27th Parliament · 2nd Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.
page 997
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
That there be referred to the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade the following matter:
Measures to alleviate the cost price squeeze on primary producers and other measures to overcome the plight of the primary industries.
page 997
– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation submit to the Senate and to the people of Australia a comprehensive and frank statement on the crisis which is obviously facing Qantas Airways Ltd? Will he explain, in his statement, how Qantas has overnight become almost bankrupt and why it is contemplating wholesale retrenchment when this company has a good record of viability over many years? Is it because too many overseas companies now have the right to operate services to Australia or has the service of Qantas been reduced to such an extent that it has lost the support of travellers?
– It is quite an exaggeration to make a comment that overnight Qantas Airways Ltd has become almost bankrupt. This is very far indeed from being the case. Qantas will report a profit for the financial year ended 31st March this year. It is taking proper steps, in the exercise of managing the business for the Australian people, to make quite sure that with heavy increases in costs and the declining growth in the number of travellers which has characterised the affairs of international airlines, it does not have adverse results in the coming year. Beyond that, in the present circumstances, I would like to reserve my right to have something further to say about this later if it becomes more necessary so to do. If I may say so, that may be the wiser course. There are people on the other side with experience in industrial problems. I submit it to their judgment that it may be better for me at the present stage to do exactly as I propose.
page 997
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. It follows Senator Poyser’s question about Qantas Airways Ltd and refers also to the financial position of the domestic airlines. I refer to answers that the Minister has given in recent weeks in the Senate as a whole and when appearing before an Estimates Committee. To me, his answers were optimistic reports on the future of both Qantas and Trans-Australia Airlines. What positive steps is the Government taking to arrange domestic travel and Government support for these services to prevent any further decline in the financial position of both airlines or to prevent staff redundancies? Does the Government propose to enter the area of the Qantas dispute only on the basis of the test of profitability of the airline? If not, what means does the Government intend to use to intensify the present arrangements in relation to charter participation by Qantas? During the latter part of 1970 and in the early part of the first quarter of this year why were there not consultations about the problems which are now facing not only the staff but also the management of Qantas? Will the Minister personally advocate, in respect of both internal and overseas airlines, immediate consultation about matters which might eventuate during the latter part of this year?
– Consultations have taken place with the Qantas board of management on quite a wide range of its affairs over quite a long period of time. Equally, consultations have taken place with the domestic airline operators. The Senate need not be at all worried about this; consultations have been going on. A rapid worsening of the Qantas position became apparent only early in this year, because of the factors which I have mentioned. It is a very long question. The Senate need be in no doubt that I am most anxious that it should have the details it would like to have, but I will provide them at a time when I will not prejudice discussions which are now taking place and which are aimed at producing a solution to many of these problems.
page 997
– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: Is it a fact that the irrespon sible attitude of the pilots of Qantas, who will go on strike at the drop of a hat and thereby cause great inconvenience to passengers booked on its services, is one of the reasons why today some people prefer not to travel by Qantas?
– It is one of the reasons why Qantas is having some problems at the present time.
page 998
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior: Has he the information I spoke to him about prior to the meeting of the Senate? What was the cost of reconstruction of the building in Melbourne known as the old Customs House and which is used at present for Federal members’ offices? What was the tender price accepted for the maintenance work now being carried out on this building in Flinders Street, Melbourne?
– In relation to the first part of the question, for the remodelling of the present Federal members’ rooms in Melbourne the expenditure to 20th April 1971, and the expenditure on work not yet completed is $579,564. In answer to the second part of the question, which sought the tender price for the maintenance of the outside of the present building, the figure given is $58,912.
page 998
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence whether he has seen reports of the alleged beating up of a naval cadet during initiation ceremonies at HMAS ‘Leeuwin’? Will the Minister undertake an investigation of the cadet training establishments of all three Services to discover whether initiation ceremonies, bastardisation or hazing are being practised in any of them? Should any such practices be discovered, will he take the strongest possible action to ensure that all such ceremonies are completely stamped out?
– I can rely on only what I have read in the Press at this point of time in relation to some initiation ceremony that took place. As I read the report, it indicated that a departmental inquiry or investigation was proceeding as a consequence of the publicity given to it. 1 will refer the depth of the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Defence for a considered reply.
page 998
– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry say whether the Adelaide metropolitan abattoir, the major killing works in South Australia, is still without an export licence, the loss of which already has cost South Australian producers very dearly? If this is so, can the Minister say for what reasons the licence was withheld and who is responsible?
– I understand that the abattoir mentioned by the honourable senator was one of those de-listed late last year following an inspection by an American veterinarian because they were not up to the standard required by the United States of America for exports of meat to that country. He found that some aspects of the premises were not in accordance with the United States requirements. These included inadequate facilities and deficiencies in regard to equipment which would require fairly extensive alterations. I understand that the management has been informed of this and that as soon as the abattoirs are brought up to the requirements laid down the Department of Primary Industry will request that the American veterinarian go in and inspect the premises. Then, if they are passed, the abattoirs will be listed again for the export of meat to the United States market.
page 998
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the agreement decided upon at the National Labour Advisory Council meeting last week on the payment of union fines under outdated legislation, and subsequently supported by the Chairman of ARC Industries Ltd, will the Ministers involved announce their acceptance of this agreement and not continue with an attitude which could provoke a national strike to secure a political advantage and which could create the atmosphere for an early election before the Government may or will have to introduce more stringent credit restrictions and controls?
– I wish to affirm for the honourable senator’s information - I suspect that he already knows it - that there was no agreement, in any responsible sense, to the effect that he implies.
page 999
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for National Development whether a determination has, as yet, been made in respect of the application made to the Commonwealth Government for financial assistance for the South Australian pipeline project on Eyre Peninsula which is designed to provide urgently needed water supplies from the Polda Basin to the Kimba area?
– I do not have very much information on this matter, although I have a great interest in the area because as a small boy I used to spend some of my time there on holidays. So, I have some sympathy with Kimba and its water supply problems. Officially, the committees met and finalised the report on the Kimba-Polda basin pipeline. At the stage at which I was given this information, which was 4 days ago, the report only needed to be edited and assembled. The Department of National Development expects that one would begin to see this, perhaps, towards the latter part of this week. Commonwealth consideration of this project is at an advanced stage and a decision on it is expected in the very near future. I am sure the honourable senator will understand that I cannot go beyond that because it is not my province; I only speak for the Minister whom I represent. But, from what I am given to understand, the matter is very close to being finalised.
page 999
– My question is directed to the Minister for Air. Can it be inferred from his reply to a question by Senator Bishop recently about the possible need to order more Phantoms that there is now every indication that Australia will not be getting the Fills? If so, can the Minister take the public into his confidence and set out fully all the costs and cost penalties associated with purchasing our leased Phantoms as an alternative to the Fill? If austerity is to be the Government’s cry, why does not it immediately settle this costly farce and make public the true cost of this incredible deal?
– I think the honourable senator will recall that last year, because of the delayed delivery of the F111C and the need to have an adequate strike force in the Royal Australian Air Force while waiting for the delivery of the Fill, Australia leased 24 Phantoms. In the statement made by the then Minister for Defence the cost of the lease was set out. The honourable senator will recall that the lease was for 2 years in the first instance, but it may be extended for a longer period if required. There are no current plans for increasing the number of Phantoms in the RAAF; but I might say that if, for some reason, the Fills did not meet our requirements, as laid down by the Fraser-Laird agreement of last year, and were not acceptable to us, then we would have to consider the need for an alternative aircraft. One such alternative could be an increase in the number of Phantoms. The honourable senator also asked me to give details of the costs of the lease. Had the honourable senator attended the meeting of Estimates Committee E last week he would have heard that provision is made in the supplementary Estimates for an appropriation for this purpose for the remainder of the financial year.
– There is no public record of that yet.
– That is unfortunate. I advise the honourable senator to study the record when it is issued. From memory, an appropriation of $3.4m is sought for the whole year.
page 999
– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether the Government of Communist China has yet accorded full diplomatic recognition with mutual exchange of envoys at ambassador level to the Government of Great Britain? If China has so recognised Great Britain, will the Minister advise the date of such recognition?
– I remind the honourable senator that matters associated with diplomatic recognition of Communist China were debated fully last week in this chamber and in another place. I reserve to the Minister for Foreign Affairs the opportunity to be precise about diplomatic recognition of Great Britain by China and the implementation of that recognition. I will supply an answer to the honourable senator at an early date.
page 1000
– Will the Minister for Civil Aviation give the Senate the full facts of the charter flight fiasco that has caused 60 Australians bound for Singapore to be stranded at Dili, Portugese Timor? Will the Minister also advise what responsibility Mr Forsyth of Forsyth Travel Service has for the episode?
– It will be remembered that the honourable senator asked me a question about this matter last week and I undertook to get for him all the information I could obtain. As far as we know at present about 40 people, of whom 20 are Australians, have been prevented from moving from Portugese Timor to Indonesian Timor because of a breakdown in the connecting services of Zamrud Airlines, the local Indonesian operator. Many of these people are destined ultimately for Europe. The very latest advice available it was received this morning it that Zamrud Airlines will be recommencing its services any day now, so that the problem should shortly be resolved. This is another example of the problems that can arise when groups of people seek very cheap travel to Europe and other places, other than by means of affinity groups using the schedules of the recognised airlines. Beyond that I would not want to comment because I do not have any details associating the matter with the gentleman to whom the honourable senator referred. The balance of my comment can be taken as a general observation based on my personal concern. People who try to get cheap fares have a capacity to do so within the schedules of the airline operators. When they do so they are certain of being carried, are they not?
page 1000
– It will be appreciated that this is a very detailed question.I imagine the honourable senator is referring to whiteknuckled passengers because I have been a whiteknuckled pilot and there is a great difference. What happens in this Department is that every incident and accident is reported to the Department. The matter is looked into. A copy of the report is given to me at the end of each week and I read it with some care. I shall look for this report when it comes in. At the close of question time this afternoon I shall direct an inquiry to the Department about this incident because like the honourable senator I am concerned about this. Like all my colleagues I feel that the safety of flying in this country is important and it is enhanced when episodes which occur are reported to the responsible people.
page 1000
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In a statement made recently by the Treasurer on foreign aid it appeared that Australia bad at last exceeded 1 per cent of the gross national product. Did this include the private investment of Australians in other countries? Without this private investment would the Government’s aid to overseas countries not exceed 0.59 per cent of the gross national product? Does our aid to Papua and New Guinea account for about 80 per cent of this amount?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONAs I recall the statement, the figure quoted was 1.1 per cent. I would need to obtain some information from the Treasury as to the break up of the amount. For instance I am aware that aid to Papua and New Guinea is quite a significant contribution but I shall have to obtain a precise breakup and make it available to the Senate.
page 1001
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Regarding the 4 ships reported to have been released for essential services to Tasmania because of the current shipping stoppage, is the Minister able to comment on the statement by the Tasmanian manager of the Australian National Line that 1 of the 4 ships in question, the ‘Australian Enterprise’, is at present in Sydney nearly fully loaded with goods for Japan?
– That ship pulled into Devonport this morning.
– The newspaper report must be incorrect. Has the Minister any further information about the present hold up which is threatening to close down some major Tasmanian industries?
– It will be appreciated that I am most confused when we have a situation where a newspaper says that a ship is in Sydney loading for Japan and an honourable senator says that the ship was reported in Devonport this morning. This does not make life easy for someone who represents another Minister in this place. All I understand about this matter is that an attempt was made to see that Tasmania was put in a separate position. I fully sympathise and agree with that position. Representatives from Tasmania were to see the Prime Minister today on shipping stoppages in regard to Tasmania. I hope that as a result I shall see a resolution of this unhappy state of affairs as soon as possible.
page 1001
– Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior been informed of the disgraceful incident which occurred in Melbourne when the War Memorial was desecrated on Anzac eve by hoodlums- masquerading as pacifists who, in the name of peace, bashed a security man insensible? Are the staff responsible for the security of such national memorials and buildings suitably equipped to protect themselves and people’s property from such ruthless, demonstrating thugs? If not will the staff be adequately armed to protect themselves?
– Like the honourable senator I deplore a happening such as this. It is reprehensible and disgraceful. I wonder whether the incident comes within the responsibility of the Department of the Interior. I do not know. I equally wonder whether the State government has the ultimate, final authority. I shall certainly find out about this incident because it is not a very happy affair.
page 1001
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Does the Minister consider that the provisions of the proposed rural reconstruction scheme are satisfactory in terms of the assistance they offer to those involved in wool growing in Australia and who require help in reconstructing their debts? Is the Minister impressed with the comments of appropriate State Ministers for Agriculture - particularly the Victorian Minister - who claim that, due to a much lower wool price since the scheme was originally proposed and calculated and due also to the requirement that repayments to the Commonwealth be made reasonably promptly, this scheme will not work? Will the Minister consider some relaxation of Commonwealth demands for repayment of the proposed loans?
– lt will be recalled that the former Minister for Primary Industry made an offer to the States of $100m over a period of 20 years with a 3-year holiday period and an interest rate of 3 per cent. The States rejected this offer and accepted an offer of $75m over a 20-year period at 6 per cent with a 3-year holiday period and $25m as a grant. Each State accepted this in principle. However, a formal agreement was sent to all State Ministers of Agriculture who have now all replied to the Government accepting the agreement. Some State Ministers of Agriculture have, of course, offered comments. Victoria has accepted the formal agreement as forwarded to that State by the Minister for Primary Industry. I believe that the Commonwealth would not have made this offer if it had thought that it would not work. Furthermore, I believe that if it is to work we must have the co-operation of all people concerned with this reconstruction proposal.
page 1002
– I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation: In view of the financial problems facing Qantas Airways Ltd, will the Government reintroduce the sales tax exemption which was taken away from Qantas last October? If not, will the Minister make a clear statement as to why the denial of an exemption is to be continued since the Minister has said, firstly, that the exemption is worth $750,000 per annum and, secondly, that the exemption was not revoked at the request of any foreign airline operator?
– All I can undertake to do in the current circumstances is to look into this matter as part of a total examination of all the matters that affect the profitability and economic viability of Qantas Airways Ltd.
page 1002
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to reports of pressure being applied to senators, including allegations of threats of violence aimed at affecting the proceedings of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange. Without entering into the correctness of any particular allegation, will the Leader of the Government agree that the Senate will use its powers to the full to protect all senators, witnesses and others connected with that Committee or other business of this Senate against any kind of improper pressure?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONYes, I would agree with Senator Murphy that if there were any threats, implied or real, or any pressure put upon any member of any Parliament, in particular upon the Senate as a whole or individual senators in the course of their functions as senators or as members of a committee, I would be most anxious as Leader of the Government in the Senate to do everything possible to ensure that all the procedures that are available to us were used to take appropriate action.
– You would do that for anyone, would you not?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONAnyone, yes.
page 1002
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. As an aid to safety in motoring and a protection for the prospective owners of motor vehicles, will the Minister investigate the advisability of requiring all motor vehicle manufacturers to rust proof vehicles prior to their sale?
– I will certainly bring the honourable senator’s question to the notice of the Minister for Shipping and Transport.
page 1002
– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Civil Aviation. In view of the present circumstances of the aviation industry, I ask: Could the Minister inform the Senate of the percentage drop in the number of passengers carried by both the internal airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd over whatever period he may have the figures for?
– I can only give the honourable senator an indication at this stage, but I will obtain more precise figures for him. The whole situation was running very strongly until about (he end of December last year, when there was a decline in the domestic growth rate to practically a level position. The international growth rate also fell from something like 20 per cent or 22 per cent to about 17 per cent. I do not want the honourable senator or, indeed, any of my colleagues to regard these figures as absolute or definitive because other things have to be taken into consideration. The long term growth rate in domestic and international aviation in Australia has continued to hold fairly well in past years. There have been episodes in the past in both the domestic and international field when growth has slowed but later on the position has recovered. The general long term trend has continued through the years without a great deal of interruption, but when these things happen they do place a stress on the operators concerned because their revenue drops markedly and, if this happens at a time when their costs have also risen dramatically, it does pose problems.
page 1003
– I desire to ask a question of the Minister for Civil Aviation. I ask: Is there any intention to extend runways at the Adelaide Airport to accommodate bigger and more powerful jet aircraft? Before any plans are finalised will the Minister seek the views of those residents near the airport who have formed an anti-aircraft noise committee?
