25th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.
page 469
– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen the report of the Chase Manhattan Bank seminar in April last, at which the Treasurer drew attention to the three way squeeze of American investment on the Australian economy in the form of a reduced inflow of capital, an increased outflow of capital, and a mopping up of a good deal of the limited amount of capital available on the Australian money market for capital development by the process of interest debenture borrowing? In view of the Australian Government’s commitments of 200 million dollars over the next five years in respect of debt maturities and sinking fund commitments, and the restrictive legislation in the United States of America, will the Treasurer take measures to counter the raid being made by big American companies in Australia on the Australian debenture market, and at least preserve some equity in the present development boom in Australia for the Australian people themselves?
– Yes, I read the excellent fighting speech which the Treasurer made on behalf of the Australian Government at the seminar to which the honorable senator referred. The report has only just reached my desk and I have not read it thoroughly, but the Treasurer certainly put an excellent case for Australia. If the honorable senator will put the rest of his question on the notice paper, I shall get a considered reply for him from the Treasurer who is today going overseas and will, I understand, again discuss these very matters.
page 469
– Can the Minister representing the Treasurer indicate why verbatim reports of Premiers’ conferences are no longer available to members and senators? Will he make representations in the right quarters to see that this omission is rectified, in view of the importance to this chamber of these documents in any discussion concerning Commonwealth and State financial relations?
– Yes,I shall discuss this matter with the Treasurer and ascertain the position. If there has been some alteration, as the honorable senator suggests, I shall ask the Treasurer to let me know why the alteration has been made.
page 469
– I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Territories a question which is supplementary to the question asked of him yesterday by Senator Keeffe. The Minister said in reply to Senator Keeffe that no security police were directed to attend the meeting of the newly formed Papua and New Guinea political party in Port Moresby recently. Did the Minister’s reply mean that security police did in fact attend the meeting, without authority? If so, what action has been taken to prevent attendance of that kind at future meetings of the organisation?
– I am not sure of the answer to the honorable senator’s question. All I can say is that I have been informed by the Department of Territories, as I told the Senate yesterday in answer to a question, that none of these people had been requested by anybody to attend any such meeting. Whether in fact any of them went along to this meeting, which I understand was a public meeting, I do not know; but I presume that if they wished to do so they could attend any public meeting. According to my information, they certainly were not directed, as has been suggested, to go to any such meeting in any official capacity.
page 469
– I direct a ques tion to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. Has the attention of the Minister been directed to the report of a successful appeal to a New South Wales judge from a magistrate’s national service ruling? Can he inform the Senate what appeal provisions, if any, exist in the legislation in relation to orders made by magistrates?
– I would like the honorable senator to put the question on the notice paper so that the Minister for Labour and National Service can give a considered reply. This is obviously a very important matter.
page 470
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Army: What was the policy of the Australian Government in World Wars I. and II. and in the Korean and Malayan campaigns on bringing to Australia the bodies of Australian armed forces personnel killed abroad? Will the Government announce its considered attitude to this question in order to remedy the present position, which is that individual deaths in Vietnam are becoming matters of public argument and discussion, causing acute mental stress and embarrassment to the relatives of those killed?
– I ask the honorable senator to put that question on the notice paper. It is one of great importance and I think the Minister for the Army should have an opportunity to reply to it directly.
page 470
– My question is to the Minister in charge of Commonwealth Activities in Education and Research. Can he let me know the details of the amounts to be paid to schools, other than State schools, in South Australia for the provision of science blocks and science teaching equipment during the current financial year?
– A detailed answer to this question would take some considerable time to give to the Senate, and I do not have the details with me at present. Dealing with schools other than Roman Catholic schools in South Australia, four such schools received £16,000 each in the last financial year. The remainder will receive £16,000 durng this triennium, except in the case of two schools, which T think are Scot’s and St. Alfred’s, which will receive £8,000. Eight of these schools in the last year of the triennium will receive another £4,000. bringing the total grants to them up to £20.600. In the case of Roman Catholic schools, in this triennium five or six will be receiving grants. If the honorable senator cares to put the question on the notice paper I will endeavour to have all the figures incorporated in “Hansard “ at the next sitting.
” TRANSMOUNTAIN BREAKTHROUGH “.
– My question is directed to you, Mr. President. Will you thank the Parliamentary Librarian for causing the film “ Transmountain Breakthrough “, which was produced by the Snowy Mountains HydroElectric Authority, to be exhibited in the Senate Opposition Party Room on 16th instant? Will you also suggest to the Minister for National Development that he arrange with the Postmaster-General to have the picture exhibited on national television stations at a popular hour for the information and entertainment of the public?
– I am very pleased to hear the honorable senator’s complimentary reference to the film, which is an excellent one, showing the type of development taking place in Australia. Australian documentary films are winning praise and acclaim overseas. The honorable senator’s suggestion is a good one and I shall be pleased to bring it to the attention of the Postmaster-General.
page 470
– I ask the Minister for Repatriation: In view of the current shortage of professional and specialist workers in Australia, will the Minister advise the Senate whether Australian repatriation hospitals are suffering from a shortage of trained nursing personnel? If so, what efforts are being made to obtain such staff, and is anything being done to increase training facilities at repatriation hospitals for school leavers who desire to take up nursing as a career?
– Mr. President, the employment of trained nurses is a problem for repatriation hospitals, just as it is for most other hospitals in Australia. In this respect, Victoria is giving more trouble than any other State. Whether this is because of the high employment rate for young women in Victoria, I do not know, but the Repatriation Department is having difficulty there in obtaining trained nurses. One means we have adopted to overcome the difficulty is to train student nurses. Last year 65 nurses graduated at repatriation hospitals such as those at Concord, Heidelberg and Greenslopes. In the report that I tabled in the Senate on Tuesday last, it is stated that we have 385 nurses in training at present. One of our difficulties is that after we have trained nurses they are promptly taken by other hospitals, unfortunately for us. We seem to be on the wrong end of the deal, because we do not get many nurses from other hospitals.
Honorable senators may think that we are not paying our nurses enough. Their take-home pay, on the whole, is a little better than that paid to most nurses in States other than Victoria. In Victoria a new State award has been made for nurses. At present we are. negotiating with the Public Service Board to see what can be done to correct some slight anomalies that exist between the conditions of nurses employed by the Repatriation Department and those employed by other hospitals.
– The lack of variety is a difficulty.
– That is one suggestion. Another suggestion is that we have so many older patients that probably the work does not attract young nurses. The nurses we have employed are certainly tiptop. One of the things that impressed me about them, from the young ones up, is their spirit of dedication. It is a problem and we are doing what we can to overcome it. I do wish that we were a little better supplied with trained nurses than we are.
page 471
– I wish to direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry a question with respect to item 4 on the notice paper under “ Orders of the Day”. This relates to the proposal that the Senate take note of the paper relating to the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement I ask the Minister: What are his intentions in respect of calling on the debate on this matter in the Senate? If possible, would the honorable gentleman arrange that the debate take place at an early date?
– I have not given any consideration to the matter raised by the honorable senator. I shall now give consideration to bringing on the debate at an early date.
page 471
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry whether, in view of Australia’s continued monthly adverse balance of trade, which was over £44 million last month, he can give a definite assurance that no system of import controls is contemplated by the Government.
– The honorable senaor should know better by now than to ask questions without notice which involve policy matters. The question asked by the honorable senator involves a matter of policy. In due time, whatever is to be done will be duly announced by the Government.
page 471
– I address a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of the likely call-up of young airline pilots for national service training, can the Minister say whether the Department of Civil Aviation has made arrangements to protect the seniority of such pilots on company lists? Have arrangements been made to protect the licences and careers of such pilots?
– This problem arrived on the Department’s plate recently. It involves one or two other departments. I can tell the honorable senator that this matter is being discussed departmentally at the present time.
page 471
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Territories cause inquiries to be made to ascertain whether any security officers were present on duty at the first meeting of the first political party to be formed in New Guinea, to which Senators Keeffe and Cohen have referred in earlier questions, and whether any report was made by any such officers? Will he inform the Senate of the result of the inquiries?
– I will ask the Minister for Territories to examine the question asked by the honorable senator and bring the answer to his attention. Perhaps it would be better if I asked him to put his question on the notice paper so that the answer can be brought to the attention of all honorable senators.
page 472
– I do not think any definite date has been arrived at as yet. However, shortly after the Housing Loans Insurance Bill was assented to, the Corporation was established and the Board was appointed. The Board has met on a number of occasions and is endeavouring to recruit senior and, to some extent, junior staff. That recruitment has begun already. The Corporation has established offices in Sydney and Melbourne and is in the course of negotiating for office space in Adelaide, Perth, Brisbane and Hobart. Senior staff have been engaged in a series of discussions with lenders and other people whose activities and co-operation will be part and parcel of the whole scheme. At present it is hoped that the Corporation will open its doors for business towards the end of November.
page 472
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, who stated recently that 400 to 450 Asians are naturalised each year and went on to say that “ Asians were allowed into Australia in certain undefined circumstances”. Will the Minister inform the Senate who is the authority who defines the undefined circumstances? Can he give examples of the undefined circumstances?
– I understand that the honorable senator’s question is prompted by an article that appeared in the Launceston “ Examiner “. He has an intimate knowledge of that city. The article gave a report of a speech by the Minister for Immigration in which he was speaking in general terms on the Government’s immigration policy. My understanding is that the Minister did not, in fact, in the sense that is presented by the question, refer to residential status as “ certain undefined circumstances “.
– That was quoted in three newspapers.
– The honorable senator has been in public life for a long while. The Minister’s statement may have been reported in three newspapers. The general policy as to the number of categories of Asians who may be admitted to Australia is decided by the Government. Within those categories the Minister for Immigration exercises a discretion under the terms of the Immigration Act. As to the more precise aspect of the question in relation to which the honorable senator seeks information, I suggest that he should place it on the notice paper so that the Minister for Immigration may furnish him with a reply.
page 472
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether he is aware that at the present time in Washington there is being held a conference of lawyers from all over the world, irrespective of politics, and that the conference was stimulated by the American Bar Association. Did the Minister note that yesterday the “ Australian “ published a statement, attributed to the President of the International Court, Sir Percy Spender, which somewhat discouraged the idea that law could contribute to the prevention of war? Will the Minister arrange for the full text of Sir Percy’s contribution to the conference to be made available to the Senate? Lastly, will the Minister arrange for full liaison between delegates to that conference from the legal profession of Australia and officers of our Department of External Affairs so that full value may be received from the efforts of the conference?
– I read a report of a speech that was allegedly made by Sir Percy Spender. As my recollection runs, it stated that he believed that international law could prevent wars but was unlikely to do so at the present time because nations would not accept international law. Therefore, force had to be used in the same way, but on a much larger scale, as force has to be used inside a country if somebody breaks the law and he uses force to prevent the -application of that law to himself. That is what I understood him to be saying.
There will be no difficulty in getting the full text of Sir Percy Spender’s speech if the honorable senator wants it. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to place it in the Library rather than to present it to the Senate. I have no doubt at all that Department of External Affairs attaches in Washington are cognisant of all that is going on and that they will let the Department know all that is going on. But in case there is any doubt about this matter, I shall bring the honorable senator’s request to the notice of the Minister for External Affairs so that this may be seen to be so.
page 473
– I address the following questions to the Minister representing the Minister for Health: In the light of disclosures contained in the annual report of the Director-General of Health for 1964- 65 that more than 2,000 air travellers had arrived in Australia without having received vaccination for smallpox, will the Minister furnish details of the offending airlines? Since the earlier plea of the Commonwealth Department of Health for co-operation apparently has been disregarded by some airlines, will the Minister consider the imposition of fines for future offences by airlines as a suitable deterrent?
– I shall bring the question to the notice of the Minister for Health and see whether an answer can be provided.
page 473
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior tell the Senate the reason for the cancellation of a lease of residential land that was purchased for 10s. in Canberra recently? Will the Minister inform the Senate of the number of occasions on which the appropriate authority has cancelled a lease following the seal of the contract by the drop of the hammer and the payment of 12 months’ rent in advance? Have there been cancellations of leases where high premium payments have been involved?
– I understand that the reason for the cancellation of the lease that was mentioned by the honorable senator was that the successful bidder had already had a lease within the three-year limit. I shall direct the rest of the question to the Minister for the Interior to see whether a suitable reply can be provided.
page 473
– I direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it a fact that in the last financial year the Department of Civil Aviation subsidised the aero clubs to the extent of £150,000? ls it intended to increase that subsidy this year to £175,000? Can the Minister say whether the Department of the Army recently selected an overseas organisation to form an Army pilots school in Australia? If so, can this be regarded in any way as direct criticism by the Army of the value to Australia of the aero club movement? Bearing in mind the amount of Government subsidy granted to the aero clubs, will the Minister for Civil Aviation take the matter up with the Minister for the Army to ascertain what objections there are to Australian aero clubs training Army pilots? Further, is it intended by the Department of Civil Aviation to subsidise any overseas organisation that might be operating in Australia as an aero club?
– The Government has made available £150,000 for aero clubs in the past and has decided to increase the amount to £175,000 by providing an additional £25,000 for scholarships with a view to assisting in obtaining more Australian trained pilots and officers for the various airlines throughout Australia. I understand that the Department of the Army has been considering an arrangement with an Australian company to train pilots. Although the company is Australian, it has a strong overseas holding. This company bid by tender to undertake a training scheme for the Army. I do not know what was the outcome of the negotiations. I know that the aero clubs, as well as this Australian company representing an English company, were interested in the proposal but I do not know whether finality has been reached. However, I shall make inquiries.
– Does the Government intend to subsidise the scheme?
– 1 do not think the Government would give a subsidy to the company although at this moment I cannot answer the question flatly. I do not think the company would qualify for a subsidy.
page 474
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. It concerns reports in the Press today of remarks made yesterday by Mr. Justice Joske strongly criticising the manner in which law reform is being handled in the Australian Capital Territory. His Honour referred to the need for serious attention to what he called the “ absurd criminal laws “ of the Australian Capital Territory.
– In what context did His Honour make the comment?
– In court. Will the Minister give an assurance that steps will be taken expeditiously to introduce much needed law reform in the A.C.T.?
– I noticed the remarks attributed to Mr. Justice Joske when he was in the process of deciding whether to impose a gaol sentence on, or grant a bond to, somebody who was before him. Mr. Justice Joske said that “the particular application of that law seemed to him to be absolutely absurd. I did not notice that he made a statement about general law reform although in the report of His Honour’s remarks I think the reporter or the newspaper concerned had something to say about the question of general law reform.
– I think the Judge himself said it.
– That may be, but that was not the impression I gained from reading the article. In any case, it is not really significant to the answer that I am going to give to the honorable senator. There was this report either one way or other. I know that the Attorney-General is and has been considering the matter and, indeed, has set up inter-departmental committees, and that, I think, was the subject of some complaint in the newspaper report. The newspaper - and I am sure it was the newspaper - did not believe that this was the way to go about the matter. So it is a matter of a difference of opinion between the Attorney-General and whoever wrote the article in the newspaper.
page 474
– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise whether he will comment on the statement in today’s Melbourne “ Age “, attributed to Australian trade officials in Geneva for the Kennedy Round negotiations, that Australia is in a position to offer to cut tariffs on one-third of its imports, mainly manufactured goods.
– As Minister for Customs and Excise, I would not be in a position to comment on that statement, but I will refer the question to the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry for comment. As a matter of fundamental principle, the Department of Customs and Excise has the responsibility of collecting duties. Questions of policy in relation to tariff are determined by the Department of Trade and Industry. I will refer the honorable senator’s question to that Department.
page 474
– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: In view of the use of aircraft chartered from Australian commercial airlines for the transfer of semi-military personnel such as wives and families of servicemen on operations in the various theatres of war to our north, will the Minister give consideration to the status of the pilots and crew of these aircraft in the event of any mishaps arising in the course of their duties in military ‘ areas, such as substantial insurance cover, or repatriation benefits?
– The subject to which the honorable senator refers is under active consideration by a number of departments at the moment. As a matter of fact, 1 think that a meeting of the departments concerned is to be held tomorrow to consider some scheme along the lines to which the honorable senator refers. As soon as the Government is in a position to formulate some policy on this matter, it will be announced. In the meantime, I have had representations by the Australian Federation of Air Pilots on behalf of aircrews entering those areas.
page 474
– My question is to the Minister representing. the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Now that Sir Alan Westerman, the Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, has joined those condemning existing Australian port facilities, may the Senate take it that the Government is aware that its failure to invoke the undoubted constitutional powers of the Commonwealth over trade and commerce is permitting, to the detriment of the nation, a continuance of the scandalous lack of cargo handling facilities in Australia?
– I should think the honorable senator’s comment is pretty fair in regard to some ports. In my opinion, the authorities in control of some of our major ports have been very lacking in their duty by not providing better facilities and better handling equipment. The Commonwealth Government has already taken steps to improve the facilities in some ports for the handling of coal and other commodities. This Federal action has been made necessary by the grave lack of modern facilities. They have been neglected by the port authorities and the State governments responsible for them.
page 475
(Question No. 524.)
asked the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry, upon notice -
-The Acting Minister for Trade and Industry has supplied the following reply -
page 475
(Question No. 536.)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, upon notice -
– The Minister for Social Services has supplied the following answers to the honorable senator’s questions -
page 475
(Question No. 553.)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice -
In relation to primary producing industries, can the cost of producing or purchasing fodder, which may be stored for future use, be included as a deduction for taxation purposes when assessing taxable income? If so, is it necessary to include the unused fodder so produced or purchased as stock on hand at the end of the taxation period?
– The following reply has been supplied by the Treasurer -
A primary producer is entitled to an income tax deduction for the cost of producing or purchasing fodder for use in his business. The deduction is allowable in the year of income in which expenditure on the production or purchase is incurred. Where the fodder is produced or purchased for feeding the producer’s livestock, unused fodder on hand at the end of the year of income is not required to be treated as trading stock for income tax purposes. If, however, a primary producer produces or purchases fodder for the purpose of selling it in the course of his business, fodder which is on hand at the end of the year of income and which has been produced or purchased for this purpose is required to be included as trading stock on hand at that time.
page 476
Motion (by Senator McKellar) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a bill for an act to amend the Repatriation Act 1920-1964.
page 476
Motion (by Senator Henry) agreed to -
That the Senate, at is rising, adjourn until Wednesday, 22nd September, at 3 p.m.
page 476
Debate resumed from 15th September (vide page 466), on motion by Senator Paltridge -
That the Bill be now read a second time.
.- The Senate is debating the Loan (Housing) Bill 1965. It authorises the raising of £51 million to be advanced to the States under the 1956-61 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The general requirement of the original Agreement was the advancing to the States of an amount of money they considered could be used to provide adequate housing out of their total loan funds. The original Agreement specifically precluded the use of money for other than the erection of dwellings. The use of the money for the erection of shops or drainage or works and services was specifically precluded. Also, the money advanced by the Commonwealth could not be used to purchase materials which might be considered necessary to the surroundings of dwellings.
The interest rate on the loans has varied over the period from 3i per cent, to 4± per cent. A period of 53 years is allowed for repayment of the loans by the States. Generally the dwellings that have been constructed have been for rental purposes, but a large proportion of the units in our community have been sold on favourable terms. The original Agreement permits this and allows the money to be re-used. The proceeds of the sale are put into a particular account so that the money can be loaned again under the terms set out in the Agreement. At least 30 per cent, of the loan money must be administered through the Home Builders’ Account. The balance is used by the various State housing authorities. The allocation of the money to the Home Builders’ Account is generally to enable the States to advance money to building societies. This principle of loan allocation attracts to the housing field quite a volume of extra money from individual lenders. This has been a most important provision and has assisted housing greatly throughout the Commonwealth.
No honorable senator from either side of the chamber has adequately objected to the Bill. Criticism has been directed at the volume of money made available, and it has been suggested that there is a lack of building activity in the Commonwealth. It is well to remember that the volume of money to be loaned for this purpose is nominated and agreed to by the States. The amount which each State has received for housing in each financial year has been determined at meetings of the Australian Loan Council. The overall amount has been divided amongst the States by agreement, each State nominating the amount that it requires for housing under the agreement. There is no basis for the argument that the States are not receiving an adequate amount for use in this particular sphere. I believe that the details of the Bill have been fully discussed and that it has the full support of members in another place and of senators.
I know of no more important sector of business than the building and construction industries. Housing, in particular, is our special interest at this time. In any country, the building industry is of major importance. In a developing country such as Australia the provision of adequate housing is imperative. It can be said that the standard of living is rated to a large extent by the quality and volume of home accommodation. I cannot remember a year during my lifetime during which it has not been said that more housing should be made available. This undoubtedly will continue in Australia for some time, as the rate at which our population is increasing is one of the highest rates in the world today. There is a general suggestion that there are not sufficient homes in the community. I believe that the private sector of industry and the government institutions are providing very nearly the volume of homes needed on a reasonable basis.
This provision has fallen short in one respect. There is a gap that requires to be filled in some way. The cost of a home today is precluding some individuals, because of their financial status, from becoming home owners. This is a matter at which more affluent sectors of the community should look. There is very little reason, other than, perhaps, ill health or some disaster, why any person who wishes to own a home cannot by careful saving and ensuring the prudent progress of his own affairs become the owner of a home in a reasonably short time. I believe that the average young person today is able to look forward to owning his own home much more readily than he did some 20 Or 30 years ago. If this is correct, it suggests that the general economic standard, wage levels, and the ability to set aside money to purchase what is perhaps the greatest asset of any individual, have improved.
I believe that all Australians should be proud of the efforts that have been made in the field of housing by this Government and previous governments. The quality of and the number of homes built and the amount of money made available in this field, not only by the Commonwealth but also by insurance companies, banks and private individuals who have been encouraged to invest in home building, are matters on which Australia should be congratulated.
The importance of this industry is undoubted. There is scarcely a section of the community which is unaffected by it. I know from my own experience in Victoria that a recession falls on the business and professional communities when a major drop in building activity occurs. It is important to governments to support the building industry, and the Commonwealth’s entry into this field is to be applauded. When the cold winds of recession blow on the building and construction industries in any State, the great majority of the people are affected.
Estate agents, legal people, private lending authorities, banking institutions, suppliers of builders’ requisites, producers of building materials and concrete products, the timber industry, the brick industry, roofing material suppliers and roofing contractors, plasterers, drainers and the whole ambit of construction and supply in the industry are affected. Further along the line, the furniture industry and architects and planners are affected. There is scarcely a section of the community which does not feel the effects of a halt in building activity. The building industry can be considered to be a thermometer for the wholesale and retail sections of the economy.
I am making these comments to stress that we are dealing with a most important contribution to the welfare of the States in considering the Loan (Housing) Bill 1965. The Commonwealth Government can be congratulated on the continued buoyant state of the building and construction industry in Australia. It is a quite delicately balanced industry and those guiding it need to have vision and stability. The manufacturers, the suppliers and the tradesmen all need to be well aware of activities in this field. A great amount of money probably has been made from building and development during past years, but I think it is fair to say that no other industry in Australia has to contend with such a great volume of bad debts. I suggest that there is no other industry in which a man can buy one tool - a hammer in this instance - and set himself up in business the following day. This may be good or bad, but it offers great opportunities to those who would be diligent. In the building industry one sees, on many occasions, an apprentice start out on his own and within a few years become the most influential and wealthy person in his community, whilst making a great contribution to building activity and to the development of the country. However, greater efficiency is always being sought and in these days there is a demand for building contractors to be capable of accurate scheduling in their trades and to have the ability to use speed and efficiency in their work.
It is necessary for the building industry to take advantage of the money being made available to it and to develop both the desire and the ability to bring new materials to bear on Australia’s . home building programme. Generally, changes stem from research. In this regard I will refer to a comment, in an American magazine dealing with housing, on an American building research institute. I realise that in the last few years similar institutes in Australia have made some comments on the necessity for efficiency in our building industry. The American building research institute is backed by about 40,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders. The institute provides the money to build test houses and originates ideas for new materials and processes that might improve the quality of a house,, reduce its cost, or both. Manufacturers of building materials arid equipment co-operate to carry out the ideas they have tested in research houses.
American builders in their research activities have built single story houses, houses below ground level with facilities underneath, and multi-story homes as pictured in American magazines. Generally, in America styling is conservative to suit the taste of the average American. Only the materials and construction techniques are becoming revolutionary. In many cases, exterior walls of factory made sandwich panel materials are delivered to the site, complete with paint on the exterior face and wallpaper on the interior face. A rust and corrosion proof plastic plumbing system is installed and a pre-assembled electric wiring tree is often provided within the house. Materials used in past years have not been discarded and brick and asphalt are most important materials in the construction of houses in America today. Timber is playing an important part, although its uses differ from those of many years ago when it was the major basic building material. In recent years it has been used to a large extent in decoration, such as for a feature type wall. Certainly, there is no material in the field today that can match the character of timber decoration.
Gypsum, asbestos and concrete and ceramic tiles are highly esteemed by builders in all parts of the world, but science, production and machines have enhanced the usefulness of the old time materials. An instance is glass, spun into long thread-like material to be used for insulating purposes, wall fabrics and drapes. Often houses are moulded into big blocks. Glass is becoming a wall building material. Concrete, metal and other well known building materials are acquiring new characteristics and uses.
Plastics are entering the field to lower the cost of building materials. Plastics were first used in housing in the manufacture of light switches and light sockets. Today, research has created scores of totally new plastic materials. Translucent plastic sheets are produced by factories in sizes big enough to decorate a patio or to build a complete home. I have mentioned these points to illustrate that the building industry must take a lead to see that the finance available for housing - irrespective of whether it comes from a governmental level or from the private sector - goes further, especially in producing homes for people in the lower income group. This is the task of those who are interested in research and in the construction of houses.
We are particularly fortunate in Australia because of the knowledge and ability that has been brought to the construction industry by migrants. I know of many who came here eight or ten years ago without finance and even without tools of trade. They had nothing but their own ability and techniques. Today, many of them are men of great influence - at least in Victoria - in the construction of residences, the breaking up of estates and the erection of multi-story flats. In all classes of construction we have been served particularly well by migrants who have brought new building methods and ideas from many lands. To those new methods and ideas Australians have added their own awareness of what is needed here. An excellent result has been achieved. There is no greater field than the building trade for the rise to fortune of any individual, with the future that Australia offers. However, there is no other field in which such great falls have occurred as a result of companies entering the trade without knowledge or without financial ability and letting suppliers and traders down very badly. These factors have caused losses of millions of pounds to the building community in the form of bad debts.
Mention has been made of the cost of land. I wish to add my comments on this matter. Arguments have been advanced from both sides of the Senate. It has been said that today the cost of land is relatively high. I agree that in some instances it does appear to be high. But people who have said that have overlooked a number of very important features and changes that have come about in land dealings in recent years. Until about 20 years ago no council requested an individual who wanted to put land on the market to provide roads or any of the other necessary services. In earlier days a subdivider usually took an area of land, subdivided it and sold it for £200 or £300 a block. In fact, the washing was left to the municipality and the people who would pay rates to the municipality in the future.
– In what year was Victorian law altered in that respect?
– I would say that it was altered early in the 1950’s. I am not certain about that. However, even today in Victoria there are councils which do not require full development in their areas.
– Does it depend on the local authority?
– Yes. There is good reason for that.
– Does the price reflect whether or not that is so?
– I will come to that. The local authority can decide the matter. There are many reasons why a local authority should not require full development. Let us take as an example a subdivision of land near a beach. It can be argued that there are good reasons why full development - in the form of bitumen roads, complete underground drainage, power, light and all the other necessary facilities - need not be undertaken. Often the drainage is sufficient; the surplus water is carried away quite effectively. Perhaps there is no necessity for the provision of footpaths. All of these factors have an effect on a subdivider being able to offer a block of land to an individual at £1,500 or £500. Indeed, many subdividers are able to offer a more economical product because of the lesser requirements of particular councils.
The price of a block of land years ago was £200, £300 or £400, but today the local authority may say to the sub-divider: “Before we will give you authority to sell this block of land, you will put in fully made roads, footpaths, kerbing and channeling and underground drainage, and you will bring all services to the area. In subdividing your land, you will not be able to sell all of it as residential blocks; you must set aside an area that can be used by the people, perhaps as playing fields “. In large subdivisions these days there is usually a demand that areas be left for health authorities, welfare centres, swimming pools and so on. All of these things are being asked of the subdivider today.
– Are they not bought by the local authorities? The subdivider does not give them away, does he?
– Generally, no. But at times the land is given to the authority. Let me instance one subdivision that is taking place in a northern suburb of Melbourne at the present time. The builder has a large area of land. Before he can get title to the various blocks and put them up for sale, under the instruction of the local council he has first to bring water to the blocks. That would not have had to be done in the early days. We know that many subdividers were able to subdivide an area of land, put pegs in and sell the blocks.
Bringing water to the blocks requires making a loan to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works of many thousands of pounds - about £40,000 in the instance of which I speak. The area in which this subdivision is taking place is rather rocky. I would imagine that a similar amount is being imposed on the builder in the provision of proper underground drainage. He would have to provide a similar amount for buituminised roads and kerbing and channeling. Before he is able to calculate the value of his land, all of this work has to be completed. Often all the costs are not known when the work is commenced.
I believe that that establishes very well that the cost of land today cannot be compared with the cost of land in previous years. Today the cost of land is loaded with charges which previously would have been imposed on the individual by the local council demanding £300 or £400 from him for the provision of a road outside his home at some future time and for the provision of the other services that I have mentioned.
– That is completely conceded, but it does not gainsay the fact that there is a considerable element of unearned profit as a result of community growth.
– We cannot accept that as the overall position. There are all kinds of people in all industries and professions. Many individuals in this industry have a background of experience in development, but developers who have put themselves, to a large extent, in the category outlined by the honorable senator, are looked at sideways. There are genuine individuals in the industry.
– The honorable senator wants one law for the professional and another law for the amateur, does he?
– No, I do not. I do not think the only criterion in this matter is the demand for land. In our cities it is not impossible for a person to buy a block of land at a reasonable price if he cares to look far enough. Today advertising plays such an important part in our community that developers spend thousands of pounds in a weekend on providing an attractive advertisement to encourage people to go and look at their blocks of land.
– The cost of that all goes on to the price of the land. They do not do that at a loss, do they?
– If the honorable senator believes that all advertising is bad, 1 do not agree with her. I believe that in many instances advertising helps to reduce the cost of the commodity. That is so if a developer can put his blocks on the market and. by advertising, sell them quickly. Believe you me, there is not a terrific margin in developing land today, compared with the risks (hat many developers have to take in the form of the thousands of pounds that they have to spend and the fact that land cannot be sold again once it has been purchased on terms. In Victoria today, if a person wishes to subdivide and sell land, he must have the title to that land within his control. He must pay off the- land before he can resell it.
– That is only an elementary stipulation of honesty, is it not?
– Not necessarily, but it is a good thing. I- hope they have that proviso in Tasmania, because it is an excellent one.
– A few land sharks came .to Western Australia from Victoria and they did not do too badly.
– Sharks should not exist where the community is particularly intelligent. It is bad luck that many members of this particular industry have been able to live off the community. I believe that today a person who is in receipt of a moderate wage may look forward to owning land and to paying for it. However, many young people think that it is desirable to own other items before they purchase a home. In many instances lack of money to buy land is caused by the demand for unessential things which in earlier days did not have for young people the attraction that they have today. To return to a comparison of land prices, in earlier days a person, when considering his original purchase price, was prepared to concede that eventually he would have to obligate himself to the extent of £300 or £400 to the local governing authority for roads and would have to pay other moneys for services and facilities that are provided today by the sub-divider. When one takes account of the depreciation in money value and the wages that are paid nowadays, one should be prepared to concede that although the price of land seems to be somewhat high it is not beyond the means of most people. I propose to read a comment from a pamphlet that was published in Victoria over a year ago. Referring to land prices, it states -
Many home buyers have decided views on where or on what they should build. . . .
– Who was the originator of that? Was it published by some vested interests?
– It is a pamphlet entitled “ Deposit Gap Problem in Victoria “ and it was published by the Housing Industry Research Committee of South Melbourne. The figures I shall quote were published more than a year ago. The pamphlet states -
The average price of the 432 sites was £1,161, while 52 per cent, of the group bought land within £200 of the average figure.
It continues - 194 of the 432 sites were bought privately by the home buyer and 238 were bought as part of a package deal of house and land. The privately bought land was purchased, on the average, two or three years before the house was commenced.
Further on it states -
The builder has tended to sell his land at lower than the ruling market price which, for the year ending June, 1963, was £1,364 or about £200 more than the average obtained from the survey. (The figure of £1,364 was obtained from averaging prices recorded by the Land Tax Office for land sales of newly sub-divided land in the metropolitan fringe areas.)
A number of factors need to be taken into account before one says that nowadays the price of land is prohibitive. In certain instances the price is unreasonable, but that is a matter for the individual to sort out. If a buyer considers that one area is more desirable than another, that will create a greater cost for him.
– That is one instance in which the individual is up against the greatest force. The land site is fixed. If it is in a favorable area, there should be general control to prevent his being exploited.
– That may be the honorable senator’s view. There is a variety of areas in Tasmania and in Victoria in which individuals, if they want beauty or elevation, may satisfy their desires. If they looked around, they would be able to obtain what they wanted. But if they want to follow the newspaper advertisements and all go to the one site, of course, they will all gather there. If they were to come to Canberra, they could find a block for 10s.
– What the honorable senator said in relation to the suburbs is not right. That is just fantastic.
– The honorable senator should have been present earlier.
– I heard the honorable senator refer to the suburbs.
– A buyer can obtain land in the suburbs today for something over £1,000 or £1,100.
– Where?
– I cannot advertise from where I am standing.
– Say where. I say that that is just not in accord with the facts.
– If Senator Kennelly has £1,100 I could take him down and get land for that price on the northern side of Melbourne.
– Where?
– At Craigieburn.
– Is the honorable senator going out to where the sheep are? Let him have a bit of sense.
– It is not quite right to say that. Senator Kennelly will find that the Broken Hill organisation has a £3 million factory there within a stone’s throw at which one could get employment if he wished. What Senator Kennelly has suggested is not correct.
– It is.
– The honorable senator should look over the area. He should look over Victoria, and he will find that these opportunities do occur. I shall now deal with a subject about which Senator Kennelly will agree with me. I refer to the activities of the Housing Commission in Victoria. Victoria is particularly proud of its housing efforts. Reference has been made to the percentage of home ownership. A figure of 75 per cent, has been mentioned. It is true to say that 75 per cent, of the home occupiers in Victoria are home owners. Victoria leads Australia in this particular field.
– Is that the average for Australia?
– The level of home ownership in Victoria is 75 per cent. The honorable senator may speak later and correct me if I am wrong. What I am saying is that, as a result of good management by a variety of governments in Victoria, that State has the highest level of home ownership in the Commonwealth. The Victorian figure compares very well with the figures of 61.9 per cent, for America and 38.1 per cent, for Great Britain. Australia has the highest level of home ownership in the world and, as I said earlier, Victoria leads the rest of Australia. I now wish to make particular reference to the Housing Commission in Victoria. Tn the last financial year the Victorian Housing Commission completed 2,324 homes and flats.
– How many applications are lying in the office of the Housing Commission?
– To the end of 30th June last year 51,329 dwellings had been completed since the inception of the Housing Commission.
– How many applications are lying in the office of the Commission?
– As Senator Dittmer knows, the Housing Commission in Victoria was established by the Country Party when it was in office. It is a wonderful building institution.
– Will the honorable senator answer my question? I am seeking some information. He said that more than 2,000 houses and flats were built last year. I am asking: How many applications still lie in the office of the Housing Commission?
– Senator Dittmer knows that in mentioning that figure I would have to say how many applications there were for houses that were not wanted. The honorable senator knows I would have to give him all the facts.
– How many of those applications would have been lodged by people who did want houses?
– The Commission’s work has slowed down slightly due to the erection of high rise blocks of flats. The Commission directs its energies to provide housing for people who are not able to provide sufficient cash deposit to purchase. There are many in this category.
– What is the deposit on a Housing Commission home?
– It can be as low as £100. The current trend in the development of flats in Victoria is towards elevator blocks of 12 to 20 stories containing central heating and a supply of hot water. The Labour Opposition has referred critically to the high cost of rental but I believe the facts disprove this contention. In Victoria, the Housing Commission has a modified scheme for averaging rentals. Under this scheme, rents for three bedroom units are fixed at a minimum of £3 10s. and a maximum of £5 10s. a week. This is in the metropolitan area. The rentals are 5s. to 6s. a week less in the country.
– Are there many in the country?
– There are insufficient in the country areas. Comparative rates of rental are fixed for tenants of flats. The Housing Commission has done much to promote the sale of home units it has erected and last year it sold 1,825 units. At 30th June some 18,459 homes had been sold by the Housing Commission of the total erected. This represents some 36 per cent, of all units including flats built by the Housing Commission. This is a wonderful contribution by the Housing Commission of Victoria to private home ownership.
– What is the title in Victoria? Is there a strata title?
– Yes, there are strata titles for flats. Generally the majority of sales would be single house units. It is interesting to note that the Housing Commission made a profit of £120,476 on the sale of its houses last year.
– Then it is charging too much for them.
– The sale price is based on the mean cost and the replacement price of a home plus the land value plus 1 per cent. It would be very difficult for any authority, institution or private builder to sell at a lower figure. Originally, the Housing Commission of Victoria was set up with the main objectives of improving existing housing conditions and providing suitable accommodation for persons of limited means in the low cost housing areas. It has made an important contribution towards housing in Victoria.
Several honorable senators have referred to rural housing. This Government could make a most important contribution towards the distribution of population by the funds it is providing for housing. It is interesting to note particular comment that was made on this matter in the debate on the Governor-General’s Speech. That comment was -
It is not surprising that there should be complaints about the standard of accommodation that is provided on farms. This applies to farm housing generally. Admittedly, this matter is largely one of State responsibility and the position varies from State to State. But there is a great need for a getting together of Federal and State instrumentalities and financial institutions to enable farmers to make use of some of the £1,000,000,000 which has been made available by this Government for housing since 1949. The use of short-term finance at high interest rates for building farm houses has had a prejudicial effect on the rate of development of new farms, because funds for such a purpose generally are available only on firstmortgage terms.
Generally the State authorities have tried to provide homes in the larger country towns. A private builder must always expect competition in the erection of homes. However, my comments are directed to this Bill. It is interesting to note that reference was made to rural housing in the original Housing Agreement of 1956. Referring to moneys loaned by the Commonwealth Government to the States, the Agreement states at page 7 of the Schedule -
The State shall erect the dwellings in such localities and shall distribute the dwellings among those localities in such manner as the Minister may, after consultation with the appropriate Minister of the State, from time to time specify, but shall not be required to erect a dwelling in a locality which, in the opinion of the appropriate Minister of the State is not a usual residential locality.
The crux of the proposition that insufficient is being done for rural communities lies in the fact that if an area is not considered to be a residential locality within the meaning of the original Agreement, finance is disallowed. I direct the attention of the Senate to questions which were directed to the Minister for Housing (Mr. Bury) on rural housing. Senator Prowse asked, upon notice -
How many houses have been built on farms from funds provided under the War Service Homes Act during the five years ended 30th June 1964?
The Minister for Housing stated in reply -
No statistical details have been maintained to enable this information to be furnished.
Again, Senator Prowse asked the Minister -
How many houses have been built on farms with the assistance of funds provided from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement during the five years ended 30th June 1964?
The Minister for Housing gave this reply -
As all the houses built by State housing authorities from money advanced by the Commonwealth under the agreeemnts may only be erected on land owned by them, these authorities do not build any dwellings on privately owned farms. The State Housing Commissions or Trusts do, however, build for sale or lease a large number of homes in country towns to house farmers and rural workers. Farmers are eligible to receive advances from moneys provided through the Home Builders’ Account in each State for the erection of houses on their’ properties. The individual advances are made through building societies and banks. Statistics of the number of loans made from Home Builders’ Account moneys to assist the construction of farm houses are unavailable.
Figures show that the allocation of money to this section of the community is unfair in comparison with the allocation in metropolitan areas. About 56 per cent, of the Australian population lives in the metropolitan areas. This proportion might have varied a little over the past year. About 27 per cent, of the population lives in country towns of more than 1,000 persons and 17 per cent, lives in the rural section where there are fewer than 1,000 people in the centres of population. The figures indicate that 87 per cent, of all homes savings grants were made in respect of housing in metropolitan areas. Housing in non-metropolitan areas received the other 13 per cent. It is not that rural areas do not need for some adequate housing scheme. The big problem seems to be the fact that before moneys can be loaned, it is necessary that a first mortgage be taken out.
Those who have some farming connection can understand the difficulty that farmers experience in providing this first mortgage. A farmer seeking to protect his farm for future seasonal requirements has very little opportunity to provide for these contingencies if he has to mortgage his farm to provide housing for his employees, seasonal workers, or whoever it may be. There is no other section of the community which has not access to money, whether that money comes from a State or Federal source, when it is called upon to provide housing for its employees. No finance is made available for this purpose. The crux of the matter lies in the fact that before a loan can be made a first mortgage must be obtained, and the first mortgage authority must be a State lending authority.
I would instance the fact that, in the United States of America, credit is provided to individual farmers for the purchase and development of family homes. Credit is also provided to individual farmers and rural residents for home building and improvements, and to groups of farmers and rural residents for further development in the area. Rural housing loans are made available over a variety of fields but the dwelling is limited to an adequate size. This may be worthy of thought here. Although it is said today that £3,000 to £4,000 is required to build a home of 10, 11 or 12 squares, perhaps a more moderate basis could be applied in relation to rural housing so that at least some finance would be made available generally on a longer repayment term. In America, money is lent for a period of over 30 years at 4 per cent, and the first mortgage is not required as it is required here. Again, ownership loans are made to farm tenants, farm labourers, share croppers and owners of inadequate or unimproved farms. There is authority to buy or enlarge farm houses and family homes. Something needs to be done in this field in Australia.
I conclude my remarks by saying that both sides of the Senate agree that the entry of the Commonwealth Government into the field of housing has been a wonderful move. A great deal of discussion took place originally on whether this should be done. I believe that this present Government and preceding governments, having entered the field, have added to the wonderful development in housing here. Surely we can be proud of the fact that Australia today has the highest percentage of home ownership of any country in the world. We must see that this position is sustained. The present Government is to be congratulated on the measure with which we are now dealing, which provides for the allocation of £51 million to the Slates. It is to be congratulated also for Commonwealth home ownership assistance, the housing agreement between it and the States, and the homes savings grants scheme which is now in operation. Certainly, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, which is being set up, will prove of great assistance in drawing private moneys into this sector of home building and home ownership. I am particularly pleased to support this measure. I commend the Bill to trie Senate.
– .1, with other honorable senators, take pleasure in supporting the Bill. I rise because I am interested in the exorbitant price of land at the moment to the normal home buyer. My friend from Victoria, Senator Webster, spoke of Craigieburn. He knows as well as I do that some clay pits are there. These are excellent white clay pits and they have been there for some time.
– Where is Craigieburn?
– It is on the nonresidential side of Melbourne. But I am a bad judge of distances.
– North, south, east or west?
– The railway line to Sydney passes through Craigieburn. I would say it is about 16 to 18 miles from Melbourne.
– It is 1 6 miles.
– Yes, that would be right.
– At that distance it would be in the inner suburbs in Sydney.
– That may be so, but a person travels 25 miles on the other side of Melbourne to reach the suburb of Frankston, I think we all have to agree that when the majority of honorable senators set out to purchase their homes, the price of the land would have been no more than a quarter of the price of the dwellings. Today the price of land is at least half, if not more than half, the price of the dwelling.
– No.
– Yes, it is, in the ordinary residential areas. The people have some few rights left. I do not think they have many left, but they do have some. When two young people want to buy a home, they are entitled to choose the suburb in which they want to live. I do not think we would deny them that right. Sons and daughters may not agree with advice given to them, but they have their own way, and good luck to them. Today in the city of Melbourne - and in saying that I refer to what is commonly regarded as the area within the 26 mile radius of the heart of the city-
– That is 10 miles within my example.
– Yes. The honorable senator is now coming on to my side. I want the honorable senator to answer a question for me. I have not been to Craigieburn or passed through it for some little time. The honorable senator may know how many homes are near the railway station? I know that there is still a factory with a big brick front Some people made a lot of money out of it when they were going to sponsor a food company about 10 or 15 years ago. Victorians know it well because the brick front has stood for years. The wise people concerned raised a lot of money but that is as far as the industry went.
– Is the honorable senator suggesting that houses should not be built until there is a great deal of development in an area?
– 1 am not saying that at all. If a person goes to buy a home, what does he look for? He looks to see how close it is to his place of employment and what forms of transport are available.
– It could be 100 yards from his place of employment.
– Admittedly. If it is the intention to fill the Craigieburn area, what industry will employ sufficient people within 100 yards of it?
– It is the greatest industrial development in Australia. The honorable senator should know that.
Senator KENNELLY__ As I have said, it is about 12 or 15 months since . I was there. At that time the area was only an open paddock. How far are the sheep today from the Craigieburn railway station? The honorable senator should know that because he possibly has more connections with the country than 1 have. Let us consider the ordinary suburbs where the young people are setting up homes. The price of land is fantastic. The worst thing that was ever done in this country was to eliminate the system of pegged prices for land. This affected not only the ordinary home dweller but also the young person who wanted to go on the land. Today, unless a young man is lucky enough to obtain a closer settlement block under the Government’s scheme or a soldier settlement block after having served his country in the armed forces, it is practically impossible for him to go on the land unless he has sufficient ready cash to buy a property. In that case, if he invests his money wisely he need not work at all. No one can disagree with that.
There has been tremendous development along the bay in the last six, seven or eight years. I have in mind Bentleigh. However, the price you are paying for a block of land in that area is £2,500.
– I am not paying that.
– No, the honorable senator is too shrewd. I give him credit for that. He may be in the same position as I am and have obtained his land when it was worth possibly one-third of the value of the dwelling upon it. But tell the average young person today to go to Craigieburn and see the reception you get. I do not think it yet has an electric train service.
– It has a nice name, anyhow.
– I do not say that it has not a nice name. I have a lot of respect for Senator Webster but I do not think he helps his case by selecting a country section and using that as his illustration. While it is true that the area is only 16 miles from the city on the north eastern side, it is still largely rural.
– It is about one mile outside the metropolitan area. If the honorable senator is saying that people should spend £3,000 on a block of land in the city when they can get a cheaper one in that area, his comment is just silly.
– I am not saying what people should or should not do. I am merely stating the plain cold hard facts of life. Most Victorians would know Syndal, which is less than 16 miles from the city. I was amazed when I was told’ that people are paying £1,900 for a block of land at Syndal.
– Have they all services?
– No.
– Is the honorable senator sure of that?
– Yes. They have water and electric power. There is a little gas and only on the main arteries of Syndal is there sewerage. The people in the other sections must instal a septic system, if the Council will permit them to do so, or they have to go back to the dark barbaric days of the toilet pans.
– The honorable senator has not mentioned the cost of providing roads. It represents about £400 or £500 a block.
– It is nothing of the kind.
Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 pun.
– Mr. President, prior to the suspension of the sitting I was dealing with the tremendous increase that has occurred in the cost of land. Irrespective of what the statistics show, I think that the majority of us speak from actual experience. As the Commonwealth and State Governments are providing so much money for housing purposes at low rates of interest, I wonder why they do not carry out all the work in providing essential services. Senator Webster mentioned Craigieburn, which is an outer suburb of Melbourne. Why does not the Housing Commission in Victoria buy the land now and build the roads and provide the services that are required? The honorable senator quoted figures relating to the number of people who own or are purchasing their own homes. His figures were a little high. I will deal with that aspect in a moment.
The buying of a home is a tremendous burden on young people. I do not decry the buying of homes. Like the vast majority of people, I am anxious to see young people buy homes. They are unwise if they do not do so. With the welfare system that we have in this country today - and let us hope it will improve as the years go by - people who have spent their lives in industry and helped to develop this nation should at least be able to enjoy a reasonable standard of living in their later years. I should say that unless most young married people were helped considerably by their parents, they would be lucky to own a home in 40 years. But even that is much better than renting a home.
The Commonwealth is advancing money to the States at a rate of interest which is 1 per cent, lower than the rate charged when it borrows the money. The State housing authorities ought to buy their own land. Some time ago I read in the report of the War Service Homes Division that the Division had purchased a large area of land at Chelsea in Victoria. The people who were fortunate enough to purchase a home in that area under the scheme did so at considerably less cost than they would have if they had purchased it privately.
– How much less?
– It is some time since I read the report and I cannot state as a fact how much it cost, but it was less. Another thing which the War Service
Homes Division does, and which 1 hope the States will do, is to insure the homes. My friend, Senator Webster, is younger and no doubt much more enthusiastic than a lot of us who are getting up the ladder. If he reads the report he will be able to see for himself the difference in cost. Why do we not provide for people who obtain homes from the State authorities the best services that are possible?
– The Housing Commission did this at Broadmeadows in the last three years, and the cost was £1.500 or £1,600 a block with the services. It could not be less. That was land purchased by a Country Party Government for £86 an acre in 1945.
Senator KENNELLY__ I am delighted the the honorable senator has mentioned that matter. He also mentioned the question of the Housing Commission in Victoria. I happened to be a member of the State Parliament in Victoria in those days. It was the time when the Hon. Albert Dunstan was Premier. The honorable senator knows why he was Premier. I shall say no more on that point. But he did the job that he was asked to do. I regretted his passing. One thing I could always say about Albert Dunstan was that if he gave his word he kept it. He was an easy man to deal with. He said either “ Yes “ or “No”, and. once he said it you went away. I think that is the only way to have a successful political life.
– A lot have succeeded in this political life by saying both “ Yes “ and “ No “.
– I do not think they have been happy with themselves if they have had to break their word. If we make a promise we should keep it, but if we have to break it, we should do so in an honorable way. We should go to the party concerned and say: “ I made a promise, but I regret that I cannot keep it “.
Senator Webster also said that 75 per cent, of the homes in Victoria were owned by the people who occupied them. I think he meant that they either were owned or were in the process of being purchased. The figure that he gave is not quite correct, but we all make mistakes. According to the figures compiled from the last census, which was conducted on 30th June 1961, there were 781,000 homes and flats in Victoria. Of that number, 565,000 either were owned or were in the process of being -purchased. I think that if the honorable senator takes those figures he will find the proportion is a little over 70 per cent., which is still a very good figure.
– It is 72 per cent.
– It is not 72 per cent. The figures I have given were obtained from the Victorian Statist, and he is much better at figures than I am. It is true that the percentage may be greater, but it would not be as high as 75 per cent. From 1961 tothe present time, the majority of homes and flats in Victoria, apart from Housing Commission dwellings, have been constructed on an ownership basis rather than a rental basis. Senator Morris said that the figure is 72 per cent. Senator Webster said that roads and footpaths would cost about £400.
– Services.
– What does the honorable senator call services? Tell us what services are at Craigieburn.
– I did, but the honorable senator was not in here.
– Was I not? I was in the chamber sufficiently long to hear what the honorable senator said on one aspect that made me rise to speak. According to one of the engineers or his assistant, the cost in an outside suburb would be between £5 and £6 a foot.
– What is the frontage of the average block?
-Forty or 45 feet.
– Oh!
– Fifty-five feet.
– What hope have these people of ever owning a house on a block with a 40 ft. frontage, even on the honorable senator’s own figures? He cannot have it both ways.
– Those figures are not right.
– The cost would be £5 or £6 a foot, in the part of Victoria about which the honorable senator was speaking. I do not know when the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works will provide services or sewerage there, but it will do so eventually. The honorable senator was asked by a colleague of mine, by way of interjection, how many applicants for homes or flats were on the books of the Victorian Housing Commission. The number is over 13,000. I am not decrying the efforts that have been made. I think that remarkable strides have been made in housing. It is something that the people vitally need. The day of the spec builder has gone. Prices are too high; he cannot get any money out of it. He does not go out, as he did 20 or 30 years ago, buy a block of land, build a house, and then put a “ For Sale “ notice on the property or offer it for rental. He cannot offer it for rental, but he may sell it. I do not know of any homes that have been built in Victoria for rental alone in recent years. It is not economic to build them.
I am not carpingly critical of Senator Webster’s speech, as I enjoyed what he said, but I think he was a bit unfair in relation to the provision of homes in Victorian country areas by successive State Governments. I do not drive through Victoria as much as I used to do, but during the little driving that I now do I am amazed at the growth in the size of country towns. I think of what the Victorian Housing Commission has done in the Latrobe Valley, in Wangaratta and in most other country centres. When we balance that against the fact that 63 per cent. or 65 per cent. of the people of Victoria, unfortunately, live in one city, I do not think one can put up a substantial case to show that Victorian State Governments - most of which have been of a political colour opposed to mine - have been unreasonable in that regard. One must be fair and say that the country has got its fair proportion, within reason. I should be delighted to see more industries and more homes in country areas. I am frightened to think of what could happen in the future; I hope to goodness that it does not. One bomb could nearly wipe out Victoria. It is bad for the mass of the people to be concentrated in one great city. At this point I briefly intermix immigration with housing. The number of migrants who return to their former countries worries me. I read in the Press some time ago that a firm in London provides the return fares of migrants on time payment. What gives me even greater concern is that we need skill today. I want to be understood, because if I am not I shall deservedly be subjected to great criticism. We will not obtain skill unless we provide skilled immigrants with homes. I do not want money for that purpose to be taken out of the moneys that are to be provided under this legislation; but for the welfare of the nation some thought should be given by the Departments of Housing, Immigration and Labour and National Service to the obtaining of the skilled people that the country needs most.
I doubt whether we will be able to obtain skilled persons - whether at the level of university graduates or at the level of artisans - unless we provide them with homes. I know that we have to keep in mind the 13,000 people in my own State who are awaiting homes and I have no desire to take money for the purpose I suggest from the funds we are now considering. It would be a good investment to provide more money for homes for skilled immigrants. We must obtain the skills that this nation needs at every stratum and to do so we must provide skilled people with homes. It is essential for the welfare of the nation that we do so; I do not think that we will get them otherwise. I do not know of any country in the Western world where any large number of people are unemployed. Why should a person leave his country when he has very little, if any, hope of finding decent accommodation here? We must get these people from overseas.
Our own birth rate is declining and no doubt it will decline further. I do not say that with any pleasure, but let us face facts. It will decline not altogether for economic reasons. In my own city we can compare the number of children that are running around Grange Road, Toorak, with the number around Nelson Road, South Melbourne, where I live, It is true that this is an older settled area. We have to bring migrants to Australia, but the trouble at present is that we cannot offer houses at once to all of those who come here each year. We must put the needs of this nation first. However, I hope that some thought will be given to this problem, because I cannot see any possibility of getting the people we really need unless we can offer them a greater inducement than just jobs. They can get jobs in their own countries.
asked me to look at some figures in the annual report of the Director of War Service Homes for the year 1 963-64. One set of figures shows the increases or decreases in 1963-64 in the cost of the dwelling house. The figures are: New South Wales, plus £151; Victoria, plus £190; Queensland, plus £233; South Australia, plus £132; Western Australia plus £145; Tasmania, plus £232; and the Australian Capital Territory plus £663. The second set of figures relates to the increases or decreases in 1963-64 in the cost of land. The figures here are New South Wales minus £16; Victoria, minus £47; Queensland, plus £93; South Australia, plus £46; Western Australia, plus £38; and Tasmania, minus £190.
I have given those figures in order to keep faith with Senator Webster. I would not say that there has been a tremendous increase in costs from 1963-64 to 1965-66. I say that the damage has been done. There is hardly a place in the residential suburbs of Melbourne today where the cost of land is not one-third or even one-half of the cost of the dwelling. I believe the position is the same in the other States. The cost of land has become fantastically high and this has placed an unfair burden on young people particularly.
One way to cut the cost of land would be for the State housing authorities to buy land in bulk and subdivide it. At present some people must be getting a tremendous profit from the subdivision of land. It is those who build around you who add value to your land. In this measure the Government is providing £51 million to help to provide homes for the people. I do not think they should start off with the tremendous handicap caused by the high cost of land. I commend the Bill to the Senate and trust that it will give some people a lot of pleasure by helping them to get out of rooms and move into homes of their own.
– Most of the implications of this Bill have been examined thoroughly by other senators, and I do not intend to traverse that ground again. I want to examine the measure from another aspect, looking forward to the new agreement which must be negotiated within the next 12 months. As we know, this is the last Bill necessary to cover the period envisaged in the presently existing agreement. It is not my intention to try to examine the quite important aspects of the legislation raised by Senators Webster and Kennelly. I would not question the accuracy of the figures quoted by Senator Kennelly, but I do not think the proportion of the cost of a house that is represented by the value of the land is as high elsewhere as apparently it is in Victoria. I would rather accept the figures advanced by Senator Webster, because I believe that many people desirous of building houses will not try to purchase land in the most expensive areas. I think it is characteristic of young people who want to build homes that they look around and try to get land in an acceptable area at an acceptable price, and I believe that in most cases they can obtain it.
I am interested in the percentage of home ownership in the various States of Australia, a point raised by both Senator Webster and Senator Kennelly. I do not know what the percentages are in all the States, but I do know that Queensland has prided itself for very many years on a high percentage of home ownership. At present the percentage in Queensland is in excess of 70, and it has been at that level for many years. I would say that until the present time Queensland has led the rest of Australia in the percentage of home ownership.
The latest figures I have are those revealed by the 1961 census. I know that State instrumentalities make their estimates subsequent to the taking of a census, but the census is the most accurate reference that we have. I have here the Queensland Year Book for 1965, which shows that the percentage of home ownership in the metropolitan area of Brisbane was 74.1, and, overall in the State, 71.6. The reduction in the overall figure as against the metropolitan figure is accounted for by the presence of itinerant employees in various industries in country areas - seasonal workers who are provided with accommodation in each area of their employment. However, this represents a very high percentage of home ownership. I then studied the Victorian Year Book and found that the latest figure was that of the 1961 census. It is the remarkably good percentage of 72.34. I do not know whether that percentage remains the same today or whether it has increased. It is not a figure over which we should quarrel. We should accept it as an excellent figure.
– It is an excellent recovery because it used to be a very low percentage.
– That is the next point I wish to make. Victoria has made an excellent recovery. According to the census of 1954 the percentage of home ownership then was only 64.14. In the period to 1961 there was an improvement of about 8 per cent. The position is different in Queensland in that the percentage has remained fairly constant for the past 30 years or more.
Senator Webster referred to the building research institute set up in America and the excellent work that it is doing. I do not think any honorable senator would deny the truth of that. Excellent research work is also being done in Australia. The research with which I am very familiar is that being conducted by the University of Queensland, in conjunction with people from other places, into the possibilities of solar air conditioning. A lot of money has been spent on this research in Queensland in the last seven years or thereabouts. Every year there is evidence that the research team is getting closer to the final answer to this problem. It has constructed experimental houses and units which may be air conditioned in the hotter areas of Australia at a price within the reach of almost everybody.
Probably all honorable senators are aware that not only is the installation of conventional air conditioning equipment expensive, but the operating costs are also expensive. It is most encouraging that the research team seems to be coming close to success in achieving solar air conditioning. I believe from my studies of the team’s activities that within two or three years it will be possible for people living in areas where there is no electricity reticulation - this is true of a great deal of northern Australia where the heat is excessive - to have air conditioning. In areas where the cost of electricity is fairly high and air conditioning is desirable, solar air conditioning could be installed and the power bills greatly reduced. This proposition of solar air conditioning may not seem attractive to honorable senators who do not live in areas north of the Tropic of Capricorn, but those of us who are familiar with the northern areas realise what a great boon solar air conditioning will be. Other research is being conducted, of course, but I have seen very little published about research into solar air conditioning. I have mentioned it so that honorable senators may know the progress being made.
The question of housing has occupied for many years the minds of those in government. The development of the interest of governments in housing is quite interesting to study. After World War I most State Governments, in some cases in co-operation with the Commonwealth, initiated the building of war service homes for the rehabilitation of returned servicemen. That practice was fairly common in the States. In addition, some governments paid particular attention to the problem of housing. The first move by a State Government to step up the rate of home building was made by the Queensland Government in 1910. It was an exploratory move and was not of great importance at that time. In 1916, with the advent of a Labour Government, the scheme that was then in operation was changed. Since that time, progressive moves have been made by Queensland Governments in the provision of housing. The success achieved has been mainly responsible, I believe, for the continued high percentage of home ownership in Queensland.
The next State Government to move into the field of housing was the Western Australian Government in 1912, followed by the Tasmanian Government in 1935. The South Australian Government acted in connection with the provision of housing in 1937 and Victoria and New South Wales followed in 1938 and 1942 respectively. The outbreak of World War II changed the whole situation. As a consequence of the war, a great deal of temporary housing was erected in, so far as I know, every State. Then came a change in the whole character of housing because, up until the war, the provision of housing - rental housing in particular - had been rather the preserve of the man, or the man and his wife, who tried to make provision for their old age by purchasing a home. For them it was quite a satisfactory investment. Since World War II the construction of rental homes has ceased to be a valuable investment. It is not an investment that attracts private enterprise and it is not usually undertaken by individuals. Now the construction of rental homes has become a big business for Government enterprise.
I recall with some horror the temporary housing provided in the later years of the war in many States. Today we have heard quite a deal about the position in Victoria where a large section of one of the main parks was covered by temporary housing which was not at all attractive. I think the Victorian Government has done a mighty fine job in getting rid of those temporary housing structures which were an eyesore and uncomfortable. The Victorian Government is to be commended for replacing them with good, comfortable homes. Probably the same thing has been done by all State Governments. I can also recall that in Queensland in 1957 there were areas of temporary housing. I am happy to be able to say that they have been eradicated. Now we have people living in their own homes.
I do not think anybody has mentioned, in respect of the allocation of money under this Bill, that there have been one or two very remarkable changes in the amounts of money that have been requested by the States. I preface this part of my speech by saying that I have no doubt that all of us know that each State Government is given an allocation of money for works and housing. The Federal Government does not decide the amount of money that each State Government will allocate to housing. It decides the overall amounts for works and housing. It is up to the Government of each State to say: “ Of this total amount, we elect to allocate £X to housing “. That decision is made by the State Government itself.
Other honorable senators may be interested to note - this is certainly of interest to me - that Queensland’s request for housing finance this year is about £1 million lower than last year’s. I would have thought that that would have caused comment from one or two quarters. I have not noted any comments either in this chamber or in the other place. I believe that it is very significant in that it illustrates the very good work that has been done in Queensland over the years. I submit that Queensland is how in a better position, as regards housing, than is any other State. As at 30th June 1965 only 103 applications to purchase homes through the
Queensland Housing Commission were outstanding, and only 4,924 applications to rent homes through the Commission were outstanding. Those 4,924 applications have been analysed. It has been found that about 45 per cent, of them are classified as having nil priority; in other words, the applicants do not qualify for a home at all under the provisions of the scheme. So, in fact, fewer than 3,000 firm and acceptable applications are outstanding.
– Why do not the 45 per cent, qualify?
– There are many reasons why they do not qualify. I cannot give the honorable senator all of the reasons at the present time. He can ascertain them by studying the relevant act. As I am sure he knows, everybody cannot qualify to obtain a house from the Commission on the basis of income, number of dependants and so on. There is a list of factors that have to be taken into consideration.
The point that I want to make is that of the fewer than 3,000 applicants who would qualify for a home, when the time comes for them to be offered a home many of them say: “We do not intend to proceed with our application. We have made other arrangements “. On a realistic estimate, the number of people who require homes in Queensland at present and are bona fide applicants would be nearer 1,500. That is one side of the picture. That is one of the reasons why the amount of housing finance for which Queensland has asked this year is less than previous requests, but is still adequate.
There is one aspect of this matter which has not been referred to and which really troubles me very much. I have looked at various “ Year Books “. I cannot get the precise figure that I want for every State; but quite an alarming story is told by the figures for unoccupied dwellings. The last reliable record that we have is the 1961 census. At that time there were 194,1 14 unoccupied dwellings in Australia. That figure represents an alarming increase.
– They would be privately owned houses with exorbitant rentals.
– All I can say is that in every State there are unoccupied dwellings. At the time of the 1961 census there were 72,432 unoccupied dwellings in New
South Wales, 47,389 in’ Victoria, 33,969 in Queensland, 17,061 in South Australia, 13,705 in Western Australia and 8,582 in Tasmania.
The point that I want to make is that over the years the number of unoccupied dwellings has gone up and down almost like a yo-yo. In 1921 there were about 51,000 unoccupied dwellings in Australia. In 1947 the number was less than it was in 1921. In that year there were only 47,041 unoccupied dwellings. As I have said, the number increased from 47,041 in 1947 to 194,114 in 1961. I repeat that that is an alarming increase.
– I would not quote those figures, if I were the honorable senator. They are an indictment of conservative government.
– If the honorable senator has a suggestion to make, he might care to make it in a speech. I am looking at this matter not from a party political point of view. I am trying to point out that in recent years there has been a very large increase in the number of unoccupied dwellings. Notwithstanding that, the average number of occupants of dwellings in Queensland is very similar to that in other States. It is 3.5 persons in the metropolitan area and 3.61 persons in the whole of Queensland, including the metropolitan area. So there is not a heavy usage of houses at the present time; yet there is an increasing number of unoccupied dwellings.
– Has the honorable senator any figures to show the location of those unoccupied dwellings?
– There are many reasons why these dwellings are unoccupied. Several of the reasons are canvassed in the “ Year Book “. Some are unoccupied for one reason; others are unoccupied for other reasons.
One of the reasons why these houses are unoccupied is the control that still exists on rented homes in certain places. The Minister for Housing (Mr. Bury) referred to this matter in the other place. He said that many people are frightened to let tenants into their houses because of the difficulty of getting the tenants to leave them and to make them freely available to the owners when they require their houses again. That difficulty was not as prevalent in the years before the Second World War as it is at present. That is one of the reasons. There are many others. At present I am not canvassing the reasons. If other honorable senators want to do so, the figures are in the “Year Book”. I will give them the “ Year Book “ and let them look at the figures for themselves. They can advance their own reasons. That is not what I am attempting to do. What I am saying is that such progress has been made in Queensland in relation to housing that we have only a minute demand for housing. We have not a heavy usage of houses; the rate of occupancy is approximately 3.5 persons per house. But for all that, there are still many thousands of houses that are at present unoccupied. This situation has become infinitely worse since 1947. We must consider these alternative factors when the new agreement is being discussed within the next 12 months. That is why I have made the points to which I have referred. I have not made them in any attempt to criticise, or to make any capital for, one government or another. I have tried to look at the problem quite apart from politics.
If honorable senators like to have the situation presented in cold figures, I can put it in this way: From 1954 to 1961 there was an annual increase of unoccupied dwellings of approximately 11,000. With that situation developing all the time, I want to be sure that the Ministers who are responsible for examining the Housing Agreement will look into the situation and decide whether it presents a problem that must be considered when negotiating the new agreement.
– I should like to know where those houses are. We cannot find any unoccupied dwellings in Western Australia, except in the ghost towns on the goldfields.
– There are a lot along the coast.
– I can give to the honorable senator only figures that the Statistician has given to me. I cannot swear that they are accurate, but I would be prepared to put a quid or two on them. The figure for Western Australia is 13,705. The number is about three times as great as in 1947. These are facts, and they need to be analysed. I am not pretending to analyse them, but I am pointing out that they should be considered if we are to make an intelligent approach to the agreement that is to be signed within the next 12 months. That is the main point that I wish to make.
I do not want to repeat what has been said by others. But it is our responsibility to look at these matters and, having done so, to point them out to others. Unfortunately, we are not qualified to analyse these facts thoroughly. That is the task of the officers who will be assisting Ministers to prepare the new agreement within the next 12 months.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee.
The Bill.
– The Bill is a short one. Clause 4 provides -
Moneys borrowed under this Act shall be issued and applied only for the expenses of borrowing and for the purpose of making advances to the States-
in pursuance of section 4 of the Housing Agreement Act 1961; or
That permits the Treasurer to make advances. I invite the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Henty), who is in charge of the Bill here, to comment upon the next provision, which reads -
Is it intended to introduce another measure to make this money or additional money available for housing? Is this the formal method of presenting this kind of legislation? It seems to be significant that reference is made to making money available in pursuance of a 1961 Act. Can the Minister enlighten us?
– Clause 4 is the appropriation clause. It stipulates the manner in which the moneys raised under the Act may be applied. The clause is different from the appropriation clause in the Loan (Housing) Acts of recent years in that it will permit moneys raised under the authority of the 1965 Act to be used, if necessary, for the purposes of any new housing agreement that the Commonwealth may negotiate with the States to commence after 30th June 1966, when the period of advances under the present Agreement expires. The estimated carry forward of unused borrowing authorisation totals £13,541,000. That sum could be used to meet the States’ initial requirements in 1966-67 under any new housing agreement with the States. Subclause (b) would obviate the necessity for a special Loan (Housing) Act to authorise the raising of moneys for this purpose. A similar clause is contained in the Loan (Housing) Act 1960, which was passed during the final year of advances under the 1956 Housing Agreement.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.
Bill (on motion by Senator Henty) read a third time.
page 493
Debate resumed from 24th August (vide page 72), on motion by Senator Gorton -
That the Senate take note of the following paper -
Report of the Mission from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on the Economic Development of Papua and New Guinea - Ministerial Statement, 5th May 1965.
– Once again the Senate has embarked upon debate of a ministerial statement on the report of the Mission from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development in relation to Papua and New Guinea. I should like to say, first, that on occasions we who are in public life have found that we could not attach much weight to findings of committees or missions that have been appointed by various agencies of the United Nations. It is possible for such committees to be stacked against the interests of the country concerned or a country that is particularly interested in the inquiry to be conducted. But I believe that the committee of 10 persons from six different countries that was appointed to inquire into conditions in Papua and New Guinea was a very good - an able - committee. The Committee was appointed in 1963. Its report was submitted in 1964 and in 1965 the Minister for Territories (Mr. Barnes) made a statement to the Parliament. So there has been some progress year by year.
I do not believe the ‘Committee intended to interest itself very much in the allimportant question of self government for the people of the Territory. The Committee considered the matter and it came down on the side of those who believe self government must be granted but must come gradually and without hurry. The Committee emphasised the great responsibility that the Commonwealth Parliament and the people of Australia had to bring about self government so that the people of the Territory may live in prosperity and peace under their own administration.
The report is valuable because it emphasises Australia’s great responsibilities. Sometimes I wonder whether those who appoint committees of inquiry are not passing the buck and postponing decisions and delaying advancement in that way. Those comments do not apply to the Committee whose report we are discussing. The report raises questions of great importance and the Government would stand condemned in the eyes of Australians and in the eyes of members of the United Nations Organisation, many of whom are friendly to us, if the report were pigeonholed. The report should receive serious and continuing consideration.
One honorable senator suggested that the inhabitants of Papua and New Guinea were and should be treated as stone age people. I believe that to be terribly wrong. A considerable proportion of the population is beyond that stage. Our approach to the needs of the people will not be worthwhile and will not be helpful unless we judge fairly their abilities and their potential worth. These people inhabit a country of great potential wealth. There are many avenues for its development into a rich country and we should do our utmost to encourage the indigenous people to play a major part in this development. Two million people are an important sector of the world population and the sooner we really try to help them to improve their lot the more worthy we shall be of the trust that has been put in our hands.
The Committee suggested a five year forestry plan. Except for a very brief visit a couple of years ago to Port Moresby, I have not been in New Guinea since 1942 and in those days we thought there were plenty of trees there. I read that section of the report carefully and I believe the Committee was right in suggesting a five year forestry plan because the timber assets of the Territory could be developed into a useful and continuing industry. A ten year plan for agricultural development in New Guinea has been suggested also. I shall not go into detail but I believe this is worthy of close consideration by the Government, the Administration and private enterprise which can and should interest itself in the Territory.
Senator Laught obviously has given close study to the report and he addressed himself to the potential production. One cannot argue against that, but production needs to be supplemented by markets and manufactures based on raw materials that are produced. The Commonwealth Government should direct its attention to that problem when thinking of future policy in Papua and New Guinea. The marketing of products grown in New Guinea will be a difficult problem. Those of us who come from Tasmania understand very” well the difficulties of marketing profitably raw materials and manufactures produced on an island.
Development brings with it the need for skilled labour and we have to train the native population. This in itself poses problems of great importance to Australia. We lack skilled labour in this country and our supply is being curtailed because the countries from which we draw migrants are reluctant to lose their skilled labour. It is important that more than a nucleus of skilled labout be available continually in Papua and New Guinea. Our responsibility in this matter is such that, to quote a phrase used by charity workers, we shall have to give until it hurts. 1 have not had any real experience with the people of Papua and New Guinea but in the little I have had I have been impressed with their quickness of thought, their ability to imitate and also their sense of music and rhythm. I believe that a big percentage of them will be readily trained to become skilled labourers in some of the basic requirements in new Guinea.
– They are doing that now. They are very quick to learn.
– They are very quick indeed. I recall a brief illustration of their quickness and ability to do some of the good things that the white races do.
There was a luncheon room, I suppose you would call it, in Port Moresby, to which officers of the service came for lunch. The native boys were the waiters at the tables. Each item on the menu had a number. For example, soup was 1, the entree 2, the main meat dish 3 and so on. There were instructions on the menu that when the native boy took your order you said, “ 1, 3, 5 and 7” and when you did this the native boy would look at you and say: “ You want soup, roast beef, ice cream and coffee.” You would reply: “Yes.” The native boys picked this up very quickly. That is a small but true illustration of how these people if properly taught by Australians, will readily learn the skills which are required and, in learning, provide the work force which will be essential to modernise their living conditions, to construct roads, communications, and to provide the necessaries of community life in’ towns, villages and rural areas. While we have this responsibility, we must see that we lay a good solid foundation for these people so that, when the time comes for them to control their own destinies, they will be able to continue to build on this good foundation and so make this rich country a happy one.
Throughout the time prior to these people gaining their independence, we members of the Federal Parliament should do all we can - I know personally that I should do more than I have done - to make ourselves more au fait with and more knowledgeable of present conditions, current requirements and future possibilities. There is a duty placed upon us, I believe, to do all we can to inform the Australian people of everything concerning New Guinea. We should incite their interest in this country. I do not believe - this is not being party political - that this great country will be properly developed if we leave it to governments and government instrumentalities do the work. The Government has to give the lead. Naturally, it has to make the rules and regulations. But we as members of this Parliament should incite the interest of private enterprise and of people with a pioneering spirit, partciularly young people, to go to New Guinea and to help in the great task of development.
I am happy to advise the Senate that some person - I do not know who it was, but he was obviously an Australian minded citizen - aroused the interest of schoolboys in southern Tasmania in Papua and New Guinea. The idea grew and grew until one or two classes which comprised, I think, matriculation students decided to go to New Guinea in their vacation, to live there, to learn about the country and to do community work in a small way. If that can be done by students in Hobart, surely it can be done by various organisations and associations and by individuals all over Australia, each playing his small part, and each small effort will be gradually welded into a big effort to help these people.
I believe that the people of Papua and New Guinea will be keen to co-operate and learn. One speaker in this debate gave me the impression that he was opposed to developing the tourist industry in New Guinea. I do not agree with that outlook. We should do all we can to encourage people to go to New Guinea. Necessity being the mother of invention, if people go to New Guinea, private enterprise will become interested in providing hotels, boarding houses, restaurants and everything else that goes with looking after tourists. I understand, from those who have toured New Guinea recently, that there is now a great need for accommodation of a suitable standard - not the luxury standard of the Gold Coast type, but a sensible Australian standard.
– What about the Tasmanian standard?
– Yes, the Tasmanian standard. As more people go to New Guinea, other people will be encouraged to provide these amenities. Private enterprise will not put up boarding houses, hostels or camps if they are visited by only a few people during a particularly short period of each year. A tourist industry is needed which will operate throughout the year in Papua and New Guinea to induce Australians to go there and learn about the country, its people, their requirements and their achievements also. As more people, particularly younger people, go there, other people will be encouraged to start in an occupation of a developmental nature in Papua and New Guinea and so help its development.
I believe that we in Australia should look at New Guinea not as if it is a branch of
Australia but as if it is part of a cooperative society. We have been blessed with many things in the way of abilities and materials which we can give to the people of Papua and New Guinea. This is our duty. The report we are discussing should help the Government in this endeavour. It should be widely distributed and read. Serious thoughts should be given to all of its suggestions.
– Mr. President, in commenting on the report of the mission of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, I concur with Senator Marriott when he says that we should all give serious consideration to it. With your leave, Sir, I inform honorable senators that I rise to speak on this matter while awaiting the arrival of the Repatriation Bill which I hope will reach us before we adjourn at 4 o’clock. The report contains some very informative and useful material and certainly will assist those of us who are interested in the problems of the Territory. Many people have said, particularly over the past two or three years, that one of our mistakes was that we did not annex Papua and New Guinea as an Australian State. That would be desirable in many ways, but having seen the fate of so many other nations which were in a somewhat similar category to New Guinea, I for one would not be prepared to entertain for a moment any thought of such annexation. Even if it were possible, the benefits which would flow to the people living there would be more than offset by the criticism of those people overseas who are not satisfied unless the people of a nation govern themselves. For that reason I cannot see that there would be any benefits to be gained in the long term although there would certainly be short term benefits.
Most of us who have had the opportunity to visit the Territory recognise that over the years, particularly since the Second World War, the Commonwealth has done a good job in assisting the indigenous people. The people themselves freely acknowledge this fact. It can be said that the Government has not done enough but I suppose that can be said of government activities in all spheres.” After’ all, we can only do what our financial and economic resources allow us to do. This we have done in the
Territory. There has been tremendous advancement of the welfare of a large majority of the people themselves and great development in the main towns.
My first visit to Papua and New Guinea was in, I think, 1960. I had the opportunity to return in May this year and I was most impressed with the advances that had been made since my previous visit. On that occasion I was very much attracted by the indigenous people, particularly the children. I do not think 1. have seen better types of children or more friendly and more likeable children anywhere. On one occasion while travelling along a road I saw a group of children whose ages would range from three to perhaps nine years. They appeared to take a cursory interest in us but as soon as we waved to them their faces brightened and they raised their arms in greeting, lt was an absolute pleasure to see.
The people of the Territory are worthy of help and 1 am glad that we shall continue to help them. We are pouring increasing amounts into the Territory but despite this fact we will not satisfy those people overseas who have set out to criticise our attitude to the Territory. Even if we doubled the amount that we are spending there we still would not satisfy our critics. In fact, some of them will not be satisfied until they stir up the people to agitate for control of their own affairs long before they are capable of controlling their own affairs. Fortunately, the danger of this is recognised by the thoughtful people of the Territory. They make no bones about it in their House of Assembly. Any who care to listen will be told that the people do not feel that they are yet ready for self-government and are not likely to be ready for it for quite a long time. One of them asked me: “ Why do we not get some Afro-Asians to come to the Territory to see for themselves how we are being treated? Never mind how they think we are being treated, let them come and see for themselves how we are being treated “. That, I believe, is some recompense for the funds that we are expending in the Territory and the efforts that we are making to help the people there.
Our help has taken many forms. We have provided educational facilities and hospital treatment. However, it has been very hard to help them in the matter of land settlement because in so many areas particular blocks of land have been held by the one family for very many years, being handed down from father to son. In many instances boundaries are known only to those who own a particular block and those who own the adjoining one. There are no normal boundary marks. There may be a tree or something of that nature to mark the boundary of a block of land. The Administration is considering this aspect at the present time. It hopes to be able to carry out a survey, determine the owners of particular blocks and mark those blocks clearly. This is a major task but it is being tackled.
This brings me to one of the difficulties of the Territory. To a degree we are faced with the same difficulty in Australia. I refer to the problem of centralisation. The indigenous people are leaving the small blocks of land on which they have lived for many years and on which they have grown their crops and are moving to the larger towns where more amenities are available. That is exactly what we are doing in Australia. As in Australia, this movement to the larger towns is adding to the housing and employment problems. All the homes in those towns and the land in the adjacent areas have been taken up.
I ask for leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 496
Bill presented by Senator McKellar, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
– I move -
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Government’s Budget proposals in the repatriation field and to make some other desirable changes in the repatriation legislation.
As honorable senators know, this year the Government has had to provide for greatly enlarged expenditure in the defence area and has been obliged to meet very substantial commitments over the entire range of Commonwealth activity. Despite this, it has again reviewed the operation of the repatriation system including eligibility for, and rates of, benefit, and has been able to make some valuable changes. These will be of particular benefit to the more needy class of pensioner.
The Bill introduces to the repatriation system a new category of war pension to be known as the intermediate rate of war pension. This pension will be paid under the First Schedule to the Repatriation Act and the rate will be £10 2s. 6d. per week. It will cater for the special needs of war pensioners who, although not so disabled as to qualify for the special rate of pension payable to the totally and permanently incapacitated, are seriously disabled because of war caused incapacity to the extent that they are able to work only part time or intermittently and thus cannot earn a living wage. This benefit will provide a desirable supplement to the present war pension structure for ex-servicemen whose overall earnings are limited because of their physical inability to participate in full time employment.
It is also proposed that provisions relating to eligibility for payment of sustenance allowance at the equivalent of the special - totally and permanently incapaciated - rate of pension will be extended to include ex-servicemen who are prevented from following their usual occupation because of the necessities of outpatient treatment for war caused disability for continuous periods in excess of one month. On completion of a continuous period of one month’s outpatient treatment, this higher rate of sustenance will be payable retrospectively to the commencement of -the period involved. As honorable senators know, the present sustenance allowance for outpatient treatment is equivalent to the 100 per cent, general rate of pension and is, therefore, considerably below the inpatient rate. The effect of the new provision is that except for comparatively short periods of outpatient treatment, eligible exservicemen will now receive sustenance allowance at the equivalent of the special - T.P.I. - rate whether receiving treatment at inpatient or outpatient level. The new eligibility will be given effect through repatriation regulations. It is a benefit in which ex-service organisations have been inter ested for some time and will no doubt be well received by them.
At present medical treatment may be provided under the Repatriation Regulations for the children of war widows up to the age of 16 years. It is proposed that medical treatment will be continued in the case of student children of war widows up to the age of 21. This extended eligibility will operate from 1st January 1966, which is the date from which similar arrangements in relation to pensioner medical service children will commence. It is necessary to amend the regulation-making power under the Repatriation Act to enable such a regulation to be made. This Bill, therefore, includes an appropriate amendment to section 124 of the Repatriation Act, which at present does not authorise the making of regulations to provide general benefits for children over the age of 18 years.
A number of changes are to made in the service pension area. The first is that a married member service pensioner whose wife receives a wife’s service pension will henceforth be eligible for the single service pensioner’s rate of £6 per week, an increase of 10s. per week. Previously the maximum rate of service pension for married member service pensioners was £5 10s. per week.
A further change relates to the entitlement to pension of wives and children of service pensioners receiving the pension on the ground of age. Hitherto no provision has been made for wives and children in these circumstances. The Bill provides that the wife of such a pensioner will now qualify for a wife’s service pension if she has one or more children, and the children also will qualify. Furthermore, the addition to the member’s own pension in respect of second and subsequent children, at present payable at 15s. per week for each such child to member service pensioners who are permanently unemployable, will now be payable at the same rate to members who receive service pensions on grounds of age.
An entirely new benefit which the Bill introduces is the guardian’s allowance which will be at the rate of £2 per week. This will be paid by way of addition to pension to a member service pensioner who is unmarried, but who has the custody, care and control of one or more children under the age of 16 years. The guardian’s allowance will be payble until the child reaches 21 years in cases in which the child continues to undergo full time education. Since 1963 eligible children of service pensioners have continued to receive pensions up until the end of the year in which they turn 18, provided that they are still receiving full time education. As in the case of the guardian’s allowance, this age limit will be extended until the child attains 21 years.
Finally, there are two important changes in relation to” supplementary assistance which is paid to certain service pensioners who pay rent or who pay full board or lodging. This allowance is commonly referred to as “ rent allowance “. Eligibility for this benefit will be widened and the rate is to be increased. Hitherto supplementary assistance has been paid to unmarried persons and limited categories of married persons. Eligibility for married persons is now to be widened to include a married service pensioner whose wife receives a service pension. Also, the maximum rate of allowance is to be increased by 10s. per week, from £26 to £52 a year. The maximum rate will be subject to adjustment according to the amount by which the pensioner’s means as assessed, that is his assessable income and/or property, exceeds £26 per year.
In addition to these payments which bear directly on the pensions and allowances to service pensioners, there is to be a further benefit which will be of assistance to people in this group. Aside from the £10 grant now available in respect of deceased member service pensioners, there is to be a funeral benefit of £20 provided for service pensioners who are responsible for the funeral costs of a spouse, a child or another means test pensioner. This benefit will be provided under the Repatriation Regulations. Where there is an eligibility for both the existing benefit of £10 and the new higher benefit, the latter will be paid.
I am pleased to inform honorable senators that two important changes in the scope of the pensioner medical service will have an effect on some service pensioners. The first of these changes is that the existing income limitation governing eligibility for enrolment in the pensioner medical service has been removed. Although the member service pensioner is, as honorable senators are doubtless aware, already eligible for a wide range of medical benefits at my Department’s expense, the change will be of real assistance to wives and children who are receiving a service pension, including the wives and children of the special - T.P.I. - rate war pensioners who also receive a part service pension. The other change is the extension of the pensioner medical service eligibility to student children up to the age of 21 years. These changes will operate from 1st January 1966.
The opportunity is also being taken -to include in the Bill some other desirable changes in the repatriation legislation. Under section 45 of the Act war pensions, which are being paid to dependants in respect of the incapacity of a member at the time of his death, are continued after his death where he dies from a cause not accepted as due to war service. At present this section does not provide cover for a posthumous child and, although there would perhaps be relatively few such cases, it seems reasonable that such a child should bc included. The amendment proposed to section 45 will do this.
In the appeal area two adjustments will be made. First, an appellant to a War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal has the right to appear at the hearing of his appeal and also is entitled to receive expenses in connection with that appearance. However, in the relatively few cases where the Repatriation Commission exercises its right of appeal against the decision of a War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal the Act confers no such rights on the exserviceman. An amendment proposed to section 72 will remove this anomaly by giving to a respondent to an appeal by the Commission the right of appearance and to receive expenses in connection with that appearance.
The second proposal in the tribunal area relates to “ further evidence “ cases. Where a claimant for war pension dies before his claim is determined, or before he has had the opportunity to follow up his appeal rights, the Act in general makes provision enabling the legal personal representative, or an approved person, to prosecute the claim or appeal. However, no such provision is made where, after an unsuccessful appeal, a claimant seeks to re-open his case by submitting further evidence to the Repatriation Commission under section 64(7.) of the Act, but dies before the further evidence is considered; or, where such evidence has been rejected by the Commission and he dies before he has exercised his right to have it referred to a tribunal. This could have important consequences for dependants, for example, the wife and child who continue to receive their pensions on the death of the member. The amendment proposed will allow the legal personal representative, or an approved person, to pursue the claim of a deceased appellant in respect of such evidence submitted by him during his lifetime.
Following the practice of my predecessors, a table which summarises the repatriation Budget proposals has been prepared for the convenience of those interested. This is attached to copies of this speech which have been circulated to honorable senators. In accordance with usual practice the foregoing proposals will, where applicable, be extended to those eligible by amendment to the Native Members of the Forces (Torres Strait Islands) Benefits Regulations.
With the exception I have mentioned in the case of medical benefits for student children of war widows, the amendments will come into force from the date on which the Act receives the Royal Assent. The measures with which the Bill is concerned are part of the continuing development of a repatriation system which has emerged over the years from soundly based principles. They confer useful benefits on the more needy class of pensioner and dependant as well as making other desirable adjustments. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Sandford) adjourned.
page 499
Motion (by Senator McKellar) - by leave - agreed to -
That leave be given to introduce a bill for an Act to amend the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940-1964.
Bill presented, and read a first time.
Standing Orders suspended.
– I move -
That the Bill be now read a second time.
This small Bill gives effect, so far as seamen’s war pensions are concerned, to the Government’s decision, as announced in the Budget, and referred to in the second reading speech on the Repatriation Bill, to introduce a new intermediate rate of war pension, falling between the Special (T.P.I.) Rate and the General (100 per cent.) Rate, to provide for the special needs of seriously disabled persons whose war-caused incapacities render them incapable of working other than part-time or intermittently. Clause 3 makes the necessary provision, the new pension being at the rate of £10 2s. 6d. per week, the same as that being introduced under the Repatriation Act. Clause 4 ensures that the new provision, insofar as it affects instalments of pensions, will take effect on the first pension pay day after Royal Assent is given. The new pension meets a special need in the field of war pensions and I trust that honorable senators will ensure that the Bill is passed without delay.
Debate (on motion by Senator Sandford) adjourned.
Senate adjourned at 3.58 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 September 1965, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1965/19650916_senate_25_s29/>.