House of Representatives
29 April 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



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

page 2215

PETITIONS

World Government

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That arms races, in which Australia is involved, have war as their natural conclusion.

That peace movements have never succeeded except by general acceptance of a superior jurisdiction by previously independent sovereign regimes and their followers.

That the size of the supreme unit of government has progressed, along with increasing communications, bringing mutual understanding and the means for unified administration to nations consisting of units formerly alien to each other.

That for the survival of mankind and the lasting security of nations, sovereignty over the means of making war must be passed to the citizens of a unitary world.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House wil give leadership to other citizens by declaring adherence to the general principle of working for a democratic legislative, judicial and executive authority, with constitutionally limited and adequate powers over armaments and disarmament, and over diversion of a proportion of war budgets to a world development fund.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the nextfive years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to -

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to -

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sheweth:

That the Australian Education Council’s report on the needs of State education services has established serious deficiencies in education.

That these can be summarised as lack of classroom accommodation, desperate teacher shortage, oversized classes and inadequate teaching aids.

That the additional sum of one thousand million dollars is required over the next five years by the States for these needs.

That without massive additional Federal finance the State school system will disintegrate.

That the provisions of the Handicapped Children’s Assistance Act 1970 should be amended to include all the country’s physically and mentally handicapped children.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will take immediate steps to -

Ensure that emergency finance from the Commonwealth will be given to the States for their public education services which provide schooling for seventy-eight per cent of Australia’s children. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received.

page 2216

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr GRIFFITHS:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I ask: Do taxation statistics show that the taxable income of some 3 million Australian wage earners averages only approximately §30 a week but provides more than $445m in taxation? Is it true that some higher income earners save almost the equivalent of those incomes in deductions allowed under the Income Tax Assessment Act? Further, are the incomes of these low wage earners being drastically reduced by the high cost of transport paid by many of them in travelling to and from their places of employment? Is it a fact that in 1957 Mr Justice Dixon, in giving judgment in the High Court in the Lunny and Hayley cases, severely criticised section 51 of the Act and said that if he were to be directed to review the section be would have misgivings about what conclusion he would reach? In view of the fact that Mr Justice McTiernan, in a dissenting judgment in the same case, indicated he could not find anything that would indicate that in the rate of wages being paid the appellants there was any consideration of the expense incurred in travelling to and from work, does the Government propose to do anything about reviewing this hardship through an amendment of section 51 of the Act? Did the Chief Justice imply that the section should be reviewed?

Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · BRUCE, VICTORIA · LP

– I must apologise that I did not hear every word of the question but I understood it to be primarily designed to ask me whether the Government would consider allowing deductions in relation to expenses on transport to and from work. Is that right?

Mr Griffiths:

– That is right, especially low wage earners.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– The first part of the question related to the amount of revenue which is raised by taxation from the great bulk of taxpayers who are in what the honourable member describes as the lower income groups compared with the amount of revenue raised from higher income groups. It is a fact that a great deal of the revenue from tax raisings does come from those people who are earning about the average income. I do not know that this could ever be changed because, as it is the average wage that indicates the level at which the majority of workers are earning. I do not see any way in which this can be changed. If the implication is that there should be higher tax rates for the higher income earners, I do not think I can agree with the honourable member. The fact is that if the rate of income tax is pitched at such a high level that the rewards of earning more are reduced then incentive to earn is consequently reduced, and what we need greatly in this country is entrepreneurial skill, management skill and a willingness of people to undertake responsibility. I think this is in the interests of the country. The specific matter of allowing transport costs as a deduction has been considered on many occasions. I can give the honourable gentleman an assurance that when the Budget is being considered this matter will be examined.

page 2216

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

Mr GARLAND:
CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Prime Minister who will have seen reports that 3 unions - the Amalgamated Engineering Union, the Sheet Metal Workers Union and the Boilermakers and Blacksmiths Society - jointly agreed at their annual conferences yesterday to seek a work ban on mining operations in the Gove Peninsula. In view of the Prime Minister’s recent speech will he advise the House what initiatives have been taken by the Government to protect Aboriginal land rights?

Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I think it is appropriate to divorce the statements that were made by the 3 left wing unions from the problem of the land rights of Australian Aboriginals. The House will remember that only yesterday the Attorney-General explained the legal position as a result df the decision in the Yirrkala case. I feel it is appropriate to point out that in that instance the Government was anxious to ensure that the Aboriginals had every conceivable opportunity to present their case in order to protect whatever legal rights they had. The Attorney-General pointed out that we paid all their costs, including those of witnesses.

The next point I want to make is that if the Aboriginals want to pursue their rights in the High Court they have every right to do so. and I do not under any circumstances want to anticipate any decision they might make.

But the Government has been particularly anxious to divorce the legal aspect from the moral problem and the problems associated with justice and reasonable treatment of Australian Aboriginals. So, as the honourable gentleman has noted, at the meeting in Cairns recently, which the Minister for Social Services attended on my behalf, the case was put to the State Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs that the Commonwealth would take the initiative, no matter what the decision might be in this case, to protect the recreational and ceremonial land rights of the Australian Aboriginals and that this Government would do all it could to ensure that the Aboriginals had adequate opportunities for business enterprises.

I have already discussed this with Dr Coombs, Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, the Postmaster-General and at least 2 other Ministers, and they know the urgency and sensitivity of this problem. I hope that within the course of a few days my colleagues will be able to prepare some policy recommendations and that within a very short time the Australian Government will be able to consider the recommendations and come to some sensible resolution of this problem. I emphasise to everyone, including the 3 left wing unions, that we should not confuse the legal approach, the moral approach and an approach based on justice for Australian Aboriginals.

page 2217

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SUPERIOR COURT

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– 1 ask the AttorneyGeneral: When does he expect to reintroduce the Bill for the Commonwealth Superior Court which Sir Garfield Barwick was authorised by Cabinet to design in December 1962, which Sir Garfield described in an article in the Federal Law Review in June 1964, on which he made a ministerial statement, as the then Attorney-General, in May 1967 and for which he introduced the original Bill in November 1968? When does the Attorney-General expect to receive a report from the Administrative Review Committee under Mr Justice Kerr which he appointed in September 1968 to deal with matters which could come within the purview of the proposed Court? Have the Committee’s terms of reference been changed since he first appointed it and have its deliberations been interrupted by the Chairman’s duties as Chairman of the committee of inquiry into pay and conditions in the Services? .

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The proposal for the establishment of a Commonwealth superior court is a matter which is under consideration at the present time by the Attorney-General’s Department. It is not yet under consideration by the Government due, I think, to the change in Ministry. In due time the question will be presented for consideration by the Government. As to the lapse of time and any question of urgency associated with the matter, I would point out that when the proposal was suggested originally the list in the High Court, particularly in single Justice matters, was very greatly in arrears. Under the administration of the current Chief Justice this position has been altered rather dramatically. The extreme urgency which existed then no longer exists. Nevertheless, the whole problem involved a great many policy questions for the future of the judicial system in Australia. This will be very carefully considered and when a decision is made honourable members will be notified.

The other matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition related to the Administrative Law Committee. I understand that the Committee’s deliberations have been completed and it is in the course of preparing a report. I have arranged to have communication with the chairman at lunch time today to see, amongst other things, when the report can be expected. The matter involved some investigation being made overseas by Professor Whitmore, who was one of the members of the Committee. It has been a long and difficult task.

Mr Whitlam:

– Will you be tabling the report?

Mr N H Bowen:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I am not prepared to make any commitment at this stage. I think that the report could be of considerable public interest and I will consider that question when I receive the report. There has been a change in the Committee’s terms of reference. This occurred during the period that my predecessor was responsible for it. The change was only a slight one and widened the first term of reference to ensure that whether or not a superior court was set up the Committee would still recommend whether an appeal should be made to some appropriate court. There is nothing of great significance in this, except that it leaves it open to the Committee to recommend where the appeal should go. I am not conscious that the fact that Mr Justice Kerr has been appointed to inquire into Service pay and conditions has in any way delayed, this matter. I think that the magnitude of the task has been the cause of the delay.

page 2218

QUESTION

MR FRANCIS JAMES

Mr TURNER:
BRADFIELD, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Minister’ whether, since there has been an apparent detente in the relations of the People’s Republic of China with the outside world, it has been possible to obtain any information regarding the missing Australian journalist, Mr Francis James.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– During most of the time that I was Minister for External Affairs and Foreign Minister I religiously pursued the objective of trying to find out the whereabouts of Francis James, what his state of health was and when we could expect that he would be released. We were given information that if we pursued these activities through a particular channel we might be able to get some positive information. We had already been proceeding through the British Government and the British charge d’affaires in Peking but were unable to get any information whatsoever about him. For that matter, the British Government had not been able to get very much information about its own missing citizens either.

After considerable discussion with people, very close to the Chinese Government we were then somewhat peremptorily warned that it would be advisable for us. not to pursue this avenue of activity. We came to the conclusion that it could do harm to Francis James if we pursued it any further. Francis James is. an Australian citizen and is entitled to. the full protection that we are able to give .him.’ We are proceeding cautiously in other areas, but above all we will not do anything. which, in my opinion and that of Commonwealth advisers; might do any harm to him. But we have taken great care to point out the troubles he is having with his eyes and his back, and we hope that at -least this kind of representation will have some effect.

page 2218

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr STEWART:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the’ Minister for Immigration: Are all “ migrants who are British subjects given the same opportunity to apply foi and be granted Australian citizenship? If not, what are the reasons for differentiating between British subjects? Can the policy being followed lead to further charges of racial discrimination?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Immigration · BARKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

– Any differentiations which are made depend on the basic principle followed by the Government, which, is that the period of residence for citizenship in law should be relevant to the period likely to be needed to achieve a reasonable degree of integration into our society. As honourable members would be aware, .there is a fairly: wide variation in the conditions and periods for citizenship. The subject to which the honourable member refers relates to the non-European policy of 1966, which requires a 5-year period of residence for naturalisation. If he recalls the debate of 1966, in which he took part, he will realise that this was very much a part of the policy that was accepted by the House. It was a part of the Government’s assurances which were asked for by the Opposition that the policy would be administered responsibly and carefully. My predecessors and I have administered it in the spirit of that assurance, and this process is still going on. The Government’s view is that too short a period has elapsed for it to make a judgment that the period of residence before naturalisation should at this stage be shortened.

page 2219

QUESTION

NATURAL DISASTERS

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Treasurer. Does the Commonwealth make funds available to New South Wales for relief of drought and other natural disasters? If so, how much is New South Wales required to provide before Commonwealth funds are distributed? Who administers the relief expenditure involved? What amount of Commonwealth funds has been provided to New South Wales so far during this financial year?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The Commonwealth’s attitude has always been that the assistance to persons affected by natural disaster is - primarily a matter for the State governments. However, the Commonwealth has accepted that there will be occasions when the expenses of natural disasters are beyond the means of the States and that therefore the Commonwealth should assist in the relief of expenditures and the reconstructions that are necessary following a natural disaster. One of the difficulties the Commonwealth has encountered is the fact that it is not possible to know, when one natural disaster strikes a State, whether other natural disasters will follow. Equally, it cannot be assessed accurately in advance how much it will cost to meet the natural disaster expenditures, and therefore it has been very difficult to assess whether or not relief from natural disaster is within the means of the States. Therefore the Commonwealth has adopted recently a policy whereby it says that the States should discharge their responsibility initially up to a minimum amount of money. In the case of New South Wales the figure was $5m.

New South Wales bad the misfortune to experience a natura] disaster, if that is the proper term for it, in the form of a mouse plague, on which it expended Sim. Then there were the drought difficulties. The Commonwealth’s attitude was that the State of New South Wales should expend $5m - $lm on the mouse plague and $4m on drought relief - -and that the Commonwealth would then be responsible beyond $5m. After the mouse plague and the drought, as the honourable gentleman will know, there were bad floods. Perhaps this is the basis of the honourable member’s question. However, as I have said, beyond the payment of $5m by the State the Commonwealth will meet the cost.

In addition, of course, the Common, wealth is providing relief for personal hardship on a $1 for $1 basis with the States and $100,000 has been expended for this purpose. The administration of the scheme is the responsibility of the States. The honourable gentleman, I think, asked how much had been expended at present by the Commonwealth. The answer is that no claims have yet been made to this point of time pursuant to that policy, although I expect that claims will be made before 30th June. The explanation for this is that it has not yet been possible for the costs to be properly assessed. Nevertheless, I expect there will be claims before 30th June.

page 2219

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Mr BARNARD:
BASS, TASMANIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. What arrangements have been made for international scrutiny of the conduct of the presidential elections in South Vietnam? Has Australia been invited to participate in international observation teams as it did in 1967? If not, will the Prime Minister consider sending independent observation teams from this country to assess the conduct of the elections?

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– It must be obvious that the problem of the elections in South Vietnam is one that is entirely within the jurisdiction of the South Vietnamese Government. I wonder what the honourable gentleman would think if the South Vietnamese Government recommended that it should have supervision of elections carried out in Australia?

Mr Kennedy:

– Not a bad idea.

Mr Cope - Send over Bjelke-Petersen.

Mr McMAHON:

– I would certainly far rather have Bjelke-Petersen doing it than any of your tribe.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! Honourable members will cease interjecting.

Mr McMAHON:

– So we regard this as a matter for the South Vietnamese Government. As the honourable gentleman will know, not only President Thieu but also President Nixon has stated that they would be willing - and this is within South Vietnamese jurisdiction - to have some kind of international supervision of the elections. We have not been consulted about it and I have no intention whatsoever of taking an initiative in this matter to ask the South Vietnamese Government whether it would like Australians actually to participate in the supervision of the elections.

page 2220

QUESTION

TAXATION

Mr HAMER:
ISAACS, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the taxation review mentioned in an answer to a question yesterday include a critical look at income tax deductions? Is it a fact that income tax deductions, other than those associated with gaining an income, are very regressive, at least in the way we allow them? In particular will the Treasurer examine closely the desirability of continuing to allow deductions for medical expenses and children? Finally, is it a fact that the present system of tax deductions for education expenses has not kept pace with the changing pattern and costs of education?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The review I mentioned yesterday will cover all matters. It can cover matters of the kind mentioned by the honourable gentleman. I think it is necessary in answering the question to draw the distinction that the honourable gentleman suggests that deductions be withdrawn for reasons which, are his own - and I do not think this relates really to taking away benefits. However, on the other hand I have received representations to the effect that the size of deductions should be increased for different reasons. Income tax deductions will be considered in the Budget context. In a consideration of these deductions in. the Budget context it will, of course, be necessary to consider the very greatly increased expenditures of the Commonwealth in these areas. Health and education are 2 areas where Commonwealth expenditures over recent years have literally leapt forward and now constitute a very significant portion of Commonwealth budgetary expenditures.

page 2220

INDIAN-PACIFIC RAILWAY

Shipping and Transport aware that there is much confusion and resentment amongst people wishing to book on the IndianPacific railway service from Sydney to Broken Hill and that because of the small number of seats available many passengers now book to Peterborough but get off the train at Broken Hill, this practice involving them in considerable extra expense? Will the Minister investigate this matter with a view to having more seats made available for passengers travelling to Broken Hill?

Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · CP

– Only recently I travelled from Sydney to Broken Hill on the IndianPacific train. It was a most enjoyable trip. When I was in Broken Hill the mayor of that city put to me the same problem as has been raised by the honourable member. I pointed out to the mayor, as I now point out to the honourable member, that the Indian-Pacific from the outset has been a most successful train and bookings are several months ahead. . The. Commissioners of Railways have found it impossible to accept bookings on that part of the line from Sydney to Broken Hill because bookings inhibit accepting passengers for the through run right across Australia. The Commissioners have had several meetings on this matter and I have recently approved the purchase of several more carriages to try to facilitate passenger travel. I am meeting other Ministers, who are members of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, in Melbourne in a couple of weeks. The Railway Commissioners of the. several States , will . be present. I will see that the matter raised by the honourable member is given further, consideration at that meeting.

page 2220

POSTMASTER-GENERAL’S DEPARTMENT

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the PostmasterGeneral know whether it is true that on the notice board -

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member will be out of order if he asks the Postmaster-General or any other Minister whether something is true. ‘

Mr GILES:

– I will rephrase my question. Is it a fact that on the notice board at the Adelaide Mail Exchange is a notice informing employees that they can have either leave without pay or recreation leave to join in a moratorium protest on Friday? Does this mean that some redundancy exists in respect of the labour requirements at the Exchange? By whose- authority would such a notice be placed on the notice board?

Sir ALAN HULME:
Postmaster-General · PETRIE, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This morning I received a message indicating that what the honourable member has said is true. A message has been promulgated by the Director in South Australia to the divisional heads and heads of sections within the Post Office indicating that leave without pay or leave as a deduction from recreation leave is available to anybody who wants to participate in the moratorium demonstration. The advice that I have had - and I have not been able to confirm it - is that the instruction was given as a result of a statement from the Public Service Board of its approval of this procedure. I should say, perhaps, that it is a requirement of the Board that the services of the Post Office should be continued. This obviously raises the other question which was asked by the honourable member. As Minister in. charge of the Post Office I am concerned that the staffing should be such that it is possible for people to be released during normal times of work for this sort of purpose or any other purpose other than a compassionate one. Leave to take part in this sort of demonstration would, I believe, be an unnecessary cost to the Post Office.

page 2221

QUESTION

NAVAL PATROL BASE, CAIRNS

Mr FULTON:
LEICHHARDT, QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Navy. As the naval patrol base has been established in Cairns, will the Minister in considering the name of the base remember the Minister for the Navy at the time of the construction of the base and name it HMAS ‘Killen’? I think this would be appreciated by the people of Australia. If not HMAS ‘Killen’, will the Minister consider naming the base HMAS ‘Gorton’, after the Prime Minister at the time?

Dr MACKAY:
Minister for the Navy · EVANS, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The Royal Australian Navy, in keeping with British naval tradition, has a long history of choosing names very carefully and purposely for its vessels. Proud traditions build up behind those names which are transferred from time to time as new ships are added to the fleet. Those traditions have been continued in the Royal Australian Navy. Patrol boats which are to serve in waters surrounding Papua and New Guinea will bear proud war-time names associated with that country. I appreciate fully the suggestion in the honourable member’s question as to the contribution made to the Services by my predecessors in this portfolio. I am sure this will be one of the considerations before the Naval Board when it thinks of the proud future of the fleet. Thank you.

page 2221

QUESTION

CORONARY HEART DISEASE

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Primary Industry been drawn to the promotion of a new margarine pf stated American origin? Does he think that it is just coincidence that a section of the medical profession is now making a renewed attack on butter? Will the Minister state whether it has been established definitely that the intake of butter is a contributing factor to heart complaints? Is the Minister aware that I butter both sides of my toast, put buttered toast in my soup and spread butter on my meat and vegetables as did my antecedents, all of whom lived to be over 90 years of age?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member is now giving information.

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– I am aware that the honourable member butters up all of us on occasions. I do not -know anything about the American import to which he has referred but I do know that there seems to have been continued controversy over whether the intake of saturated fats or total fats is significant in terms of the incidence of coronary heart disease. However, as to whether there has been any factual conclusion on which of these fats is the more significant, I am not conscious. I think that there has been sufficient controversy for the position to be still uncertain. I am sure that if the honourable member continues to butter his bread on both sides both the dairy farmers and his own constitution will benefit.

page 2221

QUESTION

NATIONAL MAPPING

Mr WHITLAM:

– I ask the Minister for National Development a question. What steps have been taken to secure copies of the photographs which the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration has taken of our continent in order to aid in mapping and appraising Australia’s natural resources?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– This is a matter which is handled directly by my colleague in another place, the Minister for Supply, but I am pleased to say that we have had the utmost co-operation in this field. We have been able, through the Division of National Mapping in my Department, . to secure a number of maps which have been most useful for this purpose. Although the maps produced are, generally speaking, more suitable for meteorological purposes there are some that can be utilised for geological and geophysical work. In fact, we are using some maps obtained from NASA for this purpose, but I will check to find out more details regarding this matter and will inform the honourable member.

page 2222

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr KEATING:
BLAXLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

– In addressing my question to the Minister for Primary Industry I refer to a statement released yesterday by his colleague, the Minister for Trade and Industry, in relation to wheat sales to the United Arab Republic, the liability for which is to be covered by an Export Payments Insurance Corporation contract. I ask: What is the nature of the terms of the contract specifically, the length of repayments and interest rate on the credit extended?

Mr SINCLAIR:
CP

– I do not carry in my mind the actual terms of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation cover granted for wheat sales to the United Arab Republic, but I can assure the honourable gentleman that the processes of granting EPIC cover are such as to ensure that there is always a residual liability, on the marketing board in this instance, and that the terms and conditions are such as to ensure that over the whole of the context of its operations EPIC is able to maintain the very remarkable record of profitability which it has achieved since its establishment a few years ago.

I think it is of significance that in order to negotiate contracts with some countries, marketing authorities - in this instance the Australian Wheat Board - have had available to them the facilities of bodies such as EPIC which have enabled them to consolidate and to implement contracts which otherwise may have been difficult to negotiate. I am quite sure that if it were not for the EPIC cover in this instance it perhaps would not have been possible for the Wheat Board to accept the general responsibility of the terms and conditions available. However, I will obtain the information for the honourable gentleman and, so far as it is publicly available, write to him and provide him with the full details.

page 2222

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Mr KELLY:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the PostmasterGeneral a question supplementary to the question asked by the honourable member for Angas. The Postmaster-General has expressed his concern about the placement of a public notice at the Adelaide Mall Exchange. Can he tell the House what he intends to do about it?

Sir ALAN HULME:
LP

– The obvious thing to do is to check on what has taken place and what authorities have been given before one seeks to make a final judgment on the matter. This I will do at the earliest possible moment.

page 2222

QUESTION

SYDNEY WATER RATES

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Treasurer a question. I refer to yesterday’s decision by the Sydney Water Board to increase water rates by 9 per cent. Will this increase apply to industry and to the 3 million people who Jive in the SydneyWollongong region, bringing hardship and inflationary effects in its train? Since the Board’s financial crisis stems from this Government’s high interest policy, can the increase in water rates be avoided by a Commonwealth grant?

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– I am not awarealthough I accept it for the purposes of the question - that the Sydney Water Board has increased its rates by 9 per cent. I accept it for the purpose of dealing with the matters raised by the honourable gentleman in his question. Firstly, it is abundantly clear to everybody who is willing to put his mind to the facts that when wage increases rise beyond productivity it must mean increases in costs, and that when instrumentalities which provide services such as those which the Sydney Water Board provides encounter increased costs, it is inevitable that their charges will rise. This is what is happening throughout the broad economy, whether it be in the private enterprise field or in government instrumentalities. The essential point for this country to accept is that wage increases beyond producitivity are only inflationary, and are illusionary wage increases and not real money increases.

As to the second point - that the cause of the increases in rates was the high interest structure which has been brought about by this Government’s policy - let me remind the honourable gentleman that the inflationary pressures which the Government encountered had to be met by either monetary measures or fiscal measures. Monetary measures were adopted in April 1970. Those monetary measures have been very effective in holding back an increasing inflationary pressure. The increased interest charges were part of that monetary policy. The Government believes that the monetary policy is right and it will adhere to that policy, because it believes that in the interest of the Australian people it had to resist the inflationary pressures. While the Government can take the action that it has taken, I impress upon the honourable gentleman and all members on the other side of the House that they should do what they can and use their influence, if they possess any, on the trade unions of this country to moderate their claims and to understand the reality that wage increases beyond productivity are inflationary and illusionary.

Mr McMAHON:
LP

– I ask that further questitons be placed on notice.

Mr Armitage:

– I rise to take a point of order. This is the second time this week that the Prime Minister has chopped 5 minutes off question time.

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! What is the honourable member’s point of order?

Mr Armitage:

– The Prime Minister has chopped 5 minutes off question time-

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! No point of order arises. The House knows that the sole prerogative to decide when the period allowed for questions without notice shall conclude rests with the Prime Minister.

page 2223

QUESTION

THE PARLIAMENT

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! I will not call the honourable member for Newcastle to address the House in relation to the General Business motion standing in his name till honourable members have either seated themselves in the chamber or, if they wish to indulge in conversations, have removed themselves from the chamber. I have appealed to the House on several occasions in relation to this matter. I think that it is time that honourable members co-operated in this respect so that the business of the House may continue uninterrupted Immediately following the conclusion of question time.

page 2223

DEVELOPMENT OF MAJOR AIRPORTS AND HARBOURS

Appointment of Select Committee

Mr CHARLES JONES:
Newcastle

– I move:

That a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon the development of major airports and harbours.

This is a matter which I consider is of national importance and one which is entitled to the consideration of this House. The object of moving this motion is to bring about greater member participation - by ‘member participation’, I mean greater participation by back bench members of this Parliament - in the affairs and the workings of the Parliament. During the last 10 years we have seen the Government, both in this House and in the Senate, agree to the appointment all told of 19 committees. Two of these 19 committees were joint statutory committees, 17 of the 19 committees were select committees. As time is not available to me to enumerate these committees, with the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard this table prepared by the Legislative Research Section of the Parliamentary Library. It reads:

page 2223

QUESTION

SELECT COMMITTEES 1960

Senate

Road Safety

Encouragement of Australian Production for Television

Air Pollution

Canberra Abattoir

Container Method of Handling Cargoes

Medical and Hospital Costs

Metric System of Weights and Measures

Off-Shore Petroleum Resources

Water Pollution

Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse

Securities and Exchange

House of Representatives

Voting Rights of Aborigines

Grievances of Yirrkala Aborigines, Arnhem Land Reserve

House of Representatives Accommodation

Parliamentary and Government Publications (Joint Select)

New and Permanent Parliament House (Joint Select)

Aircraft Noise

Pharmaceutical Benefits

Wildlife Conservation

I thank the Minister for Shipping and Transport (Mr Nixon) for his courtesy because I did not have an opportunity to inform him before I rose that I would seek the incorporation of this material. Another Committee in which back bench members participate is the Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works.

As a member for 2 years of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise I have been greatly impressed with the work that committees are able to perform and in particular with the work that this Committee was Able to perform. I was impressed with the unbiassed manner in which members of that Select Committee dealt with the evidence that was brought before the Committee and the unbiassed manner in which decisions were arrived at. I am not arguing or contesting the point as to whether I agreed with the decisions of the Committee. What impressed me was the manner in which honourable members, irrespective of their Party, were prepared to sit down, to look at questions with which they were faced, to examine the terms of reference, to try to draw such evidence as they could, and to arrive impartially at decisions. As I said a moment ago, I was greatly impressed with the work of this Select Committee which, within approximately 2 years, waa able to bring down a complete report to the Parliament. It was a limited report which went as far as the Committee could go onder its terms of reference.

The House of Representatives Select Committee ob Aircraft Noise dealt with one of the problems with which my motion this morning is concerned, namely, the major Australian airports today. The Committee set about to try to find a solution to the problem of aircraft noise and its effects on people. But the one stumbling block throughout the inquiry was the terms of reference of the Committee. Most of the members of that Committee were firmly of the opinion that there was only one solution to the problem which beset a number of airports and that was that alternative sites should be selected and that the airports should be transferred from their present locations to another site. But unfortunately because of its limited terms of reference the Committee was unable to examine this aspect of the problem of noise. The Committee was reconstituted on 2 occasions as the result of a new Parliament being formed and on those occasions I moved on behalf of the Opposition that the terms of reference be extended to include power to examine alternative sites and to recommend where new airports should be constructed. I will deal with that matter in detail later.

I want to deal with the approach to the problem of aircraft noise by the interdepartmental committee which was appointed by the former Minister for Civil Aviation, Mr Swartz, back in January 1969. For the benefit of honourable members I display the headline in the ‘Australian’ of 14th January 1969. It reads:

Swartz orders study for new big airport.

That was on 14th January 1969 and honourable members should note that today, 29th April 1971 - 2i years later - no report has yet been presented to the Parliament. Some time in September last year the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) had presented to him the report dealing with the selection of an airport site for Sydney other than Mascot which at the moment has the biggest noise problem of any airport in Australia. The Minister for Civil Aviation has been sitting on this report for the past 7 or 8 months and I wonder whether he is trying to hatch out another airport for Sydney. But the problem is that people of Sydney are still being subjected to excessive aircraft noise. My colleague the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) will deal with this matter in detail when he enters the debate.

I would have liked to be in a position this morning to give honourable members the details of how many times the curfew was breached during the last Christmas and New Year holiday period. The same breaches occurred during the recent Easter break. We know that the curfew was breached on numerous occassions with ministerial and departmental approval. I asked for detailed information over 3 weeks ago; I was advised about 5 minutes ago by the Minister’s secretary that the information was now available. I do not have it yet so I cannot convey it to honourable members. I draw attention to a comparison of the manner in which parliamentary select committees and interdepartmental committees go about their work. Contrast the enthusiasm which members of this Parliament have displayed towards their duties and responsibilities as members of committees in seeking evidence, examining it and preparing a report for presentation to the Parliament, with the dilatoriness of this interdepartmental committee which the Minister will no doubt defend in a few moments when he has the opportunity to reply to what I have had to say.

When one appreciates the number of people who are involved with the shipping and airports of this country one sees that this is not a minor matter. In 1969-70 - which is the last year for which the Legislative Research Service can provide me with records - 7.4 million domestic passengers used airports at capital cities, including Canberra, and there were 994,000 passengers on international nights. So this involves a lot of people who I think are worthy of consideration in order to make sure that the facilities that are provided are the best available for this type of transport. I do not want to stretch my friendship with the Minister for Shipping and Transport too much by asking that the figures for general capital expenditure on airports be incorporated in Hansard, but he may like to co-operate in this way; I can assure him that the figures are provided by the Legislative Research Service.

The figures 1 provide show how much has been spent on capital city airports in the last 5 years. In 1969-70 $29,658,000 was spent on all capital city airports, including that in the Australian Capital Territory, and in 1968-69 $26,173,000 was spent. I have shown honourable members how many people are involved and the expenditure which is involved just on capital development of these airports. Some $5 5m has been spent in this regard in 2 years. This amount of money will not diminish over the next decade; it will increase. The facilities will have to be expanded to provide for the growth in our population and the increase in the number of passengers travelling in aircraft. When one compares, for example, the length of runways, the area of airports and what is happening in Australia at our airports with leading airports overseas, one sees a big disparity.

We are all the time talking about what a great country Australia is, and I agree that it is, but the fact is that airports here are so small that the noise is causing so much of a problem to suburbs adjacent to airports. The Sydney Airport is built on 1,500 acres and this will be increased to 1,700 acres when the north-south runway is extended to 13,000 feet. Tullamarine Airport is the only one in Australia which compares with airports overseas. Essendon Airport has an area of 820 acres; Brisbane 3,800 acres; Adelaide 2,800 acres; Perth 3,600 acres; Hobart 1,280 acres; and Canberra 1,197 acres. Compare these acreages with those of some of the major airports overseas. For example, Chicago’s O’Hare Airport has 7,200 acres; New York 4,900 acres; Montreal, a new airport, 3,700 acres; London’s Heathrow, which is not a good example, 2,900 acres; Rome 3,500 acres; and Orly in Paris 3,660 acres.

When one looks at these figures one can see the difference between what is taking place in the development of Australian airports and those overseas and one can also see the need for a committee of back bench members who are- prepared impartially to examine the facts and to make recommendations to this Parliament. With the concurrence of .honourable members I incorporate in Hansard the 4 tables entitled ‘Capital City Airpots, Australia’, Capital Expenditure at Capital City Airports 1965-66- 19.69-70’, “.’Capital. City Airports, Australia (Situation at 31.3.1971), and ‘Airport Statistics’, which were prepared by the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service.

- Compiled at request by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service from information contained in issues of the Transport and Communications Bulletin (C.B.C.S.) and Australian Air Transport Statistics, Year ended 30 June 1970 (Department of Civil Aviation). Many airports throughout Australia besides those in the capital cities require expansion and development of the facilities to which I have referred. Brisbane, for example, is used as an international airport on many occasions by people coming to this country. Have a look at the shocking facilities there. I do not have to tell honourable members of the shocking condition of Brisbane Airport. The facilities there, whether measured by international or domestic standards, are completely inadequate. It is an absolute disgrace that this Government has allowed Brisbane to deteriorate to its present state. When one looks at the Gladstone, Mackay and Townsville airports one can see there is a great need to provide better facilities. In Townsville houses are being built under flight paths. There is need for action to be taken at an early date. I conclude my remarks and leave the matter to be dealt with further by my 2 colleagues who will be speaking on this subject. One of them, the honourable member for St George, is one of the real authorities on aircraft noise in this Parliament. I also want to deal with the matter of seaports. This country is experiencing a boom in the discovery of minerals, the development of our mineral resources, the export of those mineral resources, and also in other export industries. The latest figures available for a full 12 months - for 1969-70 - disclose that our exports were worth $4,13 1.5m and our imports were worth $3,88 1.2m. Once again we are talking about a considerable amount of money. The figures I gave related only to our exports and our imports in international trade. I have not taken into consideration the considerable amount of internal traffic in the carriage of iron ore and coal and other bulk commodities. The principal responsibility of this Parliament is the handling of overseas trade. We should examine once again the question of the ports of Australia - not only the airports but also the shipping ports. It has been quite difficult to get information on this subject, but the Commonwealth Year Book discloses that the revenue from all of the major ports in Australia today is $81.831m. The outstanding loans on all of the ports that I have referred to in the 6 States - I have deliberately excluded Darwin because it comes under the jurisdiction of this Parliament and because the Public Works Committee from time to time has carried out investigations into the affairs of the port of Darwin - amount to $295m. If honourable members look at the amount of assistance which has been given by the Commonwealth they will see that this Parliament should be completely and totally ashamed of the fact that it has allowed this responsibility to rest completely on the financial resources of the State parliaments. A question was asked by the honourable member for Forrest **(Mr Kirwan)** which I will use as an example. I thank him for having put his question on notice. It is question No. 1335 of 12th June 1970. The answer disclosed that in the last 20 years, from 1950, this Parliament has made available to the States by way of direct loans or grants for port development only$9.027m *in* the *way* of loans and $4.374m in the way of nonrepayable grants. These figures alone disclose the limited amount of money that the Government has been prepared to make available to the State parliaments to assist them carry out many of the " important developmental works that are necessary throughout Australia. Australia is going through its greatest mineral boom. The Government has allowed many of the private industries to set up their own ports. This is not altogether satisfactory. Let me quote from the Australian Chamber of Shipping Annual Report for 1970. The chairman drew attention to the fact that Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was breaking away completely from international procedures as far as levying povt dues on ships was concerned. Immediately a ship ties up at a buoy in a port it has to pay harbour dues. Under international practice it is customary for a ship not to be charged harbour dues and . all the taxes that go with them until such time as the ship is tied up at a wharf and is ready to commence operations. This is one of the things of which I have always been afraid when private industries are allowed to set up their own ports. They own the port. They run the port to suit their convenience and under their terms and conditions. I think it is completely unsatisfactory. Because the time available to me is limited I shall speak briefly. There is a need for Commonwealth intervention in this field. Let me quote some of the remarks from the Annual Report of the Australian Chamber of Shipping. It says: >In Newcastle the question in our minds is whether the port will be capable of handling large bulk carriers, and here again we are awaiting a decision on whether it is feasible to provide an increased depth of water. In relation to the port of Sydney, it says: >Operators of .conventional vessels are still having difficulty in securing suitable berths for these vessels . . Specialised facilities are certainly needed, particularly when it is realised that by the end of 1972 there should be 33 cellular vessels and 13 loll-on roll-off vessels trading into the port of Sydney. This gives a clear indication that the shipping facilities which are provided in Australia today are not satisfactory. We are seeing a revolutionary change in shipping. At one time a 10,000 ton ship operating on the coast here was considered to be a big ship. When the Broken Hil! Propriety Co. Ltd put its 19,000 tonners on to the run in about 1954 or 1955 everyone was astounded at the size of them. Yet in recent weeks a tanker of about 364,000 tons was launched in Japan. On the west coast bulk carriers of about 100,000 tons are now just everyday sights. There is no doubt that these ships will expand to a size of 150,000 tons or even more. There is a need for the Government to do something positive to provide the means whereby honourable members can work together to overcome the problem that exists today when 29 different port authorities administer 40 of the ports handling our national trade. This situation is not good enough and it should be improved. Australia should have a national port authority to plan the development of ports, facilities, roads and everything associated with them. There must be a reduction in the costs of transport, which are adding a burden to our industry, to everything we do, to our cost of living, of about 25 per cent of the total cost. Transport is an important matter. It is an important contributing factor to the increased cost of production, the cost of living and everything associated with national industry and development. Therefore I commend to the attention of honourable members the great need to bring member participation into the affairs of this Parliament. I believe that to improve the facilities and to increase the interest of honourable members, select committees should be set up to investigate these important questions. {: #subdebate-19-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Is the motion seconded? {: .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: -- 1 second the motion and reserve my right to speak. {: #subdebate-19-0-s1 .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON:
Minister for Shipping and Transport · Gippsland · CP -- The honourable member for Newcastle **(Mr Charles Jones)** has moved that a select committee of this Parliament be set up to inquire into the development of major airports and harbours. I take it that he is talking about the House of Representives only. {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: -- That is correct. I would be quite happy if it is desired to make it a joint committee. {: .speaker-009OD} ##### Mr NIXON: -- I hope to prove that, despite all the allegations and statements made by the honourable member, there is no need at all to take up the time of members of this Parliament with such an activity. I hope to show that a great deal of activity is taking place in the very fields about which the honourable member has spoken. I hope to prove also that there is a recognition not only by the Commonwealth but also by the State governments of the problems facing harbours, and airports. I do not propose to deal in any detail with airports as they do not come within my ministerial responsibility. I propose to deal strictly with that area of my responsibility, which is the area of ports. My colleague, the honourable member for McMillan **(Mr Buchanan),** and other colleagues will deal with other aspects of the matter. The whole tenor of the speech of the honourable member for Newcastle tended to highlight one fact, that is that he has a very centralised political outlook. I do not think that he was talking in terms of co-operation with the States but rather of dictating to the States. It is the same approach that we have heard previously from him and his colleagues on the other side of the House. The honourable member tends to ignore both the constitutional rights of the States and what I believe to be the States' wishes in this matter. Their wish is to retain some authority over matters which come within their jurisdiction. I hope to show that by co-operation between the States and the Commonwealth the very problems mentioned by the honourable member are being attended to. I am sure that the South Australian Labor Government and the Western Australian Labor Government would not agree with the approach made by the honourable member. There is no doubt that ports are the gateways to Australia's international markets and also to many of our internal markets. They provide the very lifeline for Australian primary and secondary exporting industries. The efficiency of these ports, their workings and their facilities greatly affect transportation costs. Indeed, the facilities themselves and the industrial activities of those engaged on the wharves can affect very vitally the turn-round of ships to and from Australian ports and thus affect Australian export industries with increased costs if there is inefficiency or industrial trouble. Australia is one of the world's largest per capita importers and exporters, and we rely largely upon sea transport and therefore on the adequacy of the port facilities for overseas trade. The ports are now handling about 60 million tons of exports and about 35 million tons of imports annually. This represents an incredible climb in total volume. It represents an increase of the order of 550 per cent in exports and a doubling of imports over the past 10 years. Similarly, on the domestic scene 30 million tons are being carried annually between the Australian ports by ships engaged in the coastal trade. This represents a 60 per cent increase on the tonnage 10 years ago. I would like to quote just one more figure. The 70 ports dotted around the 12,500 miles of Australian coastline now handle over 4,000 overseas ship visits annually, and that is an increase of 33$ per cent over the position 10 years ago. The cost of transport and export competitiveness depend on the ability to use new and larger vessels. This fact, of course, is recognised by the Government. My Department has sponsored university research studies into the turn-round time for bulk carriers at Australian ports. The aim of these studies is to reduce costs and provide a safe and fast system. But again I stress that it is important that we should recognise the State rights involved in the establishment and maintenance of ports. We do not have the right to charge in and say to the States: 'You build a port here or build a port there'. We have control only over Commonwealth areas. We have responsibility for shipping services both interstate and international. We have responsibility for the construction and design of ships, and it is interesting to note that we have built about 21? ships worth about $6 16m since the end of the war. We provide and maintain navigational aids of the order of 500 around the Australian coast, and the Commonwealth has a responsibility in relation to pollution of the sea and also safety at sea. So the Commonwealth has wide responsibilities. Nevertheless we recognise the fact that the States have a constitutional responsibility in the matter of ports and we seek to achieve the end result talked about by the honourable member for Newcastle more by co-operation than by dictation. We have in effect assisted the States on many occasions in the past when our assistance has been sought. We have provided $5. 3m for the export coal loading facilities in New South Wales, $400,000 to expedite coal loading improvements at Gladstone in Queensland, and $3.3m to finance harbour works at Weipa. We provided $1.9m for the Wyndham jetty and $3m for the Broome deep water jetty in Western Australia. We provided $1.6m for the new jetty at Derby in Western Australia. Additionally, as mentioned by the honourable member for Newcastle, the Commonwealth is redeveloping the port of Darwin. We provided funds there for the construction of the bulk iron ore wharf and will provide new facilities at the port at an estimated cost of $19m, including new land-backed berths for general and container cargoes and new bulk berths and facilities for small craft. There has been a great change in shipping and in the whole technology of shipping over recent years. In the old days we used to see drums, bags, bundles and boxes stacked on the wharf, with cranes on top of ships and men running everywhere - or walking everywhere, perhaps I should say. We have seen a tremendous speed-up in the handling of cargo. It is true to say that the roll-on roll-off ship and the container ship today can handle about 4 times the cargo handled by a conventional ship. This is because of its speed and quick turn-around. The Australian National Line has been a pioneer in the development of the roll-on roll-off ship. Not only has it led in the Australian context but it has led the world. Today we see not only rear-ramped roll-on roll-off vessels but ships of more sophisticated design such as the 'Parella' We see what are called quarter ramp vessels which can pull into a. standard wharf for cargo handling. We see also large scale bulk oil and ore carriers. I was present at the launching of the 'Amanda Miller', a vessel of 66,000 tons, at Whyalla recently. This is certainly the largest ship, we have built in Australia. Some people have plans and are giving consideration to building even larger ships. We may see container ships doubling in size to 60,000 tons, and we know of tankers of up to 300,000 tons being planned. These changes have necessitated improvements in shore handling facilities. Indeed, most shipping advances could not operate without port improvements. Shipping developments have been directed at facilitating, reducing and accelerating cargo handling. The operation of cellular container ships is dependent on specialised port facilities, including wharfage, cranage, terminal and depot facilities. So berths for these ships have been developed in the States at Sydney, Melbourne, Fremantle and Brisbane. Roll-on roll-off vessels also require their own facilities. The Australian National Line, the Government shipping line, has developed facilities of its own in 7 or 8 ports around Australia. Berths have been constructed at a whole gaggle of major and lesser ports around the coastline. Specific work has been undertaken to accommodate the problems of the huge bulk carriers. They need facilities such as large stockpile areas and conveyor equipment. These facilities have been provided because of recognition of the need by the Commonwealth, the States and other authorities. Port development work is continuing. Because of the need for ports to take larger ships, dredging operations are in progress at Bundaberg, Dampier, Port Adelaide, Thevenard, Risdon, Melbourne, Port Kembla and Townsville. So we can see that this work is going on in every State at the present time. More special wharves to handle roll-on roll-off vessels are being programmed for Albany, Stanley, Melbourne and Westernport. I have mentioned the Darwin port development, but there are also new developments going on in Botany Bay. The honourable member for Newcastle mentioned the problems of Sydney. He will know, of course, of a programme to expend $30m on bulk tanker and specialised general cargo facilities in Botany Bay, so Sydney will have a second major port. In addition to new works at Darwin and Botany Bay, it is estimated that $100m will be expended on other port development projects in the near future. That is the context of the situation about which we are talking, and in my view it reflects credit on all the authorities concerned. But with huge amounts of capital involved all the alternatives and the possibilities must be considered carefully before committing expenditure. It is fair to say that most port developments occur as reaction to needs, and the Commonwealth believes that the time has come when we have to anticipate needs. I see a role for the Bureau of Transport Economics in collecting data from around the world, watching the trends and informing the Government so that we know which way we are going. To make sure that there is some cooperation and uniformity State Ministers and Commonwealth Ministers with responsibility for. ports have now had a couple of meetings, and we are due to meet again in the near future. The Commonwealth considers the economics of national port development on 4 criteria. It considers whether a project has value beyond a State, is likely to contribute to Australia's development, will facilitate expansion of ports, and is beyond the normal resources of the States. We have to realise that ports have limitations in depth, harbour and wharf congestion, redundancy and obsolescence. I hope that the machinery that we and the State Ministers are endeavouring to establish will enable all Ministers with responsibilities for port development to meet on a regular basis to discuss these matters. I believe the machinery should enable us to report and recommend on matters of mutual interest in port development and marine affairs affecting development of ports and port facilities. In this way we can assist in maintaining continuous and comprehensive information programmes on port development. - So far as my ministerial responsibilities are concerned the honourable member for Newcastle suggests that a select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on the development of harbours. I believe that because of the way in which co-operation is being given by the States in this matter and because of the way in which there has been an exchange of information and views on what is needed for Australian port development and also in view of the possible activities of the Bureau of Transport Economics, now is not the appropriate time to set up a committee of the kind suggested by the honourable member for Newcastle. This is especially so when we consider that members of this Parliament are so busy performing many other functions that they would have difficulty in finding the time to be members of such a committee and that the points raised by the honourable member for Newcastle are being taken care of by other means. Co-operation with the States is one way in which this matter is being handled. I repeat that we all need to recognise that the States have constitutional rights in this field. Not only do they have constitutional rights but also do they wish to maintain those rights in this field. I do not believe that it is for us to dictate to the States. Rather we should seek their cooperation in order to achieve what is best for Australian shipping and Australian export industries. Therefore, I say clearly that I do not believe that now, when members of Parliament are so busy with their normal parliamentary activities, with their electoral problems and with other committee functions, is a proper or appropriate time to form a select committee on this matter. {: #subdebate-19-0-s2 .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr MORRISON:
St George -- In seconding this motion I would like to point out that the reason for it arose out of our desire to expand the terms of reference of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise to include the siting of airports. The Government refused to accept this amendment and as a result the motion now before us was placed on the notice paper on 3rd March 1970 - 13 or 14 months ago. It seems to me that it is not only the mills of God that grind slowly because I found as a new member of this House how cumbersome and how inflexible the procedures of this House can be when the Government chooses to avoid . issues which it does not like. The Minister for Shipping and Transport **(Mr Nixon)** made the usual criticisms of the Australian Labor Party. He said that the Labor Party was seeking to centralise control. What we are seeking is in fact effective co-ordination. Despite what the Minister had to say there is not in Australia at present effective coordination of transport industries on a national basis. Certainly the Government has no objection to national co-ordination in terms of commissions because it has already set up the National Universities Commission to co-ordinate tertiary education in Australia. We are still asking for the same sort of principle to be applied in the very important field of transportation. The Minister also made the point that there is no need at all to take up the time of honourable members on this issue when we are all so busy. I hope that we are all busy on items as important as this. I most certainly support the motion because I think this is the sort of thing that members of Parliament should be undertaking. It is very easy for the House to dismiss the effectiveness of select committees. However, I would like to refer to the United Kingdom experience over the selection of a site for a third airport for London. Back in 1963 a Whitehall interdepartmental committee decided on an inland area called Stansted for the site of a third airport The British Government confirmed the decision in May 1967, but the citizens of the United Kingdom and private organisations did not like the decision that the Government had made. The Noise Abatement Society of the United Kingdom presented a very detailed and very worthwhile report. The Society recommended another site at Foulness. I would like to quote from the report of the Noise Abatement Society which places an emphasis on noise, and I am fairly confident that this is not the sort of emphasis that any sort of interdepartmental committee in Australia would put before the Government. The preface to the Society's report on the third London airport states: Noise destroys all that is good in civilisation. It adversely affects health of mind and body, retards recovery of the sick and reduces the capacity to learn and the quality of work done. It is vitally important therefore that London's Third Airport is built on a site where the least possible nuisance is caused by day or by night. Later on, the report stated: >The main determining factor in siting a modern airport is noise, since this is the factor most likely to restrict its operational potential. Through their individual efforts the members of the Society succeeded in having the Roskill Commission set up. As honourable gentlemen will know, in the last couple of days, the British Government made a decision on the siting of a third airport for London. That decision is not for Stansted, which was recommended by the interdepartmental committee but for Foulness. Quite clearly a recommendation or a decision on a third airport for London, as on a second airport for Sydney or on the development of airports and ports in Australia, is far too important a matter to be left in the hands of interdepartmental committees. The problems are just as much social as they are economic. The Department of Civil Aviation has an interdepartmental committee. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** received the report of that interdepartmental committee in September last year and that is the last we have heard of it. We do not know what were the terms of reference of this committee. We do not know the weighing of criteria which the Committee examined. Therefore it seems to me that Australia will be faced with a Whitehall decision. What we on this side of the House are recommending is that the whole area of development in national transport, particularly the siting of airports and harbours, be brought to the attention of honourable members through a select committee. Perhaps I could make one observation, particularly in relation to air transport. Air transport is, without any doubt, the pampered child of the transport industry; it certainly is one of the spoilt brats of the Commonwealth Budget. For every person carried on a domestic flight the taxpayer, through the Budget, makes a contribution of $11. It also should be a matter of great concern to members of this House that the air transport industry is supremely illogical. Airline operators decide what is the most profitable aircraft in terms of passengers, freight and operating costs but no thought is given to the enormous expenditure in terms of providing runways, terminal facili ties and so on, because the people and not the airlines have to pay for these. To use a transport analogy, the cart is being put before the horse. The airline operators come up with great shining monsters and the Goverment has to get off its stern and find out what sort of runways are needed, whether existing runways will have to be reinforced and whether passenger buildings will have to be enlarged. Surely this type of approach has to be stopped. I would like to refer at this point to the developments at Mascot. The Government is throwing good money after bad at Mascot in persisting with the further development of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport. Diminishing returns have set in with a vengeance. As the honourable member for Newcastle has pointed out, the airport area of 1,500 to 1,600 acres at Mascot is insignificant by international standards which now require between 12,000 and 15,000 acres. Even Tullamarine has 5,500 acres. Furthermore, the construction costs into Botany Bay are astronomical in comparison with construction costs on land. In the United States of America the cost of runway construction works out at about $300 a foot. At Tullamarine the cost was in the vicinity of $570 a foot but the costs of the extensions into Botany Bay are working out at $5,500 a foot, which is 10 times the cost at Tullamarine. But what is equally disconcerting is that the projected duplication of the north-south runway, which will be achieved at an excessive cost, will be a scandalous waste in terms of usage. The limited area will not allow the 5,000 feet separation of runways which is required under international standards for simultaneous operations. The most that can be obtained is a 1,000 feet separation, and it will not be possible to use the runways simultaneously. The Government's civil aviation policy, which has been notable for its lack of foresight and planning, continues to flounder. The Minister for Civil Aviation, in a statement made, appropriately, on 1st April, said: >Because of the heavy investment by the Commonwealth and the airlines we are committed to Mascot. Therefore, we have to make the most of what we have. Let us examine this proposition. The Commonwealth investment at Kingsford-Smith, including additional developments specifically authorised, totals about SI 13m. But what is the value of the airport land for alternative use? I made some inquiries of land valuers and real estate agents and they have told me that the land in that area is worth from $5 to $7 a square foot. As the area involved is about 1,600 acres, the real estate value of the airport is in the vicinity of $350m. Quite dearly it is nonsense to talk of the investment burden. The Government could, on economic grounds, jettison Mascot and construct a new airport of the size of Tullamarine which cost in total $83m and show a handsome profit It could most certainly cover the cost of a fast access from Sydney to an outlying airport by monorail or by a 6-lane highway. Let us assume that we work on the basis of retaining Mascot as it is, stop any further development and put the planned resources intot a second airport. This decision must be made urgently because, as we have seen at Tullamarine, it take 10 years from turning the first sod until an aeroplane takes off on the first regular flight. A second airport - and I concede this point to the industry - should be so sited as to allow for a 24- hour a day operation. On economic grounds it is a colossal waste of resources to limit the hours of operation of an airport but justifiable public pressure and the social priorities of people living in the vicinity of Mascot will prevent the lifting of the curfew. The airline operators and the people they serve have a vested interest in getting a second airport The Government is more likely to respond to their demands than to the demands of the people I represent and my demands. So I say to the airline operators that it is up to them to start putting pressure on the Government for a second airport for Sydney because this is the only way that they will get 24-hours a day operation. In its report the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise raised a number of issues and made a number of recommendations, but the Government has been very lax and certainly very slow in seeking to implement the recommendations. One of the recommendations dealt with noise monitoring. Noise monitoring, as we see it, is to place a limit on the noise that aircraft can make and still be allowed to operate at airports. Noise monitoring has been in operation at Heathrow Airport near London for 13 years. I ask the Government immediately to implement the recommendations of the Aircraft Noise Committee and to impose a noise limit on aircraft operating at Mascot, such monitoring to be policed by a noise monitoring system. The operating rights of airline companies whose planes persist in violating the noise limit should be cancelled. The noise exposure forecast has been a matter of great concern to municipal authorities in my electorate, in the electorate of my distinguished colleague the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith **(Mr Lionel Bowen)** and in the electorate of the honourable member for Grayndler **(Mr Daly).** The noise exposure forecast can show only points of noise nuisance. The action called for is to reduce noise over these areas and not to wipe out areas under the guise of planning which is what the State and Federal governments seem intent on doing. To the problems of aircraft noise and safety the Government has introduced another factor - the reality of depressed land values. The problem will get worse. Total aircraft movement at Kingsford-Smith Airport for the year 1970 amounted to 123,081. A projection made by the Department of Civil Aviation predicts that by 1980 some 210,000 movements will be taking place at Kingsford-Smith Airport. This means that if the airport is allowed to be open 24 hours a day there will be 1 movement every *2* minutes, and life will be hell for the people of St George. The Australian Labor Party has set down a policy which is clear and unequivocal. It regards the following points as vital and urgent: Firstly, we must halt the further uneconomic and anti-social development of Mascot airport. The Government is only throwing good money after bad. The airport area is far too small by international standards to justify further development. Secondly, an immediate decision must be made to build a second airport and to get on with the job. Thirdly, noise limits must be imposed on planes operating at Mascot, such limit to be policed by a monitoring system. Fourthly, the night curfew must be rigidly enforced. Fifthly, the angle of approach of aircraft coming into Mascot must be increased from 2.67 degrees to 3 degrees. Sixthly, there must be insistence on greater usage of the runway over Botany Bay. Finally, as has been proposed in the motion, a select committee of this House should be set up to inquire into and report upon the development of major airports and harbours. We do not want to be faced, as the people of Great Britain are faced, with a Whitehall decision in respect of which the people can make no contribution and cannot make their point of view known. What the motion seeks is a select committee that can take into account not only economic problems and transport problems but also special problems that are involved in any transportation question. {: #subdebate-19-0-s3 .speaker-JSY} ##### Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan -- All honourable members are aware of and are indebted to the honourable member for Newcastle **(Mr Charles Jones)** for the interest he has taken in the subject of airports and, more particularly, harbours. He has contributed greatly to their thinking on many aspects of these subjects, but I disagree with him on the need for setting up a select committee to inquire into the development of airports and harbours. From what the honourable member for St George **(Mr Morrison)** said, one would imagine that the proposal is to establish a sort of watch dog over the development and construction of existing airports, but I believe the purpose behind the motion is the development of sites for new airports. This has been the subject of discussion in this House on many occasions in respect of the terms of reference of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, but the House wisely decided not to extend the inquiry of that Committee which was inquiring into noise by enabling it to investigate the siting of airports. Wherever airports are sited there is noise. It is desirable that airports should be in places where there are no houses. This situation has been achieved at Tullamarine where the airport has been established close to Melbourne in an area where there is limited housing development which would be affected by the fly-over of aircraft. The Victorian State Government rightly and wisely accepted the recommendation not only of the Aircraft Noise Committee but also of other committees which were formed with similar objectives and will limit the number of houses that may be built in that area. The siting of Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport is an entirely different situation. The decision by the Chifley Govern ment in 1946 to site the airport at Mascot was taken because it was thought to be the only suitable area. No one knew at that time that this industry would develop to the enormous size that it has developed. At that time it was the only site available having regard to safety aspects and reasonable access to and from the airport which are so necessary for the development of airport traffic in any big city. Because of the growth of this industry there have been continual demands from the people who were unfortunate enough or unthinking enough to live within ear range of the airport for a diminution of aircraft noise. I believe that the recommendation of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise on this aspect has had a very beneficial effect in that the Department of Civil Aviation has been persuaded to go to great pains to ensure that there is the least possible amount of aircraft noise at Mascot airport. Violation of the curfew hours on flying, which has been complained about often, is something which is not a terribly great nuisance to the people in surrounding districts. Surely there are some occasions when it is necessary to run late flights. I was amazed to hear the honourable member for St George condoning the 24-hour use of airports. I am very glad that he has come around to this because in the past he has been most vehement that it should not happen. There is no reason why this should not happen at Mascot because the air traffic can come in over Botany Bay. I think that the people in the St George area would find that to be beneficial. However, that is another subject and I do not want to be diverted. I want to speak about the necessity for appointing a select committee to inquire into and report upon the development of major airports. I think that the appointment of such a committee would be wrong. Members of the Opposition have made the point that members of this Parliament - I accept this - know a lot about the areas which would be investigated. Honourable members would be able to get all sorts of information about the suitability of airport sites but we do not have the expertise or technical know how to make a judgment on where a major airport should be located. I know that we could call for all sorts of technical advice but that is not the same thing. The expression that has been used is putting the cart before the horse. I think this is most decidedly a case of putting the cart before the horse. The Department of Civil Aviation has built up in this country a most efficient organisation. The Department has staff which is completely devoted to the expansion of this industry in the best interests of the people of Australia. The Department does not take the best interests to mean the business community or the people who will benefit by travelling, but to mean the people of Australia as a whole. The Department of Civil Aviation is just as concerned about the nuisance value of an airport as it is about the benefits which will flow to an area in which an airport is located. The Department is conscious of the fact that an alternative site is necessary. By 1980 it will be essential for Sydney to have 2 major airports. It 19 not just a case of resiting one airport. The proposal of the honourable member for St George is to build a lot of high rise flats. That would be a worse infliction upon the community. The Opposition would abandon the Mascot airport. Abandonment of the Mascot airport would not solve any of our problems. It is unfortunate that the topography around Sydney is unsuitable for the siting of a second airport. In looking ahead I think that the only answer, from a select committee point of view, would be to put the airport at Dubbo or Tuggerah. Honourable members opposite have talked about fast transport. In other countries a lot of airports have been built 50 miles away from the capital but this has not been done in any country which has been able to avoid it. {: .speaker-KDA} ##### Mr Duthie: -- England is doing this. {: .speaker-JSY} ##### Mr BUCHANAN: -- No country does it if it can avoid doing so. Each country has to find a locality that it suitable. In England - the honourable member for St. George referred to this - a departmental committee chose a certain site and then a noise abatement committee had a look at that site and chose another site. The matter then went to the Government which made a decision -of course, that is the right thing - which will cost £stg 15Om more. {: .speaker-009DB} ##### Mr Morrison: -- The Government changed the decision. {: .speaker-JSY} ##### Mr BUCHANAN: -- The Government made a choice which cost an additional £Stg150m because it took into consideration the facts which were laid before it. The case which the honourable member for St George quoted confirms my argument that we should not appoint a select committee to look into the general development of airports. This is a job for the experts. We have available the technical people to do this job. They have had a look at many sites in the Sydney area and all these are under consideration. I might mention that there is a similar study taking place in Melbourne and there are a lot of angry people not very far from where I live who say that their little village should not be obliterated. In the overall picture of what will be best for the nation, bearing in mind the way that this overgrown industry will develop, the experts have to go into all of these things and put the details on paper. When that stage is reached and a definite site is in mind, I would have second thoughts about the appointment of a select committee for this purpose because such a committee, having technical advice and expert recommendations, would be able to look at the different sites and consider the various view points. That committee would be able to examine in closer detail what it would really mean. In the case of the airport at Avalon the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works took it upon itself to say that Avalon should be developed quickly because it was necessary and a matter of urgency. That Committee said that a training airport should be located away from any housing area. The experience of overseas countries has been that wherever an airport has been sited there has developed the need for people to work at it and service it, and other industries develop around it. There is pressure all the time to build up another monster. The noise factor in the development of an airport is vital. Australia has greater need for flying facilities than has perhaps any other country. These facilities are vital to Australia's economy. That is why we have developed such a lot of expertise on this subject. Anyone who has travelled around Australia - most honourable members have done so - appreciates the fact that we are continually developing our airports. The Department of Civil Aviation has to keep up with what is going on in the civil aviation field. Personally, I think that airline companies move far too quickly in purchasing new planes. They are developing far more quickly than they should be. They do not have to bear the costs of providing the facilities to take new aircraft; the Government has to provide the facilities. We have set up expert bodies to handle these matters, and I believe that this is the only way in which it can be done. I should like to have had time to deal with the question of noise exposure forecasts which has been mentioned. I believe that these forecasts have done a lot of good. The Department of Civil Aviation collaborated completely with the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. We received the utmost cooperation from the Department. The Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** also has given an assurance in a very long letter to me as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise, which letter the Committee was very glad to receive, that the Department is doing everything in its power to see that recommendations are made. If we reach the stage where a specific proposal is made for the appointment of a select committee to consider the siting of a particular airport, then I might look at the desirability of adopting that course. But from my experience with select committees I have found that practically all select committees which have been appointed by this House have gone on for too long. I do not think it would be a very good idea to set up a select committee to consider the wide subject which the honourable member for Newcastle has raised. {: #subdebate-19-0-s4 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr BENNETT:
Swan -- I rise to support the motion and in particular to refer to the lack of foresight and planning which have been given to the Perth and Jandakot airports in Western Australia. But firstly I should like to comment on what has been said by speakers on the Government side and to point out that it is envisaged that the proposed select committee should co-operate with the States in a way similar to the way in which the Australian Universities Commission co-operates with the States in the field of higher education and in other fields of education. The honourable member for McMillan **(Mr Buchanan)** referred to the expertise of port and harbour authorities which, as we all know from experience, consist in the main of laymen and political appointees. These authorities do not possess the same expertise or investigational ability which a select committee would possess. So the argument advanced by the honourable member for McMillan is really a fatuous argument For some time now it has been known to all authorities, in particular to the Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton)** and the Department of Civil Aviation, that residents in my electorate of Swan and in adjacent electorates have been protesting about the noise nuisance associated with the Perth airport, which is situated in the heart of a growing residential area. They have been made aware of the hardship suffered by the residents of Newburn, who are awaiting the takeover of their properties by the Department of Civil Aviation so that the Perth airport can be extended. These people are unable to sell their properties to anyone. Who wants to buy land which is under notice of forcible resumption? These people have heard, with despair, this Government's decision that the takeovers will be delayed due to the Government's economic policies, and that only in special cases of proven hardship will the properties be taken over. What confidence can these people have that they will receive a fair price for their properties? The current market price plus a percentage for resumption is all that they will receive. The market price is already deflated as a result of the Government's action in preventing the advancement of the area to industrial zoning and in placing a ban on development in the area because of its intended use. It is no wonder that these people say that this Government is inconsiderate in its actions, particularly when the Government knows that all the people living adjacent to the airport are campaigning and will continue to campaign for the removal of the airport. Yet this Government says that the present site is the site of the airport and it will make no effort to plan for alternative sites. The Government has not one plan for any alternative site whatever in the future. It has made no effort to have an area set aside for use as an airport in future years so that proper planning can take place in the area so selected, to ensure that no hospitals, schools and other public buildings are built and residential areas are established in the flight paths and that transport routes to the city and suburbs are properly planned. There has been no attempt to plan whatsoever. This Government moves ahead in the face of world research and world experience and says, in effect: 'We are different; it will not happen here.' It is past the time when this head in the sand attitude, which plainly exists, should be dropped, when our so-called experts were exposed for the political lackeys that they are, and when the experience and research of world experts were taken into consideration. This Government takes into consideration only the noise pollution associated with aircraft Very rarely is mention made of the pollution caused by fuel vapour trails behind landing and departing aircraft. Airliners pollute our city breathing areas in a far worse manner than is allowed by local traffic laws. Motor vehicles would be put off the road if they were responsible for a fraction of the offences which are committed by airliners. Our experts fail to take into consideration the possible harm they are doing by routing aircraft over green belt areas in an attempt to reduce noise. This polluted air is falling within the watershed areas of our dams which hold our city water supplies.. No research is being done in this field on a long *term* basis, even though it is commonly known that in European countries it has been defined that this pollution has an effect on water supplies. For instance, the famous pines in Greece have been destroyed by this type of pollution. Perhaps our experts will say that the types of fuel will change in the future. But is this proper planning? We do not even know whether such fuels would be acceptable for use in densely populated areas. I refer to fuels such as atomic power, which has caused some doubt even at this stage. This is not a field only for aviation researchers; it is also a field for conservationists. The best scientific minds available in this field will plan for the future not only on a monetary basis but also on an environmental and ecological basis. But this Government has failed completely to institute this type of inquiry into the site of future airports. In fact, in answer to inquiries about the planning of future airport sites, it has been stated that there is no site within 50 or 60 miles of Perth. We must take into consideration not only the air traffic but also the associated road traffic because this traffic creates a pollution problem. All of these problems would be solved if they were considered by planners who had a proper scientific background. Previous replies which have been given to me by the Minister have indicated that there is no alternative site for an airport within 50 or 60 miles of Perth. But who is to say that such a site would not be acceptable in the future due to changed public transport systems? But if this is the only site - I do not accept that it is - at least it should be reserved for the future and the surrounding areas should be planned accordingly. Bearing in mind the fact that in the last few days the British Government has accepted a site at Foulness, some 50 miles out of London, as the site of its third airport, it is not impossible that a site some 50 or 60 miles out of Perth could be suitable as the site for a future airport in Perth. This matter must be investigated. Currently in Britain research is being sponsored by an oil company. An engineering consulting group is investigating the further development of wartime seadromes. It is investigating the possibility of establishing off-shore airport terminals and runways. Though radical in its concept, off-shore airfields were used with success by the British and American navies in World War II where no suitable land existed near strategic areas. Steel pontoons were hinged together to form runways. Now scale model tests have been carried out, using concrete floating sections filled with expanded polystyrene which is impervious to water. Reports in Volume 16, No. 4, of the 'Petroleum Gazette* of December 1970 indicate that the tests have been successful. The committee and the appointed experts should investigate these world research techniques, the feasibility, the costs, the environmental saving and the ecological saving. The last two savings are not ones which can be measured in cost but only in the value of man's health and of man's survival. These factors are reasons why an in depth study must take place. It should not be a matter of political convenience or of our thinking being bound by the concepts of today. Our thinking and our planning should be bound by the foreseeable and beyond - that is, the technical changes taking place in this day and age. {: #subdebate-19-0-s5 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! It being 2 hours after the time set down for the meeting of the House, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by **Mr Chipp)** agreed to: >That the time for discussion of the notice be extended to 12.45 p.m. {: .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr BENNETT: -- Our thinking should not be tied to the horse and buggy thinking of yesterday. The proposed committee should be appointed. It should take the opportunity of visiting the schools at Belmont, Cloverdale, Queens Park and Cannington in Western Australia to see the difficulties suffered at these schools every time an aircraft flies over. When this happens, all activity must stop and the trend of teaching and the trend of thought are lost. This committee should take notice of the demands for a night curfew so that people may obtain their proper rest. But, more importantly, the committee should plan future sites and alternative sites of airports for Perth and Jandakot before the volume of private aircraft traffic increases and the pressures of suburban development create the same situation which has occurred in relation to Perth airport. This committee never again should allow a project to go ahead without reference to ecological effects and without a survey. This is what has happened in relation to Cockburn Sound in this age of conservation, awareness of warnings and the knowledge which is available to all. Above all, I make the point that the purpose of this committee should be to coordinate with the States and to act with the States in a manner similar to the way in which these objectives have been achieved in the education and other fields. This committee is intended in no way to usurp the rights of the States but is designed to co-ordinate activities in such a way that at least in the future we will have commonsense planning for the future. {: #subdebate-19-0-s6 .speaker-YI4} ##### Mr ROBINSON:
Cowper -- The development of airports and ground facilities of this country has been carried out in an atmosphere of proper board planning despite the fact that over recent years civil aviation has grown quite dramatically. As honourable members will remember, two events of great significance took place last year. These were the opening of the new international terminal building at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the opening of the new international Melbourne Airport at Tullamarine. This in itself was a tremendous achievement for civil aviation in Australia. These 2 projects, coupled with the extension of the main north-south runway at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport into Botany Bay involved an expenditure of more than $100m which is a very considerable outlay in that space of time. The airports at Sydney and Melbourne are capable of handling Boeing 747 jumbo jets. Again, this is a remarkable achievement for a small country like Australia. It is certainly something that is not shared by a number of other countries around the world. In fact, in this country and in Papua New Guinea which is also currently our responsibility there are nearly 700 aerodromes. A detailed examination by a select committee such as that proposed in the motion moved by the honourable member for Newcastle **(Mr Charles Jones)** would be a gigantic task. Such a committee would have to extend its studies to take into account such fundamental requirements as airport engineering and construction problems, the suitability of terrain in the general vicinity of the airport or a projected airport, its effect upon air safety, the highly complex techniques required to ensure safe management of the surrounding air space, service access to and from the airport and fitting into community requirements the whole of the aspects of an airport and air transport. I think on this ground alone the Government is justified in rejecting the proposition put forward by the honourable member for Newcastle. This is a task for trained personnel and for those who are qualified and skilled in all of the ramifications of study, assessment, planning and so on. Certainly, a select committee could not equip itself in any way. As a. member of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise I became conscious of this problem during the work and the hearings of that Committee which took into account a great deal of information relative to the location of airports. I believe that this is a matter for policy determination and for proper governmental action. There is no denying that the present Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport site is a great asset to this country. But it also, of course, creates great problems. When all the work in hand at the airport has been completed the Government will have spent more than $120m on its development. This makes Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport the largest investment of its kind in civil aviation in Australia. Despite the frequent criticism levelled at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport over the years, it has always been regarded as an airport developed on a standard and to meet a requirement which is indispensible for this country. Its planning has often been difficult because, in common with other airports, it has had a problem in meeting the remarkable growth that has occurred not only in air transportation but also in the surrounding community which it serves and in the commercial requirements of the nation as a whole. The same factors apply to the development of Essendon airport and now the more up to date Tullamarine airport. In all of this development the work of the Department of Civil Aviation has been quite outstanding by world standards. The leadership given to that Department by the respective Ministers, the present Minister for Civil Aviation **(Senator Cotton),** his predecessor, the present Minister for National Development **(Mr Swartz)** and the earlier Ministers over the years, I believe has been of great significance for the future development of air transport in this country. The specific problem at Sydney (KingsfordSmith) Airport, of course, is the ever present complaints regarding noise. So serious did the Government consider this matter that it appointed a select committee of this House to inquire into it. That Committee did a very good job in bringing under notice many of the detailed considerations which required attention and which, as a consequence, have been given greater attention and have had greater emphasis placed upon them. This in itself is to the credit of honourable members who served on that Committee and all who co-operated with it. It is clear that for the future development of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport there must be consultation with the State Government of New South Wales. This is currently being done. Because of the peculiar problems with regard to finding a suitable site in the Sydney area for a second airport, it must be foreseen as an expensive undertaking and a far more expensive project than the development of the new Melbourne Airport at Tullamarine. The Minister for Civil Aviation already has had detailed talks with representatives of the New South Wales State Government and, having in mind the views submitted by that Government, the Commonwealth is proceeding with a proper consideration of this matter. This is a subject of utmost importance in both State and Federal spheres. No intentional delay has been involved. I am sure that every statement issued is positive evidence of this. Rather, an approach has been made in a way that deserves some commendation. A second airport for Sydney, no matter which of the sites is finally selected, will involve the expenditure of a great deal of public money and I am sure that all thinking people in this House will agree that nothing will be gained from rushing into the matter. I would point out that it is not a problem that we alone face. Many major world cities need new airports - cities like New York and London - and there has been reference in this debate to recent announcements concerning a third airport for London. We are having great difficulty in finding suitable sites within a reasonable distance of the city, which is exactly the situation facing London. Honourable members will be aware of a recent decision on the site for the third airport at London and, as has been mentioned, this site will be SO miles east of that city. Can one imagine the problems that this creates in all of the ramifications of air transportation? The issue of siting a major airport should not be a political football. It is an onerous, complex and extremely technical task demanding the maximum expertise and effort. Future generations will be either well or badly off depending on this decision which must be ma.de carefully and in full co-operation with all of the authorities involved. Noise is really the only basis of complaints that we hear frequently in this House and that we have heard again today. I believe that there has been a great deal ofmisunderstanding and misinterpretation of the attitude of the Department of Civil Aviation towards aircraft noise and its effect on the residents of suburbs near to the present Sydney airport. It must be emphasised thai outside the airport boundaries, which are controlled by the Commonwealth Government, we depend on State and municipal authorities. We are, of course, very concerned about the welfare of the people who live in these areas. The Department is doing its utmost to ensure that noise is kept to a minimum . and I believe that this is in no small measure due to the effects of the Select Committee on Aircraft Noise. This is the primary aim of planning and technical advances in jet engine design and performance and the lengthening of the existing north-south runway in Sydney win, of course, contribute greatly towards easing the noise problem as will the operation of noise abatement procedures. This is a proper and factual approach. The Department has been very active both in Australia and overseas {: .speaker-KDV} ##### Mr Charles Jones: -- As this is a matter of such great national importance and the Opposition is desirous of having the Committee function during the winter recess, I move: >That the question be now put. Question put: The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr P. E. Lucock) AYES: 44 NOES: 46 Majority...... 2 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!** The time allotted for General Business has expired. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day under General Business for the next day of sitting. Sitting suspended from 12.54 to 2.15 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2240 {:#debate-20} ### MINISTERS OF STATE BILL 1971 Bill presented by **Mr McMahon,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-20-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary authority to increase the number of Ministers by 1. Section 65 of the Constitution, coupled with section 51, placitum 36, gives to the Parliament, and to it alone, authority to vary the number of Ministers of State. The additional Minister, which it is the purpose of the Ministers of State Bill to provide, will bring the number of Ministers of State approved by Parliament to 27. Clause 4 of the Bill provides for payment at the rate applicable to Ministers not in the Cabinet. Three major considerations have led me to propose an increase in the number. Firstly, I want to allocate to a separate portfolio some important matters which could only otherwise be handled by a senior Minister by adding unduly to the responsibilities now imposed upon him. I am thinking particularly of the discharge of Commonwealth responsibilities in the fields of Aboriginal Affairs, the Arts and the Environment. Secondly, there are administrative advantages in placing with a single new Minister and Department a group of specialised general service functions which have hitherto been attached to a number of departments. Thirdly, and in association with the creation of the new Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the additional Minister and Department will permit the Prime Minister to discharge more effectively his main functions, which are leadership of the Government and administration of the Cabinet system. Before discussing these matters further, I think it will assist honourable members if I list the functions which at this stage will be under the administration of the new Minister. These are: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Aboriginal affairs, including responsibility for the Council for Aboriginal Affairs and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. 1. Activities relating to the environment, including responsibility for the Office of the Environment. 2. Activities relating to the arts and letters, including responsibility for - Australian Council for the Arts Australian National Gallery Commonwealth Art Advisory Board Historic Memorials Committee Commonwealth Literary Fund Commonwealth Assistance to Aus tralian Composers Advisory Board {: type="1" start="4"} 0. National Library of Australia. 1. Commonwealth Archives Office. 2. Australian War Memorial. 3. Anzac Agency, Commonwealth War Graves Commission. 4. Activities relating to the production of Australian films, including responsibility for the Australian Film Development Corporation and the National Film and Television Training School. 5. Grants to national organisations 6. World expositions. 7. National Radiation Advisory Committee. 8. Certain general service functions, including responsibility for - Australian Government Publishing Service Government Printing Office Commonwealth Advertising Division Commonwealth Stores Supply and Tender Board I have decided that, in addition to these functions, administration of Commonwealth activities in the rapidly developing and increasingly important field of tourism, including the activities of the Tourist Commission, should be placed with the new Minister. Overall policy on matters relating to tourism will remain, as at present, with the Minister for Trade and Industry. For the past 3 years, as honourable members know, **Senator Wright** has been the Minister responsible for tourism under the Minister for Trade and Industry. He held this portfolio in addition to his other principal duties as Minister for Works. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the fine service he has given to the development of tourism during his term of office. He has been energetic, enthusiastic and effective in helping to create a new awareness in Australia of the value of tourism and the great opportunities for its development on a national scale. Following a review by the departments concerned, we have also decided to establish an Overseas Property Bureau. The Bureau will be a specialist agency charged with a functional responsibility for the provision, management and maintenance of overseas land and property for Commonwealth purposes. It will not detract from the responsibilities of other departments or Heads of Mission for the effective operation of overseas posts and will be assisted by an Advisory Overseas Property Committee composed of senior representatives of those departments. The operations of the Bureau will help departments and Heads of Mission to concentrate on their principal task of representation. Administration of the Bureau will be placed within the new Department, as an additional general service function for which the Minister will assume responsibility. The administration of Aboriginal affairs and of Commonwealth functions in the fields of the arts and the environment are among those to be transferred to the new Minister. It is the Government's view that it is now appropriate to separate these 3 functions from the Prime Minister's own administration. As Prime Minister, I will continue to have a deep interest in them. But it is not necessary, for that purpose, that I remain the responsible Minister. I now mention briefly each of these 3 functions because of their importance in the new Ministry. The effect of the successful referendum in 1967 was to give the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws in relation to the Aboriginals, as it already could for the people of any other race. Following the overwhelming vote of the people the then Prime Minister, **Mr Holt,** judged that initially the administration by the Commonwealth of Aboriginal Affairs should be within the Prime Minister's responsibility. A Council for Aboriginal Affairs was established and a Minister, though necessarily occupying another portfolio, was appointed Minister in Charge of Aboriginal Affairs under the Prime Minister. It now seems opportune to entrust this important responsibility to the new Minister, as one of his major functions. As the welfare and development of Aboriginals affect more than one department, a ministerial committee will be appointed to study the special needs and problems of Aboriginals and to advise ways of improving them. In this connection, I invite the attention of the House to the statement on Aboriginal Affairs which the Minister for Social Services **(Mr Wentworth)** read on my behalf at a recent meeting in Cairns of the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Council, which is composed of Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs. Furthermore, I want to acknowledge the energy and application of my colleague, the Minister for Social Services and the high worth of his contributions in his role as Minister-in-Charge of Aboriginal Affairs over the last 3 years. He has established the portfolio for the Commonwealth and has contributed in large measure to the advancement of Australian Aboriginals. The Government win, of course, continue to get his counsel in Aboriginal matters and he will be a member of the ministerial committee which was referred to in the statement made by him on my behalf last week at the Cairns conference of Ministers responsible for Aboriginal affairs. In the field of the arts, the Commonwealth is becoming increasingly involved and is giving assistance in a wide variety of forms. I have no doubt that this is widely welcomed. We ought to continue to develop in this field and we will. But the increasing variety of Commonwealth involvement again suggests that the time has arrived where the functions can be transferred to a new Minister. In addition to responsibility for the Council for the Arts, the new Minister will be responsible for the National Library, for the Australian National Gallery, and for assistance to Australian authors and composers. All these are related functions and can usefully be put in the charge of the one Minister. Then there is what has come to be called 'the environment'. An office to bring together and generally to superintend the Commonwealth's work and responsibilities in the environmental field is a new initiative, and an important one. Commonwealth activities in this field are beginning to gather momentum, and will need the attention of a Minister. Responsibility for them, too, may now with advantage be moved to the new Minister. Putting these proposals in another way, the Commonwealth initiatives in Aboriginal affairs and the arts have now achieved a status and a level of activity that require separate administration. It has seemed desirable at the same time to add what will be a rapidly developing role in relation to the environment. The second main reason for creating the new portfolio is that there is a range of what might be termed 'general service' activities which are at present allocated among various departments. In each case the activities are not directly related to the primary purpose of those departments, but they have an important contribution to make to the effective functioning of the administration as a whole. Examples are the activities comprehended within the Australian Government Publishing Service, the Commonwealth Archives Office, preparation for world expositions and the new Overseas Property Bureau. Each of these functions involves the provision of services in important areas for all or a number of departments. The Government believes that locating them in the one department, under the control of one Minister, will yield significant advantage to the administration as a whole. The third main reason for creating the new portfolio is to permit the Prime Minister and his Department to devote themselves to the matters which are central to Government. An examination of the history of the functions attached to the Prime Minister and his Department reveals a recurring theme of the detachment from the Prime Minister of new functions as they develop sufficient momentum to sustain a portfolio or department of their own, or as other opportunity for appropriate attachment arises. Thus in earlier days the Department of External Affairs and, in more recent times, the Department of Education and Science have been separated from the Prime Minister's Department. It is natural that, as initiatives are made and before they are fully proven, new ministerial and departmental arrangements should not be sought. But equally, once the significance of the new activities has been proved and accepted, it is appropriate that they be given separate ministerial and departmental status. Further than that, it is important that the Prime Minister, as leader of the Government, should be able to give a great deal of attention to the administration of the Cabinet system. Whatever other functions may come or go, the Prime Minister is Chairman of the Cabinet. It is his function to ensure that leadership is given; that there is effective co-ordination, through the Cabinet machinery and by individual consultation, of the activities of Ministers, each of whom has full responsibility and accountability to Parliament; and that, through the Cabinet machinery and in other ways, the ever-changing problems of Government are given full attention and co-ordinated and speedy resolution. These are the central functions of the Prime Minister as leader of the Government, and he must look to his Department to give him support in them. It is these considerations that lie behind the creation of the new Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. This Department will have administrative responsibility for the co-ordinating role of the Prime Minister and it will also be geared to give me advice on the demanding and ever-present preoccupations of the Government as a whole. These vary from day to day but range across such matters as the state of the economy, the Commonwealth's role in welfare, relations with the States - so important in a Federation - and external relations and defence. These are the administrative responsibilities of the Prime Minister as leader of the Government. When to these are added the role of leadership in the Parliament, the duties as leader of a party, the requirements imposed as chief spokesman for the Government both in the Parliament and in public, and the many representational obligations that must be accepted, it can readily be seen that functions which arc in the main administrative, or can be handled by another Minister and department, should where practicable be transferred to them. In short, I believe that the addition of a new ministerial portfolio to discharge the functions I have outlined represents a significant advance in the organisation of the functions of government. There will be renewed emphasis upon the importance the Government attaches to three different groups of responsibilities - in Aboriginal Affairs; in the arts; and in the environment. In each of these the Commonwealth is increasingly assuming a role in community affairs at the national level. There will also be a useful concentration under single control of a number of 'general service' activities having a functional or administrative affinity. By making these changes, the Prime Minister and his Department will be released to discharge more effectively their primary functions. And the lines of responsibility to the Parliament for the various functions will be clarified. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Whitlam)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2243 {:#debate-21} ### APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT MINISTERS {:#subdebate-21-0} #### Ministerial Statement {: #subdebate-21-0-s0 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMAHON:
Prime Minister · Lowe · LP -- by leave - In association with the Ministers of State Bill, I wish also to inform the House of my intention to appoint Assistant Ministers to support certain Senior Ministers in the discharge of their responsibilities. Honourable members will recall that, since the earliest days of Federation, Assistant Ministers, Honorary Ministers or Ministers without Portfolio have been a recurring feature of ministerial arrangements. These Assistant Ministers - I use that term to describe all the persons I have hist referred to- are not Ministers of State in the strict Constitutional sense. The Queen's Ministers of State are, under section 64 of the Constitution, only those members of the Executive Council who are appointed to administer Departments of State. The Assistant Ministers will be members of the Parliament who are appointed to assist a particular Minister in the discharge of his duties. Because they are not Ministers of State in the constitutional sense, section 44 of the Constitution precludes the payment of any salary to Assistant Ministers in respect of their duties. All it will be possible to do will be to make payments to them to meet out-of-pocket expenses, including travelling expenses, which they necessarily incur in the performance of their duties. I intend that the Assistant Ministers will be sworn as Executive Councillors. They will thus form part of the Federal Executive Council whose function, under section 62 of the Constitution, is to advise the GovernorGeneral in the government of the Commonwealth. The Assistant Ministers will thus participate in a most important aspect of the continuing good government of the Commonwealth. As members of the Federal Executive Council, the Assistant Ministers will in general be able to exercise statutory functions of the Ministers they are assisting - including the making of appointments and the performance of other functions expressly conferred on the Minister - provided he has authorised them to this effect This is made possible by section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act which, subject to any contrary intention in the particular legislation, permits any Minister or member of the Federal Executive Council to act for and on behalf of a Minister referred to in the legislation. Thus Assistant Ministers will be able to make appointments and perform other functions expressly conferred on the Minister by legislation. The Assistant Ministers will be assigned to assist certain Ministers of Cabinet rank, who have the responsibility, not only of administering their own departments, but of taking part in the continuing process of consultation which is an essential feature of effective Cabinet government. By appointing Assistant Ministers in this way I see the system of Cabinet government as being strengthened through allowing senior Ministers to give more time to Cabinet business. Assistant Ministers will, of course, work in accordance with the authority given to them by the Senior Minister. I see them, within this general authority, as conducting correspondence and making inquiries on his behalf. They will also be able to receive deputations on behalf of the Minister. I emphasise that Assistant Ministers will not be able to take political responsibility in the administration of any department. This is as it should be. As Prime Minister Menzies explained in his ministerial statement on Parliamentary Under-Secretaries on 27th August 1952, it is important that Ministers should be directly answerable to the Parliament for the administration of their departments. Again taking up what **Sir Robert** Menzies said in that statement, there are occasions when it would be of great assistance to a Minister if his Assistant Minister could, during the Committee stages of a Bill, sit at the table of the House and represent his Minister in the discussion of clauses and amendments as they arise. I shall be consulting with the Presiding Officers on this matter to ascertain whether, to achieve this, an amendment of Standing Orders will be necessary. Numbers of those who in times past held office as Assistant Ministers were in due course elevated to full Ministerial status. I believe that the experience they obtained as Assistant Ministers was of great value in preparing them to assume full Ministerial status. I am confident that those who will be appointed to the new positions will obtain valuable and broadening experience. To sum up, the new Assistant Ministers will bring greatly needed assistance to senior Ministers in the discharge of their heavy duties, and will contribute to the better working of the Cabinet system. Secondly, they will help such Ministers to achieve more effective supervision of the activities of the departments to which they are related. Finally they will, as I have mentioned, provide important experience for members from this side of the House in both the legislative and administrative fields. I do not intend at this stage to make specific appointments to the office of Assistant Minister. These will be left until the parliamentary recess, when there will be opportunity to give further consideration to details of the way in which the Assistant Ministers will work and to select members for the positions. I make the statement at this stage partly to acquaint the House of events that will take place before it meets for the Budget session, and also because the decision to appoint Assistant Ministers needs to be seen in the full context of other changes being made in administrative arrangements, including particularly the proposal to appoint an additional Minister of State. I present the following paper: {:#subdebate-21-1} #### Appointment of Assistant Ministers: - Ministerial Statement, 29th April 1971 Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** proposed: >That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by **Mr Whitlam)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2245 {:#debate-22} ### LOAN BILL 1971 Bill presented by **Mr Snedden,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-22-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. At the time the 1970-71 Budget was introduced it was noted that, because of the difficulty of estimating net loan raisings in Australia and overseas, there remained, as in every year, the possibility that some borrowing from the Reserve Bank may be necessary to complete the Commonwealth's financial transactions. In statement No. 4 attached to the Budget Speech, notice was given that authority would be sought in a Loan Bill to borrow for defence purposes such amounts as are necessary to complete the Commonwealth's financing requirements. Since the Budget was introduced, of course, a number of factors have brought about substantial increases in Budget expenditures and much lesser increases in revenues, so that our financing requirements are now greater than originally forecast. Some of the more important increases in expenditures which have occurred since the Budget were outlined in this House on 16th February by the then Prime Minister in his statement on Government expenditure. It is however, useful to refer to some of them here. The largest variations affecting the expenditure estimates have been additional payments to the States, including $60m to compensate the States for loss of receipts duty revenues, $43m in additional assistance to the States to help with their budgetary difficulties, and about $25m in increased financial assistance grants arising from the effect on the formula determined grants of the higher than anticipated increase in average wages. In all, payments to or for the States are now expected to exceed the Budget estimates by the order of $132m. Wage and salary determinations, including the effect of the national wage case decision, have also added directly to the Commonwealth's own wage and salary bill. Other additional requirements, such as capital advances to the Australian Wool Commission and payments under the rural debt reconstruction and farm adjustment scheme will also operate to increase our expenditures. Despite the cut-back in expenditures announced by the Government in February and the gain to revenue as a result of the faster increases in incomes and spending, the Government is now faced with a large prospective deficit for this financial year. On the financing side, the results of our loan raising activities in the first 9 months of the year suggest that redemptions and other expenditure on the reduction of debt overseas will exceed raisings overseas, as they did in the previous financial year, so that significant amounts will remain to be raised in Australia. Public loan raisings in Australia so far this financial year have, however, attracted slightly less support than in 1969-70, while redemptions of maturing securities have been heavy. These results strongly suggest that there is little prospect that the amount available from loan raisings and other financing transactions will be sufficient to finance the prospective deficit in 1970-71 without some borrowing from the Reserve Bank. The purpose of this Bill is, therefore, to obtain authority to borrow from the Reserve Bank an amount necessary to complete the financing of the deficit in 1970-71 and to use the proceeds of the borrowing for defence purposes. The Bill is essentially a machinery measure to enable the Government to carry out policies already approved under the various Acts authorising expenditure, the raising of revenue and financing transactions. It does not authorise expenditures which have not already been approved by Parliament but merely provides for expenditure, already authorised by Parliament in Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1970-71 and Appropriation Act (No. 3) 1970-71 to be charged to the Loan Fund instead of to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. This practice of charging part of bur expenditure on defence services to Loan Fund has, of course, been followed in previous years where borrowings from the Reserve Bank have been necessary to complete the financing of a Budget deficit. Honourable members will appreciate that at this stage of the financial year, with large amounts of revenue still to be collected and expenditures still to be incurred, and because of the unpredictability of loan raising, it is not possible to forecast with precision the amount which it may be necessary to borrow from the Reserve Bank to complete the financing of the deficit. This amount is the residual of all other Commonwealth Budget transactions and relatively small percentage variations in other items can have a significant effect on it. Therefore no specific upper limit is set to the amount which might be borrowed under the legislation. Instead, like other similar Loan Bills introduced in recent years, this Bill seeks authority to borrow such sums as the Treasurer considers to be the likely maximum amount necessary to complete the financing of the deficit. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr Crean)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2246 {:#debate-23} ### PAPUA NEW GUINEA LOAN (INTERNATIONAL BANK) BILL 1971 Bill presented by **Mr Snedden,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-23-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill seeks the approval of Parliament to the guarantee by the Commonwealth of a $US23.2m ($20.7m) borrowing by the Administration of the Territory of Papua New Guinea from the International Bank for reconstruction and development. The proceeds of the loan will assist in financing a major hydro-electric project on the upper Ramu River in the highlands of New Guinea, about 85 miles north west of Lae. The project was examined by appraisal missions from the International Bank in 1969 and 1970 and the loan documents were settled recently during negotiations in Washington which were attended by representatives of the International Bank, the Commonwealth, the Territory Administration and the Electricity Commission of the Territory. The Administration will onlend the proceeds of the loan to the Electricity Commission which, under an associated project agreement between the Commission and the Bank, is responsible for the actual construction work. Work on the project will commence shortly, it involves the construction of an underground power station on the Ramu River with an initial installed capacity of 45 megowatts; approximately 320 miles of transmission lines; 4 transformer substations at Lae, Madang, Goroka and Mount Hagen; and the enlargement of transformer capacity at Kundiawa and Kainantu substations. The project is estimated to cost $30.3m and the loan from the International Bank will cover the foreign exchange component of this total cost. Borrowings by the Territory Administration automatically carry a Commonwealth guarantee by virtue of the operation of section 75a of the Papua and New Guinea Act 1949-1968. However, with loans from the International Bank, a formal guarantee agreement is required from the Commonwealth and this must be authorised by specific legislation. The guarantee agreement for this loan, which is shown as the first schedule to the Bill, follows the form of the 2 guarantee agreements previously approved by Parliament in connection with a telecommunications loan made by the International Bank to the Territory in 1968, and a highways loan made in 1970. The present loan carries an interest rate of 7.25 per cent and is for a period of 25 years, with repayments commencing after 5 years. A commitment fee of threequarters of 1 per cent per annum is payable on undrawn balances until the loan is fully drawn. The Bill provides for parliamentary approval of the guarantee agreement. It makes consequential provision to ensure the effectiveness of undertakings in the guarantee and loan agreements regarding freedom of payments from Australian taxation or restrictions imposed by Australian law.It also includes an appropriation of moneys required for the Commonwealth to make any payments under the guarantee. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr Crean)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2247 {:#debate-24} ### TRADE PRACTICES BILL 1971 Bill presented by **Mr N.** H. Bowen, and read a first time. {:#subdebate-24-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-JRN} ##### Mr N H Bowen:
AttorneyGeneral · PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The primary purpose of this Bill is to control the practice known as resale price maintenance. The provisions for this purpose are to be inserted into the Trade Practices Act 1965-1969. The opportunity has been taken to make one or two other amendments of that Act which will require the terms and conditions of the members of the Trade Practices Tribunal and of the Commissioner of Trade Practices to be prescribed by regulation rather than determined by the Governor-General or the Attorney-General. Resale price maintenance is a restrictive trade practice, in the sense that it operates to restrict competition in the re-selling of goods. It is a practice by which a manufacturer or wholesaler of goods - to whom, for the sake of convenience, I shall refer as 'the supplier* - stipulates a minimum price that must be charged on the resale of goods supplied by him. It is a practice that operates vertically in the distributive process as the goods pass in turn from manufacturer to wholesaler and from wholesaler to retailer. In this respect it is distinguishable from price-fixing agreements that are horizontal in the sense that they are between competitors on the same level of the distributive process. Section 35 of the Trade Practices Act already covers the horizontal agreements. But in its present form the Act does not cover, otherwise than incidentally, vertical price arrangements of the kind to which this Bill relates. The present position, therefore, is that an agreement between a group of manufacturers in accordance with which they agree that they themselves will not charge less than certain prices is examinable by the Trade Practices Tribunal at the instance of the Commissioner of Trade Practices, and if the agreement is determined by the Tribunal to be contrary to the public interest, it may be prohibited by appropriate restraining orders. But if a manufacturer acts . independently of other manufacturers, he is completely free, by engaging in resale price maintenance, to control the re-selling prices of the goods he supplies. In the result, there is a common retail price for the goods that must be charged by all retailers. However efficient a particular retailer may be, he cannot in these circumstances pass on the results of his efficiency to the consumer by a reduction in price. It can happen, moreover, that in such circumstances the manufacturer will find himself under strong collective pressure from the retailers to keep the minimum resale price at a sufficiently high level to enable even the less efficient retailers to operate profitably. **Mr Speaker,** there is no need for me to remind the House that our economy is at present subject to strong inflationary pressures. To meet these pressures the Government is taking action in several areas. It has restricted spending in the public sector and, as the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr Anthony)** announced to the House yesterday, the Tariff Board will shortly begin a systematic review of tariffs. In addition, there is a need for more internal competition. There is need to ensure that the prices of goods are keenly competitive. In saying this, however, I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that the prices at present operating under resale price maintenance agreements are all necessarily excessive. But 1 do believe that the practice tends to remove the incentive to sell goods cheaply, and that, in general, the practice works against the objectives of efficiency which are so important if our efforts to resist the present inflationary pressures are to succeed. In concluding that this Bill should be introduced the Government has taken into account the experience of other countries with resale price maintenance. Most countries with free enterprise economies have come to the conclusion that, in general, the practice is against the public interest, and they have followed up their conclusions by legislating to bring it under control. The United Kingdom enacted legislation for this purpose in 1964. Canada, Japan, South Africa, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway and Finland have also enacted legislation with respect to the practice in the last 10 to IS years. The United States of America has had such legislation at the federal level for many years. The degree of control provided for in the legislation varies from country to country. In some countries, for example, Canada, the practice is totally prohibited while the legislation of the United Kingdom makes provision for exemptions to be granted in respect of particular classes of goods and exemptions have in fact been granted in respect of 2 classes of goods. The experience of other countries has been that the circumstances in which resale price maintenance can be shown after full inquiry to be in the public interest are really few and far between. But honourable members will, I think, agree that it is desirable that the Australian legislation should recognise that there may be goods of certain kinds in respect of which the practice is desirable in the public interest, and that the legislation should enable exemptions to be granted where this can be established. I turn now to the provisions of this Bill. In brief, the Bill makes it unlawful for a supplier to engage in the practice of resale price maintenance, but provides for this general prohibition of the practice to be subject to any exemptions that may be granted by the Trade Practices Tribunal in respect of particular kinds of goods. Clause 12 provides for resale price maintenance to be dealt with by a new part of the Trade Practices Act, and this will be Part VIA. The various forms of conduct that will constitute resale price maintenance are set out in proposed sub-section (2.) of section 66A. It will be noted that in each case it is conduct on the part of a supplier of goods with which the sub-section is concerned. In brief, the forms of conduct mentioned in the sub-section are: A supplier makes it known that he will not supply goods to a re-seller unless the re-seller agrees not to re-sell those goods below a price specified by the supplier; A supplier induces a re-seller not to resell at less than a specified price goods supplied to the re-seller by the supplier; A supplier enters into an agreement to supply goods to a re-seller, under which agreement the re-seller agrees not to resell the goods at less than a specified price; A supplier withholds the supply of goods to a re-seller for the reason that the re-seller has not agreed to observe a specified minimum price or has sold goods at less than a specified minimum price; A supplier withholds the supply of goods to a wholesaler for the reason that a retailer who obtains goods from the wholesaler has not agreed to observe a minimum price specified by the supplier or has sold goods at less than a minimum price specified by the supplier; and A supplier uses in relation to goods supplied to a re-seller a statement of price likely to be understood by the reseller as the minimum resale price, for example, by having the retail price printed on a catalogue issued to the reseller. Special provision is made in the Bill for mere recommendations of resale prices. In the absence of these provisions a recommendation would constitute an inducement and would on that account constitute the practice of resale price maintenance. This would, in the Government's view, be going too far. So long as it is made quite clear that a recommendation is nothing more than a recommendation - that is, that there is no obligation on the part of the reseller to comply with it - then there is no reason for treating it as resale price maintenance, and indeed there would be circumstances in which the resellers themselves would be unnecessarily inconvenienced if it were so treated. But on the other hand the legislation must plainly ensure that suppliers are not permitted to put any form of pressure on their resellers in the form of legally permissible recommendations. Proposed section 66b accordingly permits a recommendation to be made as to the resale price of goods provided that the recommendation is in writing and the document is endorsed with the words: The price set out or referred to herein is a recommended price only and there is no obligation to comply with the recommendation'. In regard to the withholding of supplies, one point that I wish to make clear is that it will not be resale price maintenance under the Bill unless the withholding is for the reason that the reseller is refusing to conform to the supplier's stipulations as to resale price. If, for example, the reason for withholding supplies is a doubt as to the credit-worthiness of the reseller or some other substantial commercial reason, the provisions of this Bill will have no application. It will often be difficult, of course, to establish just what is the reason for a withholding of supplies. In recognition of this, provision is made in proposed section 66l for rebuttable presumption of the reason to arise when the circumstances set out in that section exist. Another provision to which I would draw the attention of the House is that contained in proposed sub-sections (2.) and (3.) of section 66c relating to what is commonly called 'loss leadering'. A reseller engages in loss leadering if he sells particular goods at a loss to attract custom or to promote his business in some way. The result of his so doing may well be to give the public an impression that the goods in question are of inferior quality, and this could be detrimental to the marketing prospects of the supplier. It is only fair that a supplier whose goods are being sold in this manner should be able to defend himself by withholding supplies from the reseller in question, and the provisions to which I have referred make it clear that the supplier has this right. In the Government's view, it is undesirable that the control of restrictive trade practices should be achieved by unnecessary resort to the criminal law, and proposed section 66e accordingly excludes the possibility of criminal proceedings in respect of resale price maintenance. However, the fact remains that the Bill provides for the practice to be unlawful and provision is made in proposed section 90aa for it to be the subject of restraint by an injunction issued by the Industrial Court. An application for such an injunction will be able to be made by the Attorney-General, the Commissioner of Trade Practices or by a person who has suffered loss or damage by reason of the particular practice complained of. Such a person will, moreover, have a right to recover damages in respect of any such loss or damage. Finally, if the practice is provided for by an agreement, that agreement will, by virtue of proposed section 66f, be to that extent unenforceable. I turn now to the provisions in proposed Division 2 for the granting of exemptions. An application for such an exemption will be able to be made by a person who is supplying, or intends to supply, goods of the kind that are the subject of the application. Provision is made for the payment of a prescribed fee, having regard to the need for the Registrar to give public notice of the application in the 'Gazette' and such newspapers as are thought fit. The application will be determined by the Trade Practices Tribunal which will be constituted, except for matters of procedure, in the usual way, that is by a presidential member and 2 lay members appointed on the basis of their qualifications in industry, commerce or public administration. It will be open to a person other than the applicant who has an interest in an application for exemption to seek leave to intervene in the proceedings. Provision enabling him to do this is already contained in section 77 of the principal Act. Before granting an exemption the tribunal will need to be satisfied that, unless the exemption is granted, one or other of the detrimental effects set out in proposed subsection (2.) of section 66j will result, and that that detriment will outweigh any detriment that would result if the exemption were not granted. The detrimental effects set out in sub-section (2.) are virtually the same as those in the comparable provisions of the Resale Prices Act 1964 of the United Kingdom, and they cover the grounds upon which businessmen normally rely when attempting to justify resale price maintenance. In brief, they are reduction in quality or variety of goods available; reduction in the number of retail outlets; increase in prices; danger to health; and reduction in availability of after-sales services. The Government believes that these criteria for justification in proposed section 66j will offer appropriate opportunities for exemption where it is in the public interest that an exemption should be granted. The criteria are, of course, much more specific than those in section 50 of the principal Act, which is applicable in the case of examinable agreements and practices. But proposed section 66j has been tailored specifically to the particular practice of resale price maintenance, whereas section 50 is applicable to a particularly wide range of agreements and practices. The Bill does not provide for goods that are the subject of an application for exemption to be treated as exempt pending a determination of the application by the Tribunal. This is a matter to which the Government has given close thought, but the conclusion that it has reached is that, as this legislation is intended to assist in warding off the present inflationary pressures in the economy, provision for interim exemptions pending determination of applications would be inappropriate in that it would have the effect of unduly deferring the really effective date of the legislation. The Government also took into account that the cases in which it has been found in other countries that resale price maintenance is in the public interest constitute a very real minority of the total. Mindful, however, of the desirability of enabling industries to obtain determination of their applications for exemption as quickly as possible, the Government is giving close consideration to the procedures in accordance with which the tribunal will deal with such applications. Before concluding, **Mr Speaker,** I should like the House to know that the Government has the whole of the Trade Practices Act under close consideration with a view to ensuring that its provisions are as effec tive as possible.. If the conclusion is reached that there is a need for further amendments of the Act, further legislation will follow in due course. But the Government has concluded that resale price maintenance should be dealt with at this stage, and not deferred until consideration of the rest of the Act has been completed. I feel confident that the provisions in this Bill will significantly improve our law on restrictive trade practices. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Whitlam)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2250 {:#debate-25} ### STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES) BILL 1971 Bill presented by **Mr Fairbairn,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-25-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-25-0-s0 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Education and Science · Farrer · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate additional grants to meet the Commonwealth's contribution to the costs of the new levels of academic salaries in universities arising from the increase of 6 per cent awarded in the 1970 national wage case. The Government has decided to support the new levels of academic salaries and to contribute towards the cost its usual share of $1 for each $1.85 provided from fees plus State grants. The governing bodies of the universities are responsible for determining the actual levels of remuneration of their staff. The Bill provides that the Commonwealth will contribute towards new salaries for the senior academic staff up to the following levels and proportionately for the junior academic staff: In addition the Bill provides for a contribution towards the cost of the introduction of a scheme of external studies at the University of Tasmania for 1971 and 1972. The Commonwealth's share of the cost - $3,860 - in respect of each of both years is included in Parts II and III of the First Schedule to be inserted in the principal Act as provided for in the Bill. It should be noted that after 1972, the University will bear the cost of the scheme from its general recurrent grants. The Government, with the agreement of the New South Wales Government, has also taken the opportunity to make two minor machinery amendments to the Second and Sixth Schedules to the Act to provide legal authority for a variation in the building programme of one university and one teaching hospital The variations, which have been requested by the universities concerned and which are supported by the Australian Universities Commission, do not increase the total capital grants provided in the current triennium. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by **Mr Beazley)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2251 {:#debate-26} ### PAPUA NEW GUINEA BILL 1971 Bill presented by **Mr Barnes,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-26-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr BARNES:
Minister for External Territories · McPherson · CP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second lime. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to certain recommendations made by the Papua New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development and agreed to by that House. In a statement I made to this House on 27th April 1 indicated that the Government had accepted the Select Committee's recommendations as adopted by the House of Assembly and I foreshadowed the early introduction of legislation to deal with those recommendations concerning a change in the elected representation in the House of Assembly. At the present time the House of Assembly consists of 94 members of whom 84 are elected and 10 are official members. The 84 elected members are returned from 69 open electorates and 15 regional electorates. Candidates nominating for regional electorates must have an educational qualification equivalent to the Intermediate Certificate. There are no educational qualifications for candidates nominating for open electorates. In its final report the Committee recommended that the number of open elector ates be increased from 69 to 82 and the number of regional electorates from 15 to 18. During its 1971 tour of Papua and New Guinea the Committee met with an overwhelming request for increased representation in the 1972-1976 House of Assembly. It based its recommendations on one regional member for each of the 18 districts in Papua New Guinea and one open member to approximately 30,000 people. Although the Committee found some call on its tour for regional electorates to be abolished the majority opinion favoured their retention. The Committee felt that it was necessary that there be a guaranteed standard of education in the House. The Committee noted in its final report that regional electorates could be reviewed during the 1972-1976 House but that it might be necessary to consider some minimum qualifications for open members such as the ability to read and write if regional electorates were to be replaced or abolished. When the Committee's report was being debated in the House of Assembly an amendment was moved to abolish regional electorates. This amendment was defeated by 47 votes to 17. The Bill provides in clause 3 for the recommended increases in the number of open and regional members of the House, clause 4 adjusts the quorum figure for the House and clause 5 provides that the amendments are to apply from the date of completion of the next general election in Papua New Guinea. The elections for the 1972-1976 House of Assembly will commence in March-April 1972. Under the Papua New Guinea Electoral Ordinance a redistribution Committee must redistribute boundaries following a change in the composition of the House. Its report must be made public for 3 months and then be adopted by the House of Assembly. If the report is adopted the Administrator may proclaim the new boundaries. The Government is anxious that the amendments to the Papua and New Guinea Act contained in this Bill are made as soon as possible so that sufficient time will be available for the necessary redistribution action to be completed and in operation for the 1972 House of Assembly elections in Papua New Guinea. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Beazley)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2252 {:#debate-27} ### DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** agreed to: >That, unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet next week on the following days and at the times specified: {: .page-start } page 2252 {:#debate-28} ### TARIFF PROPOSALS {: #debate-28-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · Hotham · LP -- I move: {:#subdebate-28-0} #### Customs Tariff Proposals No. 9 (1971) The Customs Tariff Proposals which I have just tabled relate to proposed amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1970 which were introduced into the Parliament last year. Collection of duties under the Proposals was validated last year to 30th April 1971. The reintroduction of the Proposals ensures that the duties may continue to- be collected until the Tariff Bill debated by the House last night is disposed of by the Parliament. I commend the Proposals. Debate (on motion by **Mr Beazley)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2252 {:#debate-29} ### STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) BILL 1971 {:#subdebate-29-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 7 April (vide page 1588), on motion by **Mr Fairbairn:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-29-0-s0 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
Minister for Education and Science · Farrer · LP -- May I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on this Bill I would like to suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill. Separate questions may, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest, therefore, **Mr Speaker,** that you permit the subject matter of the 2 Bills to be discussed in this debate. {: #subdebate-29-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- There being no objection, that course will be followed. {: #subdebate-29-0-s2 .speaker-JF7} ##### Mr BEAZLEY:
Fremantle -- The 2 Bills before us, the States Grants (Preschool Teachers Colleges) Bill, which amends the 1968 Act and the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill are both important pieces of legislation. The preschool measure is very simple. It extends the period in which money may be spent - money which has already been granted by this House to the States for pre-school teachers colleges. Where the buildings had to be completed by 30th June this year they are given an extension of time to 31st December 1972. This is not a tremendous issue to discuss. Certain pr-school authorities have not been able to carry through their building programmes within the time originally specified. 1 only want to make this passing remark: The Commonwealth and the States have never been seized with the importance of pre-school education, excepting where there is an articulate population and, in the Commonwealth case, excepting in its own Territories. Yet this subject now has a long history. The Commonwealth originally set up the Lady Gowrie child centres on very generous lines - generous, at any rate, for the days when they were set up - and the theory was to say to the States: 'Well, there they are. Go thou and do likewise'. Of course, the States did not have the money to go and do likewise so the Lady Gowrie centres simply stayed as examples that were not followed. We also have in the Australian Capital Territory a structure of preschool education which by Australian standards is quite outstanding but the States have never been able to imitate it. We have a limited Commonwealth intervention in this field in the kind of legislation which is now before us, and that limited intervention is to assist in the capital cost of setting up training colleges for pre-school teachers. It is the belief of the Opposition that the Commonwealth has to come in to reinforce the States to establish a pre-school system of education. It is quite clear in the Northern Territory, for instance, that where we have pre-school centres they are extremely important in that children of the Aboriginal race and children of European race mix together and have a social association, and for children of the Aboriginal race who are coming in as fringe dwellers they are a very important introduction to the sort of new way of life that they an following. This has been a Cinderella of Australian education. Only middle class areas have been fully aware of bow important psychologically pre-school centres are for children in their whole life development. We hope that this type of legislation will be a precursor of Commonwealth intervention in this field and the platform of the Australian Labor Party provides for the setting up of a pre-school education commission to be radar, as it were, to guide Commonwealth action in the development of preschool facilities. The other measure, the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill, is interesting. This increases the expenditure of the Commonwealth in assisting the States in the establishment of technical colleges from $30m in a triennium to $36m in a triennium or $12m a year instead of $10m a year. It is doubtful whether the increase from $30m to $36m for the triennium does very much more than offset the trend of inflation. It is not likely that the States will be able to buy much more in the way of buildings in this triennium than they did in the last triennium. It is not likely that $36m will go any further in the coming triennium than S30m did in the last, yet it is to be welcomed because it will create further technical facilities. The Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** foresees that the legislation will assist the States to meet: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . likely increased pressures on technical training facilities arising from demands of such schemes as retraining of married women and retraining of farmers displaced under the rural reconstruction scheme and from the public service and industry for higher technician courses . . . I am afraid Australia needs a much greater expenditure and effort directed to technical education to give the Australian labor force the skill and flexibility it requires. We have in this country very much followed the English tradition of education and not the Scottish tradition, and this has been our disaster. I remember going to Dunedin, which is a Scottish foundation in New Zealand. Founded, I think, in about 1851 it had Otago Boys High School, the Otago Girls High School and the University of Otago by 1862, all in a period of 11 years. Western Australia, a very typical Anglican foundation in 1829, did not get Perth Modern School till 1911 and did not get the University of Western Australia till 1913, a time lapse of 82 and 84 years. I am afraid Cromwell, with his ideas on education and his structure of universities which anticipated what Britain did not do till the 1950s, gave the Anglican establishment such a fright that they decided education was a matter for elites whereas Scotland, where the Puritans triumphed, had massive compulsory education about 250 years before England did. We have tended to follow the clerk's education. The great desideratum in our high schools was the Eton-Harrow sort of education of England rather than that of Scotland so it became customary on English ships if one wanted to speak to the ship's engineer - or to any engineer - merely to bellow 'Mac' down the ship's hold and one knew one had the engineer because technical education was very much a Scottish monopoly. Starting with compulsory education early the Scots broadened it. The original Puritans wanted everybody to have an education so they could all read the Bible. After the King and the Church had been subject to the New Model Army they did not want literate lower order men. Seriously, this is a tradition. I think that the lack of technical education in the United Kingdom, or its late development, steadily dragged Britain back after 1851. The Great Exhibition of 1851 was a high water mark. After that one could say Germany and everybody else eclipsed England in technical education. This was concealed because Britain had a great overseas empire from which there was an inflow of dividends and this cushioned the steady decline in English earning capacity. A brilliant book is out which consists of a whole series of quotations which one would think were a current commentary on England, such as the Consul in Switzerland reporting that 3,000 salesmen from Germany and other countries had gone through the country selling goods but only 28 salesmen had come from Britain and none could speak the languages. They did not present their goods showing the correct decimal weights and measures. They insisted on presenting things with their own unintelligible English weights and measures and constantly goods produced in Britain were not delivered on time. One was quite astonished to read that this was the report of the consuls in the year 1880. One would think it was the current lament of the 1970s. There has not been, I might say, the respect for technical education in the English system of education and that carried out to Australia that there was in the Scottish system, and I think that it has seriously affected everything. It has seriously affected the skills of trade unionists, but more importantly it has seriously affected the skills of management. We think that if a person goes to Scotch College or to Wesley College he can automatically be an employer and manage a business. That illusion does not exist in the United States of America or in many other countries. They believe in the technical education of their managerial groups and they believe also in very advanced business education, which is just beginning to dawn on us. The important point in the Minister's speech is this question of using technical education as a device for increasing the mobility of the work force - the transferability of the work force from one occupation to another. He specifies married women and farmers. Capital has quick silver mobility. It goes towards one particular industry or towards another industry, according to the decision to invest. But labour does not have quick silver mobility. If a man has been trained in one occupation in an industry and he lives in a house in a certain district and if that industry falls through, he has not got the mobility of the decision to invest, which is just a monetary flash if you like. If capital moves on quick silver mobility, labour moves on leaden feet. Retraining ought to be a very great part of our whole industrial planning and not, as it is with us today, an afterthought. The concepts of technical efficiency and managerial skill in Australia leave very much to be desired. There is a need for the constant retraining of the work force. There is a need for more training in business management. I welcome in this legislation the provision that a residential college should be attached to technical schools. This is very important. We have always thought of residential colleges attached to universities and of hostels attached to high schools. We have been late in thinking of residential colleges attached to technical schools. The fact that one of the States is to receive a grant of $500,000 with which to provide such a facility is a very important step in the upgrading of technical education. Britain has now perceived the need for a much more technically efficient population than she has had in the past. She was screened from this need by the flow of dividends in from overseas, which compensated for the failure of sales or her failure to retain her immense industrial supremacy of one phase of history. I think that we also are screened from the need for technical efficiency by the fact that our country is a marvellous quarry. We are being screened from all sorts of painful readjustments by the discovery of minerals. But the day will come when we will depend upon the technical efficiency of our population to produce goods for export. I hope the day will come when we will be far more seized of the need to process the minerals that we have. Then the question of technical education will be even more important. The Commonwealth's action in technical education and in inspiring the States to be more dynamic in technical education should be more extensive than it is, and I hope that in this field we will move increasingly away from the idea of matching grants and have a strong Commonwealth initiative, fostering technical education where the Commonwealth can see needs, even if the States cannot see them. {: #subdebate-29-0-s3 .speaker-PD4} ##### Mr BROWN:
Diamond Valley -- The honourable member for Fremantle **(Mr Beazley)** in his interesting address confined himself, as I understood it, to the States Grants (Technical Training) Bill. It is not that Bill to which I address some remarks, but rather to the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Bill, a particularly important piece of legislation. There are 2 propositions that should be made at the outset and which I think most honourable member would agree should be considered before one goes on to look at the details of this matter. The first of these 2 propositions is the great importance of pre-school education today and, following from that, the great importance, as the Commonwealth has already recognised, of providing adequate facilities for the training of pre-school teachers. I think that the importance of pre-school education if of comparatively recent recognition insofar as it does condition a child's future attitudes and those foundations that he acquires in his early years, particularly between the ages of 3 years and 5 years, which are so important It is significant, therefore, that at this time there should be this piece of legislation and the earlier Act which was passed in 1968 relating to a singularly important part of pre-school education. It is also significant that the Commonwealth itself should realise, as 1 believe it does, the overwhelming importance of preschool education in a civilised society such as Australia's. The Commonwealth's role in this part of education and in other aspects of education is one which has developed very much over recent years and is not a role which the Commonwealth has exercised for a very long period of time. This *is* mainly because of the constitutional situation. Whereas there are certain specific matters which are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, education by and large is still the constitutional responsibility of the State governments. But, nevertheless, the Commonwealth has had a role to play and has been taking very valuable steps in education over the years. I noted in a book entitled 'Australia Since Federation' by Professor Fred Alexander, which was published in 1969, a particularly interesting exchange between a former Prime Minister, **Mr Chifley,** and one of his senior advisers. It indicates the Commonwealth's attitude to education at that time. The then Prime Minister's adviser was suggesting to **Mr Chifley** that the Commonwealth should go into a wider area of education, and he advanced this argument with some force. This book describes the exchange as follows: >No', said Chifley, 'I'd like to keep out of education - it has special difficulties for us: it's mixed up with religion, aid to denominational schools and all that. Besides, the Constitution leaves education as a State function.* 'But,' objected the adviser, 'you're already subsidising pre-school centres and the universities directly.' 'Ah,' concluded Chifley, with a broad grin, 'that's different - they're for kids before they've got souls and after they've lost 'em.' Indeed, that is a comment with which some may agree, but it certainly indicates very clearly the Commonwealth's attitude at that time. However, the situation has changed. The Commonwealth's attitude over recent years has been to look at the broad structure of education across the whole nation and to seek to identify those areas in which the Commonwealth can be of assistance, bearing in mind that the primary obligation for education is with the States and bearing in mind also that the Commonwealth's role should be to assist the States in their particular role. As I say, the Commonwealth has made a substantial contribution in many fields of education, and the particular one with which we are concerned now, pre-school teachers training colleges, is one of the areas in which the Commonwealth has been assisting the States. The second of these basic principles that really should be understood is the role that is being played by voluntary organisations in pre-school education across Australia. The State Governments and local authorities, of course, make a very substantial contribution to pre-school education in Australia, but I suggest that it is above all the voluntary organisations which are the backbone in this area of educational activity. Indeed, it is fair to say that the situation of pre-school education in Australia could not be as strong as it is without the very valuable work that is done by the many public spirited people who have taken part in the work of those voluntary organisations. Again it is significant to note that the Commonwealth has recognised and appreciated the valuable work done by such voluntary organisations in the field of pre-school education. When a former Minister for Education and Science introduced the principal Bill, the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Bill 1968, he had this to say: >Finally, I should like to express the Government's respect and admiration of the work of the voluntary organisations in the pre-school field, There is a tradition throughout Australia of community involvement in this area of education, not only of parents interested in having a kindergarten available for their own children but also of many men and women giving freely time and money so that kindergartens are available in areas where need is great. From the former arises a most useful awareness in the minds of parents of many aspects of their children's education, an awareness which may be maintained throughout the years of schooling. The latter is a most useful form of community service. That is what the Minister said on that occasion and it indicates that the Commonwealth has very commendably recognised the work done by voluntary organisations in the pre-school education field and is further assisting them. One of these organisations which has taken a very important pan in pre-school education in Australia is the Australian Pre-school Association. The work of this Association has likewise been recognised by the Commonwealth insofar as the Commonwealth has been making grants to it so that it might carry on its work. For instance, the grant made to the Association in 1969-70 was $14,800 and as additional provision has been made by the Commonwealth to enable the Association to carry, out particular research projects in the field of preschool education. The branch of that Association with which I have had some contact due to the Association's concern that Federal members of Parliament should be aware of its activities is, of course, the Victorian Branch, lt is interesting to look at some of the work that the Victorian Branch has been engaged in. It appointed a subcommittee to carry out a survey of the whole cross-section of pre-school education in Victoria, to look at the present situation, the needs and the best way in which those needs could be met. This sub-committee published its report in June 1970 and without going into ri in great detail I suggest that it is a very valuable exercise for honourable members to look at the report, the Association's assessment of pre-school education and the particular needs that the Association has identified. The first of the significant matters that has come out of that report is again this recognition of the importance of pre-school education. In its report the Association said: >Today it is being said that the crucial educational years are the first 5 years of life and that if certain learning does not take place during this period, the child may never fully make up the loss. It is vital that recognition and due attention be given to the important part which pre-school education plays in the total field of education. Without labouring the point, it is important to remember that pre-school education is, above all, laying these firm foundations for the child's subsequent educational experience. Secondly - and again this is a point particularly related to the need which this piece of legislation seeks to meet - we should note the emphasis that the subcommittee placed on the need for improved and expanded facilities. It carried out a survey and ascertained that there were some 70,000 pupils in Victoria who started primary education in the year in which the survey was conducted. It found that some 50 per cent of those children had received at least 1 year of pre-school education. I suppose that 50 per cent is not exceptionally high, but it is, I venture to say, better than in other States. The 50 per cent might not be particularly high but the objective that should be sought is, of course, 100 per cent. If pre-school education is recognised as being as important as it is then every effort should be made to provide adequate facilities so that every child has at least the opportunity, which its parents may or may not take up, to have that important educational experience. The facilities need to be expanded and improved and this piece of legislation will enable those facilities to be expanded and improved. A very interesting document that has been published recently is the report of Professor Karmel's committee on education in South Australia. In the chapter relating to pre-school education that report reveals a situation which is not very satisfactory in South Australia and the situation I would suggest, is not completely satisfactory in any of the other States. Some research work that I have done indicates that by taking a percentage of children between the ages of 3 and 5 years who are not attending infant schools and using that percentage as a basis to determine the percentage of children attending pre-schools in the various States, it is revealed that in Victoria this percentage is 28.23. That, I emphasise, is taking all children between the ages of 3 and 5 years. In Queensland the figure is only 8.11 per cent; in South Australia it is 15.44 per cent and in Western Australia it is 11.9 per cent. The situation is not very good in some of the States but it is fairly good in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory where, of course, the Commonwealth has particular responsibility. The need is there and I suggest that the Bill that we are considering will enable that need to be met and remedied. It provides some $2.5m for the provision of preschool teacher training colleges and it will enable the capacity to produce trained preschool and kindergarten teachers to be doubled. It is important to remember that this is a particular need that was identified by the Commonwealth's not just making its own decision about the matter but rather by consulting the State Governments, the local authorities, the colleges and all bodies and groups concerned with pre-school education. Their opinion, as expressed to the Commonwealth and accepted by the Commonwealth, is that it is in the area of pre-school teacher colleges that the greatest need existed. It is very commendable that the Commonwealth has seen fit to make this substantial sum of money available for the provision of more places in pre-school teacher training colleagues. The third area of -concern that the subcommittee of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Pre-school Association identified related to supervisors - not merely the teachers themselves but those highly trained and experienced pre-school and kindergarten supervisors who supervise the work of a group of pre-school centres or kindergartens. The sub-committee looked at the period 1963-69 and found that during that time there had been 223 additional pre-school centres established in Victoria. It also found that some 30 to 40 new pre-school centres were being established each year. But despite such a large increase in the 6-year period in the number of pre-school centres built, the number of supervisors available had not increased by one since 1963. It was for that reason that the sub-committee made a specific recommendation relating to the necessity for an increase in the number of supervisors available to carry out this important work. The sub-committee recommended as follows: . . that the ratio of centres to supervisor should be 20-30 Centres to each supervisor. It would be necessary for an additional 8 advisors to be appointed to establish a ration of 1 to 30 centres. The present load of 60 or more centres per advisor makes it impossible to provide adequate help for the Committee and teachers. That is another important area of need which the Committee identified as the result of its survey. Coming closer to home, let me refer to one of the particular training colleges mentioned in the schedule to the 1968 Act. I refer to the Melbourne Kindergarten Teachers' College. The Committee was able to identify the particular financial needs which that college had then and still has. The first of the important matters is that there is a need for recurrent funds to be made available. The Committee referred to the necessity for this money to be provided by the Commonwealth. That was the view of the Committee. It is not a view which should be accepted auto matically but, I suggest, it is a view that should be taken into account. It is significant that a body such as this, with wide and long experience in preschool education and in dealing with State governments and the authorities concerned with pre-school education, knowing the sources of finance available and where they have come from, should have recommended specifically that some considerations should be given to making recurrent grants available to the college by the Commonwealth. I trust that that is something which the Commonwealth will take into account and keep under consideration as it continues to look at the role of the Commonwealth in education in the years to come. The second of the particular needs related to bursaries. It was felt by the Committee that, at least as far as the Melbourne Kindergarten Teachers' College was concerned, more teacher bursaries should be made available and that they should be more valuable and brought up to par with the studentships made available by the Department of Education and Science for those persons who intend to undergo primary school teacher training. They are the 2 particular needs of the Melbourne Kindergarten Teachers' College which the Committee identified as the result of its survey. I hope that honourable members will look at the report that the Committee made as a result of its inquiries and look at the needs of pre-school education that still exist. 1 emphasise, as educational authorities have been emphasising for some time, that this is a very important field of education. I do not want to go over all the recommendations that the Committee made but I should like to refer briefly to a few of them in the time I have left to me. The Committee emphasised that adequate supervision of all pre-school centres is vital. It goes on to substantiate that statement by saying that at the present time there is not adequate supervision available in view of the lack of staff to carry out that important activity. It further said that the section of the Department of Health - which is the responsible department in Victoria - responsible for the supervision of pre-school centres in Victoria is understaffed and that there is a need for a substantial increase in the staff available. The Committee emphasised the work of voluntary committees and the fact that the voluntary committees do not receive sufficient financial support from the State and Federal Governments. It made a plea for further financial support from those governments. Without going into it in more detail, it is fair to say that the report is very analytical. It goes into the subject of pre-school education in Victoria in great depth. It identifies particular needs in pre-school education in Victoria. I compliment the Australian Pre-School Association on the work it has done in that regard. Let me go back to the Bill and say that it is substantially a machinery piece of legislation insofar as it post-dates the prescribed date within which the grants can be made under the legislation. It goes hand in hand with the principal Act which was passed in 1968 which makes a substantial sum of money - $2.5 - available for pre-school teachers' training colleges. This scheme of legislation shows that the Commonwealth recognises the importance of pre-school education in Australia. It is important for the long term education of all children in Australia. Without any equivocation at all I compliment the Government on introducing the legislation in the first place and certainly on introducing this particular piece of legislation which will ensure that all the money can be disposed of and to the very best advantage. {: #subdebate-29-0-s4 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I would like to speak briefly also about the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Bill. I must confess that I was intrigued to hear the reference to the former Prime Minister, the late Ben Chifley, in this connection as no-one has to make any apology for the great interest displayed in a very practical way by his government. One should not talk in retrospect on occasions like this, but I would remind the honourable member for Diamond Valley **(Mr Brown)** that it was the Chifley government that was responsible for the introduction of the post-war reconstruction training scheme and which laid the plans for the extension of the university scholarships scheme to secondary education. I would remind the honourable gentleman also that for years after I came to this Parliament in 1955 I heard the then Prime Minister, **Sir Robert** Menzies, ridi culing the idea that the Commonwealth had any obligation in educational matters at all. Invariably he invoked the Constitution as an impregnable barrier which would prevent the Commonwealth from playing any part in pre-school, primary, secondary or technical education. For that matter, if it had not been for the fact that he went to London and had a scotch on the rocks in the Savoy Hotel with **Sir Keith** Murray, I doubt whether we would ever have had an inquiry into secondary education in Australia. It is to the eternal credit of **Sir Keith** Murray that he was able to persuade the reluctant **Sir Robert** Menzies to interest himself in these matters. I want to remind the House that the original Act - the States Grants (PreSchool Teachers Colleges) Act of 1968 - empowered the Government to make grants of up to $2im to the States for allocation to pre-school organisations for capital projects. This Bill is a consequential one. It is to extend the time in which those grants can be made. The Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** said that the Bill is aimed at doubling the capacity for the training of pre-school teachers in Australia. One cannot be certain that that declared intention can be fulfilled, for it takes a lot more than buildings to facilitate the doubling of the number of pre-school teachers. Regrettably, even if this is achieved, the demand growth is such that no real progress will be accomplished. The shortage of teachers in pre-school education will be even greater than it was before. The fact is that State Governments have no financial capacity to alleviate this problem of the unavailability of adequate pre-school facilities and opportunities throughout Australia, because they lack the taxing power. This Government, which has the taxing power, up to this point of time has shown no inclination to accept the responsibility to underwrite the States' pre-school education programmes. Many matters have to be taken into account besides the capital cost of buildings. There is a need for residential facilities, for scholarships, for equipment and for finance to cover the cost of administration. I was interested to read a Press release on 20th February 1970 made by the then Minister for Labour and National Service on this subject. He gave an indication of the results of a study of the pattern of child care centres throughout Australia. It contained remarkable revelations. For example, it revealed that 14,000 children attended 555 registered full time day centres in Australia. The Minister said that this was consistent with the statistician's findings that 18,500 children were in parttime or full-time centres. The release went on further to say that 200,000 mothers in the work force had 250,000 children under 6 years of age. Yet only 7 per cent of these children were in child minding centres. One wonders what is happening to the rest of them and about the extent to which, they may be neglected or relegated to the care of people who may not want them. When we go on to look at more of these impactive statistical facts we start to get an even greater shock. New South Wales has 252,000 children in the 2 to 5 year age group. There are 17,000 of these attending pre-school education facilities; that is, some 7 per cent of all those eligible are having the benefits of pre-school education. It is remarkable that in the United Kingdom, which is hard pressed and which is said to be in a bad way, on its knees, the Plowden report is to be implemented, and the Government is working steadfastly towards the end of achieving an enrolment of 90 per cent of the eligible children for pre-school education. Sweden, we are told, has 56 per cent of eligible children enrolled. In the Australian Capital Territory 36 per cent of eligible children are enrolled and 78 per cent of the 4 year olds are enrolled. That is the position in this privileged part of Australia, which I do not quibble about. It ought to be an effective guide to the Government of the kind of thing that should be done throughout the rest of Australia. In Victoria not 36 per cent of those eligible are enrolled but only 17 per cent. In South Australia only 14 per cent, and in New South Wales only 7 per cent of the quarter of a million children eligible for pre-school education are enrolled. To bring New South Wales up to the standard of the Australian Capital Territory, 3,500 extra teachers will be needed, according to the authorities. When one looks at the extent to which pre-school education is subsidised per head of population one will again see in a vivid way the disparities that operate throughout this country - a state of affairs for which this Government clearly must accept responsibility. If it accepts any responsibility about this matter, if it is to underwrite, surely its job is to ensure that its responsibilities are discharged in full. In the Australian Capital Territory we subsidise pre-school education to the extent of $1.82 per head of population. In Victoria the subsidy is 57c, in South Australia it is 45c, in Western Australia it is 21c, in Queensland it is 8c, and in poor old New South Wales it is 6c per head. That is to say, assistance is given in the Australian Capital Territory at a rate that is 30 times higher than that in New South Wales. If that sounds like an equitable arrangement or anything approaching justice, it could have fooled me. lt often costs more in New South Wales to send a child to kindergarten than it does to send a student to university. Whereas the cost of a 3 year arts course in the University of New South Wales averages $6.80 a week, charges at most kindergartens in that State are between $5 and $10 a week. Many of these kindergartens are little more than child minding centres with hardly any educational content. The incidence of untrained staff is extremely high, and buildings and equipment are often inadequate. According to the Bureau of Census and Statistics, over 100,000 Australian women are willing to go to work and want to go for economic reasons, but many are prevented from doing so through the cost or unavailability of pre-school education facilities. I am not advocating by any means that women should have to go to work but it is an economic necessity for many women at the present time, and that this is the barrier to their employment is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. How can a woman with, say, 2 children find the incentive to go to work if she has to pay $20 a week for the care of her children at a pre-school education centre? Nevertheless in many areas there are long waiting lists and many parents have to book children into various types of centres months and even years ahead if they want to get them accommodated. What has happened to the announcement made by the Government in February last year that the Commonwealth would set up a network of child minding centres throughout Australia? In any case what sort of quality characteristics will these centres assume if they ever get off *the* ground? Will they be staffed by trained personnel? Where will the staff come from? Will there be sufficient trained in the centres to be established under this legislation? Will these centres compare with the excellent centres conducted by the Lady Gowrie organisation, the Kindergarten Unions and such bodies as the Sydney Day Nursery Association? Will they be child minding centres or centres properly oriented to education? Pre-school education, as the honourable member for Fremantle said, is the Cinderella of the education system. Predominantly it is the children of middle class families who have the benefit of pre-school education. This is certainly the case in Sydney. To the extent to which Sydney has these centres, they are substantially located on the northern side of the harbour bridge, and out in the southern suburbs and in the western sprawl it is a matter of catch as catch can. There is very little public financial support for these centres and so the families have to make very substantial sacrifices if they want their children to get the benefit of pre-school education. Economic barriers stand in the way of conferring these benefits on the impoverished social group not only in Sydney but in almost every part of Australia. I would like to know what is this Government's philosophy about this total question of pre-school education. Does it think that pre-school education is good or does it think that it is bad? Is it regarded as a necessary and essential prelude to primary education? If the answer is in the affirmative, we can start to realise how the Government is letting the side down and how much more it ought to be doing instead of talking about a miserable, infinitesimal sum of $2im which is taking years and years to spend. What is the Government's view about whether or not pre-school education ought to be in the public system? Should expansion of pre-school education be undertaken under the umbrella of the public education system, or should it be left to private enterprise? We see the Blue Wren chain of pre-school facilities and the Donald Duck system in some parts of the world. This is a great commercial activity. What is the Government's intention? Does it want to thwart and stop this exploitation of the educational needs of children, or does it want to make it a part of the education system? Apparently there has been no application of thought to the important matter of who should meet the cost of teacher training and of teacher salaries and the capital cost of buildings and equipment. Apparently this has never been sorted out properly. Who pays the bill? Should this educational opportunity be available to families with or without direct charge, or should it be a charge on the public purse and based on the principle of capacity to pay through the utilisation of the uniform taxation system, which meets so many other educational requirements? In the preschool education system what is to be the role of the community, industry, local government authorities and State and Federal governments? I would like the Minister or some spokesman for the Government to indicate that some thought has been given to any of these matters. When will a blueprint of objectives be formulated, propagated and practically supported by the Government of Australia? The principal Act which this Bill seeks to amend provides up to $2im for capital works. In New South Wales this provides for a new college for the Sydney Day Nursery Association and a new wing on the old college of the Kindergarten Union. In every other State one institution is assisted. There are the teacher training buildings. The big question is: Teachers for where; teachers for what? To where will these teachers go when they are trained? The organisations which I have mentioned are struggling to meet the SO per cent wage increase granted to pre-school teachers. These organisations can do little about injecting capital into kindergarten building or into a programme providing a network of buildings that are required throughout the Commonwealth, or employing the army of trained teachers who are desperately needed throughout Australia Up to date industry has done practically nothing in this regard. In fact, according to the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch),** only 2 registered full day child care centres have been provided by employers in Australia. The aims of most of the organisations - the beneficiary organisations which are listed in this Bill; and I have checked through their objectives - involve the following factors: They want pre-school experience for all. So far many of these organisations such as the kindergarten unions and so on are intent on meeting the needs of the socially deprived and afflicted. They are unable to spread their service throughout the region or the country at large. They want pre-school experience for all 3 to 5-year olds whose parents require it and acceptance of Government responsibility for the teacher training programme. They want the Government to meet the full salaries of all trained teachers who graduate from a recognised college. Further, they want capital grants to establish more centres. It probably costs a minimum of $30,000 or $40,000 to set up a centre for some 25 children. Is this to be relegated to young communities where young couples are confronted with paying off their homes and establishing their families? The kindergarten unions want grants for kindergarten teachers college administration and supervision and scholarships or bursaries for students. They point out some of the problems. There is a desperate shortage of staff and accommodation; there are inadequate salaries; and some States have no awards at all covering this field. In some States there are terribly ad hoc arrangements. Some States have no legislation covering pre-school education centres. Further, there is an incredibly high staff wastage rate because there is more attractive employment outside and as a result there are very limited promotion opportunities. Overseas there are very significant new trends in this field. There is a change in emphasis from the social development of a child in kindergartens and pre-school centres to the intellectual development of children. There is the development of the concept that disadvantaged children should receive compensatory pre-school training. As I mentioned earlier the United Kingdom is giving effect to the Plowden report that pre-school training should be available to all children over 3 years of age. In the near future the authorities in the United Kingdom expect to attain a 90 per cent response. In the United States of America under Project Head Start', the Economic Opportunity Act 1964 provides pre-school oppor tunities plus medical and dental care as well as proper nutrition if necessary. That legislation also provides for a full year compensatory education programme plus an 8 weeks sum up programme for children prior to entering full time education. The Federal Government of the United States meets up to 80 per cent of the expanse in any community and in poor communities it meets the entire cost. I want to say that for a long period the Opposition has declared its intention of doing something more useful in this regard. I conclude by saying that the Opposition stands for this: For Government responsibility for education, including the obligation to ensure that pre-school education is available for every child; The Commonwealth to establish an Australian preschool commission to define and examine regularly the aims of pre-school education and to recommend grants which the Commonwealth should make to the States to ensure that pre-school centres are located, staffed and equipped on the basis of needs and priorities. Only with the implementation of this kind of programme in which the Commonwealth takes the initiative can this problem which has been neglected so much and suffered by so many, be effectively overcome. {: #subdebate-29-0-s5 .speaker-KU8} ##### Dr SOLOMON:
Denison -- We appear to be ringing the changes on these 2 cognate Bills. I want to speak mainly on the Bill concerning technical education. I hope not to be very long because I do not feel that this Bill requires a great exhibition of fervour in relation to the matters which are involved. However, under this Bill we are talking about 400,000 students who are involved in technical education in Australia. Of that number something like 8,000 students are in 11 or 12 colleges in Tasmania. I think it is fair to say, as was very thoroughly explored, if not said in the same words by the honourable member for Fremantle **(Mr Beazley),** that technical education in the history of Australian education has been a very decided poor relation. That fact has been recognised in recent years to the extent that we have now a continuing programme of assistance to the field of technical education. But there certainly remains a situation which I think is of vital consequence to this country; that is, a situation wherein the untrained man has probably never been at a greater disadvantage. Given the fact that not everyone either has the capacity or the will, even if the physical means are there, to take on what is normally called an academic line of training, the importance of technical training assumes an even greater role in our total educational spectrum. I think the honourable member for Fremantle was very right in drawing attention to the origins of our educational philosophy and the fact that we follow far more the English line of thinking and training than in fact the Scots. It may or may not be that our lack of history of educational development in the technical field stems from that choice or following of origins. However, the situation remains that we have a continuing, and certainly not lessening, need for training in this field. The honourable member for Fremantle raised a number of social issues of quite wide connotation which depend on that particular discussion of philosophy and origins which I do not wish to explore at this time although they might well be explored during some other debate. The need for technical skills I think is not merely one in which we need to train people to do particular jobs of a largely physical nature in a skilful way. Certainly, that is necessary, as I do not think we could reasonably claim that this country has a tradition of very skilful workers with their hands. The best workers of this type that we have had lived a long time ago and probably put up some of the very fine stone buildings that we find in parts of this country, notably in Tasmania. These workmen were skilled in crafts which have practically long since gone. This is the sort of thing which has not been very much in the ethos of Australian education - certainly not at. these levels - in recent times. It is not only a need to work machines well or to learn new fields such as electronics and that sort of thing. There is also a need for those people coming in at the bottom level of technical training to develop both their skills and their personality capacity to become very good foremen. If honourable members opposite occasionally suggest that there is some lack of managerial skills in this country I think that we should at once identify a very decided lack of skills both of the sheerly technical kind and of those that can lead others at that level of operation in Australia. I believe that Australia is very much lacking in the capacity to get the best out of workmen of a basically skilled nature by their fellow workmen who are in a position of some authority and leadership. Therefore, anything we do in this sphere towards creating a greater pool of skills among the substantially working tradesman type of population from which can be drawn - and with greater possibility - good men to lead in these fields, T think, will be something very well done. Mention was made by the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** in his second reading speech of the Tregillis Mission which went to Europe to look into the field of technical education. The mission's report, of course, is very comprehensive and long, and it makes interesting reading. It is one which I think the Minister suggested in his speech has not yet been possible to implement, but it has been widely viewed and studied by those in the appropriate areas. I look forward with some hope to at least the transfer of the knowledge which that report contains and to the possible adaptation of some of the things which it suggests; they hold considerable promise for the further development of technical education here. In connection with this Bill I should like to put on record the fact that in Tasmania 2 colleges currently are involved in the total moneys made available under the Bill. The figure involved totals for Tasmania about $ 1.14m and it concerns 2 schools in the third and fourth population centres of the island. At Burnie a figure of about $1.3m from the previous period is involved and tenders are to be called next month for the trade complex at the Burnie Technical College. I think that tenders for the site works have been let already. Funds are available for consultants in the further development of this college. At Devonport $601,500 has been expended on the first stage which has been completed and is now occupied. The second stage is about to commence and about $430,000 of funds is involved. The second stage is expected to be completed in January 1972. While in some areas of education we can report difficulties of implementing plans to spend the money available, this is not so of those colleges in Tasmania. In fact I am happy to report that administrative and programming difficulties are either non-existent or minimal. Everything is going well and the local authorities are happy with these 2 particular developments. I understand that this is at some variance with the general implementation of technical education grants which the Government has made available over the past 7 or so years. In fact I believe that the main difficulty in the implementation of this programme has not been the lack of funds, as honourable members opposite sometimes suggest, but is related to the capacity of the States to plan a programme of construction in such a way that progress on their various projects and, consequently, expenditure from the funds available are maintained at an even and appropriate level throughout the triennium or the period involved. It is rather nice to see that in Tasmania that problem is not being met. 1 shall say no more at this stage about the field of technical education other than that it is clearly a deserving field. The increase from $10m to $12m per annum for the States as a whole is to be commended and I hope it will continue to produce the skills which are so needed. Pre-school education opens up a considerable field for social commentary. The honourable member for Hughes **(Mr Les Johnson)** already has spoken on that front. I have no intention of taking him up on his comments point by point, nor do I propose exploring the field of pre-school education from start to finish. Basic interest in this field arises from a growing body of evidence, of not very distant origin, which is showing with little doubt that children of the ages from 3 to 5 years have a far greater capacity to learn than was ever thought possible, in general terms at any rate, by the general public or, for that matter, by educationists. I found the penultimate remark - I think it was - of the honourable member for Hughes most interesting in this regard. He drew attention to the fact that in some areas overseas - I think he mentioned Great Britain particularly - there has been a change in training at this very low level from social to intellectual training. That, I think, is implied or should be implied in the whole concept of providing some degree of formal education at the pre-school level, but I wonder whether the honourable member for Hughes and others of his colleagues have taken their thinking any further on that particular front because, as I understand it, their counterparts in Britain, if not in the Australian Labor Party in Australia, have joined the ranks in championing the concept of comprehensive education. If comprehensive education stands for anything, in my view it stands for a considerable involvement in social training as well as, and sometimes in substitution for, intellectual training. I suggest that members opposite might take their thinking into the next level of education. If it is generally agreed that intellectual training is desirable at the 3. to 5-year-old level, I should think it very hard to make a case for any diminution in intellectual training at some higher level of education. That is not to gainsay that some degree of social involvement is not useful. The basic point is that young children, 3 to 5 years old, are capable intellectually and mentally of taking aboard a lot of reasonably formal training. By whatever skilful means that training may be transmitted they are, in fact, capable of learning a lot. The object of this Bill substantially is to provide teacher training for that purpose. The honourable member for Hughes questioned whether the Government thought that the whole area of pre-school education was good or bad. I do not know how rhetorical his question was meant to be but I should have thought that the very fact of the Government making available funds for this particular area of education, which has only recently been recognised as deserving of considerable government involvement, would have answered that question. The Government thinks that it is a good thing. He also asked questions about teachers for where and what. Perhaps if we opened up the whole field of pre-school education that would be fair comment. Clearly it is no good having teachers if there are no schools. It is worse to have schools with no teachers. I should have thought that in the general context of shortages, real and imagined, in the whole process of education questions about teachers would not require much answering in practical terms. It may be thought, and it still can be said, that the Government has not entered upon this field in as thoroughgoing a fashion as might be desirable. I think the same is true of any field of education at any time. It would be unfair to suggest that preschool education is other than a beginning field - a field which is just being developed for the reasons that I mentioned earlier. It does, of course, raise the major social issue of just where children aged between 3 and 5 years can best be trained. A number of members from both sides of the House have expressed the view in passing, or more centrally, from time to time that it is difficult to find a substitute for the home. It is also well established - and probably increasingly so as time passes and educational psychology develops - that the mother is the central figure in a young child's life and if she has the capacity to transmit not only love and affection but also something of a basically intellectual kind, so much the better. But the plain fact remains that not all mothers are, at least in any formal sense, capable of transmitting, much less trained to transmit, in any sort of defined area in any meaningful, efficient or educational sense, a body of information equivalent to the capacity of her child, or for that matter somebody else's child, to absorb. Hence a case can be made, irrespective of one's social attitudes in this matter, for some body of formalised pre-school education. This, as we have said earlier, is recognised and it is obviously something which will develop further. I think, however, that I would prefer to leave this to another time and perhaps to a debate on a somewhat slightly different Bill. The question at large of social attitudes and social influences in this area can, of course, open up a whole gamut of possibilities between the wholesale creches of the Soviet Union and our hitherto held concept of a young child's place being in the home with the mother. I commend both these Bills to the House as, in fact, the Minister has long since done. {: #subdebate-29-0-s6 .speaker-DRW} ##### Dr JENKINS:
Scullin -- I wish to make only passing reference to the States Grants (Pre-school Teachers Colleges) Bill. I must admit to some degree of agreement with the honourable member for Denison **(Dr Solomon)** that on the question of a pre-school child the home is probably the best training place, but with the qualification that the home is economically and domestically stable. Unfortunately in many instances this does not apply. I welcome the additional money which will be made available for the training of pre-school teachers because I hope that they may help to solve some of the problems in our community today. These teachers may be used to staff creches which not only educate the children but care for them in other ways because there are special groups that require this help. I refer to special groups such as the deserted husband who is often in a dreadful position. He is left not only with young children to care for but often with very high debts, hire purchase and so on which his wife has left behind. Another group is the deserted wives, widows and unmarried mothers, all of whom often have to find sources of employment to be able to provide for their children and keep the family together. At present in many cases they have to use the private child minding centres which, in the main, are expensive and do not have adequately trained personnel. The other factor, of course, is that there is an increasing number of married women who, for their own economic need or because of their interest in following a trade or a job, wish to go out into employment. There is also an increasing demand by industry and institutions for the employment of married women. For example, in the electorate of my colleague, the honourable member for Burke **(Mr Keith Johnson)** a large factory - Ericssons Pty Ltd - has found it necessary to set up a creche for the female employees because it needs the women in its work force and to attract them it must provide facilities for the children to be cared for. Hospitals are in much the same position in attracting married nursing staff back into nursing. I instance 2 hospitals in Victoria, the Alfred Hospital and the Preston and Northcote Community Hospital. In order to get adequate nursing staff, they have had to set up creches or pre-school centres. So in this sense the provision for training of a greater number of pre-school teachers will be a great help. I want to spend most of my time in this debate dealing with the question of technical training and the provisions of this Bill relating to funds for building and equipment for this training. Here I disagree with the honourable member for Denison who said that perhaps the debate on this should be deferred until some other time. I believe we should give to this Bill a great deal of importance, representing as it does the continuation of a scheme that started in 1964. We should look at it as it reflects a great deal of educational change which has been forced on governments and the community because of the rapid technological advancement taking place in the community today. I believe the honourable member for Denison outlined quite well some of the reasons for expansion. Indeed, he covered the affairs of his own State rather well, but I deplore his suggestion that only those of lower academic attainment should be those who go into the technical training scheme. I do not believe that this should be so. 1 believe there is a place for the intellectually able and that more and more of them should be taken into the technical stream. In fact, this sort of attitude on the part of educationists, particularly in the primary field, to divide them into 2 groups, those who intellectually attain and those who do not and then send them on to technical schools, has been one of the things that has held back the development of technical training. As one who has spent many voluntary man hours serving on technical, high school and university councils in the last 15 years I feel that I have some experience from which to speak. It is not my intention forcefully to criticise the Government. After all, it would only lay the blame on the States or the lack of trained technical teachers and there may be some validity in that argument. Rather I want to look at subjects relevant to, and ask appropriate qualitative questions on, matters of technical training and its expansion to which these grants may be applied and for which they may need to be increased in the future. These questions are meant to invoke these thoughts: How are the amounts of these grants determined? How do we know the basic information that will give us an idea of the needs of the States? How are the grants related to the needs? How are the needs determined? How do we know what amounts are necessary? I reiterate the quotation from the speech of the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** by the honourable member for Fremantle **(Mr Beazley).** The Minister said: >In determining this level of assistance the Government has taken into account likely increased pressures on technical training facilities arising from demands of such schemes as retraining of married women and retraining of farmers displaced under the rural reconstruction scheme and from the public service and industry for higher technician courses, which could have an effect on the programme of the States. I would have thought that the words 'could have' were too mild. I think 'will have' is the term which is most appropriate and which should have been used. If we add to this the general quotation from the publication 'The Secondary School at Sixes and Sevens' it is relevant. It reads: >In a real sense the secondary school has become an institution for holding adolescents until the labour market is ready to receive them. The technical society demands more mature and adaptable, if not more skilled entrants into the work force. While it may be held that the latter quotation applies particularly to high school more than to technical training, I would direct the attention of the House to the evidence of increased participation and retention of students in technical schools mentioned in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education in South Australia 1969-70. At page 59 it reads: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . in other words, 70 per cent of the observed increase in the number of senior students aged 16-18 years is attributable to rising retention rates. Then on the following page it states: >Technological progress is producing an industrial structure which requires an increasingly skilled and sophisticated work force; and employers are demanding higher educational standards of applicants for jobs. Schools are offering an increasing number of courses to suit the differing aptitudes, ability and needs of pupils. On page 66 of that report we see the differential in retention rates between high schools and technical schools. There is a vast difference between the two in that in 1964 from the 11th grade to the 12th grade the high school retained 39 per cent while the technical school retained only 3.6 per cent. Four years later the figure had risen to 50.3 per cent for high schools and 15.6 per cent for technical schools. I think this shows that the retention in technical schools is rising quite dramatically. The need for definite steps to alter the difference in retention rates between metropolitan and country schools, as shown in this report, is quite real. We may never remove this barrier because of the lack of large country industries, but by the use of residential accommodation which could bring small numbers of children from country areas for training and then send them back into the smaller industries which may exist, these grants will make a vast difference. The need for vocational training for dropouts and misfits is another factor that could be added to the need for technical training expansion. AH this indicates a rather wider range than one would believe the term technical training should be applied to, yet much of this is included, as was indicated by the Minister. At a State level - and as a former member of a State Parliament I am pleased to see this - the grants for the buildings and equipment necessary for the technical training do not require matching amounts from the States. There are instances where matching grants must be applied to preserve proper development. However, in this case the field is expanding so much in regard to persons requiring training and where the needs pressure from employers is constantly changing that I welcome the different schemes for development in the different States. A very flexible system is required in technical training to allow this flexibility and there is still much experimentation to be done in teaching as well as in the layout and design of buildings and the equipping of such buildings. It is a great pity that the recent Australiawide survey on needs in the fields of primary, secondary and teacher education did not include technical training or that an inquiry that dealt exclusively with this area was not held. It is relevant to these grants for a number of reasons. The Minister indicated that the conclusions of the Australian tripartite mission to study methods of training of skilled workers in Europe were under consideration. I suppose that language difficulties must arise here. He also commented that the Commonwealth, the States, employers and trade unions are discussing the possible action needed to improve the training of skilled workers who form such an important part of the Australian work force. This is important because there is a degree of conservatism in each of those organisations when it comes to retraining of specific groups, and particularly to recognition of skills and training acquired overseas. While I accept the Minister's statement that the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** is much affected by these inquiries I feel also that the Minister for Immigration **(Dr Forbes)** must have a continuing interest because of certain criteria his Department applies for admission. I must also raise the question why the accent is necessary only on the European migrant. What of the skilled nonEuropean migrant? What of the slow progress that is being made in the recognition of both overseas trade qualifications and profesisonal qualifications? Further questions on technical training must arise out of the reports of the various committees which sat during the 1950s and early 1960s which, amongst other things, indicated the need for more university places on the technical side. For example, Monash University was originally set up to give more training on the technological side in the faculties of science and engineering - even bearing the name Monash because of **Sir John** Monash's great contribution to technology in Victoria and, indeed, Australia - yet this university from its first intake in 1961 has had the overwhelming number of its students in the humanities courses. Did the increase in numbers desiring to do technical training either at diplomate or trade level cause this? Was it that more students and employers wanted training to be in narrower fields requiring developed technical skills? What is the answer? So far as is known there has been no serious study in this area. Is there a mechanism by which we can find out the answer to this question and others involving technical training? That many people desire narrower fields of training is not doubted. Unfortunately, in many areas provision is not made for them. Let me cite computer programming courses or sales courses that are run privately by snide operators at very high fees where the training is of low standard and insufficient for those trained by these crooks to get jobs. What numbers are involved? What numbers are wasting their time and money in these endeavours to get technical training? The retraining of married women and displaced farmers has been the proper subject for debate in the House in the past and is acknowledged as portion of the task these grants are meant to serve. What of the school dropout and social misfit? Has consideration been given to him in the expansion of technical training? I understand a seminar is to be held in Canberra shortly to discuss vocational training for these and other groups. I hope some of these technical training grants may be directed to their benefit. The federal law of the United States of America requires a certain percentage of physically handicapped people and dropouts to be employed, particularly by the larger corporations where the work force at each plant may be from 10,000 to 30,000-odd. We do not have plants approaching this size. So much of the responsibility must then reside with the Federal and State governments. The physically handicapped are trained and placed in employment separately from the technical training area. However, dropouts who are probably immature when they leave school may later acquire maturity for a variety of reasons - perhaps marriage may be one of them - and through efflux of time. We saw this in the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Training Scheme. So many men whose performance at school had been poor, given war service and 3 or 4 years more maturity, came back, matriculated and did excellent university courses. But this is looking at it on a higher level. Is h too late for them? There is need for % mechanism for training, and retraining. Perhaps the Commonwealth should look at its technical training grants in order to stimulate this. 1 did visit one large United States corporation which had this scheme going. The officers of the company and the medical officer, who had to examne these dropouts before they went in for their training, were very sceptical initially as to whether they could be brought back into technical training. They found that even very scruffy looking individuals who came in were providing an excellent source of semiskilled worker in the field after 6 to 8 weeks training. Residential accommodation may indeed be very important here for these dropouts. I hope that the States will give firm programmes to the Minister by the time the money for which provision is made in this Bill is available. I hope that the details of these programmes will be made available to the Parliament. If they are not made available formally, will the Minister agree to make a statement to the House when these programmes are confirmed? There are many other matters on which I would like to speak in dealing with this subject, but my time is fast expiring. I hope that these grants will be enlarged and continued in order to increase the scope of technical training. I hope that the grants will allow not only expansion but also innovation and experimentation, and that we will have an inquiry to ascertain what are the needs in this area. {: #subdebate-29-0-s7 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Luchetti:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-29-0-s8 .speaker-K5A} ##### Mr O'KEEFE:
Paterson -- I desire to confine my remarks in this debate to the Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance to the States for buildings and equipment for use in technical training. This Bill provides for capital grants to the States for the construction and provision of equipment for technical training purposes. It is pleasing to note that the Bill covers assistance not only to technical colleges and trade schools but also to agricultural colleges and rural training institutions. Funds are to be allocated to the States on a proportion related to State population, and I *think* that this is a very fair basis for the allocation of such funds. The Bill provides for the expenditure of $36m over a period of 3 years, which is an increase of $6m over the allocation for the previous 3 years, under the same conditions. So it is good to see the Government increasing the amount of money to be made available in this field, which is very vital. This means that an increased amount of $2m per year for the next 3 years will be available to the States to enable them to provide facilities in the technical field. The limit of the grants to the various States is set out clearly in the Schedule to the Bill. We find that New South Wales is to receive $13,320,000, Victoria $10,030,000, Queensland $5,250,000, South Australia $3,390,000, Western Australia $2,870,000 and Tasmania $1,140,000. We are living in a technical era and assistance in this field of education is essential in the development of both secondary and primary industries. People with technical knowhow and qualifications are and will be urgently needed in Australia's future development. The Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** has made it clear in his second reading speech that the Commonwealth regards these grants to the States as being supplementary to the State's own efforts in providing adequate technical training facilities. 1 think that this is a very wise precaution because the States have their own funds which they can use in this field, and they can be assisted by these grants from the Commonwealth. There is no doubt that tremendous demands are being made by technical colleges for the provision of modern and uptodate equipment, and this demand will grow as Australia develops in industry, mining and agriculture. In all these fields great advances are being made productionwise and up-to-date training of fully qualified personnel is needed to keep up with modern techniques and methods. This Bill will help the States further to provide these requirements. It is noted, on examination of the information available, that the States have already submitted tentative programmes for use of the grants and that it is expected that these programmes will be firmed prior to this legislation being passed and becoming effective. The Minister in his second reading speech has made it clear that the New South Wales Government proposes to apply Commonwealth funds for the provision of facilities in the metropolitan areas of Strathfield, Granville, Brookvale, North Sydney and Liverpool and in the country areas of Wollongong and Coffs Harbour. However, New South Wales apparently has decided to seek the authority of the Commonwealth and the Minister to use funds from this source for an extension and expansion programme for the Tocal Agricultural College, which is situated in the Paterson electorate between the city of Maitland and the township of Paterson. This programme for the College has been well and truly publicised in the country Press and the metropolitan Press by the New South Wales Minister for Agriculture. I had the pleasure only last weekend of visiting this College, which consists of 5,000 acres of excellent farming and grazing land. It was originally controlled by the C. B. Alexander Trust, and the New South Wales Government took it over early last year with a promise to the Trust that it would implement a development programme as soon as possible. When the C. B. Alexander Trust controlled this College it found that owing to increased costs and associated problems it could not carry on efficiently and objectively. That is the reason why it approached the New South Wales Government. Further, when the C. B. Alexander Trust controlled the College it did not issue any diplomas or degrees, which of course was a disadvantage to the students attending the College. The major projects in the expansion programme are an agricultural engineering centre, a lecture hall with tutorial rooms, accommodation for students - male and female - a science laboratory and a library with audio-visual facilities. Also funds will be spent on essential services, such as roads and electrical facilities, and on buildings for the dairy and beef cattle sections and other works and services. I commend the New South Wales Government for using funds on this project. I have no doubt that the New South Wales Government will be applying for assistance for this College in the programme it submits to the Commonwealth Government and the Minister. I believe that the improvements to the College will be of great benefit to not only the Paterson electorate and the city of Maitland, but also to the nation as a whole. A very important part of the Bill provides for residential accommodation. The fact that one State in its programme under this Commonwealth grants Bill intends to spend $500,000 on providing such accommodation indicates that there is a need for accommodation for students and apprentices attending technical colleges. There is no doubt that this provision in the Bill will be extremely important to many States which have colleges situated in country areas, where students have to travel long distances in order to attend lectures and tuition. This has been my experience in the various country areas of New South Wales in which I have been active during my public life. This provision will be appreciated by the States as I know only too well that accommodation for technical college students has been a great problem for many years. In other States of Australia major projects of a technical nature have been nominated to the Commonwealth and to the Minister for funds to be provided under this Act. The need for financial assistance for the provision of additional technical training facilities is very much in evidence by the States' submitting early programmes in order to participate in the funds made available under this Act. With the technical era, with the tremendous advances in the various industries and in the fields that 1 have mentioned, it is very important that young Australians receive the best technical education that can possibly be given to them. I feel that under this Bill provision will be made along these lines and considerable benefit will accrue to the various States of Australia in this field. This Bill will be of great benefit to the nation. As one honourable member has said, these are straight out grants. They do not have to matched $1 for $1 by the States and this will be of great benefit to the educational facilities in the States in the funds they have available for the technical education field. I support the Bill and commend it to the House. {: #subdebate-29-0-s9 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo -- This Bill cannot be regarded as being of great significance. Its only importance is that it extends the period in which money will remain available for pre-school teacher colleges. What I would like to discuss is the importance that the Australian Labor Party gives to the right of all children to a pre-school education. We believe that all children should have a pre-school education because of the considerable educational benefits that it can provide. But of equal importance is the strategic role which we believe the pre-school can take in an assault on inequalities between children. Inequalities abound at every level of education in Australia. They reflect the divisions of wealth and class within our society and they are consolidated by a combination of governmental apathy and outright discrimination. For particular groups within the community, such as Aboriginals, migrants and handicapped children, the education system is a one-way street to frustration. For other large sections of the community progress through the education system is determined less by ability and the desire to learn than by parental wealth and social status. These inequalities can be abolished only by a deliberate policy of social and economic change and by an educational policy aimed not merely at giving equal opportunities to all but at giving greater opportunities to those whose needs are the greatest. One of the key instruments to be used by the Australian Labor Party in achieving these ends at the pre-tertiary level is the Australian Pre-schools Commission. The Australian Pre-schools Commission to be established by the Labor Party will serve both a general and a specific function. It will aim to provide a pre-school education for every child and to give early treatment to culturally disadvantaged children. A pre-school education must be regarded as a right of every Australian child. Its value is paramount for a society which is concerned with the social, emotional, aesthetic and intellectual growth of children. In the environment of the pre-school the door is opened to a wider range of creative and imaginative activities than is provided in the homes and neighbourhoods of many children. The pre-school provides both the outlet and the avenue for physical and intellectual growth which are essential to the healthy development of young children. The foundations which the child's home provides for growth as a social individual and for the development of reasoning and communication skills are reinforced in an atmosphere which makes learning a happy and rewarding experience. The growth of self reliance and social co-operation gives this educational environment in the preschool a value that scarcely needs emphasising. However, this value is barely recognised by governments. The Commonwealth's expenditure on pre-school education is less than microscopic, and represents an insignificant fraction of its total expenditure on education. The Commonwealth's educational blinkers limit its vision to the end products of the educational process. Substantial sums are spent on the minority who are fortunate enough to get to the tertiary level of education, but the Commonwealth makes no direct grants to the primary schools and only nugatory grants to the pre-schools where the formal educational process begins. Such limited preschool facilities as do exist in Australia owe more to the initiative and imagination of parents, charitable and voluntary organisations and municipalities than to the enlightened intervention of State governments. The assistance of State governments varies over a range from negligible to unsatisfactory. Only about 3 per cent of the children of pre-school age in New South Wales are attending pre-schools, while the figure in Victoria is approximately 30 per cent. By comparison the Commonwealth recognises the right of all children in the Australian Capital Territory to 1 year of pre-school education. Thus the chances of a child's educational opportunities are determined not in accordance with the principle of equality and the needs of the child but with the fortuitous circumstance of where he. happens to live. At the same time, the use by State governments of a subsidy system to assist parents and voluntary organisations to provide pre-school facilities results in the discrimination which characterises the later stages of education. The subsidy system means that a child's educational opportunities are determined not by his needs and not by the Government's sense of responsibility, but by the accident of where he happens to live. Thus pre-school facilities are most abundant and most satisfactory in wealthier residential areas, and most lacking in rural and inner suburban areas where the facilities are needed most. Thus we have the situation in Victoria referred to by the Maternal and Child Welfare Officer of South Melbourne Council, Doctor Dora Bialestock, who was quoted in the 'Age' of 14th November last year as saying that the largest portion of the Victorian Government's subsidy for preschools was going to the more affluent suburbs. She said that only 1 child in 7 in the working class suburb of Brunswick and only 1 in 5 in South Melbourne were receiving a pre-school education. The same situation can be seen in my own electorate where the number of schools in working class and rural areas is inadequate and where the schools have long waiting lists. Yet not even the more affluent sections of provincial cities and towns in Victoria have top-grade pre-school facilities. At the same time, the fees charged for pre-school education impose a special burden on families of low income. In Victoria, the average fee per term is $13 to $15 at least. In some places in Victoria and in other parts of Australia the fees are far higher. The simple fact is that preschool education should be recognised as a right of all children and, accordingly, should be free. But for many parents, the fees are prohibitive, and many children who could benefit most from a pre-school education are being denied the opportunity. It is clear now that pre-school opportunities for all children can be provided only with the assistance of the Commonwealth Government. The States are limited in their revenues, and only slight improvements can be provided by them on their own. The Commonwealth refuses to recognise its obligations. While it guarantees to all children in the Australian Capital Territory the right to 1 year of preschool education, the assistance which the Commonwealth gives to the States in the form of capital grants for pre-school teacher colleges if of only marginal assistance and reflects a sense of concern for the welfare of Australian children which is only slightly greater than English governments in the eighteenth century showed towards Dame Schools. But even worse, the sheer materialism of she Commonwealth Government now threatens to build up a system of Commonwealth subsidised day care centres for children, which I believe will have little to do with the educational needs of children. Many of such centres as exist at present ignore the personal, social and educational needs of children and are aimed principally at caring for children while mothers return to the work force. Many of the existing child minding centres breed boredom, insecurity, poor intellectual development, sometimes poor health, frustration and conformity. That is not merely my view. This is the view that was expressed by Phyllis Scott, in her chapter in a book entitled 'It's People That Count'. Only a Government which is concerned with profitability and productivity in the economy rather than the needs of children could finance the expansion of such a system. This materialism must be replaced by concern for the needs of children which will produce a system of pre-schools for all children, and which will help develop creative self-reliant responsible and cooperative individuals. At least the Government should ensure that if it does intend to subsidise child minding centres or day care centres - or whatever other terminology the Government cares to use - it will balance and co-ordinate the principal economic needs that it is catering for with the educational needs of the children. However, the Labor Party's Pre-School Commission will aim not only to ensure equal access for all children to a preschool education but also to discriminate in favour of those who are disadvantaged by the limitations of home environment. Children from low income families, migrant children, Aboriginal children and handicapped children are unlikely to be equal to others in the level of intellectual and social skills which they have achieved by the time they reach the primary school. The middle class Australian child has already received from his home environment the advantage of greater opportunities for communication, for social confidence, for creativity, for reasoning of the type required by the primary school, and for motivation to be successful. By comparison, the migrant or Aboriginal child faces the massive obstacles of differences between his national and racial cultures and the culture of the white Australian school. The physically, mentally or socially handicapped child faces specific disadvantages which will severely retard his educational growth unless identified and treated early. The child from a family of low income, low education and low occupational status by comparison with the middle class Australian child will not have reached the same level of development of his basic skills of language and reasoning. The disadvantages faced by all these groups of children will accentuate and accelerate throughout their school careers unless they are treated at an early stage. The first few years of education are critical to the attitude which a child develops towards the school and to the abilities he acquires and develops. It is essential that every child should be and feel successful, both at meeting the intellectual tasks set by the school and at being a self-confident individual and member of the school's society. Therefore, while catering for the child's social and personal growth, the schools must strive to maximise every child's ability to communicate, to understand, to concentrate, to create and to find pleasure and satisfaction in learning. The development of these abilities must be continuous. The pre-school level is clearly a strategic stage for identifying and starting to remedy the deficiencies of the disadvantaged child. The Australian Pre-Schools Commission will treat the remedying of handicaps suffered by disadvantaged children as one of its principal tasks. The traditional rofe of the pre-schools, according to **Dr M.** M. de Lemos, writing in the 'Quarterly Review of Australian Education' of June 1968, has been seen as 'providing mainly for the social and emotional development of the child'. The emphasis has been placed on creative and dramtatic play, and the schools' task has been seen as educating the 'whole child'. Learning is largely spontaneous through self-directed activity. The teacher's role is seen as responding to the child's needs rather than imposing guidance or instruction. The value of this role in catering for largely middle class groups of children has been considerable. However, experiments over the last decade - particularly in Operation Head Start and other American experiments - have also highlighted the potential of a supplementary or alternative role for the pre-school in developing the intellectual skills and abilities that are essential for later school achievement. The handicaps which the child's cultural environment cause and in which the greatest retardation generally occurs are in the reasoning and language abilities. These abilities are fundamental to success at every stage of later education. It seems apparent, therefore, that the learning situation provided for the disadvantaged child by the preschool must be structured specifically to develop those skills. This is not to say that such specific and directed learning should be the sole or whole content of his preschool education, nor is there any one definition as to exactly what the teaching methods to be employed should be. Overseas experiments have indicated a wide variety of methods, and further and continuing research is required in Australia. But what does seem clear is that specialised teaching is required in the skills in which the disadvantaged child is deficient. The alternative is to treat him as though he were equal to the more advantaged middle class Australian child and to keep the pre-school oriented towards the present combination of emotional and social development and self-directed learning. This alternative, however, would ignore the already substantial advantages of the middle class child and is likely to leave the disadvantaged child with the same relative handicaps with which he entered the pre-school. Pre-school education must be a national concern. It is no longer tolerable that its growth should be haphazard, unplanned and unco-ordinated, distributing benefits to the few and ignoring the rest of the many. Its future development is possible only with Commonwealth assistance and national planning. The Australian PreSchools Commission to be established by the Labor Party will ensure that Commonwealth moneys will be expended first in the areas of greatest need. Rural and inner suburban areas, where disadvantaged children are concentrated, would receive attention first. Acting as an agency of continuing audit for the Commonwealth and State governments, the Commission will also assess the needs of pre-school education as a whole and will make recommendations to the Commonwealth Government as to the priorities which must be met. A great variety of deficiencies retard the growth of pre-school education. These include, for example, insufficient teachers and teachers' aides, inadequate salaries and studentships and limited research and inservice training. One of the functions of the Commission will be to survey the areas of deficiency and to recommend which problems should be tackled first. Of equal importance, it will examine continually the philosophy of pre-school education and act as a stimulus to improvement and change by encouraging research and experimentation. I believe that pre-school education is a vital stage of a child's growth. It serves particularly a strategic role in remedying the disadvantages of certain groups of Australian children. It is for that reason that I am very concerned that both the Commonwealth and State governments have shown such little concern for preschool education. I believe that the problem now can only be tackled by the Commonwealth Government and that Commonwealth assistance must be based according to the needs of children themselves. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. {:#subdebate-29-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Fairbairn)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2272 {:#debate-30} ### STATES GRANTS (TECHNICAL TRAINING) BILL 1971 {:#subdebate-30-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 7 April (vide page 1590), on motion by **Mr Fairbairn:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. {:#subdebate-30-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Fairbairn)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2272 {:#debate-31} ### RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE FOR FOR ABORIGINAL STUDENTS, ALICE SPRINGS {:#subdebate-31-0} #### Report of Public Works Committee {: #subdebate-31-0-s0 .speaker-009MM} ##### Mr KELLY:
Wakefield -- In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, I present the report relating to the following proposed work: {:#subdebate-31-1} #### Yirara Residential College for Aboriginal Students, Alice Springs, Northern Territory Ordered that the report be printed. {: .page-start } page 2272 {:#debate-32} ### STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE BILL 1971 Bill presented by **Mr Lynch,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-32-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-32-0-s0 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is inter-related with the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill which also is before the House. I seek the concurrence of honourable members in dealing with them together. {: #subdebate-32-0-s1 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- There being no objection, that course will be followed. {: .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH: -- In these second reading speeches I will explain the background and reasons for each of the Bills. The Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act 1947-1967 provides for the assessment and collection of the stevedoring industry charge at rates prescribed by regulation under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act. Different rates are payable in respect of the classes of waterside workers. Class A waterside workers are registered regular waterside workers employed on weekly hiring at permanent or continuous ports who are eligible to join the Stevedoring Industry Employees Retirement Fund. Class B waterside workers are employed at continuous non-permanent ports and are eligible to participate in the Retirement Fund. Class C waterside workers are those employed at noncontinuous ports and include irregular waterside workers on Part B of the register at all ports. The Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1967 limits the rate of the charge payable in respect of employment of these three classes of waterside workers as defined in the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Act. The maximum permitted rates of charge under the Stevedoring Industry Charges Act are $17.55 per manweek, 80c per man-hour, and 55c per manhours for A, B and C classes respectively, and regulations under that Act at present prescribe for the charge to be levied at these maximum rates. Until 1967 the Australian stevedoring industry had been organised almost entirely on a casual employment basis. The Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority administered the labour force of waterside workers engaged in stevedoring operations through the registration system under the provisions of the Stevedoring Industry Act 1956-1966. The role of the Authority included such important functions as labour allocation, payment of annual leave, sick leave, long service leave and holiday pay as well as attendance money, transfer costs and subsidy of amenities such as waterfront cafeteria services. These commitments were met from revenue raised through the stevedoring industry charge. In 1967 the National Stevedoring Industry Conference, which was set up by the Government in 1965, recommended major changes in the industry including inter alia: {: type="i" start="i"} 0. A scheme for permanent employment of waterside workers in major ports; 1. A pension scheme to apply to regular waterside workers in all permanent and continuous ports; and 2. Arrangements to cope with anticipated redundancy in the industry. In particular the Conference report called for major changes in the role of the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority. The Authority's labour allocation functions were to disappear in permanent employment ports but it was to retain all its then existing functions in non-permanent ports. When the parties to the National Conference - the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Waterside Workers Federation, the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour and the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority - endorsed the report, the Government agreed to provide legislative authority to cover these and other matters. The enabling legislation was the Stevedoring Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act 1967, which was subsequently extended in operation, upon its expiry in June 1970, until 30th June 1972. Immediately before the introduction of the permanent employment scheme a uniform charge of 48c was levied on each man-hour worked by waterside workers in the industry. It was not practical to continue with a uniform charge when the new scheme came into operation as, for example, employers of weekly hire employees now had to carry at their own expense costs such as annual leave, sick leave and public holidays as well as administer their own labour allocation. In addition it was decided that the employers' contributions to the new pension scheme and the redundancy fund should be financed through the charge. Before the implementation of the National Conference scheme waterside workers who were available for work but not required to work received attendance money paid by the Authority from the proceeds of the charge. On the introduction of permanent employment it was recognised that waterside workers on weekly hiring under the Conference arrangements would be in a similar situation in being available for work but on occasions not required to work. The men concerned do not lose by this because they are on a weekly wage. Insofar as the employer was concerned it was decided that, whereas in previous circumstances attendance money would have been paid, the employer should be reimbursed from the charge for full shifts paid for when there was no work for the men. Attendance money payments continue as before for waterside workers who are not engaged on weekly hire and who are defined as classes B and C waterside workers. Prior to the changes in 1967 the basis for financing the stevedoring industry long service leave scheme through the charge was to provide funds only to meet payments on account of leave taken on a year to year cash basis. In 1967, when the components of the new charges were calculated, it was decided to convert the previous financing arrangements from a cash outgoing basis to one where a fund would be built up to enable sufficient money to be available to pay all long service leave as and when it became due. The Authority continued to administer the long service leave scheme. The conclusion reached in 1967 was that the major permanent employment ports should continue, as in the past, to contribute something to the costs in the remaining ports. The maximum rate set for class A waterside workers was therefore fixed at $17.55 per man-week under the 1967 legislation and regulations made under the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act at that time fixed the actual rate at $16.85 per man-week. The notional hourly rate was calculated at 48c, being the same as the pre-existing charge in the industry. The maximum charge in respect of class C waterside workers was fixed at 55c per manhour, only 7c higher than the pre- 1967 level, and this amount was determined on the basis of the additional money needed to finance the long service leave fund. At the continuous ports for class B waterside workers the maximum rate of 80c was 32c higher - 22c of this representing the pension, redundancy and long service leave items. The balance of 10c over and above the pre- 1967 charge represented a further contribution towards the cost in those ports. The regulations made in 1967 set the charges for both B and C class waterside workers at the maximum provided under the legislation. However, since the introduction of permanent employment in 1967 - when the original charges were determined and expected to cover the situation until June 1971 - costs have increased as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The weekly wage rate for class A waterside workers has risen from $50.50 per week to $67.40 as at 1st January 1971, because of flow-on of the metal trades margins decision, the national wage case including the last 6 per cent increase, and consent award increases granted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This represents an increase of 33.5 per cent in the ordinary award weekly rates for waterside workers since 1967. Over the same period the rate for a metal trades fitter has increased by 33 per cent. 1. In May 1970, under the Chairmanship of a Deputy President of the Commission, **Mr Justice** Moore, the employers, the ACTU and the Waterside Workers' Federation reached agreement on a number of matters which were awarded by consent. These included a weekly wage increase of $6.50, an extra week of annual leave (now 4 weeks) plus a 17i per cent loading, sick leave increased from 5 to 7 days per annum with no limit on accumulation (previously 2 years limit), in addition 3 days compassionate leave on the death of a close relative, increased meal money $1.25 (previously $1.00), and provision of personal issue of 2 pairs of overalls per year. 2. By previous agreement the rate of payment for annual leave had become the rate for long service leave entitlement and this commitment increased by 17i per cent foi- lowing the Moore Award. Since the introduction of permanent employment in 1967 the weekly rate of pay for long service leave has risen by 46.2 per cent. 3. Attendance money payable to casual classes B and C waterside workers increased by 11.3 per cent from S3. 10 per day in 1967 to S3.45 per day in 1970. 4. The cost of reimbursing employers of class A waterside workers for full shifts when their employees were available for work but not required to work has risen partly because of a 33.5 per cent increase in the minimum weekly rate of pay since 1967 and partly because of the increasing incidence of these shifts this financial year. I should point out that whilst the total waterside worker labour force has decreased from 20,140 in 1967 to 17,178 at the end of February 1971, the demand for labour over the past year or so has fluctuated quite markedly. The result has been that on occasions there have been large surpluses of labour available but not required to work. There are 2 basic reasons for this. One is the need to retain a labour force which is adequate to cope with the peak demands created by trade factors and shipping movements. The second is that the change from conventional to container and unit load vessels has not proceeded at a uniformly consistent rate. Accordingly the incidence of paid but un worked shifts has become the major item of expenditure from the charge revenue and as such is under close scrutiny by the Government. Every effort is being made to keep this factor within reasonable bounds but of course the fluctuations in trade and shipping movements have and always will be a determining influence on the actual level of the labour force required to service the industry. Because of the progressively increasing costs the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority has found itself unable to meet its financial commitments from the charge revenue. As an interim measure in mid 1969 the Authority reduced the amount paid to the long service leave fund by 2c per man-hour from that portion of the charge relating to the long term funding of the Long Service Leave Reserve in order to meet day to day expenditure. In October 1970 the Authority was forced into the position of suspending payments to the Long Service Leave Reserve Fund altogether and in addition some interest bearing deposits falling due from that fund reserve have not been reinvested but utilised to meet current expenditure. The cash reserves of the Authority were entirely exhausted in November 1970, and since the 1 6th October 1 970 it has been necessary for the Treasury to make advance payments of $800,000 each month to overcome the current deficits. As a further interim measure pending consideration of legislative changes the charge for class A waterside workers was increased by regulation to the maximum provided by the legislation of $17.55 per man-week, a notional equivalent of 50c per man-hour, as from the 15th February 1971. It is regretted that further increases in the charge are necessary particularly at a time when the Commonwealth is concerned to contain price increases throughout industry. They are needed to restore the financial position of the Authority in order to meet its commitments from the charge revenue and recoup the short-fall in the Long Service Leave Fund which has been eroded since mid 1969 in the ways in which I have just outlined. However it needs to be borne in mind that the charge rates fixed in 1967 have been held at those levels for 3 years during a period of rapidly rising costs in the industry. The increases now needed have come about because of the accumulation of arbitrated decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, other changes in wage rates and conditions of employment awarded with the consent of the stevedoring industry employers and the increased incidence of occasions when there is no work for the men. In fact an increase in charge rates has been specifically requested by the employers and they have indicated that it would be intolerable in their view to continue to allow the Authority to engage in the deficit financing of the financial commitments of the industry. In this respect it needs to be pointed out that the Australian Stevedoring Industry Authority is primarily acting as an agent for the industry's employers in channelling the funds from the charge back to them for pensions, redundancy and paid but unworked shifts. It might also be said that the Authority plays an agency role for the employers in its administration of the industry long service leave scheme. The employers, as they did in 1967, have again accepted that the financial arrangement for classes B and C waterside workers should be subject to some minor subsidy from the charge levied on the work performed by class A waterside workers. The increases in the charges proposed reflect approximately the same degree of subsidy as that fixed in 1967. To have done otherwise would have placed a disproportionate cost burden on employers in the non-permanent employment ports. The main purpose of the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill 1971 is to amend the Stevedoring Charge Assessment Act 1947-1967 to provide for a conversion of the charge for class A waterside workers from a man-week basis to a manhour basis. When the 1967 legislation was introduced the employers specifically requested that the stevedoring industry charge for class A waterside workers should be expressed as a weekly amount as all their records were being kept on this basis in respect of weekly hire employees. The then weekly rate of $16.85 was calculated on an assumed average working week, over a full year, of 37.4 hours. After allowance was made for authorised award absences in a year for annual leave, sick leave and public holidays, the notional hourly rate determined was 48c. At the present weekly rate of $17.55 the notional hourly rate would be 50c. Experience has demonstrated that the effective hourly rate of charge paid by individual employers varies according to the degree of labour utilisation and the weekly rate therefore has operated unfairly against those employers unable to obtain maximum utilisation of labour. Put another way, if an employer because of stevedoring contract commitments worked his men on average in excess of 37.4 hours per week the effective hourly rate of charge from the weekly levy of $17.55 would be less than 50c per manhour. Therefore the busier larger employer would be able to get all hours worked at a cheaper hourly rate and enter into con tracts to the disadvantage of other employers. The proposed change in the class A charge from a man-week to a man-hour basis has been recommended by the Association of Employers of Waterside Labour. Because of the proposed conversion of the class A charge to a man-hour basis the Stevedoring Industry Charge Assessment Bill also provides for consequential amendments to the principal Act to exclude the levying of the charge on specified manhours paid for by the employer but not actually worked by his waterside workers. These paid hours are almost entirely in respect of awarded annual and sick leave entitlements and shifts where waterside workers were available for work but not required to work. The purpose of the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill 1971 is to amend the Stevedoring Industry Charge Act 1947-1967 to permit the charge to be imposed at rates up to $1 per man-hour for class A waterside workers, $1.75 per man-hour for class B waterside workers and $1.20 per man-hour in respect of class C waterside workers. In 1967, the principal Act was amended to permit the respective charge rates to be fixed by regulation at a level not exceeding the maximum rates authorised by the Act. It is the Government's intention to declare as soon as possible by regulation that the new rates of charge be 65c, $1.20 and 82c per man-hour for classes A, B and C waterside workers respectively. These rates in the proposed regulation should be adequate to meet costs to 30th June 1972 and recoup the deficit in this financial year. Leaving aside the prospect of further increases in wage rates it can be expected there will be scope for some significant reduction when the past services benefits section of the pensions fund and the long service leave reserve have been fully funded and the labour force has been stabilised at an appropriate level following completion of the transition to containerisation and other forms of unit loading. In summary, **Mr Speaker,** since November 1967 the 33.5 per cent increase in the award rate of pay for waterside workers and other progressively increasing costs which I detailed earlier in my speech make it necessary for changes to be made in the charge rates. Debate (on motion by **Mr Charles** Jones) adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2277 {:#debate-33} ### STEVEDORING INDUSTRY CHARGE ASSESSMENT BILL 1971 Bill presented by **Mr Lynch,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-33-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-33-0-s0 .speaker-KIM} ##### Mr LYNCH:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Flinders · LP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. Basically this is a machinery Bill that stems from the changes in the Stevedoring Industry Charge Bill. I have already referred, in my earlier speech, to the principal changes made by this Bill. Having outlined the reasons for these measures relating to the stevedoring industry charge it is appropriate for me to touch briefly on some aspects of the stevedoring industry. In the course of these second reading speeches I have given details of the considerable increases in wages and conditions which have been awarded to waterside workers. The most recent major concessions were made in May 1970 when the parties were before **Mr Justice** Moore. As part of that consent 2-year award both the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Waterside Workers Federation gave a written undertaking there would be no stoppages of work in respect of those matters which were the subject of that agreement. In relation to other conditions of employment not covered by the agreement reached before **Mr Justice** Moore the Waterside Workers Federation gave an undertaking that it would progress all claims with the employers through established procedures and take all reasonable steps to ensure that work continued normally while these negotiations were in progress. It is common knowledge that since then some members and branches of the Federation have embarked on stoppages ranging from 1 hour to a full day on issues covered by these undertakings. I am informed that the ACTU and the federal officers of the Federation have done their utmost to ensure that the undertakings which they gave in the proceedings before **Mr Justice** Moore were honoured. I want to make 2 points perfectly clear. Firstly, the Government expects the undertakings to be honoured. Secondly, the Government will be giving close attention to the per formance of the Federation, its branches and its membership recognising they are one of the principal parties to the agreement. The parties to the National Conference Agreement can scarcely be expected to endorse a new agreement in 1972 unless branches of the Federation and their members can establish their bona fides in respect of the unexpired terms of the current agreement. It is to be regretted that the Federation in some branches has also become the vehicle, along with certain other maritime unions, whereby minority elements within the trade union movement have sought to convert industrial power into political action. In many instances strike action has been taken on a unilateral basis without the sanction of the ACTU or the Trades and Labour Councils. The performance of employers in the industry is not above criticism. In some instances unilateral concessions by individual employers have led to industrial stoppages when the Federation has sought to extend the gains made. In addition many employers have found it difficult to make the transition from the pre- 1967 casual system to permanent employment. In the Government's view the employers now have had sufficient opportunity to be able to take fully on themselves all the responsibility of the weekly hire system to which they are parties. The Government will be giving careful attention to the manner in which the employers at all levels administer these responsibilities. On the credit side it is fair to say that the technological changes which have occurred in the stevedoring and shipping industries since 1967 have been achieved with the co-operation of the Waterside Workers' Federation. This is in clear contrast to the experience of certain overseas countries where the stevedoring employees strongly resisted the introduction of new techniques. In Australia most of the disputation which has occurred has resulted from action by ancillary labour other than the waterside workers in these new areas. I stress that the Government views with serious concern the degree of industrial dislocation on the waterfront. The extent of this dislocation is clearly evident in the number of man-hours lost through strikes, which in 1969-70 were 1,072,592 representing 3.8 per cent of the total man-hours worked. This was the highest number of man-hours lost since 1964-65. The National Conference Agreement and enabling legislation both come up for review before the end of June 1972. The Government will be carrying out an intensive review of the permanent employment arrangements and the particular matters to which I have drawn attention. Its judgment on how the scheme has operated and what action should be taken for the future will be influenced by the performance of the parties. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by **Mr Charles** Jones) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.44 to 8 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2278 {:#debate-34} ### EXPORT PAYMENTS INSURANCE CORPORATION BILL 1971 {:#subdebate-34-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 22 April (vide page 1890), on motion by **Mr Anthony:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-34-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports -- The Opposition supports this Bill which, as the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr Anthony)** pointed out in his second reading speech, proposes one simple, though vital amendment, to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Act 1956-70, namely, that the maximum contingent liability which the Corporation may accept under contracts of export payments insurance and under guarantees be increased from $300m to $500m. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation is a highly successful enterprise and a very useful undertaking, having been established in . 1956. The amendment in this Bill is the fourth or fifth of a series of amendments, the purpose of which has been to increase the scope within which this organisation may operate. We on this side have always supported the Corporation and have suggested that it ought to have been given a wider ambit to enable it to handle other sorts of insurance. If EPIC, as it is known, had been given a wider scope this would have strengthened its reserves and would have enabled it to carry out its important task much more strongly than it does now. The main purpose of EPIC is to assist Australia's export industries. I want to quote a statement con tained in the 14th annual report of EPIC for the year 1969-70. It reads: >Epic's function is to encourage and expand trade with countries outside Australia by providing a specialised range of insurance and guarantee facilities not normally obtainable from commercial insurers. > >In performance of this function the Corporation is required to pursue a policy directed towards securing revenue sufficient to meet all its expenditure properly chargeable to revenue. At least the organisation has been successful, except in its earlier years. On the financial side it has continued to make a profit each year and also to expand the volume of business that it transacts. As we all know, Australia's future will depend to a large degree on the expansion of its export trade because it is primarily what is earned in export that conditions what we are able to import. Unfortunately Australia is still in the overall position that on an annual basis, taking into account all transactions - exports, imports, invisibles and so on - that if it were not for a capital inflow which over the last 10 years has aggregated nearly $ 1,000m for each of those 10 years, this country's balance of payments would be in an unfortunate situation indeed. We congratulate ourselves from time to time that at a certain point in the year, be it the 30th June or any other month, Australia's reserves are said to be $ 1,500m, $ 1,600m or $1 , 700m including the amounts that we have with organisations such as the World Bank. What that figure of reserves does not show when you look at it on the basis of a balance sheet analysis, is that we owe considerable sums of money overseas on Government account. There are 2 large economic powers - the United Kingdom and the United States of America - which have substantial holdings and assets in Australia. I think at present the combined equity of American and United Kingdom undertakings in Australia is somewhere in excess of $8,000m. When one adds to that Government indebtedness of somewhere in the region of $3,000m or $4,000m, then what appears to be the isolated asset of foreign exchange holdings is very small indeed. Australia is one of the countries that, relative to its gross national product, taking exports or imports as indicators of our gross national product, which is running at about $30,000m, has an export trade somewhere of the magnitude of $4,000m which is about 15 per cent or 16 per cent of the gross national product. That is a very high proportion of our total economic activity which is dependent on overseas trade. As I have indicated, Australia imports more in aggregate than it exports. The purpose of EPIC is to assist exporters in Australia who have to sell on a long term rather than a short term basis. If one looks at the way in which world trade is expanding, particularly the trade from what I call the advanced countries to the less advanced countries, or from the developed countries to the underdeveloped countries, one will see that it is in fields such as capital goods that there has been the greatest upsurge in activity. Also when one looks at the path of Australia's export trade that is assisted in this way - I have indicated that our exports are somewhere in the region of $4,000m annually - the path that is covered by export payments insurance is somewhere in excess of $300m which is about 10 per cent of our annual export trade. A comparison of this with the United Kingdom will show that the volume of transactions carried by this sort of organisation and by banking assistance is about one-third of the United Kingdom's export trade. Australia at least has a long way to go as far as this kind of transaction is concerned relative to our total trade. I think this points up significantly the directions in which we have to continue to move in the areas ahead. It is a welcome move that the contingent liability is to be increased from $300m to $500m. I hope that it will not be very long before the Government seeks the sanction of this House to raise that figure to $ 1,000m which will still not be a very large part of our annual overseas transactions. I think it ought to be recognised - I am sure it is recognised but perhaps without acknowledging the implications - that Australia lives in a part of the world where economic events are in a state of flux. We are inclined sometimes to think that we are still an outpost of Europe and that our traditional trading lines are with the United Kingdom and subsequently with the United States, when really our future lies in the expansion of trade in places such as Indonesia, South East Asia, the Philippines, India and other countries in that part of the world. It is perhaps significant that this week we are being visited by an important delegation from Japan. I want to quote one or two observations that were made in a fairly recent issue of the 'Economist' which is not a newspaper given to a wild kind of extravagant political statement. It is if anything a conservative journal. Only a few months ago in the issue of 21st November in the section titled 'Business Brief there is a heading which reads: The oriental economic imperialist is Japan. The article begins: >The Japanese economy is twice the size of all the other economies of Pacific Asia together, including Australia and New Zealand. Projections by the Japan Economic Research Centre suggest that the outflow of long term capital from Japan in 1975- that is 4 years from now - could be anything from $2,500m to 3 times that figure, as compared with $668m in 1969 Of course, whilst the Japanese economy is twice the size of all the other economies of the Pacific area, including those of Australia and New Zealand, one needs to bear in mind that per capita the Japanese standard is still not as high as that of either New Zealand or Australia. As the population of Japan exceeds 100 million people, that is, 8 times the population of Australia, and its gross national product, is $US200 billion compared with Australia's SUS33.5 billion, or 6 times greater, we are beginning to get near the point where Japan's per capita standard is almost 'hat of Australia's. But as we all know Japan has a much better record than we do in what is called productivity and it has a much better record in the expansion of overseas trade. The article goes on to state that because of the situation in which Japan, a small country with a large population, finds itself, it is dependent upon the rest of the world for supplies of raw materials. The article continues: >This is why the Japanese have roamed the world in search of raw materials; the quest has led them to Australia (coal, iron ore, bauxite), to possible oil fields everywhere, and al] over Latin America. Of course, we all know the significance of Japan now as far as the iron ore industry is concerned, but at the same time Japan is much more systematic in the expansion of overseas trade than is Australia. When we debated another aspect of this measure some 12 months or 2 years ago I mentioned that one of the reasons Japan is so successful is that there are closer relationships between Japanese industry and the Ministry of International Trade and Industry than there are between Australia and its potential exporters. I believe that in the years ahead unless Australia becomes as systematic in the pursuit of export trade as Japan has been - and I believe we can be just as successful as they are if we go about it as systematically as they do - but unless we do we will be left behind in the race for economic development in this part of the world. In many respects Australia is uniquely situated because of its historical traditions and because it was left with an advanced kind of economy - although in terms of its population crf 12.5 million it is still nowhere near as great as potentially it can be - but its future lies in greater diversification of its export sales. We have traditionally relied upon primary products. The latest annual report of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation states: >As the following table shows, manufactured goods for the first time, constituted more than half of all insured business (55 per cent). > >Steel and aluminium exports to a value of $50.3m were covered compared with $22.2m in the previous year. Prospects for further export expansion appear favourable. > >Other manufactured products which also showed good export growth wee textile piecegoods, engineering plant and electrical equipment and appliances. > >Insured exports of primary produce generally held firm, wool being one important exception. Greasy wool recorded a reduction of $4m and processed wool $8m due, it is believed, to a fall in prices rather than in quantity. Nevertheless, the point is that it is still moving very slowly in Australia and the exports sought to be assisted in this way are still preponderantly agricultural and primary products rather than manufactured products. I believe it is this field of manufactured and capital goods that Australia's economic health lies in the future. One of the rather intriguing explanations of this occurred in the Minister's speech when he said: >The principal factor in this unexpectedly rapid build-up in contingent liability - that is why we are seeking these amendments - is the insurance of wheat export transactions. I directed a question upon it to him at the time. A rather odd little comment was made about this kind of thing in the latest annual report of EPIC. Surely it is strange that wheat which is supposed to be consumed, say, in the same year as it is purchased should have to be sold on long term credit at all. In fact that sort of trade runs contrary to the assumptions of what is called the Berne Union. Another article in the report states: >There is increasing evidence of departures from the conventional maximum of 180 days credit for raw materials and consumer goods. Regrettable as this trend may be, the Corporation sees its duty to recognise changes in payment patterns occurring in international trade so that Australian exporters do not suffer any competitive disadvantages on this score. I would hope that they will make more flexible arrangements and recognise that the keen competition will be not so much in respect of the sale of such products as wheat - as in the credit terms that are available for sales of capital goods, particularly machinery and manufactured items on which the credit terms may have to go up to the maximum period of 5 years. If one reads the statistics about this sort of thing which are contained in the report, one is surprised to see that relatively few individual people take advantage of this kind of insurance. Nevertheless, a considerable aggregate of policies have been issued. There is a table on page 7 of the report which shows the face values and the number of policies issued. During the whole of the financial year 1969-70, 801 separate policies were issued. The transactions with a face value between $400,000 and $2m numbered 143 and accounted for more than one-third of the total face value of the transactions. The transactions with a face value of more than $2m numbered 29 and accounted for almost one-half of the total face value of the transactions. This sort of insurance is relatively big business but it is availed of by comparatively few people. Nevertheless, it is highly significant in the development of Australia's export trade. I think that one of the difficulties in the structure of Australian industry is that there is no great incentive on the part of the individual producer - I am leaving aside the field of primary industry - to sell his products overseas rather than internally. Yet in the long run this is where the great opportunities for diversity, both internally and externally, of the Australian economy lie. How are we to promote the kind of national sentiment which says that we ought to export rather than to look only to the home market? This gets down to the fundamental questions of the structure of Australian industry, of the control of Australian industry, and of certain mechanisms which regulate the internal activity of industry in Australia. On the last occasion when we were dealing with similar legislation I said that we ought to be looking at what was done by Canada some years ago. I quoted from a document entitled 'Bank of Montreal - Business Review' of 27th June 1969. I pointed out that in Canada it had been decided to replace what was called the Export Credits Insurance Corporation - ECIC - by a new organisation called the Export Development Corporation - EDC. That Corporation has been given a far wider scope and flexibility to enable it to respond effectively to the changing needs of exporters. I suggest that this is the kind of change that is needed in Australia in relation to EPIC. The EPIC needs not only greater contingent liability backing but also a wider franchise so that somebody in Australia, other than the voluntary bodies which are called export promotion councils and so on, is charged with the responsibility of seeing that there are considerable increases in our export trade in order to build the future economic destiny of Australia. I think that is highly significant. 1 again commend this suggestion to the Deputy Prime Minister **(Mr Anthony)** or to his representative in the chamber this evening. Nobody denies the highly significant importance of expanding Australia's trade in future years and of relying not only upon primary products, and now minerals, but also upon the more sophisticated levels of manufacturing industry in Australia to ensure that activity is conditioned to the needs of the developing parts of the world. Later on this evening we will debate the International Development Association (Further Payment) Bill. If Australia gave the same attention to the development of the undeveloped areas as it gives to its own internal defence arrangements, I think that as a country we would be a much safer place. We should try to build better bridges and to establish better economic relations with out near neighbours, with Indonesia in particular, rather than stand awestruck, looking at the remarkable economic improvements in Japan. We should orientate our own economy to the sort of drive that is evident in Japan. Our survival in this part of the world and our attempt to make this part of the world a better and safer place are contingent upon the expansion of exports from Australia in fields other than the primary industry and mineral fields. If we were to do this we would hardly recognise the face of the Australian economy by 1980. 1 think that one of the great tragedies in Australia is that we are in a state of economic drift. We are not facing up to the fundamental and overall economic disabilities in the Australian economy. We simply hope that something will turn up - that the price of wool will rise or that somebody of whom we never thought when we produced the wheat will buy wheat from us. We no longer get that kind of easy solution to the problems of economic growth and expansion. Again I commend the systematic approach which the Japanese have adopted in this matter, and I would hope that gentlemen who visit Japan - I understand that the Australian Deputy Prime Minister will visit Japan within the next week or so - will give greater consideration to the co-ordination that apparently exists in Japan due to the work of its Ministry of International Trade and Industry - MITI. I am afraid that we have not got in Australia the equivalent of MITI but, nevertheless, there should be better drive and better cohesion between industry and our export representatives. I hope that greater attention will be given to this question in Australia in the years ahead. {: #subdebate-34-0-s1 .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr KEATING:
Blaxland -- The Opposition does not oppose the Export Payments Insurance Corporation Bill, as the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean)** has said. It is a reasonably simple piece of legislation. It is designed to increase the contingent liability of the Export Payments Insurance Corporation from $300m to $500m. That is the total amount for which the Corporation could become liable under its policies. The Australian Labor Party has been pleased with the performance of the Corporation since its inception in 1956 and the commencement of its operation in 1957, and it has consistently supported legislation designed to increase the contingent liability of the Corporation. EPIC, as the Corporation is known, is charged to be selfsupporting, that is, that over a period it has to operate at neither a profit nor a loss. Over the 14 years ending in June 1970, EPIC incurred operational deficits in 8 years and surpluses in 6 years. It operates on principles similar to those of any other form of insurance, inasmuch as in return for the payment of a premium an exporter can claim on EPIC in the event of non-payment by his buyer for any of the reasons set out in the policy. In the financial year 1969-70 - that is 12 to 13 years since its inception - EPIC has insured exports worth $343m. In the 13 years since it started, EPIC has insured policies to the tune of $l,407m. In the 10 years from 1960 to 1970 the number of policies with EPIC has grown from 127, with a face value of $53m, to 809, with a face value of $343m. I have prepared a table which summarises a number of EPIC annual reports and lists the number of policy holders from the year 1958 to 1970, the face value of the policies, the actual maximum contingency liability, the premium income, the gross claims paid, the operating costs and the operating costs as a percentage of premium income. With the concurrence of honourable members, I incorporate that document in Hansard. It reads: I thank the House for its courtesy. While I have this table before me, I wish to point out one aspect that is revealed in the figures. The operating costs in relation to the premium income of the Corporation seem to be excessively high. I do not know whether that is because EPIC provides other services. It does provide a credit service so that any Australian exporter can check the credit rating of any overseas firm that he has dealings with. I note from the table that from 1961 to 1962 the operating costs of EPIC were 87 per cent and 86 per cent of income from premiums. This figure has declined and settled at between 58 per cent and 60 per cent. That 58 per cent to 60 per cent of the income from premiums from an insurance company should be taken up by operating costs shows a situation in which operating costs are fairly high. Over the period of operation - now 14 years, I think - EPIC has built up reserves of $2.25m. A number of amendments to the original Bill, passed in 1956, have been made. The first amendment in 1964 was to establish a situation in which an exporter could take out a guarantee on a risk that banks in Australia would accept as security. This covered not just normal commercial or political risks but any type of risk at all. Another amendment was enacted in 1965. This related to investment insurance which was to cover other than non-commercial risks in respect of investment overseas by an Australian company. The aim of this amendment was to bring export benefits to Australia through investment overseas by Australian companies either by themselves or in a participatory role with another overseas concern. EPIC provided cover so that the Australian company would not lose its investment should the political climate change with the result that the company would suffer a loss through political circumstances. Various other amendments have been made. Most of these have been for the purpose of increasing the contingent liability ceiling. This is what the Bill now before the House seeks to do. This ceiling was increased in 1956 to $50m. In 1959 it was increased to $100m. The ceiling was raised to SI 50m in 1964. In 1965 it rose to $200m. It was increased to $300m in 1970 and now stands at $500m in 1971. As I said before the Opposition always has supported all of these changes. I wish to touch on another point in relation to the provisions of this Bill. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Trade and Industry **(Mr Anthony)** said: >The principal factor in this unexpectedly rapid build-up in contingent liability is the insurance of wheat export transactions. This business is entirely new - it dates only from January of this year - and the amount of contingent liability involved is very high. There is a certain amount of ambiguity about what that means. It is not very clear what the Minister is saying. The honourable member for Melbourne Ports asked the Minister whether he would clear the matter up. I would like to quote from the statement that the Minister released on this aspect. It refers to the question asked of him by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports and then states: >Prior to January this year, EPIC had been asked to insure only relatively minor quantities of wheat exports. However because of increasing international competition, in particular on credit terms, Australian wheat has had to be offered on terms to meet this competition. Consequently, there has been a recent substantial growth in EPIC coverage of wheat transactions. He goes on to say: >The aggregate amount of the Corporation's contingent liability on wheat export transactions either insured or the subject of firm offers of insurance cover since January 1 1971 is $30.2m. The point that I wish to make is this: Since August of last year, a number of contracts have been entered into for the sale of wheat to the United Arab Republic. I believe from this statement that the $30.2m covers wheat sales proposed by the Australian Wheat Board under contract to the United Arab Republic. In August 1970, the Australian Wheat Board announced the signing of a contract for 36.7 million bushels of Australian wheat to be supplied per annum over a 3-year period commencing 1st July 1971. In other words, approximately 110 million bushels of wheat will be supplied in 3 years. A question was asked in August of last year of the then Minister for Primary Industry, who is now the Deputy Prime Minister, in relation to the conditions of sale of wheat to the United Arab Republic. The Minister replied that the terms of the sale were a deposit of 10 per cent at the time of shipment with the balance to be paid in equal yearly instalments over a 3-year period. No specific reference was made to the interest rate involved. Since then, an additional sale of 18.4 million bushels of wheat has been made to the UAR. This was for shipment from September 1970 to January 1971. Another additional sale of 9.2 million bushels of wheat to the UAR was made entailing shipment from September 1970 to January 1971. I presume that these 2 operations were extended on credit. I further presume from the answer given by the then Minister that no interest payment was incurred. What I would like to know is this: Why was this particular transaction not insured with EPIC? This contract is, I remind the House, to operate over a 3-year period. I would also point out to the House that the Deputy Prime Minister has made a statement concerning wheat sales to Communist China. We have heard from Communist China - or Red China or continental China as the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** calls it - that it proposes not to buy any more Australian wheat. Could it be that the Australian Wheat Board is extending itself to sell Australian wheat to lower the quotas for the benefit of the Australian wheatgrower and to satisfy its own problems? I think that the after-season carry over of wheat stocks last year was 265 million bushels. What seems to be happening with this legislation is that the Australian Wheat Board has gone to EPIC and has asked it to cover it for $30 million obviously extended on credit terms extending over 3 years. Now, what is the present situation of the UAR in the Middle East? General Moshe Dayan, the Israeli Defence Minister, said yesterday that there could easily be a resumption of war. The chances of Australia receiving payment under such conditions are very diminished. I understand further that a contract was not exactly entered into, only a memorandum of understanding was signed. What this means is that for a nominal premium payment the Exports Payment Insurance Corporation could be up for this $30m - and, in turn, the taxpayers purse through the Commonwealth could be up for this $30m - because this Bill has been introduced to increase the contingent liability. This is the first wheat sale to be covered by EPIC. I understand that rather than extending a 95 per cent cover EPIC has extended a cover of 60 per cent only. This is a cover amounting to approximately $20m. EPIC has left the liability for the remaining 40 per cent to the Australian wheat grower. In the financial year ended June 1969, the total amount received in premium payments by EPIC was $860,000. Comparing the total annual premiums of $860,000 and the reserves of $2.25m with a possible contingent liability of $18m to $20m, we see that the Corporation will be placed in a very uncomforable financial position, should the United Arab Republic find itself in a situation where it is forced to renege on the extended terms of credit, covering the sale of this wheat. This morning, I asked a question of the Minister for Primary Industry **(Mr Sinclair)** concerning this subject. He said in reply: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . the terms and conditions are such as to ensure that over the whole ot the context of its operations EPIC is able to maintain the very remarkable record of profitability which it has achieved since its establishment a few years ago. The Minister went on to say: >I am quite sure that if it were not for the EPIC cover in this instance, it would not have been possible perhaps for the Wheat Board to have accepted the general responsibility of the terms and conditions available. That answer pretty well bears out what I have said. The Australian Wheat Board was not prepared to 'cop* the responsibility for this sale itself, and has loaded it on to the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. By paying a fiddling premium it can say with safety: 'If anything goes wrong, EPIC or the Commonwealth must carry the baby'. So, this Bill is before the House tonight and we are expected to 'up the ante' with respect to the contingent liability of this corporation. The Minister also said in his second reading speech that there were a number of other aspects and a number of other transactions which forced a situation where the contingent liabilities should be increased. The Opposition accepts that and that is why it supports the legislation. I consider the aspects of wheat sales is a valid one because of the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the Country Party has been caught on the hook with China and has to carry over 260 million bushels of wheat from last year. It has problems with its seats in wheat growing areas. If it goes to the people within the next 12 months it could lose seats like Gwydir and other marginal Country Party seats. The Government has to get the wheat off its hands; it wants to sell it to the United Arab Republic. It does not really trust the UAR. It says: 'Give us an Export Payments Insurance Corporation policy and we will let the Commonwealth cany the baby.' This seems to me to be a pretty feasible summation of the situation and this is the way the Parliament should view it. I leave the subject of wheat on that point and deal now more in a general sense with the Export Payments Insurance Corporation. When similar legislation was introduced in this Parliament last year to increase a contingent liability the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry, **Sir John** McEwen, who introduced the original Bill in 1956, was quite frank in his second reading speech. I would like to read it to the House because it is quite an eye-opener. He said: >The birth of EPIC was delayed many years - at least 4 - by the barrage of criticism and opposition raised against it from inside and outside government. Interests representing private institutions such as banks, insurance companies, associations and elements even within the governmental structure, attacked, criticised and blocked the provision of this new facility by a government corporation for at least 4 years. He went on to say: >I was told with monotonous regularity and with singular unanimity by the opponents of the facility that there was no need for it - worthwhile and soundly based Australian exports should need no assistance of the type other countries had; it would merely provide at government expense a hidden subsidy to prop up 'lame duck' export ventures; it could not possibly work - the premiums would be too high, the losses too great, and exporters would prefer to take their own risk; it was a duplication of existing banking and insurance facilities which were willing and able to afford all the assistance needed; such a corporation was a Socialist conception and an unwarranted intrusion by government into private business; such a corporation would provide unfair competition to private enterprise institutions, and so on. What **Sir John** McEwen was saying was that the opposition to this legislation came from sections of the Liberal Party, his partner in the coalition, and other people within the business world of Australia. The point I would like to make is that so many forms of insurance bear upon our exports. If the Government is to sing the praises of the Corporation whenever it introduces legisation into this House concerning EPIC, why does it not allow the Corporation to get into other forms of insurance, such as marine insurance? In reply to a question asked by **Senator Mulvihill** some years ago, the Minister in the Senate representing the Minister for Trade and Industry gave a figure of $26. 5m as the total marine insurance premium for the year 1966-67. The Export Payments Insurance Corporation's premiums amount to only $860,000. I would not mind seeing the Corporation get a slice of the $26.5m marine insurance cake when we consider that most of the companies operating in marine insurance in Australia are British or companies from other overseas countries. It is not just a matter of getting business for Australia. It means also that very considerable savings will be effected in our balance of payments through reduced remittance of profits overseas. I would like to see the Corporation get into this business. When we look at the type- of insurance that the Corporation was to take on, and I will cover the categories basically, we find that they included buyer risks of insolvency, protracted default in repayment, repudiation of contracts, political risks such as import licensing restrictions, exchange transfer blockages, wars and revolutions and catastrophic risks caused by external events beyond the control of both exporter and buyer which are not normally insured by commercial insurers. No commercial insur ance company in Australia would have taken on insurance with those risks. Such companies had a dog in the manger attitude. They were not prepared to accept those forms of insurance themselves yet they did not want the Government to set up an organisation that would, because they feared it would eventually get into other fields of insurance like marine insurance. If the Export Payments Insurance Corporation has to carry the baby with this unpalatable type of insurance why does the Government not give exporters in this country some assistance by allowing the Corporation to move into marine insurance. With the reduction in premiums that the Corporation has been able to give, far cheaper marine insurance could have been available to our exporters during the 14 years the Corporation has been in operation under this legislation. In the few minutes I have left 1 would like to touch briefly upon the subject referred to by the honourable member for Melbourne Ports. What Australia needs is a complete export development corporation which covers 3 things. They are the aspects covered by the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, marine insurance and an export credit facility, which is something that is very sadly lacking. Last year in the House I asked the then Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry this question: >Will the Government set up an export credit facility to provide finance at better than commercial terms to assist the export sales of Australian manufactured military equipment and other high value commercial exports. He replied: >It is true that lower interest rates are provided by the governments of some countries that are competitive with us. It is quite clear that certain governments from time to time seek to give their exporters a competitive advantage by providing funds at lower interest rates. I have never felt that this Government could engage in an interest rate war in these circumstances. In other words, he was saying that we are denying our exporters cheap rates of interest and extended terms of credit when they have to go into other markets and compete not with their products but with the terms of credit that they can offer. {: .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr Kennedy: -- What was his reason? {: .speaker-NH4} ##### Mr KEATING: -- He gave no reason, obviously because his attitude is indefensible. We see a typical thing occurring with the possible sale of Macchi aircraft to New Zealand and Singapore. The Australian aircraft industry here tried to sell the Macchi aircraft and faced competition from Britain and Germany, both of which offered their aircraft with the backing of export credit banks. What chance do our exporters have in offering products to countries overseas when we are offering credit terms at normal bank overdraft rates of 7½ per cent interest, 50 per cent down payment and 2 or 3 years repayments. No-one in the world would come at those terms. It is time we developed an export development corporation to cover the things normally covered by the Export Payments Insurance Corporation, also a marine insurance facility and also to supply credit at extended terms and at reasonable rates of interest - 41 per cent to 5 per cent. Unless we do that we have no chance of developing our exports and we can forget about developing secondary manufactures. Unless we offer extended terms of credit as decent interest rates we cannot sell products overseas. To summarise, the Opposition supports the legislation for the reasons I have outlined. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock)Order!** The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-34-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Nixon)** read a third time. [Quorum formed] {: .page-start } page 2286 {:#debate-35} ### STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL 1971 {:#subdebate-35-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 22 April (vide page 1907), on motion by **Mr Kevin** Cairns: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-35-0-s0 .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN:
Reid -- I move: In moving the amendment I desire to set out the details of what a Labor administration would do. For too long housing, urban living and the environment have been at the very bottom of the priorities list of successive anti-Labor governments over the last 2 decades. The Opposition wants a new deal for housing, particularly for young married couples and for very old people. It wants a better deal for the people living in the cities - a better environment and the right to participate in the arts, the theatre, culture, social and recreational activities. Equally they should have the right to develop, enjoy and contribute to a full life and not just exist from one day to the next. On 29th September last the former Minister for Housing, Dame Annabelle Rankin, speaking of the Government, said: >One of the major aims of our housing contribution in the next 3 years will be to encourage the States to provide decent housing for lower income families who are unable to obtain satisfactory private accommodation. Let us examine the Government's record over the last 2 decades and then let us deal with the prospects of the former Minister's prediction being carried out in the future. With the conourrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard a table setting out the record of the State housing authorities over the 20 years from 1950 to 1970. It will be noted from an examination of the table that there were 17,959 homes constructed in 1955 by the State housing authorities, which was the equivalent of 22 per cent of all housing constructed in the States. In 1970, 13,446 homes were constructed by the State authorities, or 9.8 per cent of all housing for that year. In that period from 1955 to 1970 the amount of government low cost housing fell from 22 per cent of all housing down to less than 10 per cent. Yet a. spokesman for the Government said that this would be the Government's major priority in the next 3 years. We have put up with the hyprocrisy of this Government for too long. If we turn the clock back 19 years, to 1952, we find that 13,931 homes were constructed by the State housing authorities, or 17.5 per cent of all dwellings constructed in that year. Yet last year only 13,446 homes were built, making a fall in the percentage of homes constructed from 17.5 per cent 19 years ago to less than 10 per cent last year. Despite the ever increas ing population, fewer homes are being built today than nearly 20 years ago. That is a shameful record. Yet a spokesman for the Government has said that its major aim was to build low cost housing for persons on low incomes. I say to the Minister for Housing **(Mr Kevin Cairns):** We want more than words and platitudes. We want action. It is about time the Government did something for the people on low incomes who need homes. According to the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the cost of a three bedroom flat from the Victorian Housing Commission is $22 a week. The figures in the table which I have incorporated reveal that the proportion of homes constructed by State housing authorities to all homes constructed in Australia dropped from 22 per cent in 1955 to less than 10 per cent in 1970. I believe that the position will worsen because of the credit restrictions announced by the Government in its direction to the Reserve Bank in April 1970. Interest rates on loans to the State Housing Commissions have increased from 5 per cent to 6 per cent. This means that the position for the year beginning in July 1970 will be woree than it was for the year ended in June 1970 when State housing construction had dropped to 9.8 per cent of all constructions, one of the lowest ebbs in the last 2 decades during which this Government has been in power. Last November all the State Housing Ministers met in Melbourne and made a unanimous request that the interest rates for the construction of low cost housing constructed by the State housing authorities be reduced from 6 per cent to 4 per cent. Let me remind the Minister for Housing that at that time - this was prior to the recent elections in Western Australia - 5 out of 6 State Ministries were anti-Labor Governments. AH 6 Ministers were requesting that the interest rates be reduced from 6 per cent to 4 per cent. This is only one of the reasons why this legislation is inadequate. The prevailing interest rate of 6 per cent on moneys made available to the States is excessive. People cannot meet this commitment. It is almost a usurious interest rate for what the Government calls 'low cost housing'. It is about time we got back to the Chifley formula. In 1945 under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement interest rates were 3 per cent. In the year 1969-70, 47 per cent, or $355m, of the moneys lent by the States for works and housing came from Commonwealth revenue. It did not come from loan moneys but from Commonwealth revenue, which is provided by the taxpayers. They were the people who made the money available. Yet the Commonwealth in providing this money to the States charged the highest interest in the history of the Commonwealth. It charged an interest rate of 6 per cent although 47 per cent of the money made available was from Commonwealth revenue. Government supporters talk about their housing policy. A major priority for the Government in the next 3 years should be the provision of low cost housing. The *record* of the Government is a disgraceful one. It is the record of a sectional government. It is the record of a government that represents only the wealthy sector. It represents only the monopolies, oligopolies, companies and those who have great personal wealth. It has very little understand ing of the problems of those people who really need housing. This year is the year for a new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. Let us return to the Chifley formula. Let us reduce the interest rate to not more than 3 per cent. Let us be firm that no wage earner will have to pay more than one-fifth of his income in rent if he wants to rent a home from a housing commission. The rent for housing commission homes today is ludicrous. The Brotherhood of St Laurence did some' research into rents and found that a person who wanted a housing commission flat in Melbourne would have to pay $22 a week. If we apply the Chifley formula, which provided that a person should not have to pay more than one-fifth of his weekly income in rent, people renting a flat at $22 a week would have to have a weekly income of $110. Average weekly earnings today are only $84, and it is interesting to note that 70 per cent of all wage earners earn less than $84 a week. Does this example not clearly expose this sectional Government that occupies the treasury bench in Canberra? Housing reform is long overdue. We have a new Minister for Housing, but we need more than a new broom; we need revolutionary ideas and action. We need some action to move the Treasury. I know that the conservative elements on the Government side, particularly the new prophet from Queensland, the new Minister for Housing, will say that the Government is to have a new policy and will do revolutionary things for the people. Have we not heard this story before? Have we not heard the story of that great radical man of the right who formerly sat on the back bench - the honourable member for Mackellar **(Mr Wentworth)?** When he became the Minister for Social Services he was in a dilemma. He did not know whether the Government should cut down defence expenditure so that he could extend his expenditure on social services and Aboriginal affairs. He was caught. He is one who looks for a Com under his bed every night. He was fearful that the Red hordes would come down on us, but he knew that the Government would have to cut down on defence expenditure if he was to get more money for social services and Aboriginal affairs. He found himself in a dilemma. He is still in that dilemma. Although he has brought new thought to his portfolio the age pensioners and people on social services have regressed under his administration. The same can be said of the Minister for Housing. He was a man who worried about red hordes coming down from the north and was an advocate for greatly increased defence expenditure. Where in the heavens is he to get money for housing? He has to make up his mind. As I said from the word go, the whole question is a matter of priorities. The Labor Party has at the top of its priorities the interests of the people and the cities where the mass of the Australian people live. In housing matters we are dealing with old and young people and family people. They are at the top of our priorities. **Mr Deputy Speaker,** I know this hurts you as a member of the Country Party, but we are members of the city. We belong to the great metropolises where over 80 per cent of the people of this great Commonwealth live. As spokesman for the Opposition on urban affairs and housing, 1 have respect for the people of the country. But I want a fair deal for the people of the city. Let this new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement embody some of the principles set out in the amendment we have put forward. Let us not build boxes for people to live in. Let us not construct houses of the type that are being constructed in the ghettos of Mount Druitt and Green Valley or in the concrete jungles of North Melbourne where people are being put in 20-storey sky scrapers where in fact they are mere prisoners. Let us stop building these ghettos. Let us stop cramming together people with homogeneous ecnomic and social outlooks and let us plan for the heterogeneous community. We want to see the best in people. We want people from all walks of life - working people, middle income wage earners and high income people - in the same com.munty adding strength to one another and drawing from each others resources and experiences. Not only would I like to see them heterogeneous in terms of income but I would like to see them heterogeneous in terms of colour, creed and race. I want to see us more outward looking than inward looking. Let me give an example of what 1 am talking about. I want to quote from an interesting book. In fact I think it is the best book that has been written on this subject. It is written by **Mr Hugh** Stretton and is entitled 'Ideas for Australian Cities'. The author gives details of living in Green Valley, which of course is a metropolis of some 30,000 people situated on the outskirts of the south western part of Sydney and 20 miles from the centre of Sydney. I might say that it is as hot as hell in the summertime and as cold as ice in the wintertime. On page 160 of his book **Mr Stretton** states: . . nine-tenths of Green Valley's workers travel out of the district to work. There and back, three-quarters of them travel between 25 and SO miles a day. Half must change channels twice or more each way. For a quarter of them, travelling time adds the equivalent of 2 working days to the working week. The average is nearly 2 hours a day; with some misfitting between work and transport timetables, many families do without their breadwinners for 11 or 12 hours. Also the city's lowest wages pay some of its highest fares. Similar distances and (without weekly concession tickets) even higher fares separate them from most friends and relations they'd like to visit, and from the pleasures and services of the city centre which is more than an hour each way and more than a dollar return ... To get a family of 6 from Green Valley to the beach or the zoo and back takes most of a day, including half a day's travel by car or perhaps 2 day's wages in fares and expenses . . . Hugh Stretton points out that 60 per cent of Green Valley's families have no car and 29 per cent are in the deserted wife category and do not earn wages. The out-patient departments of the public hospitals to which the people of this area go are not very easy to get to. In fact, Hugh Stretton at page 162 of his book states that there are no regular family doctors and some people cannot afford or cannot understand medical insurance. He goes on to say: >So what happens when their babies get sick on winter nights? There may be no doctor on duty within miles, nobody has a telephone and the distant public one is as usual smashed unusable by vandals. That is the position of Green Valley; it is a position that we have to rectify. We have to rectify the position of the Green Valleys, the Mount Druitts and the concrete jungles of North Melbourne. Hugh Stretton in his book sets out the success stories that we should follow. One such example is that of the heterogeneous society of Canberra. We should be building a society such as this rather than the Green Valleys and Mount Druitts or the high rise flats of North Melbourne. We have in Canberra a heterogeneous society blended of people from all fields of life. We have workers on low incomes, people on middle incomes and those on high incomes who blend and add to each other. This is the sort of society that I believe we should try to add strength to; this is the society we need; and these are the standards for which we should strive. I want the environment of a city like Canberra spread right across this continent. I want to see our communities have the serenity, tranquillity and beauty of the city of Canberra. I want everyone in the Commonwealth to have an equal right to share in the better things of life. These are the issue to which a Labor administration will give major priorities. The Opposition's amendment sets out in broad principle what a Labor administration will do when it assumes office. We want people to participate in a developing life. We want people, as William Morris said, to be not only entitled to a better life but to be also able to enjoy life, to enjoy art, to enjoy culture and to enjoy a serenity and tranquility in life. We want everyone to be able to do this. Attention to this aspect is long overdue. This country has an abundance of wealth. However, our priorities are out of focus. What we have to do is to get our priorities hack into focus and make sure that we develop the nation in the interests of the people. Our amendment refers to the building of new cities. We say that we will identify a number of sites appropriate for new cities and co-operate in their development. We know that we have limited power in this field but we will work in co-operation with the States and co-ordinate the forces that are available to us. We want to build other Canberras. We want to make sure that land is available to young couples in other parts of Australia under the same conditions as it is available to young married couples in Canberra. Let me give an example of what is happening in Canberra. The National Capital Development Commission, to its great credit, from 1962-63 has been able to reduce the price of land for unrestricted blocks. This means that people living in Canberra have an advantage over those people living in the best residential areas in the capital cities in suburbs such as St Ives in Sydney. The average price paid at auction in Canberra for unrestricted land in 1962-63 was $4,500. By planning the Commission was able to reduce the price during a period of inflation to $3,000 in May 1970. This was revealed in the thirteenth annual report of the Commission. I asked the research section of the Parliamentary Library to examine the average price of land that was sold at restricted auction in Canberra in 1970. It was able to inform me that the land was made available at an average price of $900 a block. This means that people such as public servants in Canberra have the opportunity to buy a block of land for $900 at a restricted auction if they have not previously purchased a block of land in the Australian Capital Territory. Blocks in groups purchased in Canberra by firms such as Pettit and Sevitt and other developers which build large numbers of homes averaged $1,700 each in 1970. Let us compare the position in Canberra with that in the city of Sydney. The average price of a block of land in Sydney is between $8,000 and $9,000. I represent a working class area. In fact, in Guildford where I live a person would pay $7,500 to $8,000 for a block of land. We are asking the people of Australia to elect us to office and to give us the power to carry out our proposals. In co-operation and co-ordination with the States and local government authorities the Labor Party will purchase large tracts of land to build Canberras. We will make land available to young people more cheaply and on a more equitable basis than applies under the present Government even in Canberra. We believe in the concept of leasehold land. This is the way in which land should be distributed. Also, we believe all people are entitled to share in unearned increment, as the area improves then all share in the increase in value. This is the basis on which we believe land should be allocated. We believe in the basis of using a realistic system of land value and rental which means that people occupy land on leasehold. The Labour Party believes that we should have a system such as the one in Canberra, although this would not be the way in which we would implement the system. However, even under the conditions on which Canberra's land system has been operated, I have shown the difference in the price of land in Canberra as compared with the price in other capital cities. If we are given the opportunity we will implement what I have set out. We will build many Canberras in this nation of ours. We will make land available to people, old and young alike, to make sure that they have a secure future. After all, every young family is entitled to a home without suffering economic hardship. Another aspect I want to deal with in regard to the amendment is the assistance to bodies to carry out comprehensive urban improvement and development. This is another vision of the Australian Labor Party. Excuse me if 1 am a little parochial on mis question, but I come from Sydney. 1 live in Sydney and I think it is a beautiful area. However, nearly 100 years ago **Mr Neilsen,** the first Minister for Lands in a Labor administration in New South Wales, proposed a green belt around Sydney harbour. It seems to me that an administration whether Labor or anti-Labor, in New South Wales could purchase land on the foreshores of Sydney harbour in your area, **Mr Speaker,** and make it available for the use of all the people and not just a select few. We do not want to be ruthless about this. If people want to live in this area for the rest of their natural lives they may do so. But we want to return progressively the foreshores of Sydney harbour to the people of Australia. We want to do this sort of thing not only in Sydney, it should be manifold throughout the Commonwealth. This should be done in Melbourne, Brisbane, in the mountains or in the desert. We want to return and restore this Commonwealth progressively to the people of Australia. If we determine our priorities we can do these things. We achieve our aims if the people of Australia give us an opportunity to do so. For these reasons I propose this amendment to this negative legislation. {: #subdebate-35-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Is the amendment seconded? {: .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr Cope: -- I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. {: #subdebate-35-0-s2 .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr IRWIN:
Mitchell -- I have listened to many stupid statements in this House but for arrant nonsense- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Bendigo, who is interjecting, is grossly out of order. He will either be seated outside the chamber or will resume his seat within the chamber. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr IRWIN: -- As I was saying, for lack of knowledge and for arrant nonsense I have never heard anything worse than the speech of the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren).** Unfortunately, for the Australian Labor Party its spokesman condemns the Party out of his own mouth because ail the things of which he complained were initiated and developed by a Labor government in New South Wales. The entire situation about which the honourable member for Reid was speaking came about as a result of the advent of the Cumberland County Council. It initiated all the hocus pocus of zoning which created great land prices. What 1 am saying is correct, but I want to make it perfectly clear that the executive officers of the Cumberland County Council were not corrupt. The corruption from above and below was so great that the Labor Government of New South Wales had to supersede the Council with a State Planning Authority, but from the advent of the Cumberland County Council resulted ali the high prices for land in New South Wales. In 1951 a fairly large block of land in North Parramatta could be purchased for £250 - $500 nowadays. Even with increases in the basic wage it could now sell for about $2,000 to $2,500 but because of the advent of the Cumberland County Council with zoning and putting land under the counter and creating a black market, unfortunate Australians now have to pay from $6,000 to $8,000 for a block of land. That is Socialism and if anyone wants to know about it I am the man to see because I have lived with it and fought against it since 1951. Zoning is the trouble. People who knew what the Cumberland County Council was doing knew what areas were to be released. Anzacs including men of the 1st AIF who had lived in these areas for years were entitled to anything that they could get from the increased value of their land but the go-getters came in, bought the land and fleeced the public of their money. If honourable members want to know about socialisation and this planning they should speak to me and I will tell them all the truths about it. The amendment which was moved on behalf of the Opposition seeks to ensure that planning authorities are established or developed. The great evil came in New South Wales when the enormous suburban sprawl was permitted and when sewerage, electricity and water services had to be extended 30 miles from the heart of Sydney. What should have been done - and I stated this in 195 1 - was to establish 3 new cities in New South Wales. Port Stephens has the greatest harbour in the world and the Port Stephens area should have been developed as a city. Two or 3 cities should have been established instead of this enormous suburban sprawl. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being expended to develop roads within 5 and 6 miles of Sydney, thus propping up the. enormous concrete jungle and denying the right of Australians to a decent and goodly way of life. The present situation was brought about by a Labor government in New South Wales and by no-one else. It created Green Valley to which the honourable member for Reid referred. Fortunately, with the experience of Green Valley, the Mount Druitt area is better set out and the homes are of better construction. The average age of people residing in that area, including the children, is only 8 years. I am proud of those young people and I deprecate the phrase which was used by the honourable member for Reid to describe the people living in Green Valley and Mount Druitt. They are good young people who will make good. The environment has been improved. The churches are doing a wonderful joba job that the New South Wales Labor Government should have done. That Government did not establish swimming pools or recreation halls. It provided the people with nice homes but it did not give them amenities. The churches came in, God bless them. These young married people could not afford 20c to put on the church plate but the Church of England - the wealthy parishes - helped and a fine edifice has been erected and the rector is doing a marvellous job in trying to alleviate the difficulties that confront these young people. These difficulties would not be present if proper planning had taken place. Hundreds of thousands of blocks of land 4 and 5 miles closer to Sydney were available for development. Most of that land was in areas the streets of which were connected with electricity and some had reticulated water available. But did the Labor Government develop that land? No. It had to acquire 5 and 10-acre farms from people who were happy and contented in supplying vegetables for the Sydney market. Instead of developing other areas that had been divided some 30 or 40 years ago the Mount Druitt area had the misfortune to be ready for development in about 1914 when war broke out. At a time when there was a huge flow of migrants from England, the land was ready for development. After we got over the First World War we ran into the depression and then we had the Second World War. Large numbers of blocks of land still remain vacant but these farmlets have been taken over and all the work of putting in a reticulated water supply and other essential services has taken place at great expense. If we had been true to our trust we would have developed new cities. Surely there must be an economical city. What we have to boast about is that by the year 2000 Sydney will have 6 million or 7 million people. It is a crime and an utter disgrace that we are proud of such a thing when we could have given the people new cities with services radiating from the centre of the city. An economical city, I understand, contains about 2 million people. But we are building this huge concrete jungle and making the people travel, as the honourable member for Reid said, long distances to get to the city or to the seaside at a cost of something over $1. If there is to be any denunciation we should point the finger at the people who initiated this - the Labor Party of New South Wales, and no-one else. The honourable member for Reid spoke about the green belt. The city of Sydney is bounded by the Pacific Ocean, the great Hawkesbury River and the Great Dividing Range. Thousands of acres of land were declared to be green belt land. I know all about green belt land. None of that land is left now. What about the Marcus Clarke land? The New South Wales Labor Minister for Lands at the time said that the land would be there in perpetuity but within 12 months it was released from the green belt. 1 understand that the consideration was $500,000. Work that out and, if you can, deny the corruption and bribery that goes on. The people on their holdings do not know anything about these things but the other people know 2 years ahead what the zonings will be. The big people go out and buy up the land and they know that that it will be residential or industrial within about 2 years. But the Anzacs and those of the first Australian Imperial Forces, the old pioneers, never knew anything about this. I have written letters inquiring why land is declared residential or industrial at certain points. The purchasers do not go to the farmer who has a negative zoning. Instead they go to the people who have land in the green belt and buy it at a reduced price. If the honourable member for Reid wants the people of Australia to have a better way of life these are the sorts of things that he should tackle. He should not come in here and cackle about things in which he is not well versed and in which he has had no experience. The second part of the amendment moved by the Opposition reads: {: type="a" start="b"} 0. ensure that all lands vested in the States or Commonwealth will be retained and that private rights to such land is limited to leasehold. We in Australia have never wanted leasehold land. If honourable members were to see the homes which were built 80 or 90 years ago on leasehold land they would not have anything to do with it. We like to have our own land. We are entitled to our own fee simple. I trust that we always shall be. What incentive is there for a person during the latter years of a leasehold, unless it is in perpetuity which means almost the same as freehold, to worry about it? But who wants leasehold land? I suggest that honourable members have a look at areas such as Glebe and Merewether near Newcastle where land was under leasehold. Nothing was done to the cottages towards the end of the leasehold period and slum areas were created. This should not have occurred. I must say that I agree with the third part of the amendment which reads: {: type="a" start="c"} 0. Identify a number of appropriate sites for new cities and co-operate in their development. I think that is a wonderful idea. If the New South Wales Labor Party, the New South Wales State Planning Authority and the Cumberland County Council had taken notice of me in 1951 that position would obtain today. I want to say in passing that this is not a novel idea. In 1920 the Government of the day in New South Wales - I do not know whether it was a Labor or a Liberal government - went into the matter of establishing a harbour at Port Stephens. Thatwonderful harbour has been represented to me as the greatest natural habour in the world, much better than those in Sydney and San Francisco. If we had identified appropriate sites for new cities and radiated services into the hinterland the situation would have been much better than it is now. I agree with that part of the amendment but I think we have left it too late. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone into propping up Sydney by the provision of fly-overs and extra laneways on roads which are now almost overcrowded. It has been just a waste of good money. To illustrate my point I refer to Paris. The old city of Paris has not been disturbed. A new city has been commenced some 25 kilometers from the old city. The new city is attached to the beautiful city of Paris proper and people travel by express underground railway from the new city. No Labor government could be expected to have the foresight which has been demonstrated in Paris. It is there to be seen by those who have eyes to see. Part (d) of the amendment reads: >Assist in slum prevention and renewal. Everybody agrees with this objective but until we can catch up with our lack of housing facilities it is much better to leave this matter alone. Paddington was described as a slum at one time but because people moved into the area with new ideas and renovated the buildings, most people are now very honoured to live there. Some of the great architects in the world have said that the small cottages and two-storey buildings with brick walls are best suited for the climate in Australia. The last part of the amendment states that assistance should be given to appropriate bodies to carry out comprehensive urban improvement and development. Of course, no-one could have any grouch against that. We have endeavoured to make life in urban areas worthwhile for our estimable young people who are now having their first children, and we get great satisfaction in helping them. I am proud of the young people in the Mount Druitt area for the cleanliness of their homes and the neatness of themselves and of their children. There things give us great hope. I trust that something can be done to alleviate the position so that they do not have to travel long distances to swimming pools or to the seaside. They are excellent people and I am sure that they will form a great community in that area. I support the Bill which is only a simple Bill to confirm the payment under the old agreement. There was no need for this amendment but, having been moved, 1 thought I should express my ideas and feelings in regard to them. If the honourable member *fat* Reid wants to know anything about the construction and planning of new cities I will be pleased to assist him if he has any time available. {: #subdebate-35-0-s3 .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN:
Robertson -- The honourable member for Mitchell **(Mr Irwin)** unfortunately is discredited when he talks on this issue because it is well known that he talks out of his pocket, that he was a developer and the only reason he carried out this tirade of abuse against the State Planning Authority plan was because it cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr Irwin: -- You are a lair. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- Otherwise he would probably be in favour of town planning. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Mitchell will withdraw that remark. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr Irwin: -- Well, he is not telling the truth. 1 withdraw the 'liar'. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member will withdraw the remark. {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr Irwin: -- I withdraw the remark. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- In town planning circles he is regarded as a joke because of his attitude- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Robertson knows full well that no honourable member can cast aspersions or imputations against the conduct or character of another honourable member. I suggest that he desist. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- Very well, I will withdraw any aspersions that have been cast upon the honourable member. But let me say that in my electorate of Robertson in the 2 years since I have been involved in politicking I have seen the price of land rise from $2,500 a block to $7,000, and this is in an area where people have come to get cheaper land. Today, 50 miles from Sydney, they are paying almost the same price as the average price in Sydney. But let me say that the essence of the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party is to highlight the complete lack of awareness of the Federal Government's approach to housing. To view the problem of housing out of context with the other elements and ingredients that determine the quality of life and the quality of the environment is one of the great tragedies of the postwar period. Governments in Australia are, to a degree, still prisoners of their own and the community's lack of imagination and vision. What we ought to be examining are not houses, homes, flats, home units, etc, but every facet, every ingredient and every influence that affect the total shape and pattern of tomorrow's communities. As one drives through mile upon mile of the urban wasteland of today's metropolises one cannot but help being appalled by the incredible ugliness, monotony, loneliness and aimlessness of the monster that, through our lack of vision, our politicians and bureaucrats have created. We have created this monster of an urban sprawl. In recent years an ever growing number of concerned citizens have echoed their concern and lamented the lack of initiative by governments in their approach to this ever increasing and snowballing problem. We must make up our minds once and for all if we want to provide homes or create communities. If it is the former then we should proceed as we are now and continue to build mile upon mile of houses all built of ticky tacky with all the concomitant results. Social scientists throughout the world have studied the effect that these burgeoning metropolises have upon the unfortunate residents. Due to the size and sprawl there tends to be a lack of identification with the community within which they live. People become lost in the maze of suburbia. There is a sense of not belonging to anything, of not having an involvement with the community in which one lives, of not being aware of one's neighbours and of not even being familiar with or known to one's neighbours. I can recall as a young boy in the New South Wales country town of Griffith the identification and pride I had in being part of the town; of belonging to that town. To be able to walk down the street and to recognise and be recognised by friends and associates gave one a sense of belonging, of being part of something and of being secure. People took and still do take pride in the achievements of their community simply because they can identify with that community. They belong to it and it belongs to them. This sort of identification is impossible in today's suburban sprawl. One house sits on top of another, one street runs into another and one suburb is indistinguishable from its neighbouring suburb. The next step is alienation from society itself. Loneliness, boredom, lack of identity, a feeling of insignificance and being a tiny fish in a massive pool leads to psychiatric disorders, juvenile delinquency, family disintegration and alcohol and drugs, and in some instances to crime. The present pattern of urban development is a perfect pattern for a total disintegration of our society. Perhaps these words are a little strong but I am sure that honourable members will agree that we are bent on creating a society that is only one-tenth of what it could be. What I hope to do this evening is to relate 2 factors that determine the shape and pattern of our towns and cities and to attack the custom of treating these factors in isolation. They are housing and transport. I do not wish to delve too deeply into the history of the interdependency of transport and town and city development. Most members will be aware that urban growth of earlier periods developed primarily through the availability of different modes of transport. Initially towns and cities grew along rivers and near rivers. Later on they grew along railway lines. This is particularly true when one examines intra-urban growth. The electrification of rail was a deciding factor in the pattern of suburban growth. Whilst this is still true to a great degree, rail is not as major a determinant in our growth as it once was. It has been succeeded -by the automobile. Since the war we have had a vast number of new suburbs appear even though they have practically no access to rail facilities. In fact, upward trends in car ownership have been paralleled by a sharp decline in the level of public transit patronage. The number of people using public transport declines annually. The results are only too obvious. The commuter is subjected to the daily rush from the suburb to the city on crowded buses, choked streets and late trains. He is the victim of <polluted air, blighted street sides and the incredibly urban ugliness and chaos of an asphalt environment. In the words of Wilfred Owen: >Expressways are disrupting neighbourhoods, displacing people and converting communities into garages. A nation intent on making it .easier tq move has made it increasingly difficult to live. Grossly inadequate housing and poor transportation are closely inter-related problems. Each one helps to make the other worse. The poverty of close-in living conditions compels those who have automobiles to escape to the suburbs, creating massive traffic jams for commuters and making public transport increasingly inefficient. I want to quote from a recent editorial in the 'Daily Mirror'. It was headlined 'Servant or master?' and it stated: >In the beginning, hurtling over the countryside at four miles an hour, it was condemned and persecuted by the horse-loving gentry as an instrument of the devil. > >But the car brought advantages that softened antagonism - better roads, new inventions, new industries and better-paid jobs for thousands. > >It brought rural communities within reach of the towns and gave townspeople the freedom of the country. The car, in short, became a servant of the people. > >That is no longer true. Yet the influence of the car continues to grow. Town and city planners battle hopelessly to cope with its needs; huge sections of the economy are fashioned to its demands. > >One way and another, the car today is probably the world's biggest single employer. It is also the world's biggest single killer. No war has claimed as many victims. > >And though the car is allowed to jam the streets of the cities and fill the air with poisonous fumes and gases, its internal combustion engine is still, mechanically speaking, an extraordinarily inefficient piece of machinery. > >After two hundred years, it is surely pertinent to ask if the car should not be replaced with another form of personal transport. One that does not make servants of its users. Strong words indeed. Perhaps they are a bit too strong, but nevertheless strong enough to make those of us who have the role of legislators take heed and listen to those who are pointing out to us our negligence, our apathy and our indifference. While we continue to plan our communities around the automobile instead of vice versa we are going .to perpetuate and accentuate the present situation that I have described. Why must we design them as we have in the past? Are we so hidebound by our traditional clumsy and inefficient methods of town planning that we cannot break away? What happens now? Along comes a developer who buys SO acres of land and he divides it into a couple of hundred building blocks for which he must provide kerbing and guttering. Gradually, over a couple of years', a wide variety of houses, all with designs screaming at one another, are built. Probably the residents receive electricity; they may receive water, at some time hi the future they will receive telephones; but they certainly will not have much likelihood of receiving sewerage. Then the Department of Education will build a school, probably 2 or 3 miles away, requiring buses to transport the children or, if their parents are a little more affluent, they may be driven by their parents in cars. Two miles away in another direction some other bright developer will decide: Here is a good focal point for a shopping centre', as another couple of developers are in the process of building more houses. Suddenly some industrialists realise that there is a labour force available, so they build a few factories a few miles further out, and eventually we have what passes for a suburb. This process continues in a leap-frogging movement, onwards, ever onwards. Father cannot get to work without a car; so mother has to have a car as well to take the children to school and to do the shopping because public transport is not available or efficient enough for convenience or comfort. So it goes on, with cars and buses tearing up and down the streets, highways and byways, maiming, murdering and polluting, when all of it could have been avoided if only the government authorities had the money, vision and power to bring all these components together so that a proper civic design could be planned, obviating the necessity to have such unplanned chaos. Let me ask a series of questions. Why do we have to have every house fronting on to the street? Why, for that matter, does every house have to be built on a block of land X feet by X feet with a back yard which is usually too small to be able to do anything in, thus forcing children to play on the streets and run the risk of being killed by cars, as they so often are? Why cannot we have small units of homes built in a circular pattern with playing space available in the centre and the homes on the perimeter? Why cannot schools be designed in the centre of the community within easy walking distance for children, without their having to run the risk of crossing dozens of roads to get to school? Why do we have to have one type of home only built in the one community, with single unit dwelling all together in the one area and all home units and flats in another area? Why cannot we design communities in which we have a mixture of all these varieties of dwellings to suit different tastes- one or two storey homes, flats, home units, the new style but gradually catching on town house, and many others? I might add that not only should one have in a community different styles, but one should also have dwellings of different styles. I think that this is the great mistake that we have made in our society - we have not designed communities; we have just designed homes. I believe it is very important that we should seek to build communities so that people do not have to travel all over the place, as they are required to do at the moment, and have to use cars to get there. This can be done and it is being done. This afternoon I was fortunate enough to receive a letter from a gentleman in Perth. I understand that he is extremely well known in town planning spheres. I refer to Counsellor Paul Ritter. He wrote to me because he read of my interest in road safety and of the way in which I have been raising the matter of the automobile and its effect on our life. Amongst other things, he sent me an item of interest which I want to quote because I think it supports what I have been saying tonight. It concerns the Caversham Park village scheme. It reads: >Here, on the edge of Reading, a little more than two miles from the town-centre, work has already begun on clearing the site of what will certainly be one of the most interesting communitydevelopments ever undertaken in Britain, to be known as Caversham Park Village. > >Caversham Park really is a park, in the best English Tradition, full of variations in level and perspective, and provided with an unusual number of fine old trees. Then comes this passage on traffic segregation: >Traffic Segregation' has become more than the only civilised way of planning residential areas; it has become Government policy. A rapid acceptance of this principle can only do good. We shall earn the gratitude of our children and, in turn, of theirs. Cars, as has been said, are 'a mixed blessing', if we do not plan for them properly. Their very size, power and speed make them dangerous bullies, and the traditional way of planning along streets allows them to affect all areas. The 'Radburn Principle', on which Caversham Park Village will be laid out, accepts that the advantages of the car are immense, and that its garage should be handy, next to the house. But beyond this, it makes sure that there is another side of life available to all, and particularly to children and old people. It allows for areas where people can walk and talk in safety, where voices will not be drowned by the noise of cars, nor flower-scents tainted by exhaust fumes. Good planning (perhaps surprisingly) can produce these excellent advantages very economically, putting this way of living within everybody's reach. Later on it reads: The principle is easy to understand. A main service-road serves many culs-de-sac, or loops, and this road-system is quite separate from the pathsystem. Bach leads to the right places in the right way. Driving is smoother and pleasanter on roads reserved for vehicles. Walking seems shorter along sheltered, well-landscaped routes. The pathsystem represents an extendedpark. There will be various ways over a linear playground, for small children, longer 'adverture-routes' for older children, and possibilities of safe movement for old people and for those exercising their pets. The system of a main path, with secondary branches leading to schools, shops, Community Centre, Church, playing fields, and many other communal facilities, will be very well illustrated at Caversham. As in all the best examples of this kind of planning, the main paths go under roads where the routes cross, so that nuisance is avoided and danger eliminated. Within such a plan, people can live as privately as they wish, and use the paths as much, or as little, as they like. It all depends on the house-type and the gardens, and more variations are possible with this than with a 'traditional' layout. The idea serves equally well with detached houses, with terraces, in local authority housing schemes, or in private developments for sale, of which Caversham Park Village will be the first large-scale example in Great Britain. I believe that we can and must start to build Caversham Park villages in Australia. This is what we are asking. Of course, the honourable member for Mitchell would be horrified at that sort of plan, but I think that the great majority of Australians would support it. I think that the Minister for Housing **(Mr Kevin Cairns)** would support it. I want to conclude on this note: If there is one thing we need in this Parliament and in this House it is some town planners and some architects. I think it is one of the great tragedies of this place that we have an over-abundance of lawyers and graziers - - {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- And doctors. {: .speaker-NF4} ##### Mr COHEN: -- No. I think that we could use a few more doctors. But we certainly have too many lawyers and farmers and not enough town planners. I believe that this Parliament should represent people from all walks of life. We should have farmers, lawyers, doctors and dentists, but to the best of my knowledge there is not one architect or one town planner in the Parliament In my movements and in my role as Secretary of the Labor Party's Caucus Committee on Housing, Urban Development and Decentralisation, and because of the interest I have had in this matter for many years, I have been fortunate to meet many fine men - men such as Don Gazzard and George Clarke who are well known in Sydney for their work for the State Government. I have not met **Mr Ritter,** but I am looking forward to meeting him in the future. There are also men like Ian McKay who works for the National Capital Development Commission. Recently I noticed that a **Mr Gillies** made a first class statement, which was headlined in the 'Australian'. He said that architects and town planners are going to get involved. I think he used some words which probably are not parliamentary. I say to architects and town planners who may be listening to the broadcast of these proceedings: 'It is time you got involved in the political system'. I know how strongly they feel because I have spoken to them. It is no 'good their trying to exert pressure from outside. They have to be in here where the action is. I support the Labor Party's amendment. {: #subdebate-35-0-s4 .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE:
Chifley **- Mr Speaker,** this is a remarkable Bill. If we study it carefully we see that essentially it is an indictment of the Government. All that the provisions of this Bill do is act as a stop gap. The Government, which has had 5 years to negotiate a new housing agreement with the States, has not done so. Because the Government has not achieved this in 5 years, this Bill has been introduced as a stop gap measure to continue the agreement into the coming financial year, until such time as a new agreement can be completed. This action follows 5 years of deliberation on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and the housing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States. {: .speaker-KDP} ##### Dr Everingham: -- It is getting tired. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- There is no doubt about that. The extraordinary thing is that a new Commonwealth department was created, among other things, to complete this agreement. Previously new agreements were entered into readily. The first agreement came under the Chifley Labor Government. As I understand it, the Government had managed to complete negotiations on this Agreement in the past. But in 1963 a new department was created to improve efficiency. What has happened? That Department has not been able to complete its investigations, present its findings and make arrangements with the States so that the Government may lay before this House at the appropriate time a new CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. That is why I say that this Bill is an indictment against the Government and surely represents an admission of defeat for that lovely, bright, new glossy Department that was formed in 1963. We have a further example offered to us of the remarkable achievements of this Department. I refer to the homes savings grants scheme under which young people can receive up to $500 as a housing grant. This remarkable achievement of the Department of Housing is so full of technicalities that no young person possibly can know what it is all about without getting expert assistance in regard to it. Far too often we find that young people go to the banks and other places for expert explanation of the scheme and are advised wrongly. This occurs because not enough people know what are the provisions of the legislation. I see that the honourable member for Mitchell **(Mr Irwin)** is nodding his head in agreement. This scheme is so tied up with technicalities that many people - and I do not think that there is a member of this House who has not had- {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The scope of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid is very wide. But it does not cover the legislation dealing with the homes savings grants scheme to which the honourable member for Chifley is referring. Unless he can show some relevance between what he is saying and the provisions of this Bill and the amendment, the honourable member will be out of order. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- Thank you. I did think that there was some relevance because I was dealing with the efficiency of the Department of Housing as illustrated by its lateness in finalising the new CommonwealthState Housing Agreement. I was instancing the inefficiency of the Department and the Government - - {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! The honourable member's remarks must be relevant to the Bill and to the amendment moved. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- ... and was referring specifically to this brassy new department that was set up. However, if you are upset about it and a little sensitive to it, I will let it go. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! Did the honourable member say that the Chair was sensitive on the issue? {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- No. I meant that the Government was sensitive. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I see. I point out that, the amendment is fairly wide ranging and covers an enormous number of matters in relation to housing. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- I arranged it that way. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- I can imagine that. I remind the honourable member for Chifley that the scope of the amendment is very wide. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- I am sure, **Mr Speaker,** that you would be most fair at all times. I would not suggest for one moment that you would be sensitive. I think that there may be other people on the Government side of the House who would be sensitive. Leaving that topic, I wish to deal with some other matters which are within the province of this Bill and the amendment. I think that we should be looking at the moment at the point of view which provides for a new look, particularly in regard to housing schemes and to the provision of assistance to enable young people to obtain their own homes. I do feel that high interest rates are having a decisive effect in this respect. That subject is within the province of this Bill. The very expensive interest rates which are charged today means that people in housing commission areas, including the people in my electorate in the new area of Mount Druitt, are being placed in a position where they must meet far higher repayments or rents than otherwise they would be required to pay. This means also that young people who are buying homes by other methods, including through building societies and the like, must bear a greatly increased burden. This problem can be blamed on the Government and its dear money policies. When one looks at this problem one cannot help but consider also that, with the lack of planning of the economy as a whole, the result is that today the deposit gap between the amount that a young person can borrow and the price that must be paid to purchase a home is growing every day. I have heard quite a few people who are well experienced in the economic banking and financial fields put a proposal which I personally strongly agree with. It is this: When a release of Statutory Reserve Deposits is made by the Reserve Bank to the trading banks, a directive should be issued at the same time to the banks under the powers of the Reserve Bank to require that the deposits so released be channelled into the housing industry. We should keep in mind that under this proposal the money would not go into other sectors of the building industry or into commercial building fields but would go specifically into the housing field. I believe that, in this way, lending authorities would be able to provide far more than they can today; accordingly, the deposit gap would be reduced. The honourable member for Mitchell spoke of concrete jungles. I hope that he was not referring to the Mount Druitt area or to housing commission areas - {: .speaker-KJG} ##### Mr Irwin: -- There is no concrete there. {: .speaker-JM9} ##### Mr ARMITAGE: -- I agree. There is no concrete there. In fact, in some places there is not enough. No doubt exists that, as far as the Mount Druitt area is concerned, the houses are modern, well built and aesthetically appealing. It would do some honourable members a great deal of good - I refer to those honourable members who seem to think that the housing commission areas contain houses of a similar design and style without any aesthetic taste in the areas whatsoever - to visit Mount Druitt and to look at these homes. I believe that a good job has been done and that, furthermore, the people there are extremely community conscious. They work very hard, indeed far harder, for their local organisations than do the great majority of people who live in other so-called better areas. I can only say that the esprit de corps amongst these people is very high indeed despite the fact, with which I will deal in a moment, that they must travel large distances to and from work. The area certainly is not a depressed area. I would object to anyone suggesting that under any circumstances. I do say this: There has been a lack of judgment, a lack of planning and a lack of common sense on the part of the Government in the housing field. We see 8,000 housing commission homes being built in these areas. In Mount Druitt, there are more young people per home than probably any other area in the whole of the country. It is estimated that there are 4 to 5 young children in each house. Yet, whilst the housing areas are sewered the industrial area is not. As a result, industry does not move into such areas until they are sewered. The necessary industrial expansion needed to provide local employment does not occur. Honourable members should keep in mind that in most homes in these areas both the mother and father are forced to work and have to travel long distances to and from their employment. They leave early in the morning and come home very late at night. No-one can tell me that that is socially good sense, even though the honourable member for Angas **(Mr Giles)** thinks it is a bit of a joke. I believe that is one of the most important things. Undoubtedly those houses are dumped there. They are nice homes and they are good people, with a high esprit de corps. But when those houses were built and the people came to the area there was a complete lack of playing fields, swimming pools, community centres, footpaths and shopping facilities. People had to travel miles for the normal shopping facilities. There was a complete' lack of transport services. The transport services are in chaos. The State Government, a LiberalCountry Party Government, is not putting enough into the capital expansion of those services to move those people to and from their places of employment. Accordingly, every night the trains are crowded and people are left on the stations waiting for the next train. I believe the dme has come when special grants have to be given by the Commonwealth and such a proposal is embodied in the amendments moved by the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren).** Special grants must be given to assist these outer perimeter areas of the great cities, particularly those areas to which the great mass of the new population is moving. These areas hold the young people bringing up the future generation in this country. I also believe, as is mentioned in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid, that assistance must be given by this Government towards local government interest payments because the burden on local government in these areas is far too great altogether. In other words, we cannot take people from all over the country and just put them in an area with nice homes and good hard-working communityconscious people, without giving them the necessary package deal with all the necessary services and industrial development that go to make a complete community. Those are the reasons why I strongly support this amendment. The new agreement to be negotiated between the Commonwealth and the States has taken this Government 5 years to achieve. The new Department of Housing still cannot settle down and do the job in reasonable time. When the new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement comes before the House, I hope during the next session of the Parliament, I would like it to provide for these matters I have mentioned. I hope it will have a little heart and do something far greater than is being done today for aged persons' units. At present if people register with the Housing Commission of New South Wales for an aged person's unit they have to wait 4 or 5 years, such is the length of the waiting list. That is a different 4 or 5 years from 4 or 5 years in the life of a young person. Many of these old people do not bother to register. The honourable member for Mitchell will understand that. They wonder whether they will still be alive when a house is allocated to them. When this new agreement is negotiated I think the essentials to be considered are the proposals set out in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid on behalf of the Opposition as a whole, particularly the package deals to assist in the capital development of these areas, to provide the necessary facilities, to provide the necessary local employment and to provide the essential assistance for aged persons' units. If this is done this House will have demonstrated that it has a conscience. Until it is done this House does not have a conscience. {: #subdebate-35-0-s5 .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The honourable member for Chifley **(Mr Armitage)** has highlighted the very essence of this debate, especially by drawing attention to the great virtues of the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren).** One wonders why the Government is not prepared to show enthusiasm for these important matters which have been raised. We are coming to the end of a parliamentary session. Soon after Parliament resumes for the Budget session a new Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement will be introduced. It will be effective for a 5-year period. It will have enormous significance for the people of Australia and for anybody to be so satisfied as to feel that the present Agreement represents everything that is desired in the housing field shows a presumption beyond understanding. The honourable member for Reid has moved an amendment which underlines some very necessary and desirable injections into the Australian housing programme. For example, he has proposed that there be an appropriate instrumentality to bring about co-operation and co-ordination between the States and local government in respect of housing. The Opposition contends that there is a fragmented approach to housing at the present time, that we are obtuse and that we have diffused the responsibility for the enormous variety of facets which are involved. If I had time tonight I would dearly love to enunciate the wide range of headings over which the United States housing authority prevails. It has brought under one umbrella responsibility for the wide range of problems in the housing field. Is the Opposition to be criticised for contending that there should be an authority to ensure that planning authorities are established and developed throughout Australia? The honourable member for Robertson **(Mr Cohen)** has told us of the problems which result from inadequate planning. Is the Opposition to be criticised for contending that lands vested in the States or the Commonwealth should be retained for public purposes and that private rights to such land should be limited to leasehold? We all know that land is often valueless until it is aggrandised and upgraded by the expenditure of public money, and the Australian Capital Territory is a case in point. The Australian Capital Territory in the days of King O'Malley and others was a hinterland. We found it; we came to the Molonglo River and subsequently we acquired the land for the airport, the railway and the roads and poured money into the Territory. Canberra is a great city, a city to be emulated not only in this country but by the world. The Crown land of this country was upgraded because we expended public money on it. So when the honourable member for Reid contends on behalf of the Opposition that we should retain this land for the benefit of the people because it will be valueless until we bring services to it, he is saying something that is inspired, idealistic and not deserving of criticism. He wants the Government to accept some responsbility for the identification of new cities. The honourable member for Chifley, the honourable member for Robertson and some honourable members from the other side of the House have told us that the cities are bulging and polluted, that people travel hours and hours to and from work in these rotten contaminated environments. Ought we not be prepared to take this problem by the throat and show the initiative which characterised our forebears who did establish new cities? Where are the new cities that have been established in the last 2 decades while this Government has been in power? The Opposition wants to see the elimination of slums and substandard housing. That is one of the proposals in the amendment. The Opposition wants to assist the appropriate public instrumentalities to carry out a comprehensive urban improvement and development programme. Under the constitutional arrangements that prevail, these instrumentalities are unable to provide the services and to resume areas that are required because of the inadequacy of funds available to them. Let me take a case in point. In the 'Sydney Morning Herald' today, and no doubt in other newspayers as well, there is the revelation that the Sydney Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board decided yesterday to increase its rates for water and sewerage by 9 per cent. The 3 million people who live in the great City of Sydney and in the City of Wollongong will be affected by this decision. Enormous increases in rates will take place, 9 per cent being the average. In addition, there will be other increases which have arisen as a result of revaluation of properties. Many of the municipalities, we will find, will increase their charges for water, sewerage and drainage by as much as S3 per cent or 54 per cent. Every water, sewerage and drainage authority in the capital cities faces the problem that more people require sewerage services today than 20 years ago. The Opposition included a provision in the amendment in recognition of the fact that these instrumentalities and the State governments from which they derive have inadequate money-raising capacities. This Government is usurping those revenueraising capacities. Very often it is spiriting the money away for its own purposes. The things which are near and dear to the people are often being relegated elsewhere. All honourable members, regardless of what side of the Parliament they come from, recognise that the 9 per cent increase in water, sewerage and drainage rates results substantially from the high interest rate policy of this Government. Despite the fact that rates are going up all around Australia there is no preparedness - as the Treasurer **(Mr Snedden)** told me this morning in answer to a question - to make funds available for this purpose. These matters are tied closely to the amendment. The Opposition is not just concerned about making houses available. It is concerned about making homes available and making environments available to people. All honourable members know examples of places in Australia on the outskirts of the great cities such as Sydney, Brisbane, Melbourne and Perth, where young people often have no choice but to go 10, 12, 17 or even 20 miles out. In my area, which is IS or 20-odd miles from Sydney, people are paying $14,000 for a block of land and they are out on the end of a dusty track. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- 'They pay it off at 13£ per cent reducible interest. {: .speaker-K9M} ##### Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- As my colleague has said, they pay 13i per cent reducible interest. They are in shackles for the rest of their life for their first mortgage, let alone the second and third mortgages and the hire purchase on their furniture. They are living at the end of the line on a dusty road which becomes a dust bowl in summer and a quagmire in winter. The services are inadequate and often elementary things such as shopping centres are unavailable. They are miles from the railway and schools and there is an inadequacy of bus services. The Government could not care less. The intention of the amendment is to convey to the people of this country that there is an alternative. What happens in this Parliament is that periodically we concern ourselves with the business of making money available to a limited number of people who want to spend it on the acquisition of a home, but we do not care very much about the manner in which that money is expended or the kind of product that it buys. This indifference is not emulated in other parts of the world at all. In the United States where the great Housing and Urban Affairs Authority operates and co-ordinates in a contemporary kind of way, they have regard for these things. If the Government is to make public money available to people for housing it ought to get the best possible product for it. But the Government makes money available through the State housing authorities and many other schemes such as war service homes, the homes savings grants and even the building societies. Thirty per cent of housing authority money goes to the building societies today. The Government does not care what kind of product that money buys. It is possible to do something about this situation. In the United States the owner of a large piece of land - some hundreds or possibly thousands of acres - could go along to an authority and say: T want to develop this land.' The authority would say to him: 'We will give you assistance which in the long run will benefit the people who are going to live in the houses which you develop. But there is a criterion which you have to fulfil. The development must measure up to planning and architectural concepts. It must measure up in terms of the provision of services and community facilities. Equally importantly, you, as one developer who will get the benefit of low interest or cheap money, will have to show your capacity and willingness to pass on that low interest money.' This can be done in Australia. It can be done in regard to private developers. The Government can say: 'If you measure up to these standards which we consider to be the birthright of every Australian, you can have access to the Commonwealth Development Bank of Australia. If you go and build a lovely town or city on your land and pass on this Shangri-la at advantageous rates of interest then you will get financial backing and support through the Development Bank.' But the Government is using public moneys, sometimes letting racketeers and exploiting entrepreneurs take over and bleed the people dry so that in the end they finish up with a second grade product and their life is purgatory rather than what it ought to be. The Opposition does not accept that proposition. I outlined what is done in the United States for private developers. The Opposition feels that this ought to be done in regard to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Government does not have to dictate anything to the States, which have sovereign rights. State governments are made up of good men and true who have regard for public welfare. If the Government gives them a decent enticement and if it shows that it has some ideals and objectivity about the public interest it will find that every Premier and State Housing Minister will respond. The Government has the prerogative under section 96 of the Constitution to make funds available. It can set down the conditions upon which the funds will be made available. It is time this was done. It is time that the Government made its allocations in regard to the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement with the objective of achieving standards. I have not said any of the things that I intended to say tonight. I wanted to talk about how the Government had destroyed the Housing Agreement and the wonderful concept that the Chifley Government had. I do not want to be retrospective about it, but it is marvellous to think that decades ago a Labor government had ideals that cannot even be comprehended these days by people in the Liberal Party and by the Country Party jackals. They have not got this decent concern about people. They have destroyed the wonderful idea of the rental rebate system which provided for low repayment rates for people who purchased homes, which rates were geared to people's income so that we could fulfil in this country the United Nations objective that people ought not to be spending more than 20 per cent or one-fifth of their income on housing. Honourable members opposite do not care what the people pay any more. If they have a look at the housing commission reports, the details of which I hold in my hand, they will find that the average housing commission applicant in Australia receives an income which does not enable him to pay the rental or to pay the repayment cost of a housing commission home. Many other important principles which I would dearly love the opportunity to outline here this evening have been destroyed by this Government. In conclusion, I want to tell the Government that it ought to think earnestly in this period that remains beween now and the adoption of the next Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. What it has done for decades now is not good enough. It is conceptually primitive, even sterile. There are many marvellous things that this Government could do over the ensuing 5- year period. Its members can read the books in the Library and avail themselves of the research facilities here to see what is being done in other countries. Let us not become more second grade than we are about this matter. Let us do what we can to encourage Australians to fulfil their birthright and live in a decent environment where their children can grow up and have the opportunity to live a decent life. {: #subdebate-35-0-s6 .speaker-KFU} ##### Dr GUN:
Kingston -- I want to speak for a couple of minutes about something that is not directly related to the appropriation in the Bill. As we are discussing the general subject of housing costs I want to raise a matter which affects housing costs and which raises a couple of other important issues. It relates to a report that came across my desk early this week. It is the 1968-69 report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. I must confess that I do not have a great deal of knowledge of or experience about this body. To be quite honest, in the 18 months I have been a member of this Parliament I have not yet had one constituent come to me about a matter relating to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. But I would appreciate it if the Minister for Housing **(Mr Kevin Cairns)** could give me a few straight answers on this annual report because there are a few figures and statements in it that intrigue me. The first thing is the revenue and expenditure statement. We see that the total revenue for the year, after allowing for transfers in respect of premium income applicable to future years, is $1,013,663. That is for one year. So the revenue from premiums applicable to this year is just over $lm. On the other hand, the expenditure is no less than $360,613. So this means that the administration costs of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation are in excess of one-third of the turnover of the Corporation in one year. Honourable members might recall that the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** has criticised the voluntary health insurance funds from time to time because their administration costs were of the order of IS per cent of their annual turnover, yet the administration costs of this Corporation are over 33 per cent of its turnover. How are these administration costs made up? Salaries for the year were $182,000, and rent and office services accounted for $33,681. Where on earth is all this money going? Now let us have a look at what the claims for the year were. They amounted to $21,441. So just over $21,000 was paid out in claims, $lm was collected in revenue and $360,000 was expended on administration costs. I do not suppose we can quibble. I know that we want to have a fairly prestigious Government corporation but, goodness me, it appears that this is just bureaucracy gone mad. I wonder whether the Minister could explain what is going on. It seems to me that here is a misappropriation of public funds. Let us consider what the activities have been. The last paragraph of the statement signed by the Chairman of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation states: in view of the long term nature of the insurance risk and its relationship with the level of economic activity the Corporation believes that an adequate investment portfolio is needed. No wonder it is needed. If we look at the assets of the Corporation we find that its reserves total nearly $3m. This seems to be a completely disproportionate amount. Now it has been decided by the Corporation that it wants to begin investing the money in profitable ventures. That is all very well. Perhaps all of us who are given charge of anything want to build up an empire, but I have yet to see the parallel of what is happening with the Corporation. I take it that the Corporation's assets are to be invested so that they will yield more profits, and at the same time the people who are paying premiums to the Corporation, that is, the lenders, will be passing the increased cost on to the home builder. It seems to me that the person buying a home will be slugged so that the Corporation can build up into an extraordinarily large empire. I notice from the report under the heading 'Financial Results' that during the year the premium was reduced from 2 per cent to l.S per cent, but in spite of that the reserves have built up to the enormous amount of nearly $3m. What will be done with this amount? I should like the Minister to explain also what will happen with this big empire. Why is there this attempt to build it up? On the previous page of the report I notice this statement: >During the year the United States Government established a statutory authority, the Government National Mortgage Association. GNMA will enable lenders for housing to raise new funds by the issue of guaranteed debentures, the guaranteed debentures to be issued on the security of mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration . . . Developments in this field will be watched with interest. I do not know whether this means that it is to become a lending institution. It appears to me that if we take a leaf out of the book of the United States organisation we will be lending the money to the usurers who will be making a profit from public funds lent to them. I regret having to enter into this debate and I know that my remarks are not related directly to the appropriation, but it seems that this is about the most relevant opportunity to raise this matter. I hope that in his reply the Minister will explain some of the cancerous growth of this organisation and let us know what is happening to public funds. I have a belief that the home buyer is being hit while bureaucrats are building up an empire for themselves. {: #subdebate-35-0-s7 .speaker-KWP} ##### Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee -- I would like to mention one or two points. I never cease to wonder why it is that when members of the Opposition - and on occasions members on this side of the House also - make speeches they have to insult someone. I refer tonight to the honourable member for Hughes **(Mr Les Johnson)** who mentioned what seemed to me to be fictitious points. I was sitting here and smiling because some of the things that he was saying were definitely incorrect when he turned round and blamed what he called the 'Country Party jackals'. This kind of remark does not do 'him any credit whatsoever. This man who lives in a city electorate and represents people from the city has no idea of the position in the better Australia outside the metropolitan area. Another of his remarks to which I object was the suggestion that countries around the world had better houses and conditions than Australia. What kind of Australian is this man to say these things when men who travel with parliamentary delegations to countries overseas come back here, no matter from what side of the House they are, and say that this is the best country in the world? They say that Australia is a great country. It does not do for any honourable member to put up the suggestion in this House that regarding housing Australia is one of the worst countries in the world. When an honourable member does this someone is bound to contradict him and I am the one who is doing it tonight. {: #subdebate-35-0-s8 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr BERINSON:
Perth -- I understand that this sitting is scheduled to go on till 2.30 or 3 o'clock in the morning and I do not have any wish to protract it unduly with a lengthy speech. In fact, even if I wanted to do so I understand that I would not have the opportunity since the Whips have been able to rake up only 5 minutes for me which, if I may say so, is hardly appropriate for a matter as important as this and touching so many people so closely. Let me say firstly that it seems to be characteristic of housing debates in this Parliament that the scope of Government legislation is always very restricted and the scope of subsequent Opposition amendments is always very wide. I do not think that that is coincidental. This situation is an accurate mirror of the importance which the respective parties place on housing and the recognition by the respective parties of the role which the Commonwealth should play in this field. Earlier today we were reminded of the reluctance of the Commonwealth Government to accept early claims upon it for support for education. At first in the 1950s Prime Minister Menzies insisted that since education was not the direct constitutional responsibility of the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth should not enter into the field of education finance. But over the years the needs, the pressures and the demands of the community became too great. As a result the position has now been reached after several intermediate stages where, inadequate as it still is, Commonwealth financial assistance to education runs into hundreds of millions of dollars. In the field of housing the Commonwealth is still at an early stage of participation. I think the Commonwealth's contribution is limited and inadequate and at least in some respects - I have in mind the home savings grants scheme - misdirected. The truth is that just as the States could not continue and could not possibly cope alone with the needs of education, so are they unable to meet their responsibilities in housing. A table already incorporated in this debate by the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren),** the Opposition's shadow minister for housing, shows that the proportion of low cost State housing has consistently diminished as the population has increased at record rates. At the same time as that has been happening, that is to say, at the same time as a greater and greater proportion of the community is forced into private, higher priced housing, people have been forced to build on higher priced land. What has happened to land prices in the last decade is too notorious to need elaboration here. But what has the Commonwealth done to combat this? It has done nothing. It has not even produced an idea on the subject. Only the Australian Labor Party has suggested a possible solution. We said at the 1969 election, and have continued to maintain, that States should be financed by the Commonwealth to enable them to acquire land to develop and sub divide and then sell it at cost. That proposition was a possible one; it is a practical one, but only given Commonwealth financial support. I would like to give one example of where this proposition could be realistically and reasonably applied. At the moment we have a discussion in Perth related to rezoning proposals by the Metropolitan Regional Planning Authority. This involves the re-zoning and development of a number of urban corridors and there is some controversy about this proposal in an area to the north of the city. The Planning Authority has opposed re-zoning in the socalled northern corridor but the new Labor Minister for Town Planning has made statements which obviously show him to be sympathetic to it. I have no doubt that he would like to encourage as much urban land as possible in a developed state on to the market in order to place a damper on land costs in the Perth metropolitan area. However, there can hardly be any doubt that the best solution, and the one most in the public interest in this area, would be for the State to purchase the land in the northern corridor while it is still zoned rural that is to say, while it is still priced at rural land rates. The State should purchase the land before zoning and before the inevitable inflation in price which follows rezoning. I have previously quoted in this chamber examples of rural land selling in one year at $1,000 an acre. After rezoning took place, the price went within 3 years to $12,000 an acre. I have no doubt that despite the very best intentions of the present State Government, a similar situation will develop in the northern corridor if rezoning is permitted. I also have no doubt that a State Labor Government would be more than interested in the proposition we have consistently presented, that is, it would be interested in resuming, developing, subdividing and then selling the land at cost. Whatever hopes may have rested on the development of the area in regard to the dampening down of land prices, nothing is more certain than that the most effective way it could operate would be under government management and disposition. But the Western Australian Government, as with the governments in each State, could not prudently consider a proposition of this type in view of present financial considerations. Only the Commonwealth can properly assist this development to take place. I want to stress that I am not dealing only with a question of cheaper land. The question of the complete urban environment is also involved. Only a government with large tracts of land at its disposal can create an environment as pleasant as has been developed at Canberra. Only the Commonwealth Government can be relied on <to incorporate adequate open space, recreation facilities and safety features in urban developments because only the Government has enough finance. The Government Whip is looking at me rather severely, but I have 12 seconds left. In that time I want to add a thought to that presented by the honourable member for Kingston **(Dr Gun).** He asked the Minister for Housing **(Mr Kevin Cairns)** some questions relating to the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation. I support the general trend of his thoughts, although perhaps not his vehemence in totality. I hope that the Minister will answer those questions. I wish to add a question. The honourable member for Kingston pointed to the extraordinary percentage of revenue which goes in operating expenditure, particularly on salaries. He also pointed to the low proportion of claims. The Minister was asked whether expenditure might be reduced. In answering that question perhaps he could also indicate whether he would consider lowering the premiums. It is clear from the very small number of claims made on the Corporation that even if no premiums were charged the income on accumulated assets would be sufficient to meet any reasonable claims in the future. There would be nothing wrong with very low premiums being charged by the Corporation. The insurers have good security. They are not insuring something which will go out of fashion next year. Housing does not go out of fashion and its value will not drop. I hope that the Minister will see fit to comment on the points raised by the honourable member for Kingston, and in indicating whether operating expenditure can be reduced perhaps he would also say whether he would be prepared to look at the prospects of reducing the present level of premiums. {: #subdebate-35-0-s9 .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
Minister for Housing · LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- in reply - Perhaps it would be appropriate for one or two moments to return to the Bill which is before the House, and merely to remind honourable members I will read the title of the Bill. It is: A Bill for an Act relating to financial assistance to the States for the purpose of housing. The Bill is designed to make financial assistance available to the States over the months subsequent to 1st July and until such time as a new Commonwealth and State housing agreement is passed by this House, which we hope will be as early as possible in the Budget session. It is in relation to the Bill that I shall direct my remarks, because that is the matter before the House. Before I deal in some measure with points that have been raised in relation to the Bill let me say that I thought that the attack that was made upon the honourable member for Michell **(Mr Irwin)** was an unfair attack upon a person who, in respect of housing, has shown an incredibly kind nature and an incredibly great understanding of those who require housing. Unlike so many of those who have criticised him he has had actual experience in the field. Those who know something of the development of the areas west of Sydney will know that he has had experience in the housing field. It is worth recalling that the honourable member for Mitchell drew, from his own experience, 2 points which are worth recapitulating. He made it abundantly clear that even though costs of housing and the costs of all factors associated with housing development have risen significantly, contrary to the philosophy of the amendment moved on behalf of the Opposition, local influences in this field can have a great and pervasive effect. We know from experience that such matters as the supply of and demand for factors that are appropriate to housing have a big influence on the difference in costs and the difference in escalation of costs which occur in various parts of the Commonwealth in various local authority areas. The honourable member for Mitchell drew upon his own experience in that field. The second matter to which he referred, and which is worth recapitulating, is that by this amendment members of the Opposition clearly are trying to play politics. The proposition that a Canberra should be built almost everywhere in Australia, where the Opposition would suggest it should be built is ludicrous. It is against common sense, but it is a proposition which finds its way into the amendment moved by the honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren)** who led for the Opposition. It is not appropriate and it is designed to attract some of our sympathy. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- What sympathy? {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The honourable member for Reid, who is interjecting, made one or two points appropriate to the Bill. He referred to a report from the Brotherhood of St Laurence concerning rents that are paid for certain flats and dwellings in Melbourne. I think that the figure he mentioned was $22. The honourable member recently received an answer to a question on this matter. The question asked the Government to supply details of the weekly cost for a 3-bedroom flat or dwelling and it was directed particularly to Victoria. The answer which has been supplied to the honourable member indicates: {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- What date was that? {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- It was within the last week - very recently. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- I have not seen it. {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- The honourable member may go to his room and acquire it. The information is easily obtained from the Housing Commission of Victoria. Rents paid on such houses and flats range between $10.40 and $12.30 a week. There may be a slight escalation of those figures but there is a great difference between rents of that level and rents of over $20 a week. The charges for rents and the charges for houses which are being acquired from a State housing authority are determined by that authority. Many of the commissions make different determinations according to the source of their funds and according to averaging or other processes which they might make between houses built at different times. The most interesting part of the argument delivered by the Opposition in relation to this matter is the recapitulation of the policy of the Chifley Government. It was mentioned by every speaker for the Opposition except the honourable member for Chifley **(Mr Armitage).** There may be an undue sensi tivity in that respect. However, let me remind the House that the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement which was negotiated by the Chifley Government had 2 features which it is appropriate to mention. It placed practically the complete emphasis in its policy on rental housing and it applied an interest rate to the loans and advances made available to the States of between one-eighth per cent and onequarter per cent below the long term bond rate. The concessional interest rate being applied by this Government is 1 per cent below the long term bond rate. I think that fact ought to be remembered by the House because it is appropriate to a correct understanding of the position. Reverting to the interest rate argument, the final point I make is this: It is now demonstrated that in any day and age interest rates are not something which can be completely insulated from what occurs elsewhere in the economy. The days when one thought that interest rates could be completely isolated are gone. As was demonstrated by **Mr Phillips** of the Reserve Bank of Australia in the R. C. Mills lecture delivered on Wednesday night, those who would suggest that we ought to revert to interest rate policies of former days have at the same moment to concede that they must adopt the fiscal policies of certain days. They cannot exist in isolation. {: .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: -- The Government held the interest rates on war service homes. {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Interest rates have been held on war service homes and that is to our credit. The honourable member should be delighted that we did not hold the policies of the Australian Labor Party in respect to the concessional long term bond rates. The country should be grateful that we did not hold the small concession which was given in that respect. If we accept the contention that interest rates should be rigid and completely isolated from what occurs elsewhere in the economy we are going to return to the days when attemps were made to control interest rates under, for example, the British Labour governments in the years after the second world war. We will return to some of those policies which were utterly disastrous in terms of capital investment in the country, utterly disastrous with respect to the rigidity which they built into the British economic system, and utterly disas- trous with respect to the ultimate benefits which could be given to the British people under such a policy. Those policies do not apply today. Any sensible fiscal or monetary management in an economy has to argue that such policies do not apply today. The honourable member for Chifley was concerned about bank advances for housing and that the calls to statutory reserve deposits from the banking system in respect of appropriate money management should not occur to the extent to which they occurred, and that there should be willy nilly a release from statutory reserve deposits so that banks can make an appropriate effort in the housing field. If the honourable member were aware of what could almost be termed contemporary history with respect to housing he would be aware that in the middle of last year the banking system and particularly the savings banks increased their activities in housing so significantly as to take up the slack which developed because lending from various other institutions decreased greatly. During last year the banks, in terms of housing, provided the flexibility which enabled housing construction to proceed at as even a level as was in any way possible. Other honourable members have raised various points in relation to this matter. At this hour I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House. I would like to make one last point which is appropriate. The amendment which was moved by the Opposition will be rejected for 2 principal reasons. The philosophy of the amendment is a completely centralist philosophy and it has been- {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- Completely what? {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- It has been a completely centralist philosophy. If the honourable member would like I shall spell it for him. It is perfectly clear to those who are aware of what has occurred with respect to housing and <the factors which go into housing that local influences in a whole number of fields can be the most pervasive and most effective influences in many ways in respect to the cost of that housing. They occur, of course, under an economic umbrella which is outside local control but which is within the limitations of the Commonwealth Government. The second reason why this amendment is to be rejected - and one has to judge the sincerity of amendments in this House - is that quite clearly there is a lack of sincerity in the amendment. Let me demonstrate the lack of sincerity. If the Opposition was concerned with costs in this field, if it was concerned with increased housing costs, which I know have occured, and if it was really concerned with those things that make up housing costs, it would be concerned not only with interest rates but also with insurance rates and the grants that are appropriate to the levels of housing. In order to expose the lack of sincerity of the Opposition in this respect I refer the Opposition to a debate that occurred in another place last week, on 21st April. If members of the Opposition are concerned with housing costs they should examine closely the Hansard record of proceedings in another place at page 935; the circumstances in which members of the Opposition voted as they did on that occasion and why those members effectively rejected the propositions concerning the levels of the grants for housing. If honourable members opposite make this examination they will realise that the actions of those honourable senators on that occasion ran counter to a philosophy which has been presumably- {: #subdebate-35-0-s10 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Oxley that he remove himself from the position in which he is standing. {: .speaker-RK4} ##### Mr Hayden: -- I was just getting a drink of water. {: #subdebate-35-0-s11 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Oxley that he remove himself from the position at the end of the table. {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- I merely make this one last point: It is perfectly clear from the philosophy and the substance of the amendment, and from the economic policies which underlie the principle of the amendment put forward by the Opposition, that it is inappropriate in the Australian context and it is outside the structure of this Bill. The amendment is not appropriate to what is being attempted to be achieved in this Bill. I remind the Housethat this Bill is designed to give assistance to the States for the months subsequent to 1st July this year, so that some States which draw advances under the Act during: the early months of the year can in fact obtain those advances until such time as a Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement Bill is passed by bis House very early in the Budget session. **Mr UREN** (Reid) - I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. In the course of my speech tonight I said that the cost of a Victorian Housing Commission dwelling, according to the Brotherhood of St Laurence, is $22 a week for a 3-bedroom flat. On 1st April 1971 I placed on the notice paper a question in regard to Housing Commission rents. I will read the question in a moment. The Minister for Housing **(Mr Kevin Cairns)** stated quite falsely and untruthfully that I had received an answer several days ago. {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- No, I did not say that. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN: -- The Hansard record will show that the Minister said that if I checked my desk I would find I had received the reply. I draw the attention of the House to Question No. 3044 at page 7190 of the House of Representatives Notice Paper for Thursday, 29th April 1971. The question reads: > **Mr UREN:** To ask the Minister for Housing- > >Can he say whether the Housing Commission of Victoria has (a) increased its interest rates on low cost dwellings since January 1970 from 4i per cent to 6 per cent, (b) added an administrative charge of 4 per cent and a death benefit cover of i per cent making a total interest charge of 7 per cent on dwellings constructed by the Commission and (c) raised the cost of a 3- bedroom flat to $22 per week. > >Can he supply details of the cost per week for a 3-bedroom flat or dwelling controlled by other State housing authorities. That is the question I asked the Minister. The Minister has said that he has supplied an answer and that it has been on my desk for several days. That statement is completely untrue and I ask him to withdraw it immediately. He made the statement that a reply had been given and it was false. {: .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- Order! The only circumstances calling for a withdrawal would be in relation to a remark that was unparliamentary or offensive. Nothing of that nature arises in this case. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr UREN: -- The Minister made a false statement. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Order! The honourable member for Reid has made his personal explanation. **Mr KEVIN** CAIRNS (Lilley- Minister for Housing) - I wish to make a personal explanation. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? {: .speaker-JTS} ##### Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Yes. The honourable member for Reid **(Mr Uren)** quoted with some authority a report which has been made by the Brotherhood of St Laurence, and he referred to a rental something in excess of $20. I understand that that rental rate, which he perhaps quoted in good faith because be believed it to be correct, is not correct. I cast no aspersions on the honourable member as to the truth or otherwise of his statement; I merely suggest to him that from my understanding of the evidence I have the rental rate which he quoted is incorrect, and that the rates charged are somewhat below the rates mentioned in the report by the Brotherhood of St Laurence. I mentioned that the bases upon which the honourable member arrived at his conclusions were several. If I have offended the honourable member I apologise, but I merely suggest that the figure of $22 does not accord with the information that is available to me. {: .speaker-EE4} ##### Mr Uren: -- 'Further to my personal explanation, the point that I wish to take up with the Minister is that he said that I had received a reply to my question several days ago and that the reply was on my desk. The Minister's claim is a complete falsehood. {: .speaker-10000} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: -The honourable member has made his personal explanation and the Minister has replied. Question put: >That the words proposed to be omitted **(Mr Uren's amendment)** stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr P. E. Lucock) AYES: 44 NOES: 42 Majority . . 2 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-35-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Kevin** Cairns) read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2310 {:#debate-36} ### DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** - by leave - agreed to: >That in lieu of the days and times of meeting next week which were determined by resolution earlier this day the House shall, unless otherwise ordered, meet next week on the following days and at the times specified: Monday, 3rd May, 2.30 Tuesday, 4th May, 10 a.m.; Wednesday, 5th May, 2 p.m.; Thursday, 6th May, 10 a.m. {: .page-start } page 2310 {:#debate-37} ### INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (FURTHER PAYMENT) BILL 1971 {:#subdebate-37-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 23 April (vide page 2004), on motion by **Mr Sneddens** That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-37-0-s0 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports -- The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval for payment to the International Development Association of a sum not exceeding the equivalent of $US48m in connection with the third replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association. This organisation is part of what is known as the World Bank group. It has the virtue of being designed to assist what are called developing countries by providing loans that do not bear interest. The only charge is what is called a service charge of something like 0.75 per cent. Otherwise, the sums that are raised in this way are used to assist the underdeveloped parts of the world to diversify and to improve their economies in the hope that some day they might achieve something like the state of growth of those areas that are described as being developed. Each year the International Development Association produces a very informative annual report. The latest one available is for 1970, and I think it highlights just what the real difficulties are. Some statistics are given, and then the report states: >An analysis of world trade by origin and destination confirms the prevailing trends of the past decade: the expansion of developed countries' exports has been absorbed by the developed countries themselves; the trade flow of developing countries is increasingly directed toward the developed countries; and the proportion of developing countries' exports to other developing countries has been gradually shrinking. In other words, whilst there has been an expansion of world trade, the greatest expansion has been between developed countries. A relatively smaller increase has occurred among the developing countries themselves. This, in a sense, is the reverse of what it is hoped might be achieved. I do not intend to speak very long because, candidly, I regard it as absurd- {: .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr Foster: -- **Mr Deputy Speaker,** 1 raise a point of order. **Sir, I** have been trying to hear the honourable member for Melbourne Ports addressing this House, but I cannot hear him because of your Country Party colleagues on the other side of the House who just will not quieten down. Can you control them? {: #subdebate-37-0-s1 .speaker-KIH} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Lucock: -- Order! The conversation is not coming from only one section of the House. 1 repeat that it is difficult for the honourable member for Melbourne Ports to be heard above the conversation in the chamber, and I would suggest that in these circumstances honourable members, if they wish to continue their conversations, should do so outside the chamber. {: .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN: -- 1 was about to say that I regard it as absurd that this Parliament should contemplate this sort of measure in this way, and I say that with some feeling. 1 suggest that if one looks back to the time when a measure similar to the one we are discussing was debated in this chamber some 2 years ago, the debate took place in much the same sort of circumstances. I suggest that a proper amount of time ought to be set aside in this House to debate what are Australia's real obligations to assist in the economic development of those parts of the world which are less fortunate than we are and, of course, of those parts which are adjacent to us geographically. The way in which this debate is taking place reflects no credit on the Government. After all, this measure was introduced into this House only on Thursday of last week, and we are expected to debate it at this hour only a week later. But the International Development Association is one of the more worthy of the institutions because it collects finance from countries such as Australia - a developed country - and lends it on low-interest terms, or in this case on no-interest terms, to assist in the sort of projects that are quite clearly delineated in the tables contained in the Association's annual report. In a way I am sorry that I have not more time to go into details, but I commend the report to honourable members. On page 6 of the report it is stated: >IDA- That is, the Internationa] Development Association - made its first development credits in fiscal 1961. It has been in existence now for nearly 10 years. The report continues: >During the past 10 years IDA has made 221 commitments, totalling $2,773. lm net in 55 countries, for agriculture, education, transportation, electric power, water supply, telecommunications, industry, and project preparation and technical assistance. It goes on to list the countries to which assistance has been granted. They include India, Pakistan, the Sudan, Turkey and the United Arab Republic. It then gives details of the assistance which has been given to these countries. The report continues: >Construction, expansion and/or equipping of 627 general secondary and specialised training schools, 52 teacher training colleges, and 8 agricultural universities. These projects, in 11 African, 3 Asian and 2 South American countries, will enable enrolment to expand by 148,900 in general secondary schools; 31,100 in technical and agricultural training schools; 7,700 in teacher training colleges; 6,200 in agricultural universities. Impressive as those figures may sound, they are but a small part of the task that has to be performed. The period from 1960 to 1970 was described rather hopefully as the decade of development, but apparently because of the inadequacy of the resources that were made available by the countries which should have thought more seriously about the problem, the decade of development was a decade of disappointment. Whether the world will have the same kind of opportunity from 1970 to 1980, without there being some fearful consequences, remains to be seen. One needs to look only at the tragic events taking place in India, Pakistan, Laos, Cambodia and other parts of the world at present to realise that the margins of tolerance might not be as great in the 10 years from 1970 to 1980. That is why I commend to honourable members, who may be a little too tired to worry about it tonight, the material contained in the annual report of the World Bank, and particularly that part which deals with the International Development Association. We support this Bill because we believe that the expenditure of $48m over a period of 3 years will place no great hardship on the Australian economy, but at least it will help to bring some of the required improvement that is needed so much in these underdeveloped parts of the world. On behalf of the Opposition, I support the measure. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. {:#subdebate-37-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Snedden)** read a third time. Sitting suspended from 11.29 p.m. to 12 midnight. Friday, 30th April 1971 {: .page-start } page 2312 {:#debate-38} ### SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1971-72 {:#subdebate-38-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 27th April (vide page 2074), on motion by **Mr Snedden:** That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-38-0-s0 .speaker-KDT} ##### Mr FAIRBAIRN:
LP **- Mr Speaker,** may I have the indulgence of the House to raise a point of procedure on this legislation? Before the debate is resumed on the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1971-72, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the House to have a general debate covering this Bill and the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1971-72. Separate questions may of course be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. I suggest therefore that you permit the subject matter of the 2 Bills to be discussed in this debate. {: #subdebate-38-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr SPEAKER: -- Order! Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering the 2 financial measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. {: #subdebate-38-0-s2 .speaker-JAG} ##### Mr CREAN:
Melbourne Ports -- I do not know how many people are aware of the fact that, between them, these 2 measures sanction the expenditure of approximately $ 1,500m. If this House is to meet in these circumstances, the Government ought to show at least a pretence of some interest in the proceedings. This kind of continued conduct will only bring this place into disrepute. These measures were introduced into the House on Thursday of last week and are being debated now. It is hoped that the debate will conclude by 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock this morning. The Supply Bill (No. 1) 1971-72 sanctions the expenditure of $1,219,758,000 ordinary accounts while the Supply Bill (No. 2) 1971-72 provides for the expenditure of $313,554,000 on capital works and services. I say to those Government members who are not yet in the Ministry that if ever they do attain ministerial rank I hope that they will treat the business of this place a little more seriously than seems to be the case at the moment. The way in which this Parliament is being run is absurd. To illustrate my point I refer to the sort of measures that have been introduced last week and this week. I will mention only 4 of them which come to mind. We have one Bill which is fundamental to the whole structure of the waterside industry, a workers compensation Bill whichshouldhaveappeared2yearsagoat least, alterations to the resale price maintenancesectionoftherestrictivepractices legislation, and a highly complicated series of amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act. As things stand all of them are to be dealt with on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of next week. This Parliament will not then reassemble until 16th August. If that- is regarded as the proper way to transact the affairs of a nation I certainly want to make my small measure of protest about it. As every honourable member knows, these 2 Bills are annual measures. They provide the last opportunity for honourable members to debate the finances of this nation before the Budget session in August. They cover Supply from the beginning of July, the commencement of the 1971-72 financial year, to the 30fh November 1971 and provide for the ordinary services and projected capital works during that period. For the most part this is done on the pro rata basis of 5/12ths of the appropriations set out in the last Budget Of course, those figures are fiction because, as we all know, certain changes were made in the Budget as a result of certain steps taken in this House in February and March. I want to draw attention to one item in particular in Supply Bill (No. 2) which I am sure ought to be of concern to members of the Country Party. It is estimated that $33.5m will be required during the Supply period for advances by way of loan to the Australian Wool Commission. I would have thought that there would be some honourable member on the Government side of the House who would want to debate seriously the situation of the wool industry as they find it, particularly the workings of the Wool Commission. Honourable members would have had adequate opportunity to have such a debate had these Bills been held over until a reasonable time. That could have been done if the Government had been willing to remain in session for at- least another, week or two. But members of the Country Party support the Government and apparently concur in the process by which it hastily dismisses itself from - public responsibility. I think we are at a time of great watershed so far as the development . of the wool industry is concerned. On the one hand there is the optimist who thinks that the wool industry somehow is going mysteriously to change for the better all of a sudden; on the other hand there is the pessimist who believes that the industry is going to be slowly extinguished because of the greater use of synthetic fibres. I do not know how this question is going to be resolved in the next year or two but I think it is a subject about which a lot more should have been said in this House than honourable members will have the chance of saying. Another measure, the Loan Bill, was introduced in this House today. It will come on for debate some time next week. In essence it shows how nebulous are some of the assumptions on which the Budget presented in August last year was drawn. A lot had happened in the 7 months or so since August last. 1 will say a bit more about the Loan Bill next week. I certainly do not feel like delaying honourable members at this time of night. I regard procedures like this as a farce. Nobody wants to listen and for that reason 1 will say no more. I have made what protest I can on behalf of the Opposition. 1 hope at least that the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** will convey the feelings of honourable members on this side of the House to his colleagues. Perhaps he may even yet persuade them to meet for another week at least in order to deal with some degree of decency with the very important measures that are to be pushed through this House next week. {: #subdebate-38-0-s3 .speaker-JP8} ##### Mr BERINSON:
Perth In the days before television there was a British Broadcasting Corporation radio comedy series called Take It From Here*. As I sit in this chamber listening to debates, especially those concerned with the disbursement of enormous amounts of public funds, I often find myself recalling a sketch from that series in which Dick Bentley played the part of a big time American gambler. On the first night this gambler went into a casino and won 48,000. Everybody was staggered, but he just sneered: Peanuts'. On the second night he went into the casino and won 50,000. Again everybody was staggered, but he just said: Peanuts'. On the third night he went into the casino and won 100,000 and everybody, body was staggered. But once again, as cool as you like, he just said: 'Peanuts'. Finally, on the fourth night he went into the casino and said: 'Does anyone want to buy 198,000 peanuts?' That story comes to mind, I suspect, because the cavalier way in which we deal, with public funds is such that an observer could well believe that v/e are not dealing with public money at all but that we are dealing only with peanuts. We are not dealing with peanuts; we are dealing with real money, good Australian dollars. Under these Bills there are 1,532 million of them. I can say quite honestly that I have been on committees where greater scrutiny has been given to a petty cash voucher for $15.32 than we are giving tonight to the expenditure of a sum 100 million times as great. It appears to me that there are 2 main reasons for our skimpy and superficial performances in debates such as this debate on supply and analogous debates on the Budget and Appropriation Bills. In the first place, the practice has developed of allowing discussion on any subject at all during these debates. So there is a very great temptation to concentrate on one's own special interests rather than on any scrutiny of the details of expenditure in question. For example, in the debate on the Appropriation Bills earlier this week we had successive speakers ranging over topics as far apart from each other and from any scrutiny of expenditure as cigarette advertising, the East Pakistan cyclone, Anzac Day, gold mining subsidies and the Trade Practices Act. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not attempting to say that any of those matters was unimportant and not worthy of discussion. What I am saying is that if we are to have a debate covering all those topics we certainly will not be able to deal with any one of them in sufficient detail and we certainly, will not be doing the job we should be doing in the scrutiny of expenditure. The second reason for our odd treatment of these public funds is that it is really not practical under the present forms of the House to pursue financial inquiries in any detail. For example, in the Supply Bill (No. 1) there are something over 100 provisions under the heading 'Salaries and Payments in the Nature of Salaries'. If I asked in each case for the increases which these sums represent over the amounts provided under equivalent headings last year and for an indication of how much of the increases is due to increased salaries and how much to increased staff, I simply would not get an answer. That would not be a frivolous question. I want to emphasise that. Among other things, the answer would show whether the Government's restraint on Public Service recruitment in this calendar year is intended to be carried over into the next financial year. But there is no point in asking that question because I would never get the answer. In the same Supply Bill there are over 100 appropriations under this delightfully vague heading 'Administrative Expenses'. They are not small sums involved under that heading. Under the heading 'Administrative Expenses', for example, the Department of the Interior is seeking an appropriation of over $4m and the Bureau of Census and Statistics alone over $Sm. All told, we will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars under this heading. To tell us that those hundreds of millions are for administrative expenses is just the same as telling us nothing at all. If I were to make a simple and reasonable request to have extracted from each heading the amount represented by telephone charges I would not get an answer. If I did, it would certainly not be in time for me to pursue the matter in this debate if I felt that course to be appropriate. Let me emphasise that this would not be a frivolous question. Indeed, the 126th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts almost invites that question with its discussion and obvious concern for possible Public Service abuse of the STD services. Let me give one more example of matters, which should clearly be pursued but which certainly will not be pursued under the present system. I draw the attention of honourable members to page 34 of the Supply Bill (No. 1). Can anyone say that we should not seek further detail about the fascinating and intriguing item: Taxes and fines - remission under special circumstances. The amount involved is $1,550,000. We should be making such an inquiry. This should be the time to make it. We will not make that inquiry because we know quite well that if we did we would get no meaningful reply. These are examples of specific items in the Supply Bill which properly should be pursued. I want to make one more general comment on the nature of supplementary appropriations such as those we dealt with earlier this week, and on our inadequate and even improper treatment of them. If I understand the position correctly, these supplementary appropriations are meant to cover expenditure which could not have been anticipated when the Budget was framed and brought down. Obvious examples under that heading would be the increase in salaries due to the 6 per cent wage increase last December. On looking through those Appropriation Bills one will find hundreds of items in relation to which it is not at all clear that the expenditure in question could not have been anticipated What on earth was the Bureau of Meteorology doing that required an additional appropriation of $200,000 this month to cover telephone, postage and telegram expenses for the period since August? What was the bureau doing that required an enormous sum like that for such a limited purpose and which could not have been anticipated as recently as last August? Again, one can readily understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs could not have anticipated its disaster relief contribution of $130,000 or its special aid to Cambodia of $900,000. But why would it not be able to anticipate that it would be liable for an additional $713,000 for rent between last August and February this year? These are the questions which we should be asking in appropriation debates. But we realise that there is no practical point in asking them. Clearly we will get nowhere trying to clarify these matters and trying to do the job we should be doing in relation to money Bills while we are restricted to the present forms of the House. New forms are needed. As it happens, we do not even have to exercise our imagination to think what they might be. The Senate Estimates Committees which were formed last year are a very good indication of how a practical job can be done. When one reads the Hansard report of the Senate Estimates Committees one gets the impression that they are still feeling their way to find the best and most appropriate procedure. But it is already quite clear that in these very important and basic matters the Senate is leaving this House for dead. Honourable members spent 6 to 7 hours debating Appropriation Bills Nos. 3 and 4 - all of it on second reading generalisations. By contrast, the Senate Committees will spend something like 50 hours in detailed probing of expenditure. They will have the Ministers and senior officers of each department before them. When the senators ask a question they can pursue it. If they do not get a reply they like they can ask the question again or ask another one or do whatever they like to elicit the information that they are after. We cannot do that under our present forms. We should be aiming to do it under new forms similar to those of the Senate. Not least of the benefits which have flowed from these Senate estimates committees is the fact that they have forced departments to produce supplementary memoranda to the Estimates. For example, whereas in the Appropriation Bill available to members in this House the estimates of the Department of Trade and Industry occupied 2 pages, the elaboration available to the Senate estimates committees went to 50 pages. I want to say something about this derived from the comments of the honourable member for Cook **(Mr Dobie),** the Chairman of our Joint Standing Committee on Public Accounts, whose opinion on these matters I think should be respected. In a debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) he said 3 things that I want to quote. In the first place he said this: it is disturbing to find that the second reading speech of the Treasurer **(Mr Snedden),** though it described in general terms the reason for the total appropriation . . . does not contain sufficient supporting material to explain why approval for certain amounts is being sought from this House. The second statement was this: >I hope that when the Bill reaches the Committee stage there will be adequate material made available to honourable members to ensure meaningful debate within the time allotted for this purpose. That was a rather forlorn hope because not only did we not get additional information at the Committee stage, but we did not get the Committee stage itself. We were gagged at the second reading stage of that Bill and we had no opportunity for Committee discussion. The third statement, with which he concluded his comments on this debate was: >So I would repeat to the point of nausea, but it must be repeated, that the Parliament must have the figures. The honourable member for Cook at that time spoke of the need for the figures and spoke in terms indicating that they were not available. In fact, as it happens, they are available. There is a complete breakdown and elaboration of the appropriations for every department made available by those departments to the Senate estimates committees. 1 have them here, and they are interesting reading. Perhaps, **Mr Speaker,** you will be interested to know that the standing of this House has now so depreciated that members of this House are not entitled to copies of these explanatory memoranda as of right. When I read in Tuesday's Senate Hansard of reference to documents of this nature I went to the House of Representatives Bills and Papers Office and asked for them. I was informed that that Office did not have any copies. I went to the Senate Papers Office and I was there informed that it had some copies but that it would not give them to the likes of me, that is to say, the likes of a member of the House of Representatives. I am not blaming the officers of the Senate for that. They were acting under ministerial instructions, and in fact they were good enough to suggest to me that if I liked I could go to each Minister separately, cap in hand, and ask him whether he would be good enough to provide me with a copy of these documents. That will be the day. I am here, in common with all other members, to represent about 60,000 electors and a population of over 100,000. Not the least of the matters on which we are here to represent our constitutents in the distribution of the very heavy taxation levies which are imposed on them. In that duty we are entitled to every assistance and not the obstruction which these ministerial instructions represent. I know there is a habit in this House to ask questions in debate and never have them answered. But I ask the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn)** to listen to this question and please forward it to the appropriate Minister: Will the Government ensure that in future all copies of these memoranda are made available to members of this House or at least made available to them on request? I can see no reason why that procedure should not be adopted, and I believe that this House would be entitled to resent any further refusal to prevent us having the benefit of the memoranda to which I have referred. Whatever reason there might have been in the past for Executive reluctance to agree to an effective committee system - I personally have never seen such a reason - there can be no reason for preventing a House system of estimates committees being established at once, and certainly in time for the Budget debate. The Government has nothing to lose from such a move. Our committees would not frustrate or delay its programme as it might have feared. We have the example of the Senate committees which make no move to cause and indeed have no power to indulge in that sort of frustration. A refusal to institute a committee system would not even enable the Government to continue to hide the facts, if that is what it wants to do, although quite honestly I do not say that I believe that is the intention. There can be no hiding of the facts because if we want to know something all that we need to do is simply approach our Senate colleagues and ask them to put the questions on our behalf. If anyone wants to reduce the House to contempt and complete ineffectualness, it seems to me that that would be the way to do it. I hope that none of us will acquiesce in the continued refusal of the Government to set up a suitable system for the proper scrutiny of its accounts. I do not want to digress too far from my main point concerning the estimates committees, but I should like to say one word on the whole question of parliamentary committees. We had a flurry of activity on this subject last year. There were inter-party committees of back benchers; a report was prepared and circulated by you, **Mr Speaker;** there was an urgency motion, at which time the Government did not sound really unenthusiastic about the proposal; but since then - quite predictably, I suppose - nothing has happened. A motion on this subject in the name of the honourable member for Wills **(Mr Bryant)** has been on the notice paper for 8 months, but the Government hasnever made time available, for the discussion of that motion. It is quite clear now that it never will make time available for that purpose. The Executive attitude on this matter is bad and it is wrong. Our acquiescence in that attitude is also bad and wrong, but most especially it is stupid. The only effect of our continued failure to engage in a committee system of a type which the Senate even now is showing to be effective is to prevent us from doing our work as representatives as well as we otherwise might. This is a matter going very close to our own self respect, not to mention the interests of our constituents. I suggest that both we and they should insist on no less than that on all these matters, but especially on those matters affecting their burden of taxation, we should proceed to a system which would allow us to give them proper representation. {: #subdebate-38-0-s4 .speaker-KID} ##### Mr LUCHETTI:
Macquarie -- I join with the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean)** who led for the Opposition and the honourable member for Perth **(Mr Berinson)** in expressing my strongest condemnation and disapproval of the manner in which Supply Bill (No. 1) and Supply Bill (No. 2) are being debated on this occasion. I feel certain that the whole community would feel a sense of outrage if it were to know that the provisions of Supply Bill (No. 1), covering expenditure of $1,219,758,000, was being discussed in this chamber at this time, especially when one considers the time that has been spent on matters of perhaps trifling importance, matters that could perhaps have been discussed better at some local public place and that this document, which involves the financial structure of the Government, the spending of public money, the economic strength of the nation, and the purpose and direction of Government policy is being considered at this time. This to my mind is an affront to honourable members as it is an affront to the people of Australia - the taxpayers - because this staggering sum of money deserves greater respect and greater consideration than it is likely to receive at this time and in this atmosphere. I am attracted to a number of questions that arise from the Supply documents. But how can they all be discussed? One should like firstly to deal with the question of the cost-price squeeze, a matter which is affecting every man, woman and child in this country. The cost price squeeze is a matter which, because of its severity, is bearing with great pressure upon those who are subjected to the various means tests and those on restricted incomes. It affects those who are unable to obtain pensions, superannuitants, those who are receiving assistance in many forms, pensioners and families. All of these people are carrying a great burden in regard to cost but there has been no positive measure on the part of the Government other than restrictive proposals by which it has endeavoured to create some measure of unemployment to deal with the problem of costs and prices in this country. One would expect the Government to deal with this question in an overall way. One would expect it to deal with every aspect of the economic life of this country commencing from the very grass roots, the depths of the mines, the ores and minerals that are needed, the coals and shales, the deposits of bauxite, copper and nickel and all of those other things that make the economic life of this nation. It disgusts me to think that the Government seems to be concerned only with the question of wages and salaries and is unable to consider the other aspects of prices and costs. It is quite obvious to me that the thoughts of the Government run along the lines that if pressure can be applied to those in industry to cut back in employment and if unemployment grows, those people who are fortunate enough to receive a pay envelope will be more compliant and will be more anxious to listen to reason in industrial matters. I have in my hands an article that appeared in the 'Australian Financial Review' of 30th March this year. The article is headed: 'Unemployment no counter to inflation - Arbitration Commissioner's warning' and it states: >Commonwealth Arbitration Commissioner **Mr T.** C. Winter yesterday warned against the temptation 'to increase unemployment artificially as a counter to inflation. The Commission was quite proper in drawing attention to this matter for there seems to me to be no doubt at all that the Government is hell bent on pursuing this course. The report continues: >Professor Kenneth Galbraith - had recently pointed out that only an intolerable level of unemployment and idle plant capacity arrested the inflationary process. > >Even so, the temptation artificially to cause greater unemployment to correct inflation is a weevil that seems currently, if not constantly, to burrow in the minds of some people,' Commissioner Winter said. Those comments ought to be heeded; they ought to be listened to by everyone in authority. I think it is scandalous, disgraceful and intolerable that with all of the demands on our manpower for the development and essential growth of this country and also in planning the economy there should be any unemployed people at all. Every hand in this country should be engaged in essential development work. Of course the great lack in this country, and particularly in respect of the Government, is of a planning policy. The Government has no policy to deal with our great metal and mineral resources. It has no price policy for our metals and minerals other than to obtain the highest possible price on the world's markets. It is content to accept in this country prices fixed through the London Metal Exchange for the commodities sold there. Recently we debated a related matter in this Parliament but I do not intend to refer to it now. While the International Tin Agreement was being debated it was stated that the overseas price of tin had risen substantially. Has any honourable member thought what that means to the people of Australia? Have we organised our industries on the basis of what will happen in London? Surely there is a responsibility in Australia to fix prices here which will relate to the Australian economy and the development of our industries. That is true of iron, coal, tin, nickel or copper. Our home and export industries should be so organised that those people engaged in processing our own resources will have some knowledge of what prices are likely to be. But under this Government nothing like that is likely to take place. It is long overdue. In considering our economic growth we have to get right down to basic matters of that description. This Government offers no hope that such a course will be followed. I can only hope that in the foreseeable future a Labor Government will take office to deal with these matters and to plan wisely in the marshalling and utilisation of our resources and the processing of our metals so that we can build up great manufacturing industries capable of setting an example to the people in this region. In addition, it is necessary to give leadership to those people whose circumstances are less fortunate than our own. In doing that, naturally the wool industry would receive attention, but under this Government's policy it is dependent upon what the world is likely to pay. How can we hope that in future a better price will be obtained for wool in view of present circumstances? We have accepted any price that overseas people have been prepared to pay. Only recently, since the establishment of the Australian Wool Commission has there been any steadying influence on wool prices. I was not surprised to read in Sydney newspapers that some of the Japanese textile producers in spinning and weaving some of the Australian clip are making annual profits of up to 90 per cent. This is a staggering profit out of Australia's giveaway fleece. Surely in Australia our manufacturing capacity should be increased so that we can process our wool for the good of our people. We should be able to sell woollen cloth and garments on the Australian market so that woollen products are not sold only in the very exclusive salons for the highest possible prices. While wool is at its present price it ought to be generally available in all the shops. A glorious opportunity should be available not only to satisfy our internal market but also to seek out new markets and to enter into greater competition with our wool on the world's markets. My mind goes back only a few years to the time when we had to fight even to have the wool scoured and washed in Australia. There was great objection to it being done here. We were exporting dirt as well as wool and the idea of processing wool in Australia for the making of rugs, blankets, tweeds and so forth was laughed at. It was said that this could not be done in Australia and that we needed the mists of Scotland or somewhere else to enable the production of rare types of woollen garments. Of course, we have proved to the world that we can do these things, but we must expand. We must not be content with this sort of development. These matters have a bearing on another matter that should receive further consideration. It is a subject to which the honourable member for Melbourne Ports **(Mr Crean)** frequently refers - the problem of our balance of payments and our position internationally. From reading the second reading speech of the Treasurer **(Mr Snedden)** I find, among other things, that the defence services vote for the 5-month period is $488,362,000. What a staggering sum this is. I do not question the spending of money which is necessary for the defence of Australia. It should be spent if it is providing adequate defence for this country. But surely inquiries should be made into the spending of such a staggering sum. We should know how it is being spent and just as during the Second World War we had the War Expenditure Committee probing matters of this kind I believe that today there should be a defence expenditure committee to examine the expenditure of vast sums like this. That committee could have looked into the purchase of the Fill aircraft and other weapons of war. It could also have been asking why necessary defence equipment that can be made in Australia is not being made here. Our aircraft industry has been allowed to languish. Not long ago I asked about the Government's intention to phase in a new light machine gun for the Army. The Minister for the Army **(Mr Peacock)** recenty made a statement indicating that this course was to be followed. In a question to the former Prime Minister, **Mr Gorton,** I pointed out that this weapon could be made at the Commonwealth Small Arms Factory at Lithgow. Those who are familiar with the capacity of the factory and the skills of the workers there know that the factory has an enviable reputation for the production of guns and weapons of various kinds - the Vickers, the Bren, the FN rifle, the Belgian rifle, and the Fabrique Nationale which was produced on licence at the factory and which has been an outstanding success. These achievements should not be overlooked and we should not be spending money in the United Kingdom on the purchase of rifles or machine guns when these weapons could be made in Australia. I have referred to the importance of their manufacture here on many occasions and I should like to think that the Government would heed my pleas and expand our defence production capacity and employ Australians to undertake these important works which are so essential to our defence. In times of emergency we should not have to rely on the importation of weapons which should and can be made here. In the brief time remaining to me I should like to refer to one or two other matters, including the difficulties of local government. The Commonwealth Government seems to have ignored local government which undoubtedly is carrying one of the greatest economic burdens of this country. Local government has the responsibility of providing essential services for the migrant intake and the growing population of Australia, but despite all the pleas that have been made over the years for help for local government there has been little response on the part of the Commonwealth Government. It airily brushes this matter aside. It says: 'This is a matter for the States'. It leaves it to the States. I put it to the Government this evening that finance for local government is clearly necessary and that assistance should be provided directly to local government. It should not be left to the States to please themselves about apportioning the moneys which they receive from the Commonwealth. These funds should be given directly to local government. The provision of services by local government is well known to honourable members. It provides recreation facilities, swimming pools, athletic areas, parks, playgrounds, and welfare programmes for youth and the aged. The establishment costs of all these facilities help the national economy. They help to settle migrants in this country and develop this nation. Those of us who have heard recent debates on pollution and the difficulties in the big cities must appreciate the fact that there is urgent need to move great numbers of people from the overpopulated cities like Sydney and Melbourne and give them an opportunity to live a better, healthier and happier life in country com.munites. These things are unquestioned. All that is needed is a government with the will and determination to do something about the situation. Financial assistance for local government is essential. If we are to overcome our economic problems, this is one of the most urgent issues facing this country today. I should like to think that funds will be provided. I have here numerous communications from various councils such as the Penrith City Council, the Blue Mountains City Council and numerous shire councils complainng of the intolerable burden being borne by local government. When one looks at the figures of government debt one immediately finds that although the Commonwealth debt has been almost held, if not reduced, from 1947 up to the present time, State debts have increased 4 times from $2,044m to $8,830m, semi-government debts have gone up 12 times from $4 19m to $5,21 8m and local government debts have gone up 9 times from $141m to $l,389m. These figures prove beyond any shadow of doubt what great burdens are being borne by local government. I have here a document prepared by the Legislative Research Service which deals with one or two specific cases of the increase in rates in the country and the city over recent years. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate the 2 sheets in Hansard. In conclusion I make an appeal to the Government to have regard to the needs of people in their local communities, to give assistance to local government and to help the development of this nation. {: #subdebate-38-0-s5 .speaker-KEC} ##### Mr KENNEDY:
Bendigo -- I wish to refer to Service pay and conditions. In doing so I shall raise a matter which is of great importance to a section of the people whom I represent. It concerns some 60 men of the Lithographic Squadron of the Army Headquarters Regiment of the Survey Corps, which is located at Bendigo, Victoria. These men have suffered 3 years of unjustifiable discrimination at the hands of this Government because of its delay in making pay rises through . providing additional groupings. This procrastination by the Government seriously jeopardises the morale of the Squadron by creating dissatisfaction and unrest. It has already given rise to an outbreak of what could only be called industrial action in civilian terms when frustration over the Government's refusal to meet their pay claims led to a . 3-day go: slow last year. Since then the Government has still refused to take action to remedy the one simple cause of resentment. It could be remedied immediately if the Government had any sense of responsibility and any sense of the injustice which the men of the Lithographic Squadron feel so acutely. I want to stress to the Minister for Defence **(Mr Gorton),** the Minister for the Army **(Mr Peacock),** the Prime Minister **(Mr McMahon)** and the Government as a whole that any continued inaction on their part will lead to a continuing decline in morale, and that the possibility of stronger industrial action cannot be ruled out unless the Government wakes up to itself. I wish to inform the Government that the men's feelings of alienation and their feelings of neglect by the Government have resulted in continued low levels of production by these men and have caused daily discussion amongst the men as to what sort of action they should take to publicise their grievances. The possibility of joining up with the trade union movement as a means of advocating their needs and defending their interests has been only one of the less drastic possibilities among the measures that the men are frequently considering. I raise this matter tonight on behalf of men who are denied any other avenue of drawing public and Government attention to their situation. These are responsible, dedicated and loyal men who have made the Army their life, but Army regulations deny them any means of drawing Government attention to their position, other than through the normal military channels, and these have quite clearly been futile. They have a just claim and the Government ought to be showing the same sense of responsibility and loyalty to them as they have shown to the Army. I have already given to the Government ample warning of the situation in the Squadron. My first non-public representations were made on 7th December 1970. I did not bring public attention to this matter until question time on 23rd February this year. The dissatisfaction of these men arises from the failure of the Government to grant pay increases through providing additional pay groupings. Two other units in the Survey Regiment were granted pay increases through additional pay groupings in 1969 and these were made retrospective to March 1968, when changes in the system of Army group pay were introduced. The lithographic personnel were assured that if their pay claims were lodged before 9th August 1969, and if those claims were granted, they would receive pay increases retrospective to March in the previous year. Although the lithographic pay claims were lodged before the due date, the men received neither a pay increase nor retrospectivity. This has placed them at a serious disadvantage, both in absolute terms and in relative terms. The result is that lithographic pay is low by comparison with that of civilians with similar skills, by comparison with that of other and less skilled personnel such as drivers and clerks, and also by comparison with that of cartographic and topographic personnel of the same Regiment. The events that led up to the go-slow in December flowed from the unbelievable confusion and evasion resulting from the Army's embarrassment as being unwilling or unable to tell the men what the actual situation was with regard to their pay claims. On 11th September 1970 the men of the Squadron were told at Bendigo that a second level of pay had been approved for personnel of certain categories and that a third level was under consideration for those who had passed the advanced course. I understand from the Survey Directorate itself that they were told in Bendigo that the pay would come through in 6 weeks or so, but 12 weeks passed and nothing had been done. In December 1970 the men were considering industrial action. The Government may shudder at those words, but that was the reality of what the men were contemplating. They were informed on 2nd December that even though the Treasury had approved a second level in pay the Army had refused to accept it. My information is that the men were informed in Bendigo that the reason for the rejection by the Army of this pay increase was that the Army wanted retrospectivity to 8th August 1969 while the Treasury was prepared to grant it only to October 1970. The facts of this situation have never been fully revealed to the men. This information, when it was passed on to the men of the Lithographic Squadron, came as a real smack in the face and depressed their morale to rock bottom. The result was lethargy and a feeling of hopelessness which led to a spontaneous 3-day go-slow. After this go-slow, on 7th December I sent telegrams to the Ministers for Defence and the Army, Treasurer and Prime Minister. I pointed out that the dissatisfaction in the squadron was known to the Directorate of the Survey Corps, and I said that I thought it should also be known to the Government. I called for urgent action on the pay claims as the only means of heading off a further decline in morale and the possibility of industrial action. On the next day, 8th December, I received a telegram from the then Minister for Defence saying that he was investigating the cause of the delay in meeting pay claims and that he would advise me of the outcome. On 15th December I sent a detailed letter to the then Minister for Defence outlining the situation as I understood it. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate in Hansard the letter which I sent to the Minister for Defence. It reads: >Further to my telegram of the 7th December, in which I urged speedy action to finalize pay claims made on behalf of Lithographic personnel in the services, and in particular those of the Lithographic squadron at A.H.Q. Survey Regiment, Bendigo. > >The long and unjustifiable delay of the Government in dealing with these pay claims is the sole cause of the very serious dissatisfaction and unrest within the Lithographic Squadron at Bendigo. Unless speedy action is taken to finalize the situation of nay, I believe that the declining morale will lead to industrial action, such as a stopwork, as the only means of impressing upon the Government the grievances of these men. > >Basic to these grievances are three factors. Firstly is the inadequacy of their pay by comparison with that received by similarly skilled personnel in civilian employment. For example, I am informed that a married sapper (Group II) receives $70 per week (this includes basic trade pay plus all allowances) while the lowest paid lithographic draughtsman in civilan employment may earn up and over $100. .Secondly, many other army personnel, of less skill, such as clerks and drivers, are able to earn more than highly skilled personnel of the Lithographic Squadron. Thirdly, within the Regiment itself, the cartographic and topographic sections have been given pay rises with retrospectivity, while the only pay rise given to lithographic personnel over the last three years has been a slight increase which flowed on from the Arbitration Court. The change in the system of group pay in 1968 has given pay rises, accompanied by retrospectivity, which has given these personnel a generous financial advantage over. lithographic personnel. > >I am informed that a pay claim submission has been with the Government for over eighteen months, since June 1969. I am informed also that at that time it was stated that if the lithographic pay claims submission were made before 8th August 1969, then pay granted would be made retrospective to 1st March, 1968. The submission was in fact made before this date, but retrospectivity has not been granted back to 1st March 1968. It was announced to the lithographic personnel on 11th September this year that pay increases had been approved by Treasury, and that the men were due to receive them in five to six weeks after that date. Three months have now passed, and the men still have not received them or any indication of what the pay rises actually are. I understand that the additional delay has been caused because the increases have not been accompanied by the vital principle of retrospectivity - the Treasury fs willing to backdate them only to October 1970, and the Army has refused to accept pay rises because they are not retrospective to 8th August 1969. In view of the earlier undertaking to make pay rises retrospective to 1st March, 1968 the reason for the dates of retrospectivity as set by both the Treasury and the Army are impossibly to justify. But whatever the reasons for either date, the fact is that pay rises have still not come through, despite months and months of waiting by lithographic personnel. > >Furthermore, while the second level has been approved, no statement has yet been made about the third level, and no reason for the delay in this regard has been given. > >Finally, I am informed that when changes were announced in the system of group pay in December 1969, the meagre changes made in lithographic pay were influenced by the Commonwealth Printer's claim that he was not paying his lithographic staff above the civilian award. As this claim has since been discredited, pay increases for service lithographic personnel should take account of the fact that the Commonwealth Printer has been paying above the civilian award. > >In view of the long delay and injustice which have characterized the Government's behaviour in the matters mentioned above, it is essential that the Government should make a speedy statement as to the nature of the increases and the date when they will come into effect. > >On 12th January 1 received a letter from the Minister for the Army. With the concurrence of honourable members I incorporate that letter in Hansard. It reads: 1 refer to your personal representations in the matter of pay of lithographic personnel at AHQ Survey Regiment Bendigo. > >Firstly I should say that the situation is not as described in your telegram. My investigations have shown that after consulting with the Commanding Officer, AHQ Survey Regiment, the Director of Survey is unaware of impending industrial action in the unit > >Secondly, contrary to your advice, pay increases have not yet been approved for lithographic' tradesmen categories. There is certainly no foundation to the allegation that the Army rejected pay increases for these employments; in fact retrospective pay increases were originally sought by my Department. > >The rate of pay for lithographic employments is still being determined. Consequently I am unable to predict either the rate or date of effect. > >I note that you also made similar representations to the Prime Minister and I have provided him with a copy of my reply to you. > >Two comments should be made on this letter. Firstly, the Minister did not deny that there was unrest. He merely stated that the Directorate of the Survey Corps had made investigations with the regiment in Bendigo and that the Directorate was unaware of impending industrial action. Incidentally, he made no reference to the unrest itself. The Minister left himself a let-out by passing the responsibility back to the Directorate and the Commanding Officer of the regiment. Nevertheless, the Minister was forced later to admit that there was unrest and dissatisfaction. On 23rd February this year I raised the matter in the House by means of a question directed to the Minister. He replied in this terms: > >I agree that there has been a degree of tension and dissatisfaction in this area. I do not agree with the conclusions that have been drawn and which are implied in practically every statement made by the honourable member. > >That is some admission for a Minister of the Crown to have to make about the men he is responsible for. The answer in relation to the Minister's investigations which he promised to make was given later by the Acting Minister **(Mr Lynch)** on Sth March when he said in a letter addressed to me: >The situation is as described to you by my colleague **Mr Peacock** in his letter of 2nd January 1971 when he said that, after consulting the CO of the AHQ Survey Regiment, the Director of Survey was unaware of any three-day go slow action or of any confrontation in the unit in regard to pay claims or changes in production figures during the period in question. > >It is known, however, that there is dissatisfaction among lithographic personnel in regard to pay. This stems from the fact that these employments are alarmed with the Graphic Arts Award which produces the current pay groupings. In other words, 2 Ministers of the Crown make 2 admissions of dissatisfaction and unrest, although remarkably neither admits to the go slow action which took place in early December. Are they not informed of the situation by their officers, or are they taking refuge in silence? If they have still not been informed they had better make further inquiries, because it did take place For 3 days last year men stood around, depressed and idle, and the processes involved in map making came to a virtual standstill. However, I now return to the original letter written by the Minister for the Army. At long last this letter gave the seal of ministerial certainty to what the men had feared, although it was in direct contradiction to what the men had been told by their officers in Bendigo. The Minister for the Army said in his letter that pay increases have not been approved for lithographic tradesmen categories, that there was certainly no foundation to the allegations that the Army rejected pay increases for these employments, and that in fact retrospective pay increases were originally sought by his Department. But the Minister's answer raises other questions, and I would like answers to those questions. If retrospective pay increases had been sought by the Army, why had they not been approved? If these claims had been put forward by the Army, who rejected them and on what grounds were they rejected? How can the Government's procrastination which has gone on now for 2 years - 3 years if one includes the period for which the pay would have been retrospective - be justified? Why should men have to tolerate this sort of misgovern ment? Later on 22nd January the Minister for Defence sent me a telegram. He answered almost none of the points that I had raised in my detailed letter to him. The telegram read: >I refer to your recent telegram about the pay of service personnel in the Lithographic trade stop the pay of these categories is based on rates laid down by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the Graphic Arts Award and a thorough examination of the matter in August 1969 by the Defence Forces Trade Grouping Sub Committee on which the Department of the Army is represented comma did not support changes in the pay df the servicemen involved stop it was concluded that the changes in rates could not be achieved within current basic trade grouping principles and that any variation of these principles would demand examination in depth that has implications for pay of many other servicemen stop a review of these principles is presently being undertaken stop complex and far reaching issues are involved: which require careful consideration stop I note the points raised in your telegarm comma but pending finalisation of the review I can give you no further information stop. Three final points should be made. Firstly, the objection that the linking of lithographic pay with the Graphic Arts Award cannot be an objection to raising pay for service lithographic personnel because the fact is, I am informed, that the Government Printer, whose system of pay rates is the basis of service lithographic pay rates, is paying above award rates. If that is not the fact, I would like the Minister for Defence or the Minister for the Army to show me that I am wrong. Secondly, while statements by the Ministers have clarified the state of pay claims, these statements have also restored the frustration and hopelessness that were removed when, after the go-slow, action was taken to bring the men's grievances to the attention of the Government. Thirdly, the pay claims submission has been in process for 2 years, and including the year 1968, to which it was hoped pay would be made retrospective, the men have now been waiting for 3 years. This is neither responsible nor reasonable. The Government's record is already notorious because of the industrial action taken by Navy and Air Force personnel last year. Unless the Government desires to damage its reputation even further amongst servicemen ft should remedy the injustices of the lithographic personnel immediately. If it cannot do that, it should at the very least make a statement as to when the men can expect improvements in their pay. I have raised this matter tonight principally because all other endeavours I have made have had no direct result so far, but I raise it also because this particular situation is a reflection of a situation that affects the Services as a whole. It was the very inadequacy of Service pay, its inconsistency within the Services, and especially its inadequacy by comparison with superior pay for men with comparable skills and frequently with lesser responsibilities in civilian life, that has caused increasing resignation rates and declining re-engagement rates in the Services. It was this situation of dissatisfaction within the Services which erupted last year in 2 successful resorts to industrial action by Navy and Air Force personnel and which forced the Government to establish the Kerr Committee of Inquiry into Service pay and conditions last year. But there are many men in the Services who will not wait until the Kerr Committee makes ils report and until the Government decides - if it does - to implement the Committee's recommendations. Many servicemen want action on their pay and conditions now. The case of the men of the Lithographic Squadron in Bendigo is one such case which has every reason to demand an instant remedy.. **Mr FOSTER** (Sturt)' (1.4 a.m.)- I enter the debate tonight because there are a number of matters I want to raise and in relation to which I want to criticise the Government. One of the first things I shall deal with, quite briefly, is the imposition of an excise on wine which was introduced by the Government in its most recent budgetary provisions. Not a great deal has been said about this in recent weeks, although one or two question have been directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise **(Mr Chipp)** in the House. I have in my possession a petition from a number of growers in South Australia protesting against the Government's action in imposing an excise duty on wine. I received this petition a few weeks prior to the Dorothy Dix question that was directed to the Minister for Customs and Excise by the honourable member for Angas **(Mr Giles).** In reply to that question the Minister said that the Government would investigate this matter and perhaps make some alteration to the present excise duty. I could not bring this petition to the notice of the House in the ordinary course of events because the petitioners felt that it was not God who had imposed the excise but, in its stupidity, the Government. For that reason I did not bring the petition forward in accordance with the normal forms of the House. I predict that the Government will have a look at the present situation insofar as the wine industry is concerned and will probably remove the excise that was imposed last year and impose a sales tax on wines that are bought over the counter. In that event honourable members on this side of the House will be given an opportunity to examine and debate the extent of the sales tax imposed by the Government. No doubt the Government will consider this proposal when it is formulating the Budget later this year. Much has been said tonight about the inadequacies of the Government in many fields. The honourable member for Macquarie **(Mr Luchetti)** dealt adequately with the fact that the development of the country in the future will be only to the extent that, as new mineral fields are discovered, we will have throughout the length and breadth of the nation more and more huge holes in the ground. These holes will be perhaps like the holes that the Government is blasting in Indo-China today at tremendous cost to the Australian taxpayer. I shall refer to that matter directly. The fact is that Australia is not developing its mineral resources. It could be said that we are not doing any more, insofar as our national economy and the interests of the people of the Commonwealth generally are concerned, than is being carried out by many of the under developed countries. They are in receipt of aid from foreign powers, although these foreign powers are not really giving them aid since, in effect, it is in payment for the raw materials that the foreign powers are extracting from those countries. Most of the foreign aid which is flowing back to underdeveloped countries is derived from the large profits that the foreign powers are making from the raw materials obtained from these underdeveloped countries. I turn now to Australia's migration policy. The Government has not indicated that it does not intend continuing its present migration policy. All that we will see will be additions to the cost burden and the cost structure in general of the taxpaying community and an increase in the population of the cities of the Commonwealth. A decentralisation policy is needed. I should have thought that with the discovery of minerals in Australia, particularly in some of the less populous States, there would have been plans afoot by the Government to prevent the taking out of Australia on a great conveyor belt into bulk ships of all of our minerals. The same low price is being paid for our raw materials as is being paid to the underdeveloped countries. The discovery of minerals in Australia should have meant the establishment of cities on the western seaboard comparable to the cities that now exist on the eastern seaboard of Australia. This should have happened in one form or another with the discovery of minerals in Australia. It is just not good enough for the Government to say that it is developing the country. It might be saving the day from an economic point of view because of the fall in the earnings of the primary industries. The loss in the export earnings derived from the primary industries is being offset by the income and overseas exchange that is being derived from mineral exports, but this policy is not good enough in the long term; in fact, it is a very short term policy. What amazes me about the Government is the fact, as has been pointed out by the honourable member for Perth **(Mr Berinson),** that it adopts an attitude of absolute legislative dictatorship in this place. Question time is absolutely hopeless insofar as endeavouring to extract information from an individual Minister is concerned. I would describe the questions asked by my colleagues as being either questions without answers or questions which result in some form of discussion that is designed purely to make cheap political capital of the honourable member on this side of the House who asked the question. Question time in this place is not a constructive way in which to extract information from Mini*ters. The Ministers themselves ought to realise this, and I suppose it would be fair to say that the Labor government, when it was in office, was not any better in this respect. But the fact is that it is not good enough in this day and age. I want to make some brief reference also to what the honourable member for Perth said and to what was said in this place last year regarding the setting up of a committee system. What the honourable member for Perth said is true, and it is worth repeating. Senate committees are doing some very worthwhile work in this regard. They are able to question various departments and authorities whereas in this place we cannot even question a Minister and expect to receive a sensible and reasonable reply. There is a vast difference between the two Houses of the Parliament in that respect. But one of the main criticisms I am making of the Government is that at the end of 1959 the Joint Committee on Constitutional Review came down with a report containing a number of recommendations. The report covered an extremely wide range of matters and it ought to have been the direct concern of the government of the day. As I have said, it was a Joint Committee. There was a great deal of joint discussion in the Committee. But very little, if anything, has flowed from the Committee's report. There were no subsequent meetings of the Committee after it tabled its report; I accept that its report was tabled. No worthwhile consideration has been given by this House to putting the Committee's recommendations into practice or even to examining properly and adequately the matters with which the Committee dealt, such as marketing, the financial structure of the Commonwealth and the powers of the Commonwealth. I plead with the House to accept that in fact it is not too late - some 10 years after the report was presented - to pay some real regard to the position of this country today, because the Federal Government is inhibited, to some large degree, by the restrictions placed upon it by a Constitution that was spelled out in the horse and buggy days. Perhaps we, as a nation, would have been better off if the Constitution had been delayed for some 10 or 15 years until we could see the emergence of a concept which was different from the old colonial separate State system. Surely it is not too late for us, as a Parliament, to have a complete look at what the Committee said regarding a wide range of subjects. Transportation was one matter dealt with by the Committee. It made a number of recommendations on transport generally. Transport is getting into a hell of a hole. It is extremely costly and extremely wasteful. It does not run at anywhere near a profit. In fact, our transport system does not even cover the cost of maintaining it in its present form in any State in the Commonwealth. We should look at the question of transport on a national basis, that is, on the basis of national need, national development and national progress, and also on the basis of the efficiency of the transport as it affects the people. The transport system today in most capital cities and suburbs generally is in such a deplorable state that it is affecting the quality of life, if one regards quality of life as being adversely affected when one sits in a motor car in a queue in a poisonous, polluted atmosphere for some time, trying to get from point A to point B. As I have said in this House previously, shipping is related directly to our ability to create markets or to find markets for a very wide range of surplus primary products. In 1963 the Government saw fit to accept a report from **Sir Alan** Westerman, I understand, and we are paying very dearly for it today. In fact, there was no more classic example than the one quoted by me last September and repeated by the Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Whitlam)** some months later. The difference between our own Australian National line's showing a profit and showing a loss was the fact that the Line had to pay some $2m to a Japanese conference shipping line consortium because the Line carried a tonnage of goods in excess of the tonnage agreed around the conference table. I can see what will happen because of the manner in which this Government in the past has tied itself to the shipping monopolies - the pirates of the shipping world so far as Australia is concerned. The stupidity of the introduction of containerisation of wool has meant a hell of an increase in the cost of wool and most certainly has had a marked effect on the return to the grower. There has been a tremendous capital outlay on the provision of ships, dock facilities and containers. Every time containers are moved they are moved at tremendous cost. A number of what one would most certainly regard as very wealthy companies have banded together and amalgamated in these consortia. They have become so large that one may well see, in the not too distant future, those consortia going to the wall, as did the Rolls-Royce company. What will the Government do then? Will it then impose a heavy taxation burden on the people who live in the cities and suburbs to get it out of the mess, but still not provide a national transport system? It is not too late. The Government should forget the containerisation programme so far as wool is concerned and study the advantages to be gained by using bulk ships to transport wool to the markets that are still available to this country. There will not be a decrease in costs, as the previous Minister for Trade and Industry tried to tell this House on a number of occasions. Incidentally, he never told me what he did with that $40m that he trotted off overseas with to buy Australia into the conference lines so that Australia would have a voice. But we have no voice and can be put to the wall. The honourable member for Angas can laugh about the situation, but it is very serious. This means the difference between Australia getting into markets and losing markets. I refer to the position in the islands to our north. We should look at some of the manufactured goods that are being sold in those countries and estimate the freight charged on goods shipped from Europe to that area. We should look then at what the shipping companies would charge Australia for shipping the same type of product, if we were able to sell it there. Honourable members opposite would be shocked if they made some comparisons along the lines I have suggested. They should look at some of the products from South Africa and see how far they have been shipped. Perhaps then they will realise what is happening. {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: -- They pay half as much per ton. {: #subdebate-38-0-s6 .speaker-KFO} ##### Mr FOSTER: -- That is right. In many cases it is less than half. The honourable member for Macquarie mentioned what the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation does to help promote a range of manufactured articles which are produced from raw materials in this country and which are never put on the market here. Manufacturers have displayed their capabilities, but the Government does not want to recognise those capabilities or the products that are produced. Carpet is one item. The sale of more Australian carpets could assist the wool industry. But nothing is done about it. I could raise this matter in the House until I was blue in the face. Whatever one says in this place, the Government plays politics with it. People are not important to members on the Government side. Politics are important to members on the Government side. They accuse us continually of playing politics. From time to time, on a measure such as the one before us I could ask all kinds of questions about a whole host of subjects and the Minister would not answer me. However, on occasions this Government has passed legislation that compels a trade union to account for every cent it has spent. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has the right to demand to examine the balance sheet of a trade union. The Government does not accord similar rights to members such as the honourable member for Perth who, as he said earlier tonight, represents 100,000 people. The Government has its priorities completely wrong. The Government today is spending and wasting millions of dollars to create frustration and God knows what else in countries such as Indo-China. Such action is absolutely wrong unless it is put to the people of this country at a referendum. This Government has been returned to office in this place time after time with the support of 22 members from a small party which at a Federal election obtained only 8 per cent of the total votes cast. These members represent country electorates. The Country Party is given 5 positions in the whole of the Ministry so that the Government may say that it has a mandate from the people to squander millions of dollars. The Government has not that right democratically. It has not that right on principle. I would suggest further that the Government has not the moral right to do so. But the Government continues to do this. It has been almost 10 years since, in this country, a Prime Minister stood on his feet - I suppose that if I said that he lied to the electorate, you would want to pull me up, **Mr Deputy Speaker.** If he was nol a liar - and I do not suggest that he was a liar - he most certainly stretched the word ambiguity' to great lengths, in relation to the amount of money that has been wasted by this Government - allegedly required by it - in respect of so-called defence matters. At the same time, one might stand here and say again that the Government had squandered millions of dollars on the Fill and point out how many schools and hospitals this money could have provided. All these things have been said in this place before. I do not want to repeat them at this stage. I do ask the Government this question: In excess of $ 1,000m has been spent each year on defence. What can be honestly offered to the people of this country as a result of that expenditure? What has the Government in the way of forces and equipment to defend this country as a result of this tremendous amount of expenditure that has been going on almost since the Government has been in office? I am not saying that we should not appropriate money for expenditure on defence requirements. I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is that the Government's whole system of priorities is wrong. I turn my attention to the field of national health. Under the National Health Act, a man who earns the minimum wage or below is entitled to certain benefits. He can have what could be described as a sort of free ride' on medical benefits. The Government extends these benefits to those who receive up to $48 a week or $49 a week. I think that one of those figures represents the level now. At the same time, the health benefits that the Government provides for aged persons in this country are inadequate. I put my argument to the House in this way: An age pensioner on the maximum rate may have a personal fear that he or she should cover himself or herself in respect of hospital charges by joining a medical benefits fund because public ward accommodation may not always be available when required. The maximum pension rate is below $40 a week. The Government does not extend to such people the benefits available to a person in receipt of the minimum wage. That is what the honourable members opposite do. They should not just sit there. They should say something. They do not and cannot deny this. This is where honourable members opposite and the Government have their priorities completely balled up, if I may use that term. This is why I accused the Government of having double standards. I only wish that I had 40 minutes and not 20 minutes to speak in this debate. It is nearly half past one in the morning. I end on this note: The Government, plays politics in this House whenever it can, no matter who is involved. The mothers who are bearing children today receive the same birth allowance as their dear mothers received 20 years ago. The Government introduced that allowance to win seats in this House. Honourable members on the other side of the House have completely, utterly and hypocritically forgotten about it. That is another point that I bring to the attention of this Government. I challenge any honourable member opposite to rise in this place next week and to indicate that something constructive will be done with respect to constitutional review. A committee should be set up to study constitutional review so that the Government may arm itself - without using accusations of centralism and God knows what other terms - with sufficient powers for the good of the nation. Whether this proposal is accepted or rejected finally is by the way. For the good of the nation we ought to examine whether or not additional powers should be granted to the Commonwealth because this would be for the betterment of the people and the development of the country generally. **Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope)Order!** The honourable member's time has expired. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- I move: That the debate be now adjourned. {: .speaker-0095J} ##### Mr Howson: -- No. {: #subdebate-38-0-s7 .speaker-K5L} ##### Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Cope:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES -- Is a division required? Question resolved in the negative. {: .speaker-6V4} ##### Mr Daly: -- In order that the House may see the exhausted and haggard condition of honourable members I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) {: #subdebate-38-0-s8 .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr BENNETT:
Swan -- I wish to use this opportunity to express my disappointment that these 2 Supply Bills do not include provision for matters which I and other honourable members have raised in this House. There has been no provision for extra payments to the States to provide for such things as the sealing of the Eyre Highway, something that has been constantly requested by State governments in South Australia and supported by State governments in Western Australia. The request has been constantly refused. A return to the States of their tax moneys in this way would benefit not only State interests but national interests. The Government shirks its responsibility, as is shown by these Bills. It does the same in the area of activity covered by the Department of Civil Aviation. No provision is made in them for the resumption of areas for airports, such as is required at Perth airport. These are matters which must be attended to in the immediate future. Although the Government has failed miserably in these fields up to date it is to be hoped that when Parliament resumes for the Budget session these questions will be resolved. The Government will resolve these matters if it has at heart the interests of the average person. One of the major disappointments is in the field of social services. During the closing days of this Parliamentary session no provision is made to ease the burden of the unfortunate person who receives only the wife's allowance to support a spouse. This is disastrous.. These people must face another winter on what is only a subsistence allowance granted under an often stupidly administered section of the Social Services Act. I shall cite one instance of a widowed pensioner who decided to marry an aged widow from overseas. Because of her remarriage this widow lost her pension. This couple found that although they were both over the age required to receive a pension they did not have the necessary residential qualifications. They were able to receive only the wife's allowance. Of course, if they had decided to live in an unmarried state, told lies and cheated, they would not have been thrust into such abject misery as they were. Then, to prove how ridiculous the situation can become, the unfortunate woman became so ill that she was able to qualify for an invalid pension. These stupid situations should not arise. People should be treated with more respect and should not be placed in the embarrassing situation of having to go through red tape-type interrogation. Surely this Parliament is able to legislate more humanely to eliminate such situations. We cannot expect a pensioner to maintain a wife on what is a pittance. I repeat, in case some honourable member missed it, that we cannot expect a pensioner to maintain a wife on what is a pittance. The wife's allowance is a disgrace. These people have been - ignored. Surely this matter can be resolved as one of urgency. It is all right to promise that this matter will be looked at in considering the forthcoming Budget, but these people are in desperate need now. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Tell us about the time Labor reduced the pensions. {: .speaker-JOU} ##### Mr BENNETT: -- If I have time at the end of my speech we will discuss it. lt is nice to see that the honourable member is actually listening; I thought be was too busy talking. These people receive a fortnight what many people, such as the honourable gentleman who has jost interjected, receive a day by way of living away from home allowances. How they spend it I would not know. Surely we can have compassion and act with urgency in this field of human misery - an area in which people who are so suffering are often too proud to let the world know their problems. However, little encouragement is offered to any sector of the community. The Aboriginal housing grants have amounted to abject failure. The State Minister for Housing, Honourable A. D. Taylor, M.L.A., estimates that in Western Australia alone $20m is required to house Aboriginal families. This is no doubt due to the long history of neglect by this Federal Government and previous Western Australian Liberal governments. But to recant the reasons why this situation exists will not help. What is needed, now that there is an awareness of the problem facing the community - it is a community problem - is action and leadership federally to bring a quick solution to the appalling situation by giving special assistance to the Western Australian Government. The situation in Western Australia only highlights the bitter disappointment one feels on finding that there is inadequate provision for aged and Aboriginal housing generally. One can only arrive at the conclusion that as yet only lip service has been paid to these needs. To further reinforce this belief, only this week we had the revelation by the former Liberal Minister for Industrial Development in Western Australia, **Mr Charles** Court, that the State Liberal Government had been pressing, to no avail, for a tax deduction for housing loan interest to help young married couples. He further stated that interest rates on housing loans should be reduced. His view agrees with that of the new Labor Government in that State, which realises that housing is a social matter and that there can be no development without it. However, his awareness of the problem could have been generated by the public uproar at the Federal Government's direct raid on the home purchasers' pockets by the savage increases in interest rates last year. Public petitions begging for a reduction in these interest rates were drawn up and presented to this Parliament and the State Parliament without avail. How much of this mismanagement must we absorb before these protests are recognised and acted upon by this Government. No solutions have been offered in this session. Many anomalies flow from legislation. I instance the case of a young couple who, under the housing grants, should be receiving assistance. They went out of town some miles to obtain a cheap block of land. They spent all their personal savings which they both worked evenings, weekends and holtdays to earn, so as to construct their house on a self-help basis. They thus hoped to obtain a good family home. When they applied for their homes savings grant they were refused on the ground of the value placed on the home by the Department. 1 appealed to the Department on their behalf, sending detailed copies of the costs of building, which came well below that required by the legislation. I received a reply to the effect that the home was overvalued. No consideration was given to the actual cost of construction. One of the factors involved in the increased value given by the Department was the drainage of the block which was carried out to meet the requirements of the local authority. This increased the value of the block. No wonder such comparatively small allocations are made under this scheme. It is a political farce to utilise such slender excuses to dodge payment. When we have the legistion before us, we do not envisage anyone being so petty. It is quite scandalous. No wonder the people of Australia become suspicious of the intentions of this type of legislation. We who are prepared casually to deal with millions of dollars in the Supply Bills at such a late hour as this without the proper time to debate them should look at these matters to ensure that petty lines of demarcation are not drawn against individuals who are doing all they can to better their country. {: #subdebate-38-0-s9 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina **Mr Speaker-** Government members - Oh, ner! {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY: -- I am very interested to find at this hour of the morning groans from the Government benches. But I would remind honourable members opposite that the timetable is not the making of the Opposition but of the Government. If they are not very interested in the Parliament, I suggest that they do what is in their minds and adjourn it and go home. I have some points to submit and I intend to submit them. {: .speaker-9F4} ##### Mr DONALD CAMERON:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND · LP -- Hear, head {: .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr GRASSBY: -- I thank the honourable member. I am glad that Queensland is still a member of the union. I wanted to say particularly in relation to the Supply Bills, which are associated with expenditure and the economics of the nation, that Australia in economic terms represents the last of the Mohicans. Alone among the advanced nations of the world we turn our back completely on national planning. Alone among the nations of the world we allow the waste and drift which is inevitable in a situation where the dictum of the Government is that the least government is the best government. But even with this dictum it is a source of surprise and regret that Australia has failed to seek an association with one of the most powerful and useful organisations in the world in furthering economic growth. I refer to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That organisation, which began its official existence in 1961, succeeded the Organisation of European Economic Cooperation, whose original tasks were the great co-operative effort which led to the European recovery from the disaster oi World War II. This body was one of the handmaidens at the rebirth of Europe as one of the most powerful economic forces in the world today - from the ruins of war to a renaissance which is still in full flower. The great task of the organisation has been to survey the whole field of economic prospects for the vast community of the 21 nations now comprising this body. It set a growth target for the decade of 1960-70 of 50 per cent on the real gross national product. Let me quote to the House the three aims of the organisation in case there is some doubt as to what it is and how it functions. Its aims are to achieve the highest sustainable economic growth and employment and a rising standard of living in member countries while maintaining financial stability, and thus to contribute to the development of world economy; to contribute to sound economic expansion in member as well as non-member countries in the process of economic development and to contribute to the expansion of world trade on a multilateral, non-discriminatory basis in accordance with international obligations. The obligations of member countries, to which they have agreed, are to promote the efficient use of their economic resources; in the scientific and technological field, to promote the development of their resources; encourage research and promote vocational training; to pursue policies designed to achieve economic growth and internal and external financial stability and to avoid developments which might, endanger their economies or those of other countries; to pursue their efforts to reduce or abolish obstacles to the exchange of goods and services and current payments and maintain and extend the liberalisation of capital movements; and to contribute to the economic development of both member and non-member countries in the process of economic development by appropriate means and, in particular, by the flow of capital to those countries, having regard to the importance to their economies of receiving technical assistance and of securing export markets. There is no doubt as to how these objectives relate to our own situation. The organisation has helped to get sluggish economies on the move again. It has been a magnificent resource to member states. Yet Australia so far has chosen to ignore an instrument which has been used successfully by nations such as Japan and Germany, and in fact all the member nations of the European Economic Community. On our economic performance we need this body and its expertise and help as much as, in fact more than, many of the 21 nations concerned. Australians have been given by the Government over 21 years a completely false picture of the economic growth of our nation. The advance in real terms over the past decade or so has been of the order of only10½ per cent to 2 per cent. At a meeting just recently someone said that if we are not careful we will not even be able to achieve in real terms the rate of growth in Ireland. I thought it was rather interesting to see what Ireland's growth rate had been over the same period. It was approximately twice that of our own. Surely the need is obvious. We are wallowing in sloth compared with the leap forward of many of the 21 nations associated with the OECD. Let us examine some of the benefits that would accrue even to us as members of Parliament as well as to the nation. Each year at this time the 'OECD Observer', which I am glad to say we have in the Parliament, produces the latest statistics showing the economic pattern of OECD countries, incentives to invest in developing countries, the need for intergovernmental co-operation on the environment and policy implications of increased growth in higher education. When we look at the latest publication we notice that it gives comparisons which are valid between the various member countries. It would be interesting to know exactly where Australia stands in relation to these countries - not the statistics chosen by this Government or the figures chosen by any organisation that might have an interest in presenting them in a particular way, but valid comparisons with other states and other economies. From the Australian 'Year Book' we can fill in a number of the tables but certainly not all of them. It could be noticed too that the countries of the organisations are dominant trading partners, including the United States, Britain and Japan, which together must account for at least 80 per cent of our overseas trade. But it seems illogical that we have never taken up the opportunity to have our economic matters sorted out and clarified by this group. So I ask the Minister for Education and Science **(Mr Fairbairn),** who is seated at the table, to convey to the Treasurer these questions: Why are we not members of the OECD? Is it our intention one day to become a member of this organisation? I appreciate that the answers are not within the purview of the Minister at the table but I would appreciate it if he would pose these questions to the responsible Minister. I also direct attention in particular to the article in this journal on the policy implications of the growth in higher education. This is a summary of a 7-year statistical survey which has just appeared. It would be extremely interesting to have Australia's figures for comparison. The interesting curves on page 17 of the report indicate the degree to which Japan is pushing forward with her first level university degrees. If this process continues overlong, I submit there is a real possibility, in fact little doubt, that Australian minerals and agriculture will lie largely at the control of Japan, not because of any monetary relationships but simply because we have not taught our people to be technically competitively efficient or in the long run economically competitively efficient. It will be noted in the report that Japan, which has a low gross national product per capita, is third on the list of enrolment rates in higher education. This is the sort of data to which we can apply ourselves. We can all do this as members of Parliament and surely the Government would find this a useful tool. I do not think we can say that the nations associated with this body have not benefited. Consequently I pose the question in this debate particularly, because I feel that great benefits in the economic sphere would flow from our membership of this proven organisation in the field of economics. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-38-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Fairbairn)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2331 {:#debate-39} ### SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1971-72 {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 27 April (vide page 2075), on motion by Mb Snedden: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. {:#subdebate-39-1} #### Third Reading Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by **Mr Swartz)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2332 {:#debate-40} ### STATES GRANTS (RURAL RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1971 Bill - by leave - presented by **Mr Sinclair,** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-40-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-40-0-s0 .speaker-5E4} ##### Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · CP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill of only 4 clauses. Its purpose is to provide parliamentary approval for the execution on behalf of the Commonwealth of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States for a rural reconstruction scheme and to appropriate funds for grants to the States for carrying out the scheme. The details of the scheme are set out in the agreement which is contained in a schedule to the Bill and in a schedule to the agreement. The agreement provides for the expenditure of $100m over 4 years. This scheme is one of a series of measures designed to help meet a crisis situation in the rural industries, and particularly the sheep and sheep-wheat industries. However, no agricultural industry is excluded from the scheme except for farm build up cases eligible under the marginal dairy farms reconstruction scheme. It is recognised that in respect of farm build up and the particular circumstances of some industries such as the horticultural industries there may need to be additional consideration of their special problems. These will be looked at separately. At the present time the price of wool is averaging about 30c per lb greasy. This is the lowest level wool prices have reached for 23 years. Receipts by the wool industry fell by nearly $100m between 1968-69 and 1969-70, giving rise to the necessity for the emergency financial assistance scheme for wool growers introduced late in 1970. This was intended as a short term measure which it was recognised would help only a proportion of the cases of financial hardship caused by the fall in prices. Returns for 1970-71 could be down a further $170m. They would have been lower still if it had not been for the operation of the Australian Wool Commission. A Bureau of Agricultural Economics survey in 1966- 67 - a reasonably good year for the wool industry - indicated that some 20 per cent of wool growers in Australia had net farm incomes of less than $2,000 per annum to cover servicing of their debts and living expenses. Today that percentage has doubled. The decline in actual receipts by the industry over the last 2 years is the major element of the economic problem of the industry. A further important factor has been the decline in expectations about the industry's future profitability. The immediate capital loss that this has involved in revaluation of wool producing assets, including sheep, could well amount to over $2,000m. In this situation the servicing of existing debt and the raising of new credit for continued operation have for a substantial part of the industry become problems of considerable gravity. The industry's outstanding debt has increased from $980m in 1966-67 to about $ 1,200m today. Net income calculations for the wool industry can only be approximate but with the fall in wool prices, drought in some areas, and a decline in wheat incomes not offset by improved beef returns, the industry's net farm income in total has probably fallen from some $760m in 1966-67 to about $450m in 1969-70 and to $290m in the current year. The debt position has moved in consequence from one where debt represented something like 1 times net farm income in the industry in 1966-67 to 24 times in 1969-70 and about 4 times in 1970-71. In the current year about one-third of the industry's average net farm income of some $3,000 per property is required simply to meet interest payments on existing debt. With the combination of a substantial loss of income in each of 2 successive years, a substantial decline in capital values, and little expectation that with likely price and cost trends profitability will recover to earlier levels, the industry is in a critical position and a particularly critical situation in the immediate short term. I am talking about Australia's largest rural export industry. It is an industry on which this country has depended very greatly for foreign exchange. The export of wool will earn in the current year almost $600m. Even though this is some $400m less than in 1963-64, the peak year since 1950-51, wool remains the single largest export commodity and accounts for about 15 per cent of the total export income. Australia may no longer wholly ride on the sheep's back, but the wool industry continues to be of major importance to our economy. lt is also of major social importance to the Australian community. There are some 89,000 wool growers running flocks of 200 sheep or more. It is a major contributor to the well-being and way of life of the majority of our country districts. Whole communities depend on it. We cannot contemplate a situation in which the forces against which we have been working but which seem to ' encourage a continual movement of people from country areas to the already overcrowded cities are accelerated by a mass exodus of wool growers because their properties have become unprofitable and they have reached the end of their credit resources. This has arisen in part because of drought; in part because of rising costs; in part because of a disastrous and unexpected fall in wool prices; and in part because of loss of confidence in the industry by some lenders. There seems no escape from the unpalatable fact that there will have to be a substantial restructuring of our rural industries. There is reason for hope that wool prices will recover from the present drastically low levels. It would be unwise to assume that the extent of the recovery however will be sufficient to permit the servicing of all debts contracted when property values and investment in property improvement reflected the profitability which did exist in the industry before the effects of the cost price squeeze began to produce the difficulties which are only too apparent today. The wool industry is a very large industry. The solution to its problems put forward by some people is the apparently easy way of providing price support. In round terms each lc per lb in price support would cost the taxpayer $20m per annum. There are some producers whose costs and debt structure are such that they would need price support in excess of 20c per lb above present price levels in order to meet their commitments. The burden on the budget of a price support scheme of the magnitude required would be enormous. Apart from this it is essential for the health of the industry that it should not be fully insulated from the effects of changes in demand as reflected in price. The approach that has been adopted after an expert examination by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and after extensive discussions between the Commonwealth and State Ministers most directly concerned is represented by tha agreement set out in this Bill. The rural reconstruction scheme provides for assistance by way of debt reconstruction, farm build-up, and rehabilitation of those obliged to leave the industry where this is necessary to alleviate conditions of personal hardship. A complementary scheme to provide retraining assistance to farmers obliged to leave the industry is being formulated by tha Department of Labour and National Service and the Department of Primary Industry in consultation with State authorities. Details of this scheme will ba announced as soon as practicable. To obtain debt reconstruction assistance an applicant must be unable to obtain finance to carry on and thus be in danger of losing his property or other assets if he is not provided with assistance. Debt reconstruction assistance may involve a rearrangement or a composition of debts to allow more time for payment. Tha authority may advance money for repayment of a proportion of the debts and for carry on expenses, livestock and further property development. Such advances may be for up to 20 years and the authority is required to ensure that the interest rate on Commonwealth money advanced under tha scheme will average 4 per cent per annum. The farm build-up provisions are intended to encourage amalgamation of properties which are too small to be economic under today's conditions. Finance may be provided either to the owner of an uneconomic property to buy adjoining land to build up his property or to an adjoining owner to enable him to purchase an uneconomic farm. Grants may be made at the discretion of the authority to cover, in whole or in part, losses sustained in the disposal of assets included in the purchase price of the property which are not useful for the built-up property. Advances may be made for carry on expenses, plant, livestock and property development in respect of the additional land where finance is not available from other sources. The interest rate for farm build-up advances on Commonwealth money is *6i* per cent per annum. In considering interest rates it is as well to keep in mind that the aim of the scheme is to assist people who have prospects of becoming commercially viable. There must be an expectation that the farmer will in due course be able to service credit provided to him on normal commercial terms. It is not realistic to admit to the scheme cases which require the bridging of too large a gap between the terms provided under the scheme and normal commercial terms. In order to ensure that the scheme has the widest possible effect in encouraging sound permanent restructuring of the industry, the general objective is that half of the funds will be applied to farm build-up. This will supplement funds available for farm build-up from other sources. In this connection I am pleased that the Government has arranged with the Development Bank to extend its operations to include lending for property purchase for build-up purposes and advances are to be made by the Government to the Bank for this purpose. **Mr Speaker,** such is the condition of the rural industries at present that there are many cases where producers are in financial difficulty and will not be able to satisfy the requirement that they have prospects of commercial viability. It is the natural wish of many people to continue in a way of life which they know and like and may have followed for many years. But while recognising the contribution these producers make in earning export income the Government must attempt to balance the real cost of resources used in gaining those earnings in devising measures of assistance to export industries. Carry on finance may alleviate immediate financial pressure for a limited period but if the result is a lot of additional hard work and worry and a still larger debt around the producer's neck, it may nol be worthwhile. This is not a policy of 'get big or get out'. It is not a policy of forcing people off the land. It is a policy of concentrating the assistance that is available on those cases which have the best hope of weathering the present adverse circumstances and recovering to a sound financial position in the longer term. In the application of the funds that are available the aim is to help producers. The aim is not to displace private credit and it is not to relieve creditors of the consequences of commercial judgments which they have made. The Government is conscious that the present times are difficult not only for producers but also for institutional and other lenders. It asks that creditors will be forbearing and co-operate with the reconstruction authorities and the producers in a combined effort to retain in the industry as many producers as can possibly be placed on a sound basis and to avoid precipitate or disruptive action in the difficult times which the rural industries are facing. For those who are obliged to leave the land because they do not qualify for rural reconstruction and who need retaining, this will be available under the scheme to which I have referred. For those who are obliged to leave and who face financial hardship modest assistance for rehabilitation in the form of an advance of up to $1,000 may be provided by the reconstruction authority. The course of wool prices in the future is of course uncertain. There are, however, grounds for believing that present price levels are unduly low and that there will be some recovery in the coming months. There is the case of the producer falling in between on the one hand those who on the present market outlook for wool do not need assistance or would be eligible to receive assistance under the debt reconstruction or farm build-up provisions of the scheme, and on the other hand those who, even with a significant improvement in wool prices, are beyond prospects of recovery because their costs are too high or their debts too large. These are people who, if their cases are judged on the present market outlook, would have to leave the industry. If wool prices subsequently recover they may have left unnecessarily - they may have been able to return to profitability if they had been assisted to remain. With this in mind, the States have suggested that perhaps this proposed reconstruction scheme needs to be supplemented in some way, or even radically reviewed to accommodate these cases. However the States have accepted that at least this scheme should be implemented and in its present form, in order that this new financial assistance may be provided immediately and without delay. Future needs can then be assessed in the light of experience and the further knowledge gained. As I have said, this rural reconstruction scheme has been formulated in consultation with the State governments. The problems with which it seeks to deal are regarded as the joint responsibility of the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth will provide funds to the States to carry out the scheme. The States have agreed to administer the scheme and bear their own administration costs. The Commonwealth offered the States the sum of $100m over 4 years for the scheme as a loan at an interest rate of 3 per cent per annum. At the request of the States an alternative offer was made and this was that $75m should be provided as a loan bearing interest at 6 per cent per annum with the remaining $25m being a non-repayable grant. There is a margin between the amounts the States would receive if they lent half of the money for debt reconstruction assistance at 4 per cent per annum and the other half for farm build-up at *6i* per cent per annum and the amount the States will be obliged to repay the Commonwealth. The margin is intended to cover normal losses in lending under the scheme and write-offs under the farm buildup provisions. If the States incur losses from circumstances beyond their control the agreement provides that the Commonwealth will review the position with a view to adjusting the States' repayment obligations to the extent of such losses. Importantly the agreement provides for the operation of the scheme to be reviewed from time to time and for the review to include the funds to be provided for the scheme, the allocation of the funds between the States, the provisions for losses and write-offs, the interest rates to be charged to borrowers, and the proportion of financial assistance applied to farm buildup. There will be regular exchanges of information between the States and the Commonwealth on the operation and effectiveness of the scheme. Perhaps there are some who will criticise the provision of special assistance to the rural industries on the grounds that comparable assistance is not provided to other industries outside the primary sector. If so, let me say that it is an undeniable fact that woolgrowers have provided over many decades benefits to the country as the mainstay of export income without any form of price support or stabilisation plan. There will no doubt be a majority who will feel that woolgrowers should now, when costs and prices have turned against them, be assisted purposefully to meet the difficulties which face them. The Government has had to make its own judgment, after consultation with the States, on what is feasible having regard to the many other demands made upon its resources and having regard to the unavoidable necessity for adjustments in the industry to meet the changes in its circumstances that have occurred. I believe that the measures provided for in this Bill are sound in their conception and practical in their application. I trust that the House will take note of the very difficult financial problems which face rural industry and in particular the wool industry at the present time and will support assistance to these industries as provided for in the Bill. Debate (on motion by **Dr Patterson)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2335 {:#debate-41} ### LOAN (FARMERS' DEBT ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1971 Bill - by leave - presented by **Mr Snedden** and read a first time. {:#subdebate-41-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-41-0-s0 .speaker-DQF} ##### Mr SNEDDEN:
Treasurer · Bruce · LP -- I move: The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Loan (Farmers' Debt Adjustment) Act 1935-1950 to enable funds available to the States arising from that Act to be used for the same purpose as the funds to be provided by the Commonwealth under the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill. The Loan (Farmers' Debt Adjustment) Act 1935 authorised the making of grants to the States for the purpose of discharging in whole or in part, the debts of farmers by means of compositions or schemes of arrangement between farmers and their creditors. The States were empowered to use the funds to make either grants or loans to farmers. One condition laid down in the Act was that repayments to the States by farmers were to be used for the same purposes as the initial Commonwealth grants, so that such repayments constituted a revolving fund for the purposes specified in the Act. At 30th June 1970 the States had cash balances totalling $7. 6m, and loans outstanding to farmers totalling $4. 6m arising from the operation of the Act. During the recent discussions with the States on the rural reconstruction scheme, it was agreed that the States would use the balances available to them under the Act for the purposes of the new scheme, which are wider than those laid down in the Act. The Bill will enable the States to proceed accordingly. It provides that repayments to the States by farmers of loans made from these balances for the purposes of the new scheme may be used again, for the same purposes. A further provision in the Bill ls intended to fulfil the undertaking given to the Tasmanian Government, arising out of .the 1968 drought in Tasmania, that the Commonwealth would take action to enable the State to use the funds available to it under the Act for the relief of farmers affected by that drought. Finally, as a consequence of recent bankruptcy legislation, the Bill provides for the repeal of section 9 and an amendment of section 10 of the Act. I should also like to take this opportunity of announcing 'that, as a further means of facilitating desirable structural adjustment in rural industries, the board of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has agreed to widen the lending activities of the Commonwealth Development Bank. At the present time, the Bank does not normally approve loan applications for property purchases not involving substantial developmental features. It has now been decided that the Bank will consider loan applications for the purpose of assisting farmers to acquire additional land to build up the size and operational efficiency of their farms. Those eligible for assistance will be working farmers whose properties may be too small to constitute an enterprise viable in the long run, or farmers who by acquiring additional land will assist the adjustment process through enabling uneconomic farms to be purchased. Loan applications will normally be considered only from persons whose main source of income will be the farming enterprise concerned. The terms and conditions attaching to such loans will be the same as those currently applied by the Development Bank. In particular: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The repayment term will be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case, but may be up to 20 years; 1. The interest rate will be *6i* per cent; and 2. Finance would not otherwise have been available to the borrower on reasonable and suitable terms and conditions. To increase the capacity of the Development Bank to operate in this new field of lending, the Government has decided to provide in the 1971-72 Budget an amount of $10m by way of an advance to the Development Bank. The advance will carry a concessional interest rate of 4 per cent in order to allow the Development Bank a margin to cover the costs of making and administering such loans. I commend the Bill to honouralbe members. Debate (on motion by **Dr Patterson)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2336 {:#debate-42} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-42-0} #### Industrial Relations Motion (by **Mr Swartz)** proposed: >That the House do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-KWZ} ##### Mr WALLIS:
Grey -- This House has on innumerable occasions listened to Dorothy Dix type questions directed to the Minister for Labour and National Service **(Mr Lynch)** and other Ministers concerning disputes that have arisen in various parts of Australia. Invariably, we get a reply which condemns the employees involved in the dispute, with the advice that the cause of the dispute should be taken to the arbitration tribunals, and that the employees must agree with the decision given by the tribunal. This, the acceptance by employees of the decision, is the cornerstone of the whole arbitration system, we are told. This may look all right on paper to many people, but I am afraid that it does not work out sometimes in practice. There is one big flaw in the system in that there is a right of appeal against decisions given by the various Commissioners. And it is this very function of the arbitration system that is the cause of a major industrial dispute within my electorate. I refer to the dispute involving the Ship Painters and Dockers Union and the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd at Whyalla ship yards. Some time ago, the Ship Painters and Dockers Union was granted certain improvements in award conditions by the Commissioner covering that industry, but the BHP decided to lodge an appeal, and some of the improved conditions were knocked off as a result of the appeal to the Bench. This, naturally, was the cause of a great deal of discontent amongst members of this particular union employed at Whyalla. There were stoppages of protest on the particular issue, which finally culminated in a total stoppage by members of this Union approximately a fortnight ago and, from the latest information, this stoppage is still going on. At this point of time other employees have been stood down and it appears that the BHP company is to use the stand-down provisions in the awards to stand down many more of its employees engaged in its Whyalla shipyards, resulting in a possible complete shutdown of the yard. Whilst I personally regret the number of men stood down, with the resultant loss of income for their wives and families, I feel that the whole dispute is a result of the fact that in this case, as in other cases involving BHP at Whyalla, it is the company itself that does not believe in accepting umpire's decisions, as employees are asked to do. From my observations, it is the typical high-handed attitude, by the use of the appeals provisions, of this company that has been the cause of this dispute. My mind goes back to 2 other occasions when the appeals provisions were used to deny to employees the improved conditions granted by a commissioner of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The first was in the construction of the oil drilling rig, the 'Ocean Digger' at the Whyalla shipyard. The employees engaged on this project were granted extra rates of pay to compensate for the disabilities connected with this particular job. The BHP company appealed against the decision, with the result that the payments agreed to by the commissioner were taken from the employees. The second occasion that comes to mind was in connection with the operations of the BHP's pellet plant at Whyalla. Here again, a dispute arose over disabilities suffered by certain employees at this plant. The matter went before a commissioner, who . recognised the disabilities that existed, and as a result extra payments were granted to employees in certain sections of this plant However, BHP again used the appeals provisions, with the result that its appeal was upheld, again denying to employees disability payments granted by the commissioner handling the case. It is also a fact that in that dispute the employees lost not only what had been granted by the commissioner but also disability payments that were made to them prior to the matter going before the commissioner. **Mr Speaker,** it is cases such as I have mentioned that have completely sapped the confidence of the BHP employees of Whyalla in the arbitration system as it is set up at present. They are the cause of the continual discontent amongst employees that has gone on for some time, and I think a large part of the blame can be placed on BHP for its attitude to its employees generally. The work force at Whyalla is made up mainly of post-war immigrants to this country, mainly from various parts of the United Kingdom but also from many other countries. They have never worked under a compulsory arbitration system such as we have operating, and many are resentful of the manner in which it operates. With the cases I have mentioned, is it any wonder that the BHP wage employee sees himself up against not only the employer, whenever a dispute may arise, but also the arbitration system? I have been a firm believer that if our system is to work successfully the greatest emphasis must be placed on conciliation rather than on arbitration, and I think that this point was pressed home most strongly by my colleague, the honourable member for Hindmarsh **(Mr Clyde Cameron)** in the address he made a few weeks ago on productivity. However, I am also firmly of the opinion that BHP believes the opposite - that arbitration on disputes is of more importance than conciliation. The very actions of BHP fully support this view. It adopts what is to me a very strange attitude, in that it does not recognise the Whyalla Combined Unions Council - an organisation which covers most of the unions whose members work at the Whyalla shipyard. As a former secretary of a combined unions organisation, I have found that in dealing with industrial enterprises of some size, which have had some concern for the state of their industrial relations, they have been willing to discuss matters over the table with combined union organisations, and in many cases to reach decisions which, because they have been mutually agreed to over the table, are respected by both employer and employee. Surely the same approach can be made by BHP in its attitude to its employees and their organisations. The BHP company receives great assistance from governments in general; the shipyard operates with a Federal Government subsidy on ships built there; the housing of its employees in Whyalla is provided by the South Australian Housing Trust; the royalties it pays on its iron ore are minimal; its water is carried from the River Murray in a duplicated pipeline built at government expense; and many other government services are provided. Whilst it is our largest single private enterprise, incidentally our most profitable enterprise and apparently is efficient generally in its operations, I feel that until such time as it is prepared to change its attitudes to its employees on industrial matters, industrial relations at Whyalla will continue at a low ebb. Therefore, in conclusion, I urge the Government to use its influence with this company in order to have it alter its attitude, which creates so much discontent, and, by doing so help to create the peaceful industrial relations it so often expresses as its desire. The BHP employees of Whyalla are normal men and would respond to a bit of decent treatment instead of the high handed treatment they now receive. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 2.15 a.m. (Friday) {: .page-start } page 2339 {:#debate-43} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated: Army Personnel: Average Age (Question No. 3145) {: #debate-43-s0 .speaker-MI4} ##### Mr Peacock:
Minister for the Army · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >The average age of males serving with the Permanent Military Forces, excluding Pacific Islanders and national servicemen is 28.7 years. Papua New Guinea: Members of Statutory Bodies (Question No. 2389) {: #debate-43-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Papua and New Guinea Development Bank Board Chairman (full-time) - K. G. Crellin. Deputy-Chairman (full-time) - R. V. Cole. Members (part-time) - **Sir John** Crawford, C.B.E., Vice Chancellor of the Australian National University. D. O. Hay, C.B.E., D.S.O., Secretary, Department of External Territories. Paulias Nguna Matane, Secretary, P.N.G. Department of Business Development. Levi Kanivoro, Sawmill Manager and holder of an agricultural lease. **Sir Cecil** Looker, President of Australian Associated Stock Exchanges. Mahuru R. Rarua, M.B.E., Secretary of Federation of Co-operative Unions. Michael Tibu, Cocoa Farmer in New Britain, T.P.N.G. Member (ex-officio) - The Treasurer (F. K. Milne- Acting). Papua and New Guinea Copra Industry Stabilisation Board Members (part-time)- B. E. Fairfax-Ross, C.B.E., Planter and Businessman. W. J. Grose, Planter. F. R. Wilson, Planter and Company Director. Nason Tokiala, M.B.E., Copra producer. W. L. Conroy, Director, Department of Agriculture, Stock and Fisheries. Papua and New Guinea Electricity Commission Commissioner (full-time) - J. A. Y. Rutter, M.B.E. Associate Commissioners (part-time) - J. H. Dowling, Company Director. W. H. Johns, Manager and Company Director. H. L. R. Niall, C.B.E., Company Director. F. K. Milne, Acting Treasurer. Papua and New Guinea Harbours Board Chairman (full-time) - G. A. Hawley Members (part-time) - H. D. Underwood, Managing Director, Steamships Trading Company. F. R. Wilson, Planter and Company Director. Obed Boas, Manager, New Guinea Main- land Co-operative Union. J. L. Costelloe. Executive Officer (Sea), Planning and Policy Branch, Department of Transport. P. D. W. Stedman, General Manager, Ansett Airlines of Papua and New Guinea. Pen! F. Tarua, Clerk, Hihila Ply Ltd and Local Government Councillor. Papua and New Guinea Housing Commission Commissioner (full-time) - G. E. Stolz. Associate Commissioners f part-time) - G. Sicklinger, Managing Director, Morobe Constructions, Pty Ltd. P. D. W. Stedman, General Manager, Ansett Airlines of Papua and New Guinea. Henry Tomatatnatam, Farmer. R. R. Bryant, Assistant Secretary (General Services, Department of Social Development and Home Affairs. Public Service Board of Papua and New Guinea Chairman (full-time) - Sere Pitoi. Members (full-time) - N. F. Wicks. F. N. W. Rolfe. Aiseea Taviai. Territory Education Board Chairman (part-time) - **Dr K.** R. McKinnon, Director of Education. Members (part-time) - **Dr V.** McNamara, Tau Boga, Samuel Piniau, Representing the interests of the Administration. Rev. Janadabing Apo, Fr. Ignatius Kilage, A. Neuen-dorf, Representing the interests of Churches and Missions. Vernon Guise, Stanley Tomarita, Representing the interests of Local Government Councils. Albert Maori Kiki, A. Schindler, Representing business and civic interests. **Dr J.** Gunther, Representing institutions of tertiary education (other than technical colleges). Teaching Service Commission Commissioner (full-time) - Alkan Tololo. Associate Commissioner (full-time) - S. A. Neilson. Papua and New Guinea Superannuation Board Chairman (part-time)- Member (Ex-officio; part-time) - S. W. Caffln, Commonwealth Actuary. Member (part-time) - P. J. Clay, Contributors' Representative. Papua and New Guinea Retirement Benefits Board Chairman (part-time) - Member (Ex-officio; part-time) - External Territories of the Commonwealth. S. W. Caffin, Commonwealth Actuary Member (part-time) - Simon Maumi, Contributors' Representative. {:#subdebate-43-0} #### SmithAfrican Sporting Teams . (Question No. 3212) {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-SH4} ##### Dr Klugman:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has his Department information as to the names of all countries which were visited by South African sporting teams during 1970. 1. If not, ean this information be obtained. {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-KVR} ##### Mr Swartz:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. 1 am having inquiries made as to what information ean be obtained, and, as soon as I have this information, I will pass it on to the honourable member. {:#subdebate-43-1} #### Air Force Personnel: Average Age (Question No. 3143) {: #subdebate-43-1-s0 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Air, upon notice: >What is the average age of Air Force personnel including officers. {: #subdebate-43-1-s1 .speaker-KHS} ##### Mr Holten:
Minister for Repatriation · INDI, VICTORIA · CP -- The Minister for Air has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: >The average age of all Air Force personnel including male and female personnel, officers and other ranks is 28.3 years. > >The average age of male Air Force personnel is 28.6 years. {:#subdebate-43-2} #### Papua New Guinea: Graduates Salaries (Question No. 2393) {: #subdebate-43-2-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr Whitlam: asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea pay the same salaries and allowances to (a) indigenous and (b) expatriate graduates of (i) the Papuan Medical College and (ii) the University of Papua and New Guinea. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. If not, why not. {: #subdebate-43-2-s1 .speaker-JOA} ##### Mr Barnes:
CP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. All positions in the Public Service of Papua and New Guinea carry a local salary classification. An allowance is paid by the Australian Government to overseas officers where necessary to attract and retainthem in the Territory Ser- vice. Thus where this is necessary an expatriate graduate of the Papuan Medical College or the University of Papua and New Guinea employed by the Administration would receive an overseas allowance on the basis that his income should be related to what he might reasonably expect to receive in Australia plus an element to attract and retain him in the Territory for as long as he is needed. Whether an employee, other than an Australian, has the right, of residence in Australia has been a determining factor for the payment of overseas rale's. The question whether the existing policy regarding payment of overseas rates should continue to apply is under examination. Defence: Offset Orders (Question No. 3134) {: #subdebate-43-2-s2 .speaker-JO8} ##### Mr Barnard: asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Who are the members of the interdepartmental committee on offset orders to major overseas procurement. 1. What are the functions of the committee. 2. How often has it met. {: #subdebate-43-2-s3 .speaker-KH5} ##### Mr Gorton:
Minister for Defence · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The members of the inter-departmental com mittee are - **Mr N.** S. Currie, Deputy Secretary and Head, Office of Secondary Industry, Department of Trade and Industry - Chairman. **Mr R.** W. B. Davies, First Assistant Secretary (Planning and Procurement), Department of Supply. **Mr D.** H. Eltringham, First Assistant Secretary (Logistics), Department of Defence. The Secretariat is located in the Department of Trade and Industry. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The functions of the Committee are - To formulate and oversight the implementation of a programme of promotional activity designed to encourage and support greater efforts by Australian industry; to secure orders for sub-contracting work from United States firms holding prime contracts with the United States Government, and from other overseas firms involved directly or indirectly in the supply of equipment to the Australian Government; to seek industrial Research and Development contracts from United States and other overseas government agencies for items associated with defence capability; to take on work for United States and other overseas firms wishing to build up the Australian content of items offered forsale to the Australian Armed Forces or other Government Departments or agencies; to secure orders from United States firms and agencies for supplies and equipment used by the United States Armed Forces; to provide continuous co-ordination of the activities of the Department of Defence, Supply and Trade and Industry in the implementation of this programme in which each will have a part to play according to its own special field of responsibility; to make such recommendations to Ministers as may be appropriate arising from the experience gained in the implementation of the programme. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The Committee has met a total of nine times since its first meeting in May 1970. The last meeting was on 26th March 1971. {:#subdebate-43-3} #### Pensioner Medical Service: Specialists (Question No. 2786) {: #subdebate-43-3-s0 .speaker-6U4} ##### Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: On what dates have meetings been held with representatives of the Australian Medical Association to discuss provisions of domiciliary specialist consultations under the Pensioner Medical Service. {: #subdebate-43-3-s1 .speaker-KFH} ##### Dr Forbes:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Discussions were held on 21st January 1969, 17th February 1969 and 9th July 1969. Discussions have not been held since July 1969 pending the outcome of an overall examination by the Australian Medical Association, in consultation with Commonwealth officers, of the basis on which medical services are being provided for pensioners. Government Policy on Foreign Affairs (Question No. 2983) {: #subdebate-43-3-s2 .speaker-KGN} ##### Mr Kirwan:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. To what extent does the ministerial statement on Foreign Affairs made by the Honourable Gordon Freeth on 14th August 1969, express the mind of the present Government. 1. Which ministerial statements made during the past 3 years do not express the mind of the first McMahon Government. {: #subdebate-43-3-s3 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Should the honourable member wish to ascertain the Government's policy on a range of issues such as those in the statement made in 1969 to which he refers, then he should look also at similar statements made recently. {:#subdebate-43-4} #### General Motors Corporation (Question No. 2767) {: #subdebate-43-4-s0 .speaker-8V4} ##### Mr Grassby: asked the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the original agreement between the Australian Government and the General Motors Corporation of the United States of America for the establishment of a subsidiary in Australia provide for (a) capital to be brought into Australia, (b) Australian shareholders and (c) publication of validated company balance sheets covering the subsidiary. 1. If so, (a) how much capital was brought in, (b) what was the extent of Australian shareholding, (c) when was the provision for the publication of balance sheets abrogated and (d) when was Australian shareholding terminated. 2. What is the aggregate amount of profits and payments repatriated overseas by G.M.H. since its inception. {: #subdebate-43-4-s1 .speaker-009MA} ##### Mr McMahon:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. There was an exchange of letters in 1945 between the then Prime Minister and the then managing director of General Moiors-Holden's Ltd. The most important of these were tabled in the House of Representatives on 22nd March 1945. The letters concerned the Government's invitation to manufacturers to submit proposals for the manufacture of motor cars in Australia and the subsequent proposal put forward by G.M.H. They did not involve undertakings by the company in respect of the matters referred to in this question. 1. See answer to (1). It was reported in the Press that Australians held preference shares in General Motors-Holden's Ltd until 1959 when these shares were purchased on behalf of General Motors Corporation, U.S.A. Having then become a proprietary company, G.M.H. was not required to publish validated balance sheets until the Uniform Companies legislation came into force in 1962. 2. This question concerns details of the internal financial affairs of an individual company and I understand that the annual reports which General Motors Holden's Ltd has published contain information of the nature requested by the honourable member.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 29 April 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1971/19710429_reps_27_hor72/>.