– There are noise abatement committees at all major capital city airports and at quite a number of the larger internal airports. The committees consist of representatives of the Department of Civil Aviation and other Commonwealth departments. For instance, my colleague, Senator Wright, helps the committees from time to time on the Commonwealth works side. The committees also consist of representatives of State government authorities and local municipalities. The Department of Civil Aviation seeks to ensure that they are informed of what is happening at airports and they seek to help it by giving their observations. I do not have any details about possible extensions to runways at Adelaide Airport, but 1 shall seek information on this matter from the Department and will certainly advise the honourable senator, either personally or by letter, of the position.
page 1003
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I ask: Has the Minister any figures to support his contention that the sales of wheat for export in the current year are in excess of the sales in the same period last year? If so, will he make available to the Senate as soon as possible a detailed comparison?
– I have some figures on this subject, but I do not have them with me at the present time. I shall certainly ensure that the honourable senator gets them.
page 1003
– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. I ask: Is the Minister able to advise the Senate whether the National Heart Foundation considers that the level of public consumption of butter in Australia is conducive to the incidence of heart disease? Is it a fact that a gentleman who made this suggestion quite recently on the radio might have been speaking from knowledge gained whilst enjoying the benefit of research funds provided by a leading margarine manufacturer?
– I am unable to reply to the implications and imputations contained in the honourable senator’s question because I do not have the knowledge which is necessary to do so. The National Heart Foundation, as I understand it, is a voluntary organisation and Professor Blacket, who received considerable publicity over the week-end for his statement, is but one gentleman associated with the Heart Foundation. As to whether the statements which Professor Blacket made are sustainable, I am unable to say. In any event, questions relating to whether laws in Australia unduly favour butter over margarine are matters entirely for the State Governments and not for the Commonwealth Government.
page 1003
– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior by stating that the right of trial in a court of law and the presumption of innocence are being transgressed by the quick punishment of intruders or trespassers by dogs trained to savage and even to kill. Is the Minister aware that German shepherd alsatian dogs are banned in many sheep breeding areas in Australia because they are notorious sheep killers? In view of the widespread horror felt at the shocking lacerations of an innocent 4-year old boy by a German shepherd guard dog, will the Minister for the Interior seriously consider banning the training and use of savage German shepherd alsatian dogs in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory?
– Being unaware of the circumstances or the details of the incident mentioned but being familiar with the problem of dogs that run wild, particularly with livestock, I shall direct the question to the Minister for the Interior in the House of Representatives and get an answer for the honourable senator as soon as I can.
page 1004
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. Is it correct that the holder of any Commonwealth Government scholarship is permitted to earn up to only $6 a week during term time? If this is correct, in view of current living costs could not a more realistic amount be set? Is it a fact also that any such scholarship holder with a living allowance who wins an exhibition or other monetary prize as a reward for success in studies has that amount deducted from his allowance? Would it not be more reasonable to except such moneys won as a reward for success at studies so that they are not deducted from the scholarship holder’s allowance?
– I shall undertake to refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Education and Science for investigation into whether a revision of any of these details is appropriate. I do not carry the details with me but the honourable senator can be assured that they have been under consideration within the last 6 months.
page 1004
– In addressing my question to the Minister for Health I refer to the gentleman mentioned a little while ago by Senator Webster. Is the Minister aware that Professor Blacket is one of the most eminent and respected heart specialists in this country and that he has an international reputation? Is the Minister prepared to make a statement now, or will he make a statement at some early time, in line with what I asked him on 30th March, that is, a statement indicating the nature of heart disease as a public health problem in Australia, the number of persons affected by it and likely to die from it, and the economic consequences to Australia of heart disease? Will the Minister make a statement in this place indicating the attitude of the National Health and Medical Research Council, and of his own Commonwealth Department of Health, on whether poly-unsaturated margarine should be freely available to those who wish to have it as an alternative to butter on the ground of health?
– As I recall it, the honourable senator asked me a question along these lines approximately a fortnight ago and I said that I would give consideration to the matters which he raised and also to whether it was advisable for a statement to be made by me. I am still considering that matter. The advisability of a statement being made by the Federal Minister for Health on a matter which is essentially a medical matter upon which there is some variation of medical opinion is a factor to be borne in mind. I am certainly aware of the standing of Professor Blacket and that he is the professor of medicine at the University of Sydney. As I understood the Press reports of what Professor Blacket has said - I have not had the opportunity to read the text of what he said - it appeared to me that the main aspect of the Press reportage was directed to the favouritism which was shown to laws prohibiting or restricting in various ways the sale and distribution of margarine and this was what excited the Professor’s attention. As I say, that is essentially a matter for State governments. Having said that, I shall certainly continue to bear in mind what Senator Murphy has asked me. Whether or not a statement will be made will depend upon greater information than I have at my disposal at the moment. I am seeking that information.
page 1004
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. On 16th March last I asked the Minister whether he could inform me and the Senate as to the consideration being given to the use of ships known as LASH ships in Australian coastal services and he said that he would obtain information from the Minister. Is he now in a position to supply that information?
– I have some information on this matter which may help the honourable senator. The Minister has informed me that he is quite aware of the West Australian Government’s decision to abandon its plans to introduce LASH vessels. This decision was taken in the light of tenders received as the price quoted for the vessels made it impracticable for the Government to proceed with its plans. The Minister states that he is aware that this type of vessel has been introduced overseas and that it was planned to build more, but there are different demands for this type of ship if the trade is to be served both economically and efficiently. Therefore, he is not at present prepared to offer an opinion on the LASH concept unless comment is confined to a particular trade. I have been asked to assure the honourable senator that the Department and the Australian National Line are constantly keeping under review any advances made in shipping technology. At this stage the Line has not made any submission for the introduction of LASH vessels on the Australian coast.
page 1005
– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry tell the Senate whether the Commonwealth is involved through the Australian Agricultural Council in making decisions on the imposition of, among other things, quotas on the sale or production of poly-unsaturated margarine?
– The
Commonwealth is involved only to the extent that it chairs the Australian Agricultural Council. The quota system has been implemented by State governments.
– I did not ask about the implementation but about decisions.
– I shall put it the other way. The decision on quotas has been made by State governments for nearly 30 years and the decision has been accepted by all governments over that time. The present situation is that it has been agreed among the States that if there is to be any change in quotas the State concerned will bring the matter before the Australian Agricultural Council.
page 1005
– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry know whether the Minister for Primary Industry intends to advise this Parliament what action the Commonwealth proposes to take to assist pear growers in the Goulburn Valley of Victoria whose plight was described some months ago in the Senate and is undoubtedly well known by the Minister? Is the Minister aware that much of the fruit in question has now fallen from the trees and has rotted on the ground and that a number of growers have walked off their properties? Did the Commonwealth indicate that it would give prompt consideration to a request by the Victorian Premier for assistance to growers if he should convey such a request to the Commonwealth? Is it true that the Victorian Premier made such a request to the Commonwealth Government many weeks ago? Can the Senate expect some comment on this situation prior to the Senate’s rising in May this year?
– I thought that I answered this question in the week before last. I indicated then that the Commonwealth was aware of the situation and that the former Minister for Primary Industry had met the growers concerned about this matter and had stated at the time that if representations were made to the Victorian Government for financial assistance and if that Government saw fit to approach the Commonwealth Government every consideration would be given to the request. I understand that the Victorian Government did make a request to the Prime Minister 3 or 4 weeks ago and that the Government is still examining the request.
page 1005
– My question is directed to the Minister for Health. As the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry and the Minister for Health have evaded questions about restrictions on the use of poly-unsaturated margarine, will the Minister for Health advise the Senate whether these restrictions apply in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and what are the barriers against the removal of any restrictions which may exist?
– The question directed to me by Senator O’Byrne suggested that there had been some evasion of questions which had been asked. I deny emphatically that there has been any such evasion and I regret the use glibly of terms such as that when there is no foundation for their use. I do not know what the precise position in the Australian Capital
Territory is, but I shall make some inquiries so that the honourable senator can have an exact answer.
page 1006
– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. By way of brief preface I refer to the answer which he gave me earlier today about the potential for the use of LASH type ships in the Australian coastal trade. Will the Minister ascertain whether the experts in the Department of Shipping and Transport favour the use of this type of ship in any section of the Australian coastal trade and, if so, what are those sections and what are the advantages to those trades?
– Yes, I will do exactly what the honourable senator asked.
page 1006
– Is the Minister for
Civil Aviation aware that in 1968 the Government established the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal for the sole purpose of hearing industrial disputes in the airline industry? In the light of this, can the Minister explain why the Director General of Civil Aviation is acting as mediator at today’s conference between the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and Qantas Airways Ltd in the current dispute over the retention of air crew?
– The reason is that the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal was set up to deal with disputes over pay and general conditions of work. The present problem is one between the management of Qantas Airways Ltd and its employees on methods adopted to ensure that the airline operates at a profit. I am quite well aware, as is the Government, of the ability of the Flight Crew Officers Industrial Tribunal to help in this situation if and when it is necessary to do so.
page 1006
(Question No. 978)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:
– The Minister for Labour and National Service has provided me with the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (J) The honourable senatoris presumably referring to the procedures under the National Service Regulations whereby the Minister for Labour and National Service may refer to a court for determination the cases of men where the question of their conscientious beliefs with regard to military service has arisen and the men have not applied for recognition as conscientious objectors.
The position of such men is identical with that of men before the courts as a result of then own application for recognition as conscientious objectors.If they establish to the satisfaction of the court that they hold beliefs which do not allow them to engage in any form of military service they are not required to render any service at all. Alternatively, if they are found to hold beliefs which do not allow them to engage in combatant duties they are enlisted in the Army and employed on appropriate duties for the requisite period. If it is not established that they hold such beliefs, including, for example, in cases where the man referred does not attend at the court as notified, their liability for military service in the normal way is unaltered.
The honourable senator has referred to two cases, one in Victoria and one in Western Australia. In the former, the man who was the subject of the reference attended at the court and was represented by counsel. As this was the first such case to be heard in Victoria, the hearing began with the magistrate exploring with the Minister’s representative the statutory basis of the reference procedure. This completed, the way was clear for the court to examine the nature of the man’s beliefs but at this stage, on consulting with his client, counsel for the man indicated to the court that he declined to have his conscientious beliefs examined in the normal way. The magistrate stated that he had no evidence which would enable him to make a finding and dismissed the reference.
In the Western Australian case, the man who was referred to the court was represented,as permitted under the Regulations, by an agent who read a prepared statement to the court. The statement was tendered as an exhibit and the magistrate issued an order that the man was not a conscientious objector. He was advised by my Department of his right of appeal against this order but no appeal was lodged within the statutory time limit.
In addition to these two cases, there are five men who on being referred to the courts by the Minister have established that they hold conscientious beliefs which do not allow them to engage in any form of military service and who have been recognised accordingly. Some of them had previously refused to register or, having registered, refused to comply further with the provisions of the National Service Act.
page 1007
(Question No. 1046)
asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:
Which of the following methods was used in settling damage claims arising from the ‘Oceanic Grandeur’ oil spillage:
– The Minister for Shipping and Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
page 1007
– On 20th April Senator Poke asked me a question regarding the Royal Australian Air Force Jubilee Dinner. In answering the question I said that I would seek further information regarding the number of stewards who were at that dinner. I now give the honourable senator the following information:
To mark the occasion of the RAAF Jubilee an Air Force dinner was held to which were invited His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh, who graciously attended, senior serving members of the RAAF, past Chiefs of the Air Staff, founder members of the RAAF, together with His Excellency the GovernorGeneral, the Prime Minister and members of the Government, the Leader of and other members of the Opposition and representatives of the other Services.
A similar dinner graced by the presence of Her Majesty the Queen was held at Cranwell to honour the RAF Jubilee.
Under normal circumstances the dinner would have been held at a RAAF base, with the simple traditional formalities which are observed on the occasion of Service diningin functions.
However, in the absence of a suitable Mess in Canberra capable of accommodating the number of guests to be invited, it was necessary to use other facilities.
In the event, the dinner was held at the Hotel Canberra.
To present a reasonable Service atmosphere, appropriate to the occasion, arrangements were made to use RAAF and WRAAF stewards who were familiar with diningin customs, to serve at table.
The tables were decorated with suitable silverware and candelabra, borrowed from the Messes to which they belong, and some other table appointments were Service issue.
Twentyone of the 32 stewards who provided the service in the ante-room and dining room were from RAAF base Fairbairn.
The others, loaned by other bases, were accommodated overnight at Fairbairn.
The hotel kitchen staff prepared the meal.
page 1007
– On 24th February 1971, Senator Hannan asked me the following question:
Is it a fact that last week-end the Australian Broadcasting Commission programme ‘Four Corners’ carried a 20minute segment which was virtually a free advertisement for a retail store in Melbourne with is quaintly titled ‘Bourke’s ACTU’? Does the Minister know whether this generous coverage was due to the claim of Bourke’s ACTU that it would supply retail goods more cheaply than any other store or was it merely designed to turn Mr Hawke and his fellow socialists into little capitalists If the former supposition is correct in view of the fact that yesterday a large Bourke Street emporium which shall be nameless published an advertisement in respect of prices similar to the claim of Bourke’s ACTU can we assume that this emporium the name of which is ascertainable will likewise be given 20 minutes free advertising on the ABC?
The PostmasterGeneral has now furnished me with the following information in reply:
The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sir Robert Madgwick, has informed me that the ‘Four Corners’ programme of 20th February included a segment concerning retail price maintenance and the ACTU’s entry into the retail trade through its purchase of an interest in Bourke’s store in Melbourne. These issues were considered to be of importance to the community and worthy of examination in ‘Four Corners’.
page 1008
(Question No. 879)
asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:
Have recent research results shown that dichlorvos’, the active ingredient in ‘pest strips’, is extremely toxic and dangerous; if so, what steps has the Minister taken to restrict or prevent the sale of these items.
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The toxicity of ‘dichlorvos’ has been well documented for a number of years. In the form and concentration present in ‘pest strips’ it does not present a hazard when used under normal conditions. The National Health and Medical Research Council has recommended that: ‘dichlorvos when impregnated in plastic resin strips, containing 20 per cent orless dichlorvos’ be included in Schedule 5 of the Uniform Poisons Schedule. This schedule entails a warning statement on the labels: ‘Warning. Keep out of reach of children. If swallowed seek medical advice. Avoid contact with food.’
Expert committeesof the National Health and Medical Research Council continually review all pesticides.
I understand that all States have taken steps to ensure that a warning label similar to that recommended by the Council appears on pest strip packets. Any such action in the States is, of course, a matter for individual State Governments to decide.
page 1008
(Question No. 888)
asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:
Has the Government given any consideration to holding future elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate on the one day to avoid the inconvenience and expense of separate elections.
– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
I am advised that permanent provision for the holding of such elections on the one day could only be effected by an amendment of the Constitution. My Government has not yet considered the matter.
page 1008
(Question No. 894)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:
Are there any plans to compel hire-purchase companies to reduce their interest rates by declaring them banking institutions in view of the
Government’s stated policy of cooling down the overheated economy; if not, will the Government assist in reducing inflation by taking other action to compel hire-purchase companies to reduce their interest rates.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
The Government has no plans for the direct control of interest rates charged or paid by hire purchase companies. Among other things, constitutional considerations would be involved in any move by the Commonwealth for such control.
page 1008
(Question No. 922)
asked the following question of the Minis- terinCharge of Tourist Activities, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
The survey was conducted by a team comprising:
The major recommendations were:
The report was presented on 30th June 1969. Those proposals which can be encompassed within routine Government activities such as recommendations (d), (e) and (h) above are being implemented as the opportunity arises. The remainder are still under consideration by the Government.
page 1009
(Question No. 931)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:
What primary industries at present receive tariff protection and what is the nature of such protection.
– The Minister for Trade and Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Most primary products are subject to tariffs on importation into Australia. Consequently most Australian primary industries may be said to receive some degree of tariff protection. Two major exceptions are raw wool and timber logs.
Primary industries which receive tariff protection at varying levels include the following:
Meat Industry
Poultry Industry
Fishing Industry
Dairying Industry
Honey Industry
Vegetables (both fresh and processed) Industry
Fruit Industry
Milling Industry
Cereal Grains Industry
Vegetable Oils Industry
Tobacco Industry
Saw-milling Industry
The rates of duty applicable to imports of the commodities produced by the industries listed above are set out in chapters 1 to 24 inclusive and in part of chapters 44 and 55 of the Customs Tariff. These duties occupy some 200 pages of the Tariff, a copy of which is available for inspection in the Parliamentary Library.
page 1009
(Question No. 963)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Army, upon notice:
– The Minister for the Army has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Exceptions to this policy are made in the case of bandsmen, cadets at Officer Cadet Training Units and drivers of general officers where this type of uniform is a functional requirement.
page 1009
(Question No. 967)
asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
page 1010
(QuestionNo. 998)
asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:
– The PostmasterGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) There is no discrimination in the Broadcasting and Television Act against the employment of married women by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Sections of the Act referred to by the Senator, namely S3 (1) and 53 (2), were repealed by Act No. 47 of 1967.
page 1010
(Question No. 1011)
asked the Minis ter representing the Treasurer, upon notice:
What has been the rate of sales tax imposed on such sporting goods as cricket bats and balls, golf clubs and balls, footballs, football boots, fishing rods, and tennis racquets and balls since 1950.
– The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Since 1950 cricket bats and balls, golf clubs and balls, footballs, fishing rods and tennis racquets and balls have been subject to sales tax at common rates. The rates of tax applicable to these goods during this period have been:
Prior to 27th September 1951 - 81/3 per cent 27th September 1951 to 6th August 1952-331/3 per cent 7th August 1952 to 9th September 1953-20 per cent 10th September 1953 to 13th August 1968- 121/2 per cent
Since 14th August 1968 - 15 per cent
Football boots have been exempt from sales tax throughout this period.
page 1010
(Question No. 1014)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise, upon notice:
– The Minister for Customs and Excise has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
page 1010
(Question No. 1049)
asked the Minister for
Civil Aviation, upon notice:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
page 1011
– On 15th March 1971, Senator Douglas McClelland asked me some questions without notice concerning garbage incinerator at the Sydney Airport, I then informed the honourable senator that difficulties had been experienced in respect of the moisture content of the material which had to be treated by the incinerator and that I would provide him with answers to his question as soon as possible. The answers are as follows:
In regard to the use of the incinerator I have ascertained that the building and modified furnaces were ready in March 1970, but due to problems with the excessive free liquid content of the garbage, which I have already mentioned, further modifications to the plant became necessary. These have since been completed.
At the same time it was also necessary to provide a separate source of water supply from bores to the incinerator for the purpose of cleaning the outgoing gases. This resulted from a request from the Sydney Water Supply and Drainage Board that, wherever possible, their mains should not be used for industrial purposes. These works have also been completed; and the commissioning of the plant was recommenced on 2nd February 1971.
The conditions of contract provided for the contractor making available an expert to demonstrate and teach the operating staff of the Department of Civil Aviation. This action has been completed and Department of Civil Aviation personnel are now operating the installation.
The honourable senator also sought advice as to whether tenders were re-invited for this work. The answer is yes. When tenders were originally invited the following prices were received:
Due to the high prices tendered, a more modest installation was designed and the prices received on the revised specification when tenders were invited for the second time were:
(1)$95,000.
The lowest tender of $95,000 was accepted.
On the financial side of the project the total cost to date is $310,000. This includes an amount of $145,000 for the modified incinerator, i.e. the original contract price plus the cost of modification.
The balance of the expenditure relates to the remaining works associated with the project such as site preparation, buildings, access road water supply, garbage containers, etc.
page 1011
Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth
Anderson) - by leave - proposed:
That the sitting of the Senate be suspended from the dinner adjournment until the ringing of the bells at approximately 10.15 p.m. this day to enable Estimates Committees A and E to meet at 8 p.m.
– I am a little concerned about this motion. I understand that this afternoon we will discuss what is to my mind one of the most important matters we can discuss namely, the land in the Australian Capital Territory and its cost and the Government has said that we must finish that debate at 6 o’clock. That means that we will have about 4 speakers, if we are lucky. I have always opposed the idea of estimates committees because I believe that the Estimates should be dealt with in the open, in the Senate itself, and that we all should have a go in our own way. It seems remarkable to me that the Government can close the Senate down at 5.45 or 5.55 this afternoon and give only four or five people the right to stand up and voice their opinions on a matter that concerns more than 200,000 people, or whatever is the population of the city of Canberra. I object to that. I oppose it. I oppose the motion only for those reasons. I think that the residents of Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory should have an opportunity for their case to be presented in a befitting manner. All honourable senators who wish to state a case ought to have an opportunity to do so.
– I have only proposed the motion. It has to be put to the test.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - You have moved the motion?
– I have.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
page 1012
– For the information of honourable senators I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Malaysia Indonesia and Singapore.
page 1012
– 1 move:
That the City Area Leases Ordinance 1970 (No. 45 of 1970), and the Leases (Special Purposes) Ordinance 1970 (No. 46 of 1970), made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910- 1970, be disallowed.
I suggest that to facilitate a free discussion on land tenure in the Australian Capital Territory it would be appropriate for the substance of notice of motion No. 12 in my name under the heading of General Business to be debated concurrently with this motion. After the question of disallowance of the ordinances is determined, the question contained in notice of motion No. 12 could be put forthwith. The 2 matters are cognate and I suggest that it is appropriate for the 2 matters to be debated concurrently. The expeditious dispatch of the business of the Senate could be thus assisted. At the conclusion of the debate when a vote is taken on the question of the disallowance of the ordinances, a VOl( could also be taken on the subject matter of notice of motion No. 12. The whole question of the land tenure system in the Australian Capital Territory, including the administration, general conduct and handling of that system could thus be put to the vote.
Motion (by Senator Murphy) - by leave - agreed to:
That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Business of the Senate Notice of Motion No. 2 and General Business Notice of Motion No. 12 being debated together
– I rise to provide the Senate with the basis for the move which was made by me some time ago for the disallowance of City Area Leases Ordinance 1970 (No. 45 of 1970) and Leases (Special Purposes) Ordinance 1970 (No. 46 of 1970) which relate to the land tenure system of the Australian Capital Territory. At the outset of this debate I think it is appropriate that I should clearly indicate to the Senate that the general subject of land tenure in the ACT has been a source of great annoyance and concern to the people of the ACT for a great many years. While I acknowledge that from time to time inquiries have been dealt with under the general subject of the land laws of the ACT the situation does not seem to have been reached at this point of the history of the ACT where there is a general acceptance of the system. As I say, this matter has been a sore point. It has been a bone of contention. There has been heartburning and many misgivings about the system. The matter was brought to a head by a decision of the Government which was reported on 5th May 1970 as a consequence of an election meeting which was held to fill the vacant seat in the Australian Capita] Territory. The Prime Minister of the time in typical style announced that there would be a change in the land tenure system in the Australian Capital Territory. There would be a change in the basis of the system of collecting rents, a change in the basis of rating, and a change in the system of valuing property in the Australian Capital Territory as from 1st January 1971. This announcement triggered off a great deal of controversy and discussion in the Australian Capital Territory and very much further afield.
We are not merely concerned with the situation of ratepayers and tenants of property in the Australian Capital Territory. We are also concerned as the custodians of the Australian nation and as representatives of the proprietors of Crown land in the Australian Capita] Territory. I am sorry that the debate on these matters is to be circumscribed because if we are to obtain a vote the debate must conclude by 6 p.m. this evening. So that I can provide the Senate with some sort of background to the points I propose to make I want to quote from references which have been made to this subject in the different media but principally in the Press. Some serious writings and authoritative judgments have been made on the question of land tenure by a great many people. I have drawn largely upon articles which have appeared from time to time in the Canberra Press. Initially, I want to quote one or two excerpts from the ‘Canberra Times’ of Tuesday, 16th February 1971. This quotation is taken out of context because I do not have time to go through the whole article. The initial and significant comment made in this leading article was in relation to land tenure and the decision to change its structure. Concerning the decision to be taken by the Parliament on the future of these land laws, the ‘Canberra Times’ states:
This means that it has not quite 5 weeks-
This is talking about the Parliament- in which to take any possible action on the 5 ordinances which, on January 1st, turned Canberra’s leasehold system of land tenure upside clown.
This statement appeared in the Canberra Press. It is no hysterical outburst. It is a very reasoned and very sensible statement made as a consequence of many articles which were written to the ‘Canberra Times’ and other sections of the Press in Canberra and throughout Australia concerning the proposal of the Government to change the land tenancy laws. The Canberra Times’ on 1 1 th March 1 97 1 states, inter alia:
The charge can fairly be made that the Administration of the ACT has lost sight, in the pursuit of administrative and accounting simplification, of the very notion upon which the revolutionary experiment of leasehold urban development was undertaken in Canberra early this century. The changes in land charges introduced on 1st January were made in inexcusable ignorance of the profound social and economic implications of the concept of leasehold as opposed to freehold. The arguments advanced to justify the changes are not convincing: the elimination of the anomalies that existed could have been achieved by other, simpler, means.
I will deal with those in due course, but 1 think it is appropriate at this point in the debate to say that the concept upon which the land tenure system of the Australian Capital Territory was based, initiated and followed right up to 1st January this year was enunciated by the first Prime Minister of Australia 17 days after federation, which was 10 years before the Australian Capital Territory was established.
On 17th January 1901 the basic concept of the leasehold system of land tenure in the Australian Capital Territory was enunciated by Mr Barton, as he then was, and it has been continued as a principle of faith, as Frank Brennan said in his quite outstanding book on the subject, right through successive governments of different political complexion to the point in history commencing on 1st January 1971. The basic concept of the leasehold system in the Australian Capital Territory was maintained and jealously guarded all that time. I will go on to give a further example of the type of statement which was made. On Wednesday, 17th March 1971, the leading article in the ‘Canberra Times’ carried the headline: ‘Unique Social Experiment’. The article goes on to say:
The great diversity of the views expressed in the columns of this newspaper and elsewhere in the ACT about the changes in the Territory’s land charges introduced on 1st January are the best argument in favour of a full-scale debate in Parliament on the administration of the leasehold land tenure system of the ACT and, later! a full and expert inquiry.
The article states further:
There is a strong suspicion that a unique social experiment undertaken by enlightened men who had seen the evils that flowed from the wholesale alienation of land by the Crown and who were determined to prevent a repetition of this in the new Territory, could in the end become no more than an empty legalistic shell.
The article then states:
The exchange of views made public,-
This is talking about the expressions of opinion published in the Press - mainly in this newspaper, should be sufficient indication to the Government that high-handed bureacrats tampering with land tenure in the A.C.T. is not acceptable.
The article states further:
The original principle of leasehold land tenure itself could be at stake-
I suggest that it is at stake. The article continues: to place the acquisition of land within easy reach of all, to prevent the ruinous speculation in land that is crippling urban development in other cities, and to retain for the Crown a permanent source of revenue in the form of land rent.
Again on Friday, 2nd April 1971, an article which appeared in the ‘Canberra Times* read in part:
The discussion about the nature of the changes introduced by the latest ordinances has been clouded by emotion, side-tracked by vested interests, and confused by administrative irrele vancies in which the essence of leasehold is being sacrificed for a mess of allegedly simplified procedures and imaginary political advantages. Worst of all, there is an obstinate refusal, even by people who should know better, to admit the proven, serious, and self perpetuating financial and social disabilities inherent in freehold tenure.
The article continues:
The heart of the leasehold concept is that the ownership of the land remains forever with the Crown and that the land is leased for a rental that rises as the unimproved capital value of the land increases. An immediate corollary of this premise is that the lease of a block of land does not require an outlay of cash by the lessee: Payment in cash has always been a specific characteristic of transactions involving the transfer of ownership of land under the freehold system.
I want the Senate to take note of the next point. The article continues:
Freehold discriminates in favour of the wealthy - freehold land is the most expensive of commoditieswhereas under true leasehold poor and rich alike have a chance.
At a later stage the article states:
It is imperative that the ordinances be disallowed by Parliament and that an expert and public inquiry seek ways to save the leasehold concept in practice as well as in law.
I wish to quote also the final paragraph of the leading article in today’s ‘Canberra Times’. The full article would be available to honourable senators in the Parliamentary Library. I admit that in quoting a part of it I am taking it out of context, but it is necessary for me to do so because of the limitation of time which is placed on me. The final paragraph of this leading article reads:
What is in question also is whether a government has the right to alter by simple administrative edict the Act of Parliament that established that the lease of land in the ACT would yield an annual rent to the Crown in perpetuity. The legal, social, and economic questions raised by the Government’s administration of the ACT’s land tenure system will be resolved only when they are referred to a full scale expert inquiry.
I wish to deviate for a moment at this point to read for the benefit of the Senate the appropriate section of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910- 1959. Section 9, which deals with the question of the leasehold system being applied to land in the ACT, reads:
No Crown lands in the Territory shall be sold or disposed of for any estate of freehold, except in pursuance of some contract entered into, or the right to enter into which existed before the commencement of this Act. . . .
The important point about section 9 of the Act is that no Crown land in the Territory shall be sold or disposed of for any estate of freehold except in pursuance of some contract entered into. That sets the seal on the possibility of the Government at any stage changing the land tenure system of the ACT to a freehold system. I want to point out in the time available to me that while the Government has not, by the ordinances which came into effect on 1st January of this year, effected a total change to a freehold system it has effected a change to a freehold system in practically every respect save the one which is conferred in the normal course of events in a land transaction, namely, a title upon the purchaser. Insofar as I can determine the question at this point of time we have under the provisions, of, I think, clause 18 (2) of the ordinance a situation where the Minister may if he wishes - it is entirely up to him - levy a rent of 5c a year. Would anybody in his right senses agree that that represents a leasehold proposition? There is no compulsion upon the Minister to levy the 5c rental, but he may feel at some point in history that the ends of his case will be served by requiring the payment of a rental of 5c a year. I do not want to dwell on this point, except to say that the ordinance is not terribly specific because it does not say whether the rental of 5c shall accumulate or whether the Minister shall be satisfied to receive 5c in 1975 and forget about it until 1982. Once this ordinance becomes law any change in it will be brought about by the rather simple administrative procedure of an amendment. There is no guarantee given anywhere, nor can there be a guarantee, that the rent for this property will remain at 5c. It may well be that at some time in the future circumstances will dictate that the figure be raised to $5 a year or $50 a year or some other amount. I pose that problem at this point because I think it is something that will need to be clarified. In an article which appeared in the Melbourne ‘Age’ of Wednesday, 24th March 1970 on the subject of property investment, the journalist John Mitchell wrote:
One way to reduce the cost of a real estate project is to lease the site from a public authority.
We have the very essence of this in Canberra. We have the leasing of a site which is held in perpetuity by the Crown in the name of the people of this country.
A further observation, and I believe a very important and significant one, was made in a submission to the Cabinet by a Mr R. S. Prentice. An article in the ‘Age’ of 10th February 1970 points out:
Of all the points made this week in the ritualistic submissions by pressure groups to Federal Cabinet, one, at least, touched a highly sensitive public nerve - the crippling cost of home building blocks for young Australians.
The article states that, in the course of his submission, Mr R. S. Prentice, the President of the Master Builders Federation, told Cabinet that the average cost of land had leapt by 182 per cent between 1951 and 1969, while the average cost of a house, despite increased sizes and improved specifications, had risen by 68 ?er cent. Mr Prentice is reported as having said:
High land prices are delaying home ownership for many people. They are a major burden for persons on middle incomes and the family man and they- limit the number of houses which need to be built.
This is at the very heart of the present debate. The land in Canberra is held in perpetuity in the name of the Crown for the use of the people of the A.C.T. If we are to pursue the concept upon which this city was established and has grown we should take adequate steps to ensure that there is no disturbance of the basis upon which land is made available for the people of the A.C.T. As I mentioned a while ago in my reading of a leading article from the Canberra Times’, while we retain a leasehold system the rich and poor alike are placed on the same basts. My colleague, Senator Milliner, will bring out some more important points later in the debate concerning the problems faced by young people purchasing land.
I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the ‘Age’ on 27th May. This quotation will conclude my quotations from what I described earlier as informed sources of public opinion. The article states:
Less and less couples will be able to afford a home of their own, in the future, a speaker on land development told the National Housing Industry Association convention at Surfers Paradise yesterday.
Land prices in Melbourne in the past 10 years have risen more than 30 per cent.
Hooker Rex Estates general manager, Mr T. A. Dalton, said: ‘I see only problems in ever increasing numbers’.
It is worth repeating that Mr T. A. Dalton, the General Manager of Hooker Rex Estates, said that he sees only problems in ever-increasing numbers in relation to the availability of land for the building of homes. In the ‘Australian’ of 13th October 1970 Mr Whitlam’s comments on this subject are also reported. Nobody can deny the tremendous interest which Mr Whitlam has shown in urban development and the availability of land upon which young Australians can build their homes, castles or, as it were, refuges from the problems and vicissitudes of life. A home is something that ought to be available to every Australian and the national Parliament should be doing everything possible to facilitate this end. It should not be destroying the opportunities in a unique area of Australia which has been developed on the basis of the availability of land on a leasehold system. We are now at the cross roads, as it were, in the concept of a leasehold system of tenure. We are about to destroy something which is the envy of every other city in Australia.
– What does a young person who wants a block of land in Canberra have to pay for it at present?
– The average price of land throughout Australia is in the vicinity of $4,000 at the moment. The average price of land at the first land sales in Canberra was $3,200 and at the second it was, I think, $3,050.
– What will be the expected sale price under the reserve price scheme?
– I am glad the honourable senator raised that. Let me point to the situation which will occur shortly in the district of Tharwa. Honourable senators will be aware that approximately 17 per cent of the land in the Australian Capital Territory is still freehold. It represents something like 92,000 acres. Some very elaborate schemes have been proposed for the development of land in the outer areas for what is called gracious living.
– They are 5 acre blocks.
– They are 5 acre blocks with all the amenities that one can possibly imagine. The longer the acquisition of this land is delayed the greater will be its value and the greater will be the opportunity for those who are the present proprietors of the land to enhance its value by the schemes which they are proposing. They may be fair dinkum about the schemes but they will run into some difficulties about town planning and so on. Nevertheless I believe that they could argue that they were putting up a reasonable proposition. The delay will increase the cost of the land in that area so that when it is acquired ultimately, as undoubtedly it will be, the additional factor of gracious living which has been built into it will have to be paid for by purchasers of the land. It will be an additional factor in the total cost of the development of the block of land to be made available to the prospective purchaser of the leasehold. The Government has gone to great pains to ensure that the land will still be called leasehold even though the purchaser may not have to pay any rent. If he does, the highest amount, according to the Ordinance before us, will be 5 cents, I presume, a year.
At this point I should like to mention some statistics which were made available to Senator Kennelly recently by Senator Cotton, I presume in reply to a question on notice. It is pointed out in the document that in the last 20 years - this is the significant point because that is the period at which reassessments of property are made- that is, from 1950 to 1970, the rent which the Commonwealth received from the leasing of land in the Australian Capital Territory rose from $92,604 te $2,760,146. In other words, in 20 years there has been an increase of 300 per cent in the rental paid to the Government. It is significant also that since the last inquiry was made into the land tenure system in 1965, the rent which has been produced by the leasing of blocks of land has increased from $1,210,440 to $2,760,146. In effect, there has been an increase of slightly in excess of 100 per cent in the rent available to the Government as a consequence of leasing land in the Australian Capital Territory. This sum of money which goes into the Government’s coffers has enabled, and in greater measure in the future will enable, the Commonwealth to provide the services, amenities and so on which are required in the Australian Capital Territory.
As I have pointed out, the new system came into effect on 1st January 1971. For the information of honourable senators who do not know this, let me say that once an Ordinance is promulgated it has the immediate effect of law, so this law has applied in the Australian Capital Territory since 1st January this year. The system is virtually, let me suggest, a freehold system. The most objectionable feature of it is that we have Crown land in the Australian Capital Territory available in substantial quantity. People require the land and it should be made available to them at a very nominal sum so that they can acquire a home and all the necessary things associated with a home. From time to time we talk here about the problems confronting young people in providing themselves with a home - in the case of new arrivals, of establishing themselves in this country - and of providing a decent future for themselves and their families. Surely the basic thing must be the acquisition of a home, yet from the old obnoxious system of premiums which was introduced in 1951 in relation to the purchase of land in the Australian Capital Territory we have built up a system whereby the Government sets against a block of land its proportion of the cost of developing the area. As a result of this, at the last 2 sales in Canberra something in excess of $3,000 was paid for a block of land. Surely this must cut into the savings of people because in this day and age it is a pretty exacting business and a difficult task to acquire $3,000. The Government has facilitated the purchase of land on the basis of payment of one-quarter of the cost. My colleague, Senator Milliner, will deal with that aspect more adequately shortly.
The future financing of the development of Canberra will be on the same basis as has applied to and, let me suggest, bedevilled municipal councils throughout Australia for many years. This is the system of rating based upon an assessment - a judgment - of the cost of providing services and amenities in a community based on a period of only 12 months. That is the basis of rating. You budget for a 12 months performance and so you strike a rate based upon the valuation of a property multiplied by the rate in the $1. That is the normal system of raising rates to cover the cost of services for the year. But that is all that it does. Any thought of providing something for the future of the Australian Capital Territory, as has been available up to the present time, is virtually destroyed by this system. It is remarkable that for so long we have persisted on the basis of reassessment only at 20-year intervals. What a remarkably stupid and inefficient system that has been.
By that system I might have bought a block of land 17 years ago next to your block of land which you bought 20 years ago. In the period of great development which has taken place in the post-war years - this is the period with which we arc concerned mainly because it is the period in which the problems have arisen - you have reached the end of your 20 year term so you are reassessed and up goes the value of your property, probably manyfold We have the famous Esmonds case which triggered the whole business and which caused Prime Minister Gorton to make his statement on 5th May 1970 about a change of landlord. To get back to the 20 year term, you are reassessed and I am not. I go on for another 3 years before my property is reassessed. The system contains the greatest inequities that one could possibly imagine. Municipal councils throughout Australia have been required by Act of Parliament to cause a just and equitable assessment to be made of each and every property in the municipality. I have presided over meetings dealing with this matter year after year. The local council or other relevant authority concerned in the making of assessments has caused a just and equitable assessment to be made of each and every property in the municipality or in the district, call it what you like. They have been required to do this, placing every property on an equal footing. By that system you do not get inequalities and such dramatic situations as arose in the Esmonds case in which the property valuation of $30,000 was increased suddenly to $240,000, or whatever it was. In any case the increase was dramatic. It highlighted the inadequacy, the inequity and inequality of the system.
I cannot find any reasons for the system having been introduced. Until 1935 it had been necessary to make reassessments it 10 year intervals. In 1935 for some reason the period was changed to 20 years. It would be reasonable to expect that prob lems would arise in a period of 20 years. In the last 20 years we have seen the most dramatic growth in property ownership in our history. Realising the problems inherent in the system I cannot understand why someone in Australia did not take steps to alter it. It was only in the course of an address at an election campaign that the Prime Minister said that as from 1st January 1971 the basis of the land tenure system of the Australian Capital Territory would be altered. The points that he made and the arrangements that would be needed were affirmed by a statement made by the Minister for the Interior on 22nd October. In future it will still be necessary to make revaluations and we are not getting away from the principle that from time to lime properties will have to be revalued. It will be necessary for them to be revalued as has always happened in the past, but it will happen at more frequent intervals.
The proposition is to change the land tenure system of the Australian Capital Territory, but it would have been so simple for the Governnent to maintain that basic principle which was established originally for this city by retaining the leasehold system. The problems which have arisen have been purely administrative and could have been overcome by simple amendments to the law to provide for revaluations of properties to be made at intervals of, say, not more than 3 years. By a simple Act of Parliament we could have amended the law relating to the level of the rental to be paid. The 5 per cent could have been changed to a more appropriate figure based on an assessment of a property and the value of the dollar. This situation reminds me at a person who, because he has a puncture in the tyre of his motor car, tosses out the car when it would be so simple to mend the puncture and put the car back on the road, lt is a matter of tossing out the baby with the bath water. But this is what the Government has done. The Government has decided that a freehold land system should be available to all people of Australia, and all sorts of arguments and outmoded theories have been brought up about people of the Australian Capital Territory receiving preferential treatment compared with other people of Australia. For this reason it has been decided to amend the law to put the people in the Australian Capital Territory on a more equitable basis.
I remind the Senate that on 5th May 1970 when the Prime Minister made his statement about the change in the land tenure system for the Australian Capital Territory he pointed out, as I believe he thought it proper to do, that there would not be greater revenue available to the Government as a consequence of this action. That brings in a very interesting proposition. If no more revenue will come into the Government’s coffers as a result of this and there is ample evidence that the business community of Australia stands to gain by a change in the system, the ordinary property owner or householder of Canberra will be required to pay substantially more each year into the national revenue than is currently the case. There is no question that in the past, and particularly when this obnoxious premium system first came into operation in 1951, this system was needed and was brought about largely, if not almost wholly, by the fact that too few blocks of land were available to meet the reasonable needs of people of the Australian Capital Territory.
Surely we must concede that if there is a demand for land which is owned by the Crown and if people have to work here and to establish homes here enough blocks of land should be made available to provide for their reasonable needs. There is no doubt that it would have been a simple matter to decide the number of blocks that would have to be provided. I think it would be conceded that people in the Australian Capital Territory are not land speculators in the sense that we find in other parts of Australia. Their purpose in acquiring a block of land would be to build a home. One would think that it would have been a simple matter to decide the number of blocks of land to meet the reasonable needs of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. But that was not the case. There was a clamour and contest for the available blocks of land and this obnoxious premium system came into being. The situation has developed since then and the premium system is now perpetuated in the law as it will relate to the land tenure system of the Australian Capital Territory.
When we depart from the leasehold system as it has applied here in the past, when we bear in mind that this is a city in which there must be an availability of land and no impediment to the ability of a Government to carry out redevelopment programmes or to provide for changes in the development of an area to enable it to conform with changing patterns in society and changing needs of the community, and when we bear in mind also the dramatic growth of the community of Canberra we realise that there must be no impediment to the Government’s resumption of land for redevelopment and things of that kind. Initially, based on the Burley Griffin plan, a population of 75,000 was expected in the Australian Capital Territory, but now it is confidently predicted that by the turn of the century it will reach 400,000. If we depart from the leasehold system we add to the already great problems of land development. But why, in the name of heaven, do we need to change the system in the Australian Capital Territory to make it conform to the pattern of cities throughout the rest of Australia? Surely any of us who have any idea of urban development must concede that municipal authorities throughout Australia have very great problems. I suggest that it is largely because of the system which has applied here since federation and the establishment of the city of Canberra that we have avoided these problems. Certainly there has been an availability of finance to the Administration which has enabled us to iron out many of the problems which have bedevilled and are continuing to bedevil cities in other parts of Australia.
When we see in the cities and provincial towns throughout Australia the problems which have arisen as a consequence of this annual value system or the pure rating system which is applied, surely we must shudder at the thought of introducing such a system into the Australian Capital Territory. I say that it is a bad thing and that it ought to be resisted with all the vigour and force that we can possibly apply to it. A very famous Australian, Mr Justice ElseMitchell, has taken a great interest in this general question of land tenure, the leasehold system and so on in the Australian Capital Territory. During a recent address this learned gentleman made the observation - I shall give the general purport of his remarks - that we should attempt to revert all property in Australia to a leasehold system over a period of 50 years and that it would be a good thing if we could achieve this. Mr Justice Else-Mitchell has given a great deal of study and thought to this question. In addition we have that quite outstanding group of people based in the city of Melbourne who compose the Land Values Research Group. This is one of those organisations which have showered a great deal of correspondence upon honourable senators. 1 have deeply appreciated what the Land Values Research Group has done because it has cleared my mind on a great many of the issues which confused me greatly when the idea of a change in the land tenure system of the Australian Capital Territory was first propounded. I express my gratitude to this organisation and to the hundreds of other people throughout Australia who are interested in the general question of the land tenure system throughout this nation.
Having given a great deal of study to it over the years and having, almost without reservation, made the judgment that a leasehold system is far preferable to a freehold system of land tenure, I remind the Senate that the Land Values Research Group and, no doubt, many other people would be prepared to come to Canberra at their own expense and give evidence to any committee that this Parliament decided to establish to investigate the whole question of land tenure in the Australian Capital Territory. I have this offer in writing from the Group. I am indebted to Mr Frank Brennan for the wonderful historical record provided in his book Canberra, City in Crisis’. It gave me some of the best background to the development system of the city of Canberra and the basic concept of the leasehold system as it has applied to this city, and to many other aspects and factors concerned with the life and development of the city of Canberra. So I pay a tribute to him, too.
I have dealt with the payment of rent. One of the matters which the Senate has been objecting to quite vigorously in recent times is a discretion which may lie with a Minister to do something or to not do something according to his own views. We have insisted so much in the course of the passage of legislation through this chamber that there be established or laid down criteria upon which the Minister is required to make a judgment. Furthermore I point out at this time that the Senate may very well question whether the changes in the system, as proposed in this Ordinance, might not have been more appropriately dealt with by substantive legislation. As I pointed out, section 9 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act sets the basis upon which the development of this land tenure system in the Australian Capital Territory has grown. Any system which purports or proposes to change the basis of the land tenure system in this city would surely be more appropriately dealt with by substantive legislation. I do not think it is appropriate that the change be made by subordinate legislation. 1 raised this matter with a number of councils with whom I conferred on these matters. I believed then - and I still believe - that a matter of such far reaching importance and with such far reaching implications as a change in the land tenure system in the A.C.T. should have been carried out by substantive and not subordinate legislation.
There are a great many points which one could make. For instance, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which is the Committee to which I have suggested the examination of the land system and the administration of the system in the A.C.T. be referred, has just completed a reference. Last Thursday it presented to the Senate a report on Sunday observance in the A.C.T. This Committee would be available, I would imagine, immediately to undertake an examination of the land tenure system. It is an expert Committee, lt has dealt with a great many references in recent times. I have every reason to believe that the reports which have been provided and the judgments which have been made, as embraced and embodied in these reports, have been very helpful to community life in the Australian Capital Territory. I would think that, by and large, the Canberra community would be very happy to see the Committee - wilh the expertise, the knowledge and the interest that the Committee has - undertake such an inquiry.
The Minister, in the course of his remarks in the other place, on the subject of the change in the land tenure system, referred to the fact that the Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, Mr Pead, was in favour of a change in the land tenure system consistent, as 1 understood the Minister, with the proposals of the Government. But Mr Pead went on to say that he, too, believed that the matter should have been examined by some properly constituted committee. The land tenure system is the greatest single cause of discontent in the A.C.T. As 1 said at the commencement of my remarks - and I must conclude my remarks shortly because of the time factor - I regard the observations which have been made in the ‘Canberra Times’ and various other sections of the media which I have quoted, as giving a reasonable reflection of the views of the people of the Australian Capital Territory. I do not propose for a moment to put to the Senate that everybody in the A.C.T. is in favour of this proposition or that a great body of opinion throughout Australia would be against the proposals and in favour of the retention of the former system. I believe that what I have quoted is a reasonable reflection of the views of people who are interested in the subject of land tenure and who are deeply concerned to ensure the preservation of this unique system upon which the city of Canberra has developed. I refer to people such as engineers, researchers into urban development, town planners and people concerned with social matters and matters which affect the everyday lives of the ordinary people of the community.
I believe that, if the Senate were to agree to set up a committee to which this subject could be referred, it would be overwhelmed by tremendously valuable evidence which could be given by groups such as engineers, architects and people of this kind who have an abiding interest in ensuring that the best possible system of land tenure be provided and that the best possible opportunity be provided to the people of Australia to have the opportunity to purchase land without drawing upon their very meagre reserves so that the funds available to them can be applied immediately to the acquisition of a home rather than their having to go into second and third mortgages with the punitive and crippling interest rates that are charged these days. I believe that this society would be a better one if, rather than taking steps which diminish the opportunity for people to acquire land to build their castles or their refuges, we took steps to ensure that every possible facility is provided to enable them to buy land at the lowest possible cost so that they can put their meagre savings into the provision of a home. It worries and concerns me deeply that these people who save $3,000 or $4,000 are obliged to commit this amount of money to the purchase of land when the ultimate object is not the purchase of the land but the provision of a home for themselves. I am not concerned if their capital is not meagre but by and large the average workman in the Australian community has not a great deal of money available to him. He should be able to put the money that he has saved into his home.
Legal questions about facts which will be brought out in greater detail later should be canvassed. One concerns the fact that the Minister may cancel a contract. Any person contemplating lending money on a mortgage on a kind of contract which could be terminated by the Minister - never mind whether it is because of a default or a breach in the carrying out of the terms of the contract - would be wary. The proviso enabling the Minister to cancel a contract would destroy the possibility, I suggest, that anybody could raise a mortgage on the property.
– Has this ever happened?
– I do not know whether it has happened. The new land tenure system is only just starting to apply. Similarly there is a companies ordinance or companies legislation which, I believe, provides that building societies can lend only on a first mortgage. It has been suggested seriously by legal opinion that the balance of the purchase price of a block of land - that is, the 75 per cent which may be left after a person has paid his 25 per cent - may very well be regarded as a first mortgage. That destroys any possibility of a person raising finance through a building society. 1 have canvassed many of the points which have come out, which have been highlighted and which have been exposed to the light of day since the Government’s proposal to change the land tenure system was first raised. No doubt other speakers will deal with other aspects of the matter.
I guess the Government will attempt to justify the changes in the system on the basis of the problems which arose under the old system. Principally those problems arose because of the ineffectiveness of the Government in meeting a situation which did not arise in 1970 during a by-election campaign for the seat of Canberra but which have existed in this system for years. It is a reflection on the inability of the Government, the inactivity of the Government and the inattentiveness of the Government to the problems of the people of the Australian Capital Territory that this matter has arisen. I suggest that when the idea of changing the land tenure system was first raised, on 5th May 1970 during a by-election campaign, the people of the ACT said, at the ensuing by-election, what they felt about it. They gave no mandate to the Government. The Liberal Party candidate was soundly defeated at the byelection. The Government cannot in any circumstance claim that a mandate was given to it at that election to change the land tenure system.
Having studied all the pros and cons of this matter, available to me from the many sources of information provided equally to honourable senators on all sides of the Parliament, I believe that any attempt to change the land tenure system would be a retrograde step. It would be disastrous. This is a unique system. It has been suggested that it is an example that should be followed by the rest of Australia, a step which might very well be taken in the future, consistent with recommendations by Mr Justice Else-Mitchell. Any attempt to change the system is a very retrograde step indeed and it ought to be resisted with the utmost vigour.
Because of the complexity of the system, because of the lack of answers to many questions raised about it in the past, because of the general discontent of the people in the Canberra community - now numbering about 140,000 - it would be proper in all the circumstances to look into the land tenure system. The Government thought it proper that we should look into the rationalisation of the milk industry in the Australian Capital Territory, fruit and vegetable marketing, Sunday observance and so on. Surely to goodness the thing that has been bedevilling the society in Canberra for so many years is the land tenure system. If the Government believes that the community in general accepts its proposals, it has nothing to fear about an inquiry because it would come down in support of those proposals. I do not believe that the Government has support in this matter. That is why the Government is resisting so vigorously any attempt to refer this matter for proper examination. I deplore that attitude.
I invite the Senate to have proper regard to all the facts which I have attempted, in my rather inadequate way, to bring out in the course of my introduction of this debate. I hope that anything I have omitted will be adequately brought forward and canvassed by other speakers. I urge the Senate to give this Australian community a bit of a go. The people of Canberra have totally inadequate representation. They have one member in the Federal Parliament and they have a semi-elected Advisory Council. As I have said in the past in debates on this matter, it is the Senate which is the forum for airing the problems of the people of the Australian Capital Territory, particularly on subjects as important as this. The people of Canberra are not different from the people in the rest of Australia. The people of Canberra should not be required to carry the total burden - I do not suggest that they will be - of the cost of developing the high standard of facilities provided for the Australian community in this city. An attempt should be made to put the people here on some sort of rational basis with the rest of the Australian community so that a proper judgment can be made as to what they ought to pay and what the Administration of the nation ought to pay.
Notwithstanding the tremendous interest of the Senate in these sorts of matters, we are not in a position to make a judgment on all the facts involved in this situation. There is only one way to obtain that judgment and that is to refer the matter to a fair and impartial committee. I suggest that the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is a fair and impartial committee. All its judgments have proved it to be so, at least in my experience of it over the last 4 or 5 years. I believe it would be an appropriate act on the part of this chamber to refer this question for examination by that Committee or some other properly constituted committee of the Parliament.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! ls the motion seconded?
– I second the motion and ask for leave to make my remarks at a later stage.
– The City Area Leases Ordinance 1970 and the Leases (Special Purposes) Ordinance 1970 rationalise the system of land charging in Canberra, thus achieving equity between individual lease holders while ensuring a return to the Australian taxpayer. I have a fully prepared statement on this matter which I shall have to deliver, quite properly, on behalf of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt). However there are certain observations one would need to make briefly in addition to that statement in order to answer the comments made by Senator Devitt. It is not correct to say that the announcement by the then Prime Minister in May 1970 of the Government’s intention was the starting point of this matter. The recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory following its inquiry in 1965 led to the setting up of a departmental inquiry which in turn led to the Government’s decision to implement the new scheme on 1st January 1971 and the introduction of the ordinances under discussion.
Senator Devitt said there had been great concern about this matter in the Australian Capital Territory and elsewhere. The view expressed to me is that debate in the Press has been limited largely to comments by a few small groups in Victoria and in New South Wales and their members writing as individuals. Senator Devitt suggested there should be no initial cash outlay for a lease. If the Government borrows at 7 per cent for land development in the Australian Capital Territory and leases the land at 5 per cent-
Hie ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood) - Order! It being 2 hours after the time of meeting of the Senate, orders of the day will be called on pursuant to standing order 127.
Motion (by Senator Cotton) agreed to:
That consideration of orders of the day be postponed to a later hour of the day.
– To continue with my remarks, that being the case, obviously, as the cost of development is equal to the value of land rent, the Government will bs unlikely to recoup the taxpayers’ money expended on development and interest. Senator Devitt claimed that rental revenue had increased by 300 per cent in 20 years. The comment one might offer in reply is that this rent has been insufficient to repay capital and interest charges in respect of the cost of land development in Canberra. Senator Devitt was concerned about the acquisition of freehold land and about more being acquired in the future. Action to acquire significant areas of freehold land is under way. The Government has announced its intention of acquiring all the remaining freehold land, and legislation to control the subdivision and use of freehold land will be introduced shortly. Negotiations are proceeding currently for the acquisition of the ‘gracious living’ area referred to.
The changes before us have been twice debated. A motion of disallowance of these ordinances was lost in the other place recently. A motion of disallowance against a preliminary ordinance important to the introduction of the new scheme was rejected in this chamber in October last year. At that time Senator Devitt, unsupported by any of his colleagues, properly said: ‘The ordinance will give the green light for the approval of the Senate to the introduction of a new system’. Understandably, the Government went ahead and over 750 leases have been sold under the new scheme. The change introduces reserve prices to ensure that the total investment in making Canberra lands available for lease is speedily returned for re-use in the interests of the Australian taxpayer. Prices for residential land will reflect the cost of providing it. Business lease reserves will be 75 per cent of the current unimproved value. Leases for churches, charities and clubs still will be available on specially favourable terms.
Secondly, the change removes anomalies which acted to the detriment of Canberra leaseholders and Australian taxpayers. Land rent is reduced to 5c per annum, payable as and when demanded, while rates charges based on new valuations for rating are increased to a level which ensures that there will be no reduction in overall income. The change introduces a premium charge upon variation of lease purpose.
Finally, the scene is set for realistic municipal accounting in clearly understandable terms. Before 1971 a lessee paid a premium only if competing for a particular lease, plus land rent assessed on values reappraised every 20 years, plus low annual general, water and sewerage rates. The rates were not related to the cost of maintaining the city. The rents were not rationally related to any system of repaying development costs and bringing a profit to the Crown. The way is now open for rational municipal type accounting to ensure that in the municipal area Canberra citizens will pay for the services they demand. Under the new arrangements, lessees who acquired leases recently or who have had their land reappraised recently will pay less in 1971 than they did last year. Others will pay more. In ironing out inequities, this is unavoidable. Businessmen, who represent 3 per cent of all land holders, now pay 42 per cent of total rates revenue. Previously they paid 35 per cent of all income.
Average total rates, taking all land holders into account, are $140 per annum, plus excess water charges. By way of comparison, the average total for, say, Camberwell, in Victoria, is $159 and not, contrary to figures circulated by antagonists of the change, over $500. Continuation of the old rent assessed at 5 per cent per annum on valuations reappraised every 20 years was unworkable and unjust. To retain it without rationalisation would mean that lease holders with identical blocks continued to pay widely different annual land rents. New residents would subsidise old until revaluation; then the oldest residents plus the newest residents would subsidise those in between, in a shifting pattern which would satisfy none. Rates would have to remain artificially below the costs of maintaining the city if the burden of rates and reappraised rents was not to become intolerable, selectively, for lessees. There was, and is, no possibility of simply changing the terms of existing leases to provide for more frequent reappraisal of leases in any way which would meet general acceptance.
The Government’s adopted arrangement is simple, effective and easy to understand. It achieves equity of payment according to values set at the same date. It achieves speedy return of land investment and provides the basis for sound municipal accounting while continuing the leasehold system which has assisted the orderly development of Canberra. It ensures that the Commonwealth will benefit from any approved change of use which enhances the value of a lease.
Let us be clear on what disallowance of the ordinances means. People of Canberra will be required to pay again under the old land rent formula, back-dated to 1st January, with such increases in rent as progressive revaluation dictates, plus the new general rates based on the new valuations, plus the new water rate and the sewerage rate - in short, very much more than they are reasonably being asked to pay today. That burden will fall least on rich corporations but most on citizens, young and old, rich and poor. The anomalies and inequities will be reintroduced deliberately and with forethought by the agents of disallowance.
Disallowance of these ordinances would leave bidders at the next auctions without any idea about future financial commitments. These auctions cannot be deferred or cancelled without affecting the building industry and without creating artificial land shortages. Yet it is difficult to see how auctions could go forward on the old basis, about which Opposition speakers in another place have already conceded many difficulties. Considerable confusion would arise in property dealings. Shortages arising from land sale delays would encourage speculation and inflation.
What were the problems inherent in the old scheme? By 1970 residential values in Canberra were rising on reappraisement by up to 15-fold while business values in the city were rising by up to 2,500-fold. Because land was leased at different limes, reappraisements fell due at different times. Thus lessees of adjacent land leasee! for identical purposes paid widely different rentals at any one time. Looking at pairs of residential blocks which now have identical unimproved values, we find 2 residential blocks in Deakin for which total outgoings were $84 and $254 per annum respectively and are now $230 each. For 2
In the business sector the same unequal pattern occurred. For 2 service station leases of similar value, one formerly paid $936 per annum and the other $8,600. They both now pay around $4,700. Of 2 adjoining shops, $880 each year was paid by one lessee while the other paid $3,300. They both now pay $3,200 per annum. How can any rational man defend and seek a return to such injustice? Indications were that increases in the value of land falling due for reappraisement in the 1970s and 1980s would dramatically increase land rent revenue from selective parts of the community. Such grave inequities would cause difficulty for lessees and difficulty for the Government, which would wish Canberra citizens to meet annual payments on an equitable, understandable and defensible basis.
The growing city of Canberra also faced problems over municipal income. There was a case for substantially increasing revenue, but a combination of high rates plus selective incidence of high land rents would have created financial difficulties for many people; and despite selectively rising rents, the system of offering land - that is, without demand for premium and with 5 per cent per annum of the unimproved value in rent - offered no certainty that the Commonwealth investment in land would be recouped.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in 1965 recognised some of the inherent problems when it recommended that there bc a departmental inquiry to examine the method of assessing land rent and rates with a view to ironing out the inequities that had arisen and producing a more equitable and constant formula. Alternatives studied covered more frequent reappraisal, lower percentage rentals or treating some part of land rent as a rates payment. For sound reasons the new scheme became the most feasible choice for the Government ensuring equity for all and rationally dealing with the problems in an understandable way.
So, anomalies and inequities inherent in the old system are now removed without any loss of revenue. The Commonwealth
Now, it has been suggested that shopkeepers and other people should get land without premium. In fact, during the 1920s bidders were required to bid the sum on which they were prepared to pay land rent. No lump sum payments were involved. The only immediate outlay was the first year’s land rent. But lessees often bid land rent beyond their capacity to pay. The system then had to be changed. Argument that lump sum payments are only now introduced by the new scheme ignores the facts.
– It is not suggested that the honourable senator did; but it is suggested that such arguments have been made. I am reading this as fast as I can in order to give some of the honourable senator’s colleagues a chance to speak. So, if he just listens carefully he will let somebody else have something to say.
– You put up an Aunt Sally and then knock it down.
– Not at all. Argument that lump sum payments are only now introduced by the new scheme ignores the facts. Such arguments have been made. People other than Senator Devitt have made arguments about this matter. Substantial premiums have been paid over the past decade. Two auctions have now been held under the new arrangements and the prices paid, despite reserve prices and ample offerings, are not very different from those previously paid.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in 1965
page 1024
supported the auction system. Under this system competitive bidding is bound to occur when business and favoured residential sites are offered, and premiums will always be paid in these circumstances. Premiums have no direct correlation with land supply. Since 1965 the blocks offered annually increased from 1,446 blocks to 2,274 blocks in 1970. The Department currently has some 80 blocks on hand for sale over the counter. But that surplus did not prevent competitive over the reserve bidding for particular blocks at the last March sale.
The Government is offering the cheapest fully serviced land in any capital city in Australia today; that is, about $2,500 a block. That ought to be the result of the Crown ownership of the freehold and needs no apology to Australian citizens. Even beyond that, the position of the young home seeker is protected perhaps to a degree which would excite envy elsewhere. Commissioner for Housing loans of $8,000 are available to home builders. Covenants in many residential leases enable a wide choice of building materials and low building values. But, more than this, many residential leases are offered under restricted auction conditions. Those genuine owner-builders who have not owned a lease in Canberra since 1962 can bid in circumstances of limited competition and secure a lease with a cash outlay of 25 per cent of the reserve price and with annual payments over 31 years - outgoings less than used to apply under the rental system.
Recent experience shows that the land supply is adequate. Bidders have been able to buy discriminately over the counter at leisure. The average sale price this year of fully serviced restricted residential leases within a few minutes of the heart of the city has been $2,130. The average minimum cash outlay was $528 where persons opted to purchase on terms. That is generous against any prevailing Australian standard. Certainly it is preferable to the situation last year when one or two lucky persons secured leases for a few dollars premium and a rental which might never repay the initial development cost plus interest charges. If any honourable senator regrets the passing of last year’s arrangements he is more liberal with the taxpayers’ money than the Government is prepared to be.
The changes have been welcomed by the people of Canberra and defended by such persons as Professor Arndt, an eminent member of the Australian Labor Party, and Professor Richardson of the Australian National University, as well as by diverse members of community organisations. The only argument against these ordinances was based on misconceptions and misinformed criticism coming from I or 2 small interstate organisations which, on the most charitable interpretation, have erroneously measured figures and comparisons to suit their shifting claims. When their claim that planning was jeopardised was disproved they moved in discomforted succession through charges that leasehold was becoming freehold, that Canberra folk were to be asked to pay too much, then too little, and now in correspondence addressed to honourable senators they allege a gift to the citizens of Canberra.
The quantum of an alleged gift is seen by those critics as the amount the Commonwealth forgoes through the abandonment of its claim, specified in old leases, to an annual rent. The antagonists of change claim that lessees can in some way capitalise the rent obligations thus abandoned, and in selling their properties at that capitalised figure can pocket the difference. This is theoretical nonsense, borne out most obviously by the evidence that prices bid for new land in March were not noticeably different from prices bid last November, and by evidence that prices for developed properties offered for sale have varied marginally between last year and this year, and because the continuing release of new land will always put a limit on what people can ask for older land.
The plain fact is that as the city grows and properties are revalued the 5 percent rent formula could, when added to realistic rating, impose such demands as to be confiscatory. In short the Government is giving up something it could not in the future in all conscience collect, and is relieving people of a burden they cannot in all conscience be asked to assume. It is a perversion of language to call this necessary remission a gift. The further plain fact is that through this remission of rent obligations it is possible to reconsider and adjust rates and to continue those adjustments as necessary, annually on modern valuations to pay for the management of the Canberra municipality. The critics seize on the case of those lessees who will pay less now, but ignore the many who will pay more in total now through substantial rates increases. They discount the obvious truth that in devising a system of charging which will apply uniformly to all in future on the basis of property valuation, the petty individual gains and losses alike must be ignored in the pursuit of the total long term good.
Those who agonise over a loss to the Commonwealth by an alleged gift to existing lessees ignore the reality of premium payments made in the past by many of those lessees - in one business case amounting to $3m for a 50-year business lease and in one residential case being $21,000 for a residential lease. They ignore the fact that most original lessees have sold out over the years and that most current lessees paid full market price for their properties. Those people selling now would not necessarily profit by the changed system.
Those who mourn the opportunities abandoned by the Government to make a fortune out of rent ignore the JanuaryMarch auction results which paid off the full costs of developing the land then sold, retained reversionary interest for the Commonwealth, yet netted a profit to the people of Australia of approximately $4.5m. The virtual immediate return of outlay and profit has its own value in a Commonwealth beset by demand for development cash. How much profit should the Commonwealth take out of land? If the Commonwealth were to take the maximum continuing return from the land as demanded by the critics of change we should cease the mealy-mouthed condemnation of land speculators elsewhere and agree that the Commonwealth would be the greatest shark of them all.
One of the antagonists of change is the much quoted Australian Labor Party member and author, Mr Frank Brennan. Honourable senators can judge the objectivity of his comments by noting his formal exposition of the changes in page 200 of his book published in January 1971 when the new scheme was fully known. There he deliberately omits reference to the reserve price system or premiums on change of purpose. Brennan’s prescription for Canberra is harsh beyond the wildest dreams of mediaeval tyrants or modern land sharks. To sum them up: Lessees to have no rights beyond continuing use of the land for sternly specified purposes; leases to be revalued annually; rents to be charged at the so-called full economic land value; and all increments in value to accrue to the Crown. I ask: Why isolate Canberra for this harsh, socialistic treatment which would appear to apply an average annual charge of about $1,000 for each existing Canberra lease? I point out to honourable senators that I reach this figure by first taking the present average unimproved value of all Canberra land parcels at $6,666 and calculating 15 per cent of that amount. The 15 per cent is Professor Arndt’s estimate of what is meant by full economic rent or unearned increment. Of course, Mr Brennan did not quantify his theories .so one must go to a more certain reference. What is being done is much in line with what our forebears intended for Canberra. Those early debates dealt with a land philosophy for an optimum city of 75,000 and not a dynamic city approaching 750,000 by the year 2000 AD. But the key thoughts were to avoid the evils of land speculation, to use the ownership of land to pay for Canberra’s development and to plan and develop a garden city.
Speculation in undeveloped land will continue to be avoided as the Commonwealth is the freeholder and sole land developer. Trading in leases developed largely by individual efforts has always been and continues to be properly profitable for individuals, but speculative manipulation of developed leases has been and still is controlled by lease purpose clauses and by controls over change of purpose. The old system demonstrably brought no assurance that in conditions of stable supply and demand and stable values the 5 per cent rental formula would ever pay off development costs and interest, let alone return a profit and so pay for Canberra. The new system guarantees speedy investment return and virtually guarantees a reasonable profit from the total land deal which can, if necessary, be seen against the accumulated past investment. The new system retains all - I repeat all - the planning and development controls attendant on the conception of the Canberra ideal.
It is completely incorrect to assert a move to freehold or to claim that a substantial rent is a basic feature of a lease. Land rent is not an essential element of leasehold. Many leasehold estates, both private and public, vary between a peppercorn rental with premiums, part annual rental and part premium, and premium only. There is no norm, either legally or in practice. One hears comment that surely there must have been a better way. Such hopes come from those people who are bewildered or lost in thinking for themselves, as well as from those still dreaming of using Canberra as a test bed for some ageing Georgian philosophies who press for public tribunals. Others, who attack the change, attack the administrators as the instrument of change. Where is one specific and positive proposal put forward by the critics? Honourable senators will search in vain for a detailed, costed and practical suggestion in any of the emotional arguments printed and thrown around about this matter. These identical critics and their confiscatory theories were dismissed summarily by Mr Justice ElseMitchell before the New South Wales Commission into rating.
Aspects of Canberra land planning development and administration have been subject to three full scale parliamentary scrutinies and report since 1955. The planning and development arm also came independently under full scale scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee in 1966. Those reports have been properly acted on. It cannot seriously be argued that the Government’s advisers in the three associated aspects of land, finance and law did not bring to this change all the objectivity and expertise long acknowledged by all members of Parliament. No land administration in the Commonwealth is kept so closely under public scrutiny as are the Canberra arrangments, or lives so closely to constant public demand for justification.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory recommended in 1965 that a departmental com mittee of inquiry be set up to examine the method of assessing land rent and general rates with a view to ironing out the inequities that have arisen and producing a more equitable and consistent formula. The Minister followed this recommendation and had an inquiry conducted. He had examined the method of assessing land rent and general rates and he has ironed out the inequities that existed. In doing this he has produced an equitable and consistent formula which is not only fair and reasonable to the landholders of Canberra but is also fair and reasonable to the taxpayers of Australia. What then is the case for an inquiry and what purpose would it serve?
It would not serve Canberra landholders. lt could only delay decisions, give rise to uncertainty where uncertainty has been guaranteed by the new ordinances and be an unjustifiably expensive and time wasting exercise. No justification has been given for any further inquiry. No valid criticism of the new arrangements has been made. No workable alternatives have been suggested by the many people who have discussed the problems inherent in the old scheme. Canberra now possesses all the elements of a progressive and efficient land system which includes land at reasonable prices; an effective and positive planning system; no speculation in undeveloped land; that land returns to the Crown upon expiration of the lease; a premium or betterment charge for a variation of lease purpose; an orderly pattern of development; equity for all landholders; and an adequate return to the taxpayers. Such a system needs no apology and warrants no inquiry; all land offered for lease under the direct authority of the Minister. Residential and business leases are sold publicly under advertised conditions and the uses of the land are publicly stated. Where special leases are negotiated for institutions the details are made public on request.
No change of lease purpose is possible except publicly through the courts. All building on the land is closely controlled in the interests of the lease contract. Breaches of leases are pursued with discretion, if necessary through the courts. Changes in the city plan are canvassed before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. Rates charges are opened for debate with the Advisory Council before changes are made. Valuations are made by valuers independent of the Minister and are open to three levels of appeal - to the Minister, an independent appeal board and the court. This is better than is obtained anywhere else in Australia. We have an effective arrangement as a consequence of an inquiry, set up as a result of a previous parliamentary inquiry. How many inquiries should we have before making positive decisions? Yet another inquiry could not improve the public safeguards. Nor could an expensive, delaying, distracting further inquiry establish a more sensible set of changes than those now introduced. The system is simple, straightforward, positive and equitable. As all honourable senators are aware I speak here for the Minister for the Interior whom I represent. I have spoken as quickly as 1 could in order that some other honourable senators will have a chance to speak before this debate concludes at 6 o’clock as arranged. We therefore strongly recommend that the sensible and appropriate changes which were virtually settled here last October be continued.
– It is now some months since this chamber debated an interim ordinance. On that occasion many of the basic principles which underly the ordinances now before this chamber were discussed at great length and in considerable depth. On that occasion the attitudes of both sides of the House were substantially presented. Therefore, perhaps it is not warranted on this occasion that there should be a recapitualtion of the principles which were canvassed during that rather protracted debate. However, it is important to note that these ordinances have attracted great interest and considerable concern in the Australian Capital Territory. It is appropriate that that should be the case. Ordinances of this character which deal with the questions of land tenure in the ACT are of great interest not only to the nation but also to the residents of Canberra and those who have theoretical interests in the question of land tenure of one kind or another.
In this matter the Australian Democratic Labor Party has had a great responsi bility - as it did on the occasion of the presentation of the interim ordinances - to examine the position as it saw it and to arrive at a decision as to what its attitude should be. We regarded this matter and we continue to regard it as important. We have brought to bear to the best of our ability the resources of our Party to determine what should be the most appropriate, just and effective resolution of this complex problem with which so many people are concerned. We have received many deputations from various interests about this matter. We have received voluminous presentations from individuals. We have been consulted by groups and organisations. The Democratic Labor Party has felt that it has had a duty and a responsibility to do this. That is why the Party delayed its final determination as to what its attitude should be on these ordinances until all those who reasonably wished to present their cases to the Party had had the opportunity of doing so, had seized that opportunity and had made their submissions.
I do not think that anybody who sought to approach our Party or any individuals who had particular and personal submissions went unanswered or unheard. In an area which is extremely complex the Democratic Labor Party has attempted to bring its best judgment to the resolution of the problem which is before the Senate today. Perhaps it is not inappropriate that one should refer to an excerpt on this occasion from ‘A Tale of Two Cities’. Honourable senators may well recall the opening paragraph of that famous book which stated:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way . . .
As this is a tale of one city it is not inappropriate to refer to ‘A Tale of Two Cities’ because in this complex situation there are very great diversities of thought and opinion. I have never gained the impression from all those who have approached us that they are actuated by self interest. Nobody could completely divorce himself from the personal equation. We know that. But there were those who came before us who were activated by many considerations of an impersonal character. There were those who primarily by correspondence were identified philosophically with the great question of land reform as a general principle. There were those who were actuated by the economic and financial consequences to the nation and the question of land tenure over the whole Australian continent. There were those who were regarding particularly the position of the residents of Canberra - this generation and the young people who are to come. In this mass of various submissions there are contradictions, confusions and controversions. Our task in trying to treat a way through these and establish an opinion was not easy. But we have studied the allegations of the injustice which would be wrought by the application of the new ordinances and the considered replies of the Department of the Interior to these specific allegations.
In a matter like this it is necessary to balance one against the other and to form one’s judgment. I cannot help feeling that many of the submissions were of a somewhat emotive character and in many cases they rested upon speculation and perhaps a sense of anxiety as to what might happen rather than a cold consideration of what actually had happened and the possibility as to whether it might happen in the future in some exaggerated form. It is no: possible legitimately to substitute speculation for a pragmatic analysis. Let us take some of the considerations. After all these are the things which must weigh upon one’s judgment: The leasehold system, a cherished system which was a concept in the early days of Federation and which ha* persisted up until now, was under challenge and in danger of dissolution and abandonment. While that might be held as an emotive concept it is contradicted by the facts because the leasehold system is not challenged. The legal concept of the leasehold system is that land is not held in fee-simiple, a rental is paid and a lease is determined. That principle is not abandoned. The only thing which is altered in that respect is the substitution of a nominal rental for what might be called a real rental’ under the former pure leasehold system. That does not destroy the concept of the tenure at all. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the rev- enue return from an individual block the substitution for what I call a real rental of the composite nominal rental plus a real municipal rate will give the same financial result without the disturbance of the concept of the leasehold principle.
It is important in a city such as Canberra which is not only the capital of the Australian Capital Territory but which is the capital of a great and ever greater nation that there should be retained some method of discipline which would enable this capital to be developed in the manner and with the status and image which we would expect a national capital to have. Under the leasehold system the contractual terms of the lease give some discipline over individual land holders and they are required to conform to standards and plans of development and town planning. If we abandon that system we might also abandon that opportunity for discipline. That has not been done. The fact that the leasehold system is retained gives opportunity for town planning and municipal discipline in the control of the national capital under the appropriate commission. In my opinion the argument that that discipline has been abandoned does not warrant consideration. The land has not been alienated from the Commonwealth. It remains the property of the Commonwealth subject to the lease in the hands of the individual lessee.
– Freehold.
– Freehold is purely a legal concept. In no sense is the proposed system freehold. It has all the attributes of leashold The question of title, the question of ownership and the question of control are merely theoretical propositions. To my mind, to say that it has other qualifications which make it defacto freehold cannot be substantiated. However, the leasehold system was producing certain very grave anomalies which were starting to bear most heavily on those who could least afford to bear them. They were bearing very heavily on young people who were coming in and taking up land in this developing city at a late stage. Those who had come in in early days, before the value of money had eroded, were holding leasehold at virtually a nominal rental compared with the present real value of property and young people were required to buy land at th; current inflated price.
– Was that the fault of the system or the administration?
– That, I say, was part of the system. Perhaps it could have been avoided but it would have meant the total disruption of the old system if it was qualified to provide for this anomaly and that anomaly. It was decided that these injustices could be avoided only by having a complete look at the present structure of the leasehold system in Canberra. From that the new ordinances which we are now discussing emerged. It was inherent in the very nature of things in Canberra that this system would have to be qualified in some way or other, and probably preferably in this way once inflation started to move the real value of land. For all its idealism, the. system could not stand up to the hard movement of prices in the modern economy, and what was intended to be a matter of distributive justice to land holders in this community was going to become an intolerable burden of injustice. Something had to be done about it. I think the solution which has been devised is appropriate. It will place no great hardship on the old holders of leases and it will be a great boon to the young people who are trying to buy land.
– They have to pay $3,000 for it.
– It is all right to say: They have to pay $3,000’. They always had to pay for the land. They never got the land for nothing. Even today they pay only onequarter of the reserve price, if they bid that price. If they bid above the reserve price they are able to secure finance.
– That is open to very serious question.
– Does Senator Devitt mean the question of law about the possibility of mortarging that land to secure finance?
– That is right.
– If the reserve price of land is, say, $3,000 and a person bids $2,000, bridging finance is made available by the Commonwealth for that intermediate figure of $1,000.
– At an interest rate.
– That is right at a not unreasonable interest rate. I am assured that any finance provided by the Commonwealth will be on such a basis that it will not impede the granting of a first morgage security over the land for the provision of finance from any housing or constructing authority to whom resort might be made by the landholder to secure finance for building. I am assured that whatever might be the nature of the loan given by the Commonwealth, it will not be such that it will provide a first mortgage security to the exclusion of any other organisation which is prepared to lend only on security.
– Where did you get your assurance from?
– I am assured that that is the position. I assume the Minister will be able to confirm that that is so. In the developing Canberra community we now have young people coming along who want to buy land. Reserve prices are determined. These young people are not required to bid against the world. Young people who come to Canberra and want to buy land after all, they would be our prime concern would come into the restricted auction group of people who do not have any land in the Australian Capital Territory. They are in a separate category in relation to bidding for land. A reserve price is determined at a lower level than in the other categories, and these people are in the market at that price. In the modern economy, nobody can say that it is beyond the means of young people to secure sufficient finance to pay onequarter of a reserve price which is determined at $2,000. I would find it very difficult to assume that that is beyond the reasonable competence of a young person or a young couple who want to establish their own home.
I believe that under the old system the average price paid for restricted land was more than $1,000. On the average, the new price is more than $2,000. That makes a difference of $1,000. In one case a quarter would be $500 and in the other case it would be $250. So the extra amount of cash to be found, even under the new system, is $250. But, of course, no lease rental has to be paid; so there is relief to the degree that this was formerly an additional burden on the young purchaser of land. In those circumstances, with all the solicitude I can command, I am unable to see that Canberra residents, particularly the new Canberra residents, who want to select their own land and build their own home will be gravely disadvantaged.
Let us look at the advantages that might accrue under the proposed new system. The Democratic Labor Party has always had a consistent point of view on this matter. It has always believed that what we call the normalisation of the situation in Canberra should be achieved as rapidly as possible. We have always pleaded that proper municipal authorities, operating with the normal functions of municipal authorities all over Australia, should be created. You, Mr Deputy President, having been the chairman of one of the major local governments in Queensland, would know that to endow a local area which has adequate municipal facilities with this status does confer on that area a dignity and a sense of responsibility that nothing else can. It invites the participation of citizens in the affairs of the municipality and the conduct of the affairs of their own district. There is no substitute for that.
That position is never likely to develop in Canberra unless we try to normalise its local organisations. Whether it was in relation to various taxes that have been imposed - the sewerage tax and other imposts of that nature - the Democratic Labor Party has been a consistent advocate that this should be the plan for Canberra. I think that when history is written the people who live here will acknowledge that, although at times they have been asked to assume some burdens that they otherwise may have escaped, they have been able to accept and to discharge responsibilities that otherwise would have been denied them. I feel that this attitude in relation to land tenure falls into such a category.
The effect of these ordinances will be to eliminate certain things, apart from those I have mentioned. People are now finding that their leases are becoming due for reappraisal, and such re-appraisals of rent occur at 20-year intervals. The first one may well come when the leaseholder has his family starting at university, when he is in the worst possible position to accept an increase in rental very greatly above what he was paying. If he manages to acquit himself of that new demand, at the end of the second 20 years when the rent is due for re-appraisal the land holder might be facing retirement, which is when he is least able to bear increased rental. These are the situations which inevitably developed once land started to move at this accelerated pace in the Australian Capital Territory. The point is that I cannot see any end - I doubt whether anybody can - to this process.
After all, Canberra develops in a pattern that is not completely normal and not in consonance with development in other parts of Australia. As yet some of the greatest Commonwealth departments have not yet been moved to the national Capital. When they are moved here, of course, there will be another surge forward in the demands for land. In addition to that, once a city reaches a certain size a self-generating process begins to operate, and that process is already operating in Canberra. As Canberra assumes more and more the character of a national capital processes will develop that are beyond the ability of the Government to control. Great national organisations are already making the national capital their place of resort. It will be found that this trend will continue to an increasing degree. It will be found that, for example, religious orders will make Canberra their headquarters. The final accommodation of the High Court of Australia in Canberra must in turn bring with it the ancillary services and support that is required by the supreme court of the nation. It will be found that Service groups and commercial organisations will, to an increasing degree, transfer their headquarters and national control officers to Canberra. These transfers, which will affect the growth of Canberra, will go on for years and years. As the problems of the present leasehold system are said to be the outcome of the rapid and over rapid development of Canberra this continuous process must be taken into consideration. It is inevitable that action of this nature will have to be taken as the consequences of not taking it would be absolutely impossible for many of the leaseholders in Canberra to bear. I know that a case has been put for the reference of an inquiry into the whole leasehold system in the Australian Capital Territory to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory. The Democratic Labor Party cannot see any merit in such a proposal. This matter has already been the subject of an inquiry by a departmental committee which, in its report, came up with certain recommendations from which the present proposals have emerged.
My Party has received a great deal of correspondence from the residents of the A.C.T. on this subject. This correspondence has been from professional people and people who are engaged in the actual transfer of land as well as from academics operating in the theoretical field. I would say that all the relevant proposals that might reasonably be advanced in relation to this matter have been presented to and considered by the authorities as well as by the Senate on this occasion. I do not see any purpose being served in further examining this matter. I can think of several disabilities that might be suffered by many people if instead of this matter being resolved now it were to be entrusted to a committee whose recommendation may take a considerable time to come forward. I think the principles are now clear. I think the course is unmistakable. I believe that it is a course that, if followed, will be of great benefit to Canberra and its citizens and will be ultimately of great benefit to the nation. I do think that many of the people who have presented much of the correspondence and who have been responsible for much of the representations are theoretically tied to principles associated with land tenure generally and are stating those principles away from the pragmatic situation in this capital. Their principles might well be in theoretical isolation, but they are not completely relevant, if they are substantially relevant, to the position in Canberra today. I am conscious of the fact that the matter we are dealing with is of very great importance. I hope we are all imbued with the one thought that politics should not be involved in any way whatsoever in the approach of any political paty on this issue. We want to do what is best for the national capital. We want to do what is best for Canberra as a city in its own right and for the people who reside therein. I think this matter has been thoroughly investigated with a sense of sincerity of purpose by all honourable senators who have been required to give their minds to it. In those circumstances, the DLP supports the proposed ordinances as presented and resists the motion for disallowance as moved by Senator Devitt as it also resists the proposal that this matter should be referred to a committee for further investigation. I am satisfied that the matter has been approached objectively, that all the issues have been canvassed and that the advantages and disadvantages have been weighed. The solution which has been proposed by the Government commends itself to the DLP as one which is in the interests of Canberra and the nation.
– I have precisely 4 minutes in which to address myself to this very important question. Obviously that is an impossibility. However, I do take up the point which was raised by Senator Byrne, who is the spokesman of the Australian Democratic Labor Party on this matter, about his Party being concerned as to the welfare of the youth of this nation - in this instance, the youth of the Australian Capital Territory. He did not answer the case which has been put that this proposal will result in the very reverse of what he hopes to achieve, namely, it will make it almost impossible for young married people to obtain land because of the changed circumstances. The amended system of land tenure in the Australian Capital Territory will mean that if 2 people who desire a block of land go to a ballot to obtain it the person with the highest bankroll will get it. It is an inescapable fact that the sons of the workers will be in an impossible position in regard to the obtaining of land compared to the richer people of the Australian Capital Territory.
It has been said that this matter has been investigated on previous occasions by committees of inquiry. This is true. However, the circumstances have changed since then. Let me refer to the opinion which has been expressed by a prominent firm of solicitors in the A.C.T. on this subject. This firm has said: . . lessees under existing leases have been lead to believe as a result of statements made and literature published by the Government that their financial commitments as lessees as a result of the recent changes in the legislation will remain substantially as before.
This legal opinion is to the effect that this is not correct. The legal opinion also states:
It is realised that it is only a comparatively short time since the Senate held such an inquiry, but it is pointed out that the Senate inquiry did not investigate the many aspects of the land tenure system now needing examination as a result of the Government’s proposal to abandon the collection of ground rent and as a result of the decision of the High Court in the Esmonds Motors case.
I repeat that my time has almost expired. I have no desire to delay the Senate’s consideration of the matter. I believe that the whole matter should be referred to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory for inquiry. I believe that it will do an impartial job. It has not played politics in the past and it will not do so on this occasion. I believe that it will bring down recommendations which will be to the advantage of all concerned. With the concurrence of honourable senators,I incorporate in Hansard a legal opinion on the case for moving the disallowance of the Land Rent (Validation and Reappraisement) Ordinance 1970, City Area Leases Ordinances 1970 and the Rates Ordinance 1970.
The various legislative measures made to date to deal with the problems are bound to failure because the amendments made to any one Ordinance are based on short-sighted, stop-gap methods made without any real attempt to study and evaluate the consequential side effects of such amendments upon another Ordinance or upon the rights of parties under leases and agreements made prior to the amendments of the legislation. Indeed, most recent amendments deny the rights of persons arising under contracts made by the Commonwealth in the form of leases with unexpired terms of many years.
The result of such amendments must inevitably be injustice, confusion, lack of confidence and ultimately chaos.
It is absolutely essential to the attainment of a just land tenure system that all the legislation setting up and regulating the system be made in a cohesive and comprehensive manner.
The existing legislation lacks cohesion and will not only not solve the problems it is designed to solve, but will create far greater problems than those already existing.
Many of such problems have already become apparent. Some of them have already been drawn to the attention of the officers of the Department responsible for the drafting of the amending legislation and the administration of the leasehold system. Examples of such problems can be given.
It is believed that amendments to the legislation necessitated by some of the more obvious defects in the legislation are already being prepared.
Examples:
Sublease - rates
Variation - registration of orders
Stamp Duty - building agreements
A study of the history of the land tenure system by the members of the Parliament is absolutely essential in order to be able to understand the legislation now being dealt with by them. The theories and policies upon which the original legislation setting up the leasing system understood by the members of Parliament in the 1920s have been overlooked or forgotten by the present members who are now called upon to deal with the legislation. It is suggested that even the Ministers who have been responsible for the administration of the system for at least the last 20 years have had a merely superficial knowledge of the system.
It is alarming to hear statements made by members of Parliament from time to time which indicate not only their lack of any real understanding of the leasehold system, but also their lack of any real understanding of the existence of and the causes for the problems which now exist, and of the problems which are likely to arise in the future.
How can such men be expected to give any intelligent consideration to such legislation unless they take the trouble to make a thorough study of the system and its problems?
Perhaps the greatest problem confronting any one trying to gain the assistance of members of Parliament in support of an attempt to improve the leasehold system in the Territory is the problem of gaining their interest. Most members represent the interests of people in other parts of Australia who have little concern with the problems of the residents of the Territory and who traditionally have regarded Territorians as a pampered lot who are far better off in most respects than themselves. There is no political advantage to be gained in becoming concerned in the affairs of the Territory unless it be to complain about the burden imposed on their own constituents by the expenditure of public moneys for the benefit of the Territory. Fortunately, there have always been some men who have looked beyond the bounds of their own electorate and concerned themselves with the interests of the nation. Such men will readily be interested in the problem. Even others not so readily interested and more concerned with the interests of their own electorates will surely become interested if they realise that the whole of the people of Australia have a big investment in the lands of the Australian Capital Territory, and that this investment is now endangered by hasty and short-sighted legislation.
It is the duty of every member of Parliament to protect the investment of the people of Australia in the lands in the Australian Capital Territory.
In the light of the current concern about inflation, it is the duty of all members to consider the inflationary effect of the constantly and rapidly increasing rent content in the costs of carrying on business, or even in living, in the Australian Capital Territory. Most members of Parliament are probably unaware of, but should be informed of, the fact that despite the comments made by His Honour Sir Garfield Barwick, Chief Justice of The High Court of Australia, in the case, Esmonds Motors Pty Limited v the Commonwealth of Australia & Another, in the recent legislation no provision has been made to set up the independent valuing authority considered by His Honour to be desirable.
Most members of Parliament are unaware of, and should be informed of, the fact that prior to the introduction of the recent legislation there was no consultation with the organisations which exist (in the absence of any local government body) to represent the interests of the people of Canberra, such as the Advisory Council, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory.
Most members of Parliament are unaware of, and should be informed of, the doubts and lack of confidence in the security of land tenure brought about by these amendments which may result in a return to the situation (which in fact occurred in the 1920s) when Crown Leases were not acceptable to lending institutions as security for loans because of the uncertainty of the financial commitment of lessees.
Most members of Parliament are unaware of, and should be informed of, the fact that although provision is made in the legislation for appeals against valuations made by the Departmental Valuation upon which the current general rates are based, there is no protection whatsoever against an increase in the rate which may be imposed by the Minister at any time, thus increasing the amount payable by lessees in a manner which permits them no opportunity of planning or budgeting for the financial burden thus liable to be imposed.
Most members of Parliament are unaware of, and should be informed of, the fact that most of the people of Canberra, and indeed of those people from other parts of Australia who purchase leases in the Territory, are blissfully ignorant of the heavy financial commitments which are likely to be imposed upon them in the near future, and that the lessees under existing leases have been led to believe as a result of statements made and literature published by the Government that their financial committments as lessees as a result of the recent changes in the legislation will remain substantially the same as before. Members of Parliament should be informed that this is completely untrue and that as a result of the changes many residential lessees will in effect be subsidising commercial leases.
Many members of Parliament will not be aware of, and should be informed of, the unsatisfactory nature of the system of appeals provided for by the legislation which, although it does now provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, has many unsatisfactory features.
Many members of Parliament will not be aware of, and should be informed of, the ludicrous way in which valuations have been carried out during 1970 for the purpose of the new legislation.
Many members of Parliament will not be aware of, and should be informed that most lessees, although they recognise that they must pay a reasonable contribution for the use of the Commonwealth land, are not being justly dealt with and will continue to be dissatisfied until proper safeguards for their protection are made.
Many members of Parliament would be aware of the Government’s proposal to abandon the collection of Ground Rent, but many members would not have had the opportunity of considering the effects of the adoption of such a policy.
Until comparatively recent times, the system has worked reasonably well, partly because of the valuable work of the officers of the Department of the Interior responsible for its administration, but mainly because of the absence of the stresses upon the system brought about by the tremendous growth of the City of Canberra and by the tremendous growth of Australia since the end of World War 11, which commenced to manifest themselves in the early 1950s, and which have been more recently highlighted by frighteningly large ‘ valuations made in more recent reappraisement valuations of both commercial and residential lands in the Territory.
Until about 20 years ago, Canberra was a small town, and the administration of the leasing system was comparatively simple and was carried out by public servants of the highest integrity who shielded the various Ministers for the Interior from the problems which were starting to arise,
Until the influx of large business institutions which started in the late fifties and has accelerated ever since, there was no large demand for land, and hence no major problems in the system. lt is only since the rapid growth which occurred in the City since the late fifties that the large problems have developed. It is reasonable to assume that unless some far-sighted and farreaching legislation is introduced the problems will continue to grow in proportion to the size of the City.
It is suggested that if Parliament permits the present short-sighted, badly prepared, and unsatisfactory legislation comprised in the amendments to the City Area Leases Ordinance (No. 45 of 1970), the Land Rent (Validation and Reappraisement) Ordinance 1970 (No. 44 of 1970) and the Rates Ordinance of 1970 (No. 47 of 1970) to continue in force, great harm will be done to the leasehold system, injustice will be done to the people of Canberra and to the people of Australia, and proper and worthwhile legislation so necessary to establish a reasonable land tenure system will be delayed.
It is suggested that no legislation be introduced until a thorough and searching enquiry is made of the whole system of land tenure in the Australian Capital Territory. It is realised that it is only a comparatively short time since the Senate held such an enquiry, but it is pointed out that the Senate Enquiry did not investigate the many aspects of the land tenure system now needing examination as a result of the Government’s proposal to abandon the collection of Ground Rent and as a result of the decision of the High Court in the Esmonds Motors case.
– in reply - Normally an opportunity would have been made available to me in closing the debate to offer observations in rebuttal of a number of the points that have been brought out by those honourable senators who support the Government proposition to change the land tenure system in the Australian Capital Territory. I have entered into an undertaking not to indulge in doing so but in fact to get to the point of the debate. I would merely place on record my keen disappointment at the fact that an opportunity was not made available to me to rebut these arguments and to answer many of the other allegations which have been made. Senator Milliner has touched on 2 extremely important issues in relation to this matter, namely, the availability of finance to young people to build homes and the legal opinion which canvasses the question of whether money can be lent on first mortgages and things of that kind. In view of the time factor I shall have to leave that matter and ask that a vote be taken on my proposal.
Question put:
That the motion (Senator Devitt’s) be agreed to.
The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)
AYES: 23
NOES: 25
Majority 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 1035
Reference to Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory
Motion (by Senator Devitt) proposed:
That the Senate is of the opinion that the matter of land tenure and land administration, planning and development in the Australian Capital Territory should be referred by the Minister for the Interior to the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory for examination and report.
Question put. The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)
AYES: 23
NOES: 25
Majority . . 2
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
– Estimates Committees A and E will meet at 8 o’clock, so the sitting is suspended till 10.20 p.m.
Sitting suspended from 6.5 to 10.20 p.m.
page 1036
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Standing Orders suspended.
Bill (on motion by Senator Cotton) read a first time.
Senator COTTON (New South Wales-
Minister for Civil Aviation) (10.21) - I move:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard my second reading speech.
This Bill seeks the approval of the Parliament to the construction by Commonwealth Railways of a new single spur railway line from Knuckey’s Lagoon on the North Australia Railway to the East Arm of the Darwin Harbour. In a report dated 27th October 1970 the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works recommended a plan to develop the Port of Darwin, including construction of a new port and industrial area at East Arm. The proposed line is an integral part of this development. The new line will serve a bulk cargo handling facility at East Arm, which will replace the existing bulk loading installation at Fort Hill. The new berth will accommodate larger vessels, and be equipped to provide for an increased ship loading rate. The new line will also enable future development of an industrial area on unused land in the East Arm area.
Construction of the line will be handled by Commonwealth Railways. They also will operate the line as an integral part of the existing North Australia line. The railway will be constructed to a gauge of 3 feet 6 inches. However, construction will be carried out in such a manner as to permit ultimate conversion to standard gauge with a minimum of cost. The line will be 4 miles 49 chains in length and a triangular connection is proposed at Knuckey’s Lagoon near Berrimah, to facilitate train movements. I might also say that provision has been made for a grade separation for the Stuart Highway, where it otherwise would be crossed by the new spur line. Whilst the grade separation is not covered by this Bill, it is an essential part of the overall scheme.
The current estimated cost of constructing the line is about$1.5m. As required by section 61 of the Commonwealth Railways Act, the Bill provides a limitation of cost to $1.75m. This amount allows for any cost rises or unforeseen expenditure. It is planned that earthworks commence in the second half of this year. Track laying will be done in 1972 and the line will be completed by the end of that year. The Bill defines the route of the proposed railway in 2 parts the first is the new spur line proper, and the second a crossing loop some 1 mile 7 chains long parallel to the existing railway running east from the proposed junction at Knuckey’s Lagoon. There also will be a further 50 chains of railway on Quarantine Island, which will have the status of a private siding because it will be built on land not controlled by the Commonwealth Railways Commission. Accordingly this section of line is not covered by the present Bill. To illustrate the proposals, I have circulated 2 maps. One shows the overall rearrangement of the Port, and the other shows more precisely the route of the new railway. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.
page 1036
– For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the following paper:
A statement by the Minister for External Territories dated 27th April 1971 relating to Papua New Guinea Constitutional Development
– Is that a statement laid pursuant to statute?
– No. It is a statement made pursuant to ministerial authority.
– by leave - Could I be enlightened as to the nature of this statement. Normally a statement in the ordinary sense of a ministerial statement is made by leave. The understanding was that the Opposition and, I would think, the Democratic Labor Party would be informed beforehand about such statements.
– Could I hear what the honourable senator is saying? I might be in accord with him.
– I will state it a little more loudly for the honourable senator. My understanding was that, when ministerial statements were made, they were made by leave and that, as in the other place, notice had to be given that such a statement would be made so that others would have an opportunity to reply to the ministerial statement which was being made. The Government gave an undertaking that this practice would be followed. It seems to me rather curious that the Minister for Works (Senator Wright), in dealing with a ministerial statement, used the device of saying: ‘For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the fallowing paper: A statement by the Minister for External Territories’. On the face of it, that seems to bc avoiding the understanding which was reached that such statements would be made by leave and that we would be given notice of them.
– This was done to help the Opposition. The Senate had to debate Senator Devitt’s motion. This course was followed so that time would not be taken up.
– I merely wish to draw attention to this matter so that in future notice will be given that it is intended to be done so that the opportunity might be taken to make some comment on the statement. It may well be that, because of the time factor, it was not dons earlier in the day. I am not quarelling about that. I would hope that the understanding reached previously in relation to ministerial statements would be followed.
– by leave - I think the situation has got a little out of focus. Senator Wright has chosen to lay on the table a paper. There is provision for that in the Standing Orders. It is true that Senator Wright could have chosen to seek leave to make a statement. It is equally true that he could have done that at a time when we were dealing with business earlier in the day. I must accept some responsibility for the present situation in that I had conveyed to him a message to short circuit that procedure which may have involved the reading, without leave, of the statement. I suggested that he lay the paper on the table. If there is any impropriety suggested-
– Does not a standing order cover this situation?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONYes. lt is quite open for a Minister to lay a paper on the table. I would not like to think that Senator Wright is being accused of any discourtesy to the Opposition. It was to allow the debate on Senator Devitt’s motion to proceed that Senator Wright did what he did.
– by leave - I move:
I do so because I have had, in these few minutes, an opportunity to look quickly through the statement and it seems, to me to be of tremendous importance, lt deals with a matter about which there has been a lot of debate and controversy in the last year or two. I feel that the matter should be put on the notice paper so that we may debate it. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted.
– Would not the application of standing order 365 be appropriate? Standing order 365 states:
On any Paper being laid before the Senate, it shall be in order to move - (1) That it be read, and, if necessary, a day appointed for its consideration; (2) That it be printed.
Would not either of those courses, particularly the former, be appropriate? That rather moves the onus onto the Opposition to take the initiative to have the matter debated. If the statement is made, a debate flows merely from the statement being made and the resumption of the debate being made an order of the day for a later hour or for the next day of sitting. While this may be an appropriate standing order perhaps it is not the most prudent one to operate in the circumstances as a substitute for our former practice.
– I ask what I believe to be a relevant question. This statement contains some of the farthest reaching conclusions that have ever been stated. Whilst 1 appreciate what Senator Willesee has done by moving that the Senate take note of the paper, I respectfully ask whether there are any other forms by which it can be brought on for early debate, disregarding standing order 365 which has been quoted by Senator Byrne.
– I rise to say only that I note the point taken by Senator Byrne and the request made by Senator Keeffe and to move:
That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.
If the Opposition parties have a request to make, I have no doubt that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) will arrange for an appropriate time for the debate.
– I seek some clarification. If a matter is made an order of the day for the next day of sitting and then the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) fixes an appropriate time for the debate, as the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) suggested - whatever the words ‘appropriate time* may mean - would the fact that the matter is on the notice paper inhibit anyone from debating the statement on a motion for the first reading of a money Bill?
– I would suggest not.
– Every honourable senator should know his rights as to money bills.
– I think it probably would not have that effect.
– Mr President, there is a motion before us that the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. 1 believe I am entitled to discuss this motion because it is before the Chair. Senator Cant has brought up a most important question and the reply was that in all probability discussion on it would not be prevented.
Debate interrupted.
page 1038
– Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– I do not want to leave this matter undetermined.
Question resolved in the negative.
page 1038
– I think the important question is covered by the motion moved by Senator Wright.
– But I am opposing the motion and you cannot put it when there is opposition.
– The motion for the adjournment has been negatived. Senator Cavanagh, do you wish to continue with the debate?
– Yes, this is an important question. If the motion ‘that the Senate take note of the paper’ is moved, 1 cannot visualise our having it before us this session. This is an important issue which should be debated in the very near future. We are trying to find a means of having it debated early. As a result of what Senator Cant has put, we have been told that this matter can be debated before the end of this session in a debate on a motion for the first reading of a money Bill. I believe there are 3 money Bills to come before the Senate.
– Three?
– Well, at least 3. There are opportunities this session for a discussion on this subject if honourable senators on this side of the House believe it is important enough to be discussed. If Senator Wright’s motion is adopted there will be no possibility of the matter coming on for discussion this session unless by the good grace of the Government. If the Government will give an assurance that it will come on for discussion this session I will not proceed with my opposition to the motion. It is an important question. The only method, in my opinion, of getting it discussed is to bring the matter up when a motion is moved for the first reading of a money Bill. Therefore I oppose it being made an order of the day for another day of sitting.
– I will not give any assurances because the position is no different from what it would have been had Senator Wright sought leave to make a statement and had been given that leave or had been given leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. The procedure would have been exactly the same as that followed tonight by Senator
Willesee who moved that the Senate take note of the paper. The situation has not altered one iota. If Senator Wright had made a statement, Senator Murphy, Senator Willesee or any member of the Opposition, would have risen and would have moved that we take note of the paper and would have asked for leave to continue his remarks. That exactly is what has been done. If the honourable senator thinks that he can force me to give some assurance in that context because something different has been done tonight then I will say no.
– We do not need assurances if we defeat the motion.
– Am I making this speech or is Senator Cavanagh making it? Every senator has his rights relating to a motion for the first reading of a money Bill. If an honourable senator does not know his rights he should read the Standing Orders.
– The position seems to be this: Leaving aside the time factor, it would have been more appropriate for the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) to have indicated that this statement was to be made and to have given the Opposition a copy of it so that a reply could have been made, by leave of the Senate, at the time. Then any debate could have been initiated by means of a motion that the Senate to take note of the statement. The position is that if we want to discuss this matter when a motion is moved for the first reading of a money Bill, whatever the technicalities might be, that will be allowed. It is possible also for the Senate to suspend Standing Orders if it wants this matter to be brought forward and dealt with. Enough indication was given by Senator Wright to show that he regarded the matter as important and that it should be dealt with.
– So far as business will permit, we will facilitate a debate.
– That is fair enough for me also.
– That ought to be accepted. I suggest, for the consideration of honourable senators, that the overwhelming consideration for supporting the motion is that there is no alternative really. The defeat of this motion that the matter be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting would mean that the subject would disappear. It has to be made an order of the day, either for the next day of sitting or for some other day. It amounts to the same thing. Logically you cannot defeat this motion. The sensible thing is to let the motion pass and then follow up the assurances given by Senator Wright and the indications given generally in relation to a motion for the first reading of a money Bill. If those fail, it is within our power to move for the suspension pf Standing Orders and if we have the numbers the matter can be brought up for discussion. I think that is about the most that we can do. There is no purpose to be served by opposing the motion.
Question relating to the resumption of the debate resolved in the affirmative.
page 1039
Transport Facilities in Canberra - Incorporation of Article in Hansard
Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
– On 25th February this year I asked a question of the Minister for Supply (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) relating to transport and the taxi and hire car situation in Canberra. The question was redirected to the Minister for the Interior at that time whose department controls the granting of licences and the like. My question was:
Does the report recently presented to the Government on the use of cars in the Department of Supply car pool -
I then corrected my question and related it to the Department of the Interior. I said:
Does it indicate a possible reduction in this fleet? Is the Minister aware that queues of people in Canberra wait for taxis which are unavailable because they are busily engaged doing government work? Is he aware that the shortage is so acute that hire and drive cars are being used for taxi work? Does the Minister know whether sufficient taxi licences have been granted to cope with the growing population? Will the Minister direct that an inquiry be made and a report presented to the Senate on the inadequate services available to the citizens of Canberra and visitors to the national capital?
The Leader of the Government in the Senate said:
This is a matter which would come within the portfolio of the Minister for the Interior. Unless I get some indication from the Minister who represents the Minister for the Interior in this chamber that he wants to add something at this point of time, I shall simply undertake to convey the honourable senators comprehensive question to the Minister for the Interior for his reply. I can well understand that some of the problems to which Senator O’byrne has referred in his question in relation to the fleet of cars would occur. I know that the Department of Supply, which has its own fleet of cars, has similar problems in deciding whether it can supply enough vehicles during the peak load period and whether it should call on the hire car services and taxis for assistance ki certain circumstances. I do not know whether the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior has anything further to add.
Senator Cotton said:
I will convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for the Interior. I have noted his comments about people having to queue for taxis and the possibility that insufficient taxi licences have been granted.
I received a further reply from Senator Cotton, as Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. He said:
The Minister for the Interior has provided the following reply lo the honourable senator’s question:
The report prepared for the Department by a firm of consultants sets out facts concerning the present usage of the passenger car service in Canberra.
The number of taxi licences in Canberra Ls kept under continuous review to ensure that there are sufficient taxis to provide a reasonable service to all users including those travelling on government business. The existing level of taxi licences is considered to be satisfactory, having regard to the interests of the public and the taxi operators. It is inevitable that during periods of peak demand some delays will be experienced. This is a feature of the taxi industry in all major centres.
The Department is in the process of setting up a Taxi Advisory Council which it is intended mI inquire into matters such as those raised in the question.
I wish to ask the Minister whether that report has covered the following matters: There have been no ballots for hire car licences since 1964 when 6 hire car licences were granted. The population of Canberra then was roughly 50,000. The population now is 136,000. But still only 6 hire cars are licensed. The Department of the Interior seems to be closing its eyes to another factor with regard to the shortage of hire cars. This is that 12 so-called rentacars are operating as hire cars in Canberra, carrying tourists and business men and catering for weddings, funerals and the like. These rent-a-cars are not rented in the way companies such as the
Avis, Kay’s and Hertz companies rent their cars. These rent-a-cars do not have to pass a check for road worthiness by the transport section of the Department of the Interior every 3 months, as taxis or hire cars do. They do not have to be driven by a driver having a B Class licence - that is, a taxi or hire car licence - which requires a medical check every year and the passing of a character reference test by the police. Also there is no requirement that the drivers be over 21 years of age.
This means that there is a possibility that unroadworthy cars could be carrying paying members of the public around Canberra. Without a requirement for a medical examination, medically unfit drivers could be driving these rent-a-cars that are being used as hire cars. Also, there is no examination of the background of the people who are actually engaged in driving these rent-a-cars. At present there are 12 rent-a-cars carrying paying passengers around Canberra. The Department of the Interior evidently contends that These rent-a-cars are rented out by contract and also that there is a different contract for the drivers. But, as it is highly irregular that rent-a-cars should be used in this way. the Department should give some explanation of why this state of affairs exists. 1 would like to know whether the Department of the Interior sees these contracts and whether it can produce one to enable us to see the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the drivers.
The rent-a-cars are doing the Tourist Bureau work of the Department of the Interior, but they are restricted in that they are not allowed to do the Commonwealth transport work of the Department of the Interior. Each of the 6 hire car operators who were given their licences in 1964 has one rent-a-car. The owner of a Beet of tourist buses also runs 2 rent-a-cars. That would mean that 12 rent-a-cars are being operated by the 6 operators. I wish to ask the Minister whether he will elaborate much more on the information he has already given me and make available the report which was prepared for the Department by a firm of private consultants and which is supposed to set out the facts concerning the present usage of passenger car services in Canberra. Information on this matter of hire car licences and the availability of taxi services generally should be known. The Minister said in his reply:
The existing level of taxi licences is considered to be satisfactory . . .
But some of my colleagues and I had experience of the situation last Friday week. We were going to the airport, but the taxis for quite a number of senators did not arrive. The transport pool of the Department of the Interior stepped into the breach and we were taken to the airport at the fastest possible rate so that we could catch our aircraft. To me, that is an indication that the matter I raised before has some substance in it. I believe that we are entitled to know about this matter and that there should be a scrutiny in depth of the position with regard to these important transport facilities in the national capital.
– I wish to reply to Senator O’Byrne on behalf of the Minister for the Interior (Mr Hunt). I have before me a copy of the question and the answer given by me on behalf of the Minister for the Interior. I followed with some care what Senator O’Byrne had to say, especially as to the relationship between taxis and hire cars having regard to the population as it was in 1964 and as it is now. He makes the point that the lack of hire cars has been largely overcome by the same operators using rent-a-cars. He asks a series of questions related to the efficiency of those cars, how reliably maintained they are, what inspections they undergo and how often their drivers are medically examined to make sure that they are quite capable of driving safely. All of these are quite valid points. But he would appreciate that I would be in no position to answer them now. I will direct them to the Minister for the Interior, having read the Hansard report tomorrow, and try to obtain the information the honourable senator requires.
– I desire the leave of the Senate to incorporate an article in Hansard. The article is called ‘The War Machine A Washington analyst takes a pragmatic view of the awesome Pentagon juggernaut as the lamentable keystone of United States economic wellbeing’.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Order! Senator Georges, arc you seeking leave to incorporate certain material in Hansard?
– Yes. But in fairness to the SenateI will explain what the article is about, who the author is, what the article happens to be and from what periodical it comes.
– What is the length of the article?
– It is printed on only one side of each page and some pages are only half pages. There would be 6 or 7 pages of this material. The article concerns the complex military and industrial economy of the United States of America. As we are all aware that our economy is not insensitive to the state of the American economy, it is proper for honourable senators to be aware of the character of that economy. That is one reason for wishing to have the article incorporated in Hansard. The other reason is that it is written by Robert Sherrill and it comes from a magazine called ‘Playboy’. This magazine is not banned in any Australian State except Queensland. This notable economic article is not available to the citizens of Queensland and that is a second reason why I would like it incorporated in Hansard. The people of Queensland in that way could have access to the article and could use it. At present that is not the case. I therefore seek leave to have this article incorporated in Hansard.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson) - Is leave granted?
– No.
– Did I hear correctly? Is leave not granted?
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT - There being an objection, leave is not granted.
– I was rather confused. I believe that the Minister for Works (Senator Wright) refused leave. I think you will recall, Sir, that earlier we extended the facility of allowing the incorporation in Hansard of a second reading speech of considerable length. We also allowed the Minister to use a new method of tabling an important document of considerable length so that it would not be necessary to read that document. In other words we were out to save time. I have been refused leave to incorporate in Hansard an article which I believe ought to be incorporated.
– You have been told many times that if you want leave to incorporate material you should submit it or give notice ofits nature.
– For Senator Wright’s information I inform the Senate that I approached the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and said that I would be seeking leave to incorporate this article in Hansard. Senator Wright may recall that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson came across to me and I showed him the article.
– On your own acknowledgment, the reason you have advanced is that you are seeking to circumvent the law of a, State. Is that not so?
– The reason for refusal that is now advanced is not the reason given by Senator Wright. Senator Byrne did not deny me the right. I was fair about this matter. Senator Wright objected to the incorporation of this article, but not for the reason given by Senator Byrne. I will not read this article into the record at this stage. I will take the opportunity to make Senator Wright familiar with the article by giving him a copy of it. I will also give a copy to Senator Byrne. At a later stage I shall seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. If I am again refused leave I shall proceed to read the article into the record, a procedure which will be to the general inconvenience of the Senate. Honourable senators know me well. I am not one to inconvenience the Senate at a late hour.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 10.54 p.m.
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 April 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710427_senate_27_s47/>.