming of the second and third units at Casuarina.
  4. The construction of the engineering services included in the reference is recommended.
  5. The designs proposed for the Alawa unit are satisfactory and set a standard which the subsequent units in the Casuarina district might follow.
  6. The estimated cost of the work in this reference is £1,136,000.

page 376

HOUSE COMMITTEE

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from Senator Drake-Brockman a letter requesting that, upon his appointment as Chairman of Committees, he be discharged from attendance on the House Committee.

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Drake-Brockman be discharged from attendance on the House Committee and that Senator Webster be appointed to the Committee.

page 376

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) - by leave - agreed to -

That Senator Wright be appointed to fill the vacancy now existing on the Standing Orders Committee.

page 376

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) agreed to -

That the Senate, at its rising, adjourntill Tuesday, 27th April, at 3 p.m.

page 376

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT BILL 1965

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 7th April (vide page 368), on motion by Senator Gorton -

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator POKE:
Tasmania

.-In continuing the debate on this measure I wish to refer to a point made last evening by Senator Sir William Spooner. At page 365 of the “ Hansard “ report, this appears - . . there have been no fewer than 25,000 applications for assistance under this legislation. No fewer than 17,700 of the applications have been finalised and no fewer than 16,200 young couples have actually been paid in cash the benefits of this scheme. The average grant has been about £230 and the total is close to £4 million.

The honorable senator, although he stated the number of applications received, the number approved and the amount of money allocated, failed to inform the Senate and the people who are interested in this legislation of the number of applications which have been unsuccessful. I have ascertained that 1,500 applications under this legislation have been unsuccessful. The anomalies that exist are highlighted when one finds that there were 1500 unsuccessful applicants in only seven or eight months. According to the figures cited by Senator Sir William Spooner, only about £4 million has been expended from the Budget allocation of £10 million, so I suggest that the legislation has not served the purpose for which it was intended. One of the reasons for this is the high cost of land. I have spoken on this subject on a number of occasions. I think it is safe to say that during the past 12 months land prices have increased to such an extent as almost to swallow up the £250 grants under this legislation.

The report of the Tasmanian Housing Department for the year 1963-64 gives a very good illustration of the increase in land prices. These prices relate to the outer areas of Hobart and the larger cities. Blocks of land which were selling at about £425 a year ago have now risen in price to £600. lt is reasonable to suppose that the increase is considerably more in other capital cities. I do not want to weary the Senate with the figures, but it may rest assured that I have examined land costs in the main capital cities and found that a similar trend exists. I know of one block of land which has increased in price from £1.200 to £2,000 in a very short time. One can easily see that the £250 grant has been swallowed up in increased land prices.

What is the reason for the increase? I think that all honorable senators agree that land for sale for housing, in the main, is in the hands of land monopolies and that as services extend prices increase. For instance, if a bus service is established past a property worth £100 to £130 an acre, the owner of the property cuts it up into building blocks and gets upwards of £4,000 or £5,000 an acre. One of the other factors which make it difficult for purchasers of home building blocks is that as we get further from capital cities the cost of services which have to be provided, such as electricity and sewerage, are added to the price of the land. I am particularly concerned about the number of applications for homes lodged with State housing authorities. After making a fairly quick survey, I have calculated that there are 75,000 such applications outstanding throughout the Commonwealth. Normally these applicants are people who are unable to find a sufficient deposit to buy a home for themselves. One has only to consider the position of people in the low income bracket to realise that they require much more assistance than the £250 that can be made available under the Act. The report of the Commissioner of Taxation for the year 1963-64 reveals that a considerable number of people are earning less than £20 a week. It might be argued that the average wage throughout Australia is about £28 a week. I do not dispute that that is the average wage, but one must remember that in calculating the average account was taken of people who earn between £6,000 and £10,000 a year. This naturally lifts the average earnings of the general Australian work force.

The report also shows that among male taxpayers who earn less than £20 a week, 68,000 have a wife and one child, 56,000 have a wife and two children and 58,000 have a wife and three children, lt is obvious that the wage earners within that income bracket who have from two to four dependants would find it almost impossible to . purchase . a home, even with the assistance of the £250. I express considerable concern for people who have to rear a family on such a low wage and who will not receive any real benefit from the Act.

Quite a number of people . are outside the ambit of the legislation. Included among these are widows, of whom there are about 26,000 in the Commonwealth. Then there are those people who have received some assistance from State housing authorities. This, of course, debars them from benefits under the legislation. So all in all, the legislation falls considerably short of achieving the objectives that I am sure the Government endeavoured to achieve, namely, to assist the low wage earner. Rather than have the existing complicated Act, I suggest that the Government would have been better advised to have said to the taxpayers of Australia: “We intend to give £250 to every couple under the age of 36 years who desire to build a home “. Had it done this, there would not have been nearly the degree of heartburning that now exists. As I said earlier in my remarks, I feel that the principal Act has some good features. I sincerely hope that the amendments which the Government is bringing forward in an endeavour to correct some of the anomalies which exist under this Act will achieve that purpose. I sincerely hope, too, that many more of the people who require assistance to obtain homes today will benefit by these amendments.

Senator COHEN:
Victoria

.- As previous speakers have indicated, the legislation which is now before the Senate does introduce some very useful amendments to correct some anomalies which had arisen and which had been foreshadowed in the operation of this legislation. I do not want to canvass the general issues which have been raised in the debate both by the second reading speech of the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) and by the very comprehensive analysis of some of the problems that was made by my colleague, Senator Cavanagh, in opening for the Opposition. I enter the debate to deal with what I regard as two substantial matters that arise in the consideration of the amending legislation and in the review which must inevitably take place on an occasion like this of the working of the Homes Savings Grant Act during the short period of its operation.

The first of the two questions to which I want to address myself is the matter raised by Senator Cavanagh as to the assurance given to him in this Senate on 21st May last by the then Minister for National Development, Senator Sir William Spooner, who was in charge of the Bill. I note that the honorable senator is not present at this moment. I regret that because I wanted to suggest that, in dealing with Senator Cavanagh’s criticism yesterday, Senator Sir William Spooner did not deal with the substance of the criticism that was raised. Indeed, he rather evaded the question by saying that his own memory did not take him back into the detail of the debate last year, that it could not really be refreshed by reference to “ Hansard “, and that it was more appropriate for the Minister for Defence to make a reply to Senator Cavanagh than it was for him to make one.

The substance of the matter is, I think, pretty plain. On 21st May 1964, this Senate was debating clause IS of the Homes Savings Grant Bill 1964. At page 1432 of “ Hansard “, Senator Cavanagh raised some questions as to what would be regarded as acceptable savings for persons who entered into contracts between the date of the operation of the legislation - that is, 2nd December 1963 - and the date on which the debate was taking place, 21st May 1964. I desire to refer specifically to the passages in the report in “ Hansard “ which indicate what the controversy was about and how the matter was dealt with by Senator Sir William Spooner, who was then in charge of the Bill. Senator Cavanagh said -

I want to know what happens to those persons who have entered into contracts between the date of operation of this legislation - 2nd December 1.963 - and the present date. Those who have entered into contracts as at the prescribed date are obviously entitled to the grant if they fulfil the other requirements, but those who had their money invested at the prescribed date in something other than one of the institutions mentioned in the legislation are nol eligible for a grant. Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Sir William Spooner) say whether this distinction is fair and whether there is any way of overcoming the anomaly?

Taking that passage as far as it goes, I submit that Senator Cavanagh obviously was suggesting that those persons whom he had in mind were not eligible for the grant. He was asking whether something could be done to overcome the anomaly. Replying immediately, Sir William Spooner, then the Minister, said -

Taking the last point first while it is fresh in my mind, I point out that the period between now and the end of December 1964 is in the nature of a transitional period. In that transitional period savings, no matter in what form they are evidenced, become eligible for the grant. So if the couple marry and build a home they become eligible for the grant by virtue of the department accepting their savings in any form, investment or otherwise. That, I think, is the foundation for the answer to Senator Cavanagh’s query.

As I understand it, that was the clearest assurance that if other persons with prescribed dates before the end of December 1964 had savings, in whatever form, accumulated up to 31st December 1964, they were eligible for the grant even though they were not in any of the three categories mentioned in sub-clause (3.) of clause IS of the Bill.

Senator Paltridge:

– It had to be prior to the prescribed date.

Senator COHEN:

– That is not what the Minister said. He said: “In that trans.sitional period”, and that is up to 31st December 1964. I think it is fair to place this in the context of the debate, so that what was happening can be understood. Senator Cavanagh was viewing, with some caution, the gift being offered. He apparently felt that his own reading of the Bill was more correct than that of the Minister and he was somewhat careful about accepting what the Minister said. Senator Cavanagh said -

But their savings must be in a particular bank at the prescribed date.

I ask the Senate to appreciate the significance of this, because the Minister was being faced squarely with the gnawing doubt that was in Senator. Cavanagh’s mind. I repeat that Senator Cavanagh said -

But their savings must be in a particular bank at the prescribed date.

And Senator Sir William Spooner replied -

Not until 31st December, 1964. When you get to 31st December, 1964, by and large, with certain exceptions, your savings must be in a narrow group of savings banks, permanent building societies or trading banks. That proviso becomes operative from 1st January, 1965, with an exception in the case of credit unions and friendly societies, which may continue the even tenor of their ways until 1967.

The “ Hansard “ report shows quite plainly that Senator Cavanagh was raising the question of persons with prescribed dates between 2nd December 1963 and 21st May 1964, which was the date of the debate. Senator Sir William Spooner’s reply literally referred to the period between 21st May 1964 and the end of December 1964. He said specifically that in that transitional period savings, no matter in what form, would become eligible for the grant. I do not know whether or not the Minister was confused, but he certainly failed to make plain the distinction between persons with prescribed dates before and after 31st December 1964 and, indeed, he pressed on with his statement about the matter even after he had virtually been warned by Senator Cavanagh that he might be wrong. After all. it is plain from reading the report of the debate that Senator Cavanagh has specifically raised the question of persons with prescribed dates before 31st December 1964 and the anomalous distinction .which he saw between those with savings invested in the institutions referred to in the Bill and those with savings invested elsewhere.

The importance of the matter is this: Senator Cavanagh has told the Senate that he raised this question with the Minister and failed to get from the Minister an undertaking to honour the assurances given by Senator Sir William Spooner in the Senate on 21st May. Senator Cavanagh has said that as a result of that statement by the former Minister, he had four cases of persons who had come to him for advice and guidance in relation to their applications. He had acted on (he assurance of the Minister in at least one case and had advised the person coming to him for guidance that the Minister had said it was not necessary for the savings to be in a particular form prior to 31st December.

I suggested to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is in charge of this Bill, that that is a serious matter. We are all human and there are frailties in all of us; but at the very least some amendment should be made to this legislation to ensure that the case of persons who did not have their savings in the prescribed form prior to 31st December 1964 is dealt with and the anomaly rectified. Otherwise, the Government is in the position of leaving people out on a limb because they have acted bona fide upon an assurance given by a Minister. I am pleased to see that Senator Sir William Spooner has entered the chamber.

Senator Sir William Spooner:

– The honorable senator had no right to attack me when I was half way through a hair cut.

Senator COHEN:

– I assure Senator Sir William Spooner that but for circumstances beyond my control, I would not have started to speak for 20 minutes or so. I would have wanted him to be present when I began to speak on this matter. This is in no sense a personal attack on him but the statement to which I have referred was made at 5 o’clock in the afternoon and not 5 o’clock in the morning when we usually deal with the final business of a session. The statement was not corrected and has never since been corrected. Whether it represents a correct view of the law is immaterial at the moment. The point is that Senator Cavanagh acted in the belief that he had been given the green light in a very complicated and difficult piece of legislation. On the Minister’s assurance he went ahead and gave certain advice to his constituents.

I ask the Minister in charge of the Bill to give earnest consideration to this matter and discuss it with the Minister for Housing (Mr. Bury) again to ascertain whether something should not be done while the legislation is before the Senate at least to set right the position of those who acted on that assurance. There may be only a few people involved and there may be many, but certainly the matter should not be allowed to proceed on the basis that people are not able to rely upon the Minister’s assurance.

That is the first matter I wanted to raise. The other is of more general concern in the administration of this legislation arising, I think, from some comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) which have turned out to be somewhat prophetic. These statements were made by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate when the principal Act was being debated. The Leader of the Opposition then drew attention to the very large number of discretions in the measure. He spelt out, I think, some 12 or 13 particular matters in which a very wide discretion had been entrusted to the Secretary of the Department of Housing under the Act.

I do not intend to re-state those discretions in detail. I want the Senate to note that -the amending Bill which is now before us virtually doubles the number of discretions that appear in the original legislation. An extraordinarily large number of the amending clauses commence with the words “ The Secretary may upon being satisfied “. The Bill extends the number of discretions and the area over which the administrative discretion will operate.

I want to mention two particular discretions, if that is the right expression to use. As I said earlier, I do not intend to cover the whole field. These two were dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) on 20th May 1964. On that occasion Senator McKenna said -

In clause 20 there is the extraordinary provision that the making of any grant at all is subject to the Secretary’s discretion. There is no right that an individual can assert in a court. No right is conferred. He is given the right to apply to the Secretary of the Department and the Secretary in his discretion decides whether an applicant gets a grant or does not get a grant.

Although the Secretary obviously has no power to make a grant in exces of £250, which is the largest grant that is permitted by the Act, he is given a very wide area of discretion within which he may make up his mind to grant less than £250 upon being satisfied or otherwise in regard to certain -facts.

The second discretion to which I draw attention was described by Senator McKenna in these terms -

He has another extraordinary power under clause 23 which allows him to determine the time of payment. He can make it whenever he wishes and at whatever stage he wishes.

Since the passage of the original legislation in May 1964, the Secretary of the Department has developed what may be described as a species of sub-legislation under the Act. He has introduced general administrative rules to govern the exercise of discretion. I am in no sense making a personal attack on the Secretary. 1 am merely dealing with the extent of the administrative discretion and what is being done under it. I do not assert that anything unlawful is being done in the exercise of the discretion, which is very wide. What I do assert is that in a number of instances - I shall mention two to illustrate my point - further restrictions have virtually been imposed upon the right of the applicant to get a grant because of an administrative decision that has become of general application.

The first of the two illustrations I propose to quote is perhaps the lesser of the two in importance. It is this: No grant is made until the Secretary is satisfied, in the case of a building contract, that 10 per cent, of the contract price has been paid. As a matter of administrative practice, that may or may not be a sound general rule to adopt. I can conceive of cases in which it would be sound. Some doubt may exist about whether the contract will be proceeded with and the building will be completed.’ That would be a” good reason for some caution on the part of the Secretary. But there may be other cases in which the actual grant, when it -is made, will form part of the original payment. In those cases rigid application of the 10 per cent, rule might impose hardship upon a new applicant.

Senator Paltridge:

– Has the honorable senator related that to figures?

Senator COHEN:

– I can think of a person who has a rather small deposit.

Senator Paltridge:

– Try to relate it to figures.

Senator COHEN:

– I have not a definite case in mind. One was mentioned to me, but the figures escape me at the moment. However, it still does not invalidate the point I am making.

Senator Paltridge:

– In other words, it remains a good debating point?

Senator COHEN:

– No. I am concerned with making another point. If the Minister is patient with me for a few minutes, I shall develop the argument and he will see the point 1 am making. What I am saying is that that requirement does not appear anywhere in the Act. And, of course, there are no regulations under the Act. A person who wants to know his rights will not find reference to this requirement other than in a booklet that has been issued by the Department, if he turns to the legislation, he will not ascertain there that there is in existance an administrative practice which will result in his not being able to obtain a grant until 10 per cent, of the contract price has been paid. I would not mind that being a rule which was capable of being departed from in specific cases. It is unfortunate that there should be a hard and fast rule without a discretion remaining in the Secretary. If the Secretary builds up his rigid rule of practice, he is virtually writing into the legislation an additional restriction.

I now move to the second illustration, which is of somewhat greater importance. The Secretary has, as an administrative act, made a certain decision in relation to the maximum amount of savings that will be permitted in any one year. This is of particular application to the period prior to 31st December 1964. At page 13 of the booklet this passage appears -

The amount saved in any year of saving is acceptable up to -£250.. However, if a person saved more than £250 in a year of saving that began before 1st January 1965, these savings may be accepted provided . they are not more than threequarters of that person’s total savings and no more than £560. The limit of £560 is approximately three-quarters of the maximum acceptable savings of £750.

That is an administrative rule. If a person turns to the Act to ascertain his rights, he will find in it nothing whatever. that will tell him what are the maximum permissible acceptable savings in any one year. He must read, the booklet. The booklet contains a decision that has been made by the Secretary, with the express approval, I understand, of the Minister. The Minister has indicated in correspondence that the rule was made with his approval.

I am not arguing at the moment that some limit such as £560 is unreasonable. It may or may not be so. I can conceive of cases in which it may impose hardship, but under every law of this type you will always find somebody who falls on the wrong side of the line and who does not qualify for a particular benefit. My concern is to point out that a definite sum is fixed as the maximum amount of savings regarded as acceptable in any one year; that is £560, or three quarters of the applicant’s total savings not exceeding £560. In my opinion this is moving on to pretty dangerous ground, because nowhere in the Act is a limit fixed. The Secretary is given power to determine in an individual case what should be the amount of a grant and to determine what are the acceptable savings. But in the result a form of sub-legislation has been created which is not challengeable in this Parliament because it is neither in the Act nor in any regulations made under the Act. The only way in which the matter can be canvassed in the Parliament is by way of criticism of an administrative decision for which the responsible Minister must answer. But there is no way in which, if the practice were disapproved and if the particular rule were disapproved, this Parliament could move by way of disallowance of regulations, since there are no regulations.

I suggest to the Minister that this is an extremely important matter. From time to time in the Senate we have debated the question of Parliamentary scrutiny and the extent to which broad administrative policy should be embodied in subordinate legislation so that it can formally be before this Parliament and properly scrutinised. My suggestion is that if the Secretary of the Department wants to make a hard and fast rule, and if he wants to fix precise upper limits in the way that has been done with the approval of the Minister, then the rule should find its way into regulations so that the Senate may, if it thinks proper, disallow the regulation. So it should appear in the Act as being a statement of the maximum amount that can be regarded as acceptable savings in any one year.

These are not small matters but are of far reaching importance. I am not concerned to canvass whether the amount of £560 fixed by the Secretary as the maximum can be justified. I am concerned to say that he is, by introducing broad administrative rules of his own, which apparently are inflexible - they are given out to the public in a pamphlet on that basis - watering down benefits conferred by this legislation. Those are the comments I wish to make. I do not otherwise enter the genera’l area of the debate as it has been dealt with by Senator Cavanagh, Senator Poke, and the Minister in his second reading speech.

Senator PROWSE:
Western Australia

.- At the outset I wish to thank Senator Cohen for his courtesy and cooperation in enabling me to speak at this time in the debate. The purpose of the Bill we are considering is well known, as are the reasons for its introduction. To a great extent the Minister for Housing (Mr. Bury), when he introduced the Homes Savings Grant Bill, on which these amendments are based, assured us that legislation would be introduced if and when it was found necessary in the operation of the Act. Tt is pioneering legislation in the housing field in Australia. It was a new venture and therefore only reasonable to assume that as the new machinery went into operation in the field adjustments would be necessary. The adjustments are now before us in the shape of several amendments which. T think, are acceptable to both sides of the House.

I have heard no material criticism of the proposed amendments, although I believe some amendments will be proposed at the Committee stage. However, in the main we are agreed that the Minister is bringing in desirable amendments. I shall not traverse those amendments, but I do wish to say that the Minister is carrying out the policy that he has developed throughout his administration of the Act, of working very hard to make the legislation worthwhile and desirable.

The main purpose of the legislation is to encourage young people to save by giving them a measurable incentive for a very desirable objective; that is to enable them to put down a substantial deposit upon a home. The effect is to reduce the deposit gap and lessen the subsequent strain upon the finances of a young couple endeavouring to pay for a home. This was agreed to be a very desirable objective, although some criticism has been made of the limitations imposed. However, I believe we must all admit that limitations were necessary and that a definition of the area to be covered by the legislation was necessary. Tn attempting to act positively difficulties must be encountered. It is often easier to do nothing than to do something constructive. Tha! is true not only in the field of legislation but in the ordinary activities of everyday life. It is often easier to take the road of masterly inactivity.

The Act has thrown up some anomalies. The Opposition has brought to the notice of the Senate anomalies that will not be rectified by the proposed legislation. I believe that for some time there will continue to be anomalies of a more or less serious nature. Senator Sir William Spooner said last evening that he believed further amendments would be necessary. I join him in that opinion. Senator Cohen regretted the great area of discretion incorporated in the Bill. When the Minister introduced the Homes Savings Grant Bill he outlined the necessity in administering legislation of this type to have an area of discretion. I am sure that as we progress from the opening period of the legislation, in many cases the exercise of discretion will no longer be necessary. I join with Senator Cohen in his expression of distastes for permanent legislation that is propped up. as it were, with great areas of discretion about which the Parliament can have little to say or do, but T do believe that these areas of discretion have been necessary and have been administered intelligently.

I should like to hark back to two criticisms that I offered when the original Homes Savings Grant Bill was introduced. First, I said that in my opinion the Bill did not cover a wide enough section of the population, that it did not adequately fill the need. The then Minister for National Development, Senator Sir William Spooner, had a reply to this, but I am still of the opinion that the usefulness of this legislation can be further expanded by bringing its effect to people in lower income groups who would otherwise seek the benefit of State and Federal housing schemes. Admittedly, they have a benefit in regard to the long terms that they can secure and the lower rate of interest. This is a very real advantage, but I do think it would be a very real advantage to the Commonwealth if they could be induced at an early age to commence saving so that they would qualify. This legislation covers a field of young people to whom the advantages of saving need to be brought. These are the very people who would benefit most by an expansion of the legislation in this way. I hope that in time the Government will see its way clear to expand the field in this connection.

The other criticism I had was that the legislation would not apply to any great extent to people engaged in agriculture or living in small country communities. All the experience of the legislation has borne out this second contention. This is not a matter that the Bill itself or any amendment that is foreshadowed will rectify. This is a fundamental problem with regard to rural housing. The effect of this deficiency in our rural housing policies with regard to agriculture has been shown up in a very clear light by the operation of this legislation. Many anomalies produced by attempting to do something have been cited. I should like to bring before the Senate a particular case. This is an example of how difficult it is to meet all of the conditions that arise in matters of this kind.

I had a letter from a young man farming at Darkan, who had a problem with regard to his application, which was rejected because he commenced to build before the Act came into operation. The circumstances are these: He went onto a farm and, like other young fellows in similar circumstances, found that it was a bit lonely out there and he decided to take unto himself a wife. A man can live in a tent or a miamia when he is developing a farm but when he brings a wife onto the scene he has to make some sort of attempt to provide a habitable dwelling. This man did just that, instead of doing what the Act allows. He was not to know what was to happen later. Had he built a temporary structure, he would have qualified when he subsequently attempted to build a home. But he very intelligently tried to incorporate his temporary dwelling in what was to be his subsequent home. In so doing, he fell on the wrong side of the line that was cast in providing that if he commenced to build his permanent home before the operational date, 2nd December, he was disqualified.

Let us have a look at this problem, because it illustrates the many difficulties that the Minister is trying to overcome. Here is a chap who had no alternative because of his occupation. He is a farmer and he has to Jive on his farm. He must have somewhere to live. How is he to save for a home and still provide the wherewithal to cover his head? There is not any answer to this, except in an extension of the area of discretion about which Senator Cohen complains. No principle set out in the legislation is being breached in this case. It seeks to encourage saving. Had this man been in a position to put money into a savings bank for the ultimate purpose of building a house, he would have complied with the conditions of the Act. He could have saved for a period of years before the commencement, but for him this was impossible: he had to have somewhere to live. To my mind, at any rate, there is no breach of the principle. He was in effect saving to build a house. He put that saving, instead of into a bank, into the preliminary structure.

Among the amendments that are proposed is one by which paragraph (b) of the new sub-section (7.) of section 4, read in conjunction with the new sub-section (8.) and the definition of the “ prescribed date “. will provide that the prescribed date of a person who purchases land with a partly completed home on it and enters into a building contract to complete the home, or completes it himself as an owner-builder, will be the date on which the applicant enters into a contract for the completion of the home or the date on which the work of completing it begins, whichever is the earlier. This means that had this young man bought a farm on which there was a partly completed home and did not start to complete the work before the prescribed date, he would be eligible: Because he built a portion of his home before the prescribed date, he was ineligible, but had be bought it in that state he would have been eligible. Here there is a definite, hiatus. There was a commencement of a home, but because of the man’s circumstances he could not proceed continuously with the operation. He brought his home to a state in which he could live in it. If that place had been built within the confines of a municipality, it is doubtful whether he would have been allowed to live in it; but he did occupy it and he is now beyond the scope of the scheme because of a definition in that Act.

I have discussed this with the Minister, who was very sympathetic, but I am putting it before the Senate now to illustrate the difficult decisions that have to be made and the anomalies that must arise when a commencement date is specified in legislation of this kind. I feel sure that as time goes on the anomalies associated with the commencement date will disappear and that the administration of the Act will become more concise and clear cut.

Senator Poke referred to the operation of the Act so far. I should like to add to what he had to say. I was interested to read that the Minister, when introducing the original legislation, said he hoped that some 40,000 people would receive the benefit of it in the first year and that he expected that the cost in that year would be about £10 million, because of the backlag of people eligible to receive assistance. He estimated that when the Act became fully operational and the backlag of applications had been eliminated, the cost of meeting current applications would be about £7 million or £8 million a year. It now appears that the estimate of the number of people who would benefit from the legislation in the first year will not be reached. The latest information we have is that some 17.300 grants, representing an expenditure approaching £4 million, have been paid. Something over three-quarters of the first year has now elapsed. If future grants are made at the same rate as in the past, the total expenditure will fall far short of the estimated £10 million. It may reach £6 million.

This is evidence of the difficulty of gauging the effect of the restrictions imposed by the legislation, with a consequent reduc tion in the expected scope of .the Act. However, it encourages us to hope that, without exceeding the anticipated cost to the Treasury, there can be some liberalisation of the restrictions. I mention this in the hope that the Minister will look at these aspects and do something to ease the position of people who feel that to some extent the legislation has dealt with them unjustly. On each occasion that I have spoken on this and other housing measures I have paid a tribute to the Minister’s unfailing courtesy in dealing with the numerous requests that members and senators make to him following representations to them by their constituents. It is very good to be able to record the way in which the Minister is helping us to help the people to resolve the difficulties that we have outlined.

Again let me stress that this is good legislation. Its objectives are sound and desirable. It is a very interesting piece of legislation. I believe that over the years it will do a great deal towards helping to solve many of the problems - it will not solve all the problems - that young people encounter in obtaining their own homes. It will have a positive and very beneficial effect on the character of our young people. By inducing the habit of saving early in life, it will have a beneficial effect not only in the field of housing but also on the whole structure of our economy. If Australian people learn the habit of saving constructively at an early age so that they can put money into worthwhile objectives, they will learn something that goes far beyond the scope of this legislation and right into the structure of their own characters. I have great pleasure in supporting the amending legislation. I hope that it will make a useful measure still more useful, and that it will expand and extend the scope of the scheme.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I do not think anyone would wish to argue against the proposition advanced by Senator Prowse that this is a most interesting piece of legislation. He used other words when referring to it. He said that it is beneficial legislation, and I am sure everyone will agree with that. This is a piece of social legislation which has proved to be of great interest not only in our own country but in other parts of the world where legislation of this kind has a sympathetic acceptance and receives close study by governments which are bent upon increasing and upgrading the living standards of their people.

I am sure not very many people will argue with me when 1 say that in the relatively few months that this Department has been in existence it has done a good job and has demonstrated its increasing ability to continue to render a service for the Australian people. I am glad, therefore, and not surprised that the Bill attracts the support of the Opposition. I would have been surprised if the Opposition has opposed it. However, the Opposition will propose cirtam amendments and we will have an opportunity to debate in some detail in the Committee stage the points relative to those amendments.

I want to refer to one matter which will come up again in Committee because of the amendments which are to be submitted - that is, the question raised by Senator Cavanagh regarding the form in which acceptable savings are to be held at a person’s prescribed date before December 1964. He made certain comments on what was said by the Minister, but the outstanding point in this matter is that the prescribed date and the form of savings which are to be regarded as acceptable are clearly laid down in, I think, section 16 of the Act. Although I must embark in muted terms upon any criticism of one who sits on the opposite side of the House, I do say that, the prescribed date and acceptable savings having been so clearly defined in the measure that was previously before the House, I am mystified that Senator Cavanagh should have proceeded on the assumption upon which he says he proceeded. We will debate this matter in Committee, but I make the point that the Act clearly prescribed the form in which acceptable savings had to be held at the prescribed date before 31st December 1964.

I pass from that matter for the moment and refer. to the other point that was made at some length by Senator Cohen this morning. This was the point the honorable senator raised with reference to the discretionary powers which have been vested in the Secretary of the Department of Housing. In pointing to these powers, he said that there were a number in the original act and that the amending Bill added further discretionary powers to be vested in the Secretary. This is undoubtedly right. In pointing this out, the honorable senator said - I do not quite know why he said it - that he did not object to this discretionary power.

Senator Cohen:

– I said I was not canvassing that aspect of it. I did not say I did not object.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The fact of the matter is - and I take the opportunity to emphasise it because I think it is interesting to note in respect of this sort of legislation - that where we have social legislation which deals with human problems and where a department has to deal on an individual basis with virtually thousands of applicants, each applicant having a different problem, discretionary power must be vested in someone. The Parliament itself realises that, of course, because it passed the original Homes Savings Grant Act as recently as last year. That Act conferred discretionary powers upon the Secretary of the Department. I have no doubt that, in passing the measure, Parliament had well in mind that other social legislation, again dealing with human problems and in the light of experience, necessarily conferred ‘ such powers upon the person who was administering the Act. The best example, I suppose, is in relation to the Social Services Act itself where the Secretary of the Department of Social Services has powers which range over a very wide field indeed.

Of course, this principle has been accepted. I suggest that it is the experience of every member of the Parliament who has had to do business with the Department of Social Services that because of the complexity and the very nature of the important problems which arise, this discretion has to be vested in the Secretary of that Department. I have mentioned the Social Services Act. It is of interest to note that section 7 of the Aged Persons Homes Act provides that the Secretary -

  1. . may in his discretion on behalf of the Commonwealth make a grant of moneys in accordance with this Act to an eligible organisation.

This is, again, the sort of provision which is necessary in this Act.

Senator McKenna:

– The point that I think Senator Cohen was making was that when the exercise of a discretion hardens into a firm rule, as in the two cases he put to the Senate, it should be made the subject of a regulation and be reviewable in the Parliament. That was the honorable senator’s point.

Senator Cohen:

– That is my point.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I am coming to that point because the honorable senator referred particularly to two instances in which he pointed out that the discretionary powers were to be exercised by the Secretary in a way which would introduce restrictions on the Secretary’s power where no restrictions existed before.

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– in referring, before the suspension of the sitting, to the discretionary powers given to the Secretary of the Department of Housing under this legislation. Senator Cohen suggested that, where the Secretary exercises discretion in a consistent manner so that the use of the discretionary power becomes, in effect, a firm rule, the Secretary’s decision should be prescribed by regulation. Two possible instances were referred to. The first was the requirement that a person who enters into a contract for the building of his home must produce evidence that he has made progress payments of at least 10 per cent, of the contract price before the grant will be paid. The second example was the decision that if a person saved more than £250 in a year of saving that began before 1st July 1965 these savings may be accepted provided they are not more than three-quarters of that persons total savings or not more than £560. I will certainly bring this suggestion to the attention of the Minister for Housing (Mr. Bury) for his consideration. However, he will have to consider very carefully the prescribed amount for which the Secretary has this discretion at present. There may be cases, for example, where a person needs the grant to pay portion of his first 10 per cent, progress payment to a builder.

If the Department is satisfied that the contractor will proceed, a payment of something less than 10 per cent, may be accepted. Moreover, as what I might call the “ three-quarters ruling “ or the “ £560 ruling “ in respect of annual savings applies only to savings in a savings year which commenced prior to the 1st January 1965, 1 do not see the necessity for including this in a regulation at this stage. However, the proposal made by the Opposition will be considered carefully. Last evening Senator Cavanagh queried the necessity for the requirement of the Department that an eligible person who enters into a contract for the building of a home must produce evidence that he has made progress payments of at least 10 per cent, of the contract price before the grant is paid. As the purpose of this scheme is to pay a grant on savings for the acquisition of a home it must be reasonably established that the person will acquire a home before the grant is paid. Sub-section (1.) of Section 23 of the Act - -

Senator Cohen:

– That is the one I mean.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– I think it is a very fair means by which to establish this. Then sub-section (1.) of section 23 of the Act provides that a grant to an eligible person shall be paid at such time as the Secretary determines. In order to be sure that a person will acquire a home, the Secretary might defer payment of the grant until the home has been completed. However, it is our intention to pay the grant as early as possible. As some contracts to build are not proceeded with, the mere production of a building contract is insufficient evidence in a number of cases. We may, however, be reasonably satisfied that a contract will be completed if a person has paid 10 per cent, of the contract price to a builder. This is eminently reasonable action to protect the interests of the taxpayer. Senator Cavanagh also criticised what he called the arbitrary action of the Department in fixing any limit on acceptable savings in any saving’s year that commenced before 1st January 1965. Section 22 of the Principal Act provides that the maximum savings in any savings year that commences on or after 1st January 1965 shall be limited to £250. The purpose of this limitation on annual acceptable savings is to encourage regular saving over a period of years. This is a fundamental requirement of the Government’s offer. It is not a reward of £250 for £750 deposited in a home savings account shortly before a person’s prescribed date. The scheme aims to encourage young people to save as’ regularly as possible for the acquisition of a future home as soon as they are in receipt of an

Income. It was also for this reason that the Minister directed that there should bc an annual limit on a persons savings in any savings year that commenced prior to 1st January 1965. However, as the scheme was a novel one and was to lay down the requirements for future acceptable savings, the Minister directed the Secretary to take a liberal view of the amount of acceptable savings in a savings year in the early days of the scheme. It was therefore decided that, if a person saved more than £250 in a year of saving that began before 1st January 1965, these savings may be accepted provided they are not more than three-quarters of that person’s total savings or not more than £560. The limit of £560 is approximately three-quarters of the maximum acceptable savings of £750. To make this limit any higher would be to make nonsense of the requirement of continuous saving over a period of years. The authority for this action is contained in sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Principal Act, which provides -

Subject to this section the Secretary may, in his discretion, on behalf of the Commonwealth, make a grant of moneys in accordance with this Act to an eligible person.

J am sure that all honorable senators would agree with me that the Secretary, in exercising this discretionary power in determining generous limits on annual savings in the early savings years has acted in a most sympathetic manner, taking into account the purpose and conditions of the legislation.

Senator Cavanagh referred to the staffing situation in the Department’s regional offices. He also said that some applicants have waited a long time for a reply. He asked for an assurance that the staffing position in the States would be attended to without delay. The Public Service Board provided an initial organisation for the Homes Savings Grant Branch when the scheme commenced. Since then, approaches have been made to the Board from time to time as the need for additional staff has been established. These approaches have been approved. The fact that the Department and the Public Service Board have kept up to date in this matter is well illustrated by the fact, first, that the examining staff has been increased from 22 to 72 since the scheme commenced to operate and as the number of applications being received increased; and, secondly, in New South Wales - the State receiving the highest number of applications - whereas there were nearly 3,000 applications on hand in January on which processing had not commenced, following the unprecedented rush of applications just prior to and around Christmas, there were less than 100 awaiting processing last Friday. In other words, as soon as the need for them was seen, the Department sought and obtained the Board’s approval for the extra staff, with the result I have just mentioned. Staffing needs for the examining of applications are kept under constant review and action is quickly taken to avoid any undue delay in processing. The Opposition has said that the scheme is so complicated that an examiner can process only four applications a day and that as a result there is a congestion of applications in the Department. First, it is incorrect to say that an examiner processes only four applications a day. On the average, he processes between 10 and 12 a day, approximately 4 of which are finalised and the remainder directed for further action, such as a request to an applicant to supply some document not forwarded with the application or a valuation of the home. Secondly, there was a congestion of applications during the week immediately preceding the Christmas break and the following week. However, this is no longer the position. Processing of applications had not commenced on only 206 applications throughout Australia last Friday. In general, an applicant who submits a properly documented application receives a grant within 10 days of its receipt by the Department. Last evening, Senator Cavanagh appeared to be uncertain about the meaning of the amendment in clause 10 of this Bill, which will permit the Secretary to adopt a combination of cost and value in respect of the land and improvements in determining whether the home falls within the limit of £7,000.

Section 20 of the principal Act requires the Secretary in making this determination to take either the cost of the house and the land or the value of the house and land. The amendment will give the Secretary freedom to take either the cost or value of the land and the cost or value of the house. This will be of considerable benefit to some owner builders. An owner builder might have bought his land five years ago for £500. He commences to build now and his land may be worth £1,000. His house may be valued at £6,500. By taking the cost of the land and the value of the house, he would be eligible. If the Department were required to take both the value of the land and the value of the house, he would be ineligible.

In referring to clause 8, Senator Cavanagh said that he could see no justification for the proposed section 17b. This new section will provide that the savings made overseas by a serviceman and his wife and his children under the age of 21 will be acceptable as savings. Senator Cavanagh seemed to be under the impression that money saved by a child under 21 would be accepted as part of the savings of the serviceman himself. This is certainly not intended - nor is it provided for. The savings overseas of the child of a serviceman will be recognised as the acceptable savings of the child only if, and when, he or she returns to Australia, marries and acquires a home.

The Opposition has contended that widows with dependent children should be eligible for the grant. I wish to emphasise first that the scheme is aimed primarily at encouraging young people, before they are married, to establish the habit of saving and to save for the acquisition of their future home after marriage. The grant is a reward for saving by young people for a home, it is not a marriage grant. If the grant were to be regarded as a general social service benefit, it might be extended to quite a number of persons, including widows and widowers, deserted wives and husbands, de facto wives and others; but this is not the purpose of the scheme. It is designed to pay a grant as a reward for saving by young people for the acquisition of their first home after marriage.

Senator Prowse referred to the case of a young couple who were building their home by stages on a farm. Anyone who commenced to do this on or after 2nd December 1963 could be eligible for a grant. There is another point I wish to make. If a young couple build a shack on their farm and it is not recognised by a local or shire as a habitable dwelling, and then commence to build a permanent residence on the property, the shack will not be regarded as a previous home and the couple could be eligible for the grant.

The general impression I have gained from this debate has been that honorable senators are, by and large, very satisfied with the scheme as it will emerge after passage of the amending Bill. The Bill now before the Senate will correct a number of anomalies. Our approach has been to extend eligibility for the scheme and to treat savings as acceptable as far as we can in conformity with the basic principles of the scheme. The amendments will make eligible many more deserving people.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

The Bill.

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 (Interpretation.)

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

.- I move-

That clause 3 be postponed until after consideration of all remaining clauses.

The motion, if carried, is to be regarded as an indication that the Government should take steps to amend the definition of “ savings bank “ to include the voluntary savings scheme of. the South Australian Superannuation Fund Board. Clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend section 4, the interpretation section, of the principal Act. The Opposition is not opposed to the definitions but it questions why a recognised and established savings insitution cannot be accepted for the purposes of the Bill. The measure would seem to be designed to compel people seeking grants to desert their established savings institutions or recognised savings institutions to go to one of the institutions named in the Bill. We do not understand the reasons and we do not agree with them. In South Australia there is a Superannuation Act enacted by the State Parliament. It provides that apart from the compulsory contributions to the Superannuation Fund, contributors may pay voluntarily into a savings account in association with the Fund. This money can be drawn out at any time. The contributors receive interest and the money can be used at any stage for any purpose by the depositors. It is their money at all times.

Under the provisions of the Bill, this savings scheme of the Fund does not comply with the definition of a savings bank. Therefore, public servants in South

Australia who want to qualify for the homes savings grant and who are using these facilities in South Australia will have to transfer their savings to an approved institution. This will weaken the South Australian organisation and the system they have built up over many years.

The report of the South Australian Superannuation Fund for 1963 shows that at June 1963 there were 9,777 contributors to the voluntary savings account. This was an increase of 293 during the year. That shows that this is not a small organisation and that it is supported by the contributors to the Fund. The balance to the credit of contributors at 30th June 1963 was £1,917,488 14s. lOd. The average balance for each contributor was £196 2s. 5d. compared with £188 5s. 2d. at 30th June 1962. Deposits during the year, including interest credited to. depositors amounting to £65,783 5s., amounted to £2,058,365 19s. Withdrawals totalled £1,926,325 ls. Id.

So it can be seen that this is quite an important organisation and that it is supported by members of the Public Service of South Australia. This has become their recognised avenue for savings. The money is invested under an act of the State Parliament. The money received as voluntary savings is deposited with superannuantion contributions and the total is invested together. This is a necessary requirement under the State legislation.

I am informed by the Secretary of the Department concerned that representations were made to the Commonwealth Government by the former Premier of South Australia, Sir Thomas Playford, to have this form of savings account recognised for the purposes of the homes savings grant scheme so that those who are saving for a home through the Superannuation Fund in South Australia will not have to withdraw their savings or make future savings in another organisation. I have been informed that a reply was received from the Minister for Housing which stated that such savings could not be accepted for the purpose of the scheme as the bulk of the money held by the organisation was not invested under mortgage.

The South Australian Superannuation Fund not only consists of contributions by public servants but also embraces voluntary savings. The voluntary savings in the Fund amount to £2 million. The Secretary of the Superannuation Board has stated that 45 per cent, of the moneys in the Fund are lent out under mortgage, mostly on houses. The balance is invested in Commonwealth, State and local government loans. Surely no greater security could be provided than by this form of investment. A distinction has been drawn between funds held under the voluntary savings scheme and funds that are invested under long term mortgage and in government bonds.

The only argument that can be advanced for not recognising the South Australian Superannuation Fund as a savings bank is that we owe allegiance to the banks and must channel money to them. The South Australian Superannuation Board is not an irresponsible body; it was established under State legislation and is supported by the public servants of that State. In the lending of its funds it is making a substantial contribution to the development of housing in that State. If the Fund is not treated as being a savings bank, the amount of money that is held in the form of voluntary savings will be greatly curtailed, because people who want to acquire a home will be compelled to transfer their money to some other account. The Fund has had the support of the previous Government of South Australia and no doubt it will be supported by the present Government of that State. I repeat that it should be treated as a savings bank for the purposes of this legislation.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– A similar motion was proposed by the Opposition in another place, but it was rejected. For very good reasons, the Government does not accept the proposal that is now before honorable senators.. The voluntary savings that are held as an attachment to the South Australian Superannuation Fund are, when regarded in isolation, no different from moneys that are held in other employers’ savings funds throughout Australia. They are sayings; they do not constitute a fund which has been established for the purpose of attracting money for investment. Indeed, the figures that were quoted by Senator Cavanagh established that the South Australian Superannuation Board does not pretend to attract funds for that purpose. Those figures show that there are fewer than 10,000 contributors to the savings scheme, that the total sum held is less than £2 million, and that the average balance in each savings account is less than £200. I suggest that a most cursory glance at the figures indicates that, though the idea is not without merit, this savings scheme is not a repository of funds that have been lodged on long term deposit and which can be applied for the purpose of housing. This scheme is used as a savings device by some members of the South Australian Public Service, but it is not used for housing purposes. This scheme is used, as is any other employer’s saving scheme, for general purposes - to save funds for holiday purposes or to buy a refrigerator.

The honorable senator made quite a point of the fact that the South Australian Superannuation Board has 45 per cent, of its funds invested under mortgage. I do not argue with that figure, but I do point out that it has no direct relevance to the purpose of the savings scheme, which is an attachment to the Superannuation Fund and which is no more than a general savings device to be used by members of the Public Service but not for the purpose of receiving long term finance.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I should like to reply to a few of the Minister’s comments. I fail to see any difference between what the Minister has described now as a long term savings account and any other account that is prescribed under the Act. I do not know what would be regarded as being a long term. Although a depositor may pay money into a particular account for the purpose of home savings, he has the right to withdraw money from that account at any time and apply it to other purposes. We do not know why members of the South Australian Public Service deposit moneys with the South Australian Superannuation Board under its voluntary savings scheme, but some may well do so for the purpose of saving for a home. I repeat that under the homes savings grant scheme, a person who deposits moneys in a homes savings account instead of a normal trading account has the advantage of being able to draw that money out at any time and of having available funds which enable him to comply with the conditions of this legislation.

The institutions that are covered by the Act are normal savings bank institutions. The South Australian Superannuation Fund is virtually in the same category, the difference being that as yet an account has not been established in which people may definitely deposit moneys for the purpose of paying a deposit on a home. Acceptance of the Opposition’s proposal, would not mean interfering with the purpose of the Act. I repeat that moneys that are deposited in a home savings account with a savings bank may still be withdrawn at any time and used for another purpose. The South Australian Superannuation Fund has been established under an Act of Parliament; it is not part of a wildcat scheme. The moneys held by the Fund are invested under the provisions of an Act of Parliament. The Board accounts for the manner in which the moneys are invested, and there is no possibility of misappropriation or of moneys not being available to contributors because of a bad investment. The Minister’s argument falls far short of justifying the Government’s action in refusing to accept the Opposition’s proposal.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to state my view that it is quite wrong for the Government to maintain that the voluntary savings scheme of the South Australian Superannuation Fund is in the same category as a number of other saving schemes. It is true that some members of the South Australian Public Service arrange to have amounts deducted from their salaries and paid into the voluntary savings scheme for reasons other than housing; but other members are in fact saving to purchase homes by this means. Whether a mortgage can be obtained through the Fund for the purchase of a home is dependent upon the amount of savings that the member has accumulated. It should be recognised by the Commonwealth Government that many members of the Fund, because of the savings they have accumulated through deductions from their salaries, are using its finances to purchase homes. The deductions paid into the voluntary savings scheme act as collateral. Finance for housing has been made available in this way since 1928 when the Fund was set up.

Should the Government decide not to recognise the Fund for the purposes of the Act, money that should be available as homes savings grants will have to be taken from the resources of the Fund and contributors to the voluntary savings scheme, in order to qualify for a grant, must transfer their savings to an approved savings bank. A matter associated with the point I am making has apparently escaped the attention of the Government. Honorable senators will recall that this morning I asked a question about bonuses being paid by the South Australian Superannuation Fund. Because the Fund pays bonuses, the Commonwealth Government is saved substantial sums of money it would otherwise have to pay as social services to retired or invalid South Australian public servants. Clearly the present prosperity of the Fund is being used to meet demands which otherwise would be made for pensions. If it is decided by the Government to disqualify from homes savings grants all contributors to the voluntary savings scheme of the South Australian Superannuation Fund, it may be that the money at present being paid as bonuses will be used to finance mortgages. In the absence of bonuses, greater demands will be made upon Commonwealth social services.

If the Government should accept the proposition advanced in another place that a number of South Australian employees in various occupations in the Public Service who are contributing to the voluntary savings scheme of the Fund in order to purchase a home should qualify for home savings grants, such provision could be included in the legislation. All contributors to the scheme should not be excluded. I suggest that the Minister could simply say: “ Where bona fide savings for purchase of a home are accumulated through voluntary deductions from employees of State Public Services, those contributors should be accorded the same consideration as contributors to savings banks “.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I have listened very closely to the submissions made by Senator Cavanagh and Senator Bishop, but nothing they have said has altered the unyielding fact that the scheme to which they have referred is no different from any other employer’s savings scheme. In few cases, if any, are schemes designed for the accumulation of long term finance for home purchase. They are savings schemes and as such they are meritorious, but they are not savings schemes which fit into the type of financial operation which is covered by this Bill. I repeat that they . are employers’ savings schemes and nothing else. The voluntary savings scheme of the South Australian Superannuation Fund cannot be accepted for the purposes of this legislation.

Question put -

That clause 3 (Senator Cavanagh’* motion) be postponed until after consideration of all remaining clauses.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman .)

AYES: 24

NOES: 28

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Section 4 of the Principal Act is amended -

  1. by omitting from paragraph (a) of subsection (5.) the words “ during a period when he was an Australian citizen,”;

Section proposed to be amended -

  1. – (1.) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - (5.) For the purposes of this Act -

    1. a person who has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, during a period when he was an Australian citizen, saved moneys by depositing those moneys, and maintaining them on deposit, with a branch of a savings bank or of a trading bank in a Territory of theCommonwealth not forming part of the Commonwealth shall be deemed to have saved those moneys in Australia during that period; and
Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I move -

In paragraph (c), after “ citizen,’ “, insert “ and the words ‘ during that period ‘ “.

Clause 3 (c) proposes the omission from paragraph (a) of sub-section (5.) the words “ during a period when he was an Australian citizen “. The omission of those words will necessitate the omission also of the words “during that period” which occur later in that paragraph, as there will no longer be any reference to a period.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The Opposition does not oppose the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 (Eligible persons).

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– It is my intention to propose the inclusion of a new clause, 6a, after clause 6. Before I do so, I should like some clarification of the proposed new paragraph (d), which reads -

The Secretary is satisfied that the person held acceptable savings through the period of three years immediately preceding the prescribed date.

This provision is for the purpose of determining eligibility for a grant. I am not opposed to the paragraph as it stands, but every statement made on behalf of the Department and the Minister’s reply today has indicated that the grant was a reward for acceptable savings or continuous savings over a period. As I submitted at the second reading stage, this provision will not achieve what the Minister indicated. While it appears to be satisfactory if the Department is to administer the Act, as it has done in the past, on the basis of how it intended the Act to read and not in accordance with the wording of the Act, I think it is open to query. Honorable senators will recall that last night Iread correspondence in connection with my first raising with the Minister this question of whether or not there had to be savings for three years immediately preceding the prescribed date. The Minister said that it was the intention that savings be made over a period of years and that this would be dealt with in the amending legislation.

The paragraph that I have just read from the Bill represents his proposal to amend that provision. It refers to the Secretary being satisfied that the person held acceptable savings. Surely this does not mean that the savings must be over the period of three years. The person might hold the savings for the two years immediately preceding or he might hold the savings for the period of three years. To my mind, the intention of the paragraph is doubtful. Contrary to the intention of the legislation, as suggested by everyone, that savings must be over a period of three years, the proposed provision relates to the holding of acceptable savings - one does not have to make additional savings - throughout the period of three years immediately preceding the prescribed date. Acceptable savings are defined in sections 15 and 16 of the Act. They are savings within a period of seven years preceding the prescribed date. If one has such savings and holds them for the three years immediately preceding the prescribed date, he must get a grant upon those savings.

Under this provision there is no requirement to save over a period. The savings must be acceptable savings as defined in sections 1 5 and 1 6. in any savings bank over the7-year period. If, four years before the prescribed date, a person saves £250. which is the maximum per year under the Act, that £250 will be acceptable savings under sections 15 or 16 of the Act.If those savings are held,there is no other requirement in order to qualify for a grant.

Again I make a layman’s interpretation, but I would like the legal minds in the chamber to give their interpretation. I believe there is no requirement to save for three years. For savings to be acceptable savings as defined in the two sections to which reference has been made, they must be held for three years. But the acceptable savings mentioned in the other two sections are savings in any year. There is no other interpretation.

I say in all simplicity that the true interpretation of this is directly opposite to what the Department desires to do and makes essential savings in the three-year period immediately preceding the prescribed date. I do not oppose this because it is more beneficial, but in future let us ensure that the Act is administered in accordance with its wording and not in accordance with the intention of the Department and the Minister.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I apologise for being a little at a loss to understand what the honorable senator is putting. My loss of appreciation probably springs from the fact that he is interpreting the word “ save “ differently from the way in which it is defined in the Act. The word “ save “ in the Act means simply the holding of money or the refraining from the spending of money. As I understand the honorable senator’s remarks, if an eligible person during the period of seven years prior to his prescribed date saves, say, ?750 in the first three or four of those seven years and then for three years does not increase those savings, the fact that he has held those savings for three years constitutes saving in the terms of the Act.

Clause agreed to.

New clause 6a.

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) proposed -

That the following new clause be inserted: - “ 6a. Section15 of the Principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (2.) the words ‘as at a time before the prescribed date’ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ on, or at a time before, the prescribed date ‘ and

by omitting sub-section (3.).”.

The CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator DrakeBrockman). - I rule that as the insertion of the new clause in the Bill would increase the proposed charge or burden on the people, the motion should be moved in the form of a request to the House of Representatives to amend the Bill.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I move -

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment, namely -

After clause 6 insert the following new clause - “6a. Section15 of the principal Act is amended -

by omitting from sub-section (2) the words as at a time before the prescribed date ‘ and inserting in their stead the words ‘ on, or at a time before, the prescribed date ‘ and

by omitting sub-section (3.).”

The purpose of this request is to provide on opportunity to honour the assurance that Senator Sir William Spooner gave me when the original Bill was introduced last May. That assurance related to people whose prescribed date was in 1964. It will be realised that not a great deal of expenditure would be involved if the amendment were made. The point is that, according to section 16, these people were required to have their money in a restricted form of savings account at the prescribed date, but Senator Sir William Spooner gave me an assurance that this was not necessary.

I referred to this assurance yesterday. Although I thought that some doubt had been cast upon the honesty and integrity of the honorable senator - who, when the original Bill was introduced, was the Leader of the Government in this place and the Minister in charge of the Bill - and although it seemed that the Government had no intention of honouring the undertaking that he gave, when he followed me in the debate yesterday he lightly evaded the issue, put himself under the protection of the present Leader of the Government (Senator Paltridge) and said that the Minister would reply to me. Today the Minister replied and did not dispute that the assurance was given. In fact, he could not dispute that the assurance was given, because it is recorded in “ Hansard “. However, he stated that whatever had been said on the previous occasion, section 16 of the Act was so clear that I must have been dumb to have wanted some assurance, and that I could not read what was in the legislation.

Senator Paltridge:

– I did not say that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– The Minister did not say that in so many words. He said that the wording of the provision was so plain that its meaning must have been obvious and that anyone could have understood it. In effect, he said to me: “ You are exceptionally dumb. The section in question “ - that is the section we are now seeking to delete - “ provides that the money must be in a prescribed account. The Act is as clear as day.” The fact of the matter is that I was not that stupid, and I could see that that was so. The only one who could not see it was the then Minister in charge of the Bill. He was the only one in the House who was not brilliant enough to see it.

The logical interpretation of what the present Minister has said to us today - I do not accept it - is that if the Government appoints a Minister who cannot see something that is apparent to everyone else and we accept an assurance from that Minister, we must pay the penalty. Is this a proper approach when an assurance is given by a respected Minister, the senior Minister in the chamber? Is it proper that we should dishonour the assurance that he has given?

Honorable senators will remember that last night 1 quoted an extract from the “ Hansard “ report which made it quite clear that in the previous debate I read section 15(2.), which states that savings before the prescribed date can be in any form but that at the prescribed date they must be in a particular restricted form. The then Minister said: “That is not so. Until the end of this year the savings can be anywhere.” I said that this seemed to be unfair to those who qualified before the Act became law and that the matter should be clarified for them. I asked the Minister how we could overcome this injustice. Obviously it was my intention to propose an amendment whereby those who did not know the requirements and who had their money invested in another form could receive the benefit of the legislation. I was prevented from moving the amendment because I had the firm assurance from the Minister in charge of the Bill at that time that I. was wrong.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honorable senator’s time has expired.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

, - I rise merely to permit the honorable senator to continue his speech.

Senator CAVANAGH (South Australia)

I realise it must be embarrassing for him to have to reply to what I am saying. I chink that as the Leader of the Government in the Senate, he would not like the situation to arise in which an assurance he had given was repudiated by his successor. At the same time, I am sympathetic to Senator Sir William Spooner on this question, because it was no more his fault in regard to this matter than it was anyone else’s fault. After I had spoken in the second reading debate on the Homes Savings Grant Bill last year, the Secretary of the Department of Housing came to see me and said that the questions I had raised had not been raised in the House of Representatives. He said, in effect: “We do not know what you are talking about and, therefore, we cannot prepare replies. Will you give us the questions that you will be bringing up in Committee so that we can have the replies ready for you?”

I told the Secretary what clauses I would be raising in Committee, and they included the provision now under consideration. The Secretary sat beside the Minister who was in charge of the Bill at that time and was in continuous consultation with him. When this matter came up, the reply given to me was obviously the instruction of the Department. Again 1 say that, in all probability, the Department did not know the significance of the clause or did not have a proper, understanding of it. The assurance was given. It is in black and white in “ Hansard “. I think that the assurance was given by Senator Sir William Spooner on the say-so of the officers of the Department. Now it is apparent that a mistake has been made. I am seeking to rectify that mistake by ensuring the granting of a payment to those few who have been affected. By doing so, we would honour the promise of a Minister of the Crown. If the stage is reached where the assurance of a Minister of the Crown cannot be accepted, we are in a bad state of affairs.

It is all right to say that this interpretation was obvious to anyone who read the Act. It definitely was not obvious even to the Minister at the time or to the Secretary of the Department. I had endeavoured to interpret the Bill. I devoted some time to studying this question. The Minister responsible for the Bill at that time, speaking with the advantage of a legally trained mind, said that my interpretation was pathetic. 1 was not in the position of being able to interpret these matters as a legally trained person would. I was a layman on the question. I thought that the clause meant the very thing that the Minister for Defence said it meant today. Senator Sir William Spooner, the responsible Minister at that time, told me that it did not mean that, and gave me the assurance that the principle would be carried out. As a result of that assurance, as I have said, there are at least four people in South Australia who cannot qualify because they accepted that assurance from the Minister. One person accepted the assurance on my say-so after a conversation with me. This is the kind of position in which honorable senators are placed if an assurance given to them is not honoured.

When I came into this House of Parliament, I was advised that one of the greatest men on the Government side who could be trusted and believed - although we could not agree politically with him - was the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Sir William Spooner. His word was his bond. The reputation of -the man whom we recognised and idolised has been reduced at this stage because an assurance that he gave cannot be carried out now. If he said something that is not in accordance with the Act, the present Minister must simply repudiate that assurance. The man has been reduced to the stage where he can do nothing else but cringe and evade the issue, such as happened last night, and try to pass the matter off by saying, as he did this morning, that his haircut was more important than people receiving a £250 grant. That is what has happened to someone who was respected in this chamber because a person in the Department of Housing, not the then Minister concerned with the matter, made a mistake and the Minister in charge of this Bill today is not prepared to honour the assurance that was given. 1 say to honorable senators in all sincerity that the amount concerned is not great. If we have any decency at all and if we wish to restore to Senator Sir William Spooner the respect and prestige that he enjoyed when I came into this House and before his dismissal from the Government, we should say that, as he made the promise, it should be carried out at the present time.

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER (New South Wales) [3.20]: - As my name has been invoked frequently, I feel that I must make a contribution to the debate. May I start, Mr. Chairman, by thanking Senator Cavanagh most sincerely for the compliments he paid me regarding my standing and my prestige here. I thought that I enjoyed some prestige on this side of the chamber, but it is of very great comfort to me to have Senator Cavanagh pay some compliments to me from the other side of the chamber although, if I may say so, I detected a little insincerity in the compliments that he paid me, and the use of the compliments as a debating point. This is the whole substance of Senator Cavanagh’s argument before the Senate. It is a sheer debating point, trying to take advantage of some looseness in my reply on a complicated matter that was in the Homes Savings Grant Bill.

I understood Senator Cavanagh to say a few minutes ago that he would have moved some amendment if he had not received some assurance from me. All I say in reply is that I have no recollection of that being the atmosphere at the time the question was raised. I find no evidence of that being the atmosphere in the “Hansard “ record of the debate. All I can do is ask Senator Cavanagh to examine his own conscience as to whether he is justified in saying that, if he had not been satisfied with my answer, he would have moved the amendment then.

Senator Cavanagh:

– 1 was completely satisfied.

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER:

– Let me, if I may, traverse the history of this matter. My recollection of it is that this legislation was originally conceived upon the basis that it would apply to savings in the future qualifying for the grant. When the measure came to be examined, it was said that it would be fair if the scheme was broken up into separate sections to apply to people who had already made savings in the past, people who would make part savings and continue savings, and people who started de novo and made savings in the future. The Bill was split into two sections or two parts. There was - I hope I am correct in this - a common proviso in each of the two parts. That common proviso said, in effect: “ Yes, we will let this scheme operate in a retrospective sort of way provided that at the line of demarcation “ - at what I think is called the prescribed date - “the savings are transferred in a readily identifiable form into a savings bank account”. “ Savings bank “ is not the correct technical term for the prescribed institutions which include a savings bank, home building fund or building society, but I will use the term as a kind of shorthand. A line of demarcation was drawn. Up to the end of 1964, savings qualified if by that time they had been put into a savings bank account and, after December 1964, the savings also qualified if they were put into a savings bank account. Senator Cavanagh asked me a question about this line of demarcation and 1 replied that the foundation for both periods was the same. I have re-read my reply in “ Hansard “. It is true that that reply may not have been 100 per cent, accurate, but it still makes good sense to me, as it did when I made it. So for Senator Cavanagh to attempt to say at this stage of the proceedings that that statement which I made in Committee in the Senate is in the nature of a Government promise or assurance is - as I said when I started - a debatable issue. It is purely an attempt to make a big issue out of something that was going backwards and forwards across the chamber in the course of debate. In my reply I said in effect: “ This is the position: A couple may build a home and become eligible for the grant by virtue of the Department accepting their savings in any form. That is the foundation for my answer to Senator Cavanagh’s inquiry.” The foundation is exactly the same for savings after 3 1st December 1964 as for savings before that date. If my recollection is correct, they have to be transferred so as to take an acceptable form if not already held in that form.

Again, the line of demarcation has to be observed and the savings have to be taken out of stocks or shares - or whatever form of investment they are in - and have to be paid into a savings bank account, either before 31st December 1964 or in some following period. Senator Cavanagh has taken the opportunity to attack me personally on this and say that my answer was an assurance given on behalf of the Government. Do I overstate the case? I know that my answer was perhaps not the form of answer that Senator Murphy or Senator Cohen would give if they were in their chambers, being asked to put the position down in black and white; but I think it is a pretty good answer for any Minister or- senator to give in the course of debate. I think that in the time in which I have been in the Senate there are a lot of things I have said which were not 100 per cent, accurate. But when I look back at the complexities of sections 15 and 16 of the Act I do not think I did badly in the definition I gave in Committee. I would like to think that if I were ever a Minister again and were confronted with a question like this I would do as well in the future as I did on that occasion.

Senator Cavanagh completely overstated the case, because to regard my answer as being a specific assurance that a specific thing would be done according to some specific formula is wrong. Senator Cavanagh asked his question ‘and received my answer which was, in general terms, that the situation was the same for both periods. If I understand the position correctly, the only thing lacking in my answer was the statement that there should be a transfer of the funds from one form to another. If that was so bad an omission on my part then I am equally at fault in the answer I gave as to the position after 3 1st December 1964, because the same circumstances apply there. If my. recollection is correct, the same transfer should have been effected after 31st December 1964. 1 did not say that in my answer to Senator Cavanagh. 1 was wrong there, too, was I not? But I did not hear any great flourish of trumpets about that error. That error was confined to what I think was a pretty accurate statement which I think would satisfy almost every criterion except that of counsel’s opinion. Instead of being a considered legal opinion, mine was a good answer from one non-lawyer to another non-lawyer, which would satisfy anyone. It was an answer which I have not heard queried from that time until this and, on Senator Cavanagh’s own statement, I say that he very much exaggerated the issue upon which he challenged my answer.

Senator McKENNA:
Tasmania

.- I wish to enter briefly into the debate. When replying to honorable senators, the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge) said that section 15 of the Act was crystal clear. It is crystal clear to anybody who studies it at length and who has the acute perception of a very acute lawyer, but I confess that one of the hardest tasks I have undertaken in the Parliament was undertaken in May last when I had to give this legislation hours and hours of study. There was no precedent for it. It was a bill of most novel type. I think I admitted, when I spoke in the debate at that time, that it was one of the most difficult bills I had had to face. I believe I understood it thoroughly by the time I stood up . to speak on it, but that was only after many long hours of very close study. To indicate how difficult the measure is, it is quite clear that in May last the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Sir William Spooner, was misled, either by his own reading or by misunderstanding the advice tendered to him, but I think he gave himself 99 per cent, marks for his answer to Senator Cavanagh. I do not think I would give him a pass on it. In fact, on reviewing it I do not think I would give him 51 per cent. I want to look carefully at it again.

What does section 15 of the Act do? It deals with people who may be eligible during the period which ended at 31st December 1964. Sub-section 2 of that section deals with the position of acceptable savings before the prescribed date - before a person enters into a contract to buy a house or, if he intends to build, commences his building. At any time prior to the prescribed date his investment or savings could be held in any form whatsoever. This applied whether the money was in the form of an investment or otherwise. The provision could not be wider.

Section 15 (3.) of the Act deals with one point of time and the form in which specified acceptable savings are to be held at that precise point of time - the date of the signing of the contract. At that point of time, the applicant must have translated any investments or deposits with bodies not recognised under the Act into some other form. The money must go into one or other of the banks or institutions named in the Act and it must be in that institution on one day.

I say that even at this stage and after thinking about this a lot I had to read and re-read section 15 before I understood all its implications. It is not a simple section. It is simple enough when you understand it thoroughly and have done your homework on it. But I want to point out how Senator Cavanagh was misled. I do not say he was misled deliberately. How it happened is completely understandable; but at least no blame can be attached to Senator Cavanagh for making a desperate effort to get the best answer. This, is what Senator Sir William Spooner, who was then Minister for National Development, said on 21st May 1964 as reported at page 1432 of “ Hansard “-

In that transitional period savings, no matter in what form they are evidenced, become eligible for the grant. So if the couple marry and build » home they become eligible for the grant by virtue of the Department accepting their savings in any form, investment or otherwise. That, T think, is the foundation for the answer to Senator Cavanagh’s query.

That is completely unexceptionable. Senator Cavanagh interjected -

But their savings must.be in a particular bank at the prescribed date.

It is at that point that Senator Sir William Spooner got off the track. He denied that proposition and said -

Not until 31st December 1964.

It is quite clear that Senator Cavanagh had in his mind what I have just explained that the section states. When he got that broad answer from Senator Sir William Spooner, he tried to put to the Minister what was troubling his mind - that at the prescribed date, the time of contract, the acceptable savings had to be in a restricted class of institution. There is an expressed negation of that by Senator Sir William Spooner. He said -

Not until 31st December 1964. When you get to 31st December 1964, by and large, with certain exceptions, your savings must be in a narrow group of savings banks, permanent building societies or trading banks.

Listen to the next sentence -

That proviso becomes operative from 1st January 1965 . . .

It is quite clear that Senator Sir William Spooner induced Senator Cavanagh to believe that the savings could be held in any form up to 31st December. I am not complaining about a mistake being made. Secondly, I do not blame the honorable senator for not putting the position with the precision of a lawyer and of one who had given close study to it. But the fact remains on Senator Cavanagh’s word- and it should not be questioned - that on the basis of that statement by the Minister of the day, he advised a number of people in South Australia that they could continue to hold their investments in the Superannuation Fund until the end of 1964. One of these persons entered into a contract, leaving the money where it was, and has said that this deposit was rejected as part of his acceptable savings.

All I say is that I hope the discretions vested in the Department of Housing and the Secretary of the Department are wide enough to enable that situation to be rectified. It should be rectified. Senator Cavanagh should be rescued from the false position into which he put a person who consulted him. I do not know whether the discretion available to the Secretary will permit that to be done. I ask: Can it be done? I certainly assert that it ought to be done.

Now, let that stand aside. On the merits of the amendment proposed by the Opposition, we seek to get established the position that at all times up to 31st December 1964 savings should be acceptable no matter in what form they are. It was recognised that the Bill which was assented to in May had operative effect back to the preceding December and that provision had to be made to deal with situations where persons had qualified under the Act, had already entered into contracts and accordingly had to be protected. The Act itself by section 17 provided that in that situation moneys, no matter how they were invested, were deemed acceptable savings so long as they were expended in entering into a contract to buy or build a house. All those people were protected during that period.

Let me come now to the position of persons who had investments or deposits in an institution not recognised under the Act at the point of time that it became law. The Bill was assented to on 28th May. We took it that on 29th May - the very next day and before the terms of the Act would be known in the community - there would be thousands of people entering into contracts on that very day as happens every day. Among them would be a number of eligible people. Their investments would be in the usual form of deposits with nonrecognised institutions, in shares or that sort of thing. The money might not have been expended at the time the contract was signed. The position might be that the contract would provide that a deposit was payable within a week or a month so a person could realise on his investment. In the Bill as it was drawn a particular clause prescribed the date - 29th May-when if investments were in their original form, an applicant would not qualify for the grant.

I see no provision in this Bill to guard against this anomaly. In this novel matter we are dealing with a transitional period. In proposing this amendment the Opposition asserts that right to the end of December 1964 no matter in what form acceptable savings were held, they should be recognised. It should be understood that it takes a while to acquire exact knowledge of the terms of this legislation and to circulate the information in the community. People do not follow what transpires in this Parliament and the terms of every bill with exactitude or certainty. I should like to see more elbow room as to the forms of investment up to the end of 1964.

Let us have the position as Senator Sir William Spooner apparently understood it and as he put it to the Senate. Let us have savings in any form treated as acceptable savings up to the end of December. That would remove any anomalies. Apart altogether from the misunderstanding that cropped up and the difficult position into which Senator Cavanagh was unwittingly led I think there is real ground on its merits for the amendment that Senator Cavanagh has moved.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– I want to address myself briefly to the matter that is now before us. I do not want to say a great deal about the debate in May last, which has been referred to frequently, lt seems to me that, in considering, the nature of the debate and the question and answer that have been referred to, it is only common sense and is only rational to recall the time of the debate and the circumstances in which it took place. It seems to me to be very much an overstatement to say now that when the debate took place in May of last year there was not complete understanding on the part of all who were in the chamber, and indeed on the part of many people within the community, that the Bill covered two periods - the period prior to 3 1st December 1964 and the period after that date. In respect of the period prior to 31st December last, provision was made for certain acceptable savings which might be acquired on certain specified savings dates for seven years prior to that date.

Exception has been taken to an answer that was given in the context of that debate by my former leader, Senator Sir William Spooner, and in which he used the phrase “Not until 31st December 1964”. Those words clearly meant, as was implied during the whole of the debate, not during the period which ended on 31st December 1964. I repeat that the application of the legislation fell into two divisions - the period which ended in December 1964 and the period after that date. If Senator Sir William Spooner used the words “ Not until 31st December 1964”, I submit that it was clear in the minds of everybody in this chamber that he was referring specifically to the period which ended on 31st December 1964.

Senator McKenna:

– There is no argument about that.

Senator PALTRIDGE:

– The point is this: Senator Sir William Spooner’s phrase “Not until 31st December 1964” clearly meant nothing else but during the period ending in December 1964.

I come now to what the Leader of the Opposition has referred to as the substance, or the merit, of the amendment. He has submitted that the provisions of the legislation should be extended broadly in respect of savings prior to 1964. I point out that the whole scheme was put before the Australian people as a matter of policy in December 1963. It attracted wide public notice and wide public interest. The Government made many explanations of what would be required in respect of acceptable savings from the viewpoint of certain time limits and prescribed dates. That was done not once or vaguely; it was done on a number of occasions. One might say that it was done repeatedly. It was mentioned in the policy speech of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) in November 1963. That was followed by the statement of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bury) on 10th February 1964, which made it clear that there would be limits to the form of acceptable savings. The position was explained again when the legislation was introduced on 5th May 1964, and it was set out clearly in detail in the official publication entitled “A Grant for Your Home” which was issued in July 1964.

I suggest that over all” this period statements were made continually with the object of drawing the attention of applicants to the fact that they would have to hold their savings in a certain form by a prescribed date before they could become eligible for a grant under the scheme. Surely nobody will deny that the statements that were made in order to clarify the issue for the benefit of the public were many and frequent. In view of the fact that that course was followed. 1 find no merit at all in the suggestion made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– There are a few matters I should like to refer to. Senator McKenna has dealt with some of the issues that have been raised. First, may I say that at no time had I any desire to attempt to discredit Senator Sir William Spooner. I have nothing but sympathy for him on account of the position that he finds himself in as a result of the non-acceptance of his assurances by the Minister for Defence (Senator Paltridge). The Department of Housing is now in a fix, as is Senator Sir William Spooner, and is bringing in all sorts of irrelevant matters in an attempt to justify something that cannot be justified. Possibly we can interpret what the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) said in his policy speech, what somebody else said in a second reading speech and what another person has said somewhere else; but have we reached the stage where, in order to ascertain the meaning of an Act of Parliament, we must examine the policy speeches of party leaders? Have we reached the stage where we must ascertain what was the intention of the author of the policy and not what is the meaning of the wording of the legislation? I am not doubting what the Prime Minister said. I do not find it necessary to read what he says. He may well have said what Senator Sir William Spooner claimed he said. He may have said a lot more.

We are arguing essentially about clause 15, which deals with the period prior to December 1964. This matter is dealt with in “Hansard” of 21st May 1964 at page 1432. On the following page we may read the reply of Senator Sir William Spooner to my submission in relation to persons who entered into contracts between 2nd December 1963 and .May 1964, when the legislation was introduced. 1 specifically said that those who applied for a grant after that time had a responsibility to study the provisions of the Act so that they might satisfy its requirements. 1 asked whether it was fair to suggest that persons who had their money invested in February, the legislation not then having been drafted, in something other than one of the institutions mentioned in the legislation should have to meet certain requirements without knowing what those requirements would be.

Senator Sir William Spooner has not replied to the points I raised, which are set out in the “ Hansard “ report. When 1 spoke on 21st May last, I read sub-clauses (2.) and (3.) of clause 15. Time does not permit me to cover all the ground now. I asked whether it was fair to apply such provisions to persons who otherwise would be entitled to some benefit but who, five months before the passing of the legislation, did not know that they had to transfer their savings to a prescribed bank; I then asked -

Will the Minister for National Development (Senator Sir William Spooner) say whether this distinction is fair . . .

That is the distinction that some may by a fluke have banked in the right bank and some may not- . . and whether there is any way of overcoming the anomaly?

I made that appeal to the Minister. I asked whether it was fair and no one would agree that it was fair that such a position should exist. I asked also whether there was a way to overcome the anomaly. I was seeking to move an amendment on that occasion to correct the situation. Senator Sir William Spooner replied -

Taking the last point first while it is fresh in my mind, 1 point out that the period between now and the end of December 1964 is in the nature of a transitional period. In that transitional period savings, no matter in what form they are evidenced, become eligible for the grant.

Surely we are entitled to query why a distinction should be drawn between the period before 31st December 1964 and the period after that date. There can be no room for doubt in anyone’s mind as to what I was talking about on that occasion. I was referring to those people with savings before the Act came into operation. I think

Senator Cohen put it aptly today by saying that I had pointed out that the Government might be making a mistake in requiring that savings must be accumulated in a particular bank at a prescribed date. In what I said I thought I made it sufficiently clear to prevent a wrong opinion being formed. The Minister said that he did not accept my view that the Act stated that the savings must be in a particular bank at a prescribed date. That was the statement of a man whom we should accept as being responsible in this chamber for Government policy. He said: “Not until 31st December 1964”. On this point I have protested to the Minister in writing. I endeavoured to get the support of the House to correct an injustice but I was told. by the Minister that no injustice was involved.

Earlier today in relation to another matter 1 asked a question of the Minister and received from him an explanation. But what if the Department of Housing says something different next week? Is the word of the Minister to be repudiated on this occasion? What is the value of information provided by a Minister if we cannot accept his word? That is the position with which we are faced.

Had I not been so informed by Senator Sir William Spooner, I would on that occasion have moved an amendment similar to that which I am now moving. I was seeking information to form a basis for the amendment I sought to propose so that an injustice might be corrected. I was seeking information before the Act came into operation so that people would know where their savings should be banked. The injustice applies not only to the person I advised but to all those people who, accepting the Minister’s assurance, decided not to transfer their savings.

So that the situation might be righted, those persons who did not qualify at 31st December 1964 because they failed to comply with the previous section 15 of the Act should receive the same consideration as those who were granted eligibility because their savings had been placed in a particular bank. I also ask that in future the word of a Minister should be honoured, otherwise we do not know what repercussions there may be.

Senator McKENNA:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Will the Minister say whether there is any possibility of rescuing the person whom Senator Cavanagh advised? Is there any discretion that would enable the acceptable savings that he left in the South Australian Superannuation Fund on the prescribed date to be treated as acceptable savings? I wish also to comment for the record that the Minister did not address himself to the argument I put. The mere fact that he claimed that there was no virtue in its merits, does not mean that his statement is correct. I am content to note that fact.

Turning to the matter with which Senator Sir William Spooner was concerned, it is no answer for the Minister to point out with a great deal of force that the distinction was between what happened prior to December 1964 and what happened subsequently. We are not arguing about that situation. We are arguing about what happened during 1964 when, interpolated somewhere in the middle of that period, is the prescribed date. The honorable senator did not address himself to that point. The fact is that Senator Cavanagh was misinformed, no matter how unwittingly. 1 think the Government has an obligation to rescue the person whom Senator Cavanagh misled, following what he was told.

Senator Sir WILLIAM SPOONER (New South Wales) [4.2]. - I am glad to note that Senator Cavanagh did not repeat the allegation or statement that puts this matter in the category of an assurance by the Government. If my recollection is correct, he commenced upon the basis that what I had said amounted to a statement on the part of the Government. I also wish to put on the record that I do not accept any suggestion that had there been any other answer, Senator Cavanagh would have moved an amendment. I do not accept that suggestion as correct and there was no indication of it, so far as my recollections serve, in the atmosphere at the time.

With great respect to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) I believe that the answer I gave, fairly construed, is correct. In other words, I think it must be fairly read against the background of knowing that in respect of both periods, prior or subsequent to 31st December 1964, a necessary ingredient was that the amount concerned had specifically to be put into what I call, for the sake of brevity, a savings bank account. 1 think one could be pardoned for not being smart enough or alert enough to include that in the answer.I think if it is included - and it is the whole background of the section - the answer is a good one.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Western Australia · LP

– I rise merely to inform the Leader of the Opposition (Senator McKenna) that no discretionary power is available to be used as he requested.

Question put -

That the request (Senator Cavanagh’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. Drake-Brockman.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 27

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause 7 (Acceptable savings where prescribed date is later than 31st December 1964).

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I move -

That Clause 7 be postponed until after consideration of all remaining clauses.

I do so as an indication that .the Government should take steps to make permanent, instead of interim, provision for deposits in credit unions to be treated as acceptable savings.

The Committee will remember what I said earlier about the South Australian Superannuation Fund. In the eastern States we see in operation the system of credit unions, which to the public are an acceptable and recognised form of saving having good support, but deposits with credit unions are not acceptable savings for the purposes of this Act. The amendment is moved as an indication that, in the opinion of this chamber, deposits of credit unions should be acceptable savings. I do not want to delay the Committee. I have been supplied by the New South Wales Credit Union League Co-operative Ltd. with information in justification of its claim that credit unions comprise people who save together and lend savings to one another at the lowest possible rates.

Australia is the only country where credit unions pay income tax. They do not avoid any taxation. In New South Wales there are 200 credit unions, with 70,000 members. Their savings total £6 million and loans amount to approximately £44 million. The Federal Government gives them no recognition or encouragement. Last financial year 49 credit unions reported housing loans totalling £578,890. Credit unions lend to finance housing alterations, which are often as important as new homes. The future influence of credit unions on housing will be in the elimination of interest on second mortgages. They will assist young people to buy land and will decrease the waiting time for homes by teaching thrift at an early age.

This is a combination of 70,000 people in New South Wales who provide a source of savings which have been used in the main for short term loans for renovations, furniture, and other items financed by hire purchase companies. I am informed that they are today lending on first mortgages for housing. Their previous failure to do this was the reason for their non-acceptance under this legislation and they have rectified this position. As this form of savings is acceptable to the people of New South Wales and some of the other States and as it is so established that no risk of default is evident, .1 submit that it should be accepted as a form of savings under this legislation.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– This amendment, like an earlier one, was submitted in the other place and was rejected. Again, the Government rejects the amendment. This matter has some aspects which are similar to those of a proposition we were considering earlier this afternoon which was submitted as an amendment by the Opposition. The aspects are similar in that the purpose, function and structure of credit unions are not the purpose, function or structure of an association designed to accumulate finance for housing.

No-one would deny, of course, that in their own field credit unions do first class work. They mobilise funds and make them available on loan for a number of purposes, but the types of loan .that they make indicate that they do not qualify for the provision of this type of finance. For instance, in New South Wales the maximum loan that a credit union can make to a member is £1,000. Loans are made for a variety of purposes, the principal ones being for the purchase of consumer durables such as refrigerators, television receivers and washing machines. Some loans are made for the purchase of land and deposits on homes, but generally speaking the proportion of loans made which could be regarded as directly connected with the purchase or acquisition of a home is very low. The average amount of the loan made, as distinct from the maximum loan possible, is also low by comparison with housing loans made by institutions which are directly concerned with the provision of housing finance. For example, the average loans made in recent years by a number of credit unions from which information has been gathered range from £90 to £300. The maximum period for repayment of loans also varies according to the policy of the particular credit union but generally it ranges from three to five years - hardly a period applicable to housing finance. All this indicates that the principal purpose of a credit union is not to make long term loans to enable its members to buy houses but to mobilise funds for lending to members to enable them to acquire household goods and the like.

In view of Senator Cavanagh’s remarks about investment, it is of interest to note that a credit union in New South Wales is debarred by the legislation relating to co-operatives from investing funds in building societies. It can deposit surplus funds in an association of credit unions of which it is a member and that association may, in turn, invest moneys in a building society, but this does not alter the fact of the very nature of the activities of a credit union. I understand - I have not been able to confirm this - that in New South Wales a central office has been set up and in quite recent times has made £50,000 available on loan to either a building society or a number of building societies. The investment of £50,000, when compared with the total investment from other sources, indicates that lending for home building purposes definitely is not the function of credit unions.

Senator MURPHY (New South Wales) [4.I7J. - I support the request which has been made by Senator Cavanagh. New South Wales has a special interest in credit unions, and so closely is the credit union movement connected with the provision of housing in New South Wales that one Minister, the Hon. Abram Landa, has under his charge the portfolios connected with housing and with co-operative societies and credit unions. He has done a great deal, on behalf of the Government of New South Wales, to encourage the ordinary citizen of that State to help himself through cooperation with his fellows in obtaining credit. Credit unions are a means of selfhelp. This is an area in which one would have thought that the Liberal Party, which claims at times to encourage citizens to help themselves, would have shared our views.

The credit union system is, of course, a competitor with the banking system. There seems to be one thread running through this Bill and the earlier Bill relating to the insurance of housing loans. Beneath the laudable aims which may appear in the Bills, there is a strong vein of promotion of banking business. Although the government banks may get some incidental advantage, the main interests to gain by this aspect of the Bills are the close friends of the Government - the private banking corporations in this country. So one sees in these Bills a resistance by the Government to proposals to extend the area of eligibility to include persons who hold savings in institutions which are quite sound, which are reputable and which are subject to government supervision.

One does not even find a suggestion that the Government is prepared to accept an amendment relating to credit unions, which already devote much of their holdings to loans for home building purposes. Instead, the Government takes a completely negative attitude. All that the Government seems interested in doing, besides making this grant to citizens, is promoting the vested interests of its supporters. Faced with this situation, we know that the Government will never retreat from its position. The idea of encouraging private enterprise and self-help among the ordinary citizens just flies out the window when the interests of >the great banking corporations are affected.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– Following the Minister’s remarks, let me say very briefly that I do not want it to be thought that I was trying to mislead the Committee in my statement that at present credit unions are investing in long term loans for housing. I have received a letter from the President of the New South Wales Credit Union League Co-operative Ltd. which states that last year the Australian Broadcasting Commission staff association loaned £86,000, or 40 per cent, of total loans made, for purely housing purposes. The Credit Union League now lends money from credit unions for this purpose. They make their contributions to the League Board, which has decided that all surplus moneys in the Central Credit Union will be invested in long term housing. A deposit of almost £50,000 has already been lodged with a permanent building society in Sydney and deposits in amounts of £50,000 will be made as surpluses arise. That supports my statement that they are now lending for housing purposes.

Senator PALTRIDGE:
Minister for Defence · Western Australia · LP

– During the course of my comments I indicated that credit unions did in fact lend for housing purposes, as is stated in the letter from which Senator Cavanagh has read, but I indicated also that the maximum loan is £1,000. If the honorable senator cares to pursue his inquiries as to the nature of the finance made available, which the letter describes as being for housing purposes, I am sure he will find that the housing purposes referred to by the organisation are not the purposes of building homes. The advances would be made for expenditure in the nature of a deposit, for repainting, for minor renovations and for things of that kind, but not for home building.

Question put -

That the motion (Senator Cavanagh’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. C. DrakeBrockman.)

AYES: 23

NOES: 27

Majority . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

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

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Paltridge) read third time.

page 404

TARIFF BOARD

Reports on Items.

Senator ANDERSON:
Minister for Customs and Excise · New South Wales · LP

– I present reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects -

Continuous filament acetate yarn.

Laboratory, hygienic and pharmaceutical glassware.

Static transformers.

Umbrellas and sunshades.

page 404

PRINTING COMMITTEE

Senator BREEN:
Victoria

– I present the sixth report of the Printing Committee and ask for leave to propose a motion in connection therewith.

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin). - There being no objection, leave is granted.

Motion (by Senator Breen) proposed -

That the report be adopted.

Senator LAUGHT:
South Australia

– Mr. President, I have read the report submitted by the Printing Committee with great interest. I should like to compliment the Committee on the choice of documents to be printed. I notice that the Report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia to the Australian Universities Commission, Volumes I and II, is to be printed. I ask Senator Breen, who is the Vice-Chairman of the Committee, when it is expected that the report will be printed. It is a much awaited report, and copies will be keenly sought. I should like to know also how many copies will be printed. Speaking for myself, I hope that many copies will be printed because, from my experience, interest in the full details of this report has been very great, especially in South Australia. Can the ViceChairman inform me where this report will be available for purchase by members of the general public and at what price?

Senator BREEN:
Victoria

.- in reply - I would like to inform Senator Laught that Volumes I and II of the Martin report are available now. The price of Volume I is £1 and the price of Volume II is £1 9s. I understand that copies are available at the Sub-Treasury offices in the various States. The number to be printed will depend on the demand, but as it is expected that there will be a very large demand I will ascertain that the number available will meet the situation. As honorable senators will be aware, another important point about the procedure in proposing a motion for the printing of this report is that it will be incorporated in the Parliamentary Papers. I will make quite sure of the answers to the various points raised by the honorable senator and will inform him.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 405

ADJOURNMENT

Brisbane Airport

Motion (by Senator Paltridge) proposed -

That the Senate do now adjourn

Senator MAHER:
Queensland

.- On this motion, Mr. President, 1 should like to- say a few words. The Brisbane “ Telegraph “ of Friday, 2nd instant, named all the Queensland members of the Commonwealth Parliament under the heading -

Speak. Now or Forever-

The heading stops at that point, so we may assume that the complete quotation would be: “ Speak now or forever after hold your peace “. I therefore propose to speak, as requested. The newspaper complains about what it terms “ our outmoded conglomeration of wartime igloos “ at the Brisbane Airport. Let me say that the Brisbane Airport was the first in Australia to have a runway suitable for large international jet airliners. It has not been neglected. Already £4.3 million has been spent on it and works to the extent of £1.1 million are now proceeding there. In the suburban area of Amberley, the Royal Australian Air Force is having done work estimated to cost £3.9 million over the next four years. I ask the Senate which should take priority in these dangerous years - expenditure on the Royal Australian Air Force base at Amberley or the demolition of the existing airport buildings and their replacement by an elegant set of air terminal buildings for airline passengers? The existing igloo buildings are most commodious and comfortable for the people who use the airlines. I have had a close look at the air terminal buildings in all the capital cities in Australia. Those in Sydney or Melbourne are cer tainly much larger than the buildings in Brisbane, but for general comfort and convenience they are no better.

The igloo type of building has the advantage of high ceilings and open breezeways which make conditions very pleasant in summer conditions in Brisbane. To demolish the existing buildings and erect a new modern air terminal would involve a cost of anything from £5 million to £10 million. Surely there are better ways of expending money of that kind in Queensland than in pulling down a thoroughly serviceable set of buildings which meet all the needs of the present time. I am sure that Mr. Nicklin would be delighted to have £5 million or £10 million with which to cope with water conservation problems in this droughty period in Queensland and such expenditure would give a far better return to the people of that State than would the erection of elaborate buildings which are not immediately and urgently necessary. Nevertheless, in this rapidly expanding air age, the Commonwealth Government has plans for the replacement of the present buildings by a more modern terminal, the conduction of which is to be commenced within approximately the next five years.

The existing building area at Brisbane is 70 acres and a new area nearby - 200 acres - has been acquired to accommodate a modern terminal. It needs time to level this area off and reclaim low-lying country. Aprons, taxi-ways, car parks and roads must be laid down before buildings can be raised. The proposed modern airport terminal includes provision for international needs. The Commonwealth Government is proceeding steadily towards this target. All this takes time and we should keep in mind the old maxim: “ Rome was not built in a day”. Brisbane stands to benefit when our turn for modernisation of buildings at the Brisbane Airport comes around because air traffic is expanding at such a phenomena] rate that five years hence such buildings will require to be larger and better equipped than those now in use in other States of the Commonwealth.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 4.39 p.m. rill Tuesday, 27th April 1965.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 April 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1965/19650408_senate_25_s28/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant