House of Representatives
8 August 1962

24th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 24th Parliament
  3. 1962

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

page 79

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. The right honorable gentleman will recall that eight months ago, when the published number of unemployed stood at 100,000, he undertook to restore full employment within twelve months. As the latest published number of unemployed is only 7,000 lower than it was then, I ask him whether he expects to fulfil this promise in the remaining four months of his time-table, or, if not, how long he now expects it would take him to restore full employment.

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– This seems to me to be extraordinarily like an argumentative question. As we are shortly to have a Budget debate I will be very happy to cross swords with the honorable gentleman on this matter during that debate.

page 79

QUESTION

WATERFRONT EMPLOYMENT

Mr COCKLE:
WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Labour and National Service give any information about the damaging hold-ups that have occurred on the waterfront in Sydney and Melbourne during recent weeks? What is the present position?

Mr McMAHON:
Minister for Labour and National Service · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– During the last few weeks there has been a series of serious port stoppages on the waterfront. These have arisen largely out of a dispute concerning the number of people who are to break down the wool stacks. Until now, and for many years, two waterside workers have been employed to break down the stacks. The Waterside Workers Federation is now asking that four people should be employed to do this job. Negotiations were attempted, but agreement could not be arrived at between the federation and the shipowners, so the shipowners have said that they should now follow the normal arbitration procedure and have suggested a board of reference to hear the claim of the federation. If the federation is not satisfied with the result obtained from such a procedure, the matter should be taken on appeal to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Sydney and Melbourne branches of the Waterside Workers Federation have refused to agree to this proposal. As a result, these quite unnecessary stoppages have been continually occurring.

I have been informed to-day that the disputes committee of the Australian Council of Trade Unions has taken control of the matter and will conduct a conference about it on Friday. I should point out that it is the settled policy of the A.C.T.U. that when an agreement has been made between employer and employee it should be adhered to. The A.C.T.U. has also expressed approval of the principle that when negotiations fail there should be a resort to arbitration rather than a resort to force. I say no more at the moment than that the A.C.T.U. has taken control of this dispute, and I hope that before long it will give a decision as to what should be done.

page 79

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Treasurer. In view of the fact that the Treasury’s White Paper on the economy, issued in June, made no reference at all to the likely economic effects of the entry of Great Britain into the European Economic Community, and as the Treasurer’s Budget speech last night contained merely a reference to the unknown possibilities of the European Common Market, can it be assumed that the right honorable gentleman and his departmental advisers share the views recently expressed by the honorable member for Wentworth?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I can readily understand an attempt on the part of an honorable gentleman opposite to make a little political mischief out of this recent episode.

Mr Menzies:

– He is suffering from the same sort of thing himself.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– Yes. The honorable gentleman has had his own problems. I question whether he knew very much about what was in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of banking, delivered towards the end of the last sessional period. It was certainly very contrary to the views that I have heard the honorable gentleman himself express from time to time. I can assure the honorable gentleman that he can draw no such inference as he suggested. I joined in the debate on the Common Market earlier. My leader had set out the general position. The Minister for Trade had set out the views of the Government as they related to commodities. I followed up with our views on some aspects of capital movement which could be affected. The honorable member may recall that I took an active part in the conference of finance ministers at Accra and our views were recorded in a communique issued there. I have published certain articles - some in Australia and others overseas - which reflect my views, and the honorable gentleman will find that they are completely in accord with those of my leader and my other colleagues in the Cabinet.

page 80

QUESTION

CITRUS JUICES

Mr DEAN:
ROBERTSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I wish to ask the Minister for Trade a question concerning the application by farmers’ organizations and my own representations in connexion with the importation of citrus juices, especially lemon juice, into Australia. The request is that the application should be considered by the Minister and, perhaps, referred to the special authority. Can the right honorable gentleman inform me of the action taken in this matter?

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

– Representations made by the honorable member and representations from other sources have resulted, in accordance with practice, in a close study having been made by the appropriate officers of the department of the extent of importation of citrus juices, particularly, I think, lemon juices. The conclusion reached by the officers and accepted by myself after a study of the facts was that as imports were of modest dimensions and as they were not judged, at this stage, as likely to increase greatly, there was no case for reference to the special authority. That is the position at the moment, but the Department of Trade is keeping the matter under close and constant scrutiny. Apart from the facts which will come to it officially, the department will at all times be glad to hear any point of view presented by the industry itself.

page 80

QUESTION

BANKING

Mr EINFELD:
PHILLIP, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I desire to ask the Treasurer a question which is supplementary to a question asked by the honorable member for Brisbane a few weeks ago. In view of the widespread dissatisfaction that exists in the staff of the Commonwealth Bank because of the commencing time of duty having been altered from 9 a.m. to 8.45 a.m., has the Treasurer discussed this matter with the directors of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation? Whilst private trading banks still retain a 9 a.m. starting time, is the Treasurer prepared to state why this unjust difference should continue to exist? Will he inform the House the result of his discussions?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– My recollection is that I took some action after the question had been asked. I am not sure whether I wrote to the honorable member for Brisbane, but I will check the position and see how much information I can send to the honorable gentleman.

page 80

QUESTION

ELECTORAL

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Now that the electoral commissions in each State have made their recommendations on the redistribution of federal electoral boundaries, will the Minister for the Interior say what is the parliamentary procedure before those recommendations are given legislative effect? What is the time-table for this procedure?

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

– The procedure is laid down in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. The position is that, in due course, the commissioners will present their reports to the Parliament. Those reports are not yet completed because the time for objections to be lodged to the initial proposals has not yet expired. I do not know when the commissioners in each State expect to have their reports ready after they have considered any objections to their proposals, but, under the terms of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, those reports have to be presented directly to the Parliament. They will be tabled in the House immediately they are received. That is all the information I can give the honorable gentleman at this stage.

page 81

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES

Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Will the PostmasterGeneral inform the House why telephone rental concessions and call charge rebates are not granted to pensioners who have telephones installed? Will the Minister cause legislation to be introduced during the life of this Parliament to grant rental concessions and call charge rebates to pensioners?

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

– The honorable member for Lilley has introduced a subject that has been raised at question time and on many other occasions in this House. I repeat what I have said before: The whole question of telephone concessions to pensioners has already been discussed, and it has been decided that no further concessions, other than those at present applied to certain types of charitable institutions, will be granted. It has also been made clear that a decision on whether there should or should not be concessions of this sort is a matter not for the Postal Department but for the Repatriation Department or the Department of Social Services. Therefore, this is not a matter for determination by the department under my administration.

page 81

QUESTION

LAND SETTLEMENT OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Mr FORBES:
BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Primary Industry inform the House whether he has given consideration to my representations that some means be found of reducing to an acceptable level the annual commitments of soldier settlers on Kangaroo Island?

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

– The honorable member for Barker has made representations to me on this matter on several occasions and he will know from my replies to him that discussions are still proceeding between the Director of Lands in South Australia and the Department of Primary Industry. Those discussions have not yet been completed, but 1 can inform the honorable member that it is recognized that, in some instances, the immediate demand for certain short-term payments makes payment difficult. We are looking for a more permanent means of easing the position of the settlers.

page 81

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Mr Allan Fraser:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Following the question that was asked by the honorable member for Hindmarsh, I ask the Treasurer: In view of the grave implications for Australia, is the right honorable gentleman prepared to inform the House, apart from statements that he has made to the press, whether he had discussions with the then Minister assisting the Treasurer prior to that gentleman’s speech on 25th July? Did the Treasurer subsequently advise, or seek to admonish, the honorable member for Wentworth before that honorable member repeated the substance of his speech 24 hours later in Melbourne? Did he take pains to ensure, and is it a fact, that the then Minister assisting the Treasurer was aware of the policy of the Treasury in relation to the European Economic Community? At the same time, I ask the Treasurer: Did he advise the Prime Minister of the Treasury viewpoint before the Prime Minister at Wollongong referred to “ gains as well as losses “ in the Common Market for Australia and before he stated in a television interview that the case for Australia had been exaggerated?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– I shall reply reply first to that portion of the honorable member’s question that relates to my discussion with the Prime Minister. I happen to sit on a committee of Cabinet with the Prime Minister, my colleague the Minister for Trade and other Ministers directly concerned with the Government’s views and participation in negotiations on the Common Market issue. The Prime Minister, therefore, is completely familiar with my views and I with his and those of my colleagues. I am asked not to confine myself to what was said to the press but to refer to other aspects. I made my position clear in the press and I do not see any need to elaborate on what I said then. My friend and former ministerial colleague, the honorable member for Wentworth, made the position quite clear in his own published letter. Those facts speak for themselves and I see no reason to elaborate on them at this time.

page 82

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

– Can the

Minister for Primary Industry tell the House whether Cabinet has yet examined the proposals put forward by the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation and the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council for an overall authority to manage the affairs of the wool industry? When representatives of these organizations saw the Minister, did they intimate that they wanted a referendum of growers before legislation was introduced, or were they willing to have the Government go straight ahead with their proposals? Whether they wanted a referendum or not, can the Minister give an assurance that legislation will be introduced before Christmas?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– The matter referred to by the honorable member for Wannon has certainly not reached Cabinet yet. Naturally, I must complete the case to be presented to Cabinet for consideration. I am very happy that the organizations mentioned came to an agreement on this very vital matter. I advised them that I was pleased with their agreement and their unified approach, and that I would certainly present their submissions to Cabinet for consideration. I think the honorable member will be aware that something more than just presenting the case they submitted is required. I am now working on this complex matter.

page 82

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– I address my question to the Treasurer. By way of explanation, I point out that some people in the Leichhardt area are compelled to proceed by aeroplane or train to Brisbane or other centres for medical treatment. They do so on the advice of the superintendent of a base hospital or of their own doctor. They pay the expenses they incur in travelling to these centres to receive treatment, but they ar: not allowed to claim these amounts as deductions for income tax purposes. However, business people travelling to Brisbane or other centres on business are allowed to claim their expenses as income tax deductions. Will the Treasurer give serious and favorable consideration to permitting the people I have mentioned to deduct in their income tax returns the expenses they incur in travelling to receive medical attention? This would be only fair. Many working class people are financially embarrassed when they are called on to meet the cost of the fares involved.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– There are, of course, people living in various parts of Australia who experience disadvantage, disability and inconvenience because of their remoteness from some of the services that are available to people living in the major cities or provincial towns of the Commonwealth. That position has been recognized up to a point by the Government in the application of the zone allowance.

Mr Fulton:

– £26 a year would not pay one fare.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– At this stage I do not want to debate the adequacy of the zone allowance. I do not know where we1 would begin or end if we were to pay regard to all the various disabilities and measure the amount of compensation by way of taxation deductions that could be given for them. I shall look at the text of the honorable gentleman’s question to see whether I can supplement my answer for him.

page 82

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for External Affairs whether his attention has been directed to the contrast between the United Nations Trusteeship Council’s recent demand that Australia grant selfdetermination to the Papuans in the Trust Territory of New Guinea within two years and the Indonesian promise to do the same thing for the Papuans of West New Guinea within seven years. Is there any reason for such a marked discrepancy?

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

– Of course, I have observed the differentiation in the two time-tables. The time-table so far as the Indonesians are concerned has not yet been fixed. Negotiations for settlement of the dispute over West New Guinea’ have not been completed. I cannot at this moment offer a reason for the differentiation in the two time-tables. I remind the honorable gentleman that our record in eastern New Guinea is a very fine one. I make no comment on the report of the United Nations visiting mission, but one of the bases on which its report was founded was the excellent way in which Australia has been bringing along the people of the Territory.

page 83

QUESTION

SYDNEY GENERAL POST OFFICE CLOCK

Mr MINOGUE:
WEST SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Will the PostmasterGeneral promise to make a start on the restoration of the Sydney General Post Office clock before Her Majesty the Queen arrives in Australia?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– The intention to restore the Sydney General Post Office clock has already been announced. AH the preliminary work, such as inspection of parts and foundations, has been carried out. The work is now in the hands of the Department of Works. I understand, from information I received some weeks ago, that a considerable time is likely to elapse before the clock can be erected. The job is not an easy one, nor is it a short one.

page 83

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Mr KING:
WIMMERA, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is he in a position to say when a new chairman of the Australian Wheat Board will be appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Sir John Teasdale? If not, will the Minister consider appointing one of the present members of the board temporarily to the position of chairman so that an industry that plays such an important role in our economy may have a spokesman?

Mr ADERMANN:
CP

– The appointment of a successor to the late Sir John Teasdale is under consideration by the Government, but I am not yet in a position to announce the name of the new chairman of the board. I remind the honorable member that the present term of office of all members of the board will expire on 26th October next and it may not be possible to appoint a chairman before that date. However, the act provides that the board, as at present constituted, may appoint a chairman from meeting to meeting. Action along those lines may meet the present situation.

page 83

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I wish to ask the Minister for Territories a question. Is any revision of wage rates, or any inquiry or other action, to take place as a result of criticisms expressed in the United Nations concerning the wages paid on plantations in Papua and New Guinea?

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

– All matters concerning any resolutions carried by the United Nations Trusteeship Council will be examined by the Government, not separately but as a whole.

page 83

QUESTION

MEAT

Mr WHITTORN:
BALACLAVA, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. As the Australian Meat Board is planning an extensive campaign to promote the sale of lamb in the United Kingdom, I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Japanese are now eating more meat per capita than ten years ago. Is he aware, also, that the New Zealand Meat Board is conducting an extensive television campaign in Japan, directed particularly at housewives, in an endeavour to promote still further the sale of New Zealand Iamb in that country? Has Australia any plans similarly to promote the sale of Australian lamb in Japan?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– This is a matter in which there is close co-operation between the Department of Trade, which, obviously, has a functional status in this field, and the department administered by my colleague, the Minister for Primary Industry, within whose jurisdiction the Australian Meat Board operates. We act in close consultation. The position is that the Australian meat export industry has been vigorously pushing the sale, particularly of lamb, I think, and mutton in Japan with some success. There is a constant exploration of the potential market there, and I think the records will show that the results for Australia have been commensurate with those obtained by competitor countries. I have not refreshed my mind, but I think the real point is that our sales in the United Kingdom and the United States of America have been so large, comparatively, that the demand in those markets has not left us with a quantity available for sale in Japan so great as to warrant a proportionally major exercise there. I think I am right in this. If it turns out that my memory has let me down, I shall inform the honorable member and the House of the facts.

page 84

QUESTION

TIMBER

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Is the right honorable gentleman aware that in recent months there has been a steady but nevertheless serious decline in the output of the timber industry generally and particularly in Tasmania? If the Minister is aware of this situation, will he advise the House whether the special inquiry authorized by the Department of Trade has been concluded? If it has been concluded, when will the findings of the committee be made available to honorable members?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– Referring to the critical part of the question, which relates to the inquiry, I inform the honorable member that I shall ascertain the present situation, and I hope to advise him tomorrow what it is.

page 84

QUESTION

LIMBLESS EX-SERVICEMEN

Mr LESLIE:
MOORE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Repatriation. Has the Repatriation Department, with the cooperation of limbless ex-servicemen, been investigating the causes of the phenomenon generally known as phantom limb pain, which manifests itself to amputees as extreme pain which can even cause temporary disability? Can the Minister say whether these investigations have been completed and what conclusions, if any, have been reached in regard to the causes of these phantom pains and measures to be taken to remedy or alleviate them?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for Repatriation · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I appreciate the interest that the honorable member for Moore has taken in this matter. I know that he was one of those who initiated these investiga tions some years ago. They date back to 1956, when the first investigations were commenced concerning this phenomenon which, as he rightly says, in individual cases can have very severe effects, sometimes even disabling effects, although, in the overall picture, this is not a grave major problem facing all ex-servicemen. In 1956, financed by the Services Canteens Trust Fund, an Australian orthopaedic surgeon investigated this problem in a number of countries. During the same year, the Limbless Ex-soldiers Association made representations to the Prime Minister seeking an investigation by the Repatriation Department of the problem in Australia. The investigation commenced, and, as the honorable member knows, there was some misunderstanding about the extent of the inquiries to be made at that time, but the matter was later resolved. This problem has arisen in other countries and has not yet been solved. Investigations are continuing, and we hope that in the not too distant future some information will come to hand that will be of great benefit to the Limbless Ex-soldiers Association.

page 84

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr CLAY:
ST GEORGE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works. Is it proposed during the month of September, while the House will be in recess, to issue dismissal notices to about 20 per cent, or 200 members of the work force employed by the Commonwealth Department of Works in New South Wales? If so, is it true that those men marked down for dismissal are in their late forties or their fifties, and that having spent the past ten or twelve years of their working life in the service of the Commonwealth, they will have extreme difficulty in obtaining other employment?

Mr FREETH:
LP

– This matter was raised last night during the adjournment debate by the honorable member for East Sydney, who stated with some degree of assurance that he had been supplied with authentic information. For that reason, although I had not heard of this before, I did not answer him immediately. I am now able to say that the whole story is a complete fabrication.

page 85

QUESTION

PENSIONS

Mr STOKES:
MARIBYRNONG, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Services. Is it a fact that the supplementary assistance towards the payment of rent given to single age pensioners not in receipt of any other income is withdrawn when their cash in hand or at the bank exceeds £209? If so, will the Minister consider the establishment of some buffer limits with a view to avoiding hardship occasioned by withdrawal of supplementary assistance when the ceiling limit of £209 is exceeded, often only temporarily, by a few pounds only?

Mr ROBERTON:
Minister for Social Services · RIVERINA, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The honorable member will recall that supplementary assistance at the rate of 10s. a week was introduced to improve the circumstances of pensioners - both married and single - who are dependent upon a single pension and, having no other income, are obliged to pay rent. It is true, as stated by the honorable member, that age pensioners with more than the prescribed amount of cash in hand or at the bank are excluded from this benefit. The introduction of buffer limits would present great difficulties and there would still be a degree of disaffection among those who remained ineligible for supplementary assistance.

page 85

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Mr THOMPSON:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation whether any consideration will be given to Boer War veterans. These men are not entitled to general repatriation benefits, although they can receive the service pension that is given to what we call “ burnt-out “ soldiers of the two world wars. These men feel hardly done by, and I ask the Minister to consider their plight with a view to giving them a little more assistance.

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

- Mr. Speaker, this matter has been taken up with me only in the last few days. I can assure the honorable member that consideration is being given to the subject. As stated, service pensions can already be paid with associated benefits, but the question of other medical treatment is being examined. There are perhaps not a great number of people coming within this category in the community at the present time, but I know that problems do exist in some instances. I can assure the honorable member I will give consideration to the point he has raised and will let him know the position as soon as possible.

page 85

QUESTION

EMPLOYMENT

Mr WENTWORTH:
MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Labour and National Service. Will it be possible for him to prepare for the House a detailed table showing the number of school leavers over the past couple of years and the number expected in this year? Would it be possible for the table to be divided into States and further subdivided into convenient periods of perhaps quarters or terms?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– Mr. Speaker, we do not have details of the number of children leaving school and joining the work force each year and I do not think it is possible for me to obtain those figures. What we do is to draw certain conclusions from the number of fifteen-year-olds in the population. This year the number will be about 205,000, or about 10,000 more than last year, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to draw conclusions from those figures because of the increasing tendency for young people to remain at school for a year or two years longer than formerly. I think I can answer the honorable member’s question best by saying that in the last financial year 72,000 school leavers registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service - about 80 per cent, in the NovemberApril period and the balance of 20 per cent, fairly regularly throughout the year. Nevertheless I will try to obtain the figures for the honorable member on a quarterly and an annual basis and if I find there is anything more I can add to what I have already said I will let him and the House know.

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Labour and National Service. In view of the fact that his last published statement revealed that almost 12,000 school leavers were unemployed, will he now tell the House how many boys and girls who left school at the end of last year are at present seeking employment? Because of this serious social and economic problem, will the Minister say what he intends to do to provide employment for our young people whose ranks will soon be joined by the school leavers of 1962?

Mr MCMAHON:

- Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear to the House that over the period November to June nearly 62,000 school leavers registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for employment. I do not keep all the facts in my head and I cannot be expected to, but I can say that fewer than 2,300 young men now remain registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. I think that any fair man will agree that, looking at this problem in both a social and realistic sense, the Commonwealth Employment Service has done a pretty good job in placing these people in employment as quickly as possible. As to the last part of the honorable member’s question, I will have the figures for employment within the course of the next few days and they will be published on Monday. I cannot say anything more than that, but I can add thai it is expected that the Budget produced in the House last night will provide a further stimulus and that we can expect a steady improvement in the employment position.

page 86

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Air. ls he aware of the great interest taken by the public in Air Force displays? When practicable, will he endeavour to arrange for Air Force planes to take part in displays organized by the Rotary and Apex clubs and other organizations where the whole proceeds are for charitable purposes?

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

– I quite agree with the honorable member that the Air Force should assist local organizations, whenever it possibly can, by putting on Air Force displays. I might say that my predecessor had arranged one such display, at the request of the honorable member for Indi and myself, at Corowa. I hope that this display will still be held. Unfortunately, there are very many problems associated with requests for these displays. The Air Force is a relatively small force, and it is pretty fully occupied with regular training exercises. It does not have time to provide many of these flying displays. I know that it has been found very difficult to agree to all the requests made by honorable members. I think every one of the 121 members of this House has made requests fairly regularly for these displays. The Air Force has a static display which it makes available when it cannot provide a flying display. It also provides, on occasions, the services of the Royal Australian Air Force band. When requests are made for the provision of aircraft for displays, we look carefully at those requests. Air Force Week, which will occur this year about 15th September, is an occasion on which the Air Force does its utmost to provide displays throughout the country. I will see what I can do at Mildura for the honorable member for Mallee.

page 86

QUESTION

BROADCASTING

Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that the radio broadcasting studio technical services are being transferred from the PostmasterGeneral’s Department to the Australian Broadcasting Commission? If so, will the existing studio staff in the PostmasterGeneral’s Department be automatically transferred to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and will they work under their existing award and conditions?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– For very many years certain technical staff of the PortmasterGeneral’s Department have been responsible for operating the technical equipment in the broadcasting services of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This practice was not followed when television services were established. The Australian Broadcasting Commission was responsible for the provision, and for the operation by its own technicians, of its television services. It is desired to establish some regularity in these maters. As the technicians referred to have been working for the Australian Broadcasting Commission for a considerable number of years, it is proposed to transfer them to that authority. However, no person who objects to this procedure will be so transferred, and when the transfers are made all the rights of employees affected will be protected.

page 87

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr CLEAVER:
SWAN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Treasurer. Is the right honorable gentleman in a position to confirm that the Government has requested a comprehensive review of the report of the Commonwealth Committee on Taxation? If it is a fact that some considerable time must elapse before decisions are made on major recommendations of the committee, does the Treasurer plan to submit other desirable and acceptable recommendations to the Parliament at an early date?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– Work has been carried out for some time in connexion with this very involved and complex set of issues. It must be realized that the committee of inquiry ranged over virtually the whole income tax field. It made a series of recommendations, some of them highly involved. The Commissioner of Taxation has presented to me his analysis of these recommendations, which in itself is a volume of very considerable dimensions, being about half the size of the normal “ Hansard “ record of a session of this Parliament, if not larger. However, work has been proceeding in the office of the Commissioner of Taxation and in the Treasury. This has been a particularly busy Treasury year, with a good deal of work being necessary as a result of the special measures introduced in February, and as a result of the proposed entry of Great Britain into the European Common Market and other such matters. As a result, it has not been possible to make the concentrated attack on this problem that might otherwise have been undertaken. I cannot give any assurance that legislation will be introduced during the sessional period now commencing. I rather thought of the possibility of something being introduced during the autumn sessional period.

page 87

NATIONAL RADIATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Ministerial Statement

Mr MENZIES:
Prime Minis ter · Kooyong · LP

– by leave -I lay on the table of the House the following paper: -

National Radiation Advisory Committee Report on a detailed assessment of fall-out in Australia, dated June, 1962.

I propose to make a very short statement on this matter.

This report by the National Radiation Advisory Committee is the outcome of a detailed assessment of fall-out in Australia from all nuclear weapons tests conducted prior to September, 1961. Although by nature complex and technical, the facts are presented simply and in lay language. For the benefit of those initiated in this field, a detailed review of the scientific data on fall-out levels in Australia is appended to the report.

The publication of this report is opportune. It is reassuring to learn from it that the committee has come to the conclusion that all fallout over Australia from all nuclear weapons tests conducted prior to September, 1961, will result in a negligible addition to the natural background radiation to which we have always been exposed. The committee goes on to emphasize that the risks to the Australian population from this fall-out are insignificant in comparison with the normal hazards of every day life.

I draw the attention of honorable members to the exacting nature of the measurements which must be made to provide reliable information on these very low levels of radioactivity in our environment. Such measurements must be repeated for a variety of materials and for many specimens of these materials. Obviously, the collection and analysis of these data is a slow process and useful statements cannot be made on a day-to-day basis. The committee stresses this difficulty in its references to the nuclear weapons tests conducted by the Soviet Union in late 1961 and more recently by the United States. Comprehensive scientific data are not yet available on fall-out from these tests, and definite conclusions cannot be drawn for Australia. The committee did believe, however, that brief reference to these tests was necessary and appropriate, and on the basis of the limited information available for the Soviet tests, it expects that fallout here will be no more significant than that from all nuclear weapons tests conducted prior to September, 1961. The United States tests are still in progress and naturally final conclusions cannot be drawn.

The committee is of the opinion that the present programme for monitoring fall-out over Australia is adequate; it is comparable in scope to those being carried out in the

United Kingdom and the United States. Indeed, the Australian data have contributed very significantly to world knowledge of fall-out levels.

Mr Whitlam:

– How often does the committee report?

Mr MENZIES:

– I cannot answer that question off-hand, but I will find out and let the honorable member know. I will also see that he gets copies of all these relevant papers.

page 88

COMMISSION TO ADMINISTER OATH

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received from His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of the Commonwealth a commission authorizing me to administer to members of the House the oath, or affirmation of allegiance. I now lay the commission on the table.

page 88

LOAN (HOUSING) BILL (No. 2) 1962

Message recommending appropriation reported.

In committee (Consideration of Administrator’s message):

Motion (by Mr. Harold Holt) agreed to-

That it is expedient that an appropriation of moneys be made for the purposes of a bill for an act to authorize the raising and expending of a sum not exceeding Forty-five million nine hundred thousand pounds for the purposes of bousing.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Harold Holt and Mr. Fairhall do prepare and bring in a bill to carry out the foregoing resolution.

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

Second Reading

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
HigginsTreasurer · LP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the borrowing of £45,900,000 for advances to the States in 1962-63 in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. In accordance with its usual practice, at its June meeting the Australian Loan Council gave detailed consideration to the States’ requirements for housing in 1962-63, and the amount to be raised represents that part of the overall borrowing programme approved by the Loan Council that the States, individually, and the Loan Council considered should be applied for housing under the housing agreement.

The amounts the States sought to have allocated for housing in 1962-63 are -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! There is too much audible conversation. We have new microphones in the chamber, and it is very difficult now for the Chair not to hear honorable members when they transgress Standing Orders.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– This amount of £45,900,000 is, I emphasize, the amount the Premiers themselves decided at the Loan Council after the total works and housing programmes had been determined. It is £4,500,000 less than the aggregate of £50,400,000 that was raised and applied for the purpose of the agreement in 1961-62, including the supplementary amount of £7,500,000 that was especially advanced to the States as part of the Government’s measures to stimulate economic activity. The terms of the housing agreement require that not less than 30 per cent, of the advances to be made to the States in 1962-63 shall be allocated for private home building, principally through building societies. It is estimated that in 1962-63 about £15,000,000 will be allocated to the home builders’ accounts within the housing agreement, in addition to the £62,900,000 allocated for this purpose in the preceding six years.

Essentially of a machinery character, this bill will give practical effect to the decision of the Loan Council. However, it would be appropriate for me to direct the attention of the House to the significant contribution the Commonwealth has made and is continuing to make, under the housing agreements with the States, towards the erection of dwellings in the States. Up to 30th June, 1962, the Commonwealth had advanced about £465,400,000 to the States. The addition of the £45,900,000 to be provided under the measure now before the House will mean that by 30th June, 1963, a little more than £511,000,000 will have been provided. That truly huge sum is an undeniable demonstration of the Commonwealth’s interest in and practical assistance towards housing in the States. In the six years to June, 1962, advances to the States under the housing agreements, excluding those allocated to the home builders’ accounts, totalled £162,000,000. With these funds and those drawn from their own resources, the State governments have been enabled to construct about 13,000 dwellings a year.

However, this is far from being the total contribution the Commonwealth makes to the provision of housing finance in Australia. In recent years the Commonwealth has been making available each year an amount of £35,000,000 for housing finance under the war service homes scheme. The total amount provided over the past six years has been £206,000,000, bringing the total since the end of World War II. to £405,000,000. Then there are the funds provided for homes for the aged, for serving members of the defence services and for housing in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Over the past six years, a total of £56,000,000 has been provided in these ways. Together with the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement and war service homes advances, a grand total of no less than £487,000,000 has been made available by the Commonwealth for housing purposes over the past six years.

Further, the Commonwealth has taken active steps to encourage the provision of housing finance from the banking system. The savings and cheque paying banks, together with the major life offices, approved loans for the construction or purchase of new dwellings to the value of £66,000,000 during 1961-62, bringing the total for the past six years to £375,000,000. Even when it was necessary in the national interest to limit bank credit, housing loans by the trading banks were not subject to the restrictions that applied in other fields. In these ways, both directly and indirectly, the Commonwealth has made a substantial contribution towards the financing of dwelling construction throughout Australia. It has thus played a large part in the notable rise in housing standards that has occurred. Whereas in 1947 there was one dwelling for every 3.9 persons in Australia, by 1954 there was one dwelling for every 3.6 persons and by 1961 one for every 3.5 persons. Taking the period of the past six years for which I have already given figures of Commonwealth contributions to the finance of housing, about 500,000 dwellings were completed. Although some of these were, of course, replacements for dwellings pulled down, that is a substantial achievement when seen against the population increase over that period of 1,300,000 persons. One new dwelling was completed for every 2.6 persons added to the population.

A striking feature of developments in the sphere of housing in the post-war period has been the spread of home ownership. The relevant figures from the 1961 census are available only for four States, but these all show a large and significant movement. Compared with the situation in 1947, those owning or in the process of buying their own homes increased in Queensland from 61.3 per cent, of occupied private dwellings to 72.1 per cent.; in South Australia, from 56.7 per cent, to 70.2 per cent.; in Western Australia from 56.6 per cent, to 70 per cent.; and in Tasmania from 52.9 per cent, to 68.9 per cent.

Mr Whitlam:

– Do all these percentages come from last year’s census?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– Yes.

Mr Whitlam:

– When will housing figures from the census as a whole be published?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I will try to get that information for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I have been provided only with figures for four States and I understand that they are the only figures available.

Mr Whitlam:

– But what is the number of houses in relation to population?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I have just given the number of houses completed in the last six years. If the honorable gentleman requires any particulars I shall see if the Commonwealth Statistician has them.

Mr Whitlam:

– I have in mind that in the 1954 census, figures were produced showing the number of substandard houses in the various States.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! This is a very friendly conversation, but I doubt whether it is in order.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– Under your benign influence, Sir, I hope all conversations in this place will be as friendly. I do not want to interrupt what I was putting to the House. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would like me to get some further information from the Statistician before the debate is resumed, I shall certainly do my best to get it. It would be interesting to learn, for example, the proportion of unoccupied houses in New South Wales compared with the proportions in the other States. I think it would be found that, reflecting rental policies in New South Wales, the proportion there is very much higher.

Mr Whitlam:

– I merely want all the figures; not selected ones.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I have tried not to select only those which make the Government’s very impressive performance look even more impressive than the facts warrant. It has simply appeared to me that wherever I have turned for information to give the House, such information has reflected the very substantial achievements of this Government over its period of office.

To return to the bill, I would add in short that not only are there more houses per head of population, but more of them are owned or are in the course of acquisition by the people living in them. Putting this matter on a plane somewhat higher than sordid party politics, I would say that the Australian people can take some pride in the achievement in home construction in the post-war period. I believe that it compares favorably with the achievement in any other country. I commend the bill to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 90

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1962

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 25); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 26); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 27); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 28); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 29); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 30); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 31); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 32); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 33); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 34); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 35); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 4); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 5); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 6)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

.- I move- [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 25).]

  1. That the Scheduleto the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twentyeighth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  1. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 26).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twentyninth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962: and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 27).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twentysecond day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 2nd May. 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 28).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, befurther amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twentysixth day of June, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 29).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the sixth day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into theHouse of Representatives on the following dates: - 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 30).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the thirteenth day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 31).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twentieth day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates:- 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 32).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twentyfourth day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates:- 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 33).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twentyseventh day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates: - 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 34).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the thirtyfirst day of July. One thousand nine hundred and sixtytwo, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates:- 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 35).]

  1. That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff Proposals, be further amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals, and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the third day of August, One thousand nine hundred and sixty two, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly.
  2. That in these Proposals, “ Customs Tariff Proposals “ mean the Customs Tariff Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the following dates; - 2nd May, 1962; 10th May, 1962; and 15th May, 1962.

[Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 4).]

That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1962 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twenty-seventh day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two. [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 5).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1962 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and from the twenty-ninth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two. [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 6).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1962 be amended as set out in the Schedule to these Proposals and that the amendment operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twenty-seventh day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two. **Mr. Chairman,** Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 25 to 35 which I have just tabled relate to tariff alterations which have been made since Parliament rose in May last. In accordance with section 273 ea of the Customs Act, notices of the proposals were published in the Commonwealth Gazette. Copies of the notices were circulated to honorable members at the time. Proposals Nos. 25 to 32 and 34 provide for temporary duties on automotive electric components, conveyor belts and belting, paper, paper boards and paper felt, aircooled internal combustion engines, weedicides and insecticides, synthetic rubber, wrought iron and steel chain, towels and towelling, polyvinyl chloride products, compressors and allied equipment for use in refrigeration and air conditioning equipment. In each of these instances temporary duties, which are additional to the normal duties, were imposed following reports by a special advisory authority. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 35 provide for the removal of the temporary duties imposed earlier this year on penicillin and streptomycin. This action follows a recommendation by a special advisory authority that temporary protection on these products should be afforded by quantitative restrictions on imports because the temporary duties had proved to be ineffective in holding the position. The recommendations have been adopted by the Government and quantitative import restrictions have been imposed. The normal protective needs of the industries concerned have been referred to the Tariff Board for full inquiry and report. The temporary duties, or the temporary import restrictions as the case may be, will remain in effect only until the Government has taken action on the final report's of the board but, in any event, not later than three months after receipt of the relevant reports. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 33 provide for amendments to the Customs Tariff on bonded fibre fabrics, tartaric acid and cream of tartar, discontinuous man-made fibre yarns (not containing wool), pneumatic tyres and tubes, sensitive balances, static capacitors, and yarns, woollen or containing wool, and arise from consideration of Tariff Board recommendations as distinct from reports by a special advisory authority. In each case, the Government has accepted the Tariff Board's recommendations. In addition to the amendments arising from recommendations by the Tariff Board, some drafting changes have been made to the tariff items relating to textile fibres and tyres and tubes. These are of an administrative nature and do not involve alterations in the rates of duty outside those recommended by the Tariff Board. The other proposals which I have just moved, that is to say, Canada Preference Proposals No. 4 and New Zealand Preference Proposals Nos. 5 and 6 are complementary to the main proposals and are drafting amendments necessary to maintain preferential margins of duty. A summary of the tariff amendments is presently being circulated in the chamber, and I trust this will be of assistance to honorable members in appreciating the nature of the changes more precisely. At a later stage, I shall table the reports which gave rise to the foregoing tariff changes. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 116 {:#debate-29} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #debate-29-s0 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP .- I lay on the table of the House the reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - >Bonded fibre fabrics and interim report under the General Textile Reference on bonded fibre fabrics. > >General Textile Reference - interim report on yarns woollen or containing wool. > >General Textile Reference - interim report on discontinuous man-made fibre yarns (not containing wool). > >Citric acid, tartaric acid and cream of tartar. > >Pneumatic rubber tyres and tubes. > >Sensitive balances. > >Static capacitors. I also lay on the table of the House reports by the Special Advisory Authority on - >Automotive electrical components. > >Paper, paper boards and paper felt. > >Conveyor belts and belting. > >Air-cooled internal combustion engines. > >Weedicides and insecticides. > >Synthetic rubber. > >Wrought iron and steel chain. > >Towels and towelling. > >Polyvinyl chloride products. > >Compressors and allied equipment for use in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. > >Penicillin and streptomycin. I am also tabling three other reports by the Special Advisory Authority on - >Olive oil. > >Timber. > >Trichlorethylene. These do not call for any legislative action. Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 116 {:#debate-30} ### STATES GRANTS (ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE) BILL (No. 2) 1962 {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 7th August (vide page 61), on motion by **Mr. Harold** Holt - That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-30-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports .- This bill, which was briefly introduced by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** last night, provides for what is called a non-recurring grant to the States of £12,500,000. It is the third of such grants. The first was made in 1957-58, when some of the States were adversely affected by drought and economic conditions. In February, 1962, a special grant of £10,000,000 was made to stimulate employment in the States, and now, on this third occasion, we have what the Treasurer described as a " special nonrepayable interest-free grant of £12,500,000 to the States for expenditure on employmentgiving activities ". This type of measure shows that all is not well in the field of Commonwealth State financial relations. These relations are very difficult in any federal system. Whilst it is sometimes easy for a government to console itself by the large sums that it pays to the States, it sometimes overlooks the essential difficulties that still face the States. The States are still armed with large constitutional powers and are still expected to perform a number of individual economic activities, yet the revenues for the performance of all these functions are severely limited by the way in which the federal system has worked. On this occasion and on the occasion of the previous Budget, information relating to Commonwealth payments to or for the States has been added to the already voluminous documentation supplied to honorable members. An attempt has been made to put in a compact form the various kinds of payments that the Commonwealth makes to the States for a variety of purposes. In this financial year, these payments are expected to aggregate the quite substantial sum of £422,575,000, including the grant of £12,500,000 to which I have referred. To get the proper perspective, we need to consult one of the documents presented by the Treasurer with his Budget. It is called the White Paper on National Income and Expenditure 1961-62. It gives, after the event, the pattern of economic development in Australia for the financial year ended June, 1962. The Treasurer said - >More than a few told us there was still some lack of confidence in the business *world.* I find myself in that company, so far as the state of the nation is concerned. This is borne out by the figures contained in Table A, National Income and Expenditure. They show that what is called gross domestic expenditure - that is, the economic spending in the Australian community - for the period ended June, 1962, was the quite substantial sum of £7,222,000,000. It is quite a substantial sum, except that it is £282,000,000 less than was spent in the previous financial *year.* This gives some idea of the deterioration in aggregate spending in the Australian community over the past twelve months. Although there were some 2 per cent, more mouths to feed for the period ended June, 1962, as compared with the period ended June, 1961, aggregate expenditure was £282,000,000 less than in the previous year. But, unless the figures are analysed, this does not show the proper position. Despite the fact that aggregate expenditure fell by £282,000,000, expenditure by public authorities - that is, governments of one kind or another - increased by £112,000,000 from £1,334,000,000 to £1,446,000,000. The other significant item for those who claim that they are disciples of private enterprise and promoters of growth in the Australian economy is that expenditure on fixed capital equipment by private individuals declined by £117,000,000 in the last financial year. This shows how parlous the situation would have been if public authority expenditure had not increased. We had a deterioration in overall activity which cannot be due to anything other than a lack of confidence in the business community, because it is in the field of private investment particularly that the decline has occurred. This shows the significant role that government spending plays in the Australian community. The decline would have been much more rapid if public spending had not been stimulated. Table C on page 5 of the White Paper further analyses the total expenditure by public authorities. This significant comment appears with the table - >The largest increase in 1961-62 was in public works expenditure, which increased by £69,000,000, or by 12 per cent. State authorities accounted for £55,000,000 of this increase. Compared with 1959-60, public works expenditure in 1961-62 was £93,000,000 greater, with the whole of the increase accounted for by State authorities. In other words, the increase in public works expenditure was accounted for almost entirely by increased activity on the part of the States in fields such as hospitals, roads and education. That situation highlights the important constitutional responsibilities that still face the States, but the Commonwealth is still largely depended upon to generate the initiative. The grant provided by this legislation is something new - at least this is only the third occasion on which such a grant has been made. Unfortunately for the overall development of Australia, the money involved in this grant seems to be doled out with the request to spend it as quickly as possible and on anything available. We are almost back to the old philosophy that the quickest way to obtain economic activity in the community is to set the unemployed digging postholes or to any kind of work irrespective of the need for it. That state of affairs points to the incompetency of the Government's handling of the problems that beset the nation. It is not a bad thing for the sum of £12,500,000 to be spent but it is bad that the money should be made available in such a belated fashion after so many people have suffered misfortunes of unemployment for long periods of time. It is a bad thing also that very little scrutiny will be given to the way in which the money will be spent, although the Treasurer in his second-reading speech referred to some of the difficulties confronting the States regarding their overall financial commitments and said - >I may mention that some State Premiers indicated at the conference that their budgetary problems were likely to be more difficult in 1962-63 than they were last year. As a result the Commonwealth, while emphasizing that the overall purpose of the grants was to stimulate employment, made it clear that in pursuing that general objective the States were at the same time free to utilize any part of the grants which they saw fit in order to assist their budgets in the present year. In other words, if the States could integrate this expenditure into their general expenditures, all the better; but nevertheless they were requested to spend the grants as quickly as possible and for any purpose. That is a very tragic approach to the problem of economic development in the Australian community. As the White Paper to which I have already referred indicates, in the last financial year public investment was more significant in aggregate than was private investment. That situation is a curious reflection on a government that claims to be the defender of a system of free private enterprise - a government that mouths conveniently that it is all for economic growth. Economic growth in the community last year was not at the desired level. The position was prevented from becoming worse than it was only by what might be termed socialistic expenditure or expenditure by public authority. I do not decry that transition. I feel that over the years there has been too much private investment, to the extent perhaps of £100,000,000 a year, and too little public investment, to the extent perhaps of £100,000,000 a year. As a result of that pattern of development insurance offices and banks - all lavish buildings - have been erected on every street corner in every capital city, whilst at the same time in the outer suburbs children have been denied access to modern schools. Every State is desperately short of hospitals. The roads in every State are inadequate whilst at the other end of the scale we have record pro duction of motor cars. Those contradictions in the economy have been evident for a considerable number of years but no attempt has been made to grapple with the problem. The result is a distorted pattern of development in the country. This situation has had an impact on imports. Because imports were flowing into the country at a rate greater than was healthy, certain measures had to be taken - measures that not only stopped the flow of imports but also reduced economic activity in the community to such an extent that at one stage something like 150,000 persons who were willing and able to work could not find employment. More schools were needed. We had idle man-power and at the same time we had idle building capacity. That is a tragic circumstance in a nation such as ours. With the development that we need in Australia we should never have a surplus of man-power. We should have a shortage of man-power. The Government's failure to grapple with the basic problems facing the nation is highlighted by its call to the States to spend this £12,500,000 as quickly as possible. If the development of State works had been properly planned over the years the present difficulty would not have arisen. The people now out of work would have been in employment and this additional financial assistance would, not have been necessary. These days we hear from many strange places references to the need for economic planning in the nation. The Labour Party has always subscribed to the view that the affairs of a nation should be planned no less carefully than those of even the smallest business. We may haggle among ourselves as to the nature of the planning, but nobody applauds the annual wrangling that takes place at meetings of the Australian Loan Council over the Commonwealth's allocation to the States. I submit that the only great public work that has been undertaken in Australia in the last fifteen years, and which from the outset has been guaranteed all the finance it needed, has been the Snowy Mountains scheme. The States, which, individually, have projects that are just as important and just as significant in the national perspective as that one is, had to slow down their programmes because they could not tell, more than three or four months ahead, what the overall financial allocation; would be. We have had the spectacle in the Melbourne metropolitan area of something like half a dozen hospitals in various stages of slow construction. Instead of finishing six hospitals at the end of six years, we should be able to finish one every year over six years. Under the existing system, an area may want a post office or a school or some public work that is the responsibility of the local government authority. If all the jobs could not be done at once, and the matter were put to the people in the area, they might plump for the local authority project to be completed first and the post office to be completed last. But so badly is our internal public works planning that the likelihood is that the post office would be built first. The Commonwealth has been able to afford the luxury of determining how much of its public works programme shall be financed out of revenue and then throwing the matter over to the States for a wrangle about how the available funds shall be distributed between various State works and semi-governmental or local government authority programmes. I suggest that the time has come in Australia when this annual wrangle in the Australian Loan Council should be abandoned and that body should be turned into a national works planning council. Until we get that sort of approach to these matters, we shall suffer under the haphazard system under which money is belatedly thrown to the States and the likelihood is that a school that does not really need painting will be painted and one that ought to be built will not be built. That sort of thing is crazy in any nation and it is crazy above all in the circumstances of Australia where the problem is made more difficult by the federal machinery with which we have to grapple. The Opposition does not oppose this measure at this stage. All we say is that it is inadequate. It is merely a recognition that the present machinery for adjudicating between the Commonwealth and the States is both inadequate and inequitable in its application to the States and, in particular, to local government authorities, which are the poor relations as it were. It is time this state of affairs was recognized, even though belatedly. We should not have before us measures of this kind which amount to the Commonwealth saying to the States: " For Heaven's sake spend this money as quickly as possible on anything you like. We shall not closely scrutinize the way in which the funds are applied." I suggest that that is wasteful in the running of an economy. I realize that somebody on the Government side of the House will say that this Government is giving to the States more money than they have ever been given before. They are being given more money than they have ever had in the history of the Commonwealth because, for one thing, the value of money has been halved under the administration of this Government, and, for another thing, the population of Australia is rising every year and the needs of the Australian people are greater in every succeeding year than they were in the previous year. Surely the sensible thing is to plan over five or ten years the great development projects that face the Australian nation. We ought to be able to undertake them with the same financial certainty that has been the fortunate lot of the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric *Authority, which* has never had to fear that, owing to inadequate funds, its plans would not be fulfilled by physical performance. That, unfortunately, is not the position of the States. All honorable members from all States, regardless of whether the State government is Labour or Liberal, can give examples of State public works and local government works essential to the areas in which they are located having been delayed by the stop-and-go policy of this Government. The Government cannot escape its responsibility under our federal system as the controller of the purse and the regulator of the financial flow. It is easy to suggest that some of the States' present constitutional responsibilities ought to be handed over to the Commonwealth, but, until the responsibilities are handed over, we have at least to see that what ought to be done is done* properly. At present, what ought to be done is not being done properly and, as a consequence, the people, as citizens not only of the separate States but also of the Australian nation as a whole, are suffering. I repeat what I said earlier: In the circumstances that face Australia, it is criminal, from a development standpoint, to permit a situation in which we have idle man-power, productive capacity and resources. At present, all of those factors are in large measure idle in the Australian economy. We have people who want to work and cannot get work. We have a lengthy catalogue of things that need to be done and idle resources that could be put to work, in conjunction with the idle manpower, to do the things that need to be done. I conclude, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** by condemning this measure because it demonstrates a failure on the Government's part seriously to grapple with the basic problems of development that face the Australian nation. We could make a beginning on the job that lies before us by undertaking economic planning in the field of public works, in which the State governments are individually sovereign. I hope that the necessary measures will be taken quickly and that the planning will be sure. {: #subdebate-30-0-s1 .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE:
Macarthur **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** figures that I have taken out do not justify the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** in attacking the Commonwealth Government as he has done over public works. I know that if he remains in the chamber to hear what I am about to say he will give it due consideration. I have carefully studied the situation of New South Wales, where State revenue has lagged behind the payments received from the Commonwealth over the last three financial years. Revenue raised directly by the State was £80,700,000 in 1960-61 and £85,000,000 in 1961-62 - an increase of more than 5 per cent. The figure for 1962-63 is estimated at £92,000,000 - an increase of about 13 per cent, or 14 per cent. Payments by the Commonwealth to New South Wales were £117,000,000 in 1960-61 and £130,000,000 in 1961-62, and will be £137,800,000 in the current financial year. The figures for loans raised for the State are respectively £105,000,000, £122,000,000 and £124,000,000. The total amounts made available to the States for expenditure rose by £34,000,000 last year and will rise by £17,000,000 this year, representing an increase of 16.7 per cent, on the allocation made two years ago - the base year. The money raised by the States themselves has increased by only 13 or 14 per cent. It will be seen that the Commonwealth has taken the lead; its allocations are increasing at a greater rate than are the amounts raised by the States from all sources. Surely this does not reflect a stop-and-go policy; rather is it an impressive record of increased allocations by the Commonwealth to the States. There is an upward arithmetical progression. A steeper rise is shown in the funds made available by the Commonwealth than in. the funds raised by the States through their own forms of taxation. The so called policy of stop-and-go has resulted in more money being allocated to the States in an even flow. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- It is still not fast enough. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- I am replying to the direct and specific allegations of the honorable member for Melbourne Ports. He said that local government works programmes are being delayed through lack of funds. I have shown that this Parliament's allocations to the States have increased more than have the amounts that the States have raised themselves. The States have soveriegn powers in relation to raising funds, but they will not use them. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- Where do you suggest that the States could raise more money? {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- There are all sorts of ways. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports knows, as well as any other honorable member, that the States impose land tax, and that they tax racing and gambling. All those taxes are sources of State revenue, but the States must accept the responsibility for gathering them. Of course, the States invariably prefer to use Commonwealth funds, which is a sad feature of the present Commonwealth-State financial relations. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports said that under the formula we were wont to use, there was little hope of national priorities being established. Before the period we are talking about now, a State like Queensland, of immense size and with tremendous potential resources, would, under the formula, have received scarcely enough money to replace a wornout railway sleeper or to paint a school. It could do no more than cope with normal maintenance anl perhaps indulge in a little development. That was the sorry situation. The formula took population into account, and those places that gave promise of showing the quickest return for national expenditure received priority. To show the change that has occurred, let me refer to an article headed " Loan Council Revolution ", written by a distinguished political observer, Alan Reid. Reid says - >In February the Menzies Government after a Loan Council meeting announced the provision of a special non-repayable grant of £10,000,000. The £10,000,000 was earmarked for "employment giving" activities and absolutely no regard was paid to the traditional formulas on which the States had previously split up moneys. Queensland received £3,340,000 compared with New South Wales's £2,240,000 and Victoria's £1,800,000. > >Now what started as a political action to take electoral pressure from the then hard-pressed Menzies Government looks as though it could emerge as a regular pattern. Not only did the Commonwealth last week distribute another £12,500,000 in special non-repayable grants, again giving Queensland the lion's share, but it also listed £24,000,000 it was spending on special projects. The representatives of the States at meetings of the Loan Council have departed from the old attitude of asking for their share upon the basis of population, area and so on. In these days, Western Australia and the larger States might have been given slightly increased amounts for road development and other special problems facing the larger States. The article I have read is, in general, perfectly true. There is no doubt that the old basis of allocation has been changed. Under the bill, of the total allocation of £12,500,000, Queensland will receive £3,640,000, New South Wales £3,044,000 and Victoria just short of £2,500,000. I think the honorable member for Melbourne Ports knows that these figures are accurate. The principle has changed- {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: -- That shows it was completely wrong. {: .speaker-JOE} ##### Mr JEFF BATE: -- The honorable member for Melbourne Ports on this occasion made the speech that he made last year, but there has been a change since then. He looked up his file, studied the notes he made for his speech last year and said the same thing, but there has been a change. The honorable member, upon reflection, will admit the truth of this. I have not pressed the point that these divisions are correct; I am merely saying that the principle has changed. If some of the less populous States have immense latent resources, something must be done to establish better national priorities. I do not want the Government in Canberra to spend this money. Representatives of the Commonwealth Government should be present at meetings of the Loan Council and at Premiers' Conferences, but I firmly believe that the people close to the job should spend the money. They should be given their share of the general allocation, and they should spend it. North of the Tropic of Capricorn, this is still a pretty primitive country, and I believe that the people who are close to conditions there should decide how the money should be spent. I think the figures prove that the point made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports towards the end of his speech is erroneous. There has been a significant change. Honorable members should examine also this part of the Treasurer's speech - 1 may mention that some State Premiers indicated at the conference that their budgetary problems were likely to be more difficult in 1962-63 than they were last year. As a result the Commonwealth, while emphasizing that the overall purpose of the grants was to stimulate employment, made it clear that in pursuing that joint objective the States were at the same time free to utilize any part of the grants which they saw fit in order to assist their budgets in the present year. Any member of a State government would strongly defend his right to do it in that way. Last year, however, when a similar amount was made available, it was paid into the general funds of the States concerned and lost its identity. Although this money is advanced to stimulate employment, it goes into the State's funds, loses its identity, and merely becomes a part of the State's expenditure. **Mr. Speaker** Cameron once gave a ruling that when the Parliament is allocating specific funds to a State or States, honorable members are in order in examining the manner in which the money will be spent. I propose now to make some comments on the specific purpose of these funds. If £3,044,000 is to be available to New South Wales, for example, one would hope that immediately the announcement of the grant was made - it was made about 1st July - this money would begin to be used to stimulate employment in that State. Let us look at the position of the States, going back to the figures which I gave previously. From all sources - their own revenue, federal payments and loans for all purposes - the States, two years ago, had £303,000,000. Last year they had £337,000,000 and this year they have £354,000,000, or nearly £1,000,000 a day. It ought to be well known that in some States, when the allocation of these funds is announced, the Treasury starts off the year cautiously. Then the cash balances begin to swell and by about 1st April a situation is reached where the money has to be spent quickly or there will be a bad case to take to the ensuing Premiers' Conference and the Loan Council meeting. In the early part of the 1950-60 decade we saw, in New South Wales, something of a panic rush to spend these funds as quickly as possible so that there would be a bare Treasury on 30th June when the next hand-out from the Commonwealth was due. This is not a good system. When the money was spent quickly it meant that there was an inflationary pressure upon the goods and services available in the State concerned. In other words, there was a lack of balance and a lack of logic in the expenditure of the money over the whole year. But there is an even worse aspect of this practice in the present situation. In New South Wales, at the moment, there are a number of unemployed people. This money is specifically to be used to stimulate unemployment. In New South Wales, on 29th June - the latest figures that are available - there were 34,869 registered unemployed and the recipients of unemployment benefits were 17,035, or about half that number. Of those 17,035 recipients the Sydney metropolitan area had 7,670, Newcastle 1,558, Wollongong 966, Maitland 542, Cessnock 519, Lismore 478 and Gosford 473. Those men and women would be glad to get jobs as quickly as possible. I believe that it is not wrong for members of this Parliament to say that as this £3,000,000 is being made available quickly - as far as I know the cash is available now - there ought to be a crash programme of works to attempt to employ some of the unfortunate people who are now out of work. In other words, there ought to be evidence that New South Wales is prepared to spend the money quickly. If what the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** told us is correct - I am sure he believes that it is - there are local government works waiting to be done. So if £3,000,000 was made available to the Treasurer of New South Wales on 1st July, that money should have been put into circulation at once to provide jobs. To-day, of course, it is not a matter of putting men on to pick and shovel work. I think the honorable member for Melbourne Ports said that the money is handed out to put men on pick and shovel work. That is not right. The pick and shovel are implements of the past. Most of the work formerly done by pick and shovel is now done by machinery. In the coalmines and elsewhere there are automatic machines to do the work and nobody touches the handle of a pick or a shovel at any stage. In fact, it is hard now to get a man to pick up a mattock to take out a tussock. Instead, the job has to be done by a bulldozer or by a chisel plough pulled by a tractor. So it is not a matter of finding money for men working with picks and shovels, and I think the honorable member for Melbourne Ports exaggerated that aspect. This money will be used to put men into jobs that have been planned. There is a back-log of works. These are specific jobs with a high priority. The machinery is ready and the men can go to work immediately. At least let us be certain that the Government of New South Wales will expend this money on employment at once and not hold it until 1st April, 1st May or 1st June. The honorable member for Parkes **(Mr. Haylen)** has come into the House and I know this will hurt his feelings because he is a bit sensitive on this point: But if the Government of New South Wales puts this £3,000,000 into its Consolidated Revenue Fund a great deal of it, of course, will find its way into expenditure on the Opera House to bridge the gap between the receipts from the mammoth lotteries and the increased cost of the project. It may be argued that the building of the Opera House is a means of giving employment. Yes, but it is employment of a particular type. So it may be that this £3,000,000 will go into the Sydney Opera House. There are also other ways in which the Government of New South Wales could spend this grant if it were allowed to include it in its budget. Some time ago it spent £3,000,000 in the purchase of the Balmain electric light and power company. That company was doing a good job, but it had to be nationalized and so £3,000,000 was spent for that purpose. This was not a proper thing for a government to do. In addition, all sorts of works are done on day-labour instead of contract. 1 think we are permitted to discuss that during the debate on this measure. I think we are entitled to ask that this money be directed to its specific purpose - the stimulation of employment. Of course the Commonwealth ought to have financial meetings where full priorities of works are decided, and there is now a move in that direction. It is a revolution in financing. Above all, let this money go directly and rapidly into a crash programme to stimulate employment. {: #subdebate-30-0-s2 .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr RIORDAN:
Kennedy **.- Mr. Speaker,** I do not wish to reply to any of the statements made by the honorable member for Macarthur **(Mr. Jeff Bate)** except to say that he seems to be very critical of the principle of distribution of this money. Apparently the principle is that each State will, in matters of this kind, have its propositions dealt with on their merits. I rise to support the bill. It is only four months since we had a similar measure introduced in this House by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt).** In introducing this bill last night the Treasurer said, among other things, that it was intended to provide finance for employmentgiving activities, mainly in the works field. He said, further - >In making the present offer of further assistance in 1962-63 the Commonwealth was influenced by the fact that there still exists a need to promote job opportunities. We expect this grant to have a beneficial impact on the employment position. The Treasurer said that the measure had for its express purpose the provision of additional employment. It is quite obvious, when one looks at the schedule to the bill, that the amount being allocated to Queensland indicates that there was a recognition at the Loan Council meeting of the high percentage of unemployment in Queensland. The Treasurer said in his speech last night that a measure of stability had been achieved. Apparently the granting of £10,000,000 to the States did not have the adverse effects on the economy that were foreshadowed by the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** during the election campaign last year. Honorable members will recall that when Labour Party spokesmen announced during that campaign that they would, if a Labour government were returned to office, advocate the granting of substantial sums to the States for the relief of unemployment, the Prime Minister said that this would have an inflationary effect on the economy and that costs would rise. Apparently these results have not followed the grant of £10,000,000 to the States, of which amount Queensland received £3,340,000. However, despite the fact that Queensland was given this additional financial assistance, the level of unemployment in that State at 30th June last was still 3.2 per cent., the highest level of all the States. In Queensland there are 23,000 unemployed, out of a total number of 92,000 throughout Australia. What would have been the position if these financial grants had not been made and Queensland had not been given the £3,340,000? The proportion of unemployed would have been even higher than it is now. The purpose of the bill before us is to implement proposals agreed to at the Premiers' Conference and meetings of the Australian Loan Council on 28th June last. On the morning of that day, on which the Loan Council meetings commenced, the Brisbane " Courier Mail " had this to say in a leading article - >Queensland's case for continuance of special aid from the Commonwealth for relieving unemployment will be presented at meetings of the Loan Council and the Premiers' Conference in Canberra to-day and to-morrow. All the other States can be expected to make a similar plea because all have sizeable unemployment. > >But all have not Queensland's special problem of providing for seasonal unemployment over several months of the year. This has been aggravated by continuance of a high level of unemployment in some industries that are counted upon to keep workers in jobs all through the year. Though figures measuring registered unemployment have dropped over the last three months Queensland still has to find jobs for a higher percentage of its work force than any other State. That will be **Mr. Nicklin's** strongest argument for asking other State Premiers to allow Queensland a right of way to special Commonwealth aid. > >He can also point Queensland's need for a larger allocation of loan money to speed development of its vast northern region. Development of the North of Australia is an interest Queensland shares with Western Australia and with the Commonwealth in respect to the Northern Territory. The North could supply Australia more largely with commodities she will require to expand her trade with the rest of the world - foodstuffs and minerals. National investment that builds roads, clears land for production and conserves water could lead the way to much bigger private investment and settle more people in the North. Those are not the opinions of a Labour Party spokesman. Those comments were contained in a leading article in the Brisbane " Courier Mail ", and I believe they give an adequate answer to any criticism of the allocation of a greater amount of money to Queensland than to some of the other States. When the Premiers' Conference and the Australian Loan Council meetings were being held I read newspaper reports to the effect that discussions were conducted in an acrimonious atmosphere. It was reported that the Premier of South Australia had clashed with **Mr. Nicklin.** Evidently some resentment was felt at the fact that Queensland was being allocated more money than other States, despite the fact that the peculiar circumstances existing in Queensland warranted the allocation of extra money. I would like the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** to pay close attention to the leading article that I just read to the House, and to the particular statement, " all have not Queensland's special problem of providing for seasonal unemployment", because every time we talk about unemployment in Queensland the Minister refers to it as seasonal unemployment. In the act that was introduced in April last to give effect to the Government's proposals to grant financial assistance to the States, it was stipulated that the money had to be spent within three months. Queensland was required to spend its allocation of £3,340,000 in three months. Queensland is now to be granted £3,640,000, which will have to be spent within the next ten months. I remind the House that for seven or eight months of that period a large number of seasonal workers, such as sugar workers and meat workers, will be looking for alternative employment. When the additional money was made available last April the meatworks season had not started and the sugar season had not started. The Queensland Government had three months in which to spend the money it had received, and I take it, as we have not received any advice to the contrary, that all the money was spent. When this legislation is passed Queensland will have ten months in which to spend £3,640,000, but, as I have said, for seven or eight months of that period employment will have to be found for meat workers and sugar workers for whom no work will be available in those industries. The Treasurer told us last night that it was necessary to restore confidence. It is true that if we want a return to something like normal conditions in the economy it will be necessary to have confidence fully restored. But there will be no confidence, and there will be no prosperity for everybody, until the policy of full employment, which the right honorable gentleman mentioned last night purely in passing, is implemented. If a man is in employment but fears that he may lose that employment and have no job to go to, he and his wife will button up. The Treasurer told us last night of the increase in savings bank deposits. This has been due largely to lack of confidence among workers. They know full well that if they become unemployed it will probably be impossible to get other jobs, and that in those circumstances their savings bank accounts will be their best friends. There is only one way to restore confidence, and that is by implementing a policy of full employment. When we had full employment everyone was prosperous. Then we heard all the talk of wild inflation, and certain action was taken by the Government with the expressed intention of curbing this inflation. We all know how the number of bankruptcies rose as a result of that action, and how distress and misery resulted from it. Is it any wonder that the Labour Party was successful in the State elections in New South Wales and South Australia? Is it any wonder that there was a swing of more than ten per cent, against the Liberal-Country Party Government of Victoria in the Broadmeadows by-election last Saturday? People have confidence in the Labour Party, because they know what Labour's policies have meant to them in the past and what they will mean to them in the future. Let me refer the House to another editorial which appeared in a newspaper on 28th June, the day on which the Australian Loan Council meetings commenced. This editorial appeared in the Brisbane " Telegraph ", and it contained the following comments: - >The Commonwealth has been wise to recognize Queensland's special needs. Our unemployment level of 3.2 per cent, of the work force is the highest in Australia, and the Premier was able to produce other figures to show that the State is not progressing towards full development as quickly as most of the others. > >While this year's £3,640,000 is an essential shotinthearm, it must not be regarded as a cure-all for Queensland's troubles. That was quite correct. The £3,640,000 is not a cure-all. It may be a shot in the arm, but in providing this amount the Government is simply playing around with the problem as it exists at present. In the Brisbane " Courier-Mail ", of 28th June, the Premier of Queensland was reported as saying - >The lack of development has been reflected in, and associated with, a higher level of unemployment in Queensland during recent years than in any other State. > >This position is often dismissed on the basis that Queensland's unemployment problem is essentially a seasonal problem. > >Let me state quite categorically that over the last three years the Queensland percentage of the work force unemployed has been below the Australian average in only one month. Obviously, it is more than a seasonal problem. That is the answer, again, to the statement by the Minister for Labour and National Service that unemployment in Queensland is seasonal. The amount being provided under the bill is readily acceptable but it is totally inadequate. It is true that the Premiers themselves wanted a minimum of £15,000,000. On the night of 28th June, the Commonwealth offered £10,000,000. There was a row - an argument - a heated discussion. The next morning the Commonwealth agreed to £12,500,000, a compromise between the minimum wanted by the States and the maximum the Commonwealth had been prepared to offer. That maximum was £10,000,000, the amount offered in April of last year. I agree with the Premiers that while 92,000 or more people are registered as unem ployed and tens of thousands more are actually unemployed, something has to be done about this question. There is a responsibility on this Parliament, just as there is on any State parliament, to do something with regard to unemployment and a return to the policy of full employment which existed at the end of the war. Perhaps the most important aspect of the present tragic unemployment situation is the unemployment of youths. I heard with consternation the reply of the Minister for Labour and National Service to a question which he was asked at question time to-day concerning the number of youths entering the work force. He said that he did not have the particulars requested. Good Lord! The figures for Queensland were cited in yesterday's "Courier-Mail". In that State, 5,580 children left school last year. There are 1,630 still to be placed in employment. In only two or three months another 6,000 children will be looking for places in the employment field. We know that thousands of children have returned to school because of their inability to secure employment. State Ministers in Queensland have complained about the great expenditure required for the building of schools in that State. Last week-end **Mr. J.** R. James, secretary of the Queensland Employers Federation - not a Labour man - pleaded for positive action to relieve unemployment among juniors. He said it was disturbing that one-third of those registered for work in Queensland were juniors. He was reported in yesterday's " Courier-Mail " as follows: - >Something has to be done about junior unemployment . . . but it has to be done about senior unemployment, too. > >Very highly skilled workers, whether junior or senior are in demand. > >But while we are in a situation where there is a pool of unemployment, employers are very choosey and will demand high qualificationswhether the job needs them or not. That report continued - >Metal trade union officials said there were more applicants than apprenticeships available now. "Employers are refraining from taking on their full quota of apprentices and the metal trade is one of the worst offenders," a spokesman said. Last March, while speaking on this subject in this House, I quoted a statement by **Mr. A.** Gibson, who is the regional director in Queensland of the Commonwealth Department of Labour and National Service. His address to a meeting in Queensland was reported as follows: - > **Mr. Gibson** said that in 1970 there would be twice as many teenagers in Australia as in 1950. > >In 1970 Australia's population would be an estimated 12,800,000. But the 15-19 age group would increase in that time by 43 per cent., the 20-24 group by 61 per cent, and the 25-29 group by 39 per cent., compared with an all-over average increase of 25 per cent. I have no reason to doubt the figures cited by **Mr. Gibson.** This Government has available to it authoritative information, statistics and all the details that it wants on this matter which concerns it as much as the States. Fathers and mothers of unemployed youths are concerned for the future well-being of their children. We are living in an age of mechanization and automation. That is all the more reason why, if there is not the same demand for manpower as there used to be, the Government should take up the slack, particularly in regard to the youth. I should like to touch briefly on the question of the employment of sugar workers and other seasonal workers. They are a very important section of the work force in Queensland. They produce considerable wealth. They produce commodities which earn overseas income for this country. I shall refer to the sugar workers and meat workers in particular. 1 read in the April issue of the " Australian Sugar Journal " an article by a **Mr. Whittaker.** I know him very well. He is manager of the Mulgrave sugar mill. Dealing with the question of the mechanization of sugar cane harvesting in that journal, **Mr. Whittaker** said that in his mill area there had been two machines in 1960. At the commencement of the 1961 season ten machines had been available. Another commenced to operate during 1961, and another eight machines would be operating by the beginning of this year. This was a total of 21 machines. At the start of the 1961 season with twelve machines, they signed on 304 piece men including 30 men to work the machines, compared with 384 in 1960 and 411 in 1959. That meant a decrease of 107 men with twelve machines in one area alone, and eight or nine more machines have gone into operation since then. Our industry is recognized as the most efficient sugar industry in the world. It is progressive and as its efficiency improves even further the sugar season is contracting. One sugar expert has told me that in the not-far-distant future, twenty weeks will see all the sugar mills finished their work for the year. What will happen then to the cane cutters even although their numbers are decreasing? For the other 32 weeks of the year, they will have to leave the tropical areas where we want population and look for work elsewhere. Ultimately, they will go to Sydney or Melbourne to live. For 32 weeks of the year they will chase fruitpicking or other seasonal work in the south and, like the shearers who return to the pastoral industry for seasonal work, they will go to Queensland for only part of the year. This trend is detrimental to settlement in our vital coastal area in the tropics. The meat-workers are in a similar position. If the season is good, they get a good run of employment. The European Common Market might also be bound up with this problem. We had a good market for mutton developing in Japan, but Japan has announced that it will be reducing its purchases of mutton and the men engaged in that work will be similarly affected. They will live elsewhere and return to the north only for the killing season. The big question that is asked by the people of north Queensland is this: If the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government can establish a Snowy Mountains Authority to do a specific job in the south, why cannot we have a similar authority to administer a major project in north Queensland? It is all very well for the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** to talk as he did last night about the Mount Isa railway and the construction of beef roads. We had those projects in hand last year but we also had terrific unemployment. I am not speaking only for the Kennedy electorate. These matters affect the electorates of Herbert and Leichhardt and possibly also the electorate of Dawson which is represented by the PostmasterGeneral **(Mr. Davidson)** now sitting at the table. We want a major project in the north. In the far north of Queensland they ask: Why can we not have a Burdekin dam? In 1951 **Sir John** Kemp, an engineer of world repute who was knighted for his services to the community, brought down a report on that project, but it was pigeon-holed in Canberra. The Queensland Government has not the resources to implement the report, but the Commonwealth Government in collaboration with the State Government could launch a major project. That would be much better than providing £3,000,000 or less, year in and year out for the relief of unemployment. Give the people of Queensland a major project! Then, when the meat season and the sugar season finish, the men who have been engaged in them will be able to find other work, and so will be encouraged to make their homes in the tropical areas of north Queensland. Unless something is done along those lines, they will be forced by economic circumstances to live elsewhere. With modern transport, one can fly from Sydney in only a few hours. I ask the Government to consider these facts. We want something done so that we can establish a big population where we want it. The development of northern Australia has become a political football. Forty per cent, of the country is occupied by 4 per cent, of the population. We should be doing everything possible to increase the population in that vital part of Australia. I am glad that an additional grant is to be made to Queensland. It will certainly be utilized to the best advantage; but let us have something similar to the Snowy Mountains project in north Queensland under a proper authority. {: #subdebate-30-0-s3 .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP -- The purpose of the bill is to make available a special nonrepayable, interest-free, grant of £12,500,000 to the States for expenditure on employmentgiving activities. This is in addition to the borrowing programme for State works and housing of £250,000,000 approved by the Australian Loan Council for 1962-63. The grant is also additional to tax reimbursements and other moneys paid to States such as the amounts provided under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Agreement. This is in accordance with the continuing policy of this Government. In 1957-58, £5,000,000 was made available to meet special economic circumstances, and the major share of that money went to Queensland and New South Wales. In February of this year because of similar conditions, the Commonwealth Government made available to the States a sum of £10,000,000, non-repayable and interest-free. Queensland was a major participant in that distribution as it is under the terms of this bill. I was interested to hear the comments of the honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan).** I do not know whether he agrees that many labourers in Queensland depend on seasonal work. Although he criticized the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** for a statement he made to-day on the effect of seasonal employment, he himself has referred to the effect of seasonal employment upon those engaged in the beef and sugar industries. The honorable member for Kennedy should make up his mind. {: .speaker-KZ9} ##### Mr Riordan: -- The Minister for Labour and National Service claims that all unemployment in Queensland is seasonal. {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- In the main, our field labour is seasonal in Queensland. The basis of the problem is the failure of Queensland Labour Government for 40 years to assist in the establishment of secondary industries. The facts are as simple as that. The honorable member for Kennedy advocated a major project, but when did any Queensland Labour Government ever recommend, plan or survey a major project so that it could submit a proposal to the Commonwealth? This Government is undertaking major projects such as the bauxite deposits at Weipa, the Mount Isa railway, and the provision of beef roads to open up the inland. It has provided £1,750,000 to open up the brigalow country. After 40 years of stagnation under Labour governments, we can see the improvements in Queensland that flow from the present State Government's co-operation with the Commonwealth Government. A State that is dependent basically on primary industry cannot provide stable employment in the way that a State dependent on secondary industry can. Queensland is basically a primary producing State. Successive Labour governments have not made it otherwise, but, with the present Queensland Government, we are trying to improve the situation. {: .speaker-KF5} ##### Mr Gray: -- By building service stations only. {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- I have mentioned the industries that are being developed in Queensland. I wonder whether the honorable member for Capricornia **(Mr. Gray)** favours the grant of £1,750,000 for the purpose of opening the brigalow country. This Government has had the initiative to make the grant. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** spoke about planned industry. I am not sure whether his expression "planned industry" is another way of referring to socialism, which is undoubtedly a plank of the Australian Labour Party's policy. We have had examples of planned industry under Labour in Queensland. The Labour Goverment had planned primary industry with the Peak Downs scheme. The scheme failed completely and the industry was sold back to private enterprise at a loss of £1,000,000 to the taxpayers of Queensland. We had planned industry with the Keepit Dam in New South Wales. The dam, which was part of a water conservation scheme, was estimated to cost £1,500,000, but in fact it cost £13,000,000. But the State Government still does not have a plan to use the water that is stored in the dam. We want better planning than that. I should like to know what the honorable member for Melbourne Ports means by planned industry. If he means government works, I remind him that there are two approaches to this activity. Most newspapers continually criticize the Government for spending too much on government works and the Government is asked why it does not encourage private enterprise. If we, as a Commonwealth Government, did not spend a considerable amount on government works, how would we provide the employment that everybody wants? We consider that we must have a balanced plan in which the Government accepts its responsibility for certain works and in which private enterprise plays its part. By taxation concessions and other means, we encouragerivate enterprise to create work. If am not out of order, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I should like to point out that in the Budget for the present financial year we are encouraging private enterprise to create employment. Let us examine the grant that is made under this bill. Queensland and Tasmania, because of their special circumstances, are proportionately - not in the aggregate amounts - receiving more than they would receive under the usual formula. {: .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Not before time! {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- It is all right for you to say that, but as a Queenslander you would know that Queensland has been suffering because of seasonal and drought conditions for the past three years. {: .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Your water conservation schemes are in the limbo. {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- Probably the honorable member would not know the position because he lives in the city, so I shall tell him. Queensland has suffered from seasonal circumstances, and this is revealed in the crop production for the period that I have mentioned. Queensland is a primary-producing State, and failure of crops affects it adversely. Employment cannot be provided for workers in primary industry. When production is not good and producers are tightening up, rural workers are dismissed in ones and twos here and there. The aggregate of these dismissals has brought about the unfavorable employment position in Queensland. The honorable member for Lilley **(Mr. Don Cameron)** must agree with me that over the years Labour governments in Queensland have failed to provide alternative forms of employment for rural workers who are affected by these seasonal conditions. He should be an advocate for Queensland and he should support this measure in which the Commonwealth Government makes a grant to the States. In the Australian Loan Council, a formula for payments to the States has been devised and accepted, but the formula does not meet the situation in which the grant under this bill is made. Under section 96 of the Constitution, the Commonwealth can make grants to the States for specific purposes. Of course, in this instance, it is not possible to specify all the purposes for which the whole of this money will be used. The State governments have a responsibility to ensure that the money is used to the best advantage. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports said that it is a shame to waste the money in this way and in effect suggested that the grant should be made under certain specified conditions. If we used all the red tape and applied conditions to the expenditure of every £100 or £1,000, unemployment would never be reduced. We recognize that the State governments have a responsibility and that they will use the money to eliminate the pockets of unemployment that exist. What better method than this could be adopted? I have not heard a better alternative suggested by the Opposition. Honorable members opposite do no more than criticize the Government. Although they will not vote against the bill, they offer criticisms that are not constructive. The money granted under the bill is not granted for specific purposes. Grants for special projects have been made. I have in mind grants for beef roads, that were made last year and this year and will be continued in the future, grants to Western Australia to standardize the rail gauge, and grants for port improvements. The present Queensland Government is assisting the development of coal deposits in the Gladstone area. Under a contract with Japan, large quantities of coal will be exported to that country and the Commonwealth has offered assistance to the Queensland Government for the construction and improvement of ports. In this way, more and more employment will be provided. {: .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP -- Bulk loading will be used in the export of coal. The unemployment situation in Gladstone will not be relieved very much by the export of coal. {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- I am surprised at a member of the Australian Labour Party decrying any form of assistance that will relieve the unemployment situation, and the opening up of the coal-mining industry will provide employment opportunities. He does not consider worth while the securing of arrangements for the construction of an £8,000,000 railway to bring out the coal. To him that is nothing. I can only conclude that he wants a continuation of the present unemployment situation for his own party political purposes but does not have the nerve to say so. {: #subdebate-30-0-s4 .speaker-KCU} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND -- Order! There are far too many interjections. The Minister is entitled to make his speech unaided. I refer particularly to the honorable member for Lilley, who has been interjecting too frequently. {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- The field in which these special grants may be applied is broad. They may be used to correct a situation caused by adverse conditions. Although the Commonwealth does not lay down the way in which the grants must be used, the intention is that they be used to stimulate employment. The grants may also be applied to easing the housing situation. An increase in home building will help the timber industry. Increased activity in the field of housing will lead to an increase in public works. That will assist local government authorities. The States will be able to apply these grants to reduce localized pockets of unemployment. We do not want the application of these grants to be bound by red tape. Accordingly the States have been given the green light. The honorable member for Kennedy referred to the expenditure in the next eight or ten months of the grant to Queensland. This grant may be used according to circumstances and requirements. The honorable member was correct in saying that work in the sugar industry is of a seasonal character. The same comment applies to work in the beef industry. The honorable member spoke of mechanization in the sugar industry. I have been advised by persons closely associated with the industry and it will absorb as many men this year on canecutting work as it normally absorbed. The entire crop will be cut this season. That is the result of the very keen promotional activities engaged in by the sugar industry and the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. The entire crop will be taken, and I have been advised that the industry will not employ fewer men than it employed formerly. *In* respect of the loading of cane, the industry is about 50 per cent, mechanized, whilst in respect of cutting it is only about 8 per cent, mechanized. Mechanization in the cutting of cane is not increasing very rapidly. If we can expand the industry each year and increase the areas under cultivation, although mechanization may increase we will still need large numbers of men in the fields and in the mills. We hope to see the industry expand. We know that such expansion will mean continued employment for a large number of men. The Government has made available large sums of money for the construction of beef roads with a view to making available greater areas of country for the raising of beef cattle. In this regard I have in mind particularly the brigalow country. My inspection of the brigalow country in recent weeks confirms the view of the Division of Agricultural Economics that it is an economic proposition to open up and develop that country. In some of that country you would need at least 250 acres in order to raise one bullock to-day, but when the country is developed I am sure that on a conservative estimate you could raise 10 head of cattle on every 500 acres and perhaps as many as 20 or 30 head. New varieties of grass have been developed for use in that area. Water conservation schemes have been undertaken. The results obtained from the growing of buffel and green panic-grass have been very good. Cattle grazed on these grasses look ever so much better than cattle grazed on natural country. The beef industry could not be expanded in the brigalow country unless the country was developed. By expanding the beef industry in places such as the brigalow country we can lengthen the period of employment of persons engaged in the killing works. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- What is the area of the brigalow country? {: .speaker-JLR} ##### Mr ADERMANN: -- About 4,000,000 acres in the Fitzroy basin, which is the starting point. But that is only part of the Queensland brigalow country. That country runs right across the southern part of Queensland, through Goondiwindi. I am conversant with the southern portion because it is in the old electorate of Maranoa which I formerly represented. I had not seen the Fitzroy Basin brigalow country, but in view of the report of the Division of Agricultural Economics I decided to make myself conversant with it. It is very good country and when developed will be a major asset to Queensland and to Australia. The grants being provided under this bill will help Australian industries to expand. That expansion will improve the employment position. The honorable member for Kennedy stated that at the end of January this year 30,426 persons were out of work in Queensland. By the end of June this year the number had been reduced to 16,284 - a reduction of almost 50 per cent. We want to see the position improved much further. The position with regard to the beef industry this year is fairly satisfactory, because the present season is better than were the three previous seasons. Expansion in the coal industry, development of bauxite deposits at Weipa, development of other industries in Queensland and the special assistance provided to Queensland by the Commonwealth will improve the overall situation considerably. {: #subdebate-30-0-s5 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON:
Hughes -- The bill before the House provides for an interest-free non-repayable grant of £12,500,000 to the States. The Opposition and all other sections of the community welcome this allocation, but we do not feel that this grant will solve the problems confronting this nation - problems that are causing disaster, disruption and hardship throughout the land. The Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** indicated during the course of his remarks that in his view little possibility existed for planning our economy in order properly to employ our resources in the best interests of the Australian people. That issue, I suppose, is the one on which the Minister and Opposition members first fall out. We on this side of the House take the view that it is highly desirable that our employment opportunities and our economic resources be effectively deployed in a way that will alleviate a number of the problems that are confronting us. The Minister, like most members of the Australian Country Party, always thinks in terms of government assistance when it concerns primary industries but never when it concerns other money-making enterprises. As my colleague, the honorable member for Oxley **(Mr. Hayden),** has said, members of the Country Party seem to be motivated by the desire to socialize their losses and capitalize their gains. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- What rot! {: #subdebate-30-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- The interjection by the honorable member for Moore, a member of the Country Party, reminds me of something that was said about that party some time ago: It is very similar to a human appendix. In the first place, it is a constant source of inflammation; in the second place, it is completely unpredictable; and in the third place, it is absolutely useless. I have a feeling that this is how the Distribution Commissioners regard the Australian Country Party, since they have dealt so devastatingly with the honorable member for Moore, the honorable member for Gwydir **(Mr. Ian Allan),** to some extent with the honorable member for New England **(Mr. Drummond),** and with the honorable member for Calare **(Mr. England)** and the honorable member for Dawson **(Mr. Davidson),** who is PostmasterGeneral. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! I suggest that the honorable member link his remarks with the bill. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- I was just about to relate those circumstances with the measure that we are discussing, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** The Minister for Primary Industry has demonstrated that the Country Party is completely bereft of ideas about the deployment of our economic resources. I suppose that was what the Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** thought, too, when he encouraged and facilitated the electoral proposals that I have just mentioned. A great many things are desperately needed throughout Australia, and particularly by the State Governments to enable them to provide the many services for which they are responsible. My colleague, the honorable member for Wills **(Mr. Bryant),** has an Australian attitude, as have Opposition members generally. Earlier, he mentioned some of the matters which are causing concern in Victoria - matters in respect of which substantial Commonwealth aid would be of benefit. For example, he mentioned the fact that State awards in Victoria still do not provide for three weeks' annual leave. If it were provided, State undertakings would be obliged to increase their pay-roll. That would involve a considerable amount. Workers in New South Wales under State awards have been entitled to three weeks' annual leave for a number of years, but, as one enters the Trades Hr.ll in Melbourne, one sees a notice which is headed, " Campaign for three weeks' annual leave This is one issue in respect of which an additional Commonwealth grant would be beneficial. We have just heard some mention of the fact that Victoria retains not only the plural voting system, under which a member of one household may have three votes and the fellow next door may have none, but also the outmoded system of private roads. Hundreds of miles of roads in Victoria, particularly in the Melbourne metropolitan area, are the responsibility, not of local government authorities, but of householders on a collective basis. How much money would be needed to remedy this type of situation which adversely affects the ordinary citizen such as the housewife as she proceeds to do her shopping accompanied by her children, or the wage-earner as he pedals his bicycle to the railway station on unsealed roads? The inadequacy of sewerage services in Melbourne is plain. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- They are the worst in Australia. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- They are certainly poor if they are as bad as those in some of the other States are. There are many railway level crossings in Victoria, especially in and about Melbourne. The honorable member for Fawkner **(Mr. Howson)** knows exactly what I mean. In other capital cities, one finds perhaps two or three level crossings, but I suppose there are 20 or 30 within a radius of a few miles of the centre of Melbourne. The Government is providing only £12,500,000 in consideration of problems of this kind which beset Victoria, to say nothing of the other States. There is also the broken bridge in Melbourne to be repaired. That alone would absorb most of this sum. {: .speaker-KGX} ##### Mr Haylen: -- Bolte's bridge is falling down! {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- Yes, indeed. As a member from New South Wales, I am especially understanding of Victoria's problems. Melbourne has not even an underground railway, but Sydney has had one for donkey's years. I suppose that the situation in Victoria can be construed as a reflection not only on the Commonwealth Government but also on the Bolte Government. A slum clearance programme for Melbourne to cost something like £90,000,000, I think, was advocated in the last report of the Victorian Housing Commission. In Victoria, workers' compensation and so many other benefits and services are languishing unattended to. The situation that I have outlined is typical of the conditions that prevail throughout the countryside in Australia. Educational facilities are the subject of great interest in the Australian community. There have been great mass meetings of teachers, representatives of parents and citizens' associations and other enthusiasts to discuss these facilities. Only the other day, in my electorate, where there are many schools, 98 per cent, of the teachers attended a meeting called to discuss the education crisis that prevails in New South Wales. This crisis should not be attributed to the administration of the State Government. The last report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission shows that much more per head of the population is spent on education in New South Wales than is spent in any other State. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- That- {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- Victorian members have no justification for interjections in relation to this matter. The school leaving age in Victoria is fourteen, not fifteen, as in New South Wales. The number of university graduates per 100 of the population in Victoria, also, leaves a great deal to be desired. {: .speaker-L19} ##### Mr Leslie: -- What about having your fight with Victoria outside this chamber! {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member for Hughes is receiving too much assistance from honorable members on both sides of the House. He is quite capable of making his own speech and he is entitled to do so. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R JOHNSON: -- The Chair is right in both matters, **Sir.** The arrangements associated with the payment of tax reimbursements to the States have become highly confused and complicated. It is a good thing that, in 1942, the Curtin Government took positive steps to bring about a situation in relation to tax reimbursements that was calculated to cause Australians to think as Australians rather than as citizens of particular States. On 23rd February, 1942, there was appointed a committee consisting of Professor R. C. Mills, Right Honorable J. H. Scullin, M.P., and the Honorable E. S. Spooner, M.P. - not the Minister who now sits in another place. This committee presented proposals which were subsequently accepted by the States and represented a new attitude towards the collection of revenue in Australia. A most beneficial document relating to tax reimbursements has been prepared by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt).** It is entitled " Commonwealth Payments to or for the States", and it traces the history of the great conglomeration of events which preceded the developments that I have just mentioned and a number of others that have occurred since. One thing is apparent: The reimbursement arrangements were wrong in 1942 and on the numerous occasions on which they were subsequently re-arranged, and they are wrong to-day. Perhaps " inadequate " would be a better word than "wrong". The arrangement at present prevailing is based on a formula drawn up in 1959-60, that financial year being known as the base year for the purposes of the formula. It takes account of three matters - movements in population, annual increases in average wages, and a betterment factor which represents 10 per cent, of the average wage component in the formula. What we must remember in considering the formula of 1959 is that a figure was plucked out of the air at that time. The fact that the formula has been in operation for some time does not mean that it is a correct formula. All the happenings since 1959 substantiate the contention that the formula arrangement, which involves reimbursements to the States, is unsoundly based. We, as an Australian Parliament, have found it necessary to contrive many ways of topping off the allocations to the States. That is the procedure which is the subject of this measure. Three aspects of the formula - movements in population, annual increases in average wages and the betterment factor of 10 per cent, of the average wage component - have proved unsuccessful. As a bunch of 122 intelligent people, I should say, we still have to mess about with a shocking conglomeration of devices which have been proved to be useless and inadequate. We patch up the formula arrangements with supplementary measures such as this. We have made special arrangements for reimbursements to the States for roads and housing. Having done these things, we now find it necessary to provide an allocation which is not related to anything in particular. We are providing £12,500,000 to the States and we are saying, " Spend it how you like. We are in a mess here. Unemployment prevails and we hope to high heaven that you will use the money sensibly." Years ago the proceedings of the Loan Council and Premiers' Conference were watched with keen interest. The Premiers would battle it out and talk of the needs of their own States, but now, like a bunch of washed-up conformists, we have settled for a formula. The State Premiers confer with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. They apply the formula, fiddle about with a few political manoeuvres and then go away. To supplement the special arrangements that I have talked about, particular provisions are made. There are the special grants to the claimant States recommended by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. These amounted to £11,231,000 in 1961-62, and a similar amount will be granted this year. Under the Financial Agreement of 1927, contributions are made towards interest and sinking fund payments. These amounted to £14,324,000 last year and will be £14,830,000 this year. Payments have been made for specific purposes such as universities, national disasters, long service leave for coal-miners, dairy industry extension services, agricultural advisory services, cattle tick eradication and control, and the maintenance of tuberculosis hospitals. Then there is the Commonwealth aid roads scheme, involving the expenditure of £250,000,0000 since its introduction in 1959-60. This year there will be specific allocations well over and above those previously made. The sum of £26,800,000 has been allocated for a number of purposes such as the Mount Isa railway, cattle roads in the north, brigalow land development in Queensland, a standard-gauge railway from Kalgoorlie to Kwinana, development in the north-west of Western Australia, a new jetty at Derby, coal-loading facilities in New South Wales and special railway facilities in South Australia. These supplementary allocations are added evidence of the formula's inadequacy. The honorable member for Macarthur **(Mr. Jeff Bate)** was completely in error when he said that the sum of £10,000,000 previously allocated for the relief of unemployment had been whittled away - spent on opera houses and other such things. The honorable member for Cowper **(Mr. McGuren)** has reminded me that the allocation to New South Wales was distributed to local government authorities, which used the money for the express purpose of alleviating unemployment in areas where the need for such expenditure was apparent. I remind honorable members that last night the Treasurer advanced a most amazing financial arrangement, and I ask them to study the income figures. Under the heading " Customs ", one sees an estimated increase in income of £10,700,000. Excise revenue will increase by £10,300,000, sales tax revenue by £6,100,000, income tax revenue will rise to £538,000,000 and payroll tax revenue will rise by £3,000,000. Estate and gift tax revenue will remain substantially the same. Income from business undertakings will go up. There is an expected increase of £398,000 for the Commonwealth railways, £7,100,000 for the Post Office and £1,400,000 for broadcasting and television. Almost every item will bring in more revenue than last year. Despite this, the Government can afford to give the States only this comparatively small allocation at an extremely difficult period. In addition, the Treasurer has budgeted for an incredible deficit of £118,000,000. I draw a few conclusions from this conglomeration of events. Have the States been fairly treated? It is interesting to note that the Commonwealth has succeeded in imposing upon the States a very heavy liability in the matter of the national debt. It is astounding to ascertain that in ten years, while the Commonwealth's share of the national debt has decreased from £1,918,000,000 to £1,559,000,000, the share of the States has increased from £1,496,000,000 to £2,981,000,000. In ten years, on a per capita basis, the Commonwealth's share of the national debt has decreased from £222 to £145, while that of the States has increased from £174 to £280. This is the net effect of everything done by this Government in its financial relationships with the States. The State governments are shouldering a great burden, which is becoming heavier as the years go by. This Government has adopted the technique of paying for its own activities out of income from revenue and of passing on to the States the onerous burden of financing their activities with interest-bearing loans from revenue moneys. To-day, 93,000 people in Australia are unemployed, representing, I am told, 2.2 per cent, of the work force. Of these, 46,324 are receiving the unemployment benefit. I do not think it is necessary for me to tell the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** that there are many more people concerned than those who are registered for employment or who are obtaining the unemployment benefits. There are many self-employed people involved and of course there are others who have lost income through the diminution of overtime opportunities. Women have lost their jobs and have gone back to domestic work without even protesting by listing their names on the unemployment register. There are 93,000 Australians out of work and in this situation we have had presented to us a Budget, one of the main features of which is the making available to the State Governments of an extra £12,500,000. At the present time we have one of the highest levels of unemployment that the country has known for many years. The number of people receiving the unemployment benefit increased from 12,700 in 1956 to a peak of 52,267 in 1961-62 and at June, 1962, the figures stood at 46,300. We think of ali those unfortunates who are affected and who could be assisted if there was some real planning, some real drive and real initiative on the part of this Government, instead of its attitude being like that of the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr. Adermann)** who deplores the idea of planning and the idea that we should avoid the type of difficulty we experienced with the motor car industry, for example. You know what happened there, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** That was a case in point. The Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** went to the Ford works and some other factories and eulogized them for the great job they were doing for Australia. How he afterwards discouraged them is now a matter of history. The imposition of increased sales tax on motor vehicles, together with other measures, caused disaster in the industry. We contend that it would be a good thing for General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited or anybody else concerned with industry, agriculture or commerce in this country to know that in general terms the Government wanted a certain stage of development to be reached in five or ten years' time. To know where you are going is not a bad thing and we, on this side of the House, choose that as a desirable alternative to mass unemployment of the type to which I have referred. We choose that as an alternative to a great credit squeeze and subsequent discouragement and disruption of industry bringing hardship to people who have devoted their life savings to investment. If members of the Government want to call us socialists for that we are prepared to take the accusation. I think of the migrants, many of whom are living in my electorate and who are so affected by this situation, but who could have their position alleviated by better planning, better Commonwealth-State financial relations and better disbursements than those we are debating at the present time. We know what has happened to many unfortunate migrants. We know of advertisements in newspapers in the United Kingdom stating " £10 takes you to good jobs in sunny Australia ". At the top of the advertisement there is a picture of the sun shining and twenty or thirty trade categories are listed there tantalizingly. We practically entice these people to leave their homes and come out to Australia to the type of hostel that the member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard)** spoke about last night. There are such hostels in my own area and in that of the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam),** which is adjacent to my electorate. We see them there and we know, for example, that last year there were 22,695 migrants living in hostels and that they have an average stay there of 45.5 weeks. Now, of course, they are subject to the control and dominance of Commonwealth Hostels Limited. We ascertained that in one of the larger migrant hostels in my electorate, known as " East Hills ", the average family has no more than £4 a week left after paying what is taken by Commonwealth Hostels Limited for accommodation and food. With that £4 a week these families are expected to find the price of a block of land or a deposit on a home. Imagine the social maladjustment involved for those families because the mother cannot make meals for her husband and children! Yet there is no special regard or concern for this problem on the part of the Government. A sum of £12,500,000 for the States is the limit of this Government's compassion. I have with me some pathetic letters which I received recently from migrants asking urgently for assistance. We think of the general problem of housing and we know how desperately the States are hoping for more money for this purpose. We know that applications are pouring in from every State at an unprecedented rate and we still have no answer to the problem. There were 42,637 applications for homes lodged with the housing commissions of the various States last year. I think that is the highest rate of applications ever received since the innovation of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. There were 71,353 outstanding housing applications at the end of June last year. It seems to me that here are grounds for generous assistance to be given by the Commonwealth. We must appreciate the manner in which housing costs have risen and the fact that there has not been very much increase in the allocation of funds. In 1953-54 we allocated £37,200,000 through the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. In 1960-61 we got down to a sum of £27,400,000, and I want to remind the House that home building costs have risen considerably. For example, a two-bedroom timber home in New South Wales cost £2,058 in 1951-52, but by 1960-61 the figure had risen to £3,000. In Victoria a three-bedroom brick veneer house in 1951-52 cost £2,515 and nearly ten years later, in 1960-61, the cost had risen to £3,521. That is an increase of £1,000, yet we have these diminishing allocations in the face of an increasing number of applications! These figures are taken from a letter which I should like to deal that time will time and which I received from the Minister for National Development **(Senator Spooner),** who is responsible for the administration of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. No one on the Government side of the House can dispute these figures or, if he does, he is taking to task the Government's own Minister in charge of housing, who I admit needs taking to task because of his miserable performance and lack of human concern and compassion in this regard. There are so many other matters with which I should like to deal that time will not permit me to mention them all. I was going to talk about some of the problems in the local government sphere, for example. Heaven knows they are causing great hardship to many people, but I will not have time to cover all these matters. I just want to put it to the House that there is need for a planned economy, and need for us to encourage the expansion of the public sector of our community, because even the private sector is going to be throttled unless this Government accepts its responsibility to ensure that the standard of public service which is so necessary to decent living and to the expansion of every phase of industry, primary and secondary, is adequately provided for. This is where the Government has fallen down. It has failed to set its target. {: #subdebate-30-0-s7 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-30-0-s8 .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- **Mr. Speaker,** there are only two comments I wish to make on the speech of the honorable member for Hughes **(Mr. L. R. Johnson).** Just before he sat down he tried to give the impression that the money being made available for housing is less now than it was previously. He must know that the so-called reduced figures he quoted excluded the far larger amount now available to co-operative building societies. If he adds the amount of money available to the State instrumentalities with which to build houses and that available to the cooperative societies he will find that the money made available by this Government for housing has been increasing steadily, in fact dramatically, in recent years. In 1948-49, which I think was the year of the last Budget introduced by the Labour Government, £14,500,000 was made available under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. In the year just ended £50,400,000 was made available. Those figures surely speak for themselves. The honorable member raised another matter a little earlier. He suggested that the present financial grant system was quite unrealistic and that the allocations made to the States under it were quite inadequate, because we have other special grants, or we have a Commonwealth programme of aid for roads, or we introduce bills such as the one that has now been introduced, which provides for non-repayable grants to the States to the extent of £12,500,000. The honorable member said that because we have all these other arrangements in addition to the Commonwealth financial grant, which used to be a tax reimbursement grant, the financial grant and the formula under which it is arrived at are quite inadequate. Let me suggest, however, that it is quite unrealistic to look at these matters in isolation. We have to look at all the moneys that are made available in the various ways and see whether, in sum total, they are or are not adequate. When we look at them in sum total, I suggest that they most certainly are adequate. If we had a fixed formula which we never varied, and which I have been told - although I have no first-hand knowledge of this - was in operation when **Mr. Chifley** was Treasurer, we would not be able to take account of special circumstances as they arose. This is one of the advantages of the flexible system that has been encouraged, in part at least, by the present Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt).** When special circumstances arise we can now make special grants to the States. As a result of the introduction of the new system we can, for instance, now make a larger proportional grant to Queensland than to the other States, because Queensland at the present time needs a larger grant than the other States do. If we had a fixed formula which could not be altered, we could not take into account the special circumstances of a particular time. When this Government first came to power it found that the tax reimbursement formula was quite inadequate, and it almost immediately instituted a system of special supplementary grants, so that more adequate allocations could be arrived at. However, I had intended to touch on this subject a little later in my speech, so I will leave it for the time being. The measure that is before the House is simply another example of the sympathetic and realistic view taken by the present Government in recent years of the financial difficulties of the States. The grant covered by the bill is the third nonrepayable grant that the present Government has made. When this money has been spent by the States they will have had a total amount of £27,500,000 in the form of these grants. This is a grant which the Commonwealth has no constitutional obligation to make to the States. It is a grant which the Commonwealth makes because it realizes that the circumstances of the time make the grant necessary. To get a proper view of this matter I think it is necessary to look at this bill, and at the special grants that have preceded the present measure, in the context of other aspects of Commonwealth-State financial relationships. Briefly I would like to review a slightly wider field. It is a field in which, I believe, the present Treasurer has had very considerable success. We have tended to overlook this success in eradicating the cancer that was eroding Commonwealth-State relations. Whereas Premiers used to depart from Canberra, after Premiers' Conferences and meetings of the Australian Loan Council, in a very angry frame of mind, they seldom have done so in recent years. While I am on this aspect of the matter, I would like to mention four particular points. The first concerns the tax reimbursement and supplementary assistance formulas, which have been changed into the financial grant system that we have seen during the last few years. The second point refers to the changes introduced by the present Treasurer in connexion with the Commonwealth programme of aid for roads. Thirdly, I shall refer to the specific purpose grants, and finally to the financial assistance grants or non-repayable grants, one of which is covered by the bill now before us. I shall refer, first, to the tax reimbursement formulas. The formula that was operating until 1959 was, I understand, first drawn up in 1946-47. It appeared almost immediately after its introduction to be inadequate, and when this Government came to power supplementary grants were paid to the States as well as the amounts allocated under the normal tax reimbursement formulas. If it had not been for those supplementary grants the States would have been in a hopeless financial position. Under the original system the States had no guarantee that they would get a particular amount in a particular year, and there was an increasing dependence on the supplementary grants, which the Commonwealth, of course, had no obligation to pay. There was a general dissatisfaction with this arrangement, and this led to a conference in March, 1959, between the States and the Commonwealth. The purpose of the conference was to amalgamate the system of the tax reimbursement formula and the system of supplementary grants into one more liberal arrangement which would make it possible for the States to meet their requirements properly. The second purpose of the conference was to arrange for an acceptable basis for distribution. South Australia ceased to be a claimant State when the new formula came into operation. *I* think we can get an idea of how the new formula has operated by looking at a few figures. In the last year of operation of the old tax reimbursement and supplementary grants system, the States received £226,000,000 in all, which included special grants from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. In 1959-60, the first year of the new arrangement, the figure increased to £252,000,000. This represented a very considerable increase, and there have been more liberal additions in each subsequent year than there were in the various years under the old system when the old formula was applied. For example, in the last four years of operation of the old tax reimbursement system, grants and payments to the States increased from £157,000,000 to £205,000,000. This represented an increase of £48,000,000. In the first four years of the new system the grants have increased from £244,000,000 to £305,000,000, a total increase of *£61,000,000. In* other words, the increase in the last four-year period has been £13,000,000 greater than the increase in the previous four-year period, and while the new system operates it can be expected that the increases will continue to grow from year to year. Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m. {: .speaker-QS4} ##### Mr Malcolm Fraser:
WANNON, VICTORIA · LP -- Before the suspension of the sitting I was trying to show that this measure is not to be taken in isolation, but should be considered in connexion with other measures which the Government has put in hand not only in this year but also in recent years. By doing that we shall see a more flexible arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States which has put the States in a better position than before. The measures which should be considered together are these: The tax reimbursement formula which the Government has altered to assist the States by means of financial grants, the Commonwealth system of aid for roads, the specific purposes grants and the additional assistance grants or non-repayable grants of which this is one. I had described the changes that had been made in the tax reimbursement formula and, as the sitting was suspended, I came to the second matter - Commonwealth road grants. It was in February, 1959, that the 33- year-old formula of Commonwealth assistance for road programmes was altered. I think that many honorable members on both sides of the House had been trying to have that formula altered. But it was the present Government and the present Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** who achieved the alteration of the formula to one which was more equitable for large areas of Australia and which took different aspects of the matter into account. This had been made necessary by modern conditions. Under the improved formula, greater assistance was made available for road programmes. The programme which was begun at that time made £250,000,000 available for road construction from Commonwealth sources over a five year period. That was £100,000,000 more than had been made available during the last five years of the old petrol tax formula. The amounts are increased year by year. In the financial year just completed, £50,000,000 was made available by the Commonwealth. This year £54,000,000 will be made available, a considerable increase. I am glad to see that the Commonwealth has maintained the provision that 40 per cent, of these moneys must be spent on country roads other than main roads. This leaves 60 per cent, of the Commonwealth funds unattached, and that proportion can be spent anywhere. I think that those who live in the country will appreciate very much the improvement in country roads which this provision has brought about. One of the most significant changes introduced with the new programme was that the State road authorities and municipalities knew how much money they would get from one year to the next for a period of five years. Under the old petrol tax formula they might have had an idea but they had no certainty. The new programme has made it possible for road building authorities throughout Australia to plan ahead on a much more sensible basis and achieve a better use of their available manpower and road building machinery. The third matter that I wish to mention in conjunction with this bill is the specific purpose grants among which can be included nearly £4,500,000 which will be spent on the standardization and reconstruction of the railway between Kalgoorlie and Kwinana. This is the first financial year in which a large sum has been made available for this project which ultimately will cost more than £43,000,000. The Collinsville-Townsville to Mount Isa railway will cost over £8,000,000 this year compared with only £4,000,000 last year. This, in itself, should have quite an effect on employment in that part of Queensland. In Western Australia, in the Kimberleys, £1,500,000 is being spent in this financial year as the last part of a sum of £5,000,000 for the development of the Kimberleys. In addition, £300,000 is being spent to reconstruct the Derby jetty. Coal-loading facilities are being expanded and £2,600,000 has been allocated for improved coal-loading facilities at Newcastle, Port Kembla and Balmain, over £1,000,000 of which will be spent in this financial year, and will create additional employment in the areas concerned. In Queensland £200,000 has been allocated for similar purposes, of which £100,000 will be spent at Gladstone this year. In the category to which. I have been referring, grants have also been made available for the construction of beef roads. The sum of £5,000,000 is being made available to construct beef roads in Queensland from 1st July of last year. The sum of £1,500,000 is being spent in this financial year. An additional £250,000 is being spent on sealing beef roads in other areas of Queensland. In Western Australia, last year, £500,000 was spent for this purpose, a sum which will be increased to £700,000 this year. Not far short of £2,000,000 will be spent in this financial year, I understand, in developing the brigalow lands in Queensland. All these grants are designed not only to increase export income but also to increase employment. Employment will be increased directly by carrying out the work concerned and indirectly by increasing our export income. This will make it possible for a larger number of people to be profitably and stably employed. I come now to the last type of financial arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States of which this bill is an example. This, in Treasury jargon, is an additional assistance measure or a nonrepayable grant. These grants have not necessarily to be made and are not allocated under any particular formula. For this reason I believe they have particular merit because they can be made on a completely flexible basis. The larger grants will go to the States which need the moneys most and the grants can be made from time to time as conditions demand. The first grant of this nature was made in February, 1958, for £5,000,000 and went chiefly to the States that had been badly affected by the droughts of the preceding year and of that year. The second grant, which amounted to £10,000,000, was made in February, 1962. This was designed to assist employment particularly. The States were intended to use the funds for employmentgiving activities in particular. Now, it is proposed to allocate a further £12,500,000 for the same purpose. The money is to be allocated in much the same way as it was allocated in February of last year, a much larger share than normally going to Queensland, the State which, for various reasons, some of which lie in the past history of State governments and some of which are due to seasonal activity, has a higher level of unemployment than Australia generally. Whatever the sum may be that is paid to a State, the State itself must decide how those funds are to be used. The Commonwealth does not stipulate that the money is to be spent on this bridge or that road or on this or that particular type of work. It leaves those decisions to the States. This makes it possible for the States to use the money in various ways. It is the State's responsibility to decide where and how the money will be expended. It has its own order of priorities in its own particular region. I have pointed out that in recent years quite notable advances have been made in four fields. The first is in the important field of the Financial Agreement and financial grants to the States which are most important for their development. The second is the changed formula and the additional sums that have been made available from Commonwealth sources for road construction. The third is in the field of specific grants for beef roads, railway standardization and other matters of the kind. A great deal has been done and is being done to assist development in some of the more remote parts of Australia. Fourthly, the States are being assisted by non-repayable grants, as is the case under the terms of this bill. The Commonwealth has introduced an extremely flexible system of making moneys available from time to time when it becomes necessary to do so for particular reasons. Because of these four types of arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States, it is my belief that a great deal of the bitterness between the Commonwealth and the States over financial relationships has been overcome. This is due to the patience and industry of the present Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** who has been the occupant of that onerous and often unpleasant office when these agreements have been negotiated. I believe that at times we tend to forget these achievements. As I said earlier, we tend to forget them because of their very success. One no longer hears the old arguments between the States and the Commonwealth about such matters as road funds. These arguments have been largely forgotten because of the success of these arrangements in solving the difficulties that they were intended to solve. I thought that the presentation of this bill might be a suitable opportunity to direct the attention of the House to these matters. {: #subdebate-30-0-s9 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley .- This States Grants (Additional Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1962 might better be described as a desperate scramble by the Commonwealth Government to stave off further increases in unemployment resulting from the Government's poor handling of the nation's economy. After hearing the previous speakers on the Government side, one could easily be excused for thinking that the proposals of the Government fit into a pattern of national development which the Government has devised. But the fact is that these proposals do not fit into any pattern of national development. They are emergency proposals to cope with, not progress, but regression in the nation's economy as a result of the policies that the Government has pursued. The plain fact is that these measures have been introduced solely to overcome unemployment. This is a stop-gap measure. It is first aid for the economy of the nation, but it is not adequate to overcome the malady with which the nation's economy is afflicted. This measure indicates the incompetence of this inefficient and indolent Government to handle economic issues successfully. The Government has skirted around the true causes of the sickness that afflicts the nation. We have heard nothing of the real reasons for the introduction of this measure. The story is not entrancing and it does not enhance the image of this Commonwealth Government. We have heard nothing of the decisions of February, 1960, when the Government abolished import controls. It is hardly necessary to go into these matters for they have been re-stated many times and it was on them that the last general election was fought so effectively 'by the Opposition. The Government abolished import controls and we know the history of events that followed. We know of the flood of commodities that came into the country and the devastation that this policy wreaked upon Australian manufacturing industries. We know of the people who were thrown into unemployment. We know of the panic of this Government when it saw what was occurring and watched the debt to overseas countries mounting to staggering totals. The Government oscillated from one extreme to another in a short time. The Government introduced a credit squeeze. It tightened up on the spending power of the nation and thus aggravated the situation. It aggravated the problem to such an extent that we saw nearly 150,000 people out of work at one stage. Indeed, we still have nearly 100,000 people out of work. I am pleased to note that Queensland is to obtain the largest grant under this bill. I am pleased, not just from a parochial point of view but because I and all other representatives of Queensland on both sides of the House know that Queensland has had by far the worst deal of any State of the Commonwealth. I say this despite the fact that Ministers who visited Queensland before the last general election informed Queenslanders that they had been better treated than any other section of the community. What was the reason for the sudden volte face? What was the reason for the sudden change of attitude and the accession to the demands of Queensland? Why did Queensland suddenly merit better treatment? The reason was that Queenslanders were correct in their claims. The picture of unemployment in Australia shows that it has been persistently highest in Queensland. The unemployment figures show how poorly Queensland has been treated. The situation has been aggravated by the fact that for five years the administration of the State has been in the hands of a government of the same political persuasion as the present Commonwealth Government. Although the State Government promised that it would lift the State back to prosperity, the fact is that Queensland deviated from that road only because it fell into the hands of an anti-Labour government. Unemployment in Queensland has been higher than it has been in any other Australian State. The figures for Queensland this year, compared with the average for Australia, are as follows: - It is important to understand that while there has been an improvement in the unemployment situation in Queensland during the past few months, it has been brought about solely by seasonal factors. This improvement will vitiate itself as soon as seasonal employment commences to decline. It is important to note also that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** himself visited Queensland during the parliamentary recess and met a deputation from the Brisbane Trades and Labour Council at the Commonwealth Offices in Adelaidestreet. The right honorable gentleman told that deputation that while there had been an improvement in unemployment in Queensland, it was due to seasonal factors and he could hold out no promise that there would be a persisting improvement in the Queensland unemployment problem. That was reported in the Brisbane daily newspapers. How effective have the Government's policies been? This is not the first stopgap legislation to overcome unemployment throughout Australia and particularly in Queensland. We saw the pattern about four months ago when this House met. If we study the unemployment figures we find that in March the number of vacancies registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service totalled 12,413, representing 3 per cent, of the work force. But in that month the number of unemployed in Australia was 101,093, or 2.3 per cent, of the work force. The number of registered vacancies in April was 19,206, representing 4 per cent, of the work force, but in the same, month unemployed registered numbered 9.8,547, or 2.3 per cent, of the work force. In May, 18,866 vacancies were registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service, or about .4 per cent, of the work force. The number of unemployed for that period was 93,916, or about 2.2 per cent, of the work force. In June - these are the latest figures released by the Department of Labour and National Service - there were 18,066 vacancies, or about 4 per cent, of the work force, and *93,128* people, or about 2.2 per cent, of the work force, were registered as unemployed. The number of unemployed kept consistently around 2.2 per cent, and the number of registered vacancies kept around .4 per cent. The Government's policies have done nothing except keep pace with the natural increase in the work force each month. If the Government intends to solve the unemployment problem by the end of the year, it must take action which will result in the number of registered vacancies being doubled. The Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** said this afternoon that at the end of the year 205,000 school leavers will go on to the employment market. {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- I said 205,000 people aged fifteen. {: .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN: -- Does that mean the number will be more than 205,000? {: .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon: -- No. We expect to have 76,000 registrations with the Commonwealth Employment Service over the year. {: .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN: -- They may be your figures. You expect 205,000 children of about fifteen years of age to leave school at the end of the year, but there will be far in excess of that. I think the Minister said that this will be a record year; but last year a record number of children left school and many of them are still seeking employment. Some of them come into my office and ask whether it is possible to obtain employment. The Minister knows only too well the truth of this statement. At one time, an examination for appointment to vacancies for juniors in the Public Service would not attract enough applicants to fill the available jobs; now there is a surfeit of applicants. Often one vacancy will attract as many as 100 applicants. This situation has been created by the Government. The Government must take further action to relieve the unemployment situation than that proposed in this legislation. Its activities to date have done no more than meet the natural increase in the work force each month. The number of vacancies registered in March of this year was the highest ever registered, as was the number of vacancies registered in June, and the number in May was the third highest. It is necessary for the Government to take more vigorous action to meet this problem. This is a serious problem. It is a crime that, when so much national development is needed in this country, so much unemployment persists. Many people to-night are wondering whether there is any possibility of their obtaining employment. Some of these people have been out of employment for twelve months or more, some have received threats of repossession from hire purchase companies and some have lost the assets that they have accumulated by hard work over the years. The insecurity that the Government has created is a serious indictment of it. Industry has suffered a severe setback. No doubt in time it will recover and get on its feet again. But industry will never be able to gain the position it would have held if this period of depression had not been inflicted upon the nation. Think of the huge cost that this nation has to bear as a result of the widespread unemployment. The people who are unemployed are more than a statistical record. They represent a huge financial burden that must be borne by the country. Unemployed persons are entitled to receive the benefits provided by the Government, meagre though they are. In the March quarter of this year, £3,411,000 was paid as unemployment benefit. The total payment for the year 1960-61 was only £4,468,000. In Queensland, the total amount of unemployment benefit paid in the March quarter was £1,012,000. If the cost for this quarter is a guide, payments for the year will be more than four times as great as payments for the whole of last year. Think of this in other terms. This large amount of money should have been available to help develop the country. Think of the Budget presented by the Treasurer last night. The amount of unemployment benefit paid in the March quarter in Queensland is almost as great as the total allocation to Queensland for 1962- 63 for cattle roads. The amount allocated for this purpose is £1,480,000. The amount of unemployment benefit paid in the quarter I have mentioned is almost as much as the amount allocated to the development of brigalow lands. The amount allocated for this development is £1,750,000. That is the total allocation for twelve months, but it is not much more than the amount paid in unemployment benefit in Queensland for one quarter. If payments continue for the whole year at the rate of the March quarter, the amount paid in unemployment benefit in Queensland will be more than half the total amount allocated to the Mount Isa project, which is £8,195,000. Incidentally, the Government has taken credit for this payment. {: .speaker-KKB} ##### Mr Jess: -- Do you object to this money going to Queensland? {: .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN: -- To what money is the honorable member referring? {: .speaker-KKB} ##### Mr Jess: -- To the money going to Queensland. {: .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr HAYDEN: -- Of course not, but it is not enough. I oppose the policies of the Government. Is the honorable member satisfied with the unemployment that persists in this country? His Government created it with the policies it pursued so relentlessly and callously during the past three years. This situation of grave unemployment has existed for years, and that is a serious indictment of any government. Yet this Government says it does not support boom and bust periods. The policies pursued by the Government have created this period of boom and bust. Another important factor has emerged during the period of high unemployment. The Government has failed to appreciate the true position, although its impact on employment may be serious. Despite the high rate of unemployment, production has increased. The index issued by the Australia and New Zealand Bank Limited in May, 1962, showed that production in all groups covered by a survey had increased by 6.6 per cent. Unemployment then was at the record high level of 131,500 people. This shows that automation is obviously making its inroads into the security of employment in this nation. People now unemployed may never be employed again - the liberated margin as they are euphemistically called. This has happened in the United States of America. What proposals are put forward by the Government to offset this trend in industry? It is a very serious trend and a trend that cannot be accepted light-heartedly by the community. Many people will be affected by it. Rural production also is a very important factor. The trends in rural production during the last twelve months are significant. I think our friends in the Australian Country Party will be very interested in the figures released by the Commonwealth Statistician for the financial year just ended. Whilst rural production had increased by 1 per cent, to a record level, the value of that production had decreased by 3 per cent., or £44,000,000, compared with the value of last year's production. In other words, the farmers are producing more but are obtaining a smaller return for their products. Their prosperity is declining. What efforts is the Government making to solve this problem? In particular, what efforts are being made by members of the Country Party who claim that they are the champions of the man on the land? What steps is the Government taking to overcome the acute unemployment situation that exists in rural communities? What is being done to find employment for children in rural communities? In Queensland alone 1,428 juniors in country areas cannot find work. The money provided under this bill will be of some benefit to the States but it will not do as much as the situation demands. In Queensland, with a State election pending, the State Government is engaging in party politics. It has said that it will release a certain amount of this money in the first quarter of the financial year and will release the remainder in the third and fourth quarters of the financial year. It is significant that during the third and fourth quarters of this financial year the coalition government in Queensland will be fighting an election. It will be fighting the election under the handicap of widespread unemployment, depression and gloom in industry. That situation is not so much the State Government's fault as that of the Commonwealth Government. The money that is released to local government authorities is not released impartially. In the past amounts released in areas in which sitting government members wish to entrench themselves have been greater than amounts released in other areas. In Ipswich, which is the greatest area of population in the electorate of Oxley - it is an industrial area - only a comparatively small amount of money will be made available. This grant is made provided that a certain amount is raised by way of loan. I think the ratio is 80 per cent, loan raising to 20 per cent, subsidy. This throws another burden on the ratepayer. Each year the cost of maintaining Ipswich increases. Soon people will not be able to afford to own property in areas such as Ipswich. Next year Ipswich ratepayers will have to repay the sum of £160,000 in loan redemption and interest. At the present time arrears are £15,000 higher than the figure of £35,000 recorded last year. This is solely because of the high cost of maintaining a works and maintenance programme in this city. What takes place in Ipswich is an example of what is taking place in many parts of the Commonwealth The grant to Ipswich for road works this year will be £19,000, which is totally inadequate for the work that needs to be done. A bridge to be built across the Bremer River, in Ipswich, will take 40 years to pay off because of the paltry amounts made available to the local government authority. Before long the Commonwealth Government will not be able to take the easy way out by passing the responsibility for local government finance to the States. Likewise, the States will not be able to pass the responsibility to local government authorities themselves by providing small amounts of subsidy money. The time is rapidly approaching when the Commonwealth must consider alternative ways of financing local government activities. It is disgraceful that less than half the city of Brisbane is sewered. It is a disgrace that less than half of a city the size of Ipswich is sewered. It is disgraceful to see so few streets bitumenized and to see so many of the bitumensurfaced streets in poor condition. Street lighting is insufficient. Health and other community services are neglected. This archaic situation has been caused by the stagnation of a Commonwealth government whose supporters in this place offer not constructive proposals to remedy the situation but sterile interjections. The Government does not make a bad fist of handling its affairs to its own satisfaction but to the disadvantage of the States. It is reducing the debt that it must bear while at the same time increasing the debt that the States must bear. The papers presented with the Budget last night by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** reveal that in 1950 the Commonwealth held £1,729,400,000 worth of securities maturing in Australia. At that time the States held £750,100,000 worth of securities maturing in Australia. The ratio was about one to two. By 1957, the Commonwealth held £1,745,900,000 worth of securities maturing in Australia, but the value of such securities held by the States had more than doubled to the figure of £1,822,400,000. By 1962, the 1950 position has been reversed. The Commonwealth now holds securities worth £1,208,400,000, but the States hold £2,548,700,000 worth of such securities. The Commonwealth is utilizing revenue to carry out its works programme, but it is inflicting on the States a heavy interest burden for the money that is provided from loan raisings. This is borne out by the increased per capita debt. In Queensland, in 1948-49, the per capita debt was £5 13s. 7d. By 1959-60, that figure had risen to £10 16s. 7d. The policy pursued by the Commonwealth Government inflicts a heavy burden on the States. It is a policy without pith. This Government has no constructive policy. It has not brought forward any proposals that will help to restore confidence to industry. If the Commonwealth wishes to see the States develop it should do something to restore confidence to industry. It should encourage industries to move away from the centres of population into country areas, thus providing employment for people, particularly children, in those areas. All too often we find that children in rural areas are forced to leave home at an early age in order to seek employment in the cities. That is hardly a situation to be accepted with alacrity. The Commonwealth Government must make it worth while for industries to transfer their activities to rural areas. If this were done, there would be a better spread of population throughout Australia to-day. Seventy-four per cent, of the population of Queensland is compressed into the southeastern sector of the State. This is not conducive to the development of the State or to a better outlook for its future. A vast area remains to be developed in Queensland. If the Federal Government allows the present trend to continue, with more and more people leaving rural areas and congregating in geographically small districts of great population, the economy of the greater part of the country will be vitiated. Economic activity will dry up and eventually all enterprise will wither away. Queensland is a particular case of the consequences of this Government's attitude and policies over the last twelve months, which have caused the value of production in that State to fall far below that of other States. In fact, the value of production in Queensland a head of the population is lower than is that of any other State, at £264 2s. 2d. That of Tasmania is the next lowest, although much higher, and stands at £280 18s. 7d. Victoria, of course, has the highest figure, at £353 14s. 4d. The figure for Queensland is 21 per cent, below the Australian average of £327 10s. 4d. a head. What a disgraceful situation this is in view of the enormous resources which Queensland has ready to be exploited and developed! If they were exploited and developed, the State would enter on a new era of stability and prosperity. But it will have none of these things and will be denied a better outlook for the future while this Government persists in mishandling financial grants to the States. There is an absolute necessity at present for the Federal Government to take positive action to end the present trend in these matters. {: #subdebate-30-0-s10 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-30-0-s11 .speaker-JYO} ##### Mr CLEAVER:
Swan **.- Mr. Speaker,** my desk calendar to-day carries a line of Shakespeare which I suggest some honorable members might observe a little more. It reads - >Tis better to be brief, than tedious. This bill relates to only one kind of assistance to the States - additional assistance. It is so easy for most of us to fall into the trap of tedious repetition, but I shall endeavour to observe the Shakespearean injunction as I support the bill. I am tempted, of course, to refer first to the remarks of the previous speaker, the honorable member for Oxley **(Mr. Hayden),** and to suggest to him that as a Queenslander he would be more fair and logical if he acknowledged the helpfulness of the grant to be made under the terms of this bill to his State. The situation in Queensland has been recognized by giving that State the highest individual grant - £3,600,000 out of the total of £12,500,000 for the whole of the Commonwealth. I would also ask the honorable member why, if he wishes to be fair and logical, he did not complain bitterly when in 1958 Queensland received £1,000,000 out of the additional grants totalling £5,000,000 made in recognition of drought conditions. Early this year, when some £10,000,000 was made 'available for purposes similar to those which are the basis of this bill, at a time when Queensland and other States faced unemployment problems, did he complain about the granting of £3,300,000 to Queensland? He did not. So, to-night, we can see that he has not been fair or logical. Even though, at times, we play at party politics in this place, surely we can be fair and logical when we consider a bill of this nature. My colleagues behind me, by way of interjection on several occasions during the speech just made by the honorable member for Oxley, asked why he did not recognize that the grants provided for in this bill are to be interest-free and nonrepayable. One cannot classify additional assistance grants with grants of other kinds. The honorable member was a little adrift, also, when he dealt with the Commonwealth's participation in loan-raisings. He might well be reminded at this juncture that all the loan-raisings are made available by the Commonwealth for the benefit of the States, with the sole exception of moneys allocated under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Perhaps that is something that the honorable member ought to think about I emphasize to the House, **Mr. Speaker,** that this is a bill to provide grants for additional assistance. There is no need for me to be tedious and to go over all the details set out in Chapter IX. of the White Paper entitled " Commonwealth Payments to or for the States ", which was recently circulated. My colleague, the honorable member for Wannon **(Mr. Malcolm Fraser),** in a splendid speech dealing with other kinds of assistance apart from additional assistance, has pointed out that this kind of grant for additional assistance has only a short history. I have briefly mentioned it in my comments on the remarks made by the honorable member for Oxley. This kind of grant was first made in 1958, when the Commonwealth said, " We feel that, apart from other reimbursement moneys, we should assist the various States to overcome the difficulties of the drought and economic conditions which have prevailed ". So these grants came into being with a total grant of £5,000,000 spread over all the States. Again, early this year, when unemployment called for remedial measures, £10,000,000 was provided. On this occasion, £12,500,000 is to be distributed in the proportions stated in the schedule to the bill. Apart from the Commonwealth Government's support of the usual borrowing programme for State works and for housing, which, this year, we note, amounts to £250,000,000, the Commonwealth intimated recently, at the meeting of the Australian Loan Council, that it wished to stimulate further the provision of jobs for workers. The grants to be made under the terms of this bill, therefore, represent an extension of the policy adopted in this connexion last February. The assistance takes the form of a special grant in recognition of special conditions. It is clearly stated that the grant is non-repayable and carries no interest and that, as I have already stated, it aggregates £12,500,000 for the whole of the Commonwealth. I should like to direct attention particularly to the emphasis contained in the words used by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** in his second-reading speech, in the phrase " for expenditure on employment-giving activities " in his statement of the fundamental objective of this grant. Last year, at a time when the States were acutely aware of unemployment and a grant of £10,000,000 was approved for similar purposes, that grant had marked results. I believe that the various States explicitly used the money as intended by the Commonwealth. It was used in the works field. I suggest to the House that, because of the discussion that took place in * the Loan Council and because it has een el emphasized that the present grant is for similar purposes, it will largely flow into similar channels. On this occasion the States will be given flexibility. I notice that some of them have forecast problems in their budgets. This grant is made so that the States may - for the permission is here expressed - use portion of the grant, if they wish, to reduce their fund deficiencies. But, as we deal with this bill to-night, I want to express the hope that all States will bend all their resources and efforts to observe the request of the Commonwealth Government. This grant, decidedly, is made to stimulate the provision of jobs for workers - an objective that we are keen to see achieved. But this special kind of grant, if it is designed to create employment-giving activities, must, I say again, be used in such a way that no one can justly accuse the State Premiers and governments of misuse of the money for other purposes. I believe it should be put to work promptly. The figures for June last, whilst showing a decided improvement, with a reduction in the number of persons seeking unemployment benefits, are by no means satisfactory to any thinking person in the House. The distribution of the grant, of course, is weighted in favour of the States where, regrettably, unemployment figures are the highest. It was for that purpose that I stressed a few moments ago that the home State of the honorable member for Oxley had received the highest amount. Funds have been allocated to Queensland and Tasmania over and above the allocations prescribed by the normal type of distribution formula. When we turn to the unemployment figures for the month ended 30th June last, we find that the grant to New South Wales of £3,000,000 is equated to an unemployment rate of 2.1 per cent, of the work force. Victoria, with a similar percentage of unemployment, receives £2,400,000. Queensland, with which I have dealt, receives £3,600,000. That State's unemployment figure, together with that of Tasmania, was the highest at 2.7 per cent, of the work force. South Australia is to receive £1,300,000, the unemployment rate there being 1.7 per cent, of the work force. My own State of Western Australia is to receive £800,000, and has an unemployment percentage of 1.8. So we must take cognizance of the fact that this distribution is weighted in favour of the States where, regrettably, unemployment has been more acute. Let me refer to the fact that the Government has noted the continued reduction in the number of persons drawing unemployment benefit, but it will, of course, not be content while there is any appreciable number of people seeking work and unable to find it. I have naturally and logically to turn to the State from which I come as a member. In that connexion, may I say that progress and development has ushered in a new era for the western State. Credit is, of course, due to the present Government, which was recently returned by the electorate. New industries have been commenced under that Government's programme and many others are on the horizon. To meet the requirements for skilled workers in Western Australia, the State Government has found it necessary to supplement the work of the Commonwealth Department of Immigration. It set a very good example by sending its own special mission to the United Kingdom, seeking the skilled migrants it desperately needs for this era of prosperity to which I have referred. Some 2,000 tradesmen are required over the remaining months of this year in Western Australia alone. Whilst the Premier of Western Australia undoubtedly asked for substantially more in the way of assistance when he, with the other Premiers, came to the recent Premiers' Conference, I am sure that he, being a fair and estimable Premier, with a splendid record of achievement behind him and his Government, appreciated in his assessment of the other States' claims - States with difficulties not comparable with those of Western Australia, for Western Australia's improvement has been recognized - that he must be prepared to take a lower grant for his State. So Western Australia is to receive £894,000. Whilst it could have been more, I am sure that the money will be used in activity which will provide employment. I believe, **Mr. Speaker,** that it is a sufficient amount to cut quickly the numbers of people on unemployment benefit in Western Australia, and that that can be done in a relatively short time. If the money is used for Government projects which have been delayed due to limited finances during the last twelve months, then, of course, the plans being ready, employment opportuni ties will be available to workers as soon as the funds are directed to those works. The reduced employment in recent months in Western Australia has fallen upon certain industries, as it does periodically and seasonally in all States. However, I note that in June there was increased employment in Western Australia in engineering plants. That would be linked with the prosperity and development to which I referred a few moments ago. There was also a significant increase in employment in some public works projects. I firmly believe that when the State governments receive additional grant money of this kind, it will be best directed quickly to the public works which are so often required for the employment of semi-skilled workers. That work can so often be commenced with little delay because invariably the blueprints for the work have been prepared. **Mr. Speaker,** the basis of financing works within the States has been well and truly covered in this debate. Some of my colleagues, as well as members on the Opposition side, have had liberty granted to them and they have covered the whole range of grant money that has flowed from year to year into the State treasuries. For that reason, I do not think it is necessary to go any further than to say that this bill deals with additional grant moneys totalling £12,500,000, allocated with the specific design of providing immediate opportunities to absorb men who unfortunately are unemployed. I believe the States will be all the more eager to demonstrate the effectiveness of this additional money because, as we have taken note, the grants are on a nonrepayable and interest-free basis. {: #subdebate-30-0-s12 .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS:
Griffith .- I wish to associate myself with this bill, which provides for non-repayable grants being made to the various States for the relief of unemployment. I wonder what has caused this Government to change its heart. Some little time ago, in the closing stages of last year, members of the Government parties who were contesting the elections were at pains to explain to the Australian people that unemployment, which was to some degree present in the community, was something that was merely in passing. I remember one former member of this House from Queensland - who lost his seat at the last election - stating that any man who wanted employment in Australia could get a job if he only went out and looked for it. That was the attitude of the Government up to 9th December. After 9th December, the Government, which had survived like a jelly with a fright, changed its heart. It admitted that the claims of the Australian Labour Party were right, and wisely it decided to take over and implement some features of the Australian Labour Party's policy, the principal one being immediate assistance to the States for the relief of unemployment. We are all aware that State governments are in the best position to provide for the relief of unemployment on a short-term basis. So while there has been no change in government, at least the Government has admitted that its policy was incorrect. It has changed its policy and has taken the lead given by the Australian Labour Party. The grant that was made in February of this year was made as a result of the election. It was a very substantial grant, made specifically for the purpose of relieving unemployment in the concluding four months of the financial year. Now the Government, aware of the fact that unemployment has decreased only slightly throughout the nation - in some of the States it has now commenced to increase again - has decided to make a grant in this financial year to the six States for unemployment relief. I am sorry to say that it is necessary for the Government to make the greatest grant to the State from which I come. Unemployment is at a very high level in Queensland. Queensland, unfortunately, is cursed with a Country Party government, with the Liberals just tagging along in the background. The financial position of the Government in Queensland is stagnant, industrial development is almost non-existent and unemployment is the highest of all the States of the Commonwealth. So, this Government has decided to make the greatest grant to Queensland. I think the strongest indictment of the employment position in that State is to be found in a speech made by the Premier of Queensland, behind locked doors, to the Premiers assembled in Canberra. Whilst some people tend to be critical of the disclosure in the press of Labour Caucus secrets from Canberra, there is little comment when, with the six Premiers meeting behind locked doors in this city, the Brisbane papers are able to publish a verbatim report of a speech made by the Premier of Queensland, **Mr. Nicklin.** According to the newspaper report, **Mr. Nicklin** made a strong plea for special aid to Queensland in a hard-hitting speech to the Loan Council. He said - >It will take massive assistance to overcome the lag which has developed in Queensland and to place us on an equal footing with the other States. He said further - >I submit a special plea for Queensland on the basis that this State has progressively lagged behind other States and I submit that some special stimulus, on a continuing basis, is essential if Queensland is to hold its own in the broad pattern of national development. **Mr. Nicklin** further said The lack of development has been reflected in and associated with a higher level of unemployment in Queensland during recent years than in any other State. This position is often dismissed on the basis that Queensland's unemployment problem is essentially a seasonal problem. The important part of his speech is contained in the following words: - >Let me state quite categorically that over the last three years the Queensland percentage of the work force employed has been below the Australian average in only one month. Obviously it is more than a seasonal problem. I remind the House that during these three years the present Prime Minister **(Mr. Menzies)** has held office in the Commonwealth sphere and **Mr. Nicklin** has been Premier of Queensland. So the Premier of Queensland himself has said that unemployment in that State is not a seasonal problem. I hope that members of this Parliament, as well as members of the Queensland Parliament, will admit that the Queensland unemployment problem is not a seasonal one. It is due to lack of development and lack of confidence in this Government and in the Government of Queensland. As a very keen observer of what is going on in the city of Brisbane, I say that the most progressive industry there is the building of ten-pin bowling alleys and the construction of service stations to retail petrol refined in other countries. This, unfortunately, is the position in the city of Brisbane. The Government has attacked the local authorities in Queensland, which had a grand opportunity to provide for the relief of unemployment. It has cut down considerably on the amount of money made available to the local authorities for the relief of unemployment. This has cost local government in Queensland a considerable sum of money and has been responsible for reducing the number of men who can be gainfully employed on local government works. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** said that whilst the Commonwealth was emphasizing that the overall purpose of the grant was to stimulate employment, he wanted to make it clear, in view of the fear expressed by the State Premiers that they would experience budgetary problems during this financial year, that it would be possible for the State governments to use any portion of this grant for budgetary purposes. I disagree with that proposal. It means that if a State government wishes to use this money for purposes other than the relief of unemployment it will be quite at liberty to do so. The Government of Queensland has made it clear that it does not intend to use this money immediately for the relief of unemployment. Here I refer to the statement made by the Treasurer of Queensland in which, while commenting on the amount of money to be made available to his State, he made it quite clear that his Government had no intention of reducing the level of unemployment in the first quarter of this financial year. He made it quite clear, as stated in the press, that this money will be hoarded and kept until the third and fourth quarters of the financial year, that is, from January to June of 1963. The money will then be used to stimulate employment when a State election campaign is in progress. This is playing politics in a very dirty way and it is using employment as a means of encouraging support for and building up the stocks of a tottering Liberal-Country Party government in Queensland. The intention of this Parliament is a very praiseworthy one, inasmuch as it is granting money, with no request for repayment, to the States, primarily to relieve unemployment. But here is the State of Queensland hitting back at this Parliament and saying, " We will not use this money for the immediate relief of unemployment. We will let the men who are out of work stay out of work until 1963 when a State election will be in the offing. We will then use the money for election propaganda purposes." I am sure that all decent members of this Parliament - I know that slightly more than a majority of members can claim to be decent - will agree that that action is rather despicable. I feel that the Treasurer should again make it clear that this Parliament would like Queensland to use this money for the relief of unemployment immediately and not in the distant future. Unemployment is a serious problem in Queensland, which has the doubtful distinction of having the highest percentage of unemployment of any State in the Commonwealth. There are 23,000 people unemployed in Queensland at the present time, and the Premier himself has admitted that this is not simply seasonal unemployment. We know that industry is not developing in Queensland as it should. Both the State and the Commonwealth governments should be prepared to examine the situation closely. The Labour Party has a definite policy for the development of northern Queensland and for the development of the whole State. However, it must be admitted that the States have certain sovereign rights, and in the past the Government of Queensland has been reluctant to allow the Commonwealth to vote money for developmental purposes in Queensland while retaining a right to have a say in deciding how the money should be spent. I know that this reluctance on the part of the Queensland Government still exists. The Treasurer made some encouraging comments last night about the development of the brigalow belt in Queensland, which is an area of some 32,000,000 acres and which, if properly cleared and developed, could carry huge herds of cattle. But we must remember that there has been no cooperation between State and Commonwealth governments in these matters. The Queensland Government wants to pursue a certain line of development while the Commonwealth Government, through the Treasurer, is pushing for another line. At the same time the huge L. J. Hooker organization has somehow managed to get on side with the Commonwealth Government and is advocating its own line of development. It is rather remarkable that three of the directors of the Hooker land development organization in Queensland are former members of the Menzies Government. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- That is significant! {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS: -- It is quite significant. It appears that there could be some association between the announced intentions of this Government with regard to the development of the brigalow belt in Queensland and the expressed desire of private enterprise to take over the land,, as has been announced by this big firm, three of the directors of which are former Ministers of the Menzies Government. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- Who are they? {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS: -- If honorable members want to know who they are I will name them. The three to whom I refer are **Sir Arthur** Fadden, **Sir Neil** O'sullivan and **Sir Josiah** Francis. {: .speaker-2V4} ##### Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP -- What are they getting out of it? {: .speaker-K6X} ##### Mr COUTTS: -- I do not know any more than that. I do not want to be unkind. My information comes from the Brisbane newspaper, the " Courier Mail ", in which these names have appeared from time to time in connexion with the Hooker organization. I want to see some form of practical development of the State of Queensland and I am convinced the only way in which this can be brought about is by complete co-operation between the Commonwealth and State Governments. We have seen how effective that kind of co-operation has been in other parts of the Commonwealth. One of the best examples is to be seen in the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority, which has done a magnificent job in the development of one part of Australia. If the Government of Queensland was prepared to co-operate with the Commonwealth Government we might get somewhere in this important matter of development. At the present time, however, the development of Queensland seems to have reached the point of stagnation. The Queensland Government has been very active in disseminating propaganda, but when one looks at what has actually been done one finds that Queensland is lagging behind the other States in development. If we want to see a permanent reduction of unemployment in Queensland we must strive for a greater degree of co-operation between Commonwealth and State governments. When we have a Labour administration in the Commonwealth sphere, the Commonwealth Government will strive for close co-operation with the Queensland Government and make larger amounts of money available for development. That is the only way in which the State will be developed. The honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan)** made it quite clear in his speech this afternoon that some of the industries that provide large numbers of employment opportunities in Queensland at certain times of the year are reducing their intake of workers. One of the most important of these industries is the sugar industry. The time is approaching when the intake of workers into that industry will be much smaller than it has been in the past. It is no use waiting until the disaster overtakes us. We must plan ahead, and there must be a determination on the part of both the Commonwealth and the State governments to see that something realistic is done in Queensland. For far too long we in Queensland have cried that we want more money, that development is lagging, that the Commonwealth Government is not generous enough. These things may be quite true, and I would say that the Commonwealth Government in the past has not been unduly generous to Queensland. I believe, however, that we must establish some developmental authority consisting of representatives of both governments, to arrange for more and more money to be made available, on a long-term basis, so that a proper programme of development can be undertaken. It has been made quite plain to me, in conversations I have had with business people in my electorate, that the people have no confidence in this Government. No matter how hard it tries, the Government cannot inspire this confidence. Business people are complaining about a falling-off in sales. One of the most progressive businesses in the electorate of Griffith is a firm which has become known as " Repossession House". This firm sells articles that have been the subject of hire-purchase agreements entered into by the people of Brisbane and have been repossessed. It is a sorry state of affairs when an organization of that kind is enjoying such prosperity as a result of unemployment and some degree of depression in the State of Queensland. As I said earlier, I appreciate what is being done - although, of course, it is not enough - to relieve unemployment in Queensland. Honorable members should bear in mind that almost as much money is being granted to Queensland under this bill as was made available to that State, on the same terms, earlier this year to cover a period of four months. This money is granted to cover twelve months. It is obvious that the Queensland Government cannot employ the same number of people that it placed in employment with the money received under the earlier grant. It is also quite evident that the Queensland Government will refrain from spending the grant in the first and second quarters of this financial year. It has blatantly announced that it does not propose to do so. Unfortunately it intends to play party politics and to use the money in the third and fourth quarters of the year. I hope, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that the people of Queensland will realize, as they showed in December of last year that they realized, that this Government cannot inspire confidence and is not giving a lead to the nation. We are faced with unemployment in Queensland, and I believe that the Government of that State has gone as far as it can in the way of economic recovery, and that it can do no more. Recovery in Queensland is not taking place as quickly as we could hope for. The Government has said that it believes in a policy of full employment, but we say that full employment is not being achieved. On the contrary, the position is worsening and we are returning to the situation that existed in the early part of this year. With the falling off in seasonal employment I believe that unemployment will again commence to rise and will eventually attain the proportions that were unfortunately evident in the early part of the year. We need a bold and progressive policy, and I fear that it cannot come from the present Government {: #subdebate-30-0-s13 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr BARNES:
Mcpherson .- First of all. I should like to comment on some of the remarks of honorable gentlemen opposite, particularly the honorable members for Griffith **(Mr. Coutts)** and Oxley **(Mr. Hayden).** I agree with the honorable member for Griffith that Queensland lags far behind in industry. He complained bitterly about unemployment. I agree also with the honorable member for Oxley that Queensland possesses richer resources than those in any other State in the Commonwealth. That is perfectly true. But that fact poses the query: Why should a State which is the richest in the Commonwealth lag behind in industry and have a very serious unemployment position? The honorable members to whom I have referred did not give reasons for that state of affairs. They failed to do so because the reasons are very embarrassing to the Australian Labour Party. Why was industry not brought to Queensland? Industry was not brought to Queensland because that State, the richest in the Commonwealth, had experienced until a few years ago 40 years of socialist government. In those years it experienced some of the greatest socialist experiments we have had in Australia. While I was listening to the honorable member I jotted down some of the industries on which Labour governments in that State embarked. They included State steamships, State cattle stations, State meatworks, State agricultural implement works, State fisheries, State mines, State shipbuilding, State butcher shops, State timber yards- {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- That was a very poor state of affairs. {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr BARNES: -- I agree; they were very poor industries. There were also State produce agencies and State quarries. Fortunately, they disappeared; but in that way the State lost £9,000,000 up to the middle 30's when £9,000,000 was worth considerably more than it is worth to-day. That sum does not include the loss of interest involved. Other States, such as South Australia, though poorer in natural resources, attracted great industries such as General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited. According to the last published balancesheet of that firm which I saw, which I think was for 1959, it employed 18,000 people. In the years in which the State industries were operating in Queensland we had State as well as Federal taxation. According to the Commonwealth " YearBook ", at that time the per capita income tax collected in South Australia by the State Government was £4 13. compared with the figure of £5 19s. 6d. for Queensland. But it was the company taxation that was really damaging in Queensland; and it is company taxation which is examined by the industrialist when he decides where to set up his plant. He wants to assess where the best opportunities exist to make a profit. After all, the duty of every business is to make a profit because it owes a profit to its employees, to its shareholders and to the country. In those days to which I have referred Commonwealth company tax was 36d. in the £1. In South Australia, the State company tax was 2s. in the £1. In Queensland a public company paid State tax of 2 Id. in the £1, plus 20 per cent, super tax, plus 3d. for each additional 1 per cent, of profit over 6 per cent, until it reached 19 per cent., after which the rate was 63d. in the £1. That taxation was payable in addition to Commonwealth company tax. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- What government was in office? {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr BARNES: -- A Labour Government. I know that Opposition members who are now interjecting do not like this. In the case of a monopoly company the additional tax was 6d. for each additional 1 per cent, until the profit reached 16 per cent., after which the rate was 87d. in the £1. {: #subdebate-30-0-s14 .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mackinnon:
CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA -- Order! Honorable members will cease interjecting. {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr BARNES: -- I know that Opposition members do not like this. Had General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited existed in Queensland during the last year in which State company tax was collected it would have paid a tax of £15,712,500 whereas in South Australia it would have paid £1,387,500. Those figures are based on the last published balance-sheets for 1959, when the company showed a profit before tax of £27,750,000. Is it any wonder that there is a lag in industry in Queensland? Is not this a warning to any person who votes at the next State election to keep Labour out of office in Queensland? Is it not a warning to keep a Labour government out of the Commonwealth Parliament? The same pattern could be adopted in the Commonwealth as was adopted in Queensland. We were headed in the same direction when we had a Commonwealth Labour government. As the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** has said, Australia was well and truly planned. The Government did the planning and everybody else had to follow suit. Under the Labour Government you could not buy a motor car; you could not buy shirts with tails; you could not have pink icing on the Christmas cake. To-day we have a burgeoning economy; we have the most stable economy in the world. Put any other economy up against it and see for yourselves. This is a new country with only 10,000,000 people and yet it is one of the ten great trading nations of the world. Of course, we have had pressures on our economy. We had to expect them in the course of the development that has taken place in the twelve years that this Government has been in office; or is it fifteen years? {: .speaker-JUF} ##### Mr Don Cameron:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP -- This Government will not last that long. {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr BARNES: -- If this Government lasts only its normal course, as I believe it will, it will have equalled the total legislative history of the Australian Labour Party because Labour has been in office for only a total of fifteen years in the history of federation. Yet the Opposition talks about the unhappy position that Queensland is in after 40 years of socialism. The honorable member for Oxley **(Mr. Hayden)** referred to the unfortunate position of some primary producers in Queensland. I notice that under the redistribution of electoral boundaries in Queensland the honorable member will get quite a considerable number of dairy farmers in his electorate. He will have great difficulty in explaining to them why the Labour Government in Queensland enabled the manufacture of margarine to expand to such a degree. In the only two States in Australia where Labour governments have prevailed - Queensland and New South Wales - production of margarine has been allowed to run away. The honorable member for Oxley will have to answer to his constituents because they are really concerned about this. Their income has been lowered and in warning the honorable member that he will be asked for an explanation I am only trying to help kim The honorable member for Griffith **(Mr. Coutts)** said that industries exist only in the south-eastern portion of Queensland. That is perfectly true, but this Government with new grants and other financial assistance to Queensland is endeavouring to encourage industrial development elsewhere. It is providing funds to develop the harbour at Gladstone. It is stimulating the export of coal. It is providing funds for the Mount Isa railway to further the development of one of the most promising mineral enterprises in Australia. It is providing funds for beef roads to permit graziers and primary producers who live in the remote parts of the State to transport their products to the works. In 40 years of Labour government, the cattle industry dwindled away. To-day the number of beef cattle in Queensland is equal only to the number in 1895. If ever the Queensland Labour Government stood indicted, it is on that count. Recently, the honorable member for Oxley and other Labour members of this House representing Queensland electorates went on a tour of the north, but I notice that they did not go to Cairns where there are serious industrial disputes, particularly at the meatworks. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, which has been the bane of cattle producers in Queensland for many years, has practically closed down production at Queerah. I might add that a meat company owned mainly by graziers operates the meatworks at Queerah. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- Are you in it? {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr BARNES: -- Yes, I am in it. This company is endeavouring to buck the great meat export companies - Swifts and Vesteys. I believe that in the recent disputes there was every indication of a tie-up between the meat unions and those two great meat export companies. There was every evidence of it. Obviously, honorable members opposite did not go to Queerah because such a visit would have queered their pitch properly. If these industrial disputes continue, they will neutralize the money we are making available to the Queensland Government for beef roads. This is a very serious matter for cattle producers. In most cases, the cattle come from clean country. All the treatment works are in tick areas and clean cattle have only ten days in a tick area before they are likely to succumb to red water. Therefore, this is a serious position for a grazier who may have sent his cattle from 500 or 600 miles away. There has been a big change in Queensland. The Country Party-Liberal Government of Queensland has made a big effort to develop industries and to avoid the dependence on primary industry which is most evident in Queensland. As some honorable members have said, seasonal employment is the bane of Queensland. The honorable member for Oxley has properly said that industries have not been brought to the country towns and that young people leaving school cannot find employment without going to the cities. This matter has concerned the Country Party in Queensland. It is unfortunate that the whole of Queensland, and not only the country towns, is in that position. Queensland cannot provide employment for young people leaving school and it will not be able to build a population until it has industries. Every effort is being made by the present State Government to bring about further development, and the Commonwealth Government is assisting in that direction. It is making grants available to Queensland for this purpose. This is important because some of the principal areas of Queensland have had four years of drought and the State needs industries. Most unfairly, the honorable member for Griffith more or less suggested that this Government is in cahoots with one of our great land development companies - the L. J. Hooker organization. The honorable member's reference to 32,000,000 acres in the Fitzroy Basin shows that he is careless with his figures and with his statements. I have it from the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** himself, that the L. J. Hooker Company has never come into the negotiations for the development of the Fitzroy Basin. Every honorable member in this House and every Queenslander is pleased that money is being made available to develop this brigalow area. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- It is creeping paralysis. {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr BARNES: -- We had creeping paralysis up there when in the area we are now about to develop, the British Labour Government set out to grow 1,000,000 bushels of sorghum in the socialist experiment at Peak Downs. It spent immense sums and took over farm machinery just after the Second World War when farm machinery was almost unprocurable. The State Government had first priority and it took away harvesters and tractors. The 4,000,000 bushels that the Darling Downs grain growers had was left to rot but all that could be produced at Peak Downs was 220,000 bushels. Then the scheme folded up. That is part of the history of Peak Downs. I believe that the Queensland Government and the people of Queensland will take heart from the assistance that is to be provided through this bill. From my reading of the Queensland newspapers, I believe that this assistance is being acknowledged. I know that such assistance will continue while this Government is in office. {: #subdebate-30-0-s15 .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN:
Bonython .- The honorable member for McPherson **(Mr. Barnes)** is always at his best when he is expressing his hatred of a political organization with which he is all too unfamiliar. His attitude is obvious when he refers to the objectives of this political organization. I am afraid that his conservatism at times carries him to extremes. This was so when he referred to the disadvantages suffered by Queensland when uniform taxation was introduced. The honorable gentleman said that, prior to the introduction of uniform taxation, the rate of company tax in Queensland was lower than the rates in other States. {: .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes: -- No, the other way round. {: .speaker-KLL} ##### Mr MAKIN: -- The honorable gentleman cannot laugh off the situation in that way. He claimed that uniform taxation denied to Queensland the opportunity to attract industries to that State. But I point out to him that the major industry of General Motors-Holden's Proprietary Limited was developed after the introduction of uniform taxation. Therefore, he is entirely mistaken when he makes the claim that he did. The record will prove that what I have said is correct. I remind him that in the State from which I come, South Australia, the motor industry is one of the major industries and it was established there after the introduction of uniform taxation. The honorable gentleman is quite wrong in claiming that uniform taxation has placed Queensland at a disadvantage in its efforts to attract secondary industries. Queensland is denied the opportunities to develop industries that prevail in other States because of the out-of-date methods and lack of foresight and understanding of the conservative Government that is at present in power in that State. The people of Queensland gave a sound rebuke at the last federal election to those whose policies accord with the policies of the present Queensland Government. I understand that the State Government is due to meet the electors at an early date and I am sure it will meet the same fate as the supporters of the Commonwealth Government met in Queensland at the last federal election. I have no doubt that a Labour government will be returned at the next State election and that it will carry on the excellent work of development that was commenced by previous Labour governments in Queensland. This very rich and wonderful State will then enjoy much prosperity. Queensland does not lack the natural resources needed for its development, in the fields of both primary and secondary production. Its progress has been impeded by the mismanagement of the present State Government. The legislation before the House provides additional financial assistance to the States of £12,500,000. This grant is intended to assist in the urgent re-employment of people in the States. It is supplementary to other amounts that have been made available. The Government does not require the States to repay it and no interest is to be charged. Honorable gentlemen opposite contend that the Government is magnanimous and generous and that in making this grant it is earnestly trying to solve the problem of unemployment, which has caused great suffering and hardship to thousands of families. No State has suffered more than has Queensland. The honorable member for Oxley **(Mr. Hayden)** and other honorable members have dealt eloquently with the difficulties that have confronted the people in the northern areas. I regret that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** did not give the House more detailed information regarding the discussions on this matter at the Australian Loan Council. All we know of the proceedings of this body is what we may read in the newspapers. When a proposal has been considered by a body that consists of representatives of the States, we have a right to know how it was received. From the newspapers, I have gained the impression that there was considerable dissatisfaction amongst the Premiers at the inadequacy of the amount that is granted in this bill. Apparently, the Premiers thought that at least another £2,250,000 was needed urgently to meet the situation created by continued unemployment. This Government has been endeavouring for some months to find a way through the maze of difficulties created by the policies that it implemented in November, 1960. We felt the full blast of those policies in 1961, and in 1962 their effect is still apparent. Despite the Government's selfsatisfied claim that the employment situation is improving, to-day 93,000 people are registered for employment in this country. That is a disgraceful situation. We must bear in mind that in a few months many young Australians will for the first time enter the labour market, thus accentuating the employment difficulties that already exist. Australia must continue its immigration policy. Another 125,000 people will come to this country expecting to find suitable employment and a place in the community. The situation is far from promising. In fact, it is disturbing. The Government has endeavoured by various means to stimulate the economy. It has released credit through the private banking institutions in the hope that employment would increase. The results achieved have been negligible and the employment situation is still very serious. The policies that this Government champions have led it to the door of failure. Whereas formerly the Government claimed that it believed in full employment, it now suggests that a constant pool of unemployed in Australia is inevitable. That state of affairs will cause great concern to many people in this country and will do little to restore confidence in the economy. In its efforts to improve the employment situation the Government has leaned heavily on private enterprise. But there are limits to the extent to which even private enterprise may enter into a situation of that description. The Government should immediately implement a programme of public works in order to develop the country and provide a stimulus to industry generally. At the Australian Loan Council meeting the Premiers stressed that insufficient finance was being made available for essential community services. Adequate housing, hospitals, schools and roads are essential in a progressive community, but the States are unable to provide these services. The acute nature of the unemployment situation was recently demonstrated in South Australia. An oil refinery is being established about 18 miles south of Adelaide. At a certain stage of its development it required 100 operatives. The advertisement calling for applications stated that applicants would be interviewed at the refinery site at the normal morning starting time - between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock. Although only 100 men were required, 1,000 applied for the positions. The men commenced to queue for interview about 6 o'clock in the morning. Recently an electrical firm in Adelaide advertised for a salesman. About 50 young men, all with Intermediate Certificate qualifications, applied for the position. So equal were their qualifications that the successful applicant's name was drawn from a hat. Such a state of affairs has a disturbing influence on the community. Despite the Government's efforts, of which honorable gentlemen opposite are proud, we still have a legacy of 93,000 persons seeking work. We must consider also the people that are dependent upon them. Many families to-day suffer much hardship as a consequence of unemployment. In the light of these facts, I suggest that the £12,500,000 that has been allocated to stimulate the economy and help relieve unemployment is totally inadequate and completely incapable of doing the job as it ought to be done. We need greater vision by this Government in dealing with the national economy. I should like to know whether the Government is in a position to tell us that plans are ready for the undertaking immediately of works that will help to provide employment for more workers. The1 longer such works are delayed, the greater and the more accentuated will be the difficulties. It is time that we at least had some constructive planning by the Government and not just a repetition of piecemeal methods in dealing with something that amounts to a grave national problem. We have heard the strong condemnation by the Premiers of Victoria and South Australia, with the support of the Premier of New South Wales, of the Commonwealth Government's niggardly attitude in denying the States funds that are essential if they are to deal with their problems more effectively. It is time the Government at least realized that the people of this country are gravely concerned about the Commonwealth's parsimonious attitude in parcelling out funds in such niggardly fashion for expenditure by the States and other authorities which are capable of using a great deal more money to undertake works that will help to create more employment and solve the problems that beset us at the present time. Many works must be undertaken. As I travel through the countryside I see in many places a great need for schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and so on. These things are urgently needed if this country is to develop properly and if our people are to have adequate employment and the services that they need. I support other Opposition speakers in registering a protest at the inadequacy of the grants provided for in this bill. Opposition members support the measure, but we believe that the Government ought to provide supplementary grants to permit the planning of more developmental works in all States so that the urgent problems of the moment can be more effectively tackled. {: #subdebate-30-0-s16 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN:
Indi **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I should like to make only one comment about the speech just made by the honorable member for Bonython **(Mr. Makin).** He began by quoting the honorable member for Mcpherson **(Mr. Barnes)** most inaccurately. As the honorable member for Moore **(Mr. Leslie)** said at the time, the honorable member for Bonython should have put up his aerial so as to be able to hear what the honorable member for Mcpherson was saying in his excellent speech. Some of the speeches made in this debate by other Opposition speakers are not even worth commenting on, but I should like to deal with one or two. The honorable member for Griffith **(Mr. Coutts)** was only one of many members of the Australian Labour Party who said, "Of course, the Government has only taken over Labour's policies since the last federal general election ". If we were to take any action at all, we had to do something that was mentioned in the Labour Party's policy speech for the general election, because Labour's policy had a little of everything. Every project and every benefit that one can think of was mentioned in it. So, no matter what action we took, we had to adopt some of the suggestions made in that policy speech. {: .speaker-KXZ} ##### Mr Peters: -- Ten million pounds- {: .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN: -- The Labour Party's promises at the last general election were conservatively estimated to cost, not £10,000,000, but at least £310,000,000. So the Opposition's claim that the Labour Party's policies have been taken over by this Government can be disregarded. One observation that was made by the honorable member for Griffith demonstrates how little reliance can be placed on his remarks. He said that there are at present 23,000 people unemployed in Queensland. That is not true. Only about 16,000 people are unemployed there now. That sort of inaccuracy demonstrates the need for correction of the honorable member's statements. Before I deal with the remarks made by the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean)** and the honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan),** I want to say that the theme of the speeches made by Opposition members in this debate has been the same old theme that the Opposition always adopts. It says that the Government should be providing more money for everything. Opposition members stated that the grants to be made under the terms of this bill are a good idea but are inadequate. It seems that the Australian Labour Party's idea is that all one has to do in order to make more money available is to turn to the printing press and print it, without regard to the consequences for the national economy, or the need to increase production and to earn if we are to spend. Opposition members never mention the need to increase production. Their whole idea is: Print more money and let us spend it. They do not think about the inflationary effects that such action would have, or about the effects on the costs of primary producers and secondary industries and on the fixed incomes of people who depend on superannuation, pensions and so on. To Opposition members, that does not matter at all. They just want us to put more money in circulation and they do not want anybody to work any harder. Indeed, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** not only do honorable members opposite not want anybody to work harder; the policy of the party to which they belong is to shorten working hours and reduce output per man-hour. As I have said, members of the Labour Party are always advocating in this Parliament that all we need to do is to print more money and put it into circulation. If this were the solution to our problems, surely every country in the world would just print more money without worrying about productivity, and nobody would have any problems. Members of the Labour Party, if we judge by the way they talk in these debates relating to unemployment, are trying to give the Australian people the impression that Labour supporters are the only members of this Parliament who are concerned about unemployment. Let us make no error about that. They are not the only members of this Parliament who are concerned about the problem of unemployment. Both the parties that make up this coalition Government aTe very much concerned about unemployment. But there is no magic solution to the problem. Unemployment has many causes. We all know that. Opposition members have conveniently overlooked many things in this debate, **Mr. Deputy Speaker.** The honorable member for Bonython repeatedly said that 93,000 people are now registered as unemployed in this country. What he did not say is that **Mr. A.** E. Monk, president of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, has said that unemployment of 1.5 per cent, of the work force can be expected in any country that is under a system such as ours. That represents about 60,000 people. Opposition members say nothing about the skills or the age of the other 33,000 people who, it is said, are unemployed. Some of those people are only 15 years of age. I know the problems that confront families with children. Many parents want to keep their children longer at school, but they cannot afford to do so. Every member will agree that it would be a good idea for more parents to keep their children at school beyond the age of fifteen years. The honorable member for Melbourne Ports said that we should have a planned economy, and that primary and secondary industries should be planned. The honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** says, " Hear, hear! " Let us consider the effect in countries with planned economies. Let us look at the situation in Russia, which has surely the most planned economy in the world in which we live. What happened about two months ago in this very successful planned economy? The price of butter went up by 30 per cent, to 15s. per lb. and the price of meat increased by 25 per cent, to about 20s. per lb. The average wage of the Russian worker is- about £A12 10s. a week, yet butter costs him 15s. per lb. and meat £1 per lb. That is one result of the planned economy favoured by the Labour Party. Look at China. The people of China have been most unfortunate in experiencing the effects of drought and other calamities, but their whole economy has collapsed. They were trying to have a planned economy. Now, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** we shall come a little closer to home and investigate some of the planned industrial set-ups of the State Labour parties. The honorable member for Mcpherson **(Mr. Barnes)** absolutely devastated the Labour Party members from Queensland when reading a list of industries that were established by the Queensland State Labour Government. He mentioned about fifteen industries, and not one of them is still in existence. We find, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** that the New South Wales Government has built a dam called the Keepit dam. It was estimated to cost £1,500,000, and it finished Up COSt.ing £13,000,000. There is only one difficulty; they cannot find any use for the water. The New South Wales Government planned this dam, but now it cannot work out a plan to use the water. We have heard just about every Queensland member on the opposite side speak on this bill. We heard them talk about the failure of this Government to make plans for Queensland and to alleviate unemployment in that State. As the honorable member for Mcpherson said, we know why there are no secondary industries in Queensland. Industrial development was retarded by 40 years of Labour government in that State, and by the inordinately high taxes imposed on private individuals and companies that were willing to establish industries in Queensland. Let the people of Queensland recognize that a large portion of the blame for Queensland's unemployment problem lies squarely at the door of the State Labour governments that were in office for 40 years. The honorable member for Kennedy **(Mr. Riordan)** dwelt at great length in this debate on the vital importance of the sugar industry to Queensland. I suggest that he have a talk with his deputy leader, the honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam.)** He had better tell him that the sugar industry is of vital importance. Perhaps this is deviating a little, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** but I should like to point out that, upon his return from overseas, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, commenting on the Common Market situation, said that the effect of the Common Market would not be very great on Australian industry any way. We know how vital the sugar industry is to the towns on the east coast of Queensland. We realize that the industry is vitally concerned with the outcome of Britain's possible entry into the Common Market. Once again we see two leading front bench members of the Australian Labour Party at variance. Queensland members have spoken of the employment situation in Queensland, but they have conveniently overlooked the fact that employment there is definitely affected by bad seasonal conditions and the seasonal work that is available. Over the past few years that great State has had the misfortune of experiencing bad weather conditions. Let me deal with the attitude of this Federal Government towards special assistance to the States. A whole complex of matters receives special assistance from this Government. The Government helps in such fields as universities, dairy industry extension services, the expansion of agricultural advisory services, the control of cattle tick, and many other important projects. That is the overall picture throughout Australia. Coming to the individual States that will be granted assistance under this bill, I must admit that I am a little concerned because the States seem to have been allowed too much of a free hand in using this money. The object of these special grants is to alleviate unemployment. I hope that the Government of my own State, Victoria, uses the money wisely. I could make a couple of suggestions which, if adopted, would have the effect of developing Victoria and easing unemployment. It is tremendously important to help the expanding tourist industry in Victoria, particularly in the north-eastern part of the State. Many fine places need better access roads. I have in mind such places as Corryong, Bright, Myrtleford, Mount Buller, and the Eildon Weir. People travelling to the Eildon Weir have to pass through Alexandra. The roads in all these areas are badly in need of improvement and I hope that some of the allocation will be devoted to this work. I hope also that roads will be built in areas where new development is taking place. It is most important that people in these areas should have proper access to their properties. Now, **Mr. Deputy Speaker,** I should like to deal with the special grants that are being made to the State of Queensland, whose parliamentary representatives are always complaining that the members of this Federal Parliament do not know that Queensland exists. At the last general election the Labour Party, by a very clever piece of propaganda - I agree that it was clever - pulled the wool over the eyes of the people of Quensland by indicating to them that the members of this Parliament did not worry about the development of that State at all. We do. I shall give a few examples of this. This year, £57,000 will be allocated for the expansion of agricultural advisory services in Queensland. The sum of £66,000 will be granted for dairy industry extension services, and £1,700,000 for beef cattle roads in the north of Queensland to help the primary producers. The amount of £8,000,000 has been set aside for the Mount Isa railway, and £1,700,000 has been allotted to commence the clearing and development of the brigalow country. Then there is the £9,700,000 grant to Queensland under the Commonwealth Aid Roads Bill, and part of the oil search subsidy of £5,000,000, as well as the money granted to assist in the development of the coal port at Gladstone. These are the things that are being done. It is not an easy job. It is a job which may have been ignored for too long by this Government, but it was ignored also by Labour governments, which did not do anything about it when they were in office not that they have been in office for so very long during the period of federation. {: .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: -- Make up your mind. Which way do you want it? {: .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN: -- Both ways. You were not in office for very long and when you were there you did not do anything. 1 feel that the Country Party can claim a great deal of credit for the implementation of many of these policies which have been introduced over the past few years. We agree with the help that is being given to Queensland, and although we do not consider it is enough, we think it is the correct trend and we hope it will continue. We certainly want to see more money being devoted to these projects next year so long as they are kept in balance with the rest of the development of Australia. We will find that these developments will bring other developmental problems in their train and we hope that the Development Bank will play its part in assisting the primary producers, in particular, to overcome their problems. Both the Development Bank and the trading banks must accept their responsibility in assisting the primary producers of this country as well as the secondary industries. They must consider making more money available to the primary producers of Australia on longer terms. The present terms are just not good enough. During this debate there has been a lot of talk by members of the Labour Party about the responsibility of the States. Let me say that under the Australian governmental system the State governments must be prepared to accept their constitutional responsibilities. At present there is too much of a tendency for them to shelve their responsibilities, to pass the buck back to the federal government when anything goes wrong, and to claim the credit when a State is making progress. We are all entitled to our fair share of the credit for the progress of Australia. We must all realize that the Commonwealth Government, the State governments and local government authorities are a governmental team, and that each has a duty to play its part fairly and squarely in the progress of Australia. The States are reluctant to give the Commonwealth Government more power to enable us to achieve some of the things they want us to do. But on the other hand they are prepared to give us all the financial responsibility they possibly can. I feel confident that the money provided under this bill will go a long way towards solving the unemployment problem which we all admit still exists. With the implementation of the policies of this Government I am certain that this problem will very soon be solved. Debate (on motion by **Mr. James)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 158 {:#debate-31} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Army Land Holdings - Bendigo Trades and Labour Council - Electoral - Department of Supply - Decentralization - Citrus Industry - Banking - Public Service Motion (by **Mr. Fairhall)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr DALY:
Grayndler **.- Mr. Speaker,** as usual there are one or two matters of national importance which I desire to raise. I wish to bring to the attention of the Government one matter in particular, concerning my electorate, on which there is great public indignation. I refer to the land occupied by the Army in the centre of the Grayndler constituency. This land, like that in some other areas, is ideal for housing. While appreciating that over the years there may have been great need for the Army to occupy this establishment situated at Marrickville, it is the considered opinion of the people of that area, the municipal authorities and various interested organizations, that this depot might well be transferred from this densely populated locality. To-night I renew the request which has been made to the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** for several years that action be taken to make this land available for housing. I think it was as early as 1957 or 1958 that the municipal authorities asked that this land be made available for this purpose. Marrickville is one of the most densely populated areas in Sydney and the land in question is close to public transport, industry, schools, hospitals and all the other necessary facilities. Approximately 9.3 acres are used by the Army authorities as an Army depot. Following representations that I made previously to the Minister a committee was set up to deal with this request and others. As a result certain lands were released in parts of Sydney, but the request that this area in Marrickville be made available for housing purposes has been refused because the Minister has been advised that it is essential for military requirements. I do not know exactly what the military requirements are in this area, but a few days ago I took the trouble to drive in through the gate of this depot and look around. I parked the car in the most conspicuous place but I venture to suggest that if I had fired a double-barrelled gun or even a machine gun there I would not have hit any one. So far as I could see it would be no trouble for this area to be given to the civil authorities, because it appeared hot to be utilized at all. If this land is required by the Army I think it should be occupied full-time. Apparently there is only a skeleton organization working at this depot and there is little supervision over those who come and go. Surely there is unlimited space available elsewhere for Army purposes. I took the trouble to look into some of the buildings at this depot and it was obvious that many had not been used for a considerable time. All in all, a big section of the depot gives the impression that it is not used at all for any purpose. I suggest to the Minister for the Army that it is time he had a look at this area. He should re-appoint the committee which previously examined Army establishments in densely populated areas, in order to see if this land can be made available for housing. I do not deny that there is a great need for Army establishments, but the fact remains that in this day and age, with transport readily available to people serving in the armed forces, there should not be any need for establishments in densely populated areas such as Marrickville. I am sure that if the Minister for the Army were to inspect this establishment personally he would be convinced that it is not being utilized to the fullest extent. Industrialists in the Marrickville municipality have stated that they would like to see this land made available to house people for whom work is readily available in the great textile and other manufacturing industries in the district. I do not doubt that, with the cooperation of the State authorities, we could undertake a project there which would house not only people who are able to get work under this Government's administration, but also the aged, in pleasant and beneficial surroundings. The point I particularly wish to make is this: In view of what has been said by the industrialists I have mentioned, I see no reason why the representations of the Marrickville Municipal Council, which have again been renewed, should not be favorably considered and this land made available. 1 have discussed this problem with the Minister for the Army in a broad way, but to-night I ventilate this specific matter so that he will know that there is a great desire locally for something to be done about transferring this depot. I would like him to give me full details of the units that are supposed to be working from the depot. I would like him to tell me the number of personnel who pass through the depot each year. I would like him to tell me the number of personnel permanently stationed there and whether or not it is a fact that many of the buildings are not utilized to the full, and have not been so utilized for some time. I fail to see how the Minister, or the Government, can justify retaining this land, in an area where people are seeking homes, and where it is eminently desirable from the point of view of local industry that workers be housed in the vicinity. How can the Minister justify retaining, in a densely populated region, an area of 9) acres of land that would be considered as one of the most desirable areas of housing developmental land in Sydney? I believe this matter requires investigation. I do not doubt that the Minister has taken the advice of his officers, but, when all is said and done, those officers cannot always be right. They are only human, and if I were an officer of Her Majesty's forces and it was proposed to take away a convenient depot like the one at Marrickville I would almost certainly object. But the fact of the matter is that this proposition should not be considered from the point of view of the convenience of a few people who do not want to travel to Liverpool or some other place to perform their duties. The basic question is whether the officers concerned have been advising the Minister wisely, or whether they have been doing so on purely personal grounds. I ask the Minister to consider my suggestion, and to make a visit to this depot at some time in the near future and decide whether what I have said is substantially correct. The campaign to have this land released has been conducted for a long time. No one denies that the Army should have adequate training grounds in convenient areas. At the same time I remind the Minister that the demand has now come from all sections of industry, from public bodies, from the municipal council, from the housing authorities, from State members of Parliament and from local aldermen to have this land made available for housing purposes. I submit my comments to the Minister and hope that he will carefully consider them. At this time, fifteen or sixteen years after the conclusion of the Second World War, I can see no justification for keeping this land under the control of the Army. It is not being adequately used at the moment, and I suggest that it would be much more profitably used if it were released for housing purposes. I submit these suggestions to the Minister and hope that he will give them due consideration. {: #subdebate-31-0-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland .- I rise to-night to bring to the notice of the' House a statement allegedly made by a member of the Bendigo Trades Hall Council, as reported in the Melbourne " Sun ", of 20th July, 1962. The report was in these terms - >A member of the Bendigo Trades Hall Council said to-day that he would cheer if every member of the Co-operative Farmers' and Graziers' Direct Meat Supply Limited went bankrupt. I take it that the person who is said to have made this statement, **Mr. M.** O'Halloran, a Clerks Union delegate, would obviously be a member of the Australian Labour Party. We know that the Australian Labour Party is the voice of all the unions in this country. Here is a fellow purporting to be a great Labour man, suggesting that it would be a good thing if the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Limited went bankrupt. I would like to tell the members of the Australian Labour Party that this firm is one of the most efficient organizations in Australia and is doing all in its power to break down vested meat interests in Australia and to supply meat at low prices to the people that honorable members opposite are always talking about, the workers. This meat supply organization is doing its best to put meat on the! tables of the people of Australia at lower prices than any other organization in Australia. Here we have a co-operative organization which has been built up by farmers and graziers who have worked their hearts out to build up the organization, in the face of the strongest opposition from powerful meat interests, while this great Labour man gets up and makes a statement of this kind. It is typical of the kind of conduct we can expect from these people who, while standing in this Parliament and deploring unemployment, really thrive on unemployment. They actually hope that the Government will fail to achieve full employment, because they thrive on unemployment. Fancy expressing a hope that a co-operative company like this one will go bankrupt! That is typical of the thinking of the Australian Labour Party. Since I have been here I have been amazed and horrified at the statements that have emanated from honorable members on the other side of this House, particularly the newer members. I simply direct the attention of the House to this significant statement, to show how insincere the Australian Labour Party is in matters affecting the provision of food at low prices for the people of Australia. {: #subdebate-31-0-s2 .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE:
Wilmot .- The honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Nixon)** is new to this Parliament and obviously does not understand the ramifications of the Australian Labour moveemnt. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon: -- Only Russia can do that. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- You quoted a statement by a union official, and you have no proof whatever that that union official is a member of the Australian Labour Party. We know very well that hundreds of unionists vote for the Liberal Party. That is why Bob Menzies is still in office. There is a good sprinkling of members of the Democratic Labour Party throughout the trade union movement, and there are also a number of Communists in the trade union movement. In addition, of course, there are a few Labourites in the Australian trade union movement. We are now told that one person connected with the trade union movement has made a fantastic statement, from which I completely dissociate myself. Such a statement is completely opposed to Australian Labour Party policy, and to say that the Australian Labour movement supports such a statement is a complete exaggeration. It is simply rubbish. I have just had some information given to me about the gentleman mentioned by the honorable member for Gippsland. I understand that he is not a member of the Australian Labour Party, but that he belongs to the Democratic Labour Party. That is the party that has kept the group opposite in office through the last three or four elections. Let me suggest to the honorable member that he take the matter up with his friend in the Senate, the oneman band who has all the privileges. Take it up with him. The most shocking and scandalous thing that has happened in this country this year has been the recognition of this man by the Government as the leader of a party when he is the only member of the party in the entire Parliament. Why should not the other senator from Tasmania, who calls himself the leader of the Independent Democratic Party, be also recognized as a leader and given like privileges? If you are dinkum about it you will do the same for him as you do for the so-called leader of the Australian Democratic Labour Party. The Government wants these people on its side at any cost, even at cost to the Australian taxpayer. I now want to speak about electoral redistribution. There has been a big increase in the population of Australia since the last redistribution of electoral boundaries. Yet the number of seats in this House is to be reduced from 123 to 121. This is a fantastic situation. If any one can tell me that there is any sanity in the law that guides our electoral commissioners then their definition of sanity is different from mine. It is scandalous that we are to have two members fewer in this Parliament after the next election than we have now despite a population increase of approximately 1,000,000. People have been placed in asylums in this country for making pro- posals less foolish than that. Fancy trying to convince the Australian people that we should reduce the number of members of this House by two. Entire electorates are to disappear in country districts. Wide Bay has been wiped off the political map and so has Gwydir, in New South Wales. Many of us talk about decentralization; but that is all we do about it. We give addresses to Rotary clubs and Apex clubs about it but do nothing to implement the great principle of decentralization. Here we have two country electorates wiped off the electoral map. The whole principle of decentralization is flouted by such a decision. This will mean two fewer country members. A system has been adopted of driving the spearhead of a country division into the suburbs of some of our cities. That, too, is fantastic. Three or four suburbs of a city are tacked on to a country seat. It is about time that the electoral commissioners woke up to the implications of their actions. What have they done by wiping out two country divisions? They have increased the area of country electorates such as Kennedy and Kalgoorlie, each of which is already of fantastic size. Some day, apparently, country representatives will require helicopters to cover their electorates adequately. The next thing I want to mention is the disappearance of certain divisional names. Where were these commissioners educated? What interest have they in the political history of Australia? They have wiped out the name of " Scullin " in Melbourne and given the division the name of " Mernda ". What does the name " Mernda " mean to this Parliament? It is just another little district. They have wiped out the names given to electorates to perpetuate the memory of Labour Prime Ministers. They have removed the name of " Isaacs " from Melbourne. They have erased in Western Australia the name of " Curtin ", a former Labour Prime Minister; and in Sydney the name of " Watson ". One begins to wonder about the pattern of all this. The electoral commissioners are supposed to be completely impartial. Yet the names of three Labour Prime Ministers have been erased as divisional titles, as well as the name of a former Governor-General. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- They have not suggested the name of " Chifley " for a new electorate. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- No. They have not even suggested " Menzies ". Perhaps the right honorable gentleman is not yet ready to have an electorate named after him. There is another man, still unhonoured and unsung, whom we could honour in this way. Not even a suburb in this capital has been named after him although he helped to establish it. I refer to King O'Malley. The name " Wide Bay " has been wiped. A member who has not been in the Parliament for more than seven months has had his electorate taken away from him. Wide Bay was one of the original federal seats, of which I think there are now only eleven left. The commissioners are gradually destroying the historic and traditional atmosphere of the Australian electoral system. I am completely opposed to what they have done. This Parliament must condemn their proposals. I want to know who is to have the final say in this matter. It will be brought to this Parliament. I am glad to see that the Minister for the Interior **(Mr. Freeth)** is in the House. I should like to ask him this question: If we disagree with the new boundaries what do we do? If we disagree with what the commissioners have decided, what happens then? {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- Why were you not in the House last night when you would have heard the Prime Minister answer that question? {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr DUTHIE: -- I was in the House, but no such answer was given. Who is to have the final say? This Parliament or the electoral commissioners? {: #subdebate-31-0-s3 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-31-0-s4 .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN:
Kingsford Smith . -I should like to bring up a matter concerning the Department of Supply. It concerns an investigation by a private firm appointed by the Minister for Supply **(Mr. Fairhall).** The management consultant firm of W. D. Scott and Company Proprietary Limited has been awarded a Government contract at a cost of £15,000 to investigate clerical procedures in a section of the Department of Supply. What is the Minister doing about this matter? What are. his officers doing? The Minister apparently feels it proper to call in a private firm to investigate the actions of bis departmental officers. In a press statement, the Minister said that the firm had available the latest United States techniques for improving routine clerical work. What does that mean? Routine clerical work is everyday work. If the Minister, whom I am glad to see at the table, thinks it necessary to investigate the every-day labours of a clerk of the Department of Supply I suggest that he himself should investigate the inefficiency of the heads of the department. According to the Minister, the Public Service Board has approved of this action; and the board is concerned with building up the efficiency of people employed by the Government. W. D. Scott and Company Proprietary Limited is a well-known firm of public relations experts. They are experts in retrenchment and speeding up. We have experienced these processes over the years. They have had different names. If my memory serves me rightly the strike of 1917 was caused by experts investigating the operation of the railways. The Minister should look into the subject which I now raise. I refer to a lavish free dinner that was given for senior Commonwealth departmental administrators at a leading hotel in the latter part of last year. The spider and the fly! Widespread criticism by the staff of the Department of Supply followed that dinner. **Mr. Don** Burton, the New South Wales secretary of the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations, has said he was amazed at the Minister's announcement. I, too, am amazed at the Minister's audacity in allowing such a situation as this in which free parties can be organized to soften up members of the Public Service Board. Of course, only the top-level boys are invited to these parties; not the routine clerks. {: .speaker-KNM} ##### Mr E James Harrison: -- White ties and all. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr CURTIN: -- Yes, white ties and tails such as we may see in Canberra in the next few weeks. Only the top-level boys are invited. They are given good food. There is wine, women and song and the softening process is complete. A tender goes in for a contract and we find that {: type="A" start="W"} 0. D. Scott and Company is the successful tenderer. The tender is for £15,000 - quite a lot of money in these times when there are 100,000 unemployed in Australia. The Minister throws money into the air and W. D. Scott and Company present a consultant's report on the management of the Public Service Board. In "White Collar ", **Mr. Burton** is reported to have said - >If something is wrong within the Department it should be fixed up by the Minister. If he can't do it then he should move out and let someone else take over. I quite agree. That is the Minister's job. I want to emphasize that. The Minister for Supply, who is now sitting at the table, smiles at this waste of money. This Yankee company, with its American techniques - a private company - comes in and tells the Government the weaknesses of its departments. The trade unions are concerned and so also am I on behalf of the trade unions. They will watch closely the activities of these private investigators to ensure that salaries and conditions are protected. Everyone knows the technique of all the Ministers in this Government is to break down award conditions. According to " White Collar "- >Indignant members have telephoned and called at the Association office to protest against the Minister's decision. They have to be very careful, of course, in criticizing the Minister and the routine of his department because there are sections of the Crimes Act which forbid this. That cannot be disputed. Any government supporter who disputes that statement can look at the Crimes Act himself. Questions put forward by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association are these - >Why is the Board apparently so far behind the times that ils own experts have not the knowledge necessary to review " routine clerical " procedures in any Branch of the Service? That is a fair question and perhaps the Minister will answer it. The association also asks - >Have the low salaries and the poor working conditions contributed to any administrative deficiencies? > >Are there any other departments on the list for further investigations by private firms? This is developing into a racket. The Yanks blow in, throw a party, get £15,000 for making a report. The report is pigeonholed and nothing is done bar the sacking of a few individuals who are trying to raise families. Honorable members opposite should take note of this further question that is asked by the association - >In view of the defence importance of the Supply Department, what steps are being taken to ensure that private persons are subjected to the same security safeguards as public servants? I should like the Minister to look at that question also. The statement in " White Collar " continues - >One member pointed out that if the Minister and the Board were so anxious to apply " the latest U.S. techniques" that they could well follow the example of President Kennedy who, as reported in the last issue of " White Collar ", recently asked Congress to raise the salaries of American public servants to keep pace with private enterprise rates of pay. In view of the move of patriotic fervour, I should like the Minister to chew over that question. The article in " White Collar '* continues - >Many members consider there should be a full investigation into all the circumstances surrounding the contract with W. D. Scott and Company. I add my protest against Scott and Company being offered such a lucrative job. "White Collar" adds- >It is felt that the general public - whose money is paying for the investigation - is entitled to know who suggested the engagement of a private firm, when and where the idea was first discussed, why the enquiries are necessary, . . . This Government loves private enterprise and crooks of all types. What does it matter to the Government so long as it is shelling out from the public purse to ali sorts of blow-ins from America and other countries. " White Collar " wants to know also - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . who has fallen down on the job, whether public tenders were called for the contract- {: #subdebate-31-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-31-0-s6 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr BEATON:
Bendigo .- It was not my intention to enter this debate, but I have been drawn into it by a reference made by the honorable member for Gippsland **(Mr. Nixon)** to members of the Trades Hall Council in the provincial City of Bendigo. I understand that the honorable member referred to a statement made by **Mr. O'Halloran,** a delegate to the Trades Hall Council. He also said that **Mr.** O'Halloran was a member of the Australian Labour Party. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr Nixon: -- I asked whether he was a member. {: .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr BEATON: -- You said he was a member. I can say quite truthfully that **Mr. O'Halloran** is not a member of the Australian Labour Party. I understand that he is a member of another party - a splinter party shall we call it? This party supports the Government of which the honorable member for Gippsland is a supporter. The Trades Hall Council in Bendigo is a non-political organization. It is formed of representatives from a variety of unions and they can come from any political party. They can come from the Australian Labour Party, the Australian Democratic Labour Party or any other party that is interested in the affairs of working men. This delegate is not a member of the Australian Labour Party. I understand he is a member of the Australian Democratic Labour Party, but he is there as a representative of his union and not a member of any political party. Perhaps it is too much for members of the Australian Country Party and the Liberal Party to understand that although the unions are traditionally the greatest supporters of the Australian Labour Party, they were set up primarily to advance the conditions of all working people in Australia. I want to dissociate myself from the expression of the hope that a certain cooperative organization will become bankrupt. 1 believe it was made in a moment of pique when the Trades Hall Council was discussing means of attracting industries to Bendigo and surrounding areas. It is a poor outlook when organizations such as trades hall councils, city councils and industrial advancement groups in towns have to battle and struggle to attract industries to country centres. People who live in country areas cannot find employment and young people leaving school must go to the cities - not because they want to do so but because no employment is available for them in the country. They have no opportunity to lead the life they want to lead in country towns. This Government has been in office for twelve years. It is a coalition government and includes members of the Australian Country Party, who are the supposed champions of country communities. It has done nothing to encourage the decentralization of industry or to help the country people to keep industry in their towns. Members of the Australian Country Party can hardly say that they are the champions of the country towns. There will come a time when many country people will awaken to the fact that they are not the champions of the country towns, and that will be the end of the Australian Country Party. This Commonwealth Parliament has a role to play in decentralization. The need to attract industry to country areas is not recognized by many people who live in the cities or, unfortunately, by many honorable members. I believe that there are three prime reasons for attracting industry to country areas. First, there is the defence factor. In this age of nuclear weapons and rockets, the concentration of our population in metropolitan cities is not to our best interests in the defence sense. This must be obvious to all our military planners, who must believe that it would be better for our population to be spread over a big part of our outback. Secondly, there is the social factor. Many of our young people are born in country areas, grow up in country areas and go to school in country areas. When they reach the age of sixteen or seventeen years and leave their high schools or technical schools, they cannot find employment in the country areas and they have to go to the big cities. They must leave their parents or their parents, not wanting the children to live alone in the cities, sell their homes and themselves go to the cities so that they can keep a parental eye on their children. Thirdly, there is the economic factor. Many people who live in the cities say in arguing against decentralization that there is no need to spend £5,000,000 or £10,000,000 to assist industry to go to the country areas, because industry can thrive in the capital cities. There is no question about that; it can. The ordinary industrialist believes that freight costs between, say, Melbourne and Bendigo are too great and would prevent him from competing with industry in the capital cities. The capital cities are the focal points of air, sea and road transport. Th-v have great pools of labour with many skills, and they have the ancillary industries that an industrialist may need. All these arguments are advanced against decentralization. But one important argument is never put forward. Because so many of our people are crammed into the cities, the community faces a big economic problem. There is a backlag of public works in the provision of sewerage, water, roads and bridges. The major cities have been swollen tremendously and the necessary public works throw a great cost upon the community. This is never taken into account, but the time has come when it should be taken into account. Members of the Australian Country Party speak about decentralization, but they would be better occupied if they did something positive about it. They have been speaking about decentralization for years but have done nothing. Other members of the coalition Government have very little interest in the country areas. If honorable members opposite believe that they are the champions of the country communities, they should do something about decentralization. {: #subdebate-31-0-s7 .speaker-KCS} ##### Mr DRUMMOND:
New England -- I would not have risen at this late hour but for certain remarks made by the honorable member for Bendigo **(Mr. Beaton).** I find myself in extreme sympathy with some of his views. But members of the Australian Labour Party, or of any other party in this House, should not fool themselves as to the real causes of centralization in Australia. Nearly 22 years ago, I went out of office with my colleagues in New South Wales. In those 22 years, the population of Sydney and the metropolitan area, if my memory does not fail me, has increased by something like 1,000,000 people. A Labour government has been in power in New South Wales. It has claimed that it has endeavoured to secure decentralization and has done something about it, but the plain fact is that that great concentration of people has been going on. If we look at the position fairly - I will look at it to-night not as a member of my party but as a member of the Australian Parliament - we will find that in every capital city, with the one exception of Hobart, the same increase of population has been occurring in a greater or lesser proportion, according to the size of the State. The capital cities have grown and grown, and what the honorable member for Bendigo has said is correct. The overhead of these cities has increased, the cost of transport has increased and the cost of carrying industries on highly priced land has increased. People travel now for a considerable time to reach their working place. This could have been avoided if decentralization had been accepted by every government as a national responsibility. In my part of the world there has been a consistent movement of a nonpolitical character trying to bring about the creation of new States. The honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie),** who is the Opposition Whip, has referred to the loss of country seats in the recent redistribution of electorates and has referred to the disproportionate representation in the Parliament. I find myself in agreement with many of his remarks. But we will never get away from this position unless the country has a new approach to the whole subject. We would not have found the need to criticize the report of the electoral commissioners if chapter VI. of the Constitution had been used as the founders of the Constitution intended that it should be. We would have had the natural growth of new States. Instead we have the unwieldy disproportion of Tasmania with 28,000 square miles and Western Australia with something like a million square miles. New South Wales has one-third more territory than the original Germany had before the war. How will we escape from this position? It is useless for honorable members to throw brickbats at each other on a matter that is of grave national importance. This problem is bound up with our very existence, if we go to war. It is a time for constructive thinking and constructive action. We know that the great forces of finance, industry and the press have consistently brought their influences to bear on every government to enable the present situation to continue. That is why I moved in the House a lengthy motion aimed at establishing a committee of the best men in the land - men from every field of major activity - to work out a practical system of decentralization. What I put forward was something of a constructive nature. Unless we can obtain the services of the real leaders of this country outside the Parliament, whether they be in the industrial, pastoral, or financial spheres, assisted by those government departments associated with the movement of population, every government will fail in this objective as all governments have failed since federation. I want to make it quite clear that we are not talking about the failure of one government. No government can claim to be innocent in this respect. All governments have been guilty in the sense that they have been responsible to the forces outside which create them in a democratic country. Those forces have not yet seen the danger, the futility and the pernicious tendencies of their policies. The metropolitan newspapers have stated that it is stupid to talk of uprooting our capital city populations. Of course; but that is not nearly as stupid as to continue to multiply those populations to the great danger of this country, which to-day is so empty. When I visited northern Australia recently I paused for a moment to consider the ultimate effect of our inability to develop and populate that part of the country. It is time this Parliament stopped talking futilities and got down to business. {: #subdebate-31-0-s8 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE:
Mitchell .- I rise to-night to make an appeal on behalf of three sections of our community. My first appeal is for the small orchardists particularly the citrus-grower. This section of the community has been very greatly concerned in recent times at the importation into this country of citrus juices. A number of questions on the matter have been asked in the House by several honorable members, including myself. Arising out of those questions some action was taken with regard to citrus juices with sugar additives. The action taken was to increase the duty on those products, but it was limited to citrus juices with a sugar additive. The action did not embrace straight juices. As a result straight juices are continuing to come into Australia at a time when our citrus industry is completely depressed. The citrus-grower is having a bad time. Large stocks of citrus juices are on hand. The industry is protesting throughout the length and breadth of the land. We have heard even honorable members from Queensland raising this matter; it affects the entire country, not isolated areas. I support the industry's view that the only way to overcome the problem is to apply quantitative import restrictions. We must remember that the citrus-growers are an important segment of the small-farming community in this country. We seldom hear anybody, particularly members of the Country Party, champion the cause of these people in this Parliament. We know that the interests of the graziers receive careful attention. We know that the pastoral companies are well cared for, but we seldom hear anything about the small farmer whose standards of living in these days of rising costs are gradually diminishing. He is working longer hours for less money at a time when we boast that conditions are improving. Somebody must stand up and put his case forward. Nothing has been forthcoming from honorable members opposite, so we on this side of the chamber must plead the cause of the small farmer. The only way to deal with the problem is to introduce a system of import licensing. I appeal to the Government to take the action necessary to control the importation of citrus juices. That is the only way to protect an industry that is already greatly depressed. The standard of living of persons engaged in it is already very low and is diminishing year by year. I wish to deal also with a protest that has been lodged by the Commonwealth Bank Officers' Association concerning banking hours. Honorable members will have received a circular from the association objecting to the present banking hours. Following the introduction of a five-day banking week in New South Wales, the administration of the Commonwealth Bank decided that the starting time each day should be advanced from 9 a.m. to 8.45 a.m., despite the fact that employees of the private banks were still starting work at 9 a.m. I realize that there are problems associated with the administration of a bank, but actions of the type to which I have referred create a great deal of dissatisfaction among employees. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** should do something about this matter. When the Commonwealth Bank was established a verbal undertaking was given to the staff by the first governor of the bank, **Sir Denison** Miller, that at all times the staff of the bank would enjoy conditions of employment at least equal to those enjoyed by the staffs of the private banks. That undertaking was given to obviate any likelihood of objection being raised to working for the new undertaking and also to enable the bank to recruit the best staff obtainable. Before the war, a person leaving school who wished to go into this type of industry first of all went to the Commonwealth Bank for a job because he knew that that was where the best conditions were to be found. That is one of the main reasons why the bank has been able to maintain a very high standard of staff and of service to the public. However, when action such as that which I have mentioned is taken, there is a very decided effect on the morale of the staff. The effect spreads from the staff to the general public. As time goes on, the practice I have described will be found to be unwise. It must have a very serious effect, not only on morale but also on the type of staff that is recruited. I appeal to the Treasurer to have a serious look at this matter, not only from the point of view of the staff but also from that of service and the long-term problem of maintaining the standard of staff recruited into the service of the Commonwealth Bank. By maintaining a high standard, this Commonwealth undertaking, this successful governmental enterprise, can retain its efficiency and the standard of its service to the public. The final point I wish to make is related to more or less the same policy as that which I have already mentioned. I refer to the fact that Commonwealth Public Service salaries to-day are not keeping in step with the salaries that are payable, for example, in the New South Wales Public Service. Once again, the principle that I have already mentioned applies. If you are prepared to pay well, you obtain a high standard of service. When boys and girls are leaving school, the Public Service will attract those who are prepared to work and do a good job if it offers good conditions. From a long-term point of view, it is to the advantage of whichever government is in power in the Commonwealth to ensure that the public servant is well paid. By that means the best type of person will be attracted. That is very important and is something that goes beyond the minor question of budgetary proposals. It is a long-term policy which needs to be followed. The Government should be prepared to adopt a long-term approach to this problem. It should ask, " What is going to be the effect on standard of service in the Public Service in time to come?" The Government should be prepared to pay at least as much as, if not more than, any State governmental enterprise. However, that is not so to-day. We have State governmental enterprises which are prepared to pay more than the Commonwealth Public Service. These issues must be looked at. I bring them to the notice of the House because I feel that if the Government takes cognizance of them it will be doing a good job for itself and for the people of Australia. {: #subdebate-31-0-s9 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP .- in reply- I am grateful to the honorable member for KingsfordSmith **(Mr. Curtin)** for raising this evening the question of the employment of business consultants by the Department of Supply. This is one of those cases where ignorance of the subject does not inhibit criticism. Perhaps the honorable gentleman will favour me in due course with the benefit of his own great administrative experience. He has come into the House to-night and has spoken from a prepared brief. I have a copy of it in front of me. Unfortunately, he has not read the brief very carefully, because in the course of his remarks he complained that something had happened. W. D. Scott and Company Proprietary Limited threw a dinner, and the result is that they have a tender. But the honorable gentleman's prepared brief complains that tenders were not called. Therefore, I hope he will go back and study the papers. The honorable gentleman has invited me to move out of my office because I have had to call in business consultants. I am prepared to make a deal with him. I shall vacate my office if he can persuade the New South Wales Labour Government to do precisely the same, because that government called for consultants to examine the New South Wales railways. The report was a voluminous thing, as the honorable gentleman knows, and it got precisely nowhere. The honorable member will be delighted to know that the very service which my department is now criticized for using has in past times been employed by the New South Wales Labour Government and, indeed, is being employed by it at this moment. That disposes of the suggestion that my department is calling in consultants because it cannot run its own business. The hard fact of the matter is that the Department of Supply, in its industrial and also in its clerical undertakings, is recognized throughout Australia as one of the most efficient industrial organizations in this country. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Then why do you want Scotts? {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- We will come to that in a moment. The fact is, **Sir, that** just as in the field of industrial management we have continued to use the latest methods of engineering recognized throughout the world as being necessary in production, so we believe we ought to examine the same techniques when it comes to dealing with paper work. This country is challenged in the field of industrial productivity. If one is to go by the facts quoted by leading financial journals throughout the world, the number of people involved in paper work in industry to-day is rising at such an alarming rate - as we know, they make a minor contribution to production - that it is time we employed in the handling of clerical work the same kinds of techniques which have brought efficiency into industry. The London " Financial Times ", for instance, has stated - >Between 1948 and 1960, the number of persons employed by manufacturing industries increased by 12 per cent. Over the same period, the number of clerical workers in those same industries rose by 48 per cent. lt is not necessary for me to go through a great many references. In 1949, there was one white collar worker for every nine employees in Australia. In 1959, the proportion had increased to one in seven. Whereas between 1949 and 1959 the number of all the employees in factories rose by 22 per cent., the number of white collar workers rose by 51 per cent. If we are to have an onslaught on productivity in this country, then we need to streamline our administrative techniques, and that is precisely what my department proposes to do. J We have had in the Commonwealth Public Service for the last fourteen years an organization known as the Organization and Method Section, operated by the Public Service Board. This is an organization which is designed to streamline administrative procedures. In recent times there have been extensions of these techniques, arising from investigations in America by an engineer by the name of Paul Mulligan, who founded a company. After nineteen years of the most intensive study and experiment in one of the biggest industrial organizations in the United States, Mulligan produced techniques by which it is possible to measure the effectiveness of methods of clerical work. This, in fact, is an extension of what is being done in the Organization and Method Section. The question has been asked: Why cannot we put this into operation ourselves? There are two good reasons. The department is not incapable of doing this for itself, but considering the high cost of development, as I have said, following ten years of intensive effort, who would want to go to that kind of expense to improve our efficiency when we can buy the experience of other people for a nominal licence fee? The second fact is, of course, that these techniques are copyrighted throughout the world. The copyright for Australia is held by W. D. Scott and Company, and if we want these techniques, as we certainly do, we must employ that company to bring them in. Honorable gentlemen on the other side of the chamber have spoken of a report to the Government. My good friend, the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward),** who is being so noisy on the front bench, has a question on the notice-paper, so he obviously does not know anything about it. He wants to know when the report will be presented. There will be no report. A system is being produced, and for twelve months the firm of W. D. Scott and Company will instruct the people of my department in these advanced techniques for handling clerical work that have been produced in America and used throughout the world. There has been some questioning of the efficiency of my department because it needs to look at these techniques. I have in front of me a list of five of the leading businesses in Australia which are using the same techniques. I do not propose to disclose their names. I am not at liberty to do so. But the fact is that they are among the most efficient organizations in Australia. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- We do not want to know about that. {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- If the honorable gentleman wants to have a look at another Lst, I can show him a long list of firms throughout the United States which are using precisely these techniques. They include the Libbey-Owens-Ford glass company, the Pratt and Whitney aircraft company, and the Hughes aircraft company. It would be quite foolish to say that because those companies were inefficient they had to call in others to introduce the Mulligan techniques. It is nonsense to say that we are adopting these techniques because the department is inefficient. The fact is that the most efficient concerns throughout Australia are turning to these techniques, **Mr. Speaker.** The firms understand better than does anybody else the great need to increase productivity in this country. That, generally, paints the picture, **Sir. The** fact is that before we brought in W. D. Scott and Company Proprietary Limited, we assessed the gain that might be made by the application of these techniques. We stand assured to-day that the department will make annual savings exceeding the cost of the entire training period. Once the training period is over, these methods and techniques can be propagated throughout the department to the great content of the Australian taxpayer, because his burden will be lighter. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- What about the- {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- I know what plagues honorable gentlemen opposite. They are dead scared that we shall find that the jobs of some people are redundant. {: .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: -- Oh, that- {: .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL: -- Wait for it! One of the undertakings on which the adoption of these new techniques depends, **Mr. Speaker,** is an undertaking by us that nobody in the employ of the depart ment will be declared redundant and disposed of because his job is no longer necessary. Any adjustment in staff once these techniques operate, if there is to be an adjustment, will come out of the ordinary wastage or transfer to other departments. Quite plainly, this is a move to increase productivity and, indeed, to raise the morale of the people in the Department of Supply. The whole thing would be completely negative if the staff of the department thought that, as a result of investigation and study of this kind, some people might lose their jobs. Nobody will lose his job. The department is determined to be efficient in its entire undertaking, and particularly in its clerical branch. If this is the way to ensure efficiency, we shall take it, **Sir, because** this proposal will save the taxpayers money. That, to my mind, is sufficient justification for the action that is being taken. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.32. p.m. {: .page-start } page 169 {:#debate-32} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Taxation {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What countries are parties to double taxation agreements with Australia? 1. When did those countries sign the agreements? 2. Since the conclusions of the agreements, what financial benefit each year has been received by (a) Australia and (b) other countries who are parties to the agreements? {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. The United Kingdom- 29th October, 1946. The United States of America- Nth May, 1953. Canada- lst October, 1957. New Zealand -12th May, 1960. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. It is not possible to indicate the financial benefits that have accrued to Australia or to the other contracting countries following these double taxation agreements. So far as Australia is concerned, advantages such as the influence the double taxation agreements have had in inducing overseas investment in Australia, increased commercial and industrial activity throughout Australia from the setting-up of new enterprises, the effect of competition on general price levels and employment, particularly in the light of Aus.ralia's immigration programme, would need to be taken into consideration and it is not practicable to evaluate these and other advantages. {:#subdebate-32-1} #### Immigration {: #subdebate-32-1-s0 .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: y asked the Minister for Immigration, upon notice - >What was the estimated date of entry into Australia of the Chinese Willie Wong who was recently deported by the Government? {: #subdebate-32-1-s1 .speaker-KCK} ##### Mr Downer:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >I cannot answer the honorable member's question with accuracy. **Mr. Wong,** who admitted that he had come to this country as an undetected stowaway, himself claimed to have travelled from Hong Kong to Australia by ship about seven years ago. Immigration officials who interviewed **Mr. Wong** formed the view that he had been here for a much shorter period, which I would think is much more probable. Certainly there was no evidence to suggest that **Mr. Wong** had been gainfully employed in Australia for any substantial period of time. He had very little money and only the most meagre of possessions when apprehended and could neither read nor speak English. > >Illegal entry is generally secured by desertion from a ship or by " stowing away ". Crew members who desert a ship are required by law to be fully documented and we can thus readily ascertain precisely when and by what means such illegal entrants came to Australia. Stowaways, on the other hand, have no documents and it is virtually impossible to establish even approximately the date of their entry into Australia, or their means of travel to this country. > >Unlike ship desertion, which is generally a spontaneous matter, there is clear evidence also to suggest that Chinese illegal entrants who come to Australia as stowaways do so as part of an organized traffic in such illicit entry. This practice would be encouraged by allowing Chinese stowaways to remain in Australia once they have been detected and by my uncritical acceptance of their statements regarding the duration of their stay in Australia. {:#subdebate-32-2} #### Commonwealth Motor Vehicles {: #subdebate-32-2-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What support has he for his statement that **Senator Amour** had used a Commonwealth car for five years without authority? 1. How would it be possible for such a matter to go undetected for such a long period? 2. Who does he consider responsible for this alleged laxity in the administration of his department? 3. Whose responsibility is it to see that only authorized persons have the use of Commonwealth cars? {: #subdebate-32-2-s1 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The fact that **Senator Amour** used official cars for travel from Canberra to Sydney and Sydney to Canberra for five years when the actual approval was in respect of journeys from Can berra to Sydney and then only when an official vehicle was travelling to Sydney empty and the seat could be made available to **Senator Amour** without inconvenience to other departmental arrangements. 2, 3 and 4. The responsibility for seeing that only authorized persons have the use of Commonwealth cars rests with the department controlling the particular transport pool - in Canberra the Department of the Interior, and in the States the Department of Supply. For members' travel the Department of Supply provides the service and renders the account to the Department of the Interior. It is the responsibility of the Department of the Interior as the department dealing with the rights and privileges of members to recover any transport costs incorrectly incurred. The use of cars by **Senator Amour** beyond the standing authority referred to in 1. was permitted to continue, as I have already stated, by a misunderstanding on somebody's part at the time. Whether **Senator Amour** obtained cars by insisting that he had special ministeral approval, as he did for his recent trip to Melbourne, is not apparent. The fact is that he did order and obtain cars and the accounts for the service were later reimbursed in the normal way by my department, without subsequent action for recovery from **Senator Amour.** It was only when he claimed, in connexion with his use of a car to travel to Melbourne last year, that he had approval to the use of a car at any time that the question arose of what approvals there were in existence for him. It was then found that the only approval with regard to interstate travel for **Senator Amour** of Which written evidence existed was that indicated in 1. and the matter was then brought to my notice. Because of the doubt caused by the senator's claim regarding verbal approvals, no action has been taken to recover the cost of the unauthorized transport. {:#subdebate-32-3} #### Atomic Energy Commission {: #subdebate-32-3-s0 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: son asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did a conference take place early in 1960 between representatives of the New South Wales Department of Local Government and the Atomic Energy Commission regarding the planning of land at Engadine in the vicinity of the Lucas Heights reactor site? 1. What submissions were made by representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission regarding restriction of residential development in the vicinity of the reactor? 2. What were the factors which prompted 'he commission to seek a restriction on the development of the area? 3. Arc householders residing in close proximity to the reactor considered to be in danger from radiation and would they be in danger from the effects of any accidents which may occur? 4. Has consideration been given to the acquisition of the land referred to in the commission's representations to the Department of Local Government? 5. Will consideration be given to compensating those land-holders and householders, who, as a result of the commission's representations, are new unable to develop their land or dispose of their homes? 6. Were assurances given prior to the commencement of the Lucas Heights project that neighbouring properties would not be adversely affected by its development? {: #subdebate-32-3-s1 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr Fairbairn:
LP -- The Minister for National Development has supplied the following information: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 2 and 3. At the conference officers of the New South Wales Department of Local Government outlined the proposals relating to the zoning of the area. It was apparent that these proposals were satisfactory so far as the Atomic Energy Commission was concerned. The zoning of land in the area has not been affected in any manner by the commission's intervention. 1. No. There are no householders residing in close proximity to the Atomic Energy Commission's research establishment. Moreover, a representative of some householders in the Engadine area has been informed in writing that there is no special health hazard to existing habitation in the area arising from the presence of the commission's research establishment. 2. No. 3. The zoning of the land is a matter entirely within the competence of the Minister for Local Government in New South Wales. The zoning of the land was not in any way affected by views expressed by representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission in the conference referred to in 1. above. The Minister for Local Government in New South Wales has given the land-holders in the area the most positive assurance on this point. Therefore the question of compensation does not arise. 4. Neighbouring properties have not been adversely affected by the Atomic Energy Commission's research establishment. Air Travel by Members and Senators. {: #subdebate-32-3-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for the Interior, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When was the practice first introduced of issuing air travel warrant books to members and senators? 1. Do any former members or senators retain this right after their retirement from the Commonwealth Parliament? 2. If so, what persons are at present enjoying this privilege? 3. Will he have prepared and made available a list showing the number of travel warrant books issued to each recipient since this practice was introduced? {: #subdebate-32-3-s3 .speaker-JXI} ##### Mr Freeth:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 28th June, 1956, following recommendations in the Richardson Report of October, 1955. 1. Yes, holders of life gold passes to whom the privilege was extended on 20th August, 1959. 2. With the exception of those who reside abroad, the persons described in 2. each hold a warrant book. 3. It is not usual to supply the details sought by the honorable member. {:#subdebate-32-4} #### Pensions {: #subdebate-32-4-s0 .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES s asked the Minister for Social Services, upon notice - >Is the period of twelve months to which reference is made in relation to the annual amount of permissible income that may be earned from employment by a pensioner (a) a calendar year, (b) a financial year, (c) a period of -twelve months dating from the pension award, or (d) a period of twelve months from the commencement of work following the pension award? {: #subdebate-32-4-s1 .speaker-KZE} ##### Mr Roberton:
CP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >By " permissible income " it is assumed the honorable member means the annual rate of income that a particular pensioner may receive without affecting his entitlement to a full rate pension. This will, of course, vary with the value of the pensioner's property and any other income he may be receiving. The general rule is that the annual periods taken into account are twelve monthly periods commencing from the date of the grant of the pension and thereafter from the anniversary of that date. Overseas Investments in Australia. {: #subdebate-32-4-s2 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton: n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. In view of the concern expressed by nationals of other nations, including Canada, at the wide scope of foreign ownership within their countries and the possibility that, with a consistent inflow of foreign capital, a similar situation may arise in Australia, will he take the necessary steps to ensure that comprehensive statistics, which will reflect the value of business undertakings in Australia owned by overseas interests, are recorded? 1. Will he state the number of companies known by his department to have the major portion of their capital held by overseas interests? {: #subdebate-32-4-s3 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A considerable body of statistics on overseas investment is already published by the Commonwealth Statistician who is constantly seeking to effect improvements in this field. I shall see that the request of the honorable member is brought to the Statistician's notice. 1. Statistics of the number of companies having the major portion of their capital controlled by overseas interests are not available. However, in compiling statistics of overseas investment in Australia the Commonwealth Statistician classifies an Australian company as a subsidiary of overseas interests if either - (a) 50 per cent, or more of the company's ordinary shares or voting stock are held by shareholders resident in one overseas country (including companies incorporated in that country); or (b) if 25 per cent, or more of the company's ordinary shares or voting stock is held by a company or group of companies in one overseas country. On this basis it is estimated that in 1959-60 approximately 1,240 Australian companies were subsidiaries of overseas interests. In addition it is estimated that in the same year approximately 330 overseas companies had branches in Australia. No figures are yet available for the number of subsidiaries or branches in 1960-61. {: #subdebate-32-4-s4 .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: n asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What was the value of overseas investments in this country during each of the years since the Government assumed office? 1. From what nations did that investment come, and how much came each year from each nation? 2. How much of that investment was used during each year to (i) take over existing enterprises, business undertakings, Ac, and (ii) establish new industry in this country? {: #subdebate-32-4-s5 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. Information in respect of the years 1949-50 to 1959-60 is contained in the "Annual Bulletin of Overseas Investment: Australia, 1959-60 ", published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics (see, in particular, Tables 1 and 2). Preliminary summary figures for the year 1960-61 are contained in the Australian Balance of Payments 1959-60, 1960-61, First Half 1962, published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics (see Tables 6 and 7). Both publications would be available in the Parliamentary Library. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The information requested is not available. {:#subdebate-32-5} #### Indexes for Business Indicators {: #subdebate-32-5-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >What steps has the Commonwealth Statistician taken to prepare seasonally adjusted indexes for important business indicators? {: #subdebate-32-5-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >I am informed by the Commonwealth Statistician that any method of seasonal adjustment is necessarily based on the average of fluctuations over a period of years. The reliability of the adjustment depends on the reliability of the averages and their stability over a period. There are complicating factors such as the length and composition of months, the introduction of new products, changes in economic policies, &c, which affect such calculations in addition to the more directly seasonal factors. The whole matter is being investigated by the Statistician but no indexes will be published until he is satisfied that they are reasonably reliable for general purposes. The Statistician points out, however, that a variety of well-known methods is available which any investigator can apply if he wants seasonally adjusted figures for some particular purpose. {:#subdebate-32-6} #### Unemployment Statistics {: #subdebate-32-6-s0 .speaker-KXI} ##### Mr Webb: b asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. When did the Commonwealth Statistician commence the preparation of sample surveys in order to determine quarterly estimates of unemployment in the metropolitan area of each State? 1. What progress has been made by the Statistician in the preparation of these estimates, and when are they likely to be published? {: #subdebate-32-6-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Commonwealth Statistician commenced quarterly work force surveys of the six capital cities on an experimental basis in November, 1960, to test the feasibility of using sample procedures to estimate components of the Australian work force in inter-censal periods. 1. The sampling procedures used have been tested extensively since the inception of the surveys and the survey estimates are now being analysed and compared with the results of the 1961 Census. The decision on the publication of the survey results will be made on completion of this analysis. {:#subdebate-32-7} #### Reserve Bank of Australia {: #subdebate-32-7-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amounts have been written off premises occupied by the Reserve Bank of Australia in each year since that bank came into existence? 1. What other contingencies, including their cost, were provided for before the net profit for each year was declared? 2. What was the cost of construction of premises occupied by the Reserve Bank? 3. What is their estimated present market value? 4. What is their present value on the bank's books? {: #subdebate-32-7-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. Section 78 of the Reserve Bank Act provides that, in determining the net profits of the Reserve Bank, or the Note Issue Department or the Rural Credits Department of the bank, any amounts written off bank premises or provided for contingencies are subject to the approval of the Treasurer. Subject to the Treasurer's approval under this section, amounts are written ofl the Reserve Bank's premises each year in accordance with a formula accepted by the Auditor-General. This formula is designed to write off the capital cost of the buildings over the period of their economic life. With regard to provisions for contingencies,, the provisions that have been made relate to the possible losses which could be incurred by the Reserve Bank in the carrying out of its central banking functions. The actual amounts written off bank premises or provided for contingencies are not available for publication. 3, 4 and 5. At most points the Reserve Bank at present conducts its business in premises that it occupies on a rental basis. Moreover, it occupies only a part of these buildings, a position which also applies in the case of some premises the bank itself owns. It would be impracticable, therefore, to assess the cost of construction or market value of the premises it occupies. The book value of premises and sites owned by the Reserve Bank at 30th June, 1961, was £2,357,636. {:#subdebate-32-8} #### Papua and New Guinea: Gross National Product {: #subdebate-32-8-s0 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: t asked the Treasurer, upon notice - >Can he supply figures in respect of the national income and gross national product, &c, of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea under the same heads as those normally used for the compilation of similar information in respect of Australia? {: #subdebate-32-8-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >No information has been compiled in the Bureau of Census and Statistics on the national income or gross national product of Papua and New Guinea. I understand that the matter is being investigated as a research project in the School of Pacific Studies of the Australian National University, but the investigation has not yet reached a stage where the information requested by the honorable member can be supplied. {:#subdebate-32-9} #### Papua and New Guinea: Education Allowances {: #subdebate-32-9-s0 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: t asked the Treasurer, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Why do members of defenceforces in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea receive a smaller education allowance for children than is paid to civil officers of the Administration? 1. What is the current rate of this allowance, when was this rate set, and for how many children is it being paid? 2. Will he take steps to give service personnel parity with civil personnel in this regard? {: #subdebate-32-9-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Government provides a secondary education allowance to all residents in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea, including Defence personnel, who wish to send their children to secondary schools in Australia; 1. The current rate of this allowance is £145 per annum, payable in three termly instalments, plus an annual return fare. The rate of £145 per annum was set in January, 1955. There are five children of defence personnel receiving this allowance. 2. See answer to 1. {:#subdebate-32-10} #### International Bank for Reconstruction and Development {: #subdebate-32-10-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr Crean: n asked the Treasurer upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What drawings of Australian currency, particularizing the various instances, have been made by member countries of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development since its inception? 1. What amounts have been repaid to the Bank? {: #subdebate-32-10-s1 .speaker-009MC} ##### Mr Harold Holt:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The amount outstanding, that is, disbursements less repayments, on borrowers' accounts repayable in Australian currency by country is as follows: - {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The United States dollar equivalent of the total amount repaid in Australian currency is $656,262. An analysis of this figure is not available.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 8 August 1962, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1962/19620808_reps_24_hor36/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant