House of Representatives
28 March 1963

24th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 24th Parliament
  3. 1963

Mr. SPEAKER (Hon. Sir John McLeay) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 133

PETITIONS

Social Services

Mr. WHITLAM presented a petition from certain electors of New South Wales praying that the Government take urgent and immediate action to -

  1. Grant an increase in the pension and allowances of age, invalid and widow pensioners, and
  2. allocate additional finance for the building of low rental houses and units for pensioners and elderly people.

Petition received.

Petitions in the same terms were presented as follows: -

By Mr. DALY from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. ARMITAGE from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. MONAGHAN from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. COSTA from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. STEWART from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. EINFELD from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. UREN from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. O’CONNOR from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. CURTIN from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. WARD from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. DEAN from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. KEARNEY from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. ENGLAND from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. JAMES from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. JEFF BATE from certain electors of New South Wales.

By Mr. FAILES from certain electors of New South Wales.

Petitions received.

Disarmament and Nuclear Tests

Mr. UREN presented a petition from certain electors of the Commonwealth praying that the Government -

  1. Support the United Nations resolutions for a nuclear test ban treaty.
  2. Ensure that foreign bases are not permitted on Australian soil.
  3. In response to the call of the United Nations, declare Australia’s willingness to enter into an agreement not to manufacture, test, station or acquire nuclear weapons.

Petition received and read.

page 133

QUESTION

CANBERRA BUILDING REGULATIONS

Mr J R Fraser:
ALP

– I ask the Minister for the Interior: Can he say, or will he ascertain, what stage has been reached in a review of the Canberra building regulations which has been in progress for some years? Are we approaching the stage at which draft legislation can be re-submitted to the committee for review, and will the Minister take the earliest opportunity to make known the degrees in which the proposed uniform regulations diverge from the Victorian building regulations on which they are based?

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

– I have no recent information. I shall make inquiries and let the honorable member know the result.

page 133

QUESTION

REPATRIATION PENSIONS

Mr FOX:
HENTY, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation. The normal date for the payment of war and service pensions for the second fortnight in April this year is 25th April. As that is the date of Anzac Day, a number of requests have been received from ex-servicemen for the payment to be made on 24th April rather than 26th. Will the Minister consider these requests?

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

– I appreciate the interest that a number of ex-servicemen have taken in this matter. In view of the significance of Anzac Day and the desire of exservicemen in receipt of war and service pensions for earlier payment, I shall see that arrangements are made for this payment on 24th April as suggested.

page 134

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Mr NELSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY, NORTHERN TERRITORY

– Will the Minister for Territories state the conditions attached to the granting of mining leases to Australian and French interests at Gove, in the Northern Territory? Will he also state the measures taken to protect the interests of the mission which is ‘adjacent to the leases, and of the natives at the mission? Will he state the amount of royalty to be paid per ton of bauxite mined, and the purpose for which the royalties will be used?

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

– The conditions are contained in the leases which in due course will become a public document, if they have not already done so. It would be impossible for me to recount all the conditions at the moment. The honorable member directed his attention particularly to the question of the welfare of the aborigines and of the mission on the Gove Peninsula. We have taken exceptional care to ensure that the welfare of the aborigines is not harmfully affected and that the whole of the interests of the mission are fully protected. In doing that, we have had the value of very close and sympathetic cooperation from the lessees themselves, who have entered into discussions with the mission concerning mission requirements, and we also have worked in the closest possible co-operation with the Methodist Board of Missions. Only yesterday I received from the Rev. C. F. Gribble, the secretary of the Methodist Board of Missions, a letter expressing appreciation of the measures that had been taken. Broadly, those measures are that, mainly in the in terests of the older generation of the aborigines, provision is made that their access to their sacred sites, and their access to hunting grounds, shall not be affected by any of the mining operations or the granting of the lease.

In respect of the present and future generations who are or will be moving into a different sort of social life, conditions have been written into the document, to ensure that they will receive full benefit from any employment that is offering, that their potential agricultural land Will be increased rather than decreased as a result of mining operations, and that the present amenities of the mission will not be affected. If at any time it is necessary to move any of the activities of the mission, this will be done at the expense of the mining company. In regard to royalties, I point out that, in accordance with decisions made by this Parliament, mining on land excised from an aboriginal reserve attracts double the normal royalty. The whole of the royalty is paid into a trust fund for the benefit of aborigines throughout the Northern Territory.

page 134

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer and relates to Commonwealth scholarships. I ask the right honorable gentleman whether it is a fact that by reason of a recent decision of the High Court the value of Commonwealth scholarships has been significantly reduced as far as the parent taxpayer of a scholar is concerned. If this is so, does the Government intend to rectify this position and give effect to the manifest intention of Parliament?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– I shall myself study this matter. I know it has been under consideration. When I ‘am in a position to supply some information to the honorable gentleman, I shall do so. I appreciate the interest he has shown in a matter which, I am sure, we all regard as of considerable importance to parents and to their student children.

page 134

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Mr BEAZLEY:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Territories, relates to an epidemic late last year of pneumonia and an epidemic early this year of gastro enteritis which led to some mortality among aboriginal infants in certain localities. What conclusions have been drawn from these episodes with a view to preventing their repetition? In view of the fact that mortality statistics have revealed that an aboriginal infant at birth may have an expectation of life of 49 years and that this rises immediately to 62 years if he survives the first year, are any special measures being adopted to assist aboriginal children over the first year of life? Has the Northern Territory an adequate medical staff to render this assistance?

Mr HASLUCK:
LP

– The matters raised by the honorable member fall partly within the competence of my colleague in another plr.ee, the Minister for Health. Speaking on his behalf, I can give the honorable member an assurance that in the prevention and treatment of disease in the Northern Territory, the aborigines share in exactly the same services and have available to them the same staff as have all members of the Northern Territory community, no matter to which race they belong. That includes the aerial medical service and the whole of the hospital facilities.

The broad problem to which the honorable member referred, I think, is part of the problem of social change. He will be aware of the type of work that is being done on government settlements and Christian missions. Perhaps I could answer his question by directing the attention of the House to three phases of this work. They are the provision of facilities such as better housing, kitchens for the better preparation of food or the preparation of food of a higher nutritional value, and dining rooms where the food will be eaten under hygienic conditions. Then there is the provision of laundries and the provision of ablution blocks and of sanitary facilities on all settlements. Then comes what is perhaps of more importance - the educational programme. In child welfare clinics and at the pre-natal and post-natal stages, increasing efforts are being made on government settlements and in mission stations to extend the educational work, both for the individual and for the community. Finally, most important is the supervisory activity. On all government settlements we now have hygiene staff, both European and aboriginal, trained by the Commonwealth Department of Health in order to ensure that the facilities provided are properly used and that th« basic conditions of health are established. As far as the missions are concerned I think the honorable gentleman is aware that the Commonwealth provides financial subsidies so that the missions may employ hygiene supervisors and hygiene assistants in order to help preserve healthy living among the people. In conclusion, the Commonwealth Department of Health, through its fully qualified medical officers, maintains regular inspections.

page 135

QUESTION

BUTTER

Mr NIXON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Trade seen a report that Denmark will press for the removal of 15s. duty imposed on Danish butter entering the United Kingdom? If the report is correct, will the Minister, in future discussions with the British Minister, remind him that the United Kingdom obtains many trade advantages through the British preferential system and request that the present duty on Danish butter entering the United Kingdom be preserved?

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

– I am aware of the report that the Danish Government nas asked the British Government to remove this duty. As I mentioned yesterday, this and other duties are, so far as advantage to Australia is concerned, embodied in the United Kingdom - Australia Trade Agreement. The United Kingdom Government cannot take unilateral action to remove this duty. It is bound to give preference to Australian butter under the agreement in return for which it enjoys balancing advantages under the Australian tariff schedule. On the other hand, of course, the agreement is due to be renewed, and I assure the honorable member and the dairying industry that in the discussions I expect to have with the United Kingdom Government on the subject of negotiating a renewal of this agreement all the interests of the Australian dairying industry will be high in my mind.

page 135

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr CURTIN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister for Immigration whether he will institute an inquiry into the overcrowded conditions prevailing at Bunnerong British migrant centre, Maroubra, New South Wales. Is the Minister aware of the unrest existing at the centre owing to distressing conditions prevailing th ? Will the Minister consider suspending we immigration programme until the housing lag is taken up, thus giving newcomers to this country a chance to establish themselves in homes within a reasonable time of their arrival?

Mr DOWNER:
Minister for Immigration · ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– If I understood correctly the first part of the honorable member’s question, that dealing with Bunnerong migrant hostel, he was discussing a matter which more properly falls within the province of my colleague, the Minister for Labour and National Service. I think I can say that Commonwealth Hostels Limited, which is the body that deals with hostels, is examining all the time conditions in migrant hostels and generally devising ways and means to improve them. I warn the honorable gentleman against circulating, perhaps in all good faith, propaganda concerning these hostels which could be damaging, when in fact their general standard is reasonably good, bearing in mind the purpose for which they were devised. Coming to the honorable gentleman’s second question, I will say unequivocally: No, the Government is not going to suspend the immigration programme. Indeed - quite the reverse - the Government is going ahead as quickly as it can, consonant with the economic expansion of this country, to bring as many people to Australia as can be placed in employment, and as speedily as possible.

page 136

QUESTION

PAPUA AND NEW GUINEA

Mr DRURY:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Territories whether he can assure the House that adequate precautions will be taken by our New Guinea Administration against the possible spread of cholera from West New Guinea.

Mr HASLUCK:
LP

– I can give the House an assurance that the medical department in Papua and New Guinea has taken all possible precautions against the spread of cholera from West New Guinea across the border into Australian Territories. With the transfer of administration from the

Netherlands to the United Nations Temporary Administration, there did occur an outbreak of cholera which cost several hundred lives in West New Guinea. Immediately our own health department commenced a planned campaign of immunization of tens of thousands of people on the Australian side of the border, and also prepared plans for dealing with any emergency. By a coincidence, when I was in the Territory last February I had an opportunity to see the effectiveness of the plans that had been made. A report was brought in from a remote village that there had been some deaths from an unexplained cause. I personally saw, within a matter of a few hours, the whole of the planned operation going into action to deal with a possible emergency. As it turned out, the deaths were not from cholera but from some other cause, but I saw a very heartening demonstration of the effectiveness of ‘ Administration’s plans.

page 136

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr GALVIN:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Postmaster-General. Is it correct that last year several of the Minister’s Cabinet colleagues complained to him about certain segments of the television programme “ Four Corners “, on the ground that in dealing with such subjects as the coalmining industry, the waterfront and housing, the programme highlighted the Government’s failure to deal adequately with the problems associated with these matters? Did the Minister subsequently arrange for the Australian Broadcasting Commission to advise Mr. Charlton to be more selective in his programmes, and to avoid presenting matter of a highly contentious political nature? Finally, is this the reason why the programme “ Four Corners “ has not been produced for several months, and why Mr. Charlton is now concentrating on overseas matters instead of those of an Australian character?

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

– Certainly I had some discussion with some of the members of this House, as I often have on various programmes to which people may take ex- ception; but, as I shall be saying quite plainly shortly, it is not my habit to interfere. For the rest of the question the answer is, “ No “.

page 137

QUESTION

ROYAL VISITS

Mr HAWORTH:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Now that Her Majesty the Queen is on her way home to London, after a most successful tour of Australia, will the right honorable gentleman consider making representations in the proper quarter for the adoption of a suggestion made in many parts of this country, as well as in the United Kingdom, that Her Majesty might reside in Canberra, as the Australian capital city, for a short period as Queen of Australia, and so avoid the strain of long and exacting excursions around the Commonwealth?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
Prime Minister · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

– These and other aspects of possible future royal tours are constantly under examination, but I cannot make any offhand remarks about them.

page 137

QUESTION

PRIVY COUNCIL

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the AttorneyGeneral a question without notice. Since all the judges of the High Court of Australia have now been appointed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, I ask the honorable gentleman whether arrangements have been made for Australian Privy Counsellors to sit in Australia to hear appeals which lie from State Supreme Courts to the Privy Council.

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

– The answer to the question asked by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is, “ No. “.

page 137

QUESTION

SALES TAX

Mr TURNBULL:
MALLEE, VICTORIA

– Is the Treasurer aware that in advocating the abolition of sales tax on foodstuffs containing dried vine fruits the Australian dried fruits industry is not asking for some special advantage over other industries, but is seeking the removal of a hindrance to the expansion of home market sales which are now so necessary? As this is the appropriate time to make requests for action that could affect the Budget, I ask: Will the Treasurer, in the light of prevailing very low returns to dried vine fruit growers, treat this matter as urgent?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The honorable gentleman is consistent in his advocacy of the interests of the dried fruits industry. I recognize that the industry has been facing special problems over recent years. I think I have already given an undertaking to the honorable gentleman that when the elements of the Budget are being considered the question of sales tax in relation to dried fruits will not be overlooked.

page 137

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. With the increase in the coverage of country districts by the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television services, is the commission considering increasing the budget and effectiveness of that part of its activities which can be said to be an agricultural information service, as has been done so successfully in sound broadcasting?

Mr DAVIDSON:
CP

– Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can advise the honorable member for Wakefield that the intention of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to pursue in respect of television, the policy to which he has referred and which has been used in the development of sound broadcasting services. Of course, this will be a steady process. First of all, the programmes of the country stations will be relayed from city stations, but a local information service will be established in each centre. That service will provide matters of local interest to the viewers. Also, it is planned to make increased use of such equipment as O.B. - outside broadcast - vans and mobile cameras. The honorable member will be interested to know that only within the last few days I have authorized, as required by the relevant act, the purchase of three new portable micro-wave links so that the service can expand steadily out into the country. This equipment is necessary in order to provide a really effective service.

page 137

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Treasurer. In view of the fact that almost twelve months ago the Government decided to permit the War Service Homes Division to advance loans up to a maximum of £3,500, why does the Government restrict its other housing instrumentality, the Commonwealth Savings Bank, to a loan that does not exceed £2,750? Further, why is the Commonwealth Savings Bank restricted to a smaller loan than the maximum loan obtainable from any other financial or housing authority in the Commonwealth?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
LP

– The level of maximum lending by the Commonwealth Savings Bank is essentially a matter for decision by the board of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. The honorable gentleman is obviously out of touch with the most recent developments because, had he been following them more closely, he would have learnt that the Commonwealth Savings Bank is now lending to a maximum level of £3,500. That maximum level has been increased from £2,500, I think, over the last twelve months.

In addition to that, the Commonwealth Savings Bank has increased, by approximately £1,000,000 a month, the total of its lending for housing purposes. That is a very substantial increase, giving it, I think, a total current lending rate of about £50,000,000 a year in various directions for housing. I have stressed the position of the Commonwealth Savings Bank, because that is the way in which the honorable gentleman put his question, but I am glad to be able to report to the House that, as I mentioned in my speech on the Loan (Housing) Bill, other savings banks - the Bank of New South Wales is a notable example as the second largest institutional lender - have also increased the maximum loan and the total amount they are putting into housing.

page 138

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr McNEILL:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Immigration. It has relation to the question asked by the honorable member for Kingsford-Smith. I ask whether, in view of various attempts on the part of certain persons in Australia to influence adversely the flow of migrants from the United Kingdom, the Minister can state whether there has been a reduction in the number of applications, as compared with previous years, from potential migrants in Britain.

Mr DOWNER:
LP

– Mr. Speaker, in response to the question asked by the honorable member for Canning, I am glad to say that, despite certain rather adverse propaganda put out from time to time about prospects in Australia for migrants, our experience has been just the reverse-. The honorable gentleman, and I am sure the House generally, may be very pleased to hear that in January and February applications by intending migrants to come to Australia were an all-time record for any two single months since the postwar migration programme began. I am glad to tell my honorable friend more particularly that in January, in the United Kingdom, over 32,700 people applied to come to Australia. Stupendous as that figure was, it was exceeded in February when we had 36,700 applications to come to this country. I am glad to say that the progress figures for March, although not on so high a level as that, are none the less being sustained at a very satisfactory rate indeed. All this adds up to the fact that with this great interest in Australia, and this obviously great confidence abroad in Australia’s potential, it is now quite clear that the immigration target for this year will not only be realized, but will be quite considerably exceeded.

page 138

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Mr JONES:
NEWCASTLE, VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Shipping and Transport. Is it true that in 1961-62 over 4,750,000 tons of petroleum products from Australian refineries were transported interstate and intra-state in foreign-owned and manned tankers? Why has the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission not extended its business into this branch of shipping instead of leaving it to foreign-owned and manned tanker fleets? Is the present uncertainty in employment in Australian shipyards the direct result of the Minister’s department allowing overseas shipping companies to intrude into Australian trade? If a fleet of tankers were constructed in Australian shipyards for interstate and intra-state trade would it help to bring stability to the Australian shipbuilding industry for many years? Will the Minister give consideration to building a fleet of tankers to be owned and manned by Australians?

Mr OPPERMAN:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · CORIO, VICTORIA · LP

- Mr. Speaker, the honorable member for Newcastle has offered an over-simplification of this matter. So far as the Australian National Line is concerned, it has an obligation to build ships which will do their jobs and can be operated efficiently. To date it has not been the intention of the Australian Coastal Shipping Commission to intrude into the oil carrying business, but it is open to private enterprise to build tankers, if it thinks fit. Licences would be granted to private enterprise to enter the trade. Petroleum has been carried around the Australian coast by overseas tankers because no other suitable vessels have been available, but if any private enterprise Australian organizations build tankers they will be granted licences to enter the trade.

page 139

QUESTION

SUGAR

Mr ANTHONY:
RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister for Trade by stating that in recent months the world price of sugar has been increased considerably and is still rising. Do these increases apply to our recent sales of sugar to Japan?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– It is true that world prices for sugar have increased to a considerable extent progressively over the past :,year. The short answer to the question is that the price at which sales have been made to Japan reflects the increasing world price of sugar. Last December a contract was made to sell 300,000 tons of sugar to Japan, to be delivered between June of this year and April, 1964. It is a commercial contract, and the price will, in broad, reflect the prevailing world price. It is not customary commercially to make contracts for such a gigantic amount of a product to be delivered over a long period at one firm price. The practice is to relate the sale price to the current price at the time deliveries are made. Great quantities of our sugar are being sold to Japan and the price is rising, which is very satisfactory from Australia’s point of view.

page 139

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LIGHT HORSE MEMORIAL

Mr LINDSAY:
FLINDERS, VICTORIA

– Is the Prime Minister aware that the famous Peter Pan statue in Kensington Gardens, London, is not unique, and that there, is a second one in Perth? Also, is he aware that at present the equally well-known Australian Light Horse memorial from Port Said is being re-cast in Italy? As the cost would not be prohibitive, will the right honorable gentleman con sider having a second statue cast for erection in Canberra? I feel sure that in the same way as the people of London do not mind those who cannot go to Kensington Gardens enjoying the Peter Pan statue in Perth, the people in Albany would not mind the countless thousands who cannot go to Western Australia paying homage in Canberra to the men of the Australian Light Horse.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– This is a novel suggestion and I will consider it.

page 139

QUESTION

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATIONS STATION IN AUSTRALIA

Mr CAIRNS:
YARRA, VICTORIA

– Will the Prime Minister state whether it is intended that the radio station to be established in Western Australia will send from the President of the United States of America signals or orders to submarines to fire or launch their nuclear missiles in the event of war? Did the Prime Minister say that the conditions decided upon by the Australian Labour Party were dangerous and threatened the station’s future? If so, will he now state how and why these conditions are dangerous and threaten the station’s future?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
LP

– I indicated yesterday that a bill will be introduced when the full terms of the agreement are available. I propose that at that time I should say whatever I have to say by way of explanation and argument. I do not think we get very far by taking things in anticipation.

Mr Cairns:

– You are running for cover, eh?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– I am running for cover from yOu? Well, I say no more.

page 139

POLITICAL CENSORSHIP

Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I have received a letter from tie honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) proposing that a definite matter of urgent public importance be submited to the House for discussion, namely -

This Government’s exercise of political censorship as in the ban on the Bidault television interview.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places) -

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

.- Mr. Speaker, I think it will be agreed generally throughout Australia that if the ban on the Bidault television interview were not of such tremendous importance in its implications the situation which has been created in this country within the last few days would be one of very rich comedy. There is certainly a remarkable and amusing contrast between the imperious way in which the ban was imposed and the floundering way in which it was quickly withdrawn; and since it has been withdrawn there might be an attitude of: “ Why not forget it? The Government has made a fool of itself” - every one would agree with that - “ but it is over now. The interview has been screened. Why cannot the matter therefore be allowed to drift into forgetfulness? “

But the matter, of course, is far more important than that, because the Government has not admitted its error. When I say “ the Government “, I understand that it was not the Government in this case - not even the Cabinet. This was the action, I understand, of the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies), the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen) and perhaps one or two others. But the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General still maintain that the action that they took was entirely proper. Therefore, the issue before the Parliament and before the people remains. Here we have, for the first time, an unexampled use of political censorship powers in peace time. There have been many previous interferences with the freedom of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This is the first time that the powers conferred upon the Postmaster-General have been deliberately and openly exercised for the purpose of political censorship, and if that were allowed to go unchallenged it would constitute a new and destructive assault on civil rights inside Australia.

I make it plain from my point of view that the issue is certainly not whether the Bidault interview should have been televised. I would think that the very strongest argument could be made that this man, who is the head of an illegal organization aiming at the assassination of the French President and the overthrow of the French Government, should not have been given publicity and that such action is offensive to a friendly nation. I do not think that any one would seriously contend that that is the issue at stake in this matter. The issue is whether the government of the day should have exercised power to prevent the publication of this interview in any form because it disapproved of it.

The second thing I would say in order to clarify the issue at the beginning is that there is an immense difference, of course, between the powers which a government in a democracy should properly exercise in time of war or in time of national emergency and in time of peace. In time of war or of grave national emergency all individual rights must be subordinated to the supreme purposes of safeguarding and protecting the State and the community. Because those rights are therefore necessarily blurred in times of national emergency or war it is more essential that when peace returns these rights should be sharply stated and’ most clearly upheld. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Postmaster-General has at any time asserted that this was a situation of such grave national emergency that the safety of the State required the exercise of this power - and that, I believe, is the only defence which could have been properly available to them. But clearly, of course, no such situation of national emergency exists. May I just interpolate, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister himself, in the course of his distinguished career, has been the most eloquent exponent in the whole of Australia of this position which I have just enunciated.

The position I have stated was very clearly recognized in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Government has exactly the same powers over the British Broadcasting Corporation as the Australian Government has over the Australian Broadcasting Commission. But it was clearly recognized in the United Kingdom that since no situation of national emergency was involved the decision should rest with the independent controllers of the British Broadcasting Commission and should not be an action of political censorship by the

Government. Surely this is the very heart and essence of democracy. Democracy makes it imperative that I should not be able to decide what you should see or hear or read. Nor should the PostmasterGeneral, nor the Prime Minister, nor should the Governor-General himself. The PostmasterGeneral in this case has attempted to exercise the power to put a blindfold over the eyes and a plug in the ears of every ordinary Australian, to dictate what he shall be allowed to see, what he shall be allowed to read and what he shall be allowed to hear. The justification offered is not, and cannot, be that there is a situation of great national emergency. The justification given is courtesy to a friendly nation. So the question before the Parliament surely is whether the rights that belong to the people and which are essential to the preservation of healthy parliamentary government should be set aside at the caprice of the Minister in order to pay a courtesy to a friendly nation.

If freedom is to be preserved, obviously the decision in these matters of publication of fact and opinion must be made by the men who control the means of publication, provided that their action is within the law of the land. The decision must rest with men who are independent of the government of the day. If the present commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission are not capable of discharging their functions they should be removed from office. The Government has at no time asserted in any way that the commissioners are recreant to their duty or unable to perform it. It has not given this as justification and it has not taken any action to discipline or remove the commissioners for betrayal of their duty. So it is clear that there is no charge against the competence of the commissioners. It can never be a right of the Postmaster-General to decide that a political commentary is to be banned - because the Postmaster-General is himself obviously and necessarily, from his position in this Parliament, a political partisan, and he cannot divorce himself from that position. He is not, and cannot be, politically independent. Such action by him, whenever taken, is political censorship, and political censorship is always the most powerful weapon of political tyranny. It is always the first instrument seized and used by a dictator to maintain the power that he has taken in a community.

Mr Killen:

– What about your own leader’s views on censorship?

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

– I endorse every word of my leader’s statement on this issue’. He has condemned this ban as a most dangerous precedent. I have already made perfectly clear the immense difference that exists in any community between a situation of war or national emergency and a situation of peace. This is a clearly defined difference of the utmost importance in a democracy. In time of war you may disagree with what the censor does. You may think his action ill-advised or wrong, but he must possess the power and he must be the judge. The lives of men and the safety of the nation may depend on the exercise of that power. The exercise of censorship in such circumstances, either wisely or unwisely, is essential to the preservation of the State and the community. But in peace-time the action of the PostmasterGeneral represented, not a proper use of power, but an improper abuse of it.

What has been achieved by this action? First, the objective of preventing people from seeing this film has not been achieved. The film has been seen by a far wider audience than would otherwise have viewed it. Secondly, the maintenance of friendly relations with France has certainly not been achieved. On the contrary, the Government’s action must appear to the kindly French - the most cultured and sophisticated of all peoples - as gauche in the extreme. Thirdly, the Government’s action has given this film a far wider publicity and audience than it would ever otherwise have had or deserved, and it has also given it an enormous and undeserved blaze of publicity throughout the world. Finally, the Government’s action has confirmed the belief that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an agency of the Government and subject to governmental control of its programmes. Those are the results of the Government’s action.

The Government’s remarkable reason for removing the ban was that it had transp:red - I use the Prime Minister’s word - that newspapers could publish the interview and cinema theatres could screen it. As a matter of fact, the Government has complete power, through the Customs, to prevent the importation of films. So even the second argument is not exactly correct. But is it conceivable that the Government discovered only after it had imposed this ban on the television stations that it had no power to censor the interview in the press? The statement made by the Prime Minister in removing the ban bears no other meaning than this: That an outrageous act of censorship would have been all right if the Government could have extended it to the press and the cinema, and that if the Government could have extended it to the press and the cinema it would have done so.

The Prime Minister hopes, to quote from his statement, that this incident will make it plain outside Australia that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is not an organ of the Australian Government. I shall never cease to marvel at how the Prime Minister is able to delude himself in matters of this kind. Everyone else surely will believe that the incident has given exactly the opposite impression. Does the imposing of a government ban on a broadcasting station give the impression that that station is independent of the Government? Does the removal of that ban on the ground that the Government can control the Australian Broadcasting Commission but not the newspapers give the impression that the Government cannot control the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is independent of the Government? The Prime Minister said, in effect: “ The Government ordered the Australian Broadcasting Commission not to telecast the Bidault interview; now the Government has issued an opposite order; surely this will show the world that the Australian Broadcasting Commission does not operate under government order “. The only place in which I have seen logic of that kind is in “Alice in Wonderland “ at the Mad Hatter’s tea party and possibly with the March Hare in the chair. The Postmaster-General has remarked that he still believes that the interview should never have been telecast. The Prime Minister has said that he strongly adheres to the view that the pro hibition was justified. Surely this Parliament should assert the principle that television should be as free, within the normal bounds of the law, as any other medium of expression or publication.

The Government did have a strong reason for banning the interview from the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It was not, in my view, a valid reason, but it was a strong one. It was, as I have said, that Bidault was the head of an organization aiming to overthrow the French Government and assassinate its President; that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was a government instrumentality, or was viewed as a government instrumentality; and that for the Australian Broadcasting Commission to broadcast this interview would have offended the French, whose friendship was important to Australia’s national interest. That is a strong argument. But it will be seen that this sole argument of the Government rests on contentions which have nothing whatever to do with the publication of this interview through other media. The Government’s argument is, or was, that its telecasting through the Australian Broadcasting Commission could be misunderstood, and could cause resentment in France because the Australian Broadcasting Commission is seen there as a government instrumentality. Then the Government removed the ban on the Australian Broadcasting Commission because it could not extend the ban to newspapers and the cinema theatres. Has there ever been a more ridiculous and foolish statement of government attitude than that which was made on this matter? If the Government’s first contention were valid it remained valid irrespective of what other channels published the interview. But the reckless way in which the Government used its powers from the very first indicates that it did not recognize in the beginning that it could not or dare not censor the press. Not only that, but it also indicates that the Government would have censored the press if it could have done so in these circumstances. Throughout, the Government completely overlooked the fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation had already removed from the interview anything in the nature of an incitement to violence, and had portrayed Bidault as a lonely old man living in the past, and that the television film presented the interview with a commentary which made it brutally plain that Bidault was deserving of no support whatever.

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
KooyongPrime Minister · LP

– I must say that the speech that we have just listened to represents such a muddled-up indictment that it is very hard to know what the point of it is. In one breath the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) waving an arm at the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), said that he, the PostmasterGeneral, believed that this interview should never have been made. But the honorable member for Eden-Monaro has stated exactly the same thing. He also believes that it should not have been made. So his whole argument becomes so self-contradictory that one wonders why this matter has so suddenly been thrown upon us for discussion. There was no sign of it at the beginning of the week - not a hint - not any question at question time from a fighting Opposition, stimulated, as some of its members are, by corridor exercises in recent times. Not a hint of it! But when they found that a matter had been suggested for discussion to-day which they would have found highly embarrassing, to wit, the giving of instructions to members by outside bodies, they at once said: “ We cannot have that. We do not want to have that debated. That would be very awkward. We are going to move a no-confidence motion next week. We must not fire off any of our stuff in advance. We must at all costs avoid discussing the matter suggested by the honorable member for Barker “. So they trotted out this matter. What is the substance of it?

I will go with the honorable member for Eden-Monaro to the first and most powerful part of his speech. He said - and I agree - that this television interview should never have been made. This interview was made by a body which is, after all, if not the servant of the British Government, the creature of the British Government. I do not agree that the man with whom the interview was made is a poor, broken-down old fellow. I saw this man myself, full of self-satisfaction and leering at his audience. The interview was made with a man who is at this time wanted for a capital offence against the Government of France. He is wanted for treason. He is being pursued, in effect, or is pursuing himself, around the world. He is wanted as the head of an organization which has already made unsuccessful but violent attempts to assassinate the President of France. This is the man that we ..re hearing about. Of course this interview should never have been made! It could do nothing else but give this man and his views publicity. It would serve to give him a certain amount of prestige as a person worth interviewing and presenting over the principal television service in the United Kingdom.

It is little wonder to me that there were violent protests in France. It is little wonder to me that there were protests in the House of Commons. As an unfriendly act towards a friendly power, I can scarcely think of anything more stupid and more offensive. I imagine that we all would agree with that. Certainly the honorable member for Eden-Monaro agrees with it, but having said all those things - that the film should never have been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation and so on - he went on to say that it should have been put on by the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Australia, or, at any rate, that a Minister should not have dared to prevent it. That Sir, is a form of reasoning which completely escapes me.

We in Australia are not only friendly with France; we are associated with France in the South-East Asia Treaty. Through our allies in the old world, we are indirectly associated with France in Nato. We are not a member of Nato, but Great Britain is, and France is in a key position in the western European structure. Are we supposed to be quite indifferent to the fact that a body commonly regarded as the agent or the mouthpiece of the Australian Government - not here; we know better, but commonly so regarded outside - should put on an interview which, by concession, we say should never have been recorded? Of course, the reason that is put forward is a very high and mighty one - “Well, this involves censorship”. It is one thing to prevent a programme from being put on; it is another thing to close up a few newspapers completely. Honorable members opposite had better search their own record. How fortunate it is that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) is not here to-day.

When this direction was given to the A.B.C. it was, I repeat, in my opinion a proper direction on a matter which concerns the relations of this country with a friendly power.

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

– In fact, you would do it again?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– If it would be effective I would do it again, certainly. I am not making any apologies. I have publicly conceded that we then found ourselves in a position in which the prohibiton against the A.B.C. would be rendered completely futile and discriminatory. Therefore, we withdrew it.

Mr Peters:

– Did not you know that before you issued it?

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:

– I did not think of it, I suppose. I do not know. When you find that a position has developed which is untenable it is good sense to go away from it. I have no apologies to make for that. All I want to say is that Opposition members had better make up their minds as to whether they agree with their spokesman about the nature, quality and propriety of this particular interview. If there were power in one stroke to prevent the presentation of a matter offensive to an allied power - not merely offensive, but a matter which involved putting forward and giving publicity to a man wanted for treason - then I hope I would have enough firmness, whenever it cropped up, to do everything I could to prevent it.

Mr HAYLEN:
Parkes

.- The question of the censorship of the Bidault film has been completly evaded by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies). I have never heard such arrant humbug in my life, and I have listened to him for a very long time. We say as Australians that we are not deeply concerned with the Federal Government making a fool of itself. It does that three times a week during the sessions here. But we do object to its making pathetic fools of the Australian people by saying to them, “ This you may see and. this you may not see”, and then coming along with a pious and stupid platitude about this man being a murderer. Every man on Frank Packer’s television programmes to-night will be a criminal being pursued by cowboys.

There has been talk about the quality of the film and about a capital offence. I say to honorable members opposite, “You can make something of it if you like, but your leader made no case for it”. If I were writing a story on this matter I would call it “The Strange Case of Old1 Postie and Uncle Bob “. It is a most fantastic attack on censorship. The Prime Minister is the man who did it. No matter how he beats his breast and says, “These things are not right; France is our ally”, he cannot get away from that fact. I will say this for Bidault: He was a great patriot in the resistance. He was fighting for the lives of Frenchmen when de Gaulle was in England. That is history. You may not like it but you have to put up with it.

The Prime Minister got away from the main point in the argument of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) and would not come back to it. I ask him: Why did you exercise such stupid and infantile censorship? If we look at the film we see that it depicts an interview with Bidault. After it was concluded, the commentator took great care because of his bosses - there are politicians in England as well as Australia, and power can be exercised against the British Broadcasting Corporation as the well as the Australian Broadcasting Commission - to debunk the interview. If you run it through, Mr. Speaker, you will find that that is so. What happened to the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson), Old Postie? He got into a back corner of the Parliament and asked some one to screen the film for him. He frightened the boots off himself. He insulted the adulthood of the Australian people by saying: “ We could not have that. It is offensive to our allies.” It is good, perhaps, to be offensive to our allies sometimes, and even to our friends, if by doing so we show them another aspect of life. Surely it was news.

I cannot cover all the points of this matter in ten minutes, but there are certain things about it which fill me with anger.

The Prime Minister has always been an intellectual hillbilly. When I asked him once for something for some Australian writers, they got the grand order of the snoot. He held that order for many years before he got the Thistle. He never comes down to earth. He has not come down to earth on the horrible matter of the base in the north-west of Western Australia, and he did not get more than 6 feet from the surface to-day in relation to this matter.

In a few brief minutes I shall try to discuss this subject as I see it, if the chatterers on the other side of the chamber will be silent. Their master has spoken and, as jackdaws, they have to join the chorus. Let me point to the egregious nonsense and the stupidity to which the Government has treated the Australian people. The Government made two decisions, both of which were different. It has made two excuses, both of which are different. That is a very good average. First, there was the decision to screen the film, and the A.B.C. advertised it. Then, there was the decision not to screen the film. That was a great piece of political thought and wisdom. The Prime Minister has said that if a position becomes untenable you should retreat from it. He did not retreat. He ran off and left poor Old Postie, who is now at the table, to get him out of the difficulty. The tragedy is that he put the letter in the wrong box.

The decisions, first to screen the film, then not to screen it, and finally to screen it after all, make one think of Finnegan’s train. It is a case of on-again off-again gone-again Davidson. The first excuse was that the film was bad technically. If that was sufficient reason for not showing it, a lot of the films shown on television would go out of circulation much earlier than they do these days. That excuse was a gimmick. Ordinary, reasonable people do not like to be treated as school-children, and they said: “ Let us have a look at it. It concerns an international problem, and too often we get only one side of a case. Let us judge.” That is all that we on this side of the House asked for. The excuse given for not showing the film was that it was too bad visually, but when it was obvious that it was not too bad after all, we had the excuse that it was offensive to a powerful friend. Censorship is built on protecting powerful friends and in presenting only one side of a case.

The Government stands indicted on this matter because it attempted to suborn the A.B.C. We know that the A.B.C. has become cowed and frightened by ministerial intervention to such a degree that, even before anybody can get to it, it starts to censor itself. I like the commission; it gives us a very good standard of performance. But the whole of its personnel are running around shivering in fear that they will make a mistake, because the ogre of censorship leans over them from the Government. They watch to see that nothing controversial gets out to the people.

The Bidault film is only an incident, but the censorship exercised by the Menzies Government casts an enormous shadow over the country. It is all very well to talk about something that happened years ago. We are not without guilt in regard to censorship; but I am speaking about the dangerous situation that is developing now. The only reason we have been given for the eventual censoring of the Bidault film is that it was not nice and might offend a powerful ally. Why not let the people who put the Government here decide what they want to see? I would like to censor some of Frank Packer’s cowboy pictures, because they are not nice and I do not like cowboy pictures. I do not like to be in a stampede before I go to bed; it is bad for my nerves. But I have no chance to censor these films. Nonetheless, some one can say in an overbearing way that the censoring of another film is a matter of high diplomacy.

The censoring of the Bidault film was a stupid error. The Postmaster-General has made a fool of himself and the Prime Minister, in making his apology, has made him look sillier than ever. It gets down to this: Are the Australian people who pay £5 a year for the right to look at television to be told on the political level what they can see, what is good for them and what is not good for them? How was this put to them? It was not given with dignity as an order of the Government. The Government did not say, “ We do not think this is the thing for the Australian people “. First of all, the excuse was: “The film is a bit greasy. We cannot see it ourselves.

We have not the oil from the consultative council of the Liberal Party as to whether we should let it go or let it stay.” We were then told that the film would offend our friend. But what about offending the Australian people and their conscience about censorship? Too much of this sort of thing is happening.

We can sum up the Bidault incident by saying it was a piece of sheer stumblefooted bumbleism. It made everybody feel sick. It made the back of your neck creep to think that some one could be so stupid. The Government had no faith in the capacity of the Australian people to decide what the Bidault film was worth. It is not a matter of what the Postie thinks or what Bob thinks; that is not the issue. We had the same situation with the censoring of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”. Everbody in the world has read it in the expurgated edition or in the original, but we are writhing in agony trying to decide whether it should be available here. Yet the same sort of thing as that described in the book happens on our beaches all the time and no one has been corrupted.

This is the sort of mediaeval mind that has been developed by the Government. The Prime Minister, who knows nothing about literature, thinks the little blue books describing how to go to the Lakes District in England are superb literature. He has not read any Australian books. He got up here and pontificated, but he did not answer the questions of the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, who rammed logic at him and who made statements that remain unanswered. The Prime Minister contends that if you get into an untenable position, you retreat. That is his confession. I say that censorship in any guise is dangerous, but when it is in the guise of tomfoolery, such as we have experienced, when it humiliates us as parliamentarians, when ft makes fools of the Australian people and makes us think we are in the first day at kindergarten - when we are told not what we can do but what we cannot do - the Government ought to wake up to itself and change its ways.

We want a full apology from the PostmasterGeneral. Any man in Australia with any literary pretentions, who likes to decide what he will see and who likes to be free in his actions, will find the Prime Minister’s statement a contemptible evasion on a matter that appeared to me to be a rotten piece of censorship. I would like to quote from Milton in regard to censorship generally. He said - as good almost kill a Man as kill a good Book( - or a good film - who kills a Man kills a reasonable creature, Gods Image, but hee who destroyes a good Booke- or film - kills reason it selfe, kills the Image of Cod as it were in the eye.

What he meant was that a book written for man’s entertainment and edification should be open for all people of adult age to make their own judgment upon it and there should be no censorship of it whatever.

Mr DAVIDSON:
PostmasterGeneral · Dawson · CP

– We have just listened to the type of speech from the honorable member for Parkes (Mr. Haylen) to which we have become accustomed. It was his usual glib effusion, sometimes amusing and always extravagant. That is the best I can say of it. He attempted to compare cowboy films with this vastly important matter. If that was not sheer extravagance, I do not know what is.

I do not propose to make lengthy explanations about this matter. We have made our explanations already. I made my explanation at the commencement of this matter and the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) has made his explanation. As the matter has already been plainly explained and as the Prime Minister has already made a statement this morning, all I propose to do is to say that I do not withdraw and I do not apologize for any of my actions. I will, however, refer briefly to what has already been mentioned by the Prime Minister. The basic fact is that the programme under discussion publicized a matter which must give great offence to our Seato allies.

Mr Haylen:

– Rubbish!

Mr DAVIDSON:

– Of course it does. It gives great offence. It publicizes a man who, no matter what his previous record may be, is acknowledged as the leader of an organization pledged to assassinate the head of a friendly nation to which we are bound by treaty and by many other interests. This man also is a fugitive from the justice of his own country. That is the basic fact that we face. This was a film with wide international implications, and its showing could do grave damage not only to our ally, France, but also to our relations with that country. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) tried to say that because this was not a time of war, the showing of the film was not likely to do grave damage. I certainly differ from him on that point.

For these reasons, which I think are cogent reasons, I agreed with my colleagues with whom I discussed the matter that it was most undesirable to show this film. Therefore, as the responsible Minister, I issued the order banning the film. Let me make a point here in reply to the honorable member for Parkes. He asserted that we at first said that this film was bad technically and therefore we would ban it. That is completely untrue. I remember saying once when some one commented on the film to me, “ Yes, it is a rotten film “, but that had nothing whatever to do with our decision. As the honorable member for Parkes said, if we started banning films for bad technical qualities, we would find many films in this category.

I repeat that I make no apology for my actions. I am firmly convinced that we took the proper course. Certainly, for reasons that have been dealt with by the Prime Minister, after the ban had clearly expressed the Government’s reaction, it was lifted. I ask honorable members to note that point. The ban had expressed the Government’s reaction, and this, I think, was the proper course.

It is contended that the action of the Government establishes a precedent for political censorship of television material. That I challenge. I repeat that this was a matter of wide international significance and a matter that would give grave offence to a valued ally. This was not an ordinary run-of-the-mill programme to which some of us might object. Such programmes would never be subjected to this type of action. This was a programme that was to be shown by an organization that is widely considered to be a Government instrumentality and, therefore, any affront felt by France would be thought to coma from this Government. Also, it certainly is not the type of matter that is likely to be an everyday occurrence. As a matter of fact, I sincerely hope that it never happens again.

Briefly, I claim that I have not established a general precedent. Anybody who knows my record or who cares to look it up will be aware that I have been particularly meticulous in the observation of the statutory authority of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its right to determine its own business. Honorable members will remember that I have at times earned the displeasure of some of my colleagues in this House because of my refusal to intervene in matters concerning programmes some of which gave offence to certain individuals. I have set out to uphold the authority and the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I have stated my policy in this regard several times on the floor of this House. Therefore, the suggestion that action taken in this matter establishes a precedent does not, in my opinion, hold water. The policy that I have adopted in the past has been acknowledged and applauded by both gentlemen who have filled the position of chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission during my term of office as PostmasterGeneral. What particularly astounds me about this matter is that this challenge comes from people on the other side of tha House who are pledged to nationalize broadcasting and television in this country. I£ that were done those services would come directly under the everyday control of tha Minister and the government. Yet honorable members opposite have the impudence to say that we have done something terrible.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard the remarks passed on this matter by previous speakers. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro said that television should be as free as tha air, or something like that. In 1942 the man who is now Leader of the Opposition - he was then a member of the Labour Government - said -

Naturally, as a member of the Australian Labour Party, I support nationalization. It is a plank in our platform. It is part of my political bible. 1 speak somewhat sadly on this question because I cannot persuade the Government to nationalize anything. If I could only screw Ministers up to the point I should nationalize not only the wireless broadcasting system but also the banks and the insurance companies.

Now the honorable gentleman is in a position to screw his government up if he gets into power and he has stated definitely that he will nationalize wireless broadcasting and, inferentially, the television services.

On the day that the Leader of the Opposition made the statement to which I have just referred the honorable member for Kennedy (Mr. Riordan) said -

My only regret is that the Government has nol seen fit to nationalize the commercial broadcasting services.

In view of those statements honorable members opposite make themselves foolish when they criticize us for allegedly attempting too-rigidly to control the Australian Broadcasting Commission. In March last year the Leader of the Opposition said -

We can do nothing about the extension of the commercial system, whatever we may think of it, because section 92 of the Constitution, while it remains unaltered, precludes us from nationalizing the television services.

That is a statement of the policy of these people who are criticizing us. Those few examples that I have quoted show how completely insincere is this attack launched by the Opposition. Honorable members opposite are simply sham fighting in a desperate attempt to direct the attention of the country away from their own shortcomings, which have been demonstrated clearly in relation to recent matters. Honorable members opposite want to direct the attention of the people away from the fact that they accept instructions from outside and are widely split right down the middle. Honorable members opposite do not want the people to become aware of Labour’s short-comings and they have seized on this matter as a red herring.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

.- It is obvious that the Government is embarrassed by this debate and is endeavouring to shift the grounds upon which it is being argued. In his speech the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies) misrepresented statements made by the honorable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr. Allan Fraser). The Prime Minister alleged that the honorable member for Eden-Monaro had said that grounds existed for the banning of this film. The honorable member for Eden-Monaro did. not say that at all. In fact, his remarks constituted a strong criticism of the Government’s intercession in this matter.

We have just heard a very weak case presented by the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) who said that he upholds the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. But in almost the same breath he said that he upholds his right to interfere, as he did on the occasion under discussion. Little wonder that the Government wants to shift the grounds of this debate. Its case is weak. This is a very serious matter in a democratic country like Australia, where the people are proud of their democratic traditions of freedom. It is a serious matter that the central legislative body should be debating an incursion into those conditions of freedom - debating whether that incursion is right or wrong. It is very serious if the democratically elected government has endeavoured to interfere with democratic freedom and it gives cause for great concern.

The Government’s action on this occasion, as on former occasions when it has interfered with the autonomy of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, is clearly immature authoritarianism and in this particular instance is a decision of an autocratic hierarchy because the Prime Minister, the Postmaster-General and one or others in the upper echelon of the administration of this Government made this decision without discussing the matter with Cabinet, without reference to the other members of the Government and at a time when the Parliament was not sitting. It is obvious from statements made in the course of their defence that their grounds for taking this action rest solely on their concern lest criticism of one of Australia’s allies may upset that ally and that a showing of the film under discussion may be resented by France. It is obvious in this particular case that the Government attempted to do what it failed to do when it tried to introduce amendments to the Crimes Act in 1961. It is also obvious that the system of censorship which the Government introduced on this occasion is nothing short of a system of thought-control aimed at conditioning the attitudes of people to important international affairs - conditioning them by controlling the important organs of news release so that their views on important matters will coincide with Government policy.

The question that readily comes to mind is: Why did the Government do this? Did it act in this way because it thought the film may upset France? In the United Kingdom a film of the interview with Bidault was shown to millions of people. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister spoke extravagantly when he claimed that there was a major upset in France following the showing of the film in the United Kingdom. That was not so. Does the Prime Minister think that the people of Australia are immature or callow compared with the people of Great Britain and that they cannot digest or interpret responsibly and rationally what they see on a television screen? Or does he think that if we upset Fiance, France will terminate diplomatic relations with or perhaps send a note of protest to Australia? None of these things has happened. The people of Australia have ultimately seen the film. There has been no cry of insurrection. Neither Bidault nor his case has been elevated. The Government’s suggestion that our relations in Seato would be affected is rather fatuous. Modelski has recently edited a book on the subject of Seato and the relations of the Seato countries and has pointed out, as have other subscribers to this book, that France’s association with Seato is rather reluctant at best. He points out that France has shown a marked disinclination to associate itself with the actions of Seato to the full extent that other member nations have associated themselves.

But I want to pass from this matter of immediate concern, the Bidault interview, to parallel instances of the interference of this Government in the autonomy of the national broadcasting system and, consequentially, in the democratic freedoms of the people, by endeavouring to foist on the people a system of controls. Only a few months ago, on 29th October, 1962, to be precise, Doctor Peter Russo, an international commentator, delivered an address over Station 3LO in Melbourne on the then recent Cuban crisis. It was an impartial assessment of the conflict or crisis that had occurred. He was critical of both sides involved, the United States of America and Russia, and he was objectively critical. It was reliably and extensively reported that pressure was brought to bear on the Australian Broadcasting Commission by this Government, and that the leaders of the commission were strongly criticised and threatened with disciplinary action for presenting this commentary to the community.

Again, in April, 1961, we saw a debate flare up in this House on two issues at question time. The first related to a report which had been included in an early news item broadcast over the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s system, giving criticism which the Deputy Leader of tha Opposition (Mr. Whitlam) had made of tha Government’s economic policy. It was healthy criticism, constructive criticism, freely made, and the honorable gentleman was quite entitled to make it in our democratic society, and the people were quite entitled to hear it. But because the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt) was hurt or insulted by this criticism which was broadcast to the nation, he not only criticised and disciplined the Australian Broadcasting Commission but also demanded - and was successful in having his demand acceded to - that this news item be not included in the later 9 o’clock broadcast, as would have been done if the traditional practice had been followed.

Mr Harold Holt:

– You know that is a lie.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Then there was the case of Bishop Strong, who was then a Bishop of New Guinea and is now the very much revered Archbishop of Brisbane, a great personage, who is not involved in politics. He also was critical of Government policy and his comments were broadcast in a 7 o’clock news programme. Again the Government intervened, and, if I remember correctly, it was again the Treasurer who got in touch with the Australian Broadcasting Commission and said that it was not to include this item in the 9 o’clock broadcast.

Mr Harold Holt:

– That is a lie.

Mr HAYDEN:

– This is the way in which the Government intends to control the democratic rights of the people and to restrict freedom of speech and criticism of the Government and its policies, and criticism of any other government and its policies. The right to make such criticism is the traditional right of any people in a democratic free country.

We again saw the Government endeavouring to restrict criticism of itself and its policy when in 1961, Professor Gluckman, the noted anthropologist, was prevented from entering New Guinea. This man, who has done eminent work in anthropology, is much sought after. He is a world-renowned authority on this subject. His scientific interest urged him to seek entry into New Guinea to ascertain what was transpiring there, but because he was critical of this Government’s policy - and he had good cause to be critical - he was prevented from entering New Guinea. What sort of a curtain of restriction of movement is it that has been erected?

The most blatant of all these incursions on the rights of the people occurred in 1961, when this Government brought before the Parliament amendments to the Crimes Act, covering in the broad what this Government is now endeavouring to do in particular cases. Under the proposals embodied in the amendments to the Crimes Act at that time it would have been impossible^ - in fact it would have been a criminal offence - to criticize the foreign policy of the Government or any foreign nation for which the Government declared its support. Shades of Orwell’s “ 1984 “! It was Orwell who prophesied that to-day X would be our ally and we would have to support it, while to-morrow Y would become our ally and because Y was opposed to X our support for X would have to be turned to criticism. Is this the sort of situation that this Government is trying to bring about? Regardless of how we think of our democratic freedom, the people of this country can no longer allow this sort of thing to pass without strong or strenuous criticism. Every step the Government takes on this road is laying down a pavement of authoritarianism and is a step towards the abolition of our democratic freedom.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Order! The honorable member’s time has expired.

Mr McEWEN:
Minister for Trade · Murray · CP

– There is continuous scope, historically, for argument regarding the operations of government, on the question of whether a government should possess certain powers and then on the manner on which it should exercise those powers. Take the matter of taxation, for instance. No one argues that governments should not possess the power to tax; but there is all the scope in the world, and quite valid scope, for argument as to how they should exercise the power.

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

– That is the point.

Mr McEWEN:

– I should have thought - and the honorable member for EdenMonaro (Mr. Allan Fraser) evidently agrees with me on this point - that arguments would have been brought forward in this debate that this particular action taken by the Government was unnecessary, was wrong or was challengable, but I should not have thought that arguments would be produced that the Government should not possess and exercise such a power.

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

– That has never been said this morning.

Mr McEWEN:

– On the contrary, the whole tenor of the argument put forward by the Opposition has been based on the second proposition that I have just mentioned, a completely indefensible proposition.

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

– Nothing like that has been put forward.

Mr McEWEN:

– The honorable member who spoke first in this debate, the honorable member for Eden-Monaro, said this morning that this television film should never have been made. He said that Bidault was the head of an organization aiming to overthrow the Government of France and to assassinate the President. Does that leave any ground to argue whether this film should have been made? The honorable member says that it should never have been made. He points out that it is a portrayal of treachery and treason. Is he then going to argue that it should have” been displayed? He has abandoned that; he has never touched that argument; he has conceded that he does not stand on that ground. The ground that he stands on is that of political censorship. “ Political “ is a propaganda word as the honorable member uses it, and he knows that to be so. What he means is government censorship. What else can, there be in the realm of government than the exercise of power by people who are politicians, whatever side of the Parliament they are on? So, to describe this act as an act of political censorship is a mere propaganda device.

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

– Government censorship.

Mr McEWEN:

– It is quite reprehensible. The truth of the matter is that the Government of the country, whatever party forms it, should have the right and should exercise the right to control anything which in its judgment will impair friendly relationships with an ally.

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

– That is exactly the situation.

Mr McEWEN:

– That is exactly the ground on which this Government exercised judgment. If any one wants to challenge our judgment, then I regard that challenge as being completely valid. Our judgment may always be challenged. But if any one wants to challenge the fact that the Government has a duty to exercise judgment, then that is an intolerable stand to take. It is the duty of the Government to have a judgment. As we are all human, we may differ on the question whether our judgment is correct.

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

– We say-

Mr McEWEN:

– You have had your say.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Eden-Monaro has already spoken. He is now sitting at the table and constantly interjecting. I suggest that he remain silent.

Mr McEWEN:

– The whole implication in the Opposition’s statement - in fact the whole statement - is that if censorship is to be exercised - the word “ censorship “ was not used, so I will change that - if restriction of production of something is to be exercised, it should not be exercised by the Government but by some one else unnamed. Who is the some one else unnamed? It is going to be a newspaper proprietor, or the owner of a television station, or the owner of a radio station, some one in business primarily to make a profit - some one who has no responsibility to the nation, certainly no responsibility flowing from election to represent the people - some one whose business is founded on tickling the ears of the public so that there will be a greater audience, and therefore, greater profits will flow. These are to be the only people to exercise censorship, and God knows they do exercise pretty constant censorship, as all of us who have been connected with the Government know. Are they to be the only people to exercise censorship? That is the tenor of the argument of the Labour spokesman - that no government is to have a judgment, and that the judgment is to be left to people whose motive is to make more profits, or who may have even baser motives than that. I do not think that is right.

Let me take a conceivable situation analogous with what has occurred, namely, a person who is a traitor to the British Commonwealth being provided by the instrumentality of a foreign power with the facilities to advocate not only the overthrow of the British Government but also tha assassination of the Head of State, our Queen. Will members of the Labour Party stand up and say that whether facilities should be provided for that person by the government instrumentality of a foreign country should be left to private enterprise to decide and that there should be no exercise of judgment by the government of that foreign country? They would not dare to say that. That is the state of affairs completely analogous with what has occurred.

I have no quarrel with any one who argues with the judgment, but apparently there is no argument about this film and the whole aura that surrounds it. I would not have the capacity to criticize it more vehemently and destructively than the honorable member for Eden-Monaro has done. He thinks that it should never have been produced, but he thinks that tha Government should not have a judgment. This Government does not think that. Nor do we believe that the Labour Party thinks that, because the whole record of that party in office is a continuous record of arbitrary interference in the exercise of those rights - the publication of newspapers, licensing, the whole apparatus. If members of the Labour Party ever compose their own differences enough to have a chance to get back into power, I will lay odds that it will not be five minutes before they will be doing the same thing again, because at heart they are authoritarian, at heart they are suppressors and at heart they are dictators. This debate this morning is a political stunt, and a pretty poor sort of a political stunt at that.

I believe that what we did was right. I have no quarrel with any one who argues that it should not have been done. I have no quarrel with any one who argues that it was unfortunate to discover that having stopped it where we knew we could stop it there was a bit of a blind spot elsewhere where it could not be stopped. The real point is the fundamental issue in respect of the Government of this country and its relationships with its friendly allies in the struggle for freedom. These are not days when you are at war or at peace. These are days when you are at some kind of war all the time. Our security and our survival depend on, more than anything else, preserving the totality and the cohesion of the alliance of the people of the free world. That was in our minds. That is the pretty high motive that was in our minds. It is not a political motive. It is not a one-sided motive. It is the highest motive in the interests of the security of the people of Australia. We acted on that judgment, and I would do it again.

Mr MONAGHAN:
Evans

.- I have listened with great interest to what has been said this morning. It is rather interesting to note the array of speakers that the Government has produced. We heard the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies); we have just heard the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen) - both members of the inner Cabinet - and soon the No. 3 man in the team will follow me. It is all very interesting. They must feel very guilty men about this action of the Government to bring forward this array of their heavy artillery. Their very presence here this morning betokens that. The Prime Minister, in what I would say would probably be his most arrogant manner, has said that he does not withdraw one little bit. He said, “If the action could be effective, we would do it again”. Those were his words. That is the type of person that we have as our Prime Minister. It is well known that the Ministers echo what the master says. The Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) said exactly the same thing. He was entirely unrepentant.

Let us look at what some of these shining knights have had to say about the Government’s action in this matter. First of all, let me put right some of the traducers of the Australian Labour Party. I quote from the federal policy of our party, which says -

The Australian Labour Party seeks to secure through Democratic Socialism: -

Freedom of speech, education, assembly, organization and religion.

The rule of Law to be the right of alL

That is an extract from the federal platform and objective of the party to which I am privileged to belong. The PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) - I forgive him for this because, although his department is well administered, I think he has to thank some excellent officers that he has for that - had to try to identify nationalization with the social democratic concepts for which we of the Labour Party stand. The two things are just not the same at all. He attempted to draw a red herring across the trail of the debate this morning, but was most ineffective, if I may say so. I understand that the right honorable gentleman sitting at the table, the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt), went on record. I quote from the “ Courier-Mail “, of 16th March. He was at a university turn-out in Melbourne. This is what he had to say-

Mr Harold Holt:

– Will you say what he had to say, or what the newspapers say he had to say?

Mr MONAGHAN:

– The “ CourierMail” states that the Treasurer said that the Government’s action was a “demonstration of democratic processes at work”. Isn’t that delightful? Perhaps 1 should also remind the Government of some of its actions in this matter. Does the House recall what happened just prior to the election in December, 1961? The president of the Liberal Party, Sir Philip McBride, forbade any of the Liberal candidates to appear on the programme known as “The Candidates”. What is that? Is that not an intervention in the personal rights of the people on the other side of the House and also a form of veiled threat to the members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission? I also remind the Government of the Dr. Peter Russo incident. That was not very long ago. What happened there? The Australian Broadcasting Commission was stood up. Yet members of the Government speak about no censorship or no suppression at all. I also remind them of the Intertel matter. Every one knows about that. The Australian Broadcasting Commission was somewhat timid for quite a while before it went into Intertel because it was thought that some of the programmes put forward might offend our great and powerful friends, as the Prime Minister says.

I have in my hand a booklet entitled “ Broad Highway - a Statement of Liberal Values To-day”. “To-day” was round about 1956. The preface was written by the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr. McMahon). This is what he wrote - “Broad Highway” is not complete in itself; lt is a beginning. But it does disclose a positive faith and underlines a challenge. One extract in particular defines the essence of the liberal outlook: “If the Liberal Party stood for nothing else than the liberty of man to work out his own destiny it would be embarking on a crusade which called foi superlative effort and determination.”

They are the sugary shibboleths that the Liberal Party embodies in the pamphlets that it puts out. This booklet also indicates at the outset what the Liberal Party stands for. Under the heading “The Liberal Party: What it stands for”, this is what it says -

We are apt to take liberty in Australia for granted. Yet it is under constant challenge, and chiefly by those who yearn for the all-powerful State.

Liberalism is Liberty.

Isn’t that delightful? What liberty have Dr. Darling and the other members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission got when they are likely to be hauled over the coals at the behest of the Postmaster-General who, under the Broadcasting and Television Act, has all-important powers? Need I remind this House that section 77 of that act gives the Minister a complete discretion as to what he wants to do? That is in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Sub-section (3.) of section 99 of that act gives the Minister the same discretion with respect to private television stations. I have no argument at all with that, but listen to what Sir Frank Packer had to say in “ The Bulletin “ of 23rd March. It is very pertinent and means that the news content of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television programmes could well be suspect, because if you subject the Australian Broadcasting Commission to government intervention in these things, how can the people be expected to believe that unbiased views come over the air, either on television or radio? I will quote from “ The Bulletin “ at page 5 of the issue dated 23rd March. The article is headed “Mr. Davidson’s Folly”. It certainly is a folly and that, I think, would be the journalistic under-statement of the year. The article states -

Mr. C. Davidson was quoted as saying that he had not thought about the question of precedents and that this particular matter was grave enough to justify immediate action. One can only say that it is the part of the job of a Minister of the Government to think about precedents. Since he has still not conceded anything in principle- and he still has not, this morning - the A.B.C. cannot yet be taken absolutely seriously as a news medium.

Mark those words! How very heartening to Sir Frank Packer to be able to say that of the Australian Broadcasting Commission! The article states further -

The Postmaster-General could easily have satisfied the French - assuming that this were considered desirable-

I should certainly say it was not - by banning the interview from the A.B.C. and left the private stations free.

That is what Sir Frank Packer had to say. That is the Liberal Party’s laisser-faire at its best. It is interesting also to note what the Leader of the Government in another place has to say about freedom. In answer to a question by my colleague, Senator McClelland, about the establishment of a press council to protect the interests of the people engaged in that industry and the public, Senator Sir William Spooner said, as reported at page 1286 of the Senate “Hansard” of 8th November, 1962-

However, I do not believe that you get a good national result when you have control of freedom.

I always find that hi the final analysis control ot freedom turns out to be something close to tyranny.

That is the view of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, so members of the Government speak with divers tongues. The Leader of the Government in the Senate spoke with a different tongue from that of Government representatives in this chamber. The honorable senator said, further -

Personally, I would sooner suffer a little disadvantage in the political arena from time to time rather than risk what I would think to be a far worse condition.

That is the great protagonist of liberalism in the Senate! But we have heard nothing of those values in this House this morning. I also have here the federal constitution of the Liberal Party of Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr HAROLD HOLT:
Treasurer · Higgins · LP

, - Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not easy for anybody listening to the contributions to this debate from the Opposition side of the House to understand just to what it is that members opposite are directing their attack. Is their argument that a government should have no powers of censorship? I think not, because governments from both sides of politics - in both war and peace - have, by the decision of this Parliament, incorporated in legislation powers giving an authority of censorship. Censorship is exercised in relation to the display of motion picture films, and in relation to radio programmes and television programmes, as a matter of weekly occurrence. So I do not imagine that the Opposition’s argument is that a government, acting on behalf of the Parliament and of the people, should not have a power of censorship in the national interest. Indeed, so far as the showing of television programmes by the Australian Broadcasting Commission is concerned, this Parliament has given the Minister in charge of the commission specific power to exercise judgment. It has given power not to an official, but to a Minister, to exercise judgment on behalf of the Parliament.

My friend from Evans (Mr. Monaghan) chose to produce a report of something which he alleged I had said to some students at the University of Melbourne. I am happy to have the opportunity to put before the House correctly what I did say to the students at the University of Melbourne. Nothing spoils a good newspaper story so quickly as the facts and nothing will destroy so quickly the sneer of the honorable member as the explanation of what actually occurred. I shall repeat, because I prefer to deal with this matter on the grounds of principle, what I said on that occasion. I said that this episode - not the action of the Postmaster-General (Mr. Davidson) but this whole episode - illustrates democratic processes at work.

If honorable members bother to analyse the events they will concur that that is a proper assessment of what happened. Fi; st of all it was a democratic process of this Parliament which gave the Minister the power to exercise judgment on behalf of the Government and of the Parliament and, therefore, on behalf of the people. It was an exercise of that democratic process that, after that judgment had been made, controversy developed. There was criticism through the press and a professor of law spoke on the A.B.C. itself, attacking the decision. An opportunity has now arisen in this Parliament for criticism of and an attack on that decision. These are all elements in the democratic processes as we understand them in this country. You can have your argument as to whether the Minister was right or wrong in the exercise of his judgment. If a majority of the people think a Minister is wrong then, in the way our processes work, his decision will not be supported.

In this case, in point of fact, the Government did not wait until all the democratic processes had been carried through to completion. It recognized that in the circumstances which it found on further and closer examination, the ban should not be maintained and it had the honesty and the commonsense to remove the ban as soon as it came to that conclusion. I think most people will accept that as a healthy and encouraging demonstration of how democratic processes work in this country, processes which do not work in authoritarian countries. As long as governments are so responsive to public opinion or to a changed view of the facts in their own eyes, a truly democratic situation will prevail in this country.

I regret having to devote some of my limited time to what came from the honorable member for Oxley (Mr. Hayden). He is a new member in this Parliament and, so far, has not been a very significant one. I say to him that if he continues to handle the truth as carelessly and as recklessly as he did here this- morning he will never amount to very much in this Parliament. I will not waste time in dealing with the allegations he has made against others, but by way of interjection on two statements he made in relation to me, I said, “They are both lies”. If the word “lie” is unparliamentary, I hope somebody win suggest to me a form of words which will enable me to say the same thing in substance, because that was the effect of what the honorable gentleman said. I say again - and I hope I will not have to go on saying it - that in my long association with this Parliament I have never once-

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

– Mr. Deputy Speaker, did you hear the Treasurer brand the statement of the honorable member for Oxley as a lie? Is that unparliamentary? Po you intend to allow him to get away with it?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! In the course of his speech the Treasurer stated that a certain statement which was made here was a lie and that he had said so previously. I rule that as the words he used referred to a previous statement I have not the authority at this moment to ask for a withdrawal.

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– Let us not waste any more of the limited time available to me in this debate. I deny, as I have before, that at any time in my long association with this Parliament have I sought to exercise an influence on the A.B.C. to suppress any material which otherwise it would put on the air or show on television.

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

– Have you threatened to withhold funds from the A.B.C?

Mr HAROLD HOLT:

– I have never threatened the A.B.C. in any shape or form at any time, either directly or indirectly. The Primp Minister (Sir Robert Menzies), the Postmaster-General and the Minister for Trade (Mr. McEwen) have given the facts which led to the decision. I have stated the legal basis and the principle behind it. That still leaves room for dis agreement if people do not hold to the judgment which my colleague reached. No one has any illusion as to why this matter has been raised this morning and in these circumstances. As I said to the students at the University of Melbourne, if you want evidence of an invasion of the democratic process then in recent weeks there has been one of the most serious invasions that has ever come to my knowledge in my long association with this Parliament. I was referring to the action of an organization, which is not responsible to the electorate, in instructing elected members of this Parliament to refrain from offering public views on matters of foreign affairs and defence. If honorable gentlemen opposite want to stand for democracy and to resist repression, let them have the courage to resist what is one of the most repressive and intimidatory actions that we have known to occur in the life of this federation.

We should not be surprised that this has happened. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) is conspicuous by his absence from this place when a matter of this kind is being debated. One can understand why he is absent. Honorable gentlemen opposite have called the Government’s action an act of political censorship. Of course it is not political censorship in the sense that we in this country understand the term. Where has the Labour Party been affected adversely in any way in this incident either by repression or otherwise? This is not a matter of party political censorship at all, and honorable members opposite know it. But they do not have to go back very far to find a Labour government which did not hesitate to exercise political censorship and to exercise that censorship at the point of a pistol directed at the newspaper proprietors of this country. I have in my hand the documentary record of the time. It shows an interesting picture of an Australian policeman trying to prevent the distribution of Australian newspapers at pistol point, following an act of political censorship by the present Leader of the Opposition. The hoardings in those days carried these banners - “ Telegraph Banned: Political Censorship “ and “ Heralds Banned Today “. That was when political censorship banned the “ Daily Telegraph “ for four days. Was the present Leader of the Opposition repentant about that? No! He said -

I was never prouder of anything in my life.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr. Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented by the Treasurer. I was sitting beside the honorable member for Wills (Mr. Bryant) when I heard the Treasurer refer to me as a liar. He said that I told lies. He stated that he had not telephoned the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that he had not intimidated it. I have a clear recollection of the debate in this House and of the statement, or shall we say the confession, which he made. He did admit that he had telephoned the A.B.C. and that he had requested it to take a news item out of a programme. He also cannot deny that his purpose in ringing the A.B.C.-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order!

Mr Hayden:

– I ask that he withdraw his statement.

Mr Harold Holt:

– I rise to make a personal explanation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have been misrepresented. The honorable member for Oxley (Mr. Hayden), having just heard me deny emphatically that I had taken any such action, has repeated the offence. I do not know how often I have to go on denying it, but if the honorable gentleman cares to make that statement outside this Parliament I shall see that suitable action is taken against him.

Mr Hayden:

– Mr. Deputy Speaker-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Oxley will resume his seat.

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa

.- Mr. Speaker, the House is discussing this Government’s political censorship as in the ban on the Bidault television interview. The Government has been defended by the Leader and Deputy Leader of each of the Government parties, that is by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Menzies), the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. McEwen), the PostmasterGeneral (Mr. Davidson) and the Treasurer (Mr. Harold Holt). The first three were the men immediately responsible for imposing the ban and later removing it. I gather that the Treasurer was not responsible for the ban and did not have to accept responsibility for removing it. He is content to condone it. Most of his remarks were directed to three persons - himself, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell) and the honorable member for Oxley (Mr. Hayden). For the first time he had to defend himself against the treatment accorded him by the “ Daily Telegraph “, which, on 16th March last, reported him in these terms -

He said the Bidault case was a very good demonstration of the democratic process at work. This statement was greeted with laughter.

The whole country is still laughing at this statement.

Then the right honorable gentleman abused the Leader of the Opposition. It will be recalled that the Leader of the Opposition went to Sydney last night to farewell the Queen, and the right honorable gentleman well knew that he would not be present at this morning’s debate. But as a typical side-swipe, the Treasurer referred to the absence of the Leader of the Opposition. Then he referred to the exercise of censorship during the war by the Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Minister for Information. In that capacity the present Leader of the Opposition acted on the advice of officials, most of whom had been appointed when the first Menzies Government was in office. It is sufficient commentary on the merits of the dispute to say that in the court case in question the newspapers discontinued their proceedings and paid their own costs.

Mr Harold Holt:

– The High Court found they had acted wrongly. You know that.

Mr WHITLAM:

– Did you say the High Court acted wrongly?

Mr Harold Holt:

– No. The High Court found he had acted wrongly.

Mr WHITLAM:

– That is not my recollection. If that were so, the Commonwealth should have paid the newspapers’ costs, instead of their having to pay their own.

Next, the right honorable gentleman reflected on the honorable member for Oxley. Not satisfied with calling the honorable member for Oxley a liar during the latter’s speech while you, Mr. Speaker, were not in the chair and emboldened by the fact that we did not interrupt the honorable member for Oxley by calling for a withdrawal at the time the right honorable gentleman recounted his interjection and with the tolerance of Mr. Deputy Speaker established an apparently anomalous exception to the rules of debate and good conduct of this House. The Treasurer said that he had not telephoned the Australian Broadcasting Commission and had not in any way contacted it.

Mr Harold Holt:

– I did not.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I mean concerning the remarks of Bishop Strong on West New Guinea.

Mr Harold Holt:

– In regard to the remarks of Bishop Strong, yes. That is correct.

Mr WHITLAM:

– I accept the right honorable gentleman’s correction. I have looked at the report of the quite long and confusing debate on that subject on 4th April, 1962. The right honorable gentleman said then that he had not contacted the commission about its telecast at 7 p.m. on Sunday, 2nd April, in relation to Bishop Strong’s comment, but that he had telephoned the commission about the reported comments of the Leader of the Opposition and had indicated to the commission his wish to give a statement of facts which he thought would give a balanced picture of the matter.

We all are familiar with the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s technique. It will publish statements made by Ministers as being factual, but if anything is said or is desired to be said by the Opposition a balanced picture must be given by calling in a statement from the Government. If the Government is not prepared to give a statement, very often no statement is recorded on behalf of the Opposition. We all have had the experience of the commission contacting us to see whether we would participate in a certain debate and of being informed later that no Liberals were willing or able to debate the contentious issues proposed. Therefore, there has been a silencing of comments on contentious matters because so many Ministers have been unwilling and unable to debate them over the commission’s stations, and over commercial stations too.

The right honorable gentleman has declared that he protested against the report from the Leader of the Opposition but did not comment on the report of the remarks of - Bishop Strong concerning West New Guinea. The Australian Broadcasting Commission, quite fortuitously and coincidentally, dropped Bishop Strong’s comments from the 9 p.m. telecast. That is just how it happened; it was a pure fluke. Bishop Strong’s remarks were dismissed by the Prime Minister on the same day as being “ some comment by somebody called Bishop Strong”. Neither the Prime Minister nor the Treasurer has displayed good manners in this case, but I need not refer to the matter any further because nobody wants to embarrass further the most reverend gentleman who this morning was enthroned as Archbishop of Brisbane.

I now come back to the remarks made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General about the subject immediately under discussion. It is clear that Australian Liberals are not as tolerant as are British Conservatives and that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is not as free as the British Broadcasting Corporation. The Bidault television interview was telecast over the British Broadcasting Corporation’s network and the British Government deplored it, but that Government made no attempt to ban the telecast. It may be that the telecast should never have been made in Australia; but it should not have been banned either. Britain, which is next door to France, was prepared to show it. M. Bidault was a political refugee in Germany within a few weeks after the conclusion of the FrancoGerman pact. We must think that France is extraordinarily sensitive in this part of the world when no protest was made, as I understand the situation, to the British Government concerning the British Broadcasting Corporation’s telecast or to the German Government about M. Bidault being a refugee in that country.

This is the latest but the most serious example of undisputed interference by this Government with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. We remember the censorship exercised in 1956 over Mr. Rohan Rivett’s proposed broadcast on the Suez incident. So many cuts were made in his script that he was not prepared to go ahead with it because it distorted his honest views. Incidentally, those views have been borne out by history and in British and Australian official thinking since that time. Again in 1961 there was the

Intertel episode when Sir Richard . Boyer was haled before the Prime Minister. Sir Richard’s heart was broken at the way in which the Prime Minister would not at that stage let the commission go ahead with its arrangements with Canadian, British and two American organizations to pool their resources to make television films about matters of mutual interest. The Australian Broadcasting Commission was not allowed to produce, although AssociatedRediffu610n Limited, of London, later did produce a film on. Canada entitled “Living with a Giant”. It was feared on that occasion that we would offend America.

The Liberal attitude was shown in outside influence when Sir Philip McBride instructed Liberal candidates at the last general election not to participate in the candidates’ session in November and December, 1961. Then four or five months ago there was an interview between the Prime Minister and the new chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Dr. Darling, about a broadcast by Dr. Peter Russo. In all these cases there was interference with free speech; but this is the first occasion on which there has ever been a direction under the Broadcasting Act or the Broadcasting and Television Act against any commercial station or the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is salutary that the Parliament has discussed this matter, because all the world can see that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General not only are guilty men but are not contrite.

Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar

– I find that I need all my customary charity in approaching this subject, because of the way in which the Opposition has handled it. But I do not think honorable members opposite would have spoken with what would otherwise have been inordinate hypocrisy had they really remembered their own past in the matter. The Labour Party at the present moment wants to stand as the champion of liberty against censorship. Members of that party do not remember their own past. They do not remember that when they were in office - happily, a long time ago and, happily, I believe, it will be a long time before that position will be repeated - they themselves were guilty not only of bringing pressure to bear on the Australian Broadcasting Com mission. They shut up the press and they went to very great lengths in order to stifle criticism of their action. I say this with some personal knowledge, because on the orders of the Federal Cabinet during Labour’s regime I was myself summoned before a court in Sydney-

Mr Clark:

– Rightly so.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– Rightly so, the honorable member says! I was summoned before a court in Sydney for writing a letter to the press on the matter of censorship. I propose to read to the House the letter concerned, which I wrote before I was a member of this House. It was written on 26th April, 1944, and was published in the Sydney press, and its publication caused me to be summoned before a court by the Labour Cabinet. It read -

Everybody agrees that the censorship which prevents vital news reaching the enemy is a necessity of war, and it is precisely because this is universally admitted that we must now oppose in every way the abuse of censorship for political purposes. Democracy can be nullified if corrupt politicians get control of its mechanisms. All our liberties are in jeopardy if once we lose our freedom of speech - the first of the Four Freedoms of the Atlantic Charter. The recent action of the Minister for Information-

That was Mr. Calwell- . . in closing up the press, proceeds so patently from a political motive rather than from the desire to further the prosecution of the war, that it must be opposed without reserve.

As representative of the family which founded Hie first free paper here in Sydney, perhaps I moy be permitted to quote from the first issue at the “ Australian “: - “Conflicting opinions and conflicting interests arise, individual influence is - apt to luxuriate and flourish where there exists no corrective to check its exuberance or prevent its growth. A free press is the most legitimate and at the same time the most powerful weapon that can be employed to annihilate such influence, frustrate the designs of tyranny, and restrain the arm of oppression. Without its active and liberal cooperation, the biassed views of party frequently preponderate, while the true interests of the public languish and are overlooked.”

These words are as true and as pertinent to-day as when they were first published in 1824, to the scandal of the Sydney bureaucrats, who did not hesitate to gaol and deport in order to suppress criticism of the Governor. It would seem that the wheel has now come full circle, and that the most extreme measures of the law are to be invoked to preserve the authorities from criticism. The “ planned state “ apparently, includes the inviolability of the “planners” and, judged by the illuminating preview given by courtesy of Mr. Calwell, may not be very different from the “ planned state “ of the colony’s pre-parliamentary days. The “ “ new order “, it would seem, will incorporate many of the more vicious features of the “ old order “.

No solution of the present press impasse can be satisfactory unless it includes a public inquiry into the political operations of the censorship. Such an inquiry can now be conducted without any chance of disclosing valuable information to the enemy: And those who seek to postpone it upon these grounds are clearly actuated by the fear that the inquiry will incriminate them.

I wrote this in 1944, and within a couple of days of its publication I found myself the subject of a summons to appear before the court in respect of what I had written. That summons was issued by a Mr. Pearson, who, lt was said in court, was acting as an officer of the Labour Government. I would say, and the House will agree with me, that that was an eminently proper letter to have written. There was nothing in it deserving of censorship. It gave nothing to the enemy. The only objection to it would be a political objection. The Labour Government set in motion the machinery of the law to have me brought before the court in respect of that letter.

The Chief Justice, in his views - and they are recorded in the press of the day - made it very clear that he regarded the Government’s action as an abuse of a legal process, as a contempt of court with the motive of shutting up proper criticism, and, of course, no order was issued in respect of the action instituted by the Government. The court was unable to find that I had transgressed in any way, and it is perfectly obvious from the letter that there was no such transgression. But here are those same people - because the Leader Of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell), who was then Minister for Information, was the moving spirit in this - now coming forward with unexampled hypocrisy and saying, “We are the champions of liberty against censorship “. What nonsense that is, Mr. Speaker! These are the people who, when they were in power, used their powers of censorship not just against the Australian Broadcasting Commission in a matter of national interest but in order to protect their own corrupt political interests. This is what they did. This is their history. This is who they are.

Now, the public may be inclined to forget the differences between Labour in opposi tion- and Labour in office. The Labour Party in opposition will come forward, hypocritically, as it is coming forward to-day, posing as the champion of liberty. The Labour Party in office uses every corrupt device which it can lay its hands on in order to stifle criticism.

Mr Duthie:

– Mr. Speaker, I ask for a withdrawal of that statement. It is a gross reflection on everybody who was a member of the Parliament at the time in question. I was a member.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honorable member for Mackellar is in order and may continue his speech.

Mr WENTWORTH:

– The Labour Party when in office used every corrupt device to stifle criticism, and the Labour Party is now much more dangerous even than it was in those days, because in those days the totalitarian Communist influence was not organized inside the Labour Party as it is to-day. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I know that there are many members of the Labour Party - many members sitting opposite - who are just as opposed to this as I am. It is for them a misfortune that their party organization carries in. its vitals this corrupting Communist influence which is allied with the proclivity to totalitarianism that has been shown - and from my own personal experience I know this has been shown in the past - by the people at present in charge of the Labour Party. It is from this that the real danger springs and it is because of this that the people of Australia will never again entrust the government of this country to the Labour Party.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! As the time for general business has expired, Government business will be called on.

page 159

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY BILL 1963

Motion (by Sir Robert Menzies) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act relating to the Australian National University.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir ROBERT MENZIES:
KooyongPrime Minister · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a very short measure with a simple purpose. I do not think it win excite any controversy. It gives to the Australian National University power to make astronomical and meteorological observations in any part of the Commonwealth.

The Australian National University Act 1946-1960 is, as its long title says, “ An act to establish and incorporate a University in the Australian Capital Territory”.. The words “ in the Australian Capital Territory “ are, for the present purpose, the significant ones. It is, of course, evident that the Australian National University cannot, and is not expected to, confine all its activities to the Australian Capital Territory. In particular, it has been obvious for some time that the astronomical functions transferred to it by the Commonwealth in 1956 could involve it in activities anywhere in Australia. Though the head-quarters of the Department of Astronomy remain at Mount Stromlo Observatory in this Territory it has been necessary to set up for that observatory a field station at some point where clearer viewing is available. After the most careful site-testing programme, extending over some years and bringing into consideration at various times ten different sites, it has been decided to establish a field station on Siding Spring Mountain, near Coonabarabran, New South Wales.

In addition to this undertaking connected with the Mount Stromlo Observatory, the university has made clear in its annual reports its long range and possibly more important search for another observatory site for major instrumental development. This search has led it to examine sites over a much wider territory including some in South Australia and Western Australia. No quick decision can be expected here, however.

The Commonwealth has full power to make laws for the government of one of its territories but no constitutional powers with respect to universities as such throughout Australia. Since the present functions of the university are defined in the act with reference to the Australian Capital Territory, it seemed wise to vest the university wilh a specific power, not confined to the Australian Capital Territory, to undertake astronomical observations.

The Commonwealth, of course, has itself a power under section 51(l)(viii) of the Constitution Act which is most apt, for it concerns “ astronomical and meteorological observations “. We have accordingly proposed in this bill to vest the Australian National University in the terms of the Commonwealth power. “ Astronomical “ is for the moment the particular aspect of concern of the university, but we have considered with the university council the question whether or not “ meteorological observations “ might specifically be provided for at the same time and we are convinced, as I am sure honorable members all will be, that they should be.

I believe that we will all be happy to see the university pressing on so energetically in this field of inquiry and, therefore, I am pleased to be able to commend this bill to the House and to move that it be read a second time.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Beazley) adjourned.

page 160

COPYRIGHT BILL 1963

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Copyright Act 1912-1950.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Copyright Act 1912-1950 in respect of the procedure governing submissions to arbitration under section 13a of the act. This section makes provision for voluntary arbitration in disputes concerning the public performance of literary, dramatic, musical or other works, or of recordings of such works. Under the section, any party to such a dispute may apply in writing to the Attorney-General for the determination of the dispute by voluntary arbitration by an arbitrator mutually selected or, failing such selection, by the Governor-General.

Section 13A was inserted in the Copyright Act in 1933. As a result of complaints concerning the conditions imposed by the Australasian Performing Right Association on the public performance of works, the copyright in which was owned by the members of the association, a royal commission was appointed to inquire into the matter. The royal commissioner recommended that a tribunal should be set up to which either party to a dispute concerning the public performance of work in copyright might resort. Many eminent authors and composers as well as the Australasian Performing Right Association and similar bodies opposed the recommendation. As a result of this opposition, it seems, the government of the day did not adopt the recommendation. Instead, the act was amended to provide for voluntary resort to arbitration on the basis of a submission concurred in by all the parties.

For many years, no use was made of this provision, but recently an application was made to me for the determination of a dispute by voluntary arbitration under section 13a. On looking into the law which would govern the arbitration, I found that this would depend on the State or territory of the Commonwealth in which the arbitration takes place. It seemed to me to be undesirable that, in a matter which was intended to settle the rights of the parties on a Commonwealth-wide basis under a Commonwealth act, the law might depend on Ohe place in which for the time being the arbitrator sat.

The bill now before the House therefore seeks to set out in the act itself the law governing an arbitration under the section so that recourse to State arbitration law will no longer be required. Not without some reluctance, because the Government has under consideration proposals for relieving the High Court of minor work, I have included in the bill provisions for vesting in the High Court such of the functions normally vested in a supreme court under the State laws as are necessary to the conduct of such an arbitration. These provisions follow, in part, provisions which are generally common to the arbitration laws of the States. Some modifications have been made necessary by the constitutional limitations on the powers that may be conferred on the High Court.

Honorable members will be aware that I have been giving close attention for some time to the report of a Copyright Law Review Committee, of which Mr. Justice Spicer was chairman. Indeed, I had hoped that it would have been possible for me to bring down during this session a bill which would substantially revise the law relating to copyright. The House should know that the fact that this bill has been brought forward at this time to deal with an immediate problem does not mean any abandonment of the larger project. I commend this bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 161

SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS BILL 1963

Motion (by Sir Garfield Barwick) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend the Service and Execution of Process Act 1901-1958.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK (Parramatta - Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General [2.45] - by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

This is a bill to amend the existing provisions of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1901-1958 and to add a new part to the act authorizing the enforcement in one State or territory of fines imposed by a court in another State or Territory.

As honorable members are aware, the Service and Execution of Process Act was one of the measures introduced into the first Federal Parliament and became the eleventh act on the Commonwealth statutebook. In fact, legislation of this nature has an even longer history, as the Service and Execution of Process Act itself repealed enactments of the Federal Council of Australasia dating back to 1886. Basically, the act is still the same as when it was originally passed, although it has been amended from time to time to extend its operation to additional court process and to meet modem circumstances.

The main purpose of this bill is to add a new part to the act, Part IVa, the effect of which may be briefly described as making provision for the enforcement in one State of fines imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction in another State. The bill includes provisions in regard to the Territories, as I shall mention later, but it will simplify matters if I refer to the position as between States. The system of enforcement of fines involved in the new part has been requested by all of the States and I have discussed the proposed machinery with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, who are satisfied that the machinery is adequate for their purposes and that it will also properly safeguard the rights of individuals.

There is at present in Part III. of the act machinery which can be used for the enforcement of a fine imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction in one State when the offender does not pay the fine and is in another State. Under that procedure, a warrant of arrest issued in the State where the fine was imposed may be endorsed by a magistrate in another State. It then authorizes the arrest of the offender in that other State and he is brought before a magistrate in that State. The magistrate may order the offender’s return to the State in which the fine was imposed and the offender is, on his return to the State that imposed the fine, imprisoned in that State for the proper period in respect of his nonpayment of the fine.

Honorable members will appreciate that the procedure that I have just outlined is necessarily elaborate and costly. It involves sending a police escort from the State where the fine was imposed to take the offender back to that State from the place of arrest. In many cases, the cost to the State concerned would far exceed the amount of the fine in question. Where the State decides it should nevertheless go through the procedure, the procedure can involve additional hardship on the defaulter by removing him from his home State to undergo a term of imprisonment in another State, and then leaving him to make his own way home.

With the ever-increasing amount of travel between the States, the occasions on which persons may be guilty of offences, particu larly traffic offences, in States other than their home States are increasing from day to day and the problem of the enforcement of fines against persons who are not in the State in which the fine is imposed also is increasing. In these circumstances, each of the States has represented to the Commonwealth that it is desirable that some more effective system should be applied under the Service and Execution of Process Act for the enforcement of fines and the States have requested that the system should take the form of a provision whereby the defaulter may be imprisoned in the State in which he is found. I should point out, of course, that an offender who, after receipt of advice of the fine from the court that imposed the fine, remits the amount of the fine to that court, is not in any way affected by the proposed legislation, which applies only to cases where the person fined neglects to pay the fine imposed. The legislation will extend to the States, the Northern Territory, the Australian Capital Territory and such other Territories as are proclaimed, and to fines imposed for breaches of State or Territory law and breaches of a law of the Commonwealth, other than a revenue law.

The bill provides that where a fine is imposed and a warrant of arrest has or could be issued against the offender who is in a State other than that in which the fine was imposed, the clerk of the court by which the fine was imposed or a justice of the peace may issue a warrant for the apprehension of the offender. The form of the warrant is set out in the schedule to the bill. The warrant is addressed to members of the police force in the State where the offender is believed to be. When the offender is found, a constable who is authorized to execute the warrant will first give the offender an opportunity of paying the amount of the fine. If the offender pays the fine, he will not be arrested and the constable will return the warrant and the amount of the fine to the court that issued it.

If the offender does not pay the constable, the offender may be arrested and taken before a nearby court, which is empowered to remand the offender or grant bail. If the court is satisfied that the person before the court is the offender for whose arrest the warrant was issued and that the fine remains unpaid, the court shall commit the offender to gaol. The bill contains a provision to facilitate the determination of the identity of the person, that is, clause 26f(2.), which permits a presumption of identity where the person in custody does not give evidence to dispute the identity.

Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
LP

– No, it does not change the onus. There is an opportunity to give evidence that he is not the person. The maximum term of imprisonment which a court can order is the period specified in the warrant or six months, whichever is the shorter. Provision is made for rebate of part of the period of imprisonment if the offender has paid or pays portion of the fine. The rebate of the term of imprisonment to be granted for partpayment is to be calculated proportionately.

In essence, the scheme proposed is a simple one. Its object is to permit imprisonment in the State in which the offender is found in lieu of taking the offender back to the State where the fine was imposed and imprisoning him in that State. It has, however, been found necessary to make what will appear to honorable members to be quite elaborate provisions to give effect to this scheme, partly in an endeavour to ensure that no injustice or hardship will be imposed on any individual, and partly to meet the quite novel complications of fact and law which may arise when a person can be imprisoned in one State for a fine imposed in another State. I commend the detailed provisions in this regard to the attention of honorable members. I do not propose to detain the House to go through them in great detail. However, there are some matters to which I think I should draw particular attention.

I draw attention to the provision of subsection (4.) of proposed section 26f, which permits a court to postpone the making of an order of committal for the purpose of allowing an offender time for payment or for payment by instalments. The court is not to be allowed to order costs. The making of an order of commitment will not prevent an offender from either paying the fine in full and thus securing his release, or from paying portion of the fine and receiv ing a proportionate rebate, that is, of tha term of imprisonment. A person committed to prison under the provisions of tha bill is to be released if the fine is remitted. Where a person has been imprisoned for failure to pay a fine he is upon release discharged from any liability to pay the amount of the fine or from any liability to be imprisoned by reason of non-payment. I draw attention to the provisions of proposed section 26m prohibiting the issue of a warrant in respect of the apprehension, or the committal of, a person who is believed to be under the age of eighteen years.

The bill also makes some amendments to the existing machinery of the act. Excluding formal amendments, the first amendment is to section 3, the definition section. Clause 3 repeals the present definition clause and re-enacts it with a new definition of the word “ suit “. The real purpose of this amendment is to facilitate the service of process issued under State or Territorial law for the maintenance of deserted wives and children and affiliation proceedings. The amendment is made necessary by decisions of the Supreme Courts of some States that a maintenance summons, for example, is a process for the service of which section 4 of the act applies, and not section 15. The new definition excludes from the meaning of the word “ suit “ for the purposes of the act proceedings under State law for the maintenance of wives or children and other proceedings in the criminal jurisdiction of the courts, and will thereby make it quite clear that section 15 applies to such process.

Clause 6 proposes to amend section 15 by adding the words “ or supported by “ after the words “ made on “. The present provisions of the act only permit a summons or information made on oath to be served under the provisions of the act. Not all informations, complaints or applications are made on oath. It is, I think, generally agreed that people living in a State other than the one where a process is issued should not be required to answer a charge in the issuing State unless there is something of substance before the court which requires their appearance. The requirement that the process should be supported by oath is a sound one and the insertion of the words proposed by the clause will enable a process to issue which does not have itself to be made on oath whilst still giving the protection of a requirement of an oath before the process can be effectively served under the act in another State or Territory.

Clause 7 extends the class of persons who by virtue of section 16 of the act may grant leave to serve a subpoena in a State other than the State of issue. The present provisions are not wide enough to permit court officials - ‘for example, a master or prothonotary - to grant the leave. The proposed amendment will enable court officers to grant leave if they are so authorized by State law.

Clause 8 amends section 16a. That section provides machinery whereby a person imprisoned in one State may be produced in custody in another State to give evidence in a case in the latter State. Under the existing provisions of section 16a, when an order is made by a court for the production of a prisoner from another State, the State in which the prisoner is serving a sentence can be put to considerable expense in complying with the order. The present provisions of the section provide that the court before which the prisoner is produced may make an order as to costs. The amendment proposed will enable the court which makes the order for the production of the prisoner to order that the party applying for the production of the prisoner give security for the reasonable costs involved in his production. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 164

WOOL TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1963

Motion (by Mr. Adermann) agreed to -

That leave be given to bring in a bill for an act to amend section thirteen of the Wool Tax Assessment Act 1936-1962.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– by leave - I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The current wool tax legislation provides for a levy for wool promotion at the rate of 10s. a bale, with proportionate rates for smaller quantities. That rate originally applied, at the request of the wool-growing industry, from 28th August, 1961, to 30th June, 1962, and was extended last April to operate until 30th June, 1963, again at the request of the industry. The purpose of this bill, and of the two complementary wool tax bills which follow, is to amend the existing legislation to provide for a further extension of the present rate of wool promotion levy until 30th June, 1964.

The Government decided to extend the operation of the rate of levy after the Australian Wool Industry Conference informed me that, at its inaugural meeting in February, it had resolved that the rate of wool promotion levy for the year 1st July, 1963, to 30th June, 1964, should be 10s. a bale. Honorable members will recall that the conference was formed in October last year and that I dealt with its formation and functions in some detail in my secondreading speech to this House on the Wool Industry Bill on 29th November, 1962.

The industry has found it necessary to determine the rate of promotion levy annually because of the somewhat fluid position that has existed in the industry over the past three years, due first to the investigations of the Wool Marketing Committee of Enquiry and then to consideration of the committee’s report. I anticipate that in subsequent years when the con f errence and the Australian Wool Board will both be fully operative the conference will be in a position to recommend a maximum rate of levy for wool promotion and research as well as the operative rates each year. The maximum rate would be incorporated in legislation and the operative rate would be fixed by regulation, from time to time.

The Wool Tax Assessment Bill simply modifies the requirements for a return submitted by wool-selling brokers and dealers for the last quarter of the financial year so that it will apply to the quarter ending 30th

June, 1964, instead of 1963 as at present. The extension of the current rates of levy for wool promotion meets the wishes of the industry. The continuation of the rate will enable the Australian Wool Bureau and, of course, the Australian Wool Board later, to carry on uninterrupted its vital wool promotion activities both in Australia and, through the International Wool Secretariat, in overseas countries. I commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

WOOL TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 and 2) 1963.

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

  1. That, notwithstanding section seven of the Wool Tax Act (No. 1) 1957-1962 and any regulations made under that section, the rates set out in the Third Schedule to that Act be deemed to have been and be the rates prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section six of that Act in relation to -

    1. wool received by a wool-broker (not being wool previously received by a woolbroker or dealer) on or after the twenty-eighth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, and before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-four, other than wool that -
    1. is received after the thirty-first day of March, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-four; and

    2. is not sold by the wool-broker before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-four; and

    3. wool received by a dealer (not being wool previously received by a wool-broker or dealer) on or after the twenty-eighth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, and before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-four.

  2. That, notwithstanding section seven of the Wool Tax Act (No. 2) 1957-1962 and any regulations made under that section, the rates set out in the Third Schedule to that Act be deemed to have been and be the rates prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1.) of section six of that Act in respect of wool to which that Act applies exported from Australia on or after tha twenty-eighth day of August, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-one, and before the first day of July, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-four.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Resolution reported.

Standing Orders suspended; resolution adopted.

Ordered -

That Mr. Adermann and Mr. Cramer do prepare and bring in bills to carry out the foregoing resolution.

page 165

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1963

Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of these bills is to extend from 30th June, 1963, to 30th June, 1964, the operation of the current rates of levy on wool-growers for wool promotion purposes. The rates are 10s. a bale, with proportionate amounts for smaller parcels.

I point out to honorable members that the measures are complementary and that the need for two separate bills arises from a constitutional requirement. Wool Tax Act (No. 1) applies to levies, paid by woolgrowers for promotion and research, on wool received by a wool broker or dealer, while Wool Tax Act (No. 2) relates to the same levies paid on wool exported which does not pass through the hands of a broker or dealer. Apart from this difference the two acts are identical and to suit the convenience of the House this speech covers both bills. I commend the bills to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 165

WOOL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1963

Bill presented by Mr. Adermann, and read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr ADERMANN:
Minister for Primary Industry · Fisher · CP

– I move -

That the bill be now read a second time.

The amendments proposed in this bill were explained in my speech relating to the Wool Tax Bill (No. 1) 1963. 1 commend the bill to honorable members.

Debate (on motion by Mr. Whitlam) adjourned.

page 166

TARIFF PROPOSALS 1963

Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 58); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 59); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 60); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 61); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 62); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 63); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 64); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 65); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 66); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 67); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 68); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 69); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 70); Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 71); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 6); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 7); Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 8); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 12); Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 13)

In Committee of Ways and Means:

Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP

– I move - [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 58).]

  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 amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twenty-first day of December, 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: - 15th November, 1962; 29th November, 1962; and 6th December, 1962.

[Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 59).]

  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 amendments operate, and be deemed to have operated, on and after the twenty-first day of December, 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: - 15th November, 1962; 29th November, 1962; and 6th December, 1962.

page 169

THE SCHEDULE

page 169

THE CUSTOMS TARIFF

By omitting Prefatory Note (15) and inserting in its stead the following Prefatory Note: - " (15) Unless the Tariff otherwise provides or the Minister otherwise directs, composite machines consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines adapted for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function.". [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 60).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 61).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 62).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 63).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 64).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 65).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 66).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 67).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 68).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 69).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 70).] [Customs Tariff Amendment (No. 71).] [Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 6).] That the Second Schedule to the. Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-1962, as proposed to ba amended by' Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the sixth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, 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-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. {: .page-start } page 192 {:#debate-30} ### THE SCHEDULE Omit consecutive number, 50 in column 1 and the particulars specified in columns 2 and 3 opposite to consecutive number 50 and insert the following consecutive number and particulars: - [Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 7).] That the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-62, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the sixth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, 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-first day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. {: .page-start } page 193 {:#debate-31} ### THE SCHEDULE [Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Amendment (No. 8).] That the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) 1960-62 as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (Canada Preference) Proposals introduced into the House of Representatives on the sixth day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, 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 fifth day of February, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-three, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. {: .page-start } page 193 {:#debate-32} ### THE SCHEDULE Omit consecutive number 50 in column 1 and the particulars specified in columns 2, 3 and 4 opposite to consecutive number SO and insert the following consecutive numbers and particulars: - [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 12).] [Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Amendment (No. 13).] That the Schedule to the Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) 1933-1962, as proposed to be amended by Customs Tariff (New Zealand Preference) Proposals, be further 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 twentyfirst day of December, One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two, and that Duties of Customs be collected accordingly. **Mr. Chairman,** Customs Tariff Proposals Nos. 58 to 69 which I have just tabled relate to tariff alterations which have been made since Parliament rose in December last. In accordance with section 273ea 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. 60, 62, 66 and 68 provide for temporary duties on belting fabric, knives incorporating " Waterloo " type bolsters, polyethylene, other than high density, furnishing fabrics, conveyor or elevator belts or belting not being wholly of rubber or synthetic rubber. In each of these instances temporary duties, which are additional to the normal duties, were imposed following reports by a Special Advisory Authority. Proposals Nos. 58 to 59, 61, 63 to 65, 67 and 69 arise from consideration by the Government of recommendations by the Tariff Board. Customs Tariff Proposals No. 58 provide for amendments on weftless fabrics, vehicle road wheels, rims and rim side rings, and tinned iron and steel hoop, strip plates and sheets. New or increased protective duties have been imposed on weftless fabrics and certain sizes of truck and trailer wheels. In respect of tinned iron and steel strip and plates, the operation of the existing deferred protective duties has been further postponed. An increase in the scope of protection for the machine tool industry is accorded by Proposals No. 59. Protective duties will apply to all types of metal-working machines considered by the board to be economically and efficiently manufactured in Australia. Proposals No. 61 relate to taximeters, tapered roller bearings, automotive electrical equipment, and styrene monomers, polymers and copolymers. For each of those commodities the new duties are of a protective nature. In respect of taximeters they will offer greater protection against imports from low-cost countries. The new duties on tapered roller bearings and automotive electrical equipment will assist the manufacture in Australia of these components, including those for use in the original equipment of motor vehicles. The range of protection for the Australian cotton spinning industry has been extended by Proposals No. 63 to include certain fine cotton yarns which are now being produced in Australia. Proposals No. 64 partly implement the Tariff Board's recommendations on aluminium. The recommendations in respect of semi-fabricated products have been accepted by the Government, but in respect of unwrought aluminium and aluminium alloy there has been a consider.abe change in the world supply situation since the time of the board's inquiry and the Government considers that the obligations entered into when it sold its Bell Bay plant can only be met with certainty by continuing quantitative restrictions pending a further examination by the board in the light of the changed circumstances. Higher duties are imposed by Proposals No. 65 on safflower, soya bean and linseed oils. The new duties are in accordance with Tariff Board recommendations except that the sliding scale component of the duty on linseed oil has been modified out of consideration for the trade interests of the developing countries in accordance with Australia's world commodity policy. Proposals No. 67 provide for protective duties on electric shavers and synthetic rubber. The new rates are somewhat lower than the combined ordinary and temporary duties formerly in operation. Proposals No. 69 implement the Tariff Board's recommendations for continued tariff protection on garment formers and other yarns, i.e., other than yarns of wool, man-made fibres, cotton and glass fibre. Proposals No. 70 impose temporary duties to operate from to-morrow morning on phthalic esters, mainly used in the plastics field. The temporary duties do not apply to cellulose acetate phthalate which is not made in Australia nor to goods in transit to Australia on 1st March, 1963, which are entered for home consumption on arrival. The other proposals which I have just tabled, that is to say, Canada Preference Proposals Nos. 6 to 8 and New Zealand Preference Proposals Nos. 12 to 13, are complementary to the main proposals and are necessary to maintain preferential margins of duties. I have also tabled Customs Tariff Proposals No. 71 implementing the Tariff Board's report on electrical capacitors. The board has recommended high protective rates with a view to enabling the industry to review its position in the next two years when the protective needs of the industry will again be examined. I commend the proposals to honorable members. Progress reported. {: .page-start } page 196 {:#debate-33} ### TARIFF BOARD Reports on Items. {: #debate-33-s0 .speaker-KEN} ##### Mr FAIRHALL:
Minister for Supply · Paterson · LP -- I lay on the table of the House reports by the Tariff Board on the following subjects: - I also lay on the table of the House reports by a special advisory authority on the following subjects: - Ordered to be printed. {: .page-start } page 196 {:#debate-34} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-34-0} #### MALAYSIA {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK:
Minister for External Affairs and Attorney-General · Parramatta · LP -- by leave - For the information of honorable members I should like to make a statement on recent developments on Malaysia. The subject is one of considerable importance to Australia. A neighbouring country, the Federation of Malaya, with whom we have the friendliest of relations, is merging itself with other territories - Singapore, the British Borneo territories and Brunei - in a larger federation which will carry substantially greater responsibilities for foreign affairs and defence and internal government and administration. It is, of course, a development of considerable regional significance in South-east Asia, contributing as it does to the permanent structure and pattern of nation states in the area. As the House knows, this Government from the outset has watched with sympathetic interest the progress towards the establishment of the Federation of Malaysia. In a statement on 17th November, 1961, the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies),** who was then also Minister for External Affairs, described Malaysia as an " imaginative and far-sighted concept " which " if it proved practicable could contribute significantly to stability and progress in an area in whose development and progress Australia was deeply interested ". Not the least of the virtues of Malaysia, we felt, and we still feel, was that it represented a major act of orderly decolonization, bringing, as it would, a number of territories in various stages of dependence but with a common administrative background and currency and with close economic and political ties to full independence and security within a wider federation. We regard Malaysia as the best solution for the future of the Borneo territories and Singapore. It is in Australia's interests that the federation should come into existence, and we have framed and conducted our diplomacy accordingly. I intend to recount very briefly the main preparatory stage in the formation of Malaysia. A most important first step was the agreement between the Prime Ministers of the Federation of Malaya and of Singapore on 24th August, 1961, on the terms and conditions of Singapore's entry into Malaysia. This was an achievement of the first order of importance. Notwithstanding the extensive practical association between the two territories in trade, finance, communications and transport, there had been in recent years a serious drawing apart in political relationships. If unchecked this could have entered into and adversely affected the commercial field and led to further consequential deterioration politically. Great credit is due to the Federation and Singapore Governments for the realistic way in which they addressed themselves to this situation and concluded the agreement to which I have referred. The alternative, no doubt, for the Singapore Government would have been to have waged an anticolonial struggle against the British for a separate and independent Singapore, and in circumstances which might well have caused a flight of capital, leaving the island without the foundations of economic viability. It is, I repeat, a matter for satisfaction that the Singapore Government and people saw that their true interests for prosperity, economic growth and freedom lay in a merger with the federation. **Mr. Speaker,** let me say here that Australian trade and business have important interests in Malaya and Singapore. Not only is our direct trade substantial and expanding, but Australian businessmen in the secondary industry field are finding this region a most valuable one in which to expand their overseas activities in a variety of forms. The closer integration of the economics of Malaya, Singapore and the Borneo Territories, which Malaysia will bring about, should lead to considerably more Australian trade participation. In November, 1961, at talks in London between the British and Malayan governments, it was agreed that Malaysia was a desirable aim, but that a final decision could not be taken until the views of the peoples of North Borneo and Sarawak had been ascertained. It was also agreed that the position of Brunei should be discussed between the Brunei and Malayan governments. I should make it clear here that Britain has not been responsible for the internal affairs of Brunei in recent years. The sultanate has full internal selfgovernment, with Britain responsible by treaty for defence and security. The British and Malayan governments also decided, at the November, 1961, meeting, that the existing Anglo-Malayan defence agreement should be extended to embrace the whole of the new Malaysian Federation as and when founded. As regards the base facilities in Singapore, it was decided that Britain was to be permitted " to make such use of the bases and facilities as Britain may consider necessary for the purpose of assisting in the defence of, and for the preservation of peace in, South-East Asia ". The deliberate and far-sighted approach of the British and Malayan governments towards Malaysia was encouraging. We also noted with satisfaction that the concept of Malaysia had at this stage the goodwill of Indonesia. Speaking in the United Nations, also in November, 1961, **Dr. Subandrio,** the Indonesian Foreign Minister, said - >When Malaya told us of her intentions to merge with the three British crown colonies of Sarawak, Brunei and British North Borneo as one federation, we told them that we have no objections. > >Naturally, ethnologically and geographically speaking, this British part is closer to Indonesia than, let us say, to Malaya. But we still told Malaya that we have no objections to such a merger based upon the will for freedom of the peoples concerned. As I shall show, the " will for freedom " of the peoples of Sarawak and North Borneo has been clearly and positively expressed as being for freedom and independence within the Federation of Malaysia. The British and Malayan governments appointed a commission, comprising four distinguished men, under the chairmanship of Lord Cobbold, each with a first-hand knowledge and understanding of the area. From February to April last year the Cobbold commission travelled extensively throughout Sarawak and North Borneo and met over 4,000 persons, comprising members of the executive and legislative councils, political parties, native chieftains, community leaders, district and town councils, chambers of commerce, trades unions, religious leaders and other personalities. After careful examination of opinions freely and honestly expressed, the commission came to the conclusion that about one-third of the population of both Sarawak and North Borneo strongly supported entry into Malaysia. Another one-third, many of whom were generally favorable to Malaysia, wanted prior safeguards for special local interests, while the remaining one-third was divided between independence before Malaysia, or continued British rule. It was found that a hard core of extremists would always oppose Malaysia. This hard core was formed mainly of extremist Chinese who looked to mainland China, unlike many of the Chinese of the Malaysia region, who are loyal and valuable citizens of the territories where they live and bring up their families. In July, 1962, the British and Malayan Governments announced their acceptance of the Cobbold report and their agreement, in principle, that Malaysia should come into being by 31st August, 1963. In order to work out the constitutional arrangements, including the special safeguards required for the Borneo territories, an inter-governmental committee under the chairmanship of Lord Lansdowne, Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, was appointed. The North Borneo and Sarawak representatives on this committee included indigenous political leaders who were to play a leading part in the committee's deliberations. The concept of Malaysia, following the Cobbold report, was debated by the Sarawak and North Borneo legislative councils during September, 1962. Both councils passed resolutions - unanimously in North Borneo and without a dissenting vote in Sarawak - welcoming the decision that Malaysia should come into being by 31st August, 1963, provided that constitutional arrangements were made to safeguard the special interests of the Bornean peoples in such spheres as immigration, religion, education and language. 1 would remind honorable members that the Sarawak legislative council has a clear majority of elected unofficial members. Although the North Borneo council has a majority of nominated members, the general nature of the support for Malaysia was shown in local government elections when the pro-Malaysia party, the Sabah alliance, won no less than 95 of the 110 seats contested. Also significant was the public reaction in North Borneo to the Philippines claim to sovereignty over parts of North Borneo. All political parties joined in a letter to President Macapagal saying that the peoples of North Borneo did not wish to be incorporated in the Philippines. I should like to observe here that the Malaysia question has greatly accelerated the growth of political parties and organizations in Sarawak and Borneo. The widespread discussion and consultation have been invaluable in creating a body of informed opinion. And the experience gained by local political leaders in arguing and negotiating their case in the inter governmental councils will serve them in good part when they become national representatives and spokesmen in the central parliament in Kuala Lumpur. I do not wish honorable members to assume that there were no dissenting voices on Malaysia in the Borneo territories. Although the substantial majority was not in doubt, the Brunei Partai Ra-ayat. of which I shall have more to say later, the Sarawak United Peoples Party - a predominantly Chinese party with serious internal divisions - and a small political group in North Borneo, petitioned the United Nations in September, 1962, seeking intervention on the ground that the proposed transfer of sovereignty to Malaya was a denial of the right of selfdetermination. In fact the small Borneo political group which I mentioned almost immediately disassociated itself from this petition and joined the pro-Malaysia alliance in North Borneo. As a result of the Brunei revolt and the Partai Ra-ayat's illegal part in it, the Sarawak United Peoples Party withdrew the original joint submission, disassociated itself from the Brunei Partai Ra-ayat and submitted a separate one. The pro-Malaysia alliances in Sarawak and North Borneo have submitted counterpetitions. Both petition and counterpetition now lie before the United Nations Committee of Twenty-four on Decolonization. I have described so far progress and factors affecting Malaysia up to 8th December, 1962, when the North Borneo National Army, the illegal arm of the Brunei Partai Ra-ayat, began an armed insurrection in Brunei. Honorable members will be well aware of the course of the revolt, which was soon brought under control by British troops from Singapore. The causes of this revolt were rooted in local affairs ranging from dissatisfaction with the pace of constitutional change to grandiose schemes of a Borneo united under Brunei leadership. There was no question of Britain forcing Brunei into Malaysia, as some propaganda asserts. There is still no such question because whether or not Brunei enters Malaysia is a decision which will be taken solely by the Government of Brunei. More important than the revolt itself was its deep external consequences. Indonesian Government leaders, including President Soekarno himself, made plain Indonesia's moral support for Azahari's self-styled independence movement. Also, President Macapagal of the Philippines publicly criticized the proposed Malaysia Federation. I should record that all political parties in Sarawak and North Borneo, including the Sarawak United Peoples Party, sent a joint letter to President Soekarno in December, in which they disassociated themselves from Azahari, asked the President not to support the Brunei rebels and re-affirmed their support for Malaysia as the best way in which to gain independence from Britain. The Lansdowne committee, to which I have already referred, published its report in April at a time when it was rather overshadowed by the serious deterioration in relations between Indonesia and Malaya and by the active prosecution by the Philippines of its legal claims in respect of North Borneo. This document, however, is of great importance in that it contains the agreed results of the negotiations and discussions among the future partners in the Malaysia Federation on the nature and structure of the federation. The very wide measure of agreement among all interested parties, taken with the flexible and rational recommendations made, gives solid grounds for the future prospects of the federation. It became quite clear that the proposed federation, bearing in mind its nature and the proposed distribution of powers - so much scope in their own affairs being reserved for the Borneo territories - was the best available practical solution to the problems which the decolonizing of these territories - and Singapore - would create. As honorable members know, this was the Government's view which I re-affirmed after the most careful deliberation by Cabinet. The Government based its examination on a full and detailed acquaintance with all the relevant facts, including the views and reports of our own representatives in Malaya, Indonesia and the Philippines. I should add, also, that the Government was deeply mindful of the possible effects of its decision on our relationship with some of our Asian neighbours. My attendance at the annual conference of Ecafe in Manila from 10th to 14th March gave me an opportunity to present and explain Australian policy in a number of private interviews. In particular I had lengthy talks with President Macapagal and Vice-President Pelaez, and I had two long interviews with **Dr. Subandrio.** These conversations were all frank and amicable and the respective points of view were freely and fully expressed. I cannot, of course, reveal the nature of these confidential exchanges, but I can indicate that my approach was that we - that is Australia - had decided that Malaysia as planned, including its time-table, was in Australia's interests. As a result of these talks I believe that the Philippines and Indonesia realize the existence of an Australian interest in Malaysia's coming into being. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: -- You always by-pass the Parliament. {: .speaker-KKU} ##### Mr Mackinnon: -- Give us the Commo line. {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-KSC} ##### Mr SPEAKER (Hon Sir John McLeay: -- Order! Unless honorable members come to order I will be compelled to deal with them. {: .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: -- I rise to order, **Mr. Speaker.** The reference in the interjection by the honorable member for Corangamite was offensive to me. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, I ask that he withdraw it. {: #subdebate-34-0-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order ! The position is that I was attending to the conduct of members of the Opposition and I did not hear that interjection. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr L R Johnson: -- We have had enough of this by-passing of the Parliament. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! If the honorable member for Hughes does not cease interjecting, I will be compelled to deal with him. I call the Minister for External Affairs. {: .speaker-126} ##### Sir GARFIELD BARWICK: -- We also discussed the causes of the tensions which had recently developed in the area and the means which could be used to ease them. President Macapagal explained to me the thinking which had led him to suggest talks between the three countries - the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaya. After my discussions with the President, the VicePresident, and **Dr. Subandrio** I felt I was in a position to welcome the Presidents proposal as I was given to understand that the purpose of the talks was not to frustrate Malaysia but to enable the participants to reach a clear understanding of the precise nature of the proposals, to remove any misconceptions which might exist, and generally to ease the tension which had appeared. Such talks, also, could indeed pave the way for future co-operation between the three Malay countries which have so much in common. It is now my hope that exploratory talks between officials of the three countries, as a preliminary to full ministerial talks, will commence in the very near future. The matter is being actively examined in the three capitals now. I have been pleased to see the clear signs of an easing of tension between Malaya and Indonesia. The Prime Minister of Malaya, Tunku Abdul Rahman, has declared that **Dr. Subandrio's** conditions for eliminating the objections of Indonesia to Malaya were acceptable to Malaya. Official Malayan spokesmen have referred to the " blood brother " relationship which has always existed between Malaya and Indonesia and have said that the Malayan Government has no intention of altering its traditional policy of friendship with Indonesia. The two countries have now agreed to exchange ambassadors after their earlier withdrawal. It is the hope of the Australian Government that the present substitution of discreet official exchanges for public charge and counter-charge can be maintained. We welcome the progress towards the three power talks, as we welcome the re-establishment of full diplomatic communications. The problems which have arisen over Malaysia are political and regional ones which are susceptible to diplomatic handling and solution. We see nothing in Malaysia which is irreconcilable with the interests of neighbouring countries; indeed we believe Malaysia is in the mutual long-term interests of all the countries, including Australia, which have a deep and abiding interest in the security and stability of the region. {: .speaker-1V4} ##### Mr Cairns: -- **Mr. Speaker,** are we going to have an opportunity to debate this matter? The Minister has made many state ments about controversial subjects and I think we ought to be given an assurance by him that we will have an opportunity to debate the matter. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The House will proceed with Government business. {: .page-start } page 200 {:#debate-35} ### LOAN (HOUSING) BILL 1963 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 26th March (vide page 17), on motion by **Mr. Harold** Holt - That the bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
Werriwa **.- Mr. Speaker,** this is the second consecutive calendar year and the second consecutive financial year in which there will be two Loan (Housing) Bills. There was a supplementary one in February last year and a principal one in August;last August's bill is being supplemented by the present one and there will be another principal one next August. The first supplementary one followed the Government's near defeat at the poll in December, 1961. It was introduced by the honorable member for Wentworth **(Mr. Bury),** who was then Minister for Air and Minister assisting the Treasurer. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** himself introduced the principal bill for this financial year, the second one for the last calendar year, in August last and himself introduced this supplementary measure for this financial year, the No. 1 bill for this calendar year. In 1961 and previous years, the legislation was always introduced in this place by the Minister representing the Minister for National Development **(Sir William Spooner)** in another place. Although it has always been a bill making a large financial appropriation and has concerned matters of very great public interest, the second-reading speeches by the Minister representing the Minister in the other place were always extremely terse and uninformative. I acknowledge that the honorable member for Wentworth, in February last year and the Treasurer in August last year and again this week, made speeches which not only envisaged but also encouraged a general debate on this very important economic and social matter of housing. The Treasurer is always nibbling at this problem of housing. He has, over the two years in which he has brought in these bills, consistently misjudged and underestimated the problems of the building industry and the social needs of our people for housing. In this respect, as in many others where the Minister forecasts and gives interpretations, it is a case of too little too late. The Treasurer has consistently failed to appreciate the sluggish state of the building industry and the requirements of people for housing. It is time the Government set its mind to ascertaining some basic facts about the building industry in this country and the calls which will be made upon it in the next decade. I propose to speak, from now on, under three headings. The first is the need for a survey of our housing requirements; the second is the adequacy of finance for housing, and the third is the capacity of the building industry, with reference particularly to domestic building. To deal with the first of those headings, the need for a survey, the Minister for National Development has rejected the possibility of any such survey. He did produce a publication entitled, " The Housing Situation ", in February, 1957. It was based on the comparative demographic and housing needs revealed in the censuses of 1947 and 1954. It provided estimates of the possible future trend of Australia's housing needs, based on those two censuses. I put a question to the Minister on the notice-paper at the end of last year and he gave me a reply after the House rose, telling me that he saw little or no use in attempting to bring that publication up to date in the light of the 1961 census figures. I suggest that, since he brought out a publication based on the trend between the 1947 and 1954 censuses, the reasonable thing to do was to up-date that publication in the light of the new and fuller statistics derived from the 1961 census. The Minister's reason for his view was that the 1957 publication was produced at the time when there was a very large back-log of unsatisfied housing need - to use his own words - and that as the position had so greatly improved since then there was no further need for such a survey. There certainly has been an improvement, and so there should have been, but this does not in any way reduce the need for further surveys and estimates. The 1957 survey which the Minister produced estimated that the demand for dwellings in 1970 would be 79,000, based on a net migration of 1 per cent, of the population. There are now no commentators, statisticians or analysts prepared to say that in 1970 the demand for dwellings in Australia will be only 79,000. I now propose to repeat some of the figures which have been given on this subject by **Dr. A.** R. Hall of the Australian National University, whose figures have been very widely accepted and not adversely criticised. In 1961 **Dr. Hall** estimated that the demand for houses in 1970 would be 107,000. With the new census figures available he now estimates that the demand will be between 124,000 and 131,000, the difference depending upon migration. All estimates by all persons, including those of **Dr. Hall,** have been revised in one direction - upwards. The demand has been consistently underestimated. **Dr. Hall** also contended that we could expect a very strong demand for dwellings in the middle 1960's, which could place a great strain on the building industry. So far **Dr. Hall's** estimates have been the only up-to-date study of possible housing trends. They are very valuable, particularly in view of the sharp lift in housing demands expected in 1966 and the subsequent years. This month, when addressing a convention of the Federation of Cooperative Housing Societies in Victoria, **Mr. Warren** McDonald, Chairman of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, called for an immediate housing survey by the Commonwealth. **Mr. Warren** McDonald said - >The results of such a study would be of great benefit to hundreds of people directly and indirectly concerned with the building industry. They would then have accurate statistics and estimates upon which to work and to plan for the future. Again, this month, the conference of State Housing Ministers in Melbourne decided to ask the Commonwealth Government to appoint a committee of inquiry into Australian housing needs during the next five years. The conference suggested that the committee of inquiry should consist of five people - three Commonwealth representatives and two State representatives - with the States offering all the information they could on housing needs. I point out, as honorable members must know, that the Housing Ministers of the States include members of all the three political parties represented in this House. Their decision was unanimous. They wanted a survey sponsored by the Commonwealth and carried out by a committee with a majority of Commonwealth representatives. This is an extraordinarily encouraging sign of State responsibility and national outlook. Requests have come from many other sources besides the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and the conference of State Housing Ministers. Apparently the Government intends to do nothing. There is no excuse for timidity on the ground that the estimates might be astray. That is a risk which must be accepted. Hitherto the estimates have always erred on the side of caution; they have always underestimated the problem. The only interpretations which can be placed upon the Government's refusal to undertake a general review of the housing situation are either that it believes there is no housing need or that it would be embarrassing if the extent of the housing need were revealed. If a survey could be published in 1957 why can it not be done now in the light of the figures which were obtained in the 1961 census? The Minister for National Development who administers matters relating to housing apparently is quite happy with the present housing situation. He will not have a survey and he states that the existing rate of dwelling construction is making more houses available 'than the growth of population requires. This may be true- {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- It is true. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- I welcome your intervention in the debate. You have not spoken during the last few years because you have been ousted. I hope that you, as well as the Minister in the other place, will move forward into the 'sixties. You were an authority on housing in the 'thirties, I will concede. But, keeping up with population increases, the criterion which the Minister in the other place asserted and which the Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** now adopts, is only part of the problem. There is also the problem of replacement and of improvement in the standard of present accommo dation. At the time of the last census there were 170,000 families living in sheds, huts, shared houses and " other " dwellings. There would be at least another 100,000 or 125,000 sub-standard houses. At the end of last June there were 75,000 applications on the housing commission waiting lists, and the number is increasing each year. I know it is said that the same people are on the lists for the housing commissions, for the savings banks, for the building societies and for the life assurance organizations. I suppose it is also said that the same people are on solicitors' lists for second mortgages. But how can we ever find out whether there is duplication unless we have a survey? Who is to conduct the survey? Who is to bring the parties together? The Commonwealth Bank and the State Housing Ministers have suggested that the Commonwealth should take the initiative and, since the Commonwealth in fact provides so much of the money - all the money for the housing commissions - and regulates the flow of money by the life assurance societies, by the savings banks and through the building societies, it is reasonable to think that the Commonwealth should make this co-ordination. It is idle merely to assert that there is this duplication when we refuse to ascertain whether there is in fact such duplication. Most people would reject the Minister's satisfaction with the housing position. In the course of his speech in Victoria last month **Mr. McDonald** also stated - >Estimates vary but the general feeling in the industry is that building in Australia is getting further behind housing demand in what will probably prove to be one of the most significant decades in our history. But housing " need " is a very difficult thing to measure. It depends on the standards of adequate housing which are chosen and the means used to measure housing need. Even if one could accept the Minister's assurances that construction was keeping pace with demand for houses that would not necessarily be satisfactory. Statistical demand for housing is a very different thing from social need for housing. If the houses were available we would find that the demand would be very much greater than it is now. Many people do not demand houses through the various - sources because they could not avail themselves of those sources. For instance, they could not fill the deposit gap. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- Have you a definition of " need "? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- No, but I am prepared to share in formulating such a definition. The present Ministry has refused even to investigate that subject. **Dr. Hall** makes certain important assumptions in estimating the probable trend demand for housing of 94,000 in the last financial year rising to between 124,000 and 131,000 by the end of the decade. It is assumed that the present stock of houses will continue to improve - or deteriorate - at roughly the same rate as it has done in the past. It is assumed that no important change will be made in government policy towards housing. In fact, it is assumed that housing history over the last decade will be repeated - that governments will continue to assist or rebuff home-seekers in much the same way as they have done in the past. In his estimates **Dr. Hall** states that the current replacement demand is of the order of 18,000 dwellings a year. Of this replacement demand, and after allowing for demolitions and so on, probably not more than 5,000 at present - a generous estimate - would be contributing towards slum clearance. If sub-standard housing is of the order of 100,000 to 125,000- a conservative estimate, I feel - the present stock of sub-standard housing will not be replaced for some time to come. Are Government members happy with the rate at which sub-standard housing is being replaced? **Dr. Hall** also states that through housing improvement - families leaving shared accommodation or a hut or a garage to take a house or a flat of their own; in other words, separate or adequate accommodation - an additional 5,000 dwellings are demanded each year. As I have mentioned, at the 1961 census there were 170,000 families living in huts, shared accommodation and " other " dwellings. At the present rate of improvement or even if this rate increases, it will take several decades to remove most of the present inadequate quality of dwellings. Are Government members happy with the present rate of improvement? If present housing attitudes and policies continue **Dr. Hall's** estimates may well prove correct but if we believe, for example, that we should proceed faster with clearing between 100,000 and 125,000 slum dwellings and getting 170,000 families out of shared houses and huts and into their own houses, or better houses, we must recognize that we still have a great problem on our hands, quite apart from keeping up with population growth and the age distribution in the community. There is clearly a great need for a housing survey in Australia. Can we not find out how many sub-standard houses there are in Australia? Or does the Government not care? A survey is urgently needed if we are to prepare a plan for the adequate housing of our people in the coming decade and if we are to avoid a repetition of ad hoc or spasmodic appropriations every twelve months or, as in this year and last year, every six months. The Government just will not face up to the problem and conduct a survey despite the requests of the principal home-building bank and all State Housing Ministers. The Government treats the demand for housing in economic or statistical terms. It does not seek to go behind the figures and determine the social need. To the Treasurer a dwelling is a dwelling whether it is a sub-standard house or a beach house at Portsea. Apparently the Government is happy with the present rate of slum clearance. The Labour Party is not. The Government's failure to recognize that the problem of housing is a social problem, first and foremost, is reflected in the way in which it provides money for housing. On each occasion the overriding consideration is how the increased expenditure will boost home building and so stimulate the economy or provide additional employment. The issue of family housing needs is only of secondary importance. Home building is manipulated, not according to social needs but for economic motives. As most home-seekers depend for housing on the Government or lending institutions which the Government regulates to some degree, the temptation is clear enough particularly for a government which has not the courage to regulate less essential forms of expenditure. I have dealt with the need for housing. Now I want to deal with the availability of finance for housing. This bill provides for an additional £2,700,000 for housing during this financial year. The existing allocation for this year, however, is £4,500,000 less than last year's total allocation. Therefore, despite the increased allocation under this bill, there will still be £1,800,000 less loan housing money available this year than there was in the last financial year. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** did not point that out. Certainly last year's allocation was a record, but apparently the Treasurer thinks it is desirable this year to reduce the rate of housing advances to the States, and through the States to the building societies and for service houses. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- How does this year compare with the boom year of 1960? {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- More money is provided for housing through the States to housing commissions, for service housing, and to building societies this year, and still more was provided last year, than during what you describe as the boom year. But I do not believe that in 1960-61, the boom year to which you have referred, too many houses were commenced or were completed. Housing is essential, and if we had continued to build at that rate - we have not got back to it - the housing position would be better than it is. Again, you are considering this problem purely in terms of how much economic activity was involved; you are not dealing with the social need for housing. I reject the contention that too many houses were being provided in what you call the boom year, but your interjection is valuable in showing that the Government, through its measures of November, 1960, did aim to reduce housing construction. The Treasurer said at the time that he did not have that intention. We pointed out that in relation to housing the result of the measures adopted in November, 1960, would be the same as was that which followed the adoption of similar measures in the middle of 1951 and early in 1956, and that proved to bo so. The amount which the Commonwealth Government is providing under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement is clearly inadequate for the State housing commissions, particularly in view of the fact that 30 per cent, of the funds are diverted to co-operative housing societies. The Commonwealth had asserted that by diverting money to the building societies the demand on housing commissions would be relieved. It made that assertion on the theory that the loans to these societies would be supplemented by their members' deposits and thus would provide more houses overall. However, the demand on the commissions has not declined but is increasing. In last year's report, the New South Wales Housing Commission directed attention to the problem in these words - >It does appear to the Commission that while a substantial proportion of its applicants are not likely to be catered for by any other agency, the ready availability of finance for building or purchasing houses privately, under conditions of deposit and interest within the means of the average working man, is the only possibility of mitigating this demand. For so long, so many, including young married couples, have turned to the Commission in apparent desperation and resignation when, despite their preparedness to make their own best effort to help themselves, they have been frustrated and unsuccessful. It is the young people starting out in married life who represent the largest potential future demand and every such family that can be accommodated through private channels must lessen the demands upon the Commission. The report continues - >It appears that the solution still lies in finance and the conditions of its availability. The present problems of the building industry do not stem from a shortage of men and materials but from the lack of finance on reasonable terms and conditions. For the building industry to be working below capacity while people desperately need houses is ridiculous. The Australian Labour Party believes that the whole system of private home financing needs reviewing to ensure better co-ordination. So many institutions are providing finance on all sorts of terms and conditions that home finance in Australia is a hotch-potch. The Commonwealth Government is the only government that is in a position to rationalize home finance. Some State governments have made valuable efforts to do this, but clearly the main responsibility rests with this Parliament. As with so many other matters we, with our federal system, should apply lessons that have been learnt in the world's greatest federation. The Commonwealth Government should consider establishing a Commonwealth housing body along the lines of the Federal Housing Administration of the United States of America. The Federal Housing Administration does not build homes or lend money; it insures private lending institutions against loss and so enables them to provide a greater proportion of the cost of a house than is possible In Australia. The problem of the deposit gap still remains in this country. Despite the commendable action of the Commonwealth Savings Bank and other savings banks in increasing their maximum advances, many home-seekers will still have to resort to high interest second mortgage finance to bridge the deposit gap. Whereas in the United States of America a person who wants a moderately priced home has to pay less than 10 per cent, of the cost as a deposit, in Australia the figure is nearer 40 per cent. Under the principal Federal Housing Administration programme, loans that are secured by insured first mortgages on a proposed one-family dwelling to be occupied by its owners may be up to 97 per cent, of the first 15,000 dollars of appraised value, 90 per cent, of the amount between 15,000 and 20,000 dollars of appraised value, and up to 75 per cent, of such value in excess of 20,000 dollars. The Federal Housing Administration is quite self-supporting and does not use funds from government tax revenues. From application fees paid by builders and sellers, and mortgage insurance premiums paid by borrowers, the Federal Housing Administration has been able to pay all its expenses and build up extensive reserves against possible losses. The borrower is charged a mortgage insurance premium of one-half of 1 per cent, of the outstanding loan balance. Partly as a result of insuring private lenders against loss, interest rates on housing loans in the United States are much lower than in Australia. The differences are not due to the fact, as some suggest, that Australia is a young country and the United States is an old country. Under the Federal Housing Administration scheme the interest rate is 5£ per cent. The majority of United States home seekers pay rates of interest of this order or lower. According to the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Australia, 45 per cent, of house mortgages in Australia in 1961 of less than £5,000 were negotiated at an interest rate of 7 per cent, or more. The result of such arrangements is that a home buyer in Australia has to put aside about twice as much of his income for mortgage payments as does his counterpart in the United States of America. Finance for housing is much more expensive and difficult to obtain in Australia than in any of the other major English-speaking countries such as the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, and I believe it is more expensive than in any country in Western Europe. However, the Federal Housing Administration is not all-sufficient; it does not lend money. The main groups of private institutional lenders in Australia are savings banks, trading banks and life assurance societies. The savings banks have made a most important contribution to housing finance in Australia. While savings deposit balances have almost doubled in the last ten years, loans for housing have increased four and a half times. This is apparent in the movement in the ratio of housing loans to depositors' balances, which rose from 6.9 per cent, in 1952 to 19.9 per cent, in 1962. However, there are signs of a flattening out in this ratio, and the rate of increase in housing advances in the future may well be much more closely geared to the rate of increase in depositors' balances than it has been hitherto unless some easing of the 70 per cent, government security requirement is made. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- The Treasurer said he is doing that. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- And you will recall that in August last he saw no virtue in it. In view of the outstanding success of government loan raisings, a variation in the 70 per cent, requirement, which is tying up approximately £1,000,000,000 in deposits, should be considered. A reduction of 5 per cent, in this requirement would make more than an extra £60,000,000 available as a basis for home lending although, of course, it would also reduce the savings banks' holdings of government securities by that amount. Only 30 per cent, of depositors' balances can be used as a basis for lending; 30 per cent, is the maximum which Australian savings banks may invest in housing. There is no minimum. Even if 30 per cent, were invested in housing - the present figure is round about 17 per cent, or 18 per cent. - this would be low compared with American savings banks, for instance, which are permitted to lend from 70 per cent, to 80 per cent, of their deposits for housing, apparently with perfect safeguards for depositors. The Treasurer says that he is at present examining the 70/30 ratio, as the honorable member for Fawkner interposed a moment ago by interjection. This is most welcome. It is a decided advance on his attitude last year, when he refused even to consider the merit of objections to the rule. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- It is all a matter of progress. {: .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM: -- Yes, but it is important which decade we make it in. Last August, in reply to a question in the House, the Treasurer said that there was not a strong case for altering the ratio. He is apparently now having second thoughts about that, as I believe he is also about interest rates, which he justified in equally uncompromising terms last August. I never know which is worse - the advice the Treasurer gives or the advice he gets. Some consideration should also be given to encouraging trading banks to go further into house lending, particularly in view of their present liquidity. In June last year, only 11.2 per cent, of trading bank advances were for housing, compared with 16.2 per cent, in 1953. The savings banks have greatly improved their ratio, but the trading banks have rather spoilt theirs. Undoubtedly the trading banks feel that investment in Commonwealth securities is much more attractive. There is not the administrative cost that is involved in house mortgage loans. Surely some means can be devised to encourage trading bank lending for housing as compared with investment in government securities. The Government's interest rate policy and its decision to induce life assurance companies to invest more of their premiums in government securities has caused a dramatic fall in their advances for housing. In the financial year 1960-61 - the vicious boom year - investment by life assurance companies in housing mortgages increased by £17,000,000. In the year ended in June, 1962, it increased by only £3,000,000. In September, 1961, life assurance companies' housin gloans stood at £151,200,000. By September, 1962, they had risen to only £154,700,000. In this period housing loans outstanding rose by only £3,500,000 but holdings of Commonwealth Government securities by life assurance companies rose by £36,000,000. That is, the result of the measures taken early last year in accordance with the November, 1960 programme was to divert loans by the life assurance companies from housing into Commonwealth bonds. Despite the Government's assurances that its taxation inducements to life assurance companies would not affect housing finance, the position is quite the reverse. They have affected housing finance. In April, 1961, the Treasurer, in reply to a question that I asked about the 20/30 rule for assurance companies and its effects on housing advances, said - >I would think there is little likelihood of any disturbance of the normal investment pattern of life offices . . . How wrong the Treasurer has proved to be on this also. Again his forecasts have miscarried. Probably there is prudence in the attitude of the Minister for National Development **(Senator Sir William Spooner)** in making no pronouncements or investigations in respect of housing. The Treasurer is communicative but not very enlightening. The Government has gone a long way in pre-empting life assurance premiums and savings bank deposits for bonds instead of for housing and other purposes. Just how far the Government intends to go along this path is a matter which the Government must face. This policy certainly seems absurd for a government which, in theory at least, is pledged to support a system of private enterprise and which talks about the free operation of the market. Where are its political principles? This process began after the first horror Budget. On 10th August, 1951, the Prime Minister and the former Treasurer, **Sir Arthur** Fadden, conferred with representatives of the life companies and persuaded them for the time being to transfer investments from building societies to Commonwealth loans. This is what has once again been done, but by taxation inducements instead of by clandestine suasion, as after the first of the three horror Budgets. By reason also of the Government's high interest rate policy lenders have found housing loans unattractive compared with investment in Government securities. The Government has only itself to blame for this situation. Not only has the Government's interest rate policy made nonsense of the Treasurer's last Budget, but it has also caused a diversion of funds away from housing. Now, **Sir, I** come to the final section of my speech, which is on the present state of the building industry. I referred earlier to-day to the habit of Ministers of making what the Australian Broadcasting Commission accepts as factual statements. Of course, the newspapers accept statements in that light, but the A.B.C. accepts as factual statements the comments which Ministers make on releases by the Commonwealth Statistician. This compromises the Commonwealth Statistician, of course. It makes it easier to publish a comment on the Statistician's figures, but invariably it is a partisan, propagandist interpretation. The Commonwealth Statistician's figures in this case were the figures for completions in the December quarter. The Minister for National Development in the other place said that these indicated a degree of steady and sound expansion in the building industry. He said that the completions were the highest for any quarter since the boom year of 1960. He was asserting, by inference, that the figures in the boom year were too high. What he omitted to say, however, was that after allowing for seasonal factors, completions in the December quarter of last year - 21,600 - were no higher than the completions in March of last year - also 21,600 - and were lower than those in the June quarter of last year, when they totalled 22,400. Last quarter's completions were worse than those of last June and no better than those of last March. In trying to explain away the drop in commencements in December, the Minister said it was due to usual seasonal phenomena. Well, so it is. But after allowing for seasonal factors, there was no improvement in commencements in the December quarter last year over the previous quarter. Furthermore, actual commencements last quarter - 21,700 - were still below the level of two years ago. It is not appropriate, therefore, to describe the present state of the building industry as one of " steady and sound expansion". There has only been recovery so far, and very slow recovery at that. In no respect is there expansion over what was called the boom year. The building approvals for February of this year - they come out each month - show a more encouraging trend. In February of this year 7,417 new homes were approved for construction, compared with 6,472 in February of last year and 5,969 in February of 1961. Approvals for February of this year, however, were still 1,000 below the approvals in February, 1960. Furthermore, last month's total included an abnormally large block of 1,209 government approvals. Taking the months from December to February, approvals are now running slightly better than in the two previous years but are 3,500 below the level of three years ago, when the Government so savagely attacked the building industry. But housing tells only a part of the story of the building problem. The Treasurer drew attention to activity in the nonresidential sector. He mentioned that activity in this field in 1961-62 was higher than in the two previous years. His analysis, however, may have obscured the sharp fall in non-dwelling building approvals last month. In February they fell sharply by £9,000,000. In February in the two previous years these approvals rose by £3,000,000 and £4,000,000 respectively above the January level. The present slackness in the industry is also shown in employment. In the December quarter of 1962 the number employed in building and construction was slightly lower than a year earlier, and 17,000 lower than two years ago. These are certainly not signs of what the Treasurer calls " the present healthy state of the economy at large ". They are clear evidence of an economic movement sideways, as the honorable member for Wentworth **(Mr. Bury),** his former assistant, has said. But the ex-minister's pleas are not heeded by the Treasurer. Neither are those of the honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** who, on purely material and non-ideological matters has often phrased a matter with clarity and perception. Last month he said - >There has been surplus capacity in the home building industry over the past couple of years and there is still a banked up demand for housing. In addition, the prospective demand for later years of this decade is likely to increase substantially and it would be wise to anticipate this by accelerating the current rate of building. He went on to say that the Treasurer is consistently under-estimating the amount of financial stimulation which the economy requires. This bill is but additional evidence of this trend in the Treasurer's thinking. As I have pointed out, this bill will still leave the direct allocation for housing by the Commonwealth less than it was last financial year. The house building industry is working considerably under capacity. In 1960, 97,000 houses and flats were commenced; in 1962 just over 86,000 This year the Treasurer hopes it will exceed 90,000. This is good. We will almost be back to the level of three years ago. Between 1956 and 1960 - that is between the second and third horror budgets - commencements increased by 8,000 a year. On that basis we could have expected up to 16,000 more dwellings to be commenced during the last calendar year than were commenced in 1960. Instead, there was a fall of 11,000. This is the measure of the decline in the home building industry in Australia. **Sir, I** have not time to refer to the aged persons' housing and other matters which the State housing ministers considered last month at their conference. Some of my colleagues will be dealing with that. I shall conclude on the Treasurer's general reference to the constitutional responsibility of the States for housing. The Constitution does not mention housing. Therefore, the Commonwealth is unable to resume land for housing or to build houses itself except for migrants, or returned soldiers or serving members of the forces or its own public servants or the inhabitants of its territories. It has no general power over housing in the States. But under section 96 of the Constitution, under which we are making this appropriation the Commonwealth can grant financial assistance to any State for housing or any other purpose on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. Therefore, insofar as money is being spent by the States under section 96, the constitutional responsibility is every bit as much that of the Commonwealth as it is of the States. If we look at this matter historically we find that the States never spent any money on housing until the Curtin and Chifley Labour governments in the 1945 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement made provision for grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution. The Treasurer said that the allocation for housing under this bill had been determined by the State premiers and treasurers themselves. They had little option. They were told the total amount of money which the Commonwealth would make available or which it would, in fact, accept on the loan market this year. The Commonwealth could have taken much more than it will be taking for public works and for housing combined. But the Commonwealth said to the States, " You specify how much of the money for public works you want to take for housing". To that extent, the State premiers and treasurers took responsibility. But it was no business of the Australian Loan Council originally, or until recently, to deal with questions of housing grants. The Financial Agreement of 1927 makes no reference to housing. The Loan Council never dealt with money for bousing until after the Second World War. Under the 1945 Commonwealth State Housing Agreement it was provided that the Commonwealth would pay all the bills which the States incurred in building houses under that agreement. It was at the Loan Council meeting in 1952, the year following the first horror Budget, that the Commonwealth first said to the States, " We will tie your housing grants to your general public works grants ". In that year the Commonwealth said, " We will no longer pay whatever bills you choose to present to us for housing. If you present bills for housing greater than those which we now approve we will take the excess out of your public works allocation ". Again, at the 1953 and 1954 meetings of the Loan Council, the Commonwealth said, " You can spend more on housing if you like but you will do so at the expense of your public works and this is the total amount you will get ". It was in those years for the first time that the Loan Council considered housing grants. Under the 1956 housing agreement, it is true, the Commonwealth no longer undertook to pay all the States' housing bills; it merely promised to pay the bills approved by the Loan Council. At the Loan Council each State has one vote and the Commonwealth has two votes. If the votes are even, the Commonwealth has a casting vote. In respect of homes built by all housing commissions and those building societies foi which it makes grants through the States the Commonwealth should accept the same responsibility for the level of construction as it used to take under the 1945 housing agreement and as it still does under the War Service Homes Act. The degree of responsibility in respect of housing in this country would be much clearer and much more wholesome if the Commonwealth were directly to acknowledge responsibility for an activity where it first provided government funds and where it still provides all government funds. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-KKB} ##### Mr JESS:
La Trobe .- The honorable member for Werriwa **(Mr. Whitlam)** who has just sat down always makes a very significant contribution to a debate. I must say that I am not embarrassed but that I am delighted to find that with the majority of statements that he has made this afternoon I can agree. If I refer only briefly to his comments it is because this is quite a large subject and I should like to make my own contribution to the debate which could be similar to his own in a number of ways. There is one thing about following such a skilful barrister and Queen's Counsel: I think that if we were to employ him in court he would be able to use the same figures to show what a good job the Government had been doing as he uses in support of the Opposition's case. However, I have not had time to check many of the figures used by the honorable member. Whilst they are usually the truth they are seldom the whole truth. Probably this may be said of figures used by members on both sides of the House in connexion with housing. It amazes me at times to listen to speakers on the other side of the House talk about the so-called boom year of 1960-61. They talk about it now as if it were a myth. It has been called a myth by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Calwell)** and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam).** I remember it distinctly because it will go down in my history as the year in which members of the Opposition campaigned in the by-election in La Trobe and said that inflation was iniquitous, that prices were rising, that you could not get this and you could not get that and that they would fight the by-election on this issue. But since they lost that by-election through some stroke of fate they say that there was no inflation and that the whole thing was a myth. The bill before the House, I am sure, will be supported by both sides. I think it is just as well to go through some of the points that the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** made when introducing the bill yesterday because, naturally, honorable members opposite do not spend too much time in repeating what the Treasurer has said. The purpose of the bill is to authorize the borrowing of £2,711,000 for advances to the States in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The Australian Loan Council, in February, at its meeting, reviewed the works and housing programmes of the States. After full consideration it decided that the 1962-63 borrowing programme should be increased by *£5,000,000* to £255,000,000 and that, of the increase of £5,000,000, £2,711,000 should be allocated to housing under the housing agreement. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated, the States are to receive the following amounts: - The total amount of £2,711,000 is additional to the £45,900,000 authorized earlier this year and will bring the total advances to the States under the housing agreement in 1962-63 to £48,611,000. The amount set aside for housing from the aggregate amount of loan moneys available is nominated by each State Premier, and although the aggregate amount of loan moneys available this year is greater than it was last year, the total for housing is somewhat smaller. This, as the Treasurer has said, possibly reflects the Premiers' view that the works programmes should have priority at this time. As we all are in agreement with the purposes of the bill,, I think it is wise :o take the opportunity to discuss housing generally. As the Treasurer stated, the Commonwealth Statistician has published figures which show that 86,300 dwellings were commenced in the calender year 1962. This was 6,300 more than in 1961, but 10,800 fewer than in 1960, which we consider was a boom year, but the Opposition does not. Apart from that, 1962 saw the highest level of dwelling commencements we had ever had. The latest figures available show that the trend is still upwards and that the figure is expected to reach more than 90,000 units this year. As the Treasurer said, and as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentioned, non-residential construction also is going along well. The value of buildings other than houses and flats commenced in 1961-62 is estimated at £263,700,000, compared with £252,800,000 in 1960-61 and £231,000,000 in 1959-60. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made some play on the fall-off in last month's figures, but if we are to debate this subject on the basis of months, weeks or days we shall not get very far. We must take a reasonable period, such as a quarter, a half year or a year, before we can make an assessment. However, in speaking of the broad principles of housing, let us look at some of the difficulties which we as a Commonwealth Government must face up to and which, perhaps, over the years rightly or wrongly have been ignored. The first is that the Commonwealth, while having no constitutional responsibility for housing, is now regarded by the people as having responsibility for the maintenance of the building industry at a satisfactory level, the provision of finance for home ownership and the availability of finance for homes in the lower-income groups. The activities of some hire-purchase and finance companies in the field of housing and land subdivision, which have resulted in high prices and high interest rates, again are regarded by the people as due to the failure of the Commonwealth Government to control this form of exploitation. The fact that the Commonwealth has at the best only indirect and limited power and (hat the States have complete legal and constitutional authority in this field often is disregarded. I direct the attention of honorable members to a case which was referred to in the Melbourne newspapers, I think, of yesterday's date, regarding a large land and building investment company which has been found to be unable to pay its debts. The State Government investigator has recommended to the Government that the company should be wound up. The investigator's comments on this company reveal a situation which should not be allowed to continue, and I am sure that the State Government has now covered this particular weakness. It has been suggested that a government - I presume, the State Government - should loan £500,000 from government sources, at low interest over ten years, and that that would assist the shareholders and creditors. But what government has power to make such a loan, even if it considered the loan desirable? My point at this moment is that the Commonwealth will perhaps be blamed by some people, particularly small investors or home-owners, for the failure of such companies, although we have no control over their affairs. The position stresses the need for some authority, whether it be the Federal Government or the State governments, to implement a scheme which will enable people to obtain a reasonable amount of finance at reasonable rates of interest and for reasonable periods, from stable and sound organizations. That is necessary for the people. It would engender competition in housing finance, keep prices and interest rates down, and also promote stability in the building and associated industries. For too long now governments, both State and Federal, have avoided their responsibilities in this matter. Instead of blaming each other they should sit down together and work out a scheme to solve the problem. Such a scheme should, where feasible, include provision for private enterprise to serve more of the total need. There should not be another great government department to deal with the matter. It should be dealt with by existing financial organizations, if possible. Perhaps it could be handled by the State savings banks. If this were done, it would allow the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement to revert to its original purpose, which was to provide houses for those in necessitous circumstances. A proposal which could perhaps be further examined is that the responsible authorities should enter into land development for housing, the preparing of subdivisions, the construction of roads, drains and so on, enabling land to be bought at reasonable prices and permitting competition with other land development. The high cost of land development is a large factor in the so-called deposit gap. This is already being done successfully in a small way by the Victorian Housing Department. Perhaps this proposal could be investigated further by the authorities I have mentioned. If, in addition, a scheme were evolved to provide reasonable finance for homebuilding, the deposit gap could be obviated. There is little doubt that, apart from the government agencies, such as the War Service Homes Division and the State Housing Commissions, high interest rates permeate the whole field of building and housing transactions, including land sub-division; the provision of services, streets, roads and electricity; building; the purchase of new homes; finance for existing homes and even the provision of war service homes in that the availability of secondary finance is affected by high interest rates. What is required is that, in some way, finance for home-building throughout Australia should be more effectively organized. The problem is due not to a shortage of money but to the inefficient use of money. When we consider that in the boom year of 1960-61 the number of houses and flats erected was 94,465, and proceeding on the basis that that level of building could at present be considered reasonable, it is evident that the Australian financial system can produce, and has produced, sufficient funds to meet housing needs. However, I believe that much of the finance is inefficiently used and is unnecessarily costly. An effective housing scheme would remove the element of difficulty in bridging the deposit gap for secondary finance. The elimination of high interest rates on sub-divisions and final purchases would greatly reduce the cost of housing and increase the real standard of living of all home buyers. One of the great problems with which any one who studies housing in Australia is confronted is the lack of building statistics. First, there appear to be no figures available, either in the State or Federal sphere, which show all the sources of finance or the rates of interest charged. Secondly, there are no figures relating to transactions in old or existing homes. Thirdly, no attempt has been made to ascertain the cost of additions and repairs, or of the conversion of old homes. There is a lack of statistics regarding needs and demands for new houses and flats, or the all-embracing term " dwelling units ", the number of new houses or flats required to meet the needs of our increasing population and rising standards of living, and the likely demand, as distinct from needs, for new homes and flats. It is realized that the compilation of such statistics might be difficult, since the position is influenced by many factors, including the general state of the economy. Nevertheless, a realistic forecast should be possible. In my opinion, such a survey is essential to enable both government and industry to plan for the future. This view has been put forward by other honorable members, and more recently by the State Housing Ministers at their conference. It has been put forward also by the chairman of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation and indeed by the building industry itself. Such a survey is essential for stability in the economy, as building and housing are the grass roots of any economic stability. I suggest to the Government, therefore, that instructions for a survey be given and that the Commonwealth discuss with both the State governments and industry the formulation of a plan for the provision of housing finance throughout Australia. I agree with the Treasurer that the actions of both Federal and State Governments in increasing the lending limits of the savings banks and the War Service Homes Division, together with the money injected into the economy by the Australian Loan Council, have done much to help, but in my opinion, this is no solution to the longterm problem. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to the scheme of the United States Federal Housing Administration. I agree with him that there appears to be much merit in this scheme. There is one point I hope he has looked at; it does need some study. Although this scheme may be possible in America, which has an excess of capital, it may be difficult to implement in capital-hungry Australia. However, I think the Government in conjunction with the States should definitely draw up a housing scheme and possibly should examine the American scheme more closely. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-JV8} ##### Mr MONAGHAN:
Evans .- I think I should congratulate the honorable member for La Trobe **(Mr. Jess)** on much of the speech he has just made. When he was delivering most of his speech, one could almost imagine that he was on this side of the House. He put forward Labour policy with a capital " L " and I congratulate him on the content of his speech. I do not intend to deal with the upper levels of the housing problem as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** did, and I do not propose to speak on the lines followed by the honorable member for La Trobe, but I shall attempt to relate the housing needs to the social wants of the day and to highlight several points that I think should be emphasized. I realize that on such a topic as this there is very little one can say that is novel, and I do not propose to say anything novel at all. However, it is possible that by constantly speaking of the needs of the people we may achieve some measure of social justice for them in the long run, and that certainly is my aim whilst I am a member of the Parliament. I have been in the Parliament for just on fifteen months. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said, this is the second amendment to the Loan (Housing) Act in that time. This shows that the Government has no plan. In earlier speeches I have referred to the ad hoc measures of the Government. Surely nowhere are they more evident than in housing. In his second-reading speech, the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** said that the States really are receiving less for housing than they received in the previous year. Then, with almost hypocritical cant, he went on to say - >That may signify rather less pressure on them for housing; it may, on the other hand, of course, reflect the importance that they attach to the works programmes generally . . . Of course, as has been pointed out by the Deputy Leader of the Oposition, the truth is that the States are allotted only a certain amount of money and they must cut their cloth according to their measure. I will speak of New South Wales, not because I wish to be parochial but because I have some knowledge of the position in that State and access to some statistics relating to it. Prior to this bill, New South Wales received £15,000,000. It is now to receive an additional £1,300,000, making a total of £16,300,000. But we should keep in mind that 5 per cent, of the total is to be used to provide housing for defence personnel. One would think that this was a Commonwealth responsibility. Of the remainder, 30 per cent, goes to co-operative societies and 65 per cent, to the Housing Commission. In terms of the actual number of houses built, 65 per cent, of £16,300,000 is not so much. In the past year, the New South Wales Housing Commission built about 4,700 homes. This is not a significant figure when we consider the real social need for housing. Before I deal with the social need for housing, perhaps I could show just how basic housing is to the decent welfare of the Australian nation and to the future of boys and girls who should be kept away from the delinquent atmosphere that seems to be so prevalent nowadays. Many youth clubs have been formed, but I doubt very much whether they hold the solution to the problem of delinquency. Surely, if young people grow up in decent homes the problem of delinquency will be largely eradicated. {: .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr Chaney: -- Delinquents come from good homes, too. {: .speaker-JV8} ##### Mr MONAGHAN: -- I intend to mention that now. Delinquency is found not only amongst the lower income groups but also amongst people who are well housed. We have delinquency in the North Shore district of Sydney. I understand that recently police were called to Roseville, where a large number of teenage youths were misbehaving. Youths in this district may be adequately housed, but their parents seem to be bereft of parental responsibility. In this instance, the parents were away at Surfers Paradise. By and large, the need for housing is acute. If we want to look after the moral welfare of young married couples, we must provide adequate housing. That is a national responsibility and should not be passed on to the States. Although it has been said that constitutionally the Commonwealth has no power in this field, it has certain powers and should be able to provide a good national housing scheme. The Commonwealth should be able to provide decent housing for immigrants. Why should immigrants who have waited for a number of years in hostels not have decent and adequate housing? Let me mention what happens in a hostel in my electorate. It is one of the very best hostels run by Commonwealth Hostels Limited. I refer to Broughton Hostel. This hostel provides for approximately 260 people. I do not know the number of families. The average amount paid by each person, man, woman and child, is ?2 10s. 9d. a week. The average stay in the hostel is two years. It has 150 rooms in which to house 260 people. I obtained these figures from the manager of the hostel yesterday, when I spoke to him on the telephone. I do not for one moment denigrate Commonwealth Hostels Limited, but I do emphasize the need to provide decent housing for our people. There is no doubt that, if the Commonwealth Government wants to assist the growth of the country through this splendid immigration scheme, it can take on the financial responsibility of providing homes for immigrants. I have given the average cost of staying at Broughton. I shall now give some details. The nominal rate for a male is ?4 17s. 6d. a week. If the wife works, she pays ?4 6s. a week. A dependent wife pays ?3 3s. a week. Children from one to five years of age pay ?1 a week and children from five to eleven years of age pay ?1 5s. a week. If the man has a wife and a few children he is up for an exorbitant amount of money. In all fairness to Commonwealth Hostels Limited, it tries to assist people with large families. For instance, I was told of the case of a man who had five children. His gross earnings amounted to ?17 a week and he was paying only, as it was put to me by Commonwealth Hostels Limited, ?1 1 8s. I think that is frightful. That man would have ?5 12s. a week or less to look after the clothing and other needs of his family and to plan for the future. That is the measure of this Government's disdain for the migrant population. I refer now briefly to the position in New South Wales. In that State there is a backlag of 36,000 homes. Last year 4,700 homes were constructed in New South Wales, so you can see that New South Wales is about eight years behind in meeting its housing needs. It is all very well for the honorable member for La Trobe **(Mr. Jess)** to congratulate this Government on the fact that about 90,000 homes were commenced last year. According to statistics contained in the Treasury Information Bulletin of 29th January, 86,656 homes were commenced last year. That number is not sufficient; we need many more. In a chapter aptly headed " Vital Statistics ", the Commonwealth Year Book for 1962 shows that in 1961 there were 29,773 marriages in New South Wales and 21,264 in Victoria. The total number of marriages in Australia in 1961 was 76,686. Imagine all those people needing homes! In considering this matter of housing one must have regard to the obsolescence of many homes. Lord only knows what slums there are in New South Wales to-day! The figure of 90,000 homes commenced is far from satisfactory and I emphasize that the figure relates only to commencements. Unfortunately I do not know how many homes were completed, but you may depend on it that the number completed was less than the number commenced in any one year. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** referred to interest rates. A low interest rate is a growing need in this community. This Government is a high interest government. I have no doubt that it will change its tune shortly because it is under a good deal of pressure from people who normally would support it. I have before me a pamphlet that is issued regularly and sent to all honorable members. It is compiled by **Mr. Staniforth** Ricketson. In this pamphlet, which is dated 18th March, dealing wilh the Government's fiscal policy, **Mr. Ricketson** states - >However, for the main part, official measures have been confined to the public sector - increased grants and larger borrowing authorities for State governments and quasi-governmental bodies to stimulate the expansion of public works and housing. These were expected to have strong reflections in the private sector, but, so far, these reflections have not been as vivid as the state of the national economy demands. **Mr. Ricketson** also states Enlarged expenditure on public works, whilst contributing towards the re-employment of those temporarily out of work, is slow to bring effective results as far as private industry is concerned. {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp: -- You don't believe that he wants a decrease in interest rates, do you? {: .speaker-JV8} ##### Mr MONAGHAN: -- I have no doubt that he does want a decrease in interest rates. Further in his pamphlet **Mr. Ricketson,** under the heading "Interest Rates Must Come Down " states - >Over many months, there has been evidence of the gathering force of the public demand for a significant reduction in the general level of interest rates to assist in speeding the pace of economic recovery. > >In view of the overwhelming over-subscription of recent loans, and the plenitude of money available to the Government, circumstances may compel such a change. Consequently, great interest centres on the probable rates to be offered for the conversion operations due to be launched next month. In view of that statement, surely one can conclude that **Mr. Ricketson** supports a decrease in interest rates. A reduction in interest rates is most important. I have before me a copy of a mortgage entered into by one of my constituents. It is providential that I have it with me. I brought lt to Canberra to do some work on it. It is an indication of the extent to which money sharks are holding the Australian people to ransom by virtue of the exorbitant rates of interest that they are charging. I will not name the person who has entered into this mortgage, but I will refer to the company concerned - Custom Credit Corporation Limited of 134 Broadway, Sydney. The amount advanced in this case, which was for the purchase of a home, was £1,623. That sum is repayable over a period of ten years. The interest payable is £1,017. Paragraph (d) of the Memorandum of Contract reads - >Rate of Interest: Calculated in accordance with the schedule to the Moneylenders and Infant Loans Act 1941-1948 as equivalent to interest at the rate of 12.44S per centum per annum. Is it not shameful that that state of affairs should be allowed in Australia to-day? That interest is non-reducible. When the mortgagee has about six months to go, under this transaction he will still be paying interest on the whole of the amount advanced. {: .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr Einfeld: -- At 12.4 per cent.? {: .speaker-JV8} ##### Mr MONAGHAN: -- At 12.445 per cent., which is a shameful state of affairs. Each month for a period of ten years this man will pay £22 under the mortgage. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- What company is that? {: .speaker-JV8} ##### Mr MONAGHAN: -- Custom Credit Corporation limited, whose director, **Mr. Ian** Jacoby, recently went to Western Australia to further his predatory financial ambitions. I warn Western Australia to watch out for this gentleman lest he get at the citizens of that very estimable State. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- Is he not a member of the Liberal Party executive? {: .speaker-JV8} ##### Mr MONAGHAN: -- I am not sure. I would not say that, but I would say - I think this is correct - that Custom Credit Corporation Limited is an adjunct of one of the private banks. My memory is not clear in that regard, but I think that Custom Credit Corporation Limited is an adjunct of one of the free-enterprise banks. Well, that is free enterprise for you, brother - charging 12.445 per cent, interest. That is delightful-! {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr Chipp: -- Do you suggest that this company is a subsidiary of a bank? {: .speaker-JV8} ##### Mr MONAGHAN: -- It is an adjunct of one of the private banks. I am sure that statement can be verified by a little investigation on my part or on the part of the honorable member for Higinbotham. In Sydney, quite contiguous to my electorate, there are, I am sorry to say, quite a number of slums. Those slums must be cleared. In the last few weeks I have driven around my electorate, in which I am keenly interested, and I have also been in the adjoining electorate. The slum conditions under which Australians are housed there are a blot on the Australian Government. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. It is of no use for us to be complacent. There is any amount of work to be done in housing. A most unsatisfactory position exists also in relation to homes for elderly persons. The Commonwealth Government has seen fit to introduce an Aged Persons Homes Act, which is administered by the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton)** who is now at the table. I commend the Government on that legislation. I think it is a wonderful measure. On two occasions recently in my electorate 1 have seen the benefit of this legislation. The Presbyterian Church in Drummoyne, which is in my electorate, received a very handsome grant from the Government to fulfil the most worthy purpose of building homes for aged persons. But if we provide homes for the aged, can we not do something about providing homes for the younger people - Australians recently married and bringing up young families, in many cases large families? These are matters that I think the Government should give attention to. For goodness sake, do not be complacent about the whole affair. Housing, in my view, is predominately a Commonwealth responsibility. In Great Britain it is recognized as a national responsibility. It is true that in that country the homes are built by the borough councils, but the money is provided by the national government. A similar state of affairs exists in New Zealand. I think a spokesman for the Liberal Government of Victoria - I will stand corrected on this if I am wrong; I do not like making statements that I am not too sure about - went on record as saying that housing should be recognized as a federal responsibility. Surely the purpose of this measure that has been presented by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** is not so much to assist housing in Australia as to divert the attention of the Opposition from the question of unemployment. This is still a very serious question. We are told that 96,000 Australians are unemployed, and that is certainly a very large number. Many of those 96,000 people would be breadwinners, and if one takes their families into account, the number of those adversely affected would seem to be much larger than 96,000. I should say it would not be putting the figure too high to suggest that a third of a million Australians are on the breadline. If you think I am exaggerating, let me tell you that when President Kennedy recently addressed the United States Congress he spoke not so much of the number of unemployed persons in America but rather of the number of persons involved, including the families of the unemployed. I think this is the only fair way to approach the unemployment question. I have tried to get views from both employers and employees on the matter of unemployment in the building industry. On four occasions yesterday I tried to get in touch, by telephone, with the Master Builders Association of New South Wales in Sydney but I could get no answer. This was well before 5 o'clock. I am afraid I have been too busy to-day to get in touch with that organization. I did, however, contact the Building Workers Industrial Union, which is one of the unions involved in home-building. I shall give the House some figures and observations which were conveyed to me by that union. This is getting away from home-building, perhaps, but I think it is pertinent to the subject of this debate. I was told that the firm that is building the opera house advertised for 40 tradesmen carpenters. The number of applicants was 210. I was told by a representative of that union that the names of twenty carpenters and four bricklayers have been on the unions' books during the last eight days as being available for work. Those tradesmen cannot get work. That is the information I received from one union, but, as every one knows, not only one union is involved in the building industry. There is also, for instance, the Builders' Labourers Union. Then there is the Plumbers and Gasfitters Union, which is represented in this place by my colleague, the honorable member for Darebin **(Mr. Courtnay).** There is no doubt that the Government is granting this extra money not so much to satisfy a social need as to provide a palliative to ease the unemployment position, which it sees as the most frightening ogre facing it to-day - which of course, it is. As I said at the outset, we of the Labour Party do not oppose this bill. However, I hope that a few of the observations I have made will fall on other than barren ground, and that in the future this Government will pay some heed to the social needs of the Australian people by giving them more adequate housing. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN:
Indi .- I am sure we have all listened with interest to the honorable member for Evans **(Mr. Monaghan).** If one is perfectly fair one must admit that the honorable member usually makes a constructive contribution when he speaks in debates in this House. However, I was a little disappointed when, towards the end of this speech, he adopted the old Australian Labour Party line of advocating the removal of all responsibility from the State governments and placing it on the Commonwealth Government. The honorable member surely must know that the Australian people will not agree to have the State governments relieved of any of their responsibilities. The proposition may be accepted in theory, but when any concrete suggestion is made we find the State Premiers and the municipal authorities opposing the transfer of extra authority to the Commonwealth Government. The honorable member cited certain figures. I could not quite see how some of those figures could be correct. He said that in New South Wales there was a shortage of 36,000 homes. Estimates of the number of homes required in Australia vary between 93,000 and 98,000 a year. These are considered estimates given by sections of the building industry and also by governmental authorities. Working on a requirement of 95,000 a year, let us then take the number of homes commenced each year as *90,000.* As the honorable member pointed out, not all the homes commenced are completed. If we reduce the number of commencements by 10 per cent., we get down to a figure of 80,000 homes built each year, which is only 15,000 less than the requirement throughout the whole of Australia. I cannot work out, therefore, how New South Wales can be 36,000 homes short. The honorable member referred also to the rates of interest charged by hirepurchase firms. Well, every one knows that it is the responsibility of State governments to restrict by legislation interest rates charged by any firm, including hirepurchase firms. I would like to clear the honorable member's mind on one point on which he himself said he was not too clear. He suggested that the Custom Credit Corporation Limited was an adjunct of the National Bank of Australasia Limited. That is not strictly correct. The position, as I understand it, is that the National Bank of Australasia Limited holds 40 per cent, of the shares in the Custom Credit Corporation. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- It is not a bad proportion. {: .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN: -- Well, the Custom Credit Corporation is not, strictly speaking, an adjunct of that bank. However, I am not prepared to debate that question now; I am merely pointing out the exact position. It is quite obvious that most honorable members support this legislation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** said that there was nothing in the Australian Constitution to make housing a responsibility of the State governments. That is true, but traditionally housing has been their responsibility. It was only when they were in a great deal of trouble with the housing problem that the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement was instituted. On several occasions during the last six months or so the Federal Government has made more money available for housing through the War Service Homes Division and other channels. This extra £2,711,000 makes the total Commonwealth contribution to the States for housing about £50,000,000. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** in his second-reading speech, mentioned a fact which was very surprising to me, namely, that over all this financial year, out of the total allocation under the works and housing programme the State governments have made available for housing less money than they did last year. While, as the Treasurer said, it is their own business to make that decision, in view of the housing position that certainly seems to me to be a surprising state of affairs. We all appreciate the importance of housing - or any one with any common sense does. For many years I have held the opinion - in fact, in my maiden speech in this chamber I stressed the importance of this - that governments need to keep a close watch on the housing situation, because there is no doubt that if a person has the opportunity to own his own home that makes for a happier married life, and a better environment for the children, and, what is more important, gives him a tangible stake in the city or town in which he lives and also in Australia. Whilst we want to give young people every assistance, particularly to own their own homes, they must be prepared to accept the responsibility of saving in their own right in order that they may have an equity in their own homes. The Government has shown a realization of the problems facing the young people of this country. I am certain that it will continue to do that. We must continue to do that. However, **Mr. Speaker,** there appear to me ro be some traps if we make too much money available for housing. If money is too freely available for housing at interest rates that are too low, it is obvious that the price of land and houses will rise, because every one connected with the real estate industry and the building industry will know that money is readily available at low interest rates for long terms to the young people, in the first place, to whom they are selling the land and, in the second, with whom they are entering into contracts to build houses. The tendency will be for a greater price to be asked for the land and for a greater price to be set in the contract to build the house. Of course, if there was so much money available that we got back to the position in 1960, when there was a shortage of skilled labour, that would lead not only to higher prices but also to inefficient construction. I think we ought to consider the basic factors that are involved in buying a home. There are three main factors, as I see it. They are, first, the amount of the deposit that needs to be borrowed; secondly, the amount of interest that has to be paid back on the loan; and, thirdly, the repayment period. We must remember that a house is probably the biggest single purchase that a married couple will ever make in their lives. Buying a house is one of the biggest decisions that they will make. It is generally thought that on an average the purchase of a house takes the total wages that a person earns in about five years. Of course, it is obviously impossible to accumulate a great proportion of what one earns. So it is necessary for money to be borrowed. It seems to me that over the past few years one of the biggest problems, as recognized by various people who are connected with the building industry, has been what is called the deposit gap. The Treasurer referred to this matter in his speech. If we have taken notice of the number of articles that have been written and statements that have been made by people connected with the building industry, we will know that this has been one of the main problems. The general cause of this problem, which has been accentuated over the last fifteen or sixteen years, has been the increase in the cost of homes, the steep rise in the cost of land, and the nonbalancing rise in the maximum loans avail able. For instance, since 1946 the price of a brick veneer home has risen by about 245 per cent, and the price of land has risen by about 1,200 per cent. Whereas in 1952 a prospective buyer had to find between 10 and 25 per cent, of the total price of the house and land as a deposit, he is now faced with having to find between 35 and 45 per cent, of the total price. In recent moves many institutions such as the Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank, the War Service Homes Division and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation have raised the maximum loan from their original figures, which varied, to £3,500. As has been admitted by people who have studied this subject, the raising of the maximum loan has played a very important part in solving this problem that is known as the deposit gap. That applies only where the total price of the land and the house is under £5,000. When the maximum loan was £2,750 it was quite common to have a deposit gap of about £850. That is the difference between what is normally recognized as the deposit on a home - say 25 per cent, of the cost and the actual deposit that is needed to supplement the maximum loan in order to pay the full price of the house and land. Let us assume that a person has to pay £1,500 for a block of land and then puts a £4,500 house on that land. That £1,500 is not an unreasonable price, by any means, for a block of land to-day, particularly in the metropolitan areas. That makes a total of £6,000. The maximum loan available is £3,500. That leaves an actual deposit that he needs of £2,500. However, the Commonwealth Savings Bank will lend up to 75 per cent of the valuation. In the case of a £6,000 house this comes to £4,500. As the maximum loan is £3,500 there remains a deposit gap of £1,000. The honorable member for Griffith **(Mr. Coutts),** by interjection asked, "What are you talking about - business executives' houses? " The honorable member for Barton **(Mr. Reynolds)** also had something to say about this. I mention that for a special reason, because I remember reading in a Sydney newspaper, eight or nine months ago, of a schoolteacher paying £5,750, at auction, for a block of land very close to Sydney Harbour. Not only is it necessary to have the £2,500 to build a house which, including the price of the land, is to cost £6,000, but also the purchaser must have money to purchase furniture and the various appliances that are recognized as being necessary in a modern house. So, if we add another £1,000 for this purpose we find that it is necessary for the person concerned to save approximately £3,500, because he has to outlay a total of £7,000. It must be extremely difficult for the average person in this country to-day to save anywhere near that amount of money. That is why I applaud the Government on the moves it is now making. However, I feel that further steps are warranted. I believe that the housing problem is right at the base of the traditions of Australian life and of the future of the nation. I applaud the move by the Government of Victoria to assist people to bridge the deposit gap. That Government has recently announced that it will make available second mortgage loans at an interest rate of *61* per cent, for a maximum period of ten years. As the Minister for Housing in Victoria, **Mr. Thompson** - in my opinion he has done a remarkably fine job - said, his Government believes that this scheme will be of great assistance to young people and will save them from having to raise second mortgages at extremely high interest rates. The honorable member for La Trobe **(Mr. Jess)** mentioned the Federal Housing Administration. I did not hear the commencement of his remarks, but I presume he was referring to the United States instrumentality. His suggestion was that we should investigate more closely the set-up in America. I agree with him and I was going to suggest the same thing. But the question arises of how we should investigate it and who should carry out the investigation. Who would be responsible for sending the investigators overseas? Would it be the State Governments or the Federal Government? I think they should combine and send overseas people who could give an unbiased report on the situation in America and tell us whether, taking all the factors into account, we could adopt a similar system in Australia. We should all bear in mind that it is not common sense to have an economy in which people must pay high prices for land and houses and therefore must find very large deposits. This takes out of the economy money which could be spent on purchasing consumer goods, and so greatly assist our primary and secondary industries. There has recently been a suggestion from two respected and knowledgeable people in Victoria - I think it has been made also by **Mr. Warren** McDonald, the chairman of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation - that the Commonwealth might consider setting up a committee to make a national housing survey. I realize that it is not easy to get men with time, experience and knowledge to conduct such inquiries, but I feel that the Government should seriously consider this proposition. {: .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr Einfeld: -- The Government has already refused to do that. {: .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr HOLTEN: -- The Government may have refused, as the honorable member for Phillip reminds me, but, fortunately, I belong to a party in which I am free to express my opinions on what the Government should do. I say, and I hope other supporters of the Government will agree with me - that one of our most important tasks is to convince the young people of Australia that we realize the importance to every married couple of ownership of a home. I feel that it is the duty of the Federal Government to set the pace - not to do the lot itself, but to demonstrate in a practical manner that it is prepared to play its part in achieving the objective of making it as easy as is practicable for them to own their own homes. {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-K4Z} ##### Mr O'BRIEN:
Petrie **.- Mr. Speaker,** again there has been introduced into this House a bill authorizing the allocation of additional money to assist the development of this country, in this case by providing housing. Again we do not see supporters of the Government waxing enthusiastic about the bill. They cannot do so, because this is conscience money and nobody ever waxes enthusiastic about paying conscience money. The bill is the result of mismanagement by this Government and of its credit squeeze activities. It has introduced - in the first year of this Parliament and again this year - a series of bills to patch up the mistakes it has made in the past few years. All we have had before this House have been bills to patch up and bolster the economy. There is no plan whatever. We have not heard any enthusiastic declaration by members of the Government of what they propose to do. They have not said, " There will be houses for all ". We have only heard mild support, with the aid of figures, for firms such as Custom Credit Corporation Limited which are getting a return of 12 per cent, flat on their money. The Government budgeted for a deficit of £118,000,000. Yet now, a few months later, when it finds that things are going to work out and that the money it put into the economy is going to come back, it can provide only an additional £100,000 for housing in Queensland! There were 10,769 new constructions in Queensland in 1960. In 1961 there were 9,860 and in 1962 there were 9,965. The estimated requirement for Queensland is 12,000 new housing units a year. What has this magnanimous Government done? By this conscience money bill which is now before us, it proposes to give the people of Queensland an additional £100,000. The young people of Australia to-day, particularly those in the sixteen to seventeen years age group seeking employment, hold this Government and this Parliament in the utmost contempt. They are " on " to this Government. A few years ago, shortly after Labour left office, young people could buy a home for a deposit of a few hundreds of pounds. What amount must they find to-day? In my own State of Queensland, blocks of land range in price from £600 to £2,000. Then the home seekers must find sufficient deposit for the home itself. Why cannot the Commonwealth Government devise some plan to help the young people of Australia? But the Government turns its back on them. Its ineptitude in managing this country's affairs is patently obvious. It is just bungling along. The provision of homes is next in importance to the task of remedying the sickness of unemployment. One wonders whether this bill is designed to get the unemployment bogy off the Government's back or whether it is a genuine attempt to assist young people to obtain homes. Even the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies),** when referring to the United States naval communications base in Western Australia, said that this would increase employment in Australia. This Government's sole concern is to recover the support it has lost due to the effects of its bungling policies. It has no overall plan. It hands out sops to Queensland in the form of a few million pounds for the construction of beef roads and so on. Although Queensland is the State most seriously affected by the credit squeeze and has the highest rate of unemployment, particularly of juveniles, the Queensland Liberal-Country Party Government, without an explanation to any one, closed down the State Parliament in November, 1962, and will not re-open it again until 1st August, 1963 - a recess of eight months. We Queenslanders commend the members of the Commonwealth Government for this additional grant to Queensland, but their brother politicians in Queensland have been content to close down the State Parliament for eight months, although it is the only forum in which the other members of that Parliament can talk about the housing plight of the young people. There have been plenty of reports about the housing shortage. To-day the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** itemized many aspects of it and the honorable member for Evans **(Mr. Monaghan)** itemized a few. The people of Australia know that the problem exists. They can read about it in any number of newspapers. The leading article in the Melbourne "Herald" of 23rd March, 1963, was headed, " Housing needs action and money, not reports". The Melbourne " Age " of 18th February, 1963, carried the heading, " Australians paying greater deposits on homes than Americans ". The " SunHerald " of 27th January, 1963, had an editorial headed, " Home scarcity a social evil ". But the Government does nothing. No legislation has been introduced into this Parliament to overcome the scarcity of homes. In my own State of Queensland there is not even a suggestion of slum clearance. Last year in Queensland the number of housing units constructed was between 2,000 and 3,000 below the estimated requirements. And the Commonwealth Government has granted thai State an additional £100,000! The Oueensland Liberal-Country Party Government is keeping the State Parliament in recess, so it probably does not know yet that the grant is being made. In the Melbourne " Age " of 6th August, 1962, the heading "Deposit gap leads to fall in home building " covered an article on the housing shortage. The Melbourne " Sun " of 24th January, 1963, carried an article under the heading " Launch a crash plan to give people homes of their own ". Surely Government supporters and departmental officers know that it is almost impossible for young people to marry early enough to raise a family of a reasonable size if they have to save and scrape to get the deposit on a home. No provision has been made for many young people in Queensland. Young people now leaving school to commence their working careers will have to wait for six to eight months before they get a job. When they are seventeen years of age, possibly they will find jobs, but much depends on how many injections this Government gives the economy. There is no real plan to help the people. The reports in relation to this matter are too numerous for me to mention all of them, but I must refer to a few, if only to give some information to members of the Country Party, who continue to bumble along behind the chief bumble bee. The Building Industry Advisory Committee has advocated long-term low-deposit housing. In 1952, between 10 per cent, and 32.3 per cent, of the total cost of a block of land was required as a deposit. In 1961, between 34 per cent, and 45.3 per cent, was required as deposit. In 1952, it took between *li* and 5) years to raise the necessary deposit but in 1961 the length of time increased to between 6i and 8) years. If a lad of seventeen years of age commences work as a clerk he may have a better chance of saving the deposit than an apprentice will have,' because an apprentice is tied to a paltry wage for a number of years before he begins to earn the tradesman's rate. Let us take the case of a tradesman. He spends six years serving his apprenticeship. By that time he is 21 or 22 years of age. Then, according to the statistics, it will take him between 6i and 8) years to save the deposit on a block of land. What hope has the man who does the work in this country - the man who works in the department store or the man who works' in the factory ~of saving the deposit on a block of land when he earns only £17 or £18 a week? How much can he save out of that to pay the deposit on a block of land which in my own State will cost between £600 and £2,000? But that is not the only problem. What about furnishing the home after it is built, and what about providing for the family which will come? We of the Australian Labour Party are fully conscious of the requirements of the young people of Australia and we pledge ourselves to continue to bring this matter to the attention of the Government. However, when we do return to office - most certainly we shall become the Government within the next 18 or 19 months - we shall take every step to assist the young people. We shall not turn our backs on them. The Building Industry Advisory Committee also reported for the benefit of the young people - in case members of the Country Party do not know it, the young people can read - that between 1946 and 1961 housing costs rose by 207.1 per cent. We wonder whether wages rose correspondingly. In Queensland, to which I refer particularly, applications to the Housing Commission for rented premises totalled 3,527 in October, 1962, the latest month for which figures are available. But those applicants have, or think they have, a really genuine case. Surely untold thousands of people know that they have no chance of obtaining a commission home so they do not bother to apply for one. On 27th April, 1962, the "Courier Mail" published the result of a survey it had conducted which indicated that it was impossible to rent a home for less than £8 8s. a week. The young man of 21 or 22 years of age, the average marriageable age, probably has saved a couple of hundreds of pounds. He meets the young girl of his choice and they marry without first obtaining a home. To avoid living with in-laws he then has to pay £8 8s. a week for a roof over his head. Let us assume that his average income is £20 a week. He must provide food and clothing for himself and his wife as well as meet medical and other expenses out of £12 a week. These young people elect members to this Parliament and they expect the Parliament to legislate for their well-being. It is obvious that this Government does not and cannot so legislate. It paints the old picture of a yacht sailing up the harbour trimming its sails and tacking to meet prevailing conditions. The young people want to know where they are going. Because of the lack of government surveys, it is left to the press to conduct surveys in relation to these matters. On 29th November last the Brisbane " Courier-Mail " indicated that a survey of many estate agents revealed that Queensland home-buyers were paying a true interest rate of up to 17 per cent, on home finance. The Labour Government and this Government provided finance for the young people of the post-war era through the War Service Homes Division. But now we are faced with the needs of the sons and daughters of the men who returned from the war. An ex-serviceman who has borrowed from the War Service Homes Division a sum of £3,500 to be repaid over 30 years is required to repay £16 3s. 9d. a month, but a young person who borrows a similar sum for the same period from the Queensland Housing Commission has to pay £19 7s. lid. a month, or £3 4s. 2d. more, lt would seem that a person born in one decade is more fortunate than a person born in another, unless there comes into office a government which thinks constructively and inaugurates a plan to provide houses. It has been obvious to every statistician or to any person in Australia who studies the birth rate that the number of children leaving school during the 1960's will be greater than that of the later 1950's. It has been estimated that in Queensland 25,000 children left school in 1962 but that for 1963 and the next five or six years 30,000 children will leave school each year. This Government has behind it the vast resources of the Public Service and has known of the problems that would be caused by young people becoming available for employment, but it has provided not a whit for those people. The Government has known that from now until 1970 there will be an increased demand for housing. But what survey has it made or what plan has it formulated to meet the need? Every organization that is associated with housing has called for a survey of our needs, but the Government will not undertake one. The appropriate State Ministers meet and ask for a survey to be made, but all they are told is that the matter is being considered. {: .speaker-KYS} ##### Mr Reynolds: -- They want to find out the dimensions of the problem. {: .speaker-K4Z} ##### Mr O'BRIEN: -- That is quite correct. This Government is satisfied with simply handing out little plugs or conscience money. We shall probably hear the speaker who follows me ramble on about facts and figures and say, " This is what we have done for you". The Australian Labour Party demands action from this Government. It wants the Government to conduct a survey of our housing needs and to arrange with the States for lower deposits and interest rates, longer and easier terms of repayment, housing targets and orderly land development. This Government and the State governments must protect young people against land developers who buy land at approximately £100 a block and sell it for £1,100. But it is quite hopeless to ask the Government to do that. I am amazed that this Government has not sent the Parliament into recess for eight months as did the Country-Liberal Party Government in Queensland, despite the fact that Queensland has the highest rate of unemployment in Australia and is confronted with the problem of a large number of children leaving school. Just recently an honorable member opposite said that if a union stopped work for a day it would be guilty of anarchy. But what do we say when a parliament closes down for eight months at a time of crisis? This Government convenes Parliament and gives honorable members an opportunity to speak on odd occasions and hands out its little conscience pills. It allows us to meet in this gas chamber, to talk and to get something off our chests; but nobody waxes enthusiastic about things. It hands out £100,000 to Queensland to help it overcome its problems. We cannot object to that. But at least the Queensland Government has the courage of its convictions and, knowing that it cannot manage the government of the State, has closed down the State Parliament for eight months. I support the bill, but I hope that there will be much saner voting at the next general election and that the Australian Labour Party will be returned to office. Then we will see some action. {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH:
Mackellar -- I am afraid that the honorable member for Petrie **(Mr. O'Brien)** was not very constructive in his comments. The problem we are discussing requires constructive thought. Unfortunately, I find myself wanting to repeat many of the comments I made in this place on 13th November last and on earlier occasions. I believe that we should be expanding our homebuilding programme rather more than is envisaged by the Government in the bill, and to that extent I agree with some of the statements that have been made by the Opposition. We still have spare resources; we have not achieved full employment or the full height of economic activity. But that being so, we are considering a problem which we might consider in more qualified terms if we had a state of over-full employment and were facing the danger of inflation. We can now consider in rather simple terms whether it is desirable for us to increase the output of houses. The first matter we must look at is the number of houses we require. We do not need to go beyond the estimates made by **Dr. Hail;** they seem to me to be reasonably based. He thinks that for 1963 we should provide approximately 94,000 houses, which is 4,000 or 5,000 more than the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** envisaged in his secondreading speech. If that is to be our level for this year, we should, looking ahead, think of increasing the present figure by approximately 5,000 houses and then by 3 per cent, or 4 per cent, each succeeding year. They seem to me to be reasonable figures. I would not want to see a tremendous increase in home-building, but surely a substantial increase is called lor and could be justified. I go a little further than that. We have a backlog of housing which would justify our going a little beyond the trend projected by **Dr. Hall.** There is still a call for the demolition of slums. In a number of our cities there are bad slums which could well go at perhaps a somewhat greater rate than **Dr. Hall** postulates. I regard his figures on this count as being a little on the low side. But we should consider two other factors. Australia needs a growing flow of immigrants. The greatest problem which faces incoming migrants is accommodation. If we are to maintain our rate of growth by immi gration we must accelerate our rate of building, in order not merely to cope with immigration but also to attract immigrants. It is perhaps not going to be so easy in the future to obtain suitable immigrants as it has been in the past. The thing that has kept the flow of desirable migrants down is very largely the shortage of housing in Australia. In order to reverse this position we may have to increase the rate at which we provide housing. To maintain or increase the rate of growth of our population - and I believe that all members on both sides of the House would agree with the desirability of that - a somewhat more adventurous housing programme may be justified. That is one factor. There is another factor which I think we should face, though it is a less pleasant one to face. It would seem that in the very near future we will have to allocate a greater proportion of our real resources to defence. In other words, while we have had surplus labour in the immediate past and have perhaps to some degree surplus labour and resources at the moment, this position is not likely to continue, because the demands of defence are going to require a much greater expenditure of money and of real resources. This is something which we do not like. We would rather that we did not have to spend this money in that way; but as responsible members of this Parliament whose first charge is the survival of the Australian people we may have to face up to this somewhat unpleasant necessity. If so, our future home-building capacity is going to be reduced by the necessity for allocating real resources to defence. It would be prudent at the present time, when we have the real resources, to build and make provision for the future, knowing that the pressures of defence may reduce our capacity to provide houses later. This is not a new concept. Honorable members will recall that during the last war, for example, when we were allocating a very big proportion of our expenditure to defence, we had to control the building industry very severely. I do not suggest that the same degree of severity is going to occur in the future; but I do suggest that in the future there will be a very real conflict between the requirements of building and the requirements of defence, and the requirements of defence may have to take priority. That being so, I urge the Government to use this time for civilian building, and I think that on this account there is a case to be made out for a radical step-up in the amount of building that is done. If one looks at the housing requirements in accordance with the trend line, naturally the number of houses built will tend to vary from year to year above and below that trend line. Obviously, since building is one of the great variables in the economy it should be used intelligently in order to keep a proper level of full employment without spilling over into inflation. This being so, here again one gets a potent argument - one of the most potent arguments possible - for an increase in the number of buildings constructed each year. So, on those grounds, I think the Treasury should be more adventurous than it has been. It should be envisaging a greater housing programme - not one without a ceiling but one that is perhaps 7 per cent., 8 per cent, or 10 per cent, above the present level and increasing thereafter at the rate of 3 per cent, or 4 per cent, a year. I am not asking for a tremendous acceleration. However, our building programme may, as I have said, have to be tailored to fit our future defence requirements. As I said, no member of this House likes to have to face this, but all honorable members will realize that in the interests of the survival of the Australian people it may have to be faced. Having said that, let me look at some of the ways and means by which we can stimulate the present programme. One way, of course, has been the guarantee of housing loans by the Government. The very excellent example of the Federal Housing Administration of the United States of America has been instanced in the House to-day and I understand that Victoria is doing much better in the same direction than are certain other States, notably New South Wales. But there is an opportunity for this to be done which would enable funds not only to be provided but provided at a low rate of interest. This is important also. The Commonwealth Bank might increase the top level of its housing loans a little and perhaps, if it is found necessary, be a little less repressive in regard to second mortgages. However, second mortgages are a second rate means. It would be better if arrangements could be made to carry a fair proportion of the advances on first mortgage and at a low rate of interest. This would decrease the legal costs and other impediments involved. We should be doing more with building societies. Only to-day I had an opportunity of talking with **Mr. Moir** of the New South Wales building societies movement, and he told me that even at. this moment he is very short of funds. He said that if he bad more funds he would build more. This is a silly position. There is no reason why, in this present situation, when we need more houses and when we have spare real resources, the building society movement in New South Wales should be short of funds. I am not saying that building societies should have an infinite amount of funds. What I am saying is that while our output of houses remains as it is, and below the optimum, there should be no shortage of funds for the building societies in New South Wales, and it is time that the Government made the necessary arrangements. This is not hard to do. It seems to me that there is no reason why it should not do so. There are other things that could be done. We could help the permanent societies. I think that New Zealand, for example, allows the interest on deposits with permanent societies to a maximum of £30 or £40 a year to be tax free. Another thing that could be done lies in the domain of the State governments. I think it is done in both New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The stamp duties in respect of home purchases up to a ceiling of £3,000 or £4,000 are remittable. This could be done with the co-operation of the State governments. To help home building it would probably be desirable for the Government to rethink the legislation which encourages a certain proportion of the funds of life assurance companies to be invested in government bonds or semi-government securities. As honorable members know, this was rather overcarried, because the amount of money now coming forward for these purposes is so great that the Treasurer has, I understand, postponed his April loan raising on the ground that he does not need to have it. Surely we should be helping these assurance companies to deposit their funds with building societies and otherwise to use their funds to help the home-builder. It may be that an interest subvention is necessary. I do not think that the Government should shrink from giving an interest subvention to the small man because it is most desirable that the small man should be able to buy a home early in life. In general, if a home costs £5,000 - a normal, moderate home - then a 1 per cent, interest subvention would equal about £1 a week. That is a rough calculation but it will do. {: .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr Einfeld: -- Explain how that would work. {: .speaker-DB6} ##### Mr WENTWORTH: -- An interest subvention would be made to such organizations as building societies or other lending institutions if they lent for low cost housing - say with a limit of about £4,000. The loans would carry an interest subvention from the Government. This is something which could be done because we do want, at this moment, to direct money into these channels. I think that honorable members will agree with me that the home purchaser has two main needs. He wants money to be available on a reasonable proportion of security; and he wants that money to be available at a reasonable rate of interest. I am not deterred by the argument that a Minister of the Crown some years ago put forward in this House when he said that he did not want people to own their homes because they became little capitalists. That seems to me to be carrying socialism to an illogical excess. It was **Mr. Dedman** who said that and it seems to me to be very bad sense, very bad sociology, and probably very bad politics. I should like to see people have the opportunity to own their own homes. I should even like the Government to go to great lengths in order to make it possible for them to do this and to do it at a reasonable cost. I have, I hope, put forward some constructive views on this subject. Of course, I support the bill. I only wish it went a little bit further. Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr EINFELD:
Phillip .- The decision of the Opposition not to oppose the States Grants (Additional Assistance) Bill which we discussed yesterday and the Loan (Housing) Bill which we have been discussing to-day has produced a tremendous smugness in the supporters of the Government. That was demonstrated in their speeches both yesterday and this afternoon. They have misunderstood entirely the reasons why the Opposition has decided to support these bills. These sheep in lions' clothing have had the temerity even to criticize statements made by the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** and some of the arguments presented by him. We had the spectacle of the honorable members for La Trobe **(Mr. Jess)** and Indi **(Mr. Holten)** making statements which were especially critical of things which had been said by a Minister of the Government they support. This courage they derived from their knowledge that the Opposition did not intend to oppose the bill we are discussing this evening. The reason why we do not intend to oppose it is quite clear. Let me say, on behalf of the party on this side of the House, that we are bitterly opposed to the idea that this bill will ameliorate in any way the deficiencies that exist in housing in Australia. We are deeply disappointed that the Minister should have presented to the House a bill that will in no way satisfy the housing requirements of this country. But we support the bill because we believe that a little is better than nothing at all, and we want as many people as possible to obtain houses. The honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth),** who preceded me in the debate and who sometimes has had the temerity to oppose members of the Government and even the Prime Minister, had some quite constructive things to say in regard to this matter. One of the most important things he said was that it was desirable to increase the production of houses. He said that we need a considerable number of houses now and that a somewhat more adventurous housing programme ought to be embarked upon. He was even so bold as to say that we want to take a radical step up in house building. This bill proposes the borrowing of £2,711,000 to help relieve the housing situation in Australia. That sum is to be added to the amount of £45,900,000 which, last November, we agreed to use for the purposes of housing, making a total of more than £48,000,000. It would appear from the second-reading speech of the Treasurer that the Premiers were satisfied with this amount. Nothing is further from the truth. What in fact happened was what has happened at Loan Council meetings for years. The Premiers are supposed to meet in the Loan Council and tell the Prime Minister and the Treasurer of their minimal demands, but never have those demands been met by this Commonwealth Government. They have always been reduced very considerably, so that whatever sums the Premiers have received, they have been less than the amounts required to start all the absolutely necessary works in the States or to build the required number of houses. If we are to think in terms of this £2,7 1 1,000, we ought to have a look at the outstanding applications in the Housing Commissions and Housing Trusts of the Stale Governments of Australia as at 30th June, 1962. In New South Wales at that date there were 36,322 applications which had been vetted and accepted from people in the low-income field who were entitled to housing. In Victoria, there were 13,147; in Queensland, 4,166; in South Australia, 12,000; in Western Australia, 7,658; and in Tasmania, 1,652. So that, at 30th June, 1962, or two months before the Treasurer presented his Budget for the year 1962-63, there were 74,945 unsatisfied applications at the Housing Commissions alone. That figure, of course, did not include applications with building societies and private builders, nor did it include all the other requirements of those who want to be home-owners or occupiers in Australia. {: .speaker-K7J} ##### Mr Cramer: -- Why is the New South Wales figure so high proportionately? {: .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr EINFELD: -- First, because New South Wales is the largest State, and secondly, because it has made the most tremendous step forward in housing. I shall have something more to say about that later. The Minister for the Army **(Mr. Cramer)** these days forgets all about homes and thinks only of soldiers - and very little of them. He comes into the House and begins to speak about housing. There was a time when he knew something about housing, but he has forgotten all about it now, and he knows very little about military camps. This bill is presented only about four months after we passed a bill, last November, to provide £45,900,000 for housing. At that stage, when the Treasurer had presented the Budget and we had debated it fully, he said, " This will take care of the immediate needs of housing in Australia." Four months afterwards he comes to the Parliament, presents a bill and says, "That was not enough. I made a miscalculation. I made a mistake. We need another £2,711,000." He did exactly the same last year. This kind of thing happens because the Government does not believe in planning. It wants to have these little injections to try to stimulate the economy, but they misfire because they are not the result of any determined effort to try to satisfy the needs of the community in every direction. The Treasurer, in his second-reading speech, said that 86,300 dwellings were commenced in 1962, or 10,800 fewer than the number of dwellings commenced in 1960, despite the fact that demand is greater in 1963. Everyone admits there is a housing problem. The question is: How should it be faced? Everyone admits there is an unemployment problem. How should it be faced? I maintain that one of the best methods of tackling unemployment is to activate house building. The Minister for Housing in New South Wales, a magnificent Minister and one who is facing the problem, told me the other day that every item used by the Housing Commission of New South Wales - and I have no reason to think that the position is any different with other Housing Commissions in Australia - is made in Australia. Every screw, every brick, every tile, every gallon of paint and every piece of timber is manufactured in Australia. Therefore, all the articles used in houses built by the Housing Commissions of this country are made here. If we activate the house-building industry we also activate all the other phases of the building industry, such as those which employ builders' labourers, plumbers, carpenters and factory workers. Surely that is the proper way to stand up and face the unemployment problem. The honorable member for Mallee **(Mr. Turnbull)** says that that is elementary. I want to say something with regard to him. From the Government's point of view, unemployment is already becoming a dirty word. If somebody on this side of the House says something about unemployment and tries to direct the attention of the nation to this very serious problem, the supporters of the Government say, "You are doing a disservice to the country ". There are men on the Government side of the chamber - and in a moment I shall prove it in regard to the honorable member for Mallee - who want to attack the unemployed people who, through no fault of their own, cannot get employment. You know, **Sir, that** last night in this Parliament there were honorable members who were attacking the unemployed, attacking Australian workers and decent Australian people who cannot find work because of the dangerous economic policies of this Government. The honorable member for Swan **(Mr. Cleaver)** stood up and spoke about unemployment in Western Australia. He said - >The Western Australian unemployment figures issued by the Department of Labour and National Service may be a few points higher than the Australian average. That can be explained. There is nothing alarming about that. Some people write in the press about an unemployment problem. T, for one, am happy to come back, as I said a few weeks ago in Western Australia, and say, " What problem? " He was speaking about unemployment and he asked, " What problem? " If we have a look at the unemployment figures for Western Australia and compare those for 1st February, 1963, with those for 2nd February, 1962, we find this position. On 2nd February, 1962, according to figures supplied by the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon),** 7,576 persons were unemployed in Western Australia. On 1st February, 1963, 8,190 persons were unemployed in that State. The honorable member for Swan, like the honorable member for Mallee, described the types of people who were unemployed. They said that the*e are people who have physical defects. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- I did not say anything of the kind. {: .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr EINFELD: -- I will come to the honorable member for Mallee in a moment. It is hard to come to him because he never says anything worth while, but I will come to him. The honorable member for Swan said that unemployed people are divided into various categories. He said that there are people who do not have all their faculties. The honorable member knows that we have legislation to provide for people who are not physically capable of working. He went on to say that it is not easy to find work for young people who leave school. They are the easiest people for whom to find work, if we have a proper plan. Surely a boy or girl should be able to leave school and walk straight into employment in industry, if there is proper planning. The honorable member for Mallee said that seasonal workers make big money. I do not know how big " big money " is, according to the honorable member for Mallee, who is an auctioneer in private life, but if Australians register for employment and say they want work, I am willing to have faith in them. I say that 99.99 per cent, of Australians are decent, honest citizens. If they register for employment, they want employment, and it is up to the Government to ensure by proper planning that government and private enterprises make employment available for them. But the Government has not done that. Government supporters attack people who are out of work, and that is a disgraceful situation in a society such as this. Two weeks ago the State Housing Ministers at a conference in Melbourne decided to ask the Commonwealth Government to appoint a committee to investigate housing needs for the next five years. There is no doubt that if such a committee were appointed and made a long-term forecast, it would help ultimately to achieve stability in the building industry, if the Government formulated a plan. But planning is a dirty word with this Government. The Government does not agree with planning. Even without a committee of inquiry, it is obvious that people need houses. It is also obvious that the building industry is working below capacity. The only element needed to remedy the housing shortage is money. The Commonwealth Government, which possesses the money that normally would belong to the States, has a duty to ensure that the States are provided with the money they need to overcome the housing shortage. The building industry is producing fewer than 90 per cent, of the dwellings it was producing before the famous 1960 credit squeeze. There is unused capacity in the building industry. On the one hand, there is an unemployed labour force; on the other hand, the building industry is capable of producing more houses and is working at less than full capacity. In this situation it is almost criminal neglect for the Government to permit the housing shortage to continue. In 1962, 86,656 dwellings were completed, but in 1960 94,794 dwellings were completed. In the quarter ended 31st December, 1962, 23,421 dwellings were erected and in the quarter ending 31st December, 1960, 26,045 were completed. So we have gone backwards. The £2,711,000 which is provided in this bill will enable approximately 891 homes to be built. New South Wales will receive £1,300,000 and with this will be able to build some 430 homes. Victoria will receive £250,000 and will be able to build 83 homes. Queensland will receive £100,000. For the whole State of Queensland, about 33 dwellings can be built with this money. South Australia will receive £491,000 and will be able to build 165 homes. Western Australia, which will receive £470,000, will be able to build 147 homes. Tasmania will receive £100,000 and will be able to build 33 homes. {: .speaker-K8B} ##### Mr Curtin: -- That will stimulate the economy! {: .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr EINFELD: -- We are told that it will stimulate house building and employment. We are told that it will do remarkable things. We will be able to build another 891 homes! I am the chairman of eight non-profit co-operative building societies in Sydney. They have expended about £600,000 and have been able to provide the finance to enable 200 working class families to purchase homes. The allocation to the eight co-operative building societies from this £2,711,000 will be £3,500. We will get enough money to finance the building of one home. This is a fantastic situation. The £48,000,000 provided under the two bills will enable some 16,200 dwellings to be built, but in 1962 the demand was for 75,945 homes. The effect of this Government's policy will be that the number of unsatisfied applications will continue to grow. What will be the end of this trend? Let us examine the position. In June, 1962, the number of outstanding applications with the New South Wales Housing Commission was 36,322. By 31st December, 1962 - just three months ago - the number had grown to 36,799. In 1961-62, the New South Wales Housing Commission built 4,722 dwellings. From 1st July, 1962, to 22nd March, 1963, it built 3,222 dwellings. The New South Wales Housing Commission is building as many homes almost as the housing authorities in Victoria and South Australia together are building. It is doing a magnificent job, but it cannot build homes unless it is given money. The annual report of the New South Wales Housing Commission for 1961-62 contains the following comment: - {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . there is grave cause for concern for the future due to the continuing high intake of new applications. For the year these numbered 18,192 and surpassed even the very high figure of last year. At the close of the year there were 31,702 applicants eligible for permanent dwellings and with 4,620 applications yet to be reviewed the total potential demand on the Commission stood at 36,322. . . . It is considered that all who are admitted as eligible comply with requirements as to housing need, are primarily in the low or moderate income group and, at least under present conditions, have little prospect of abtaining satisfactory accommodation within their means other than through the Commission. The Victorian Housing Commission had this to say in its twenty-fourth annual report - >Applications remaining unsatisfied at the 30th June, 1962, totalled 13,147 and still greatly exceeds the number of dwelling units being built annually by the Commission. For 1961-62, 2,400 dwellings were completed. The South Australian Housing Trust reported that it completed 3,258 dwellings, but received 7,152 applications. In 1961-62, including emergency grants, £50,400,000 was provided by the Government through the Australian Loan Council for housing. This year, the total amount provided is £48,611,000. This shows how absurd the situation is. The States have been given less money with which to build houses. They will build fewer houses but their requirements are greater than they were last year. This year, New South Wales will receive £16,300,000; last year, it received £17,003,000. Victoria this year will receive £12,850,000 and last year received £13,527,000. Queensland this year will receive £3,900,000 and last year received £4,200,000. South Australia is the only State to be given an increase. This year it will receive £9,491,000 and last year it received £9,036,000. This year Western Australia has received £3,470,000. Last year Western Australia received £3,706,000. Tasmania this year has received £2,600,000 and last year received £2,928,000. Surely it is unanswerable logic to say that more must be done to provide homes for people in the low income groups - to help them to purchase homes if possible but certainly to make dwellings available to them. A realistic sum to be set aside for housing this year would be an extra £60,000,000. Such a sum would increase the rate of home building and would help many people to purchase a home by bridging the deposit gap. If it is a question of priorities, surely housing requirements merit somewhere near the very highest priority that can be given. The last Commonwealth loan was heavily over-subscribed. The Treasurer was very proud of that. We all know the loan was over-subscribed because of a rumour that the Government might intelligently yield to pressure to reduce the interest rate. Nevertheless it was over-subscribed. If it was over-subscribed as much as it was there must be room for far more money to be made available by the Commonwealth for housing. For some time past the State housing commissions have been building dwellings for the aged. Reference was made this afternoon to the Aged Persons Homes Act which has enabled many charitable institutions to obtain £2 from the Queensland Government for every £1 that they spend on home units for aged people. This scheme has worked very successfully. A number of organizations with which I am connected have taken advantage of the scheme and have built fine homes for the aged. Many other institutions have done likewise. But the State governments, too, are building home units for the aged. They are using money that they have been able to find for this purpose from their own limited resources and they are using money provided under the Commonwealth's programme. In 1962 in New South Wales 243 units were completed for the aged. They are lovely units. {: .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr Haworth: -- How much was provided by the Commonwealth for that purpose? {: .speaker-KDI} ##### Mr EINFELD: -- The ' States obtained no special grant for that purpose. They did not get a special allocation. Most of the money was provided by the States themselves. In 1962 in Victoria 85 such units were completed and in South Australia 61 were completed. But the Minister for Housing in New South Wales has a waiting list of 5,000 aged persons seeking this accommodation. If you visit any of these home units built by the housing commissions you will find aged people living in perfectly ideal conditions and paying subeconomical rentals. They are paying £1 or £1 10s. a week out of their pension. They are living happily in units on the ground floor of large apartment or flat buildings. This is magnificent accommodation compared with the dirty and dingy rooms they rented formerly. Every honorable member must have some aged constituents and must be sickened at the sight of those people having to exist in most dreadful conditions on the miserable pension granted to them. In this country it is a fate worse than death to become old and have no family to help you to subsist. It is a great misery to have to live by yourself as a widower, a bachelor or a spinster in poor accommodation on a pension, paying rent and attempting to buy sufficient food and clothing. We all know of hundreds of people in our constituencies living in those circumstances. Surely it is not wrong to ask this Government to make the State governments eligible for assistance under the Aged Persons Homes Act. If we want to provide home units for old people it is not unfair to suggest to the Commonwealth that the States should receive the £2-for-£l subsidy if they are prepared to act in the same way as charitable institutions? Not one honorable member in this place, hard-hearted as some honorable members opposite are, would not be delighted to think of an age pensioner or pensioner couple being removed from a dingy and dirty tenement building to a nice little unit complete in itself, and providing clean living conditions. I ask the Government to adopt a generous and reasonable attitude towards the pioneers of this country who have grown old in the service of Australia. They are men and women who have made their contribution towards Australia's progress. They are now living on the pittance which this Government calls the age pension. I think that all State governments and even municipal councils and trade unions should be in the same position as charitable institutions so far as the Aged Persons Homes Act is concerned. If that were done we would be able to provide decent and comfortable homes for people who are entitled to be rewarded for their service to Australia in two world wars and for their pioneering activities in the early days. That is the case presented by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and my colleagues. We say to the Government: Yes, we support this bill. We do not like it. We think it is miserly. We think it does not in any way solve the housing problem of this country, but we will support it because it is better to build 891 homes than it is not to build any. But 891 homes is a small number to take off the tremendous lag of many thousands of homes and it is still a small number if we consider it only in relation to the demand on the various housing commissions. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- **Mr. Speaker,** I wish to make a personal explanation. {: #subdebate-35-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! Does the honorable member claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- Yes, I have been grossly misrepresented. The honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Einfeld)** said that last night, when referring to seasonal workers, I said- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honorable member is out of order. He has not spoken in this debate. The honorable member could not have been misrepresented. {: .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr Turnbull: -- On a point of order, **Mr. Speaker!** The honorable member for Phillip referred to a speech that I made last night. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! That has nothing to do with this debate. {: #subdebate-35-0-s9 .speaker-KCD} ##### Mr DAVIS:
Deakin .- The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt),** when introducing this bill, referred to the difficulties arising from the constitutional position, The Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr.** Whitlam) also made some reference to the constitutional position. Briefly the matter may be summed up in this way: Here, as in other matters, the Commonwealth has financial power but no or only limited housing power. On the other hand, the States have housing powers but little or only limited financial powers. That, I think, is a fair summary of the constitutional position. This bill, which is designed to increase the grant to the States under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, is in my opinion an unhappy attempt to meet that position. It is a compromise and, as so frequently happens with compromises, I believe it to be wrong in principle and to be inefficient and ineffective in practice. I am sure that the House will agree with me that it is the responsibility of a Parliament to account to the people for the money that it raises from them by taxation. The situation here "is that this Parliament is responsible for raising money and has little if any control over the money so raised once it is allocated under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. I am a federalist. I believe in the federal system and I do not think this is the time or the place to argue more or less power for one government or another, but I think we should recognize this principle. Under existing conditions there is not very much that we can do about the principle, but perhaps there is something we can do about the practice. I refer the House to the results of departures of this kind from principle. Let me illustrate with the speech of the honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Einfeld).** To summarize his speech, he said that the Commonwealth should provide more money for housing. He is not alone in that belief. Some of his colleagues have made a similar statement. Here is one side of the ledger. The Parliament has the responsibility of raising money. Have we not also an implied responsibility at least to see that that money is usefully and gainfully employed? I think that there is no question that we have such a responsibility. There is no question that we should recognize this fact and try to do something about the matter, and I think, this is one of the practical things that might be done. I believe that there are four main weaknesses in the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The first is that while finance is provided under the agreement for new houses, there is- no financial provision for the services that must go with those houses. In consequence, we find that in my State, in the area represented by myself, by the honorable member for La Trobe **(Mr. Jess)** and by the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard),** there are extensive areas on which new houses are being built, while in many cases those areas have not the services that the communities expect they should have at the present time. The second main weakness with respect to the housing picture generally in this country is that there are various schemes operating in the different States and various schemes operating in the Commonwealth sphere. In the main the emphasis in those schemes is on spending and not on collecting money. In other words, throughout this country the efforts made to encourage saving for housing have been, in relation to the picture now before us, weak, and the results have been insignificant. I believe there is an enormous area of potential savings untapped because here, as in other areas, there is a need for co-operation and co-ordination throughout the Commonwealth. There are two other main weaknesses. Many of us are loath to face the real situation; we speak politically of the need for more money, but we do not examine the cost structure of housing. Again, we have not given, as we should give, consideration to the need for finance for existing or old houses. Those are the four cardinal weaknesses, not simply of the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement alone, but of the general housing picture in this country. My friend from Petrie **(Mr. O'Brien)** referred this afternoon to a report by the Building Industry Committee for Long-term Low-deposit Housing Finance. I have that report before me. The honorable member made some reference to the time it takes the average worker or the average earner to save the deposit on a home. But there is some more interesting information in this document. There is also a lands-cost analysis. The committee takes the hypothetical case of a subdivider who buys 10 acres of land, capable of being cut up into 55 building blocks. In the first instance the land costs £25,000. By the time the subdivider has paid the exorbitant rates of interest that apply in some areas, by the time he has provided the services that subdividers or land developers are, in many cases, required to provide, again with money borrowed at high interest - the services perhaps being relatively less efficient than those offered by local government - he needs to realize £77,754 for land that originally cost £25,000. The figure per block has increased from something over £400 to something over £1,400. In this interesting document is given an analysis of these costs. If finance was available through the ordinary banking channels, at bank interest, to councils or local authorities to provide the services, including road services, the reduction in costs would represent something like £325 a block. Then if the interest rates cited in this document, which are a little less than those operating in some areas, were reduced to normal interest rates, a further saving of £125 a block would be possible. I also recall one recognized authority in this country, **Mr. Jennings,** of the A. V. Jennings construction organization, stating publicly that if government authorities could co-operate and co-ordinate their efforts it would be possible to save 6 per cent, on housing expenditure. I think **Mr. Jennings** said at the time that with building expenditure running at the rate of £300,000,000 a year, a saving of £18,000,000 a year could be made in this way. In any case, if a saving of 6 per cent, can be made, this means a saving of £200 on the average cost of something over £3,000. So we then have a situation in which, on the figures given by recognized authorities - it is not my own guesswork - something over £600, on the average, could be saved in the development of the land and the building of the house. If these are facts, should not we and others who are responsible for housing be turning our attention to these possibilities? Should not the emphasis be on the saving of money and on the most efficient use of the money that we collect from the taxpayers for this purpose? I put it to the House that my proposition is irrefutable. I put it, further, that at least it is safe to say that very considerable savings could be made by a co-ordinated effort throughout the Commonwealth. If this is so, then not ! only is there a saving made on your capital cost, but also - and here I follow the honorable member for Phillip - it would be possible to build more houses for the same money. Further, since the total cost would be reduced, the burden of interest would not be so great, and it would be possible to talk in practical terms, as my friend from Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** said earlier to-day, of reasonable rates of interest, not high rates and not subsidized rates, but reasonable rates of interest. This, I put to you, **Mr. Speaker,** is the sort of proposition that we should look at. I have put certain questions and I have offered answers that would, I suppose, be difficult to implement because of the absurdity of the Constitution that makes one authority responsible for raising the money and another authority responsible for spending it. Until we can bridge that gap and until we can get housing authorities together, I do not suppose that the kind of thing I am talking about is practicable. But, in all reason, it should be, and if the pressures that the honorable member for Petrie mentioned this afternoon are as great as he said they were, then I believe that governments, irrespective of political complexion, will be forced to face the realities of the situation and adopt a practical attitude towards it. Finally, I repeat that all the official thinking and all the parliamentary thinking has been in terms of the provision of finance for the building of new homes. This has been allied, of course, as the honorable member for Phillip has said, with the necessity to provide employment. But by adopting this attitude we have collectively created a situation in which there is an enormous area of high interest rates in the selling or purchasing of old or existing homes. Whilst it is true that the demand for new houses will come, in the main, from the younger married people, it is also true that the demand for existing houses will come generally from the middle aged group. It is also true that because of existing circumstances there is great housing capacity unused throughout this country. Finally, it is true that if provision were made - of course, this presents quite evident difficulties, but they are not difficulties that cannot be overcome - >the money spent on alteration, renovation and modernization would be spent as usefully, in terms of employment, as money spent on new build'ings. Those are the sorts of things that I believe we must look at. My friend the Deputy Leader of the Opposition made some reference to the Federal Housing Administration in the United States of America. I believe that in' the larger field we will not solve the housing problem in this country until a principle related to the principle of that administration is accepted. Only through that sort of principle can we get both sides in balance - get the money pouring in, on the one hand, in savings for housing; and, on the other, get that money going out to assist in the purchase of new houses and the modernization and purchase of old houses. For the reasons I have advanced, I support the bill. It may be a little difficult to know why I support it, having put forward those reasons; but I do so because it represents some contribution to the solution of the problem and is the practical thing to do, if we continue to accept the existing circumstances. I believe that whatever faults exist are in the systems of this country and not in the government of the country. {: #subdebate-35-0-s10 .speaker-KRK} ##### Mr McIVOR:
Gellibrand .- The speech made by the honorable member for Deakin **(Mr. Davis)** was made up largely of ifs and buts. I suggest to him that next week, when the motion of no confidence comes before this House, he will have a chance to put some of his philosophy into practice by crossing the floor of the House and voting with the Australian Labour Party. It is interesting to hear supporters of the Government standing up and criticizing the Government for its lack of endeavour in what is the greatest social scourge in Australia - that is the shortage of homes. But when it comes to putting their philosophies into practice, they are paper tigers. They sit there and vote for the Government that they have criticized. When government supporters talk about the Labour Party being directed by people outside this Parliament, I remind them of what **Sir Philip** McBride told them to do. Even the Prime Minister **(Sir Robert Menzies)** yielded to the crack of the whip by **Sir Philip** McBride. This bill merits the support of every member of this House. Strangely enough, the support of every honorable member highlights the concern of each honorable member about the serious lag that the Government has allowed to develop in the building industry. But for that serious lag, Government supporters would not be supporting the Opposition in its endeavour to correct what is the greatest social scourge in Australia. It is rather paradoxical to hear each member on the Government side of the chamber supporting this bill and also criticizing the Government's measures in respect of housing, as the honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** and other members have done. {: .speaker-JZG} ##### Mr Cockle: -- We have freedom of speech. {: .speaker-KRK} ##### Mr McIVOR: -- You may think so. I am only endeavouring to do my best, and if you did your best and every one else on your side did his best it would be all the better for this country. It is paradoxical that every member is supporting this bill, yet ever since this Government has been in power probably the severest criticism that bas been levelled at it has been in respect of its lack of endeavour to correct the shortage of homes. No one can deny that no industry has suffered more from the economic policies of this Government than has the home-building industry. Nor can any one deny that no section of the community has had to pay more for the mistakes and blunders that this Government has made than has the home seeker. It is interesting to hear the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** speak of the great aid that this Government is giving to home builders. I listened with interest to the honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Einfeld).** He told the House, in terms of actualities, how many homes this extra money that the Government is making available to the States will build. It will not make a ripple on the surface of the home-building industry. He said that he is the chairman of eight cooperative building societies. I happen to be connected with a co-operative building society. We have just finished our contribution. We cannot get any more money. We have endeavoured right and left to get more money in order to ease the pressure that is being put on us by the people in the society to build more homes. The Government says that money is being lent ad lib by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, the State savings banks, the insurance companies and the private banks. Nothing is further from the truth. To-day the homebuilding industry is in just as parlous a condition as it has been in over the last four or five years. We heard the honorable member for Deakin refer to the trouble that occurs in the fringe areas - he mentioned the district of the honorable member for La Trobe **(Mr. Jess)** - because of the ancillary services that must be provided. Not so long ago governments of the same political complexion as this Government were asking people to get out of the cities into the fringes of the metropolises in order to ease the crowding in the cities. Whilst I commend the efforts that are being made by the Victorian Housing Commission in slum clearance, the reason for that work is that people are being brought into the city area of Melbourne so that they can use the ancillary services there, because the sewerage and water reticulation cannot be provided in the fringe areas. The reason why they cannot be provided is that this Government, which holds the purse strings, has refused absolutely to provide money to enable the semigovernmental instrumentalities to give people in the fringe areas the amenities that people in the city enjoy. I would think that the honorable member for La Trobe would be on his feet every chance he gets, fighting tooth and nail for the people in his electorate to be given those amenities. {: .speaker-KKB} ##### Mr Jess: -- When did you do any fighting? {: .speaker-KRK} ##### Mr McIVOR: -- I sat on the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works for many years and battled to get the people the amenities that they should have, but I have never heard the honorable member raise his voice in that regard yet. If you walk around Ringwood you can see stinking drains and many other things which the Australian public in these days, when we say we have the best country in the world, still have to put up with, due to the policies of this Government. {: .speaker-JSY} ##### Mr Buchanan: -- Where is that - in Footscray? {: .speaker-KRK} ##### Mr McIVOR: -- Footscray is fully equipped so far as amenities are concerned, and that is due to the battling that the representatives of the people there have done. The Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** speaks of the great aid his government has given to home-builders and of the exciting developments of the present and the future. It is perhaps timely to remind him that his cobbers do not believe him. I am going to set out to prove that. To use the words of my colleague, the honorable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr. Crean),** what the Government is doing in this regard is just a little bit too late. Let us look at what some of the cobbers of this Government say. **Mr. Staniforth** Ricketson, who cannot by any means be considered a supporter of any Labour member in this House, recently said - >It cannot be doubted that the maintenance of unnecessarily high interest rates has prevented an adequate flow of funds into industrial projects and into housing activities, which have an important influence on the economic welfare of the community and particularly on employment. We have heard the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr. McMahon)** say in this House, and tell the world at large, that there has been a drop in the unemployment figures. He has given the figures to decimal places. He regards these unemployed people as mere figures, but they are human flesh and blood. But here is **Mr. Ricketson,** a giant in the financial world and on the stock exchange, telling this Government the facts. He evidently has some red blood in him, because he is telling this Government how it can reduce unemployment in this country. His view was supported by the views of such knights as **Sir Robert** Knox and **Sir Ian** Potter. Of course, they would be just nonentities so far as the Treasurer is concerned, but by other people they are considered to be the financial giants of Australia. It has been apparent over the years that high interest rates and the deposit gap are the major factors operating against a steady virile home-building industry and operating against the home seeker. In preparation for what I wanted to say to-night I took the trouble to look at articles published as long as six years ago. Perhaps it would be timely now to inform the crystal gazers on the Government benches that the criticisms of six years ago and the criticisms of to-day are exactly alike. I have here an article written in 1958, which states - >Between the great depression and the outbreak of the Second World War there was one social problem that loomed large above all others - that of mass unemployment. We have that in our midst to-day - >In the post-war period mass unemployment has no longer been a problem in those countries which have applied to peacetime purposes those techniques of monetary and economic policy that proved so successful during the war. To-day no single social problem dominates the scene as unemployment did in the "hungry 'thirties". But included in the leading group of problems that still agitates our society is that of housing. The demand for more and better housing is no Johnnycomelately. Royal Commissions on the subject date back at least before the First World War. Good housing is expensive. To house an increasing population adequately requires a large outlay of labour and materials. Ancillary services such as water supply,, electricity, gas, streets and other things have to be provided. The tendency is for those already adequately housed- As members of the Government are - to desire more resources put into education, health services and the higher amenities. It is the old economic problem - human wants outrunning scarce resources. The fitting of all aspects of national development into a coherent policy is a task to test the statesmanship of our leaders. The statesmanship of our leaders! The article continues - >The housing problem can be solved by building more houses or cutting down immigration and reducing the need for housing. The Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Downer)** said to-day that he hoped the immigration target would be reached this year and even exceeded. The Government is bringing people into this country from other parts of the world but it cannot supply them with jobs or housing. What a travesty of justice! To-day we have not only, as a result of the policies of this Government, a housing industry run down and crying out. for relief, but also mass unemployment, just as we had in the hungry 1930's. Let me continue with this article. It states further - >The three principal essentials for human living are food, clothing and shelter. In Australia to-day there is no shortage of food or clothing- That was written in 1958 - but there is, as this study will show, a physical shortage of about 100,000 dwelling units. The 100,000 families without their own separate house or flat are not, of course, without shelter of some kind. They are living with in-laws, or sharing a house with another family or families, or have a room or rooms with shared kitchens and other facilities. Some live in hostels, some in converted outbuildings and a few in caravans. I recently had a case in my electorate where a man, his wife and two children were living in a converted fowl shed. Australia is said to be the best country in the world, where we have exciting developments, yet that is the sort of thing which can be found not only in my electorate but probably also in many other places throughout Australia. Despite the mumbling on the other side of the House by the would-be financiers let me continue. The article goes on to state - >Involved in these 100,000 families are probably about one-third of a million men, women and children. In the aggregate their lack of adequate housing constitutes one of the greatest social problems in the Commonwealth to-day. From the point of view of the Commonwealth's economy and the capacity of the building industry in tha post-war years, there is no reason why the present shortage should exist. Vigorous action by the Commonwealth Government and private home finance sources could have reduced the shortage of 250,000 at 30/6/47 to vanishing point by 1958. It is a tragic fact that during the 1952-53 period there was actually unemployment in the building industry with some "overproduction " of building materials, and again in the last several months right up to the present there is unused capacity in the building trade. The article says something about statesmanship. The great majority of the Australian people know that our economic ills are due entirely to the lack of statesmanship displayed by this Government. This deficiency can be added to the deficiencies of employment and housing which together make a full hand of misery and indicate the Government's approach to the major problems confronting this nation. The article typifies the Government's sorry record and highlights its tragic behaviour since it has been in office. I heard the interesting speech of the honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Einfeld)** during which he referred to the New South Wales Housing Commission. I should like to read a statement attributed to **Mr.** Ebbels, Registrar of Co-operative Housing Societies, which appeared in the Melbourne "Herald" of 22nd March, 1961. This will support my statement that criticism after criticism has been levelled at the Government and appeal after appeal has been made to it but the Government has turned a deaf ear. The newspaper report is in these terms - > **Mr. Ebbels** said that thousands of houses were for sale in Melbourne with vacant possession, but' people wanting houses couldn't find money to buy them. > >He said houses were being built in some areas where the demand could be met by the sale of existing houses offered for sale with vacant possession. > >The difficulty was that lending institutions generally would lend only on new houses. **Mr. Ebbels** said he believed that the housing shortage throughout Australia at June, 1959, must have been very much greater than 50,000 as estimated by the Department of National Development. > >From enquiries made it seemed that the estimate of Victoria's housing shortage by the Housing Minister, **Mr. Petty,** at between 35,000 to 40,000 dwellings was very near the mark. > >Thus the Australian figure must be very much more. **Mr. Petty** is not a Labour man. At that time he was the Minister for Housing in the Bolte Liberal Government in Victoria. Let me now read a statement which was made by **Mr. Landa,** the New South Wales Minister for Housing and Co-operative Societies. He said - >With largs scale immigration and a rising birthrate the population will zoom to new record figures. > >The developmental pattern has been set. We must build upon it if we are to survive as a free and democratic nation. > >Of vital importance to our development is a continued increase in the people's standards of living coupled with an even greater sense of security. > >One way of achieving this is by the provision of adequate housing for everyone with the opportunity for all to obtain a home at reasonable cost. The following article appeared in a newspaper in February of this year under the heading, "36,000 Wait on Houses": - >The New South Wales Housing Commission says in its annual report there is no early prospect of meeting the demand for homes. > >The report, for the year ended June 30th, was tabled in the Legislative Assembly recently by Labour's Minister for Housing and Co-operative Societies, **Mr. A.** Landa. > >It says that the Commission received 18,192 applications for housing during the year, making a total of 31,702 outstanding eligible applications. With 4,620 applications yet to be reviewed, the total potential demand on the Commission stood at 36,322. Yet we are told that the housing problem has been solved and that there is no need to worry further about iti The statement then indicates in this way the conditions under which people are living - >The waiting period in Sydney varies between four and five years, for two and three bedroom rental accommodation respectively, and something less than four years for two and three bedroom purchase houses. During 1961-62 the Commission built 4,722 new permanent dwellings, the highest number since 1954-55 and 1,569 more than in 1960-61. This made up 14.5 per cent, of all dwellings built in New South Wales. The same conditions exist in Victoria and probably in every other State. Let me now come to an article which is more up to date. It appeared in the Melbourne " Sun " of Saturday, 16th March, 1963, under the heading, " The Cost of a Roof Over Your Head " and states - >Sweet melodies of praise for Government home building-financing schemes are popular in ministerial circles at present. > >But thousands of Victorian home-seekers aren't Joining in the chorus. > >These are the people, mainly aged from 25 to 40, with young families, who don't want a government built and financed mass-produced place of their own - even if they could get one. > >They want a home of their own design, or one of the scores of " off-the-hook " houses displayed and advertised along every Sunday drive. > >The road to owning one of these houses is full of hidden jolts and disappointing twists. > >You can't move into a privately built place on a carefree Housing Commission £100 deposit and 45 years to pay. > >But a paid-for block of land and £300-£600 in the bank might just get that terra cotta tiled roof over your head and pink wire-cut brick-veneer walls around you. > >The second mortgages or personal loans involved with low deposits produced fearsome weekly repayments. That is the crux of the whole question. To-day, in 1963, housing is still the biggest problem confronting this country and the situation will not improve until all authorities, from the Commonwealth Government down, get together and give it top priority consideration. But let me go back to 1961. The name of **Mr. A.** V. Jennings has been mentioned. In the "Sun" of 16th November, 1961, **Mr. Jennings** is reported as having said - >Land and building costs will stay as high as they are and keep going higher until everyone gets together to tackle the whole problem. Throughout the history of this matter it is evident that the Government has shown a lack of concern and has allowed the position to become so bad that to remedy it will be difficult. When the Government introduced its credit squeeze it should have had the courage to consider the industries which would be hurt most. If it had done so it probably would have said, " One industry that we will not touch is the home-building industry because it supports 80 other industries". Through lack of foresight and human decency the Government allowed the credit squeeze to continue and to wreck the building industry, the very hub around which this country's economy revolves. I have in my hand an article relating to conditions in the United States of America to which I understand the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** referred. It is interesting to note that in the United States it is necessary to put down a deposit of only 10 per cent, of the purchase price. What a contrast to the position in Australia! Here we have high interest rates, even on war service homes. Young people who cannot bridge the deposit gap are compelled to take up second mortgages carrying interest ranging up to 12 or 14 per cent. Even the honorable member for Mackellar **(Mr. Wentworth)** agrees with us in this instance. Just prior to the last meeting of the Australian Loan Council he wrote a rather lengthy letter to the editor of the Melbourne "Age". The letter, which appeared on 13th February, 1963, states, in part - >Members of the Federal Parliament are precluded from attending this meeting, and even members of the Government parries do not know what policies will be proposed by the Treasurer and have had absolutely no part in determining them. Yet Government supporters talk of outside control! Members of the Liberal Party are denied the right to espouse the policies they desire to see put into operation in relation to housing, or, for that matter, anything else. In his letter, the honorable member for Wentworth referred to the need for much freer provision of low-interest funds for housing, and said - >There has been surplus capacity in the homebuilding industry over the past couple of years, and' there is still a banked-up demand for housing. Then he continued to offer his criticism of this Government, just as he did to-day. If the honorable member for Mackellar wants his proposals to be implemented, if he wants something done to clean up the mess made by this Government, he will have his opportunity next week to ensure that it is dona by crossing the floor of the House and voting with the Opposition. Another press article I have before me is headed, " No Solution Yet to Home Deposit Gap ". Yet we have the Treasurer telling us about the exciting things that are now happening and which will happen in the future. It is indeed very exciting to be living in a couple of rooms with a wife and two children, paying £8 a week for rent. It is indeed very exciting to be living with a wife and two children in a converted fowl shed. These are matters about which people in my electorate continually come to see me. People who have been brought to Australia under our immigration scheme come to me and ask: " Please, **Sir, can** you do anything to help me to get a home? Can you get me out of the Maribyrnong hostel? " I invite supporters of the Government to go and look at that hostel and see whether they are proud of it. Certainly they would not be proud of it. Comments on the housing situation made by **Mr. Warren** McDonald appeared in the press recently under this caption - >Commonwealth Bank Chief calls for National Report on Housing. The Melbourne " Herald " economist has made this statement - >By now we know the main needs concerning our housing problems, without further years of investigation and research. Mainly they boil down to more money and to helping young people bridge the " deposit gap ". I have here an annual report of the Minister for Housing in the Federal Republic of Germany which I brought back from Europe. It reveals that 6,000,000 new dwellings were constructed in the twelve years following the establishment of the republic. That is evidence of the success of a housing policy which free people around the world recognize to be due to honest, concerted effort in that field. They say that they have 1,000,000 more homes to build and that then they will be out of their mess. In that country young married couples are given a marriage loan of £350 which is redeemed after the arrival of tha third child, and they finance their homes at an interest rate of 3) per cent. That is the sort of thing which this Government should note. {: #subdebate-35-0-s11 .speaker-KGP} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon W C Haworth:
ISAACS, VICTORIA -- Order! The honorable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-35-0-s12 .speaker-KVG} ##### Mr STOKES:
Maribyrnong .- We have just been treated to one of the most remarkable orations that I 'have heard in this House, certainly one of the most remarkable that has been delivered by the honorable member for Gellibrand **(Mr. Mclvor).** Ninety per cent, of his speech consisted of long, disjointed and I suppose the most diverse quotations we have heardfrom a single speaker for many a day. I remind the honorable gentleman and members of the Australian Labour Party that galloping post-war inflation, with its shortages and black markets, started the spiral which led to the present situation. Even if we admit that the immigration programme has made its impact, we find no charity in the hard hearts of honorable members opposite. The provisions of the bill have been taken quite out of their context. The honorable member for Gellibrand spoke of what he described as a paltry sum of £2,711,000 and said that it would not make a great impact on the housing situation and would not provide houses for more than a handful of people. A sum of £45,900,000 having been authorized under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement in , 1962, this year the State Premiers stated their individual requirements and asked for these additional funds to provide housing. The bill is designed to validate the provision of the additional sum that the Premiers have requested. Please let us keep the matter in perspective. In his second-reading speech, the Treasurer **(Mr. Harold Holt)** took advantage of the opportunity to review generally the housing situation. He referred to the provision in this financial year of £2,500,000 for war service homes and £300,000 for the provision of homes for aged persons making the total allocation for this scheme, which was introduced by this Government, a sum of £3,300,000. In addition, he referred to the provision of £6,000,000 for housing in the Australian Capital Territory and £2,100,000 for housing members of the defence forces. The provision of these sums affords concrete evidence of this Government's awareness of the housing problem and its willingness to seek to improve the situation. In my opinion, the provision of additional finance is not in itself the complete panacea for our ills. As members of the Parliament, we never seem to have the benefit of having before us accurate statistics. We talk only about trends and estimates and of their being high or low. We guess the extent of the backlog and are never able to say what it is with certainty. Surely it is time, as was suggested by my colleague, the honorable member for La Trobe **(Mr. Jess)** that an extensive survey of our housing needs was undertaken. Such a survey could well provide the basis for the formulation of an effective and comprehensive scheme which I submit should embody at least two of the main principles contained in the Federal Housing Administration legislation of the United States of America. I refer to, first, the provision relating to insurance and government guarantee and, secondly, the need to make more liberal margins in the advances. Reference has been made to recent increases in lending limits and it has been stated that they have substantially reduced the so-called deposit gap. Those increases must have had some effect on the housing problem, but in my opinion they have not been very substantial. Even though finance may be plentiful, other limiting factors tend to diminish the anticipated benefits. Let me illustrate my statement by running through some of the factors which contribute to the disparity between the amount a home buyer has to find over and above the amount of his loan and the moneys which he may reasonably be able to save from his earnings. That disparity is now usually referred to as the deposit gap. I should like also to show that in many cases the benefits to be derived by the increase in the maximum loan available are shorn of their full value by the margins which certain lending institutions require to protect their investments, particularly in regard to cheaper types of construction. Naturally, one of the chief factors leading to the widening of the deposit gap is the increased cost of labour and building construction, the meeting of which has been progressively beyond the financial capacity of the average person. The increased cost of road construction and of the provision of sewerage and other services further accentuates the difficulty. Let us look at some figures which are applicable to Victoria. The deposit required by a person purchasing from the War Service Homes Division an average priced home on a low priced block of land rose from 10 per cent, in 1952 to 35.3 per cent, in 1961. In the same period the deposit required by building societies rose from 10 per cent, to 34.4 per cent., that required by the State Savings Bank of Victoria from 25 per cent, to 39.8 per cent., and that required by the Commonwealth Savings Bank from 32.3 per cent. to 45.3 per cent. It is acknowledged that the stabilization of prices has caused a slight downward trend in those figures since *1961.* The position is further reflected in an analysis of the time taken to save a deposit from average weekly earnings. In 1952 it took the average person one and three-quarter years to save sufficient money for the deposit on a war service home. In 1961 he required to save for six and onequarter years to raise the deposit. Similarly with the co-operative housing societies. The period for which the average person would have to save to have a deposit on a cooperative building society home jumped from two years to six and one-half years over that period. In the case of State savings bank loans the period jumped from four and one-quarter years in 1952 to seven and one-half years in 1961, and in the case of Commonwealth Savings Bank loans from five and one-half years to eight and one-half years in the same period. In other words, the young couple of to-day is compelled to save for two or three times longer than the couple of ten years ago in order to have a deposit for a home. Further figures supplied by the Commonwealth Statistician show that the average price for a brick veneer home rose from £1,153 in 1946 to £3,465 in 1954 and to £4,223 in 1957, and dropped to £3,981 in 1961. On the other side of the ledger, the War Service Homes Division, in its operation of land development, has done much to depress land prices. It purchases suburban land in substantial areas, subdivides it, provides roads, drains and sewerage, and offers the lots to exservicemen at well below current market prices. I can recollect instances in Victoria where land was so made available at a cost of £600 a lot while similar land adjacent, which was privately owned and had been privately sub-divided and marketed, was bringing up to £2,000 a block. This illustrates what the War Service Homes Division has done to depress the spiral in land prices. I want to refer to that matter later and make a suggestion regarding it. In Victoria the average price of unimproved residential suburban land has jumped from £100-£150 in 1946 to more than £1,000 in 1958 and to more than £1,500 in 1961. The last figure is even a small reduction on the 1960 prices. There is one particular factor which causes an increase in subdivisional land prices which I should like to see corrected. I refer to the current practice of municipalities of requiring sub-dividers to provide the roads and services. This is a main factor in the increase in land prices. What happens here is that the cost to the subdivider is much higher in providing these improvements than would be the cost to a council if it provided them. Naturally, the council, because it has larger contracts to let, can obtain reductions in contract prices. Also, the sub-divider has to borrow capital to carry out these works and he has to pay a higher rate of interest than a municipality would have to pay. A council has available to it all the sources for government and semi-government loans at lower rates of interest. Often a sub-divider has to pay for drainage work outside his sub-division and charge it against his costs, whereas a municipality has the authority to spread the cost in such a case over the whole area affected by the drainage system. It is empowered to do this under local government legislation. Further, municipalities are able, because of the terms on which they obtain their finance, to make advances to home owners over a ten-year term at an interest rate of *6i* per cent, reducible quarterly, so that the interest is charged on reducing capital. In the case of the private sub-divider these costs are passed on to the buyer as part of the original price of the land. Thus, under the existing method, the increased burden immediately devolves on the home buyer, who has to borrow the money to pay that additional price. Thus, the additional finance provided to the home buyer is being whittled away and the problem is not treated at the source. It is quite patent that this method puts the increased burden on the home buyer and not on the subdivider. This unnecessary additional cost forms a substantial portion of the price, and I feel that some realistic action could be taken to change this policy and thus do much to bridge the deposit gap. I do not mean that these services should not be a pre-condition to the sale in a new subdivision. I mean that the financial servicing of municipalities to undertake this work is far preferable in every way. Certainly it is preferable to the increased finance which is required to accommodate the actual home buyer in an unnecessarily inflated sale price caused by the higher cost content when the subdivider provides the services. If this problem is not dealt with at the source you get a snowballing effect and a consequent drain on the finances which are available. Another factor in accentuating the deposit gap is the percentage of valuation lent by different institutions, which varies from around 50 per cent, with trading banks to 80 per cent, and higher with the War Service Homes Division and cooperative housing societies, both of which are more or less backed by government guarantee. The other institutions which are not so guaranteed must of necessity require a larger margin in order to protect their investment. Thus, any overall scheme which may be evolved must carry some element of guarantee and insurance against loss by default. Experience in the United States of America has shown that any loss by default is of a very minor nature and in most cases is covered by insurance. Another factor affecting percentage of loan to valuation is the class of building offered as security. The cheaper styles of construction, for example weatherboard or fibrocement, which are the types of construction more readily within the reach of people in the low income bracket, are normally unable to attract a very substantial percentage of loan to valuation, irrespective of the maximum amount of loan available. It is of little use to have a loan maximum of £3,500 if you can borrow only about £2,000 against a weatherboard home costing, say, £3,500. The statement has also been made that the lifting of the loan maximum has very considerably reduced the need for second mortgages. This requires to be looked at fairly carefully. This may be so in the case of war service homes, because we must realize that under the war service homes scheme most applicants would be at least in their fortieth year and naturally would have had a much longer time in which to save the necessary deposit than young couples in their early twenties would have had. Many young couples are compelled to use all their money to build a home or purchase one so that they can avoid taking out a second mortgage. They prefer to borrow from the old man or to make do with a minimum of furniture and to secure such necessities as stoves, refrigerators and washing machines by buying them on hire purchase as and when they can afford to do so. Many lending institutions forbid the negotiation of a second mortgage where they hold the first mortgage. Borrowers, therefore, are forced to pay even much higher than second mortgage rates of interest, because the interest rates are calculated either on an unregistered mortgage or on a personal loan. Thus, any information which may be supplied by lending institutions to the effect that at present there is a low incidence of second mortgages due to the raising of the ceiling limits of loans needs some qualification. I might mention that recently, in Victoria, the State Government passed legislation which provided, through the State Home Finance Trust, second mortgage moneys at low interest rates to people who needed to bridge the deposit gap. This, I think, shows that there was a need for such assistance, and the action by the Victorian Government should be commended as a step in the right direction. We must also take into consideration that the normal approach of young- couples in Australia is to pay a deposit, when they get engaged, on a block of unimproved land. Then they endeavour to pay for the land by the time they are about to be married. But many of them are still a few hundreds of pounds short when the time comes when they want to see a builder and get on with the job of building. They are faced with doing one of several things. They may go to their parents or friends for the money, or they may make an arrangement with the builder. They must get enough money to pay off the block of land and clear the title so that they can go to a lending institution for a loan to build their home. This also is a pattern which we have to take into consideration. This further confuses the information as to how much assistance outside a first mortgage young people have to get to complete a purchase. As has been said before by other speakers, there is a necessity for a complete survey to be made as a basis for introducing a planned scheme. I think that action should be taken, however, in the interim period to implement some changes in policy. Firstly, I believe that the embargo which was previously placed on State housing authorities to prevent funds made available to them under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement being used for the building of multi-storied apartments should be reinvoked. I say that quite definitely. If slum reclamation be necessary, the cleared land should be sold to private developers. We do not want these multi-storied blocks of flats. The second change that I recommend should be made immediately is that a direction be issued that a substantial proportion of the available funds be used to acquire land in suburban, outer suburban, urban and rural areas; that those areas be serviced for subdivision; and that the land acquired should be in districts where there are at present substantial and diverse industries which could cater for the new population. This would make cheaper land available to our young Australians. Thirdly, as I mentioned before, the present method of compelling the private subdivider to provide roads and services should be changed. Rather should the municipality be provided with adequate finance for that purpose. We must remember that the Australian way of life demands a home in its own grounds, with a garden and a place for family recreation. Large apartments are foreign to us. They may be all right in Hong Kong, where there is a great shortage of land, but in Australia we have plenty of land. I do not think the cost of providing services and facilities on land outside the central areas should prohibit our ensuring that future generations of Australians will grow up in decent surroundings. {: #subdebate-35-0-s13 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE:
Mitchell **.- Mr. Deputy Speaker,** the Opposition does not oppose this legislation. It feels, though, that the amount being allocated is insufficient, not only for the needs of the economy, but also for the well-being of the people. We feel that, as usual, this Government has undertaken a policy of too little too late. We feel that this is a government of fear. It is a government which fears prosperity. It fears that if it takes positive action immediately some catastrophe will fall upon Australia. It fears prosperity. It fears full employment. It fears that if it tries to overcome the housing lag something will run riot in our economy. It fears any action which might re-instill into our economy some form of vitality. Everywhere that you go to-day you find all sections of the community, employees and employers alike, complaining that the economy of Australia lacks that vitality which is essential to growth and which the Government is doing little to promote. Throughout Australia, it is agreed that there is very little indeed to commend this Government's policies, particularly in regard to housing. We believe that more funds are required for housing in order to overcome the employment situation. Earlier to-night, the honorable member for Phillip **(Mr. Einfeld)** very adequately explained the position in that regard. {: .speaker-JV8} ##### Mr Monaghan: -- Very eloquently, too. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- Very eloquently. We need more funds, not only to overcome unemployment, but also to re-instill the necessary vitality into the economy. We know that the home-building industry is the yardstick of the economy. We know that it affects more trades and a greater part of the business community than any other industry. It was mentioned earlier this evening that every item used to build a house is manufactured in Australia. When the housing industry is affected, the whole economy of Australia is affected. We believe that more funds must be allocated for housing. Greater Commonwealth encouragement should be given to housing to overcome the serious social problems that exist. For example, unless there is decent housing for the people and unless young people can get homes there will be a far greater number of broken marriages. Any social worker will agree on that point. We know that it is essential that houses should be easily available to young people if their children are to have happy homes and are to be saved from the psychological difficulties that occur in unhappy homes. Good housing ensures that children have ample opportunities for education. You cannot give children a decent education if there are crowded conditions at home. We know that homes are essential if we are to have more Australian-born children. When all is said and done, the Australianborn child, whether it be the child of natural-born Australian, or of migrants, is the cheapest and the very best type of newcomer that we can get. We realize that unless action is taken to overcome this very serious housing shortage which exists in Australia our immigration system will bs vitally affected. Immigrants, particularly Dutch people, are leaving my electorate to return to their homelands for the simple reason that they cannot find homes. That is one of the basic reasons for the large movement of people from this country to their homelands. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- They cannot even get land to live on in Holland. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- Here they can get land but they cannot get homes. We have plenty of land. Another reason for the departure of immigrants is the comparison of our social services generally, with those in other countries. We are one of the most backward nations in the world in the provision of assistance and housing for families. Australia must hang its head in shame on these very important issues. People such as those from the Good Neighbour Councils, who know about these things and appreciate the problems of migrants, tell us time and again that the reasons why migrants are returning to their homelands are, first, that the social service benefits which are obtainable in many countries of Europe are lacking in Australia, and secondly, the housing shortage. Unless the Government realizes that this problem is not one which can be tackled by the usual laisser-faire methods and appreciates that it has to be tackled with some vitality and energy, the very basis of our migration scheme will be affected. It is now some seventeen years since the end of World War II. I think everybody will agree that there was a very good excuse for a housing shortage to exist during a period of war, when all our economic resources were marshalled for the war effort. It is also a matter of ordinary common sense to appreciate that such a shortage must continue for some time after the end of the war and that the overcoming of the shortage will be a gradual process. But surely it is an indictment of the policies of this Government when we find that to-day, nearly two decades after the end of the war, there is still a serious housing shortage. There is a shortage also of other things, such as telephones. The Australian community is still seriously short of telephone services. It is time that the Government took stock of its policies on these questions. It is an indictment of the Government that some of the young people of Australia are unable to obtain homes, while others have to pay extortionate prices for homes or unreasonably high deposits. In my electorate of Mitchell there is a very large number of young people, perhaps more than in most electorates of Australia. Many young people are finding it almost impossible to obtain homes. Far too often they are obliged to live with in-laws, with all the serious social consequences which arise thereby. It is rather interesting to study the anticipated increase in the number of marriageable people in the years to come. In this regard I propose to cite some figures from the Australian population projections for the period from 1960 to 1975, based on an estimated population, including migrants, and assuming a figure of 90,000 migrants in 1960-61, falling to 50,000 by 1965 and remaining constant at 50,000 from 1965 to 1975. Based on the figure of 90,000 migrants for 1960-61, we find that the age group from 20 to 29 years of age, which is the marriageable age group, will increase from 1,421,944 in 1963 to 1,884,223 in 1970 and 2,169,514 in 1975. In other words, between 1963 and 1975 there will be an increase of approximately 52) per cent, in the number of people in the marriageable age group between 20 and 29 years of age. This surely is indicative of the future demand for houses and of the need for far more vital policies than are being implemented by this Government to-day. Incidentally, I make the point that the estimate to which I have referred is a quite conservative one. If we were to go into the sources of the estimate, I think it would be found that in no circumstances could it be suggested that the problem was being exaggerated. Having realized and appreciated what the future demand by people reaching marriageable age is likely to be, it is of interest to turn to a publication entitled " Housing Demand - a Second Look", by **Dr. A.** R. Hall, which was published as recently as October of last year. **Dr. Hall** revised his original estimate and the estimate to which I am about to refer is based on the latest census returns. On a basis of 80,000 migrants a year, he estimates that in 1963 we shall need 102,000 houses. In 1967 the number will rise to 115,000, and in 1970 to 131,000. Yet, the Treasurer, in his second-reading speech on this bill, stated that home construction in 1963 will be in excess of 90,000. Although, according to **Dr. Hall's** estimate, we shall require 102,000 homes this year, the Treasurer estimates optimistically that the number will be only in excess of 90,000. It is well known that the number will be only barely in excess of that figure. On this basis, the Treasurer's estimation is from 10,000 to 12,000 homes behind the number that will be required this year. It is therefore important for us to re-assess the Government's policy on housing, particularly as the Treasurer stated in his second-reading speech - >According to figures published by the Commonwealth Statistician, 86,300 dwellings were commenced in the calendar year 1962. This was 6,300 more than in 1961 but 10,800 less than in 1960. So, we have not even caught up with the lag that occurred at the height of the depression created by this Government. It is obvious that even the action that is being taken by means of this bill will not result in the lag being overtaken. On the Treasurer's own admission we shall be building only something in excess of 90,000 homes, whereas the estimated demand is 102,000, so that there will be a shortage of approximately 10,000. Another matter that deserves criticism is the steady growth of the deposit required of people wishing to purchase a home. Just after the war, a person with £200 or £300 could obtain the finance to build or to purchase a home. To-day, any one trying to buy the same house would require nearer £2,000. In other words, the amount of the deposit has risen by 800 per cent, to 1,000 per cent. Surely that is a ridiculous state of affairs. It can be traced only to the economic policies of this Government. Every support should be given to the suggestion of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition **(Mr. Whitlam)** that the Government should establish a federal housing authority to guarantee loans. The lending authorities would be encouraged to grant far higher advances than they now grant, and this in itself would lead to a reduction of the deposit required. The Government stands indicted for its interest rate policies. The "Australian Financial Review " to-day severely criticizes the Government's policies on this question. The time must come in the near future when very serious consideration will need to be given to a reduction of the interest rates. To-day, bond rates are rising. The private lender is now investing more of his money in government securities. There is ample opportunities now for the Government, if it has any sincerity, to implement a policy of lower interest rates. If this is not done, an unnecessary and very heavy burden will be placed on the home purchaser and on the economy as a whole. Very important capital works of the Commonwealth and the States will be more costly. I think the time has arrived when the Government should take some action to reduce interest rates. It has the opportunity now to do so. All the necessary ingredients are present and the Government could take positive action. I sincerely hope that serious thought is being given to this question. Let us look at the requirement that the savings banks place 70 per cent, of their deposits in statutory reserves. Consideration should be given to this matter, because savings banks should be one of the main sources of housing finance. They are required to place 70 per cent, of their deposits in statutory reserves, such as deposits with the Reserve Bank of Australia, in notes and bullion and in various governmental securities - State government securities, Commonwealth Government securities and advances to local government organizations. Of the remaining 30 per cent., 90 per cent, is available for home lending. Any increase in this amount will naturally have a decided effect upon the rate of home building. However, we find that savings banks are not lending nearly as much as they are permitted to lend. Let me give a few figures that have been taken from the " Commonwealth of Australia Gazette", No. 9, of 31st January, 1963. The figures are as at 31st December, 1962. These are Australian banking statistics. I ask honorable members to keep in mind that the banks are required to keep 70 per cent, of their deposits in notes and bullion, in deposits with the Reserve Bank, in Australian public securities and so on. The Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Limited had 80 per cent, of its deposits in these securities; the Commercial Banking Company Savings Bank Limited, 83 per cent; the National Bank Savings Bank Limited, 90 per cent.; the English, Scottish and Australian Savings Bank Limited, 85 per cent.; the Australia and New Zealand Savings Bank Limited, 84 per cent.; the Commercial Savings Bank of Australia Limited, 94 per cent.; the Bank of Adelaide Savings Bank Limited, which is a very new bank, 77 per cent., and the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia, *82i* per cent. Almost 90 per cent, of the remainder has been loaned for home building. A little of it could be used for other purposes. The Bank of New South Wales Savings Bank Limited has lent only 20 per cent, for home building instead of the permissible 30 per cent. The Commercial Banking Company Savings Bank Limited has lent 17 per cent.; the National Bank Savings Bank Limited, about 7 per cent., after allowing for other considerations; the English, Scottish and Australian Savings Bank Limited, 13 per cent.; the Australia and New Zealand Savings Bank Limited, 16 per cent.; the Commercial Savings Bank of Australia Limited, *2i* per cent.; the Bank of Adelaide Savings Bank Limited, 6 per cent., and the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia, 17* per cent. These are figures taken as at 31st December, 1962. The source is the " Commonwealth of Australia Gazette ", No. 9, of 31st January, 1963. These banks are in a position to lend a far greater proportion of their deposits than they are lending. Let us for a moment examine the position of the Commonwealth Savings Bank of Australia. It has lodged 82) per cent, of its deposits in government securities, notes and bullion, which would be a very small amount, deposits with the Reserve Bank and so on. I think it is reasonable to assume that the Commonwealth Savings Bank has had to support the Government's loan raising over the years. Admittedly, Commonwealth loans are doing better now than they have been doing. This is because the economy is so depressed that the finance houses are putting money into Commonwealth loans rather than entrust it to the industrial future of the country. The Commonwealth Savings Bank has helped to save the Government's face so that the Government would not have to admit to the public that its loans have been a failure. That is an assumption, but it is a pretty correct assumption. The Commonwealth Savings Bank has had to support the loans at the last minute by placing a very sizeable part of its deposits in government securities. Government securities and housing are low profit items. The bank, therefore, has had to look at its profit position. It knows that it has many enemies in the Government's ranks and that if it were to show a smaller profit it would be immediately attacked. For that reason it is to the advantage of this country, economically, morally and on every other ground, for the bank to invest more in housing loans. But as housing is a low profit item, just as are Commonwealth loans, the bank says that it had better not invest in more housing but had better aim for more statutory reserves. In other words it is endeavouring to protect its name. I think that is a reasonable assumption. This Government stands indicted on its entire policy with regard to loan raising. In 1952 it decided that it would1 no longer support, through the Treasury and through the Commonwealth Bank, the loan market on the stock exchange with the result that overnight the loan market collapsed. Since that time the Government has not taken the necessary corrective action to restore public confidence in the loan market. That confidence can be restored only if you guarantee to people who take up Commonwealth bonds that they will under all circumstances be able to obtain par for their money if they wish to cash those bonds at any time before maturity date. No positive action has been taken by this Government to restore the position. The Government has simply left the position, hoping that in some way the problem will be overcome. If insufficient finance is being allocated for home building the blame finally must rest with this Government for its lack of activity to restore the loan market in Australia. Accordingly we have the situation, for example, in which the Commonwealth Savings Bank is frightened to invest still more money in housing. It could lend up to 30 per cent, of its deposits for housing, but it is lending only about 17) per cent. Yet that is a government bank. Turning to the private banks, I do not think their record will bear close scrutiny. If we did inquire into their activities they would be forced to hang their heads in shame. The Labour Party supports the bill but maintains that the amount being allocated for housing is insufficient. We must have more housing finance. We must have lower interest rates for that finance. If we are to face up to our responsibilities economically, morally and socially we must provide for lower deposits for houses so that young people may obtain homes and not be forced into the frustrating experience of living with parents and in-laws. A moral issue is involved in this problem as well as a very serious economic issue. Unless this Government is prepared to attack these problems far more energetically than it has done up to date, the very well-being of future generations of Australians will be detrimentally affected. {: #subdebate-35-0-s14 .speaker-L0N} ##### Mr WHITTORN:
Balaclava .- Listening to the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Armitage),** I cannot help but agree with his contention that the building of homes in Australia is a matter for the private institutions. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I did not say that. {: .speaker-L0N} ##### Mr WHITTORN: -- The Commonwealth Government, through the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, and in the Australian Territories, attempts to assist the building of homes for those people who need them. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr Armitage: -- I rise to order! I claim to have been misrepresented. {: #subdebate-35-0-s15 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -- Order! The honorable member for Mitchell will resume his seat. {: .speaker-L0N} ##### Mr WHITTORN: -- Being a supporter of private enterprise, I believe that the lending institutions, particularly the savings banks, should be encouraged to use their funds for home building. The honorable member for Mitchell is quite right when he says that although we have what is called the 70/30 rule, 30 per cent, of the funds of the private savings banks are not used for housing. Treasury Information Bulletin No. 29, published in January last, indicates that an average of 18.8 per cent, of the funds of the private savings banks were used for home-building purposes in 1961 and 1962. In August last I asked a question of the Treasurer about this matter, indicating my belief that the 70/30 rule could easily be altered to a 65/35 rule. When we see that, in December, 1961, the private banks held deposits amounting to more than £1,790,000,000, we can appreciate that an additional 5 per cent, applied to housing would be a tangible contribution to the industry. But, in the twelve months between December, 1961, and December, 1962, those banks increased their deposits by more than £200,000,000. The private savings banks now hold deposits amounting to the fantastic figure of £1,972,000,000. Five per cent, of that would be more than £95,000,000 a year additional for home building. So, I cannot help but agree with the honorable member for Mitchell that we should increase, by the various devices that we have, the 30 per cent, now available for housing through the private savings banks. It is essential that we increase the figure of 30 per cent, to 35 per cent. The debate has ranged over the whole subject of housing, but the bill is a relatively simple one. It provides for an increase of £2,711,000 in the grant made under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Honorable members opposite have suggested that the increase should have been as high as £48,000,000, but a perusal of the statistics will show that through the housing agreement and the war service homes scheme about £95,700,000 is being allocated from loan funds to the States or used directly by the Commonwealth for housing purposes. The general tenor of the debate has been that there is a need for more homes for the young and the not so young. With that argument I must agree. The latest statistics published by the Department of Labour and National Service show that, as at 2nd March this year, 2,660 people were registered for employment in the building industry. At that time job vacancies in the industry totalled 1,182. The difference between the number registered for work and the number of job vacancies represents the number of persons who could be used in the industry if more money was injected into it. During the second week in December last, 61 per cent, of factories producing building materials were on overtime. Of the employees in those factories 30 per cent, were working the overtime, and each person on overtime worked 8.2 a week above the normal working week. Experienced as I am in manufacturing industry, I find it difficult to appreciate how one-half of 1 per cent, additional labour could entail the expenditure of £3,000,000, which sum honorable members opposite, and some honorable members on this side of the House, have indicated could be used for the building of more houses. I believe that we are at the peak of production in the building industry, and that we will build some 90,000 or more dwellings for those who need them. I believe we are at the peak in the use of skilled personnel for the construction of homes. We have two problems. There is a problem of labour in this industry. Honorable members opposite have only to look at the statistics issued by the Minister on 18th March to realize this fact. They will find that there are 1,660 skilled tradesmen available in this industry for new development or the building of new homes. Therefore, I say that the problem is not so much one of money at this stage, because the skilled personnel in this industry will continue to produce some 94,000 or 95,000 homes a year. I, too, have given attention to a circular sent by the Chamber of Manufactures of Victoria to 10,000 parents of boys reaching apprenticeship age, leaving technical schools and intermediate schools this year. How many replies did they get from those 10,000 parents? They got 350 replies from parents interested in apprenticing their children to the skilled craft trades. I "believe that the State governments and this Government should carefully examine the situation and try to ensure that skilled personnel are made available for all industries. I refer not only to the building industry, because there are many industries with labour shortages. The electrical industry and the metal trades industry all are short of labour to maintain the level of production to which we have become accustomed in this country. We may, of course, induce the Minister for Immigration **(Mr. Downer)** to coerce, encourage or kidnap skilled personnel from countries overseas, to help us make up the backlag. I know that honorable members opposite will be talking next week about the unemployment problem, but there are many sets of statistics available to them and to us which show that skilled personnel are just not available to produce the things that are needed in this country for the good of the people who are already here as well as those who will come here in ever-increasing numbers. We now have about 76,000 marriages a year. These people all must have homes, and they must have the goods that go into those homes. The only way that the homes and the goods can be provided is by training skilled personnel to build and produce them. That is my first point, that we need to train skilled personnel for this industry. The honorable member for Deakin **(Mr. Davis)** made another point which I think is worthy of additional thought. He said that in the inner suburbs in the metropolitan areas, particularly of Sydney and Melbourne, one can see the trend that has developed by looking at the figures for the census taken for 1954 and that taken in 1961. What do we find? We find that, in 1954, 2 per cent, of the houses in the metropolitan areas of Sydney and Melbourne were not occupied. When the 1961 census was taken and there was a great number of houses, 8 per cent, of those houses were unoccupied and were available for sale to persons who could buy them. I believe that the private lending institutions should be encouraged to lend money so that young people could buy and recondition houses in the inner metropolitan areas. -The various necessary services are already available to those houses. The municipal, councils are charging more and more by1 way of rates as the cities expand beyond the metropolitan areas into remoter parts-. The municipal councils are claiming mora and more money from the Government for the provision of roads, footpaths and so on. More money is required for tha provision of transport services, gas and electricity supplies and all the things that are needed in new communities. I suggest, therefore, that the lending institutions should be encouraged to lend to young people, and also the not-so-young people, who want to buy and recondition homes in the metropolitan area. These are the places where housing can be provided most efficiently, where services are already available and where the residents are closer to their jobs. I have made two points, first, the necessity to provide skilled personnel, and secondly, the need to encourage lending institutions to lend money for the purchase of older homes in the inner metropolitan areas. My third point has already beer* mentioned by the honorable member for Mitchell **(Mr. Armitage).** I believe that the 30-70 rule should be altered, so that private savings banks, instead of providing 18.8 per cent of their assets for home building, as they do to-day, may provide up to 22 or 23 per cent, of those assets for this purpose. Not any of the Opposition members have said that they will reject this bill. They have all said they will support it. I support it also. Debate (on motion by **Mr. Curtin)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 245 {:#debate-36} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Commonwealth Motor Vehicles - Butter and Margarine Motion (by **Mr. Swartz)** proposed - >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr WARD:
East Sydney .- I return to a subject that I raised in the Parliament last evening, concerning the abuse of the use of Commonwealth motor cars. Before I proceed I want to refer to a filthy report of the incident in the Sydney "Sun" of to-day's date. It is headed, "Ward Admits Wife Used Government Car ", and then it goes on - > **Mr. E.** J. Ward today admitted that his wife had used a Commonwealth car during the opening session oi' Federal Parliament last year. > > **Mr. Ward** last night called Minister for the Interior, **Mr. Freeth,** a liar when **Mr. Freeth** said **Mr. Ward** had asked for and was given a Commonwealth car for his wife. I have not retracted anything that I said last night. I still say that the statement made by the Minister cannot be borne out by any document and that he cannot produce any facts to prove his case. Let me read the statement made by the Minister, which I said was deliberately untrue. The Minister said last night - the honorable member- referring to me - is not above asking favours for himself. Not very long ago - almost on the same day on which he attacked somebody in this House about the use of a Commonwealth car - he asked for and was granted the use of a Commonwealth car for his wife to go and change her clothes in preparation for some function she was to attend. That was the statement which I contradicted. My wife has never had any favours at all in respect of cars, and neither have I sought any favours on her behalf, as I will endeavour to prove. If the Minister wants an inquiry, and I hope he will now institute an inquiry into this continued suggestion of the abuse of the use of Commonwealth cars - and there are many people in this country who believe that it is abused - I do not care to what extent the Minister makes the investigation retrospective, because he will find that neither I nor my wife nor any member of my family has ever at any time abused the privileges of this Parliament. Nor have we ever asked any favours. I have been for 32 years a member of this Parliament, and I have never abused its privileges. What I have done on a number of occasions - and evidently this is what has irked the Minister - is to endeavour to secure, by questions on notice and questions without notice, some information regarding the use of Commonwealth cars. I have met with constant refusals to furnish the information. I never suggested, as the newspaper says, that my wife has never been in a Commonwealth car. That would be an utterly ridiculous statement to make. There is not a member of this Parliament whose wife has not, at some time or other, been in a Commonwealth car. What I said, and what I will repeat, is that my wife has never had any favours in respect of the use of Commonwealth cars, nor have I. In 1954 we were in Canberra attending the ordinary festivities associated with the royal visit. Whatever function we attended, we used the shuttle service that was arranged for all members of the Parliament and their relatives who were here on that occasion. My wife has not visited the Australian Capital Territory very often. The other occasion was during Princess Alexandra's visit, when the same set of circumstances prevailed. So far as I can recollect the only time when my wife had a car for her use alone was at the 1962 opening of the Parliament. Let me tell the House what happened on that occasion. **Mrs. Ward** arrived in Canberra by air on Sunday, 18th February, 1962. She was met by a friend of ours in a private car. She used no government transport. On Monday, 19th February, no government transport was provided. Again, this friend of ours used his own private car. On Tuesday, 20th February, when the Parliament opened, my wife came to Parliament House by private car. When she was ready to return, because the gentleman who had driven her here had gone to work, she inquired for a taxi. No taxi was available at the time and at my suggestion we inquired about a Commonwealth car. I said to her, "You are probably entitled to have a Commonwealth car because government cars are running backwards and forwards from the hotels bringing the wives of members to Parliament House for the functions ". I rang up to see whether she could get a government car, but we were told that no government car was available at that time. Later she secured a taxi. I am not certain what happened on Wednesday, 21st February. A Commonwealth car may have been called to pick her up at the near suburb of Turner where she was staying with friends. She attended an afternoon tea party arranged by **Mrs. Calwell,** who was making a presentation to the wife of one of our retiring senators. When she left, she did return to Turner in a Commonwealth car. The car remained waiting for only ten minutes. That was the outside limit of the wait. Then she returned to the parliamentary reception. Later she was taken back to Turner. On Thursday, 22nd February, my wife came here to attend an afternoon tea party arranged by **Mrs. McLeay.** She came by Commonwealth car. When she was returning in the Commonwealth car she had to make a couple of purchases at Civic, but she would not keep the Commonwealth car waiting. She dismissed it and, when ready to do so, hired a taxi to continue her journey to Turner. That shows whether she abused the privilege! Then, on either the Friday or Saturday she was taken by car to the aerodrome in order to return to Sydney. I think any honorable member will agree that there was no evidence here of the abuse of the use of cars in those circumstances. The Minister for the Interior tried to magnify this matter because he wanted to throw a smoke-screen over his continuous refusal to furnish information. I say to the Minister that no longer has he any excuse for refusing an inquiry because no longer can he say that these records are confidential and are matters of personal concern to the members concerned. If he is prepared to try to smear my wife in regard to the use of Commonwealth cars, then I demand that he produce all the records of the use of Commonwealth cars so that all the abuses will be exposed in this House. Let me tell the Minister that it is common knowledge that Commonwealth cars are used and abused by Ministers and their wives in the Australian Capital Territory and in every capital city of the Common- wealth. Cars are used for ordinary shopping, for going to the hairdressers where they are kept waiting, and for taking the children to school. The Minister knows that all those things happen. He is afraid to have an investigation of this matter. I invite an investigation. Ministers and their wives and families have the unrestricted use of cars without any questions asked. They can ring up and order a car at any time. I will tell the House what the drivers are instructed to do. They do not put down on the sheet details of all the journeys that they make. They put on the sheet " as directed ". The drivers are instructed that a Minister's wife or any member of his family is not required to sign the trip sheet that an ordinary member is asked to sign when he travels by a Commonwealth car. Why is that? Is it because Ministers do not want any record of the abuse of these cars. Voluntary youth organizations looking after overseas students are allowed to use Com*>monwealth cars. When I asked th& Minister for External Affairs **(Sir Garfield Barwick)** whether any records of the purposes for which the cars were ordered were kept he said, " No. When these cars are ordered no records are kept of the purposes for which they are ordered." When this House adjourns at night every Minister has his own separate car. Some of them stay at the Hotel Kurrajong. Why can they not walk as other members do? Instead of these healthy Ministers walking a quarter of a mile, they get government cars. Drivers stand by for hours waiting for the call to take the Ministers a few hundred yards to their hotel. Has any one in this House or in the Commonwealth any doubt that Commonwealth cars are abused? I merely asked why special privileges were given to **Senator Sir Walter** Cooper; Even in that matter the Minister could not be honest and frank. He tried to cover up by saying that other members were receiving privileges. **Senator Amour** gets a car to go backwards and forwards to his office once a week. He suffers from warcaused disabilities. **Senator Sir Walter** Cooper has the unrestricted use of a car So have his wife and family whenever they require a car to do their shopping or for any other purpose. In conclusion, as the Minister has invited me to pursue this matter, I now ask for a complete and public inquiry into it. I am quite certain; that the public will be amazed at what will be revealed. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-JWV} ##### Mr CHANEY:
Perth **.- Mr. Speaker.** I have listened with a great deal of interest during the last ten minutes. The only thing that was missing was a ukelele) which the honorable member for East Sydney **(Mr. Ward)** could have played while his ship went down. {: #subdebate-36-0-s2 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr COPE:
Watson .- Last night the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** attacked the New South Labour Government because of the amount of mart garine that is being produced in that State*: After listening to him last night, I am com?pletely satisfied that he side-stepped the real issues. That recalls to my mind that a few years ago, when Her Royal Highness*, Princess Alexandra attended a ball in Parliament House, I noticed that the honorable member for Richmond danced a quick-step with the princess. After listening to him last night, I am satisfied that he is a much better side-stepper than quick-stepper. He did not touch on one point that was made by my colleague, the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly).** It is quite obvious that in Australia to-day there are many thousands of age pensioners who would like to buy butter but simply cannot afford to pay 4s. lOd. per lb. for it. The honorable member for Richmond would deny those people the right to put something on their bread. Probably he would like them to eat it dry. The reason why butter is beyond the reach of these people is that this Government has been in power for thirteen years and we have seen an inflationary spiral year after year, particularly over the first ten years. That is why butter is not being sold in Australia to-day as cheaply as it should be. It is also interesting to note that when I worked in the Lismore by-election campaign I noticed that practically every shop in Lismore and the nearby towns sold margarine. One day I asked one of the shopkeepers, "Why are not you people ostracized for selling this product in a dairyfarming district? " He said to me: " Strangely enough, a lot of dairy-farmers buy margarine from me. They do not like butter." As the honorable member for Richmond knows, as a result of much research in the fields of medicine and surgery over the last ten years, leading heart specialists of the world are now prescribing margarine for many of their patients because of the danger to the condition of the heart from eating butter. Of course these things have not been explained by the honorable member, but the reason for the increased production of margarine in New South Wales is quite obvious. It is interesting to note that the honorable member attacks the Labour Government of New South Wales on every possible occasion. I think we all agree that he very seldom attacks this Commonwealth Government for allowing the importation of primary produce into Australia in competition with industries worked by the people whom he is alleged to represent. As an example, I mention cheese, a nice article produced by the dairy-farmers. Very succulent varieties of cheese are produced and consumed in Australia - varieties such as Allowrie, Kraft, Kameruka and many others, which compare well with the cheese produced by any other country. But many shops in Sydney, Melbourne and any other large city in the Commonwealth sell imported cheeses in competition with local cheese, the product of our dairy-farmers. Does the honorable member for Richmond attack his own Government for allowing the imported varieties to compete with the product of our dairy industry? Of course he does not! Does he attack the Government consistently for allowing tinned meat, tinned peas and citrus fruits to be imported into Australia? Of course he does not, because he is afraid he might embarrass the Government. But at every possible opportunity he takes the attitude that the Government of New South Wales is responsible for the dire situation of the dairy-farmers. The Australian Labour Party recognizes that the dairy-farmers have given yeoman service to the Australian economy for many years. Consequently it was a Labour government which first introduced the subsidy on butter; and if we were in government we would increase the subsidy of £13,500,000 which the present Government is paying. We know that the dairyfarmers have made a great contribution to the economy of the country. We recognize the hard work they do and we will give it practical recognition when we become the government. These are things which the honorable member for Richmond side-stepped completely last night. He and his colleagues want the production of margarine to be banned throughout Australia, although they are the people who are the great exponents of private enterprise. They say that people should be able to produce whatever they like and compete with one another; but when a matter affects some one in their own electorates they want socialism introduced. They do not believe in private enterprise when it affects votes in their own electorates. They say. " Let us socialize this industry. Let us subsidize that industry. Ban margarine, so as to give the dairy-farmers a better go ". We believe in giving the dairy-farmers a better go, but we believe in fair price for their products. If we were in office, we would increase age and invalid pensions so as to bring butter within the reach of the pensioners, but the Government has no intention of doing that. I asked the Minister for Social Services **(Mr. Roberton)** last year whether the Government would increase pensions in order to allow pensioners to buy butter, but he replied that the Government would not do so. It would not give them enough even to buy margarine! That illustrates the inconsistency of the case put up by the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** last night. {: #subdebate-36-0-s3 .speaker-KWR} ##### Mr TURNER:
Bradfield **.- Mr. Speaker,** I had hoped to say something on this margarine question last night in support of a point which I thought was validly made by the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly).** Unfortunately, I was gagged last night. I thought that there would be no adjournment debate to-night and that I would have an opportunity, in fairness, of discussing this matter with the Minister for Health **(Senator Wade)** before a normal adjournment debate next week. However, I have now learned that as a motion of censure is listed for debate next week it might be some time before I would have an opportunity to speak on this subject, and, therefore, I will deal with the matter now. The honorable member for Grayndler pointed out that in 1961 the Commonwealth Department of Health issued a leaflet entitled " Eat Better for Less ". There was a good deal of criticism of that leaflet. I will say something about it in a moment. Another leaflet has been produced this year, entitled "Keep Fit with Food". In the first pamphlet margarine is said to be a suitable substitute for butter. The leaflet says that butter and table margarine are equally good sources of fat and vitamin A. The second pamphlet says nothing at all about margarine and suggests that only butter provides the nutritional elements which in fact are present in both butter and margarine. I should like now to refer to what was said in this House at the time the first pamphlet was issued. The then honorable member for Wide Bay, **Mr. Bandidt,** as reported at page 1505 of " Hansard " of 4th May, 1961, asked the Minister for Health a question, as follows: - >I direct a question to the Minister for Health. Has the Commonwealth Department of Health issued a publication entitled, "Eat Better for Less "? Does this booklet describe bacon as a luxury food, and does it say that butter and margarine are equally good sources of fat? The then Minister for Health, **Dr. Donald** Cameron, replied - > **Mr. Speaker,** there is a section of the Department of Health which is concerned with research into food and nutrition. This section is responsible for a pamphlet which recently appeared. The pamphlet begins by recommending as staple articles of diet foods which are the product of Australian primary industries. It then goes on to point out in effect that it is not necessary always to obtain these foods in their more expensive form, but that there are other cheaper forms in which they are almost equally effective. The controversy continued and on 9th May, 1961, as reported at page 1594 of " Hansard " the honorable member for Leichhardt **(Mr. Fulton)** asked the thea Minister for Health - >Does the Minister for Health consider that the pamphlet "Eat Better for Less", issued by the Department of Health, is detrimental to the interests of primary producers? If so, will he cease publication of this pamphlet? The Minister very properly replied - >The honorable gentleman has really asked mc a very curious question. Does he mean that if a doctor or, indeed, a scientist, who happens to be a public servant, issues a statement that is judged to be commercially undesirable or, even worse, politically unpalatable, publication should therefore be suppressed? Of course, **Mr. Speaker,** that is exactly what the honorable gentleman's question does mean. The controversy continued further, but I have not the time to pursue it. What is the function of the Department of Health or the Department of Primary Industry or the Department of Trade? What is the function of the Department of Health? To give information on matters of diet to those who most require it from the health point of view? Who are they? The public at large or people who are ill or whose income is so small that they have to pay particular attention to these matters? Quite clearly this pamphlet is properly designed for people on low incomes, such as pensioners and widows with young children. It tells the truth as the scientists understand it. I carried out some research into this matter when I was a member of the Parliament of New South Wales. Those who are interested in my speech can find it in the New South Wales "Hansard" of 18th September, 1951, at pages 3027 and 3087. I subsequently spoke in this House about the situation of widows with young children and quoted again) the advice that was given to people on their diet by the Commonwealth Department of Health. That advice included a reference to the effect that margarine is nutritionally in every way as good as butter. That is a scientific fact, which cannot be denied. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- Why do you not eat margarine? {: .speaker-KWR} ##### Mr TURNER: -- I do not think this is a matter which should be treated with levity. We have in our community poor people, and I speak in particular of widows with young children. I have spoken at some length about this matter in this House. The honorable member is trying to say to them, "If you want to do the best for your children with the few pounds that you have, you must buy butter at double the price of a commodity which would do the job just as well ". To me this is miserable, paltry, unkind, cruel and untrue. The decision which has been made is insensitive and obtuse. So far as the community at large is concerned, it prefers butter because it is more palatable. So far as the economy is concerned, we have a dairy industry which has to be supported. Very well, but I am speaking about the people who cannot afford butter and who are being told that they must buy it and that margarine is not good enough. To tell a widow with young children who is trying to live on a few pounds a week that she must pay twice as much as she need pay for butter for her children is unkind, cruel, selfish and insensitive. This is morally wrong. I do not expect to influence the Minister. I do not expect to influence any member of the Country Party. The widows to whom I have referred are not a pressure group so they will not be considered. But I hope that some honorable members will give more thought to what they are doing. They have said to the widows and others in a similar position, " So long as you support the dairy-farmers never mind if you spend a few shillings each week or a few pounds each month that you need not spend, you who have so little to spend on your children ". A short time ago I was a member of a certain committee and at my own expense I brought before the committee to give evidence a lady who had great experience as a social worker among widows. She brought along their budget case histories which showed in every case that they were denying themselves food so that their children could have it. This lady pointed out to us that the incidence of illness among these widows was greater than it was in the rest of 'the community. That is what is going on, yet members of the Country Party tell these people that they must sustain the dairy-farmers and pay twice as much as they need pay for essential food for their children. This is morally wrong and wicked. I cannot influence the Minister nor can I influence any honorable gentleman in this House, but I hope that some will not sleep to-night with such quiet consciences as they have had in the past. {: #subdebate-36-0-s4 .speaker-KRF} ##### Mr McGUREN:
Cowper .- At this stage I do not know whether it is wise to enter into this rather interesting debate, but in view of various statements which were made by the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** yesterday I feel that I must do so. I have noticed that the honorable member is always ready and willing to attack the New South Wales Government. I wonder whether he realizes that New South Wales is the only State which has any legislation governing the manufacture of margarine. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- They are honest in other States. {: .speaker-KRF} ##### Mr McGUREN: -- That may be so, but I shall tell you just how honest they are. If the honorable member ever goes to the Queensland border - I presume the same position applies at the Victorian border - he will see flat tops, big motor transports, loaded with margarine moving from one State to another as a result of the decision in relation to section 92 of the Constitution. No amount of policing or any act of Parliament will have much effect on the position because the Commonwealth Constitution overrides any State law. I do not know whether the honorable member knows that, but if he does not it is time he learned it. {: .speaker-BU4} ##### Mr Anthony: -- You are off your rocker, old boy. {: .speaker-KRF} ##### Mr MCGUREN: -- The honorable member made some comment about me being off my rocker. At least I do not have to wear a Brigitte Bardot hairdo to impress my electors. If the great war between the margarine manufacturers and the dairy farmers is as serious as we are led to believe it is by the honorable member for Richmond, let me tell him that if the subsidy on butter had been kept in conformity with that which the Chifley Government provided it would now be £52,500,000 a year instead of £13,000,000, because when the Chifley Government introduced the subsidy the basic wage was about one-third of what it is now. That is the yardstick I used in arriving at the figure of £52,500,000. If people buy margarine because they cannot afford to buy butter they still are contributing to the butter subsidy through the ordinary taxation pool. We must be realistic enough to understand that what the honorable member for Bradfield said is pretty true and that what the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** said is equally true.. Nevertheless, there is another body of people who must be considered. For many years they have lived on dairy farms with the consequent social disadvantages. Now you cannot expect to move those people and their families willy-nilly from their homes. Something must be done for them. The honorable member for Richmond, who has been so vocal, should think in terms of restricting the manufacture of margarine by using government instrumentalities to restrict the inflow of vegetable oils from farms and settlements in the Territories. I do not suggest that that is the right way to handle the matter but it would be effective while section 92 of the Constitution plays a part in the movement of margarine from State to State. An increased butter subsidy is the answer to the question. The subsidy should be such as to bring down the price of butter to a level at which it could be bought by the people of this country who require butter on their bread, whether they be wage-earners, widows or any underprivileged person. This subject has been bandied about for a long time. I shall never forget the tre mendous efforts by which the members of the Country Party claimed they forced the State Government to introduce the legislation governing the manufacture of margarine. They used their imagination to arouse some sympathy for their claim because they had suffered defeat on the issue of flood mitigation. The proposal probably was thought up by the honorable member for Richmond and other Country Party members in the area. They campaigned throughout the district and stated that the State Government proposed to allow the manufacture of an increased quota of margaine. The State Government had no such intention but regardless of that fact these Country Party members made up their story. Let us be realistic about this. When the Budget is being prepared the Government should consider increasing the subsidy so that the dairy farmers will not be so worried about which product the people buy; the farmers will have a guaranteed return. If the Government accepts my suggestion it will remove this hobby horse which is not helping the industry. The industry in the areas represented by the honorable member for Richmond and the honorable member for Lyne **(Mr. Lucock)** is in a parlous state. Last week a flood in the district did damage estimated at £1,500,000. I hope that in the future the Government will consider the effect of floods on the industry which, according to Country Party members, the manufacture of margarine is killing. {: #subdebate-36-0-s5 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Gippsland .- I join issue with honorable members opposite who quite erroneously have brought one or two aspects into the debate. The Australian Labour Party seems unable to make up its mind on several matters. One relates to the defence of this country, as evidenced by the 19 to 17 vote on the United States proposal to erect a naval communications station in Western Australia. Another issue seems to be whether the manufacture of margarine should be controlled, and a third seems to be whether the Labour Party should support the dairy farmers. Last night we heard a. speech by the honorable member for Grayndler **(Mr. Daly)** who has a financial interest in margarine manufacture as has the Labour Party generally. As the honorable member for Richmond **(Mr. Anthony)** said last night, £25,000 went into the Labour Party's coffers from Marrickville Margarine Proprietary Limited. That is a nice handy sum. I can understand the Labour Party's attitude towards the Marrickville Margarine Company. I feel sorry for the honorable member for Lalor **(Mr. Pollard).** He is about the only sincere rural thinker in the Labour Party. The honorable member for Cowper **(Mr. McGuren)** is so bemused and mixed up that he does not know B from a bull's foot. I do not agree with all that the honorable member for Bradfield **(Mr. Turner)** said, but he did make some points of human interest. However, he should remember that the whole Australian basic wage structure is based upon a certain index, butter being one of the basic commodities included in the index. The honorable member for Grayndler said that margarine was nutritious and wholesome. Even the New South Wales Government has passed certain laws to ensure that manufactured goods meet certain requirements, and no doubt margarine, under the terms of the New South Wales Health Act, has to be wholesome and nutritious, but to say that its nutritional value is equal to that of butter is nonsense. Let me tell members of the Labour Party, the great barrackers for margarine, something about that product. We have heard from honorable members opposite about the health-giving qualities of this commodity. Let us see what a leading American health specialist said about the effect of margarine on a person's health. He said - >An excess of wrong oils, or inferior food oils such as margarine, in the bloodstream, serves to undermine the balance of health. Let the honorable member for Grayndler go back to his electorate and tell his constituents to watch out for margarine. It is a dangerous and poisonous commodity. Let honorable members opposite listen to this further statement - >Wrong oils cause the presence of excessive amounts of cholesterol in the blood. This is one of the factors leading to the onset of coronary disease. Keep away from margarine! The honorable member for Wilmot **(Mr. Duthie)** is displaying an interest in this matter. I have found out, much to my amazement, that he does not even live in the electorate he represents. Even though butter producers reside in his electorate, he is listening *to* these barrackers for margarine and is saying nothing. This nutritionist went on to say - * Margarine does not contain iodine. Butter does. Iodine will cause the accumulation of cholesterol in cancer to break down, thus contributing to recovery. I feel very sorry for people who cannot afford butter, but they certainly cannot afford to eat margarine, because it is dangerous to their systems and to their personal health. {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- I rise to a point of order. Who started all this, **Mr. Speaker?** {: #subdebate-36-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I ask the honorable member for Gippsland to direct his remarks to the Chair. We may then be able to have some decorum in the House. {: #subdebate-36-0-s7 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP; NCP from May 1975 -- You have treated me very well, **Mr. Speaker.** Let us get back to the cold economic facts of life. The honorable member for Cowper suggested that the importation of vegetable oils from overseas ought to be banned. We would not need to ban the importation of vegetable oils if the New South Wales Government played the game with the Australian Agricultural Council. We know that the Marrickville Margarine Company is producing 15,000 "tons of margarine a year, or 6,000 tons more than its quota. The honorable member for Cowper is very happy about that. I pity the poor dairy-farmers in the electorate of Cowper. They constitute one of the hardest-working communities in the whole of northern New South Wales, but they are represented here by a man who is hypocritical enough to sit in this place and listen to the barrackers for margarine go to work. The manufacture of margarine provides a return of £3,500,000 to the farmers who grow crops which produce vegetable oils. What does the dairy indus. try earn for this nation? It earns £146,000,000 a year. Last night the honorable member for Grayndler said that butter could not be used to decorate the tables in the dining-room here on the occasion of the Royal reception and that margarine was used. That remark shows just how much he knows about margarine. It was not margarine, but was a commodity made from animal fat. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I rise to a point of order. Is it parliamentary for the honorable member for Gippsland to poke his tongue out? {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! I ask the House to come to order. The honorable member for Gippsland has the call. In all fairness to him, he should be heard without interruption. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON: -- I wish to make one more point, **Mr. Speaker. Dr. Cameron** supported a favorable attitude towards margarine, but what happened to him at the last general election? Where is he now? His defeat shows that you cannot beat the average Australian voter, who knows who the sincere fellow is. The man who replaced **Dr. Cameron** as the elected representative for the division of Oxley is not nearly as good as **Dr. Cameron.** I mention **Dr. Cameron's** defeat only to show what happened when a person is misguided. I warn you fellows on the other side of the House not to be misguided. Do not fall for the trap, especially you members who represent rural constituencies. You have been led into a trap in relation to defence. The Labour Party executive's vote in relation to the naval communications station at North-West Cape was 19-17. I believe a vote on margarine would be the same. I finish on that note. Motion (by **Mr. Chaney)** put - >That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr. Speaker - Hon. Sir John McLeay.) AYES: 58 NOES: 55 Majority . . 3 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.5 p.m. {: .page-start } page 253 {:#debate-37} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: - {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Northern Territory {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What area of land of the Northern Territory is leased from the Crown for pastoral or agricultural purposes? 1. What is the average rental paid per square mile? {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The area of land in the Northern Territory leased from the Crown for pastoral and agricultural purposes at June 30, 1962, was 234,380 square miles. 1. The average rental per square mile is 5s. 6.8d. {: #subdebate-37-0-s2 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice - >What negotiations have been held or arrangements made with Western Australia concerning inundation and irrigation in the Northern Territory in consequence of the Ord River scheme? {: #subdebate-37-0-s3 .speaker-ZL6} ##### Mr Hasluck:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >No negotiations have been held or arrangements made on this matter but discussions are to be held with a view to making an agreement between the Northern Territory Administration, the Western Australian Government and the lessees of the land in the Northern Territory which is part of the Ord River catchment, regarding cattle stocking rates on and the regeneration of the land in this catchment, with the objective of helping to reduce siltation in the Ord River dam. {:#subdebate-37-1} #### The Parliament {: #subdebate-37-1-s0 .speaker-JSU} ##### Mr Bryant: t asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many sittings of the House of Repre sentatives have occurred in each half-year since federation? 1. What has been the average annual number of days of sitting? {: #subdebate-37-1-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The number of sittings of the House of Representatives in each half-year since 1901 was: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. -- continued. 1. The average annual number of days of sittings was 70. {:#subdebate-37-2} #### Protection of Australian Wild Life {: #subdebate-37-2-s0 .speaker-JOO} ##### Mr Beaton:
BENDIGO, VICTORIA n asked the Prime Minister, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the Commonwealth Government possess any powers to legislate in regard to the protection of Australian wild life? 1. If so, what legislation has been enacted? 2. Does the Commonwealth Government finan cially assist State governments or private organizations in their efforts to protect wild life? 3. If so, what form has the assistance taken and what are the details of the amounts paid to the governments or organizations concerned? {: #subdebate-37-2-s1 .speaker-N76} ##### Sir Robert Menzies:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Except in relation to Commonwealth Terri tories, the Commonwealth Parliament has no general power to legislate with respect to the protection of Australian flora and fauna. However, the Commonwealth possesses certain powers under the Customs Act to prohibit by regulation the exportation from and importation into Australia of goods. Regulations made under this act, whilst not specifically provided as protection measures, do have some bearing on the protection and conservation of Australian wild life. These powers are exercised in co-operation with the appropriate State authorities. 2. (i) Australia-wide: - Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations. Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. In the Australian Capital Territory: - Animals and Birds Protection Ordinance 1918-1959. Fish Protection Ordinance 1929-1949. Wild Flowers and Native Plants Protection Ordinance 1936. (iii) In the Northern Territory: - Birds Protection Ordinance 1928-1959. Buffalo Control Ordinance 1939-1959. A bill passed by the Northern Territory Legislative Council seeks to repeal these ordinances and replace them with a single uniform measure to be known as the Wild Life Conservation and Control Ordinance, which will bring all matters relating to fauna other than dingoes under unified administrative control. 3 and 4. The Commonwealth does not make any grants to the States or any private organizations specifically for the protection of wild life. But the Commonwealth's general financial assistance grants to the States would be available, together with the States' own revenue raisings, for expenditure at their discretion, on instrumentalities that they themselves have established for the protection of wild life within their boundaries. {:#subdebate-37-3} #### Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Liability) Act {: #subdebate-37-3-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: m asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. How many claims have been (a) made, (b) determined and (c) settled under the Commonwealth Motor Vehicles (Liability) Act 1959? 1. What was the cost to the Commonwealth of the claims (a) determined and (b) settled? {: #subdebate-37-3-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. The information sought by the honorable member is not all available in my own department, but is being obtained and will be supplied to the House as soon as it is available. {:#subdebate-37-4} #### Company Law {: #subdebate-37-4-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he able to say whether those responsible for directing the affairs of what are referred to as the Korman group of companies continued to attract investments from the public by means of misleading and dishonest advertisements which did not reveal the true position of those companies at a time when it must have been known to the respective directorates that enormous losses were being incurred? 1. What action is open to the Government, if it wishes to act in the matter, to protect the Australian public against misleading and dishonest practices? {: #subdebate-37-4-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 and "2. The new companies law contains provisions making punishable the publication of misleading and dishonest prospectuses. If the honorable member has any information tending to establish the publication of an advertisement inviting investment which contained misleading or dishonest statements, I will either transmit it to the Attorney-General of the State concerned or, if it relates to a Territory of the Commonwealth, and there is reason to accept its reliability and its relevance, take appropriate action myself, as I will in relation to similar information from any other source. {: #subdebate-37-4-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - >Will he indicate what protection is afforded to small investors in the many large public companies which announced astronomical losses during the last year by the provisions of the uniform company legislation resulting from consultation between himself and the State Attorneys-General? {: #subdebate-37-4-s3 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's question is as follows: - >Disregarding the ponderous innuendoes in the honorable member's question, I suggest that he examine Parts IV, V and VI in particular of the new companieslaw, a copy of which is available in the Library. As I explained to the honorable member on 8th May last (" Hansard ", page 2069), in replying to a similar question, it would take a substantial treatise to supply the information that he then sought. His present request is wider still. {: #subdebate-37-4-s4 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Can he say whether an offence is committed against Commonwealth or State law by a director or a high executive officer of a public company who takes advantage of knowledge, which has not been revealed to shareholders, of financial difficulties being experienced by the company and disposes of shares in his name thus anticipating a fall in their market value? 1. Does he know of any instances where such a happening has occurred? 2. If so, was any action taken against the person concerned? 3. If action was taken, what was the result? {: #subdebate-37-4-s5 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. It would not be in accordance with the practice of the House for me to give a legal opinion in answer to a question, particularly upon the basis of a hypothetical' set of facts, and I do not propose to do so. Section 124 of the Companies Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory, a copy of which is in the Library, is relevant to the point raised. 2 to 4. No such happening has been brought to my attention as Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. {:#subdebate-37-5} #### Tapping of Telephones {: #subdebate-37-5-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did he on a previous occasion claim that telephone tapping was occurring in Australia with the knowledge and sanction of the then Government at a dato prior to the passing of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act? 1. If so, and in order that the truth or otherwise of the claim may be proved, is he prepared to produce any evidence which he possesses or give details of any evidence which he claims exists to support the contention? {: #subdebate-37-5-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 and 2. I have nothing to add to what I said to the House on 5th May, 1960 ("Hansard", page 1424) and on 17th May, 1960 ("Hansard", pages 1788-1789),, with regard to tha telephone interception that' took place with the knowledge and sanction of the Chifley Government, which I take to be the subject of the honorable member's question. {: #subdebate-37-5-s2 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has he given as his reason for refusing to reveal the number of authorized telephone tappings made in accordance with the provisions of the Telephonic Communication (Interception) Act, the desire to protect the major interests of this country? 1. If so, will he state in what way Australia's major interests would be affected if this information were made available? {: #subdebate-37-5-s3 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes; see the answer I gave to a question by the Leader of the Opposition on 2nd June, 1960. ("Hansard", page 2194.) 1. I discussed this matter in some detail in answer to a question by the honorable member for Watson ("Hansard", page 296). I have nothing to add to what I then said. {:#subdebate-37-6} #### Restrictive Trade Practices {: #subdebate-37-6-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Is he satisfied that the Commonwealth Parliament possesses power in its own right to legislate in respect of restrictive trade practices? 1. Is complementary State legislation required to give effect to the Government's proposals? 2. What State governments have (a) offered their co-operation and (b) expressed opposition to the proposals? 3. If some or all States refuse to co-operate, is it the intention of the Government to (a) proceed independently of the States, (b) seek increased Commonwealth powers, or (c) abandon the plan? {: #subdebate-37-6-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answers to the honorable member's questions are as follows: - 1 and 2. It would not be in accordance with the practice of the House for me to state opinions on questions of constitutional law in answer to questions. I have, however, briefly discussed some of the relevant constitutional matters in a paper delivered at the Australian Law Convention in Hobart in January last, of which all honorable members have had a copy. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. I have nothing at present to add to the statement which was presented to the House on my behalf on 6th December last by my colleague, the Minister for the Interior and Minister for Works. 1. It is not customary to state matters of Government policy in answer to questions in the House. {:#subdebate-37-7} #### Security {: #subdebate-37-7-s0 .speaker-KX7} ##### Mr Ward: d asked the Attorney-General, upon notice - {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his attention been drawn to an article in the " Sun " newspaper of 8th February, 1963, under the heading " Miss X in Peril " - " Beauty Trapped Spy ", wherein it is stated that (a) the security agent was (i) a talented linguist with a university degree, (ii) a divorcee in her early thirties who was used only on major counterespionage, and (iii) not on the security service weekly pay-roll but was paid by results, (b) even the cold security narration of events could not conceal the fact that the association became more than a commercial relationship, (c) there was evidence of **Mrs. Skripov's** jealousy, (d) **Mrs. Skripov** insisted on accompanying her husband whenever he met the unknown Australian operative, (e) Miss X made a play of keeping Skripov at a safe distance but to Skripov this was not satisfactory and (0 for her part in the spy drama Miss X, a natural blonde, became a brunette? 1. Are any of these assertions based on information supplied by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization or from any other government source? 2. If not, does the Government know of any source from which such information might be obtained by this newspaper organization? 3. Is the published information of a type which would normally be made available from Australian Security Intelligence Organization sources? 4. Is he able to say if any of the published information is untrue? {: #subdebate-37-7-s1 .speaker-126} ##### Sir Garfield Barwick:
LP -- The answer to the honorable member's questions is as follows: - 1 to 5. The technique of seeking information by making fabricated assertions of a sensational character, in the hope of eliciting something in the way of correction or denial is, I suppose, familiar to the honorable member. I do not propose to fall victim to such a technique. The official statement made by myself was the only Government information conveyed to the newspapers in this connexion.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 28 March 1963, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1963/19630328_reps_24_hor38/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